Podcasts about teshamae monteith

As artificial intelligence (AI) tools become increasingly mainstream, they can potentially transform neurology clinical practice by improving patient care and reducing clinician workload. Critically evaluating these AI tools for clinical practice is important for successful implementation. In this episode, Katie Grouse, MD, FAAN speaks with Peter Hadar, MD, MS, coauthor of the article “Clinical Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Neurology Practice” in the Continuum® April 2025 Neuro-ophthalmology issue. Dr. Grouse is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a clinical assistant professor at the University of California San Francisco in San Francisco, California. Dr. Hadar is an instructor of neurology at Harvard Medical School and an attending physician at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. Additional Resources Read the article: Clinical Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Neurology Practice Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum 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 Guest: @PeterNHadar Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about subscribing to the journal, listening to verbatim recordings of the articles, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Grouse: This is Dr Katie Grouse. Today I'm interviewing Dr Peter Hadar about his article on clinical applications of artificial intelligence in neurology practice, which he wrote with Dr Lydia Moura. This article appears in the April 2025 Continuum issue on neuro-ophthalmology. Welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to our audience. Dr Hadar: Hi, thanks for having me on, Katie. My name is Dr Peter Hadar. I'm currently an instructor over at Mass General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, and I'm excited to talk more about AI and how it's going to change our world, hopefully for the better. Dr Grouse: We're so excited to have you. The application of AI in clinical practice is such an exciting and rapidly developing topic, and I'm so pleased to have you here to talk about your article, which I found to be absolutely fascinating. To start, I'd like to hear what you hope will be the key takeaway from your article with our listeners. Dr Hadar: Yeah, thank you. The main point of the article is that AI in medicine is a tool. It's a wonderful tool that we should be cautiously optimistic about. But the important thing is for doctors, providers to be advocates on their behalf and on behalf of their patients for the appropriate use of this tool, because there are promises and pitfalls just with any tool. And I think in the article we detail a couple ways that it can be used in diagnostics, in clinical documentation, in the workflow, all ways that can really help providers. But sometimes the devil is in the details. So, we get into that as well. Dr Grouse: How did you become interested in AI and its application, specifically in the practice of neurology? Dr Hadar: When I was a kid, as most neurologists are, I was- I nerded out on a lot of sci-fi books, and I was really into Isaac Asimov and some of his robotics, which kind of talks about the philosophy of AI and how AI will be integrated in the future. As I got into neurology, I started doing research neurology and a lot of folks, if you're familiar with AI and machine learning, statistics can overlap a lot with machine learning. So slowly but surely, I started using statistical methods, machine learning methods, in some of my neurology research and kind of what brought me to where I am today. Dr Grouse: And thinking about and talking about AI, could you briefly summarize a few important terms that we might be talking about, such as artificial intelligence, generative AI, machine learning, etcetera? Dr Hadar: It's a little difficult, because some of these terms are nebulous and some of these terms are used in the lay public differently than other folks would use it. But in general, artificial intelligence is kind of the ability of machines or computers to communicate independently. It's similar to as humans would do so. And there are kind of different levels of AI. There's this very hard AI where people are worried about with kind of terminator-full ability to replicate a human, effectively. And there are other forms of narrow AI, which are actually more of what we're talking about today, and where it's very kind of specific, task-based applications of machine learning in which even if it's very complex, the AI tools, the machine learning tools are able to give you a result. And just some other terms, I guess out there. You hear a lot about generative AI. There's a lot of these companies and different algorithms that incorporate generative AI, and that usually kind of creates something, kind of from scratch, based on a lot of data. So, it can create pictures, it can create new text if you just ask it. Other terms that can be used are natural language processing, which is a big part of some of the hospital records. When AI tools read hospital records and can summarize something, if it can translate things. So, it turns human speech into these results that you look for. And I guess other terms like large language models are something that also have come into prominence and they rely a lot on natural language processing, being able to understand human speech, interpret it and come up with the results that you want. Dr Grouse: Thank you, that's really helpful. Building on that, what are some of the current clinical applications of AI that we may already be using in our neurologic practice and may not even be aware that that's what that is? Dr Hadar: It depends on which medical record system you use, but a very common one are some of the clinical alerts that people might get, although some of them are pretty basic and they can say, you know, if the sodium is this level, you get an alert. But sometimes they do incorporate fancier machine learning tools to say, here's a red flag. You really should think about contacting the patient about this. And we can talk about it as well. It might encourage burnout with all the different flags. So, it's not a perfect tool. But these sorts of things, typically in the setting of alerts, are the most common use. Sorry, and another one is in folks who do stroke, there are a lot of stroke algorithms with imaging that can help detect where the strokes occur. And that's a heavy machine learning field of image processing, image analysis for rapid detection of stroke. Dr Grouse: That's really interesting. I think my understanding is that AI has been used specifically for radiology interpretation applications for some time now. Is that right? Dr Hadar: In some ways. Actually, my background is in neuroimaging analysis, and we've been doing a lot of it. I've been doing it for years. There's still a lot of room to go, but it's really getting there in some ways. My suspicion is that in the coming years, it's going to be similar to how anesthesiologists at one point were actively bagging people in the fifties, and then you develop machines that can kind of do it for you. At some point there's going to be a prelim radiology read that is not just done by the resident or fellow, but is done by the machine. And then another radiologist would double check it and make sure. And I think that's going to happen in our lifetime. Dr Grouse: Wow, that's absolutely fascinating. What are some potential applications of AI in neurologic practice that may be most high-yield to improve patient care, patient access, and even reduce physician burnout? Dr Hadar: These are separate sort of questions, but they're all sort of interlinked. I think one of the big aspects of patient care in the last few years, especially with the electronic medical record, is patients have become much more their own advocates and we focus a lot more on patient autonomy. So, they are reaching out to providers outside of appointments. This can kind of lead to physician burnout. You have to answer all these messages through the electronic medical record. And so having, effectively, digital twins of yourself, AI version of yourself, that can answer the questions for the patient on your off times is one of the things that can definitely help with patient care. In terms of access, I think another aspect is having integrated workflows. So, being able to schedule patients efficiently, effectively, where more difficult patients automatically get one-hour appointments, patients who have fewer medical difficulties might get shorter appointments. That's another big improvement. Then finally, in terms of physician burnout, having ambient intelligence where notes can be written on your behalf and you just need to double-check them after allows you to really have a much better relationship with the patients. You can actually talk with them one on one and just focus on kind of the holistic care of the patient. And I think that's- being less of a cog in the machine and focusing on your role as a healer would be actually very helpful with the implementation of some of these AI tools. Dr Grouse: You mentioned ambient technology and specifically ambient documentation. And certainly, this is an area that I feel a lot of excitement about from many physicians, a lot of anticipation to be able to have access to this technology. And you mentioned already some of the potential benefits. What are some of the potential… the big wins, but then also potential drawbacks of ambient documentation? Dr Hadar: Just to kind of summarize, the ambient intelligence idea is using kind of an environmental AI system that, without being very obtrusive, just is able to record, able to detect language and process it, usually into notes. So, effectively like an AI scribe that is not actually in the appointment. So, the clear one is that---and I've seen this as well in my practice---it's very difficult to really engage with the patient and truly listen to what they're saying and form that relationship when you're behind a computer and behind a desk. And having that one-on-one interaction where you just focus on the patient, learn everything, and basically someone else takes notes for you is a very helpful component of it. Some of the drawbacks, though, some of it has to do with the existing technology. It's still not at the stage where it can do everything. It can have errors in writing down the medication, writing down the exact doses. It can't really, at this point, detect some of the apprehensions and some of the nonverbal cues that patients and providers may kind of state. Then there's also the big one where a lot of these are still done by startups and other companies where privacy may be an issue, and a lot of patients may feel very uncomfortable with having ambient intelligence tools introduced into their clinical visit, having a machine basically come between the doctor and the patient. But I think that over time these apprehensions will lessen. A lot of the security will improve and be strengthened, and I think that it's going to be incorporated a lot more into clinical practice. Dr Grouse: Yeah, well, we'll all be really excited to see how that technology develops. It certainly seems like it has a lot of promise. You mentioned in your article a lot about how AI can be used to improve screening for patients for certain types of conditions, and that certainly seems like an obvious win. But as I was reading the article, I couldn't help but worry that, at least in the short term, these tools could translate into more work for busy neurologists and more demand for access, which is, you know, already, you know, big problems in our field. How can tools like these, such as, like, for instance, the AI fundoscopic screening for vascular cognitive risk factors help without adding to these existing burdens? Dr Hadar: It's a very good point. And I think it's one of the central points of why we wanted to write the article is that these AI in medicine, it's, it's a tool like any other. And just like when the electronic medical record came into being, a lot of folks thought that this was going to save a lot of time. And you know, some people would say that it actually worsened things in a way. And when you use these diagnostic screening tools, there is an improvement in efficiency, there is an improvement in patient care. But it's important that doctors, patients advocate for this to be value-based and not revenue-based, necessarily. And it doesn't mean that suddenly the appointments are shorter, that now physicians have to see twice as many patients and then patients just have less of a relationship with their provider. So, it's important to just be able to integrate these tools in an appropriate way in which the provider and the patient both benefit. Dr Grouse: You mentioned earlier about the digital twin. Certainly, in your article you mentioned, you know, that idea along with the idea of the potential of development of virtual chatbot visits or in-person visits with a robot neurologist. And I read all this with equal parts, I think excitement, but horror and and fear. Can you tell us more about what these concepts are, and how far are we from seeing technology like this in our clinics, and maybe even, what are the risks we need to be thinking about with these? Dr Hadar: Yeah. So, I mean, I definitely think that we will see implementation of some of these tools in our lifetime. I'm not sure if we're going to have a full walking, talking robot doing some of the clinical visits. But I do think that, especially as we start doing a lot more virtual visits, it is very easy to imagine that there will be some sort of video AI doctor that can serve as, effectively, a digital twin of me or someone else, that can see patients and diagnose them. The idea behind the digital twin is that it's kind of like an AI version of yourself. So, while you only see one patient, an AI twin can go and see two or three other patients. They could also, if the patients send you messages, can respond to those messages in a way that you would, based on your training and that sort of thing. So, it allows for the ability to be in multiple places at once. One of the risks of this is, I guess, overreliance on the technology, where if you just say, we're just going to have a chatbot do everything for us and then not look at the results, you really run the risk of the chatbot just recommending really bad things. And there is training to be had. Maybe in fifty years the chatbot will be at the same level as a physician, but there's still a lot of room for improvement. I personally, I think that my suspicion as to where things will go are for very simple visits in the future and in our lifetime. If someone is having a cold or something like that and it goes to their primary care physician, a chatbot or something like that may be of really beneficial use. And it'll help segment out the different groups of simple diagnosis, simple treatments can be seen by these robots, these AI, these machine learning tools; and some of the more complex ones, at least for the early implementation of this will be seen by more specialized providers like neurologists and subspecialist neurologists too. Dr Grouse: That certainly seems reasonable, and it does seem that the more simple algorithmic things are always where these technologies will start, but it'll be interesting to see where things can go with more complex areas. Now I wanted to switch gears a little bit in the article- and I thought this was really important because I see it as being certainly one of the bigger drawbacks of AI, is that despite the many benefits of artificial intelligence, AI can unfortunately perpetuate systemic bias. And I'm wondering if you could tell us a little bit more about how this happened? Dr Hadar: I know I'm beating a dead horse on this, but AI is a tool like any other. And the problem with it is that what you put in is very similar to what you get out. And there's this idea in computer science of “garbage in, garbage out”. If you include a lot of data that has a lot of systemic biases already in the data, you're going to get results that perpetuate these things. So, for instance, if in dermatologic practices, if you just had a data set that included people of one skin color or one race and you attempted to train a model that would be able to detect skin cancer lesions, that model may not be easily applicable to people of other races, other ethnicities, other skin colors. And that can be very damaging for care. And it can actually really, really hurt the treatments for a lot of the patients. So that is one of the, kind of, main components of the systemic biases in AI. The way we mitigate them is by being aware of it and actually implementing, I guess, really hard stops on a lot of these tools before they get into practice. Being sure, did your data set include this breakdown of sex and gender, of race and ethnicity? So that the stuff you have in the AI tool is not just a very narrow, focused application, but can be generalized to a large population, not just of one community, one ethnic group, racial group, one country, but can really be generalized throughout the world for many patients. Dr Grouse: The first step is being aware of it, and hopefully these models will be built thoughtfully to help mitigate this as much as possible. I wanted to ask as well, another concern about AI is the safety of private data. And I'm wondering, as we're starting to do things like use ambient documentation, AI scribe, and other types of technologies like this, what can we tell our patients who are concerned about the safety of their personal data collected via these programs, particularly when they're being stored or used with outside companies that aren't even in our own electronic medical records system? Dr Hadar: Yeah, it's a very good question, and I think it's one of the major limitations of the current implementation of AI into clinical practice, because we still don't really have great standards---medical standards, at least---for storing this data, how to analyze this data. And my suspicion is that at some point in the future, we're going to need to have a HIPAA compliance that's going to be updated for the 21st century, that will incorporate the appropriate use of these tools, the appropriate use of these data storage, of data storage beyond just PHI. Because there's a lot more that goes into it. I would say that the important thing for how to implement this, and for patients to be aware of, is being very clear and very open with informed consent. If you're using a company that isn't really transparent about their data security and their data sharing practices, that needs to be clearly stated to the patient. If their data is going to be shared with other people, reanalyzed in a different way, many patients will potentially consider not participating in an AI implementation in clinic. And I think the other key thing is that this should be, at least initially, an opt-in approach as opposed to an opt-out approach. So patients really have- can really decide and have an informed opinion about whether or not they want to participate in the AI implementation in medicine. Dr Grouse: Well, thank you so much for explaining that. And it does certainly sound like there's a lot of development that's going to happen in that space as we are learning more about this and the use of it becomes more prevalent. Now, I also wanted to ask, another good point that you made in your article---and I don't think comes up enough in this area, but likely will as we're using it more---AI has a cost, and some of that cost is just the high amount of data and computational processing needed to use it, as well as the effects on the environment from all this energy usage. Given this drawback of AI, how can we think about potential costs versus the benefits, the more widespread use of this technology? Or how should we be thinking about it? Dr Hadar: It's part of a balance of the costs and benefits, effectively, is that AI---and just to kind of name some of them, when you have these larger data centers that are storing all this data, it requires a lot of energy consumption. It requires actually a lot of water to cool these things because they get really hot. So, these are some of the key environmental factors. And at this point, it's not as extreme as it could be, but you can imagine, as the world transitions towards an AI future, these data centers will become huge, massive, require a lot of energy. And as long as we still use a lot of nonrenewable resources to power our world, our civilization, I think this is going to be very difficult. It's going to allow for more carbon in the atmosphere, potentially more climate change. So, being very clear about using sustainable practices for AI usage, whether it be having data centers specifically use renewable resources, have clear water management guidelines, that sort of thing will allow for AI to grow, but in a sustainable way that doesn't damage our planet. In terms of the financial costs… so, AI is not free. However, on a given computer, if you want to run some basic AI analysis, you can definitely do it on any laptop you have and sometimes even on your phone. But for some of these larger models, kind of the ones that we're talking about in the medical field, it really requires a lot of computational power. And this stuff can be very expensive and can get very expensive very quickly, as anyone who's used any of these web service providers can attest to. So, it's very important to be clear-eyed about problems with implementation because some of these costs can be very prohibitive. You can run thousands and you can quickly rack up a lot of money for some very basic analysis if you want to do it in a very rapid way, in a very effective way. Dr Grouse: That's a great overview. You know, something that I think we're all going to be having to think about a lot more as we're incorporating these technologies. So, important conversations I hope we're all having, and in our institutions as we're making these decisions. I wanted to ask, certainly, as some of our listeners who may be still in the training process are hearing you talk about this and are really excited about AI and implementation of technology in medicine, what would you recommend to people who want to pursue a career in this area as you have done? Dr Hadar: So, I think one of the important things for trainees to understand are, there are different ways that they can incorporate AI into their lives going forward as they become more seasoned doctors. There are clinical ways, there are research ways, there are educational ways. A lot of the research ways, I'm one of the researchers, you can definitely incorporate AI. You can learn online. You can learn through books about how to use machine learning tools to do your analysis, and it can be very helpful. But I think one of the things that is lacking is a clinician who can traverse both the AI and patient care fields and be able to introduce AI in a very effective way that really provides value to the patients and improves the care of patients. So that means if a hospital system that a trainee is eventually part of wants to implement ambient technology, it's important for physicians to understand the risks, the benefits, how they may need to adapt to this. And to really advocate and say, just because we have this ambient technology doesn't mean now we see fifty different patients, and then you're stuck with the same issue of a worse patient-provider relationship. One of the reasons I got into medicine was to have that patient-provider interaction to not only be kind of a cog in the hospital machine, but to really take on a role as a healer and a physician. And one of the benefits of these AI tools is that in putting the machine in medicine, you can also put the humanity back in medicine at times. And I think that's a key component that trainees need to take to heart. Dr Grouse: I really appreciate you going into that, and sounds like there's certainly need. Hoping some of our listeners today will consider careers in pursuing AI and other types of technologies in medicine. I really appreciate you coming to talk with us today. I think this is just such a fascinating topic and an area that everybody's really excited about, and hoping that we'll be seeing more of this in our lives and hopefully improving our clinical practice. Thank you so much for talking to us about your article on AI in clinical neurology. It was a fascinating topic and I learned a lot. Dr Hadar: Thank you very much. I really appreciate the conversation, and I hope that trainees, physicians, and others will gain a lot and really help our patients through this. Dr Grouse: So again, today I've been interviewing Dr Peter Hadar about his article on clinical applications of artificial intelligence in neurology practice, which he wrote with Dr Lydia Moura. This article appears in the most recent issue of Continuum on neuro-ophthalmology. 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 the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Neuro-ophthalmic deficits significantly impair quality of life by limiting participation in employment, educational, and recreational activities. Low-vision occupational therapy can improve cognition and mental health by helping patients adjust to visual disturbances. In this episode, Katie Grouse, MD, FAAN, speaks with Sachin Kedar, MD, FAAN, author of the article “Symptomatic Treatment of Neuro-ophthalmic Visual Disturbances” in the Continuum® April 2025 Neuro-ophthalmology issue. Dr. Grouse is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a clinical assistant professor at the University of California San Francisco in San Francisco, California. Dr. Kedar is the Cyrus H Stoner professor of ophthalmology and a professor of neurology at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia. Additional Resources Read the article: Symptomatic Treatment of Neuro-ophthalmic Visual Disturbances 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 Guest: @AIIMS1992 Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Grouse: This is Dr Katie Grouse. Today I'm interviewing Dr Sachin Kedar about his article on symptomatic treatment of neuro-ophthalmic visual disturbances, which appears in the April 2025 Continuum issue on neuro-ophthalmology. Welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to our audience. Dr Kedar: Thank you, Katie. This is Sachin Kedar. I'm a neuro-ophthalmologist at Emory University, and I've been doing this for more than fifteen years now. I trained in both neurology and ophthalmology, with a fellowship in neuro-ophthalmology in between. It's a pleasure to be here. Dr Grouse: Well, we are so happy to have you, and I'm just so excited to be discussing this article with you, which I found to be a real treasure trove of useful clinical information on a topic that many find isn't covered enough in their neurologic training. I strongly recommend all of our listeners who work with patients with visual disturbances to check this out. I wanted to start by asking you what you hope will be the main takeaway from this article for our listeners? Dr Kedar: The most important takeaway from this article is, just keep vision on your radar when you are evaluating your patients with neurological disorders. Have a list of a few symptoms, do a basic screening vision, and ask patients about how their vision is impacting the quality of life. Things like activities of daily living, hobbies, whether they can cook, dress, ambulate, drive, read, interact with others. It is very important for us to do so because vision can be impacted by a lot of neurological diseases. Dr Grouse: What in the article do you think would come as the biggest surprise to our listeners? Dr Kedar: The fact that impairment of vision can magnify and amplify neurological deficits in a lot of what we think of as core neurological disorders should come as a surprise to most of the audience. Dr Grouse: On that note, I think it's probably helpful if you could remind us about the types of visual disturbances we should be thinking about and screening for in our patients? Dr Kedar: Patients who have neurological diseases can have a whole host of visual deficits. The simplest ones are deficits of central vision. They can have problems with their visual field. They can have abnormalities of color vision or even contrast sensitivity. A lot of our patients also complain of light sensitivity, eyes feeling tired when they're doing their usual stuff. Some of our patients can have double vision, they can have shaky vision, which leads to their sense of imbalance and maybe a fall risk to them. Dr Grouse: It's really helpful to think about all the different aspects in which vision can be affected, not just sort of the classic loss of vision. Now, your article also serves as a really important reminder, which you alluded to earlier, about how impactful visual disturbances can be on daily activities. Could you elaborate a little further on this, and particularly the various domains that can be affected when there are visual disturbances present? Dr Kedar: So, when I look at how visual disturbances affect quality of life, I look at two broad categories. One is activities of basic daily living. These would be things like, are you able to cook? Are you able to ambulate not just in your home, but in your neighborhood? Are you able to drive to your doctor's appointment or to visit with your family? Are you able to dress yourself appropriately? Are you able to visualize the clothing and choose them appropriately? And then the second category is recreational activities. Are you able to read? Are you able to watch television? Are you able to visit the theatre? Are you able to travel? Are you able to participate in group activities, be it with your family or be it with your social group? It is very important for us to ask our patients if they have problems doing any of this because it really can adversely impact the quality of life. Dr Grouse: I think, certainly with all the things we try to get through talking with our patients, this may not be something that we do spend a lot of time on. So, I think it's it is a good reminder that when we can, being able to ask about these are going to be really important and help us hit on a lot of other things we may not even realize or know to ask about. Now, I was really struck when I was reading your article by the meta-analysis that you had quoted that had showed 47% higher risk of developing dementia among the visually impaired compared to those without visual impairments. Should we be doing more in-depth visual testing on all of our patients with cognitive symptoms? Dr Kedar: This is actually the most interesting part of this article, and kind of hones in on the importance of vision in neurological disorders. Now I want to clarify that patients with visual disorders, it's not a causative influence on dementia, but if you have a patient with an underlying cognitive disorder, any kind of visual disturbance will significantly make it worse. And this has been shown in several studies, both in the neurologic and in the ophthalmological literature. So, I quoted one of the big meta-analysis over there, but studies have clearly shown that if you have these patients and treat them for their visual deficits, their cognitive indices can actually significantly improve. To answer your question, I would say a neurologist should include basic vision screening as part of every single evaluation. Now, I know it's a hard thing in, you know, these days when we are literally running on the hamster wheel, but I can assure you that it won't take you more than 2 to 3 minutes of your time to do this basic screening; in fact, you can have one of your assistants included as part of the vital signs assessment. What are these basic screening tools? Measure the visual acuity for both near and distance. Check and see if their visual field's off with the confrontation. Look at their eye movements. Are they able to move their eyes in all directions? Are the eyes stable when they're trying to fixate on a particular point? I think if you can do these basic things, you will have achieved quite a bit. Dr Grouse: That's really helpful, and thanks for going through some of the standard, or really, you know, solid basic foundation of visual testing we should be thinking about doing. I wanted to move on to some more details about the visual disturbances. You made an excellent point that there are many types of primary ophthalmologic conditions that can cause visual disturbances that we should keep in mind. So maybe not things that we think about a lot on a day-to-day basis, but, you know, are still there and very common. What are some of the most common ones, and when should we be referring them to see an ophthalmologist? Dr Kedar: So, it depends on the age group of your patient population. Now, the majority of us are adult neurologists, and so the kinds of ophthalmic conditions that we see in this population is going to be different from the pediatric age group. So in the adult population, we might see patients with uncorrected refractive error, presbyopia, patients who have cataracts creep on them, they may have glaucoma, they may have macular degeneration, and these tend to have a slightly higher incidence in the older age group. Now for those of us who are taking care of the younger population, uncorrected refractive errors, strabismus and amblyopia tend to be fairly common causes of visual deprivation in this age group. What I would encourage all of our neurologists is, make sure that your patients get a basic eye examination at least once a year. Just like you want them to go to their primary care and get an annual maintenance visit, everybody should go to the ophthalmologist or the optometrist and get a basic examination. And, if you're resourceful enough, have your patients bring a copy of that assessment. Whether it is normal or there's some abnormality, it is going to help you in the management. Dr Grouse: Absolutely. I think that's a great piece of advice, to think of it almost, like, them seeing their primary care doctor, which of course we offer encourage our patients to do, thinking of this as another very important piece of standard primary care. If a patient comes to you reporting difficulty reading due to possible visual disturbances, I'm curious, can you walk us through how you would approach this evaluation? Dr Kedar: It is not a very common presenting complaint of our patients, even in the neuro-ophthalmology clinic. It's a very rare patient that I see who comes and says, I cannot read or, I have difficulty reading. Most of the patients will come saying, oh, I cannot see. And then you have to dig in to find out, what does that actually mean? What can you not see? Is it a problem in your driving? Is it a problem in your reading? Or is it a problem that occurs at all times? Now you asked me, how do you approach this evaluation? One of the things that all of us, whether we are neurologists, ophthalmologists, or neuro-ophthalmologists, forget to do is to actually have the patient read a paragraph, a sentence, when they are in clinic. And that will give you a lot of ideas about what might actually be going wrong with the patient. Now, as far as how do I approach this evaluation, I will do a basic screening examination to make sure that their visual acuity is good for both distance and near. A lot of us tend to do either distance or near and we will miss the other parameter. You want to do a basic confrontation visual field to make sure that they do not have any subtle deficits that's impacting their ability to read. Examine the eye movements, do a fundoscopic examination. Now, once you've done this basic screening, as a neurologist, you already have some idea of whether your patient has a lesion along the visual pathways. If you suspect that this is a problem with, say, the visual pathways, ask your ophthalmology colleague to do a formal visual field assessment, and that'll pick up subtle deficits of central visual field. And lastly, don't forget higher visual function testing or cortical visual function testing. So basically, you're looking for neglect, phenomenon, or simultanagnosia, all of which tends to have an impact on reading. So, in the manuscript I have a schema of how you can approach a patient with reading difficulties, and in that ischemia you will see categories of where things can go wrong during the process of reading. And if you can approach your patient systematically through one of those domains, there's a fairly good chance that you'll be able to pick up a problem. Dr Grouse: Going a little further on to when you do identify problems with loss of central or peripheral vision, what are some strategies for symptomatic management of these types of visual disturbances? Dr Kedar: As a neurologist, if you pick up a problem with the vision, you have to send this patient to an eye care provider. The vast majority of people who have visual disturbances, it's from an eye disease. You know, as I alluded to earlier, it can be something as simple as uncorrected refractive error, and that can be fixed easily. A lot of patients in our older age group will have dry eye syndrome, which means they are unable to adequately lubricate the surface of the eye, and as a result, it degrades the quality of their vision. So, they tend to get intermittent episodes of blurred vision, or they tend to get glare. They tend to get various forms of optical aberration. Patients can have cataracts, patients can have glaucoma or macular degeneration. And in all of those instances, the goal is to treat the underlying disease, optimize the vision, and then see what the residual deficit is. By and large, if a patient has a problem with the central vision, then magnification will help them for activities that they perform at near; say, reading. Now for patients with peripheral vision problem, it's a different entity altogether. Again, once you've identified what the underlying cause is, your first goal is to treat it. So, for example, if your patient has glaucoma, which is affecting peripheral vision, you're going to treat glaucoma to make sure that the visual field does not progress. Now a lot of what happens after that is rehabilitation, and that is always geared towards the specific activities that are affected. Is it reading? Is it ambulating? Is it watching television? Is it driving? And then you can advise as a neurologist, you can advise your occupational therapist or low vision specialist and say, hey, my patient is not able to do this particular activity. Can we help them? Dr Grouse: Moving on from that, I wanted to also hit on your approach when patients have disorders of ocular motility. What are some things you can do for symptomatic management of that? Dr Kedar: So, patients with ocular motility can have two separate symptoms. Two, you know, two disabling symptoms, as they would call it. One is double vision and the other is oscillopsia, or the feeling or the visualization of the environment moving in response to your eyes not being able to stay still. Typically, you would see this in nystagmus. Now, let's start with diplopia. Diplopia is a fairly common presenting complaint for neurologists, ophthalmologists, and the neuro-ophthalmologist. The first aspect in the management of diplopia is to differentiate between monocular diplopia and binocular diplopia. Now, monocular diplopia is when the double vision persists even after covering one eye. And that is never a neurological issue. It's almost always an ophthalmic problem, which means the patient will then have to be assessed by an eye care provider to identify what's causing it. And again, refractive error, cataracts, opacities, they can do it. Now, if the patient is able to see single vision by covering one eye at a time, that's binocular diplopia. Now, in patients with binocular diplopia in the very early stages of the disease, the standard treatment regimen is just monocular occlusion. Cover one eye, the diplopia goes away, and then give it time to improve on its own. So, this is what we would typically do in a patient with, say, acute sixth nerve palsy or fourth nerve palsy or third nerve palsy, maybe expect spontaneous improvement in a few months. Now if the double vision does not improve and persists long term, then the neuro-ophthalmologist or the ophthalmologist will monitor the amount of deviation to see if it fluctuates or if it stays the same. So, what are the treatment options that we have in a patient who absolutely refuses any intervention or is not a candidate for any intervention? Monocular occlusion still remains the viable option. Now, patients who have stable ocular deviation can benefit from using prisms in their glasses, or they can be sent to a surgeon to have a strabismus surgery that can realign their eyes. So, again, a broad answer, but there are options available that we can use. Dr Grouse: Thank you for that overview. I think that's just really helpful to keep in mind as we're working with these patients and thinking about what their options are. And then finally, I wanted to touch on patients with higher-order vision processing and attention difficulties. What are some strategies for them? Dr Kedar: These are frankly the most difficult patients that I get to manage in my clinic, simply because there is no effective therapies for managing them. In fact, I think neurologists are far better at this than ophthalmologists or even neuro-ophthalmologists. In patients with attentional disorders, everything boils down to the underlying cause, whether you can treat it or whether it is a slowly progressive, you know, condition, such as from neurodegenerative diseases. And that tailors our goals towards therapy. The primary goal is for safety. A lot of these patients who have visual disturbances from vision processing or attention, they are at accident and fall risk. They have problems with social interactions. And, importantly, there is a gap of understanding of what's going on, not just from their side but also from the family's side. So, I tend to approach these patients from a safety perspective and social interaction perspective. Now, I have a table listed in the manuscript which will go into details of what the specific things are. But in a nutshell, if your patient has neglect in a specific part of the visual field, they have accident risk on that side. Simple things like walking through a doorway, they can hurt their shoulders or their knees when they bang into the wall on that side because they are unable to judge what's on the other side. Another example would be a patient who has simultanagnosia or a downgaze policy, such as from progressive super nuclear policy. They are unable to look down fast enough, or they are simply unable to look down and appreciate things that are on the floor, and so they can trip and fall. Walking downstairs is also not a huge risk because they are unable to judge distances as they walk down. A lot of what we see in these patients are things that we have to advise occupational therapists and help them improve these safety parameters at home. Another thing that we often forget is patients can inadvertently cause a social incident when they tend to ignore people on their affected side. So, if there is a family gathering, they tend to consistently ignore a group of people who are sitting on the affected side as opposed to the other side. And I've had more than a few patients who've come and said that, I may have offended some of my friends and family. In those instances, it's always helpful when they are in clinic to demonstrate to the family how this can be awkward and how this can be mitigated. So, having everybody sit on one side is a useful strategy. Advise your family and friends before a gathering that, hey, this may happen. And it is not because it is deliberate, but it's because of the medical condition. And that goes a lot, you know, further in helping our patients come out of social isolation because they are also afraid of offending people, you know. And they can also participate socially, and it can overall improve their quality of life. Dr Grouse: That's a really helpful tip, and something I'll keep in mind with my patients with neglect and visual field cuts. Thank you so much for coming to talk with us today. Your article has been so helpful, and I urge everybody listening today to take a look. Dr Kedar: Thank you, Katie. It was wonderful talking to you. Dr Grouse: I've been interviewing Dr Sachin Kedar about his article on symptomatic treatment of neuro-ophthalmic visual disturbances, which appears in the most recent issue of Continuum on neuro-ophthalmology. 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 the 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.

Dysfunction of the supranuclear ocular motor pathways typically causes highly localizable deficits. With sophisticated neuroimaging, it is critical to better understand structure-function relationships and precisely localize pathology within the brain. In this episode, Lyell K. Jones Jr, MD, FAAN, speaks with Gregory P. Van Stavern, MD, author of the article “Supranuclear Disorders of Eye Movements” in the Continuum® April 2025 Neuro-ophthalmology issue. Dr. Jones is the editor-in-chief of Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology® and is a professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Dr. Van Stavern is the Robert C. Drews professor of ophthalmology and visual sciences at Washington University in St Louis, Missouri. Additional Resources Read the article: Internuclear and Supranuclear Disorders of Eye Movements 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: @LyellJ Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology. Today I'm interviewing Dr Gregory Van Stavern, who recently authored an article on intranuclear and supranuclear disorders of eye movements for our latest Continuum issue on neuro-ophthalmology. Dr Van Stavern is the Robert C Drews professor of ophthalmology and visual sciences at Washington University in Saint Louis. Dr Van Stavern, welcome, and thank you for joining us today. Why don't you introduce yourself to our audience? Dr Van Stavern: Hi, my name is Gregory Van Stavern. I'm a neuro-ophthalmologist located in Saint Louis, and I'm pleased to be on this show today. Dr Jones: We appreciate you being here, and obviously, any discussion of the visual system is worthwhile. The visual system is important. It's how most of us and most of our patients navigate the world. Roughly 40% of the brain---you can correct me if I'm wrong---is in some way assigned to our visual system. But it's not just about the sensory experience, right? The afferent visual processing. We also have motor systems of control that align our vision and allow us to accurately direct our vision to visual targets of interest. The circuitry is complex, which I think is intimidating to many of us. It's much easier to see a diagram of that than to describe it on a podcast. But I think this is a good opportunity for us to talk about the ocular motor exam and how it helps us localize lesions and, and better understand diagnoses for certain disorders. So, let's get right to it, Dr Van Stavern. If you had from your article, which is outstanding, a single most important message for our listeners about recognizing or treating patients with ocular motor disorders, what would that message be? Dr Van Stavern: Well, I think if we can basically zoom out a little to the big picture, I think it really emphasizes the continuing importance of the examination. History as well, but the examination. I was reading an article the other day that was essentially downplaying the importance of the physical examination in the modern era with modern imaging techniques and technology. But for neurology, and especially neuro-ophthalmology, the history and the examination should still drive clinical decision-making. And doing a careful assessment of the ocular motor system should be able to tell you exactly where the lesion is located, because it's very easy to order a brain MRI, but the MRI is, like Forrest Gump might say, it's like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're going to find. You may find a lot of things, but because you've done the history and the examination, you can see if whatever lesion is uncovered by the MRI is the lesion that explains what's going on with the patient. So even today, even with the most modern imaging techniques we have, it is still really important to know what you're looking for. And that's where the oculomotor examination can be very helpful. Dr Jones: I did not have Forrest Gump on my bingo card today, Dr Van Stavern, but that's a really good analogy, right? If you order the MRI, you don't know what you're going to get. And then- and if you don't have a really well-formed question, then sometimes you get misleading information, right?  Dr Van Stavern: Exactly. Dr Jones: We'll get into some technology here in a minute, because I think that's relevant for this discussion. I think most of our listeners are going to agree with us that the exam is important in neuro-ophthalmology, and neurology broadly. So, I think you have some sympathetic listeners there. Again, the point of the exam is to localize and then lead to a diagnosis that we can help patients with. When you think about neurologic disorders where the ocular motor exam helps you get to the right diagnosis, obviously disorders of eye movements, but sometimes it's a clue to a broader neurologic syndrome. And you have some nice discussions in your article about the ocular motor clues to Parkinson disease or to progressive supranuclear palsy. Tell us a little more about that. In your practice, which neurologic disorders do you find the ocular motor exam being most helpful? Dr Van Stavern: Well, just a very brief digression. So, I started off being an ophthalmology resident, and I do two years of ophthalmology and then switch to neurology. And during neurology residency, I was debating which subspecialty to go into, and I realized that neuro-ophthalmology touches every other subspecialty in neurology. And it goes back to the fact that the visual system is so pervasive and widely distributed throughout the brain. So, if you have a neurologic disease, there is a very good chance it is going to affect vision, maybe in a minor way or a major way. That's why careful assessment of the visual system, and particularly the oculomotor system, is really helpful for many neurologic diseases. Neuromuscular disease, obviously, myasthenia gravis and certain myopathies affect the eye movements. Neurodegenerative diseases, in particular Parkinson's disease and parkinsonian conditions, often affect the eye movements. And in particular, when you're trying to differentiate, is this classic Parkinson's disease? Or is this progressive supranuclear palsy? Is it some broad spectrum multisystem atrophy? The differences between the eye movement disorders, even allowing for the fact that there's overlap, can really help point in one direction to the other, and again, prevent unnecessary testing, unnecessary treatment, and so on. Dr Jones: Very good. And I think, to follow on a thread from that concept with patients who have movement disorders, in my practice, seeing older patients who have a little bit of restriction of vertical gaze is not that uncommon. And it's more common in patients who have idiopathic Parkinson disease. And then we use that part of the exam to help us screen patients for other neurodegenerative syndromes like progressive nuclear- supranuclear palsy. So, do you have any tips for our listeners to- how to look at, maybe, vertical gaze and say, this is maybe a normal age-related degree of change. This is something that might suggest idiopathic Parkinson disease. Or maybe something a little more progressive and sinister like progressive super nuclear palsy? Dr Van Stavern: Well, I think part of the issue- and it's harder to do this without the visual aspect. One of my colleagues always likes to say for a neurologist, the eye movement exam begins and ends with the neurology benediction, just doing the sign of the cross and checking the eye movements. And that's a good place to start. But I think it's important to remember that all you're looking at is smooth pursuit and range of eye movements, and there's much more to the oculomotor examination than that. There's other aspects of eye movement. Looking at saccades can be really helpful; in particular, classically, saccadic movements are selectively abnormal in PSP versus Parkinson's with progressive supranuclear palsy. Saccades, which are essentially rapid movements of the eyes---up and down, in this case---are going to be affected in downward gaze. So, the patient is going to have more difficulty initiating downward saccades, slower saccades, and less range of movement of saccades in downgaze. Whereas in Parkinson's, it's classically upward eye movements and upgaze. So, I think that's something you won't be able to see if you're just doing, looking at, you know, your classic, look at your eye movements, which are just assessing, smooth pursuit. Looking carefully at the eye movements during fixation can be helpful. Another aspect of many parkinsonian conditions is saccadic intrusions, where there's quick movements or saccades of the eye that are interrupting fixation. Much, much more common in PSP than in Parkinson's disease. The saccadic intrusions are what we call square-wave jerks because of what they look like. Eye movement recordings are much larger amplitude in PSP and other multisystem atrophy diseases than with Parkinson's. And none of these are perfect differentiators, but the constellation of those findings, a patient with slow downwards saccades, very large amplitude, and frequent saccadic intrusions might point you more towards this being PSP rather than Parkinson's. Dr Jones: That's a great pearl, thinking about the saccades in addition to the smooth pursuit. So, thank you for that. And you mentioned eye movement measurements. I think it's simultaneously impressive and a little scary that my phone can tell when I'm looking at it within a few degrees of visual attention. So, I imagine there are automated tools to analyze eye movement. Tell us, what's the state of the art there, and what should our listeners be aware of in terms of tools that are available and what they can and can't do? Dr Van Stavern: Well, I could tell you, I mean, I see neuro-ophthalmic patients with eye movement disorders every day and we do not have any automated tools for eye movement. We have a ton of imaging techniques for imaging the optic nerve and the retina in different ways, but we don't routinely employ eye movement recording devices. The only time we usually do that is in somebody where we suspect they have a central or peripheral vestibular disease and we send them for vestibular testing, for eye movement recordings. There is interest in using- I know, again, sort of another digression, but if you're looking at the HINTS technique, which is described in the chapter to differentiate central from peripheral disease, which is a very easy, useful way to differentiate central from peripheral or peripheral vestibular disease. And again, in the acute setting, is this a stroke or not a stroke? Is it the brain or is it the inner ear? Part of the problem is that if you're deploying this widespread, the people who are doing it may not be sufficiently good enough at doing the test to differentiate, is a positive or negative test? And that's where some people have started introducing this into the emergency room, these eye movement recording devices, to give the- using, potentially, AI and algorithms to help the emergency room physicians say, all right, this looks like a stroke, we need to admit the patient, get an MRI and so on, versus, this is vestibular neuritis or an inner ear problem, treat them symptomatically, follow up as an outpatient. That has not yet been widely employed. It's a similar way that a lot of institutions are having fundus photography and OCT devices placed in the emergency room to aid the emergency room physician for patients who present with acute vision issues. So, I think that could be the future. It probably would be something that would be AI-assisted or AI-driven. But I can tell you at least at our institution and most of the ones I know of, it is not routinely employed yet. Dr Jones: So maybe on the horizon, AI kind of facilitated tools for eye movement disorder interpretation, but it's not ready for prime time yet. Is that a fair summary? Dr Van Stavern: In my opinion, yes. Dr Jones: Good to know. This has struck me every time I've read about ocular motor anatomy and ocular motor disorders, whether they're supranuclear or intranuclear disorders. The anatomy is complex, the circuitry is very complicated. Which means I learn it and then I forget it and then I relearn it. But some of the anatomy isn't even fully understood yet. This is a very complex real estate in the brainstem. Why do you think the neurophysiology and neuroanatomy is not fully clarified yet? And is there anything on the horizon that might clarify some of this anatomy? Dr Van Stavern: The very first time I encountered this topic as an ophthalmology resident and later as a neurology resident, I just couldn't understand how anyone could really understand all of the circuitry involved. And there is a lot of circuitry that is involved in us simply having clear, single binocular vision with the afferent and efferent system working in concert. Even in arch. In my chapter, when you look at the anatomy and physiology of the smooth pursuit system or the vertical gaze pathways, there's a lot of, I'll admit it, there's a lot of hand waving and we don't completely understand it. I think a lot of it has to do with, in the old days, a lot of the anatomy was based on lesions, you know, lesion this area either experimentally or clinically. And that's how you would determine, this is what this region of the brain is responsible for. Although we've gotten more sophisticated with better imaging, with functional connectivity MRI and so on, all of those have limitations. And that's why I still don't think we completely understand all the way this information is integrated and synthesized, and, to get even more big level and esoteric, how this makes its way into our conscious mind. And that has to do with self-awareness and consciousness, which is a whole other kettle of fish. It's just really complicated. I think when I'm at least talking to other neurologists and residents, I try to keep it as simple as possible from a clinical standpoint. If you see someone with an eye movement problem, try to see if you can localize it to which level you're dealing with. Is it a muscle problem? Is it neuromuscular junction? Is it nerve? Is it nucleus? Is it supranuclear? If you can put it at even one of those two levels, you have eliminated huge territories of neurologic real estate, and that will definitely help you target and tailor your workup. So, again, you're not costing the patient in the healthcare system hundreds of thousands of dollars. Dr Jones: Great points in there. And I think, you know, if we can't get it down to the rostral interstitial nucleus of the medial longitudinal fasciculus, if we can get it to the brainstem, I think that's obviously- that's helpful in its own right. And I imagine, Dr Van Stavern, managing patients with persistent ocular motor disorders is a challenge. We take foveation for granted, right, when we can create these single cortical images. And I imagine it's important for daily function and difficult for patients who lose that ability to maintain their ocular alignment. What are some of the clinical tools that you use in your practice that our listeners should be aware of to help patients that have a persistent supranuclear disorder of ocular movement? Dr Van Stavern: Well, I think you tailor your treatment to the symptoms, and if it's directly due to underlying condition, obviously you treat the underlying condition. If they have sixth nerve palsy because of a skull base tumor, obviously you treat the skull base tumor. But from a practical standpoint, I think it depends on what the symptom is, what's causing it, and how much it's affecting their quality of life. And everyone is really different. Some patients have higher levels of tolerance for blurred vision and double vision. For things- for patients who have double vision, depending upon the underlying cause we can sometimes use prisms and glasses. Prisms are simply- a lot of people just think prism is this, like, mystical word that means a lot. It's simply just an optical device that bends light. So, it essentially bends light to allow the eyes- basically, the image to fall on the fovea in both eyes. And whether the prisms help or not is partly dependent upon how large the misalignment is. If somebody has a large degree of misalignment, you're not going to fix that with prism. The amount of prism you'd need to bend the light enough to land on the fovea in both eyes would cause so much blur and distortion that it would essentially be a glorified patch. So, for small ranges of misalignment, prisms are often very helpful, that we can paste over glasses or grind into glasses. For larger degrees of misalignment that- let's say it is due to some skull base tumor or brain stem lesion that is not going to get better, then eye muscle surgery is a very effective option. We usually like to give people a long enough period of time to make sure there's no change before proceeding with eye muscle surgery. Dr Jones: Very helpful. So, prisms will help to a limited extent with misalignment, and then surgery is always an option if it's persistent. That's a good pearl for, I think, our listeners to take away. Dr Van Stavern: And even in those circumstances, even prisms and eye muscle surgery, the goal is primarily to cause single binocular vision and primary gaze at near. Even in those cases, even with the best results, patients are still going to have double vision, eccentric gaze. For most people, that's not a big issue, but we have had a few patients… I had a couple of patients who were truck drivers who were really bothered by the fact that when they look to the left, let's say because it's a 4th nerve palsy on the right, they have double vision. I had a patient who was a golfer who was really, really unhappy with that. Most people are okay with that, but it all depends upon the individual patient and what they use their vision for. Dr Jones: That's a great point. There's not enough neurologists in the world. I know for a fact there are not enough neuro-ophthalmologists in the world, right? There's just not many people that have that dual expertise. You mentioned that you started with ophthalmology and then did neurology training. What do you think the pipeline looks like for neuro-ophthalmology? Do you see growing interest in this among trainees, or unchanged? What are your thoughts about that? Dr Van Stavern: No, that's a continuing discussion we're having within our own field about how to attract more residents into neuro-ophthalmology. And there's been a huge shift. In the past, this was primarily ophthalmology-driven. Most neuro-ophthalmologists were trained in ophthalmology initially before doing a fellowship. The last twenty years, it switched. Now there's an almost 50/50 division between neurologists and ophthalmologists, as more neurologists have become more interested. This is probably a topic more for the ophthalmology equivalent of Continuum. One of the perceptions is this is not a surgical subspecialty, so a lot of ophthalmology residents are disincentivized to pursue it. So, we have tried to change that. You can do neuro-ophthalmology and do eye muscle surgery or general ophthalmology. I think it really depends upon whether you have exposure to a neuro-ophthalmologist during your neurology residency. If you do not have any exposure to neuro-ophthalmology, this field will always seem mysterious, a huge black box, something intimidating, and something that is not appealing to a neurologist. I and most of my colleagues make sure to include neurology residents in our clinic so they at least have exposure to it. Dr Jones: That's a great point. If you never see it, it's hard to envision yourself in that practice. So, a little bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you don't have neuro-ophthalmologists, it's hard to expose that practice to trainees. Dr Van Stavern: And we're also trying; I mean, we make sure to include medical students, bring them to our meetings, present research to try to get them interested in this field at a very early stage. Dr Jones: Dr Van Stavern, great discussion, very helpful. I want to thank you for joining us today. I want to thank you for not just a great podcast, but also just a wonderful article on ocular motor disorders, supranuclear and intranuclear. I learned a lot, and hopefully our listeners did too. Dr Van Stavern: Well, thanks. I really appreciate doing this. And I love Continuum. I learn something new every time I get another issue. Dr Jones: Well, thanks for reading it. And I'll tell you as the editor of Continuum, I learn a lot reading these articles. So, it's really a joy to get to read, up to the minute, cutting-edge clinical content for neurology. Again, we've been speaking with Dr Gregory Van Stavern, author of a fantastic article on intranuclear and supranuclear disorders of eye movements in Continuum's most recent issue on neuro-ophthalmology. Please check it out, 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 the 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.

Double vision is a symptom often experienced by patients with neurologic disease. An organized systematic approach to evaluating patients with diplopia needs a foundational understanding of the neuroanatomy and examination of eye movements and ocular alignment. In this episode, Teshamae Monteith, MD, FAAN, speaks with Devin Mackay, MD, FAAN, author of the article “Approach to Diplopia” in the Continuum® April 2025 Neuro-ophthalmology 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. Mackay is an associate professor of neurology, ophthalmology, and clinical neurosurgery at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, Indiana. Additional Resources Read the article: Approach to Diplopia 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. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith. Today I'm interviewing Dr Devin Mackay about his article on approach to diplopia, which appears in the April 2025 Continuum issue on neuro-ophthalmology. Welcome to the podcast. How are you? Dr Mackay: Thank you. It's great to be here. Dr Monteith: Congratulations on your article. Dr Mackay: Thank you. I appreciate that. Dr Monteith: Why don't you start off with introducing yourself to our audience? Dr Mackay: So, yeah, my name is Devin Mackay. I'm a neuro-ophthalmologist at Indiana University. I did my residency at what was used to be known as the Partners Healthcare Program in Boston, and I did a fellowship in neuro-ophthalmology in Atlanta. And I've been in practice now for about ten years. Dr Monteith: Oh, wow. Okay. Tell us a little bit about your goals when you were writing the chapter. Dr Mackay: So, my goal with the approach to double vision was really to demystify double vision. I think double vision is something that as trainees, and even as faculty members and practicing neurologists, we really get intimidated by, I think. And it really helps to have a way to approach it that demystifies it and allows us to localize, just like we do with so many other problems in neurology. Dr Monteith: I love that, demystification. So why don't you tell us what got you interested in neuro-ophthalmology? Dr Mackay: Yeah, so neuro-ophthalmology I stumbled on during a rotation during residency. We rotated in different subspecialties of neurology and I did neuro-ophthalmology, and I was just amazed by the exam and how intricate it was, the value of neuroanatomy and localization, the ability to take a complicated problem and kind of approach it as a diagnostic specialist and really unravel the layers of it to make it better. To, you know, figure out what the problem is and make it better. Dr Monteith: Okay, so you had a calling, clearly. Dr Mackay: I sure did. Dr Monteith: You talked about latest developments in neuro-ophthalmology as it relates to diplopia. Why don't you share that with our listeners? Dr Mackay: Yeah. So, you know, double vision is something that's really been around since the beginning of time, essentially. So that part hasn't really changed a lot, but there are some changes that have happened in how we approach double vision. Probably one of the bigger ones has been, we used to teach that with a, you know, patient over the age of fifty with vascular risk factors who had a cranial nerve palsy of cranial nerves 3, 4, or 6, we used to automatically assume that was a microvascular palsy and we just wouldn't do any more testing and we'd just, you know, wait to see how they did. And it turns out we're missing some patients who have significant pathologies, sometimes, with that approach. And so, we've really shifted our teaching with that to emphasize that it's a lot easier to get an MRI, for example, than it ever has been. And it can be important to make sure we're not missing important pathology in patients, even if they have vascular risk factors over the age of fifty and they just have a cranial nerve 3, 4, or 6 palsy. So that's been one change. Dr Monteith: Interesting. And why don't you tell us a little bit about the essential points that you want to get across in the article? Dr Mackay: Yeah. So, I think one is to have a systematic approach to double vision. And a lot of that really revolves around localization. And it even begins with the history that we take from the patients. There's lots of interesting things we can ask about double vision from the patient. For example, the most important thing you can ever ask someone with double vision is, does it go away when you cover either eye? And that really helps us figure out the first question for us as neurologists, which is, is it neurologic or non-neurologic? If it's still there when covering one eye, then it is not neurologic and that's usually a problem for an ophthalmologist to sort out. So that's really number one. And then if it is binocular double vision, then we get into details about, is it horizontal or vertical misalignment? Is it- what makes it better and worse? Is there an associated ptosis or other symptoms? And based on all of that, we can really localize the abnormality with the double vision and get into details about further testing if needed, and so forth. I also love that that approach really reduces our need to rely on things like neuroimaging sometimes when we may not need it, or on other tests. So, I think it really helps us be more efficient and really take better care of patients. Dr Monteith: So definitely that cover/uncover test, top thing there. Your approach- and you mentioned, are you really getting that history, and are there any other kind of key factors when you're approaching diplopia before getting into some of the details? Dr Mackay: Yeah, that's a good question. I think also having some basics of how to examine the patient, because double vision is such a challenging thing. A lot of us aren't as familiar with the exam toolkit, so to speak, of what you would do with a patient with double vision. And so, I go over in the article a bit about a Maddox rod, which is a handy little tool that I always keep in my pocket of my lab coat. It allows you to assign a red line to one eye and a light to the other eye, and you can see if the eyes line up or not. And you don't need any other special equipment, you just need the light in that Maddox rod. That really helps us understand a lot about the pattern of misalignment, which is really important for evaluating double vision. So, for example, if someone has a right 6th nerve palsy, I'll expect a horizontal misalignment of the eyes that worsens when the patient looks to the right and improves when they look to the left. And especially if it's a partial palsy, it's not always easy to see that just by looking at their eye movements. And having a way to really measure the eye alignment and figure out, is it worse or better in certain directions, is really essential to localization, I think, in a lot of cases. Dr Monteith: You caught me. I skipped over that Maddox rod part, even though you spent a lot of time talking about Maddox rods. Kind of skipped over it. So, you're saying that I need one. Dr Mackay: Everyone needs one. I've converted some of our residents here to carry one with them. And yeah, I realize it's a daunting tool at first, but when you have a patient with double vision and their eye movements look normal, I feel like a lot of neurologists are- kind of, their hands seem like they're tied and they're like, oh, I don't know, I don't know what to do at this point. And if you can get some more details with a simple object like that, it can really change things. Dr Monteith: So, we've got to talk to the AAN store and make sure that they have enough of these, because now there's going to be lots of… Dr Mackay: We're going to sell out on Amazon today now because of this podcast. Dr Monteith: Cyber Monday. So, let's talk about the H pattern. And I didn't know it had the- well, yeah, I guess the official name is “H pattern.” In medical school, I mean, that's what I learned. But as a resident and, you know, certainly as an attendee, I see people doing all sorts of things. You're pro-H pattern, but are there other patterns that you also respect? Dr Mackay: It depends on what you're looking for, I think. The reason I like the H pattern is because you get to look at upgaze and downgaze in two different directions. So, you get to look at upgaze and downgaze when looking to the left, and up- and downgaze when looking to the right. And the reason that matters is because vertical movements of the eyes are actually controlled by different eye muscles depending on whether the eye is adducted toward the nose or abducted away from the nose. And so that's why I love the H pattern, is because it allows you to see that. If you just have them look up and down with just a cross pattern, for example, then you really lose that specificity of looking at both the adduction and abduction aspects. So, it's not wrong to do it another way with, like, the cross, for example, but I just think there are some cases where we'll be missing some information, and sometimes that can actually make a difference. Dr Monteith: Well, there you have it. Let's talk a little bit about eliciting diplopia during the neurologic exam. What other things should we be looking out for? Dr Mackay: So, in terms of eliciting diplopia, it really starts with the exam and again, figuring out, are we covering one eye? And figuring out, is this patient still having double vision? It's tricky because sometimes the patients won't even know the answer to that question or they've never done it, they've never covered one eye. And so, if that's the case, I really make them do it in the office with me and it's like, okay, well, are we having double vision right now? Well, great, okay, we are, then we're going to figure this out right now. And we cover one eye and say, is it still double? And that way we can really figure out, are we monocular or binocular? That's always step one. And then if we've established that it's binocular diplopia, then that's when we get into the other details that I mentioned before. And then as far as other things to look for, we're always in tune to other things that are going on in terms of symptoms, like ptosis, or if there's bulbar weakness, or some sensory change or motor problem that seems to be associated with it. Obviously, those will give us clues in the localization as well. Dr Monteith: And what about ocular malalignment? Dr Mackay: Yeah. So ocular malalignment, really, the cardinal symptom of that is going to be double vision. And so, if a patient has a misalignment of the eyes and they don't have double vision, then usually that means either we're wrong and they don't have double vision, or they do have double vision and they, you know, haven't said it correctly. Or it could be that the vision is poor in one eye. Sometimes that can happen. Or, some patients were actually born with an eye misalignment and their brain has learned in a way to kind of tune out or not allow the proper development of vision in one eye. And so that's also known as amblyopia, also known as the lazy eye, some people call it. But that finding can also make someone not experience double vision. But otherwise, if someone's had normal vision kind of throughout their life, they'll usually be pretty aware of when they first notice double vision. It'll be an obvious event for them in in most cases. Dr Monteith: And then the Cogan lid twitch? Dr Mackay: Oh yes, the Cogan lid twitch. So, the Cogan lid twitch is a feature of myasthenia gravis. The way you elicit it is, you have the patient look down. I'm not sure there's a standardization for how long; you want to have it long enough that you're resting the levator muscle, which is the muscle that pulls the upper lid open. And so, you rest that by having them look down for… I usually do about ten or fifteen seconds. And then I have them look up to looking straight forward. And you want to pay careful attention to their lid position as their eye settles in that straight-forward position. What will happen with a Cogan's lid twitch is, the lid will overshoot, and then it'll come back down and settle into its, kind of, proper position. And what we think is happening there is, it's almost like a little mini “rest test” in a way, where you're resting that muscle just long enough to allow some of the neurotransmission to recover. You get a normal contraction of the muscle, but it fades very quickly and comes back down. And that's experienced as a twitch. Dr Monteith: So, the patient can feel it. And it's something you can see? Dr Mackay: Yeah, the patient may not feel it as much. It's usually it's going to be something that the clinician can see if they're looking for it. And I would say that's one of the physical exam findings that can be a hallmark of myasthenia gravis, but certainly not the only one. Some others that we often look for are fatigable ptosis with sustained upgaze. You have the patient look up for a prolonged time and you'll see the lid droop down. So that can be one. Ice pack test is very popular nowadays, and it has pretty good sensitivity and specificity for myasthenia. So, you keep an ice pack over the closed eyes for two minutes and you compare the lid position before and after the ice pack test. And in the vast majority of myasthenia patients, if they have ptosis, the ptosis will have resolved, or at least significantly improved, in those patients. And yet one more sign is, if you find the patient's eye with ptosis and you lift open the eye manually, you'll often see that the other eyelid and the other eye will lower down. So, I'm not sure there's a name for that, but that can be a helpful sign as well. Dr Monteith: Since you're going through some of these, kind of, key features of different neurologic disease, why don't you tell us about a few others? Dr Mackay: Yeah, so another I mentioned in the in the article is measurement of levator function, which is really a test of eyelid strength. And so, that can be helpful if we have- someone has ptosis, or we're not sure if they have ptosis and we're trying to evaluate that to see if it's linked to the double vision, because that really changes the differential if ptosis is part of the clinical situation. So, the way that's measured is you have a patient look down as far as they can. And you get out a little ruler---I usually use a millimeter ruler---and I set the zero of the ruler at the upper lid margin when they're looking down. So, I hold the ruler there, and then I ask the patient to look up as far as they can without moving their head. Where the lid position stops of the upper lid is the new point on the ruler. And so, you measure that and see how much that is. And so, a normal patient may have a value somewhere between, I don't know, twelve or thirteen millimeters up to seventeen or eighteen millimeters, probably, in most cases. Especially if there is an asymmetric lid position, if you find that the levator function is symmetric, then it tells you that the muscle is working fine and that the ptosis is not from the muscle. So then the ptosis may be from dehiscence of the lid margin from the muscle. And so, that's a really common cause of ptosis, and that's often age-related or trauma-related. And we can dismiss that as being part of the symptom constellation of double vision. So, it can be really helpful to clarify, is this a muscle problem, which you'd expect with myasthenia or a third nerve palsy, or is this a mechanical problem with the lid, which is non-neurologic and really should be dismissed? So that can be a really helpful exam tool. Dr Monteith: So, you're just now getting into a little localization. So why don't we kind of start from the most proximal pistol with localization. Give us a little bit of tips. I know they just got to read your article, but give us a few tips. Dr Mackay: So, in terms of most proximal causes, there are supranuclear causes of ocular misalignment. For example, a skew deviation would qualify as that. Anything that's happening from some deficient input before you get to the cranial nerve nuclei, that we would consider supranuclear. So, we also see that with things like progressive supranuclear policy and certain other conditions. And then there can be lesions of the cranial nerve nuclei themselves. So, cranial nerves 3, 4, and 6 all have nuclei, and if they're lesioned they will cause double vision in specific patterns. And then there's also another subgroup, which is known as intranuclear problems with eye alignment. And so, the most common of that is going to be intranuclear ophthalmoplegia. And so that's very common in patients with demyelinating disorders, or it can also happen with strokes and tumors and other causes. And then there's infranuclear problems, which are from the cranial nerve nuclei out, and so those would be the cranial nerves themselves. So that's where your microvascular palsies, any tumor pressing on the nerve in those locations can cause palsies like that, any inflammatory disorder along that course. Then as we get more distal, we get into the orbit, we have the neuromuscular junction---so, the connection between the nerve and the muscle. And of course, that's our myasthenia gravis. And there are rare causes, things like botulinum and tick borne illnesses and certain other things that are more rare. And then, of course, we get to the muscle itself, and there can be different muscular dystrophies, different things like myositis or inflammatory disorders of the orbit or even physical trauma. So, if a patient, you know, had a trauma in trapping an extraocular muscle, that can be a localization. So really, anywhere along that pathway you can have double vision. So, I love to approach it from that perspective to help narrow down the diagnostic possibilities. Dr Monteith: Okay, just like everything? Dr Mackay: Just like all of the rest of the neurology. See, it's not that scary. Dr Monteith: You know, and so, yeah. And then you do a lot more than, you know, a few cranial nerves, right? Dr Mackay: Right. That's right. There's a lot more to double vision than that. I think as neurologists, we get lost if it's not a cranial nerve palsy, we're like, oh, I don't know what this is. And if it's not myasthenia, not a cranial nerve palsy. But it's worth also considering that there are ophthalmologic causes of someone having double vision that we often don't consider. So maybe someone who was born with strabismus, or maybe they have a little bit of a tendency toward an eye misalignment that their brain compensates, for and then it decompensates someday and that now they have a little bit of double vision intermittently, so that those can be causes to consider as well. Dr Monteith: Yeah, well, we'll just have to, you know, request those records from forty years ago. No problem. Dr Mackay: That's right. Dr Monteith: Why don't you also give us a little bit of tip when we're on the wards and we want to teach either a medical student or a resident, or if it's a resident listening, may want to teach a junior resident and seem like a star when approaching a patient with diplopia. Give us some teaching pearls. Dr Mackay: Yeah. So, I would love people teaching more about this at the bedside. I'd say probably the first thing to do would be to equip yourself by recognizing what some of the pertinent questions are to ask someone with double vision. Those things would include, is the double vision worse when looking in a certain direction? Does the double vision go away or not when you cover one eye? What happens when you tilt your head one direction or the other? Is it intermittent or constant? What makes it better? What makes it worse? Those kinds of things can really help us narrow down the possibilities. And then the other thing would be to equip yourself with some tools for examining. And it doesn't have to be physical tools. These can actually be things like, you mentioned the cross-cover test or cover/uncover test. That's described in the article. And I think knowing how to do that properly, knowing how to examine the eye movements properly and how to check for subtle things like a subtle intranuclear ophthalmoplegia, which is also mentioned in the article, being familiar with those things can be a really useful exercise in allowing you to teach others later on. Dr Monteith: Cool. Why don't you tell us about some of the things you're most excited about in the field? Dr Mackay: One of the things about our subspecialty for so long is we really haven't had big data with, you know, big trials and all these things that all the stroke people have. And that's starting to change slowly. There's been, for example, the idiopathic intracranial hypertension treatment trial that was published back in, I think it was 2014. You know, of course we had the optic neuritis treatment trial, back a few decades ago now. Some of the exciting ones coming up, there's going to be a randomized controlled trial looking at different treatments for idiopathic intracranial hypertension that are surgically based. So, for example, comparing venous sinus stenting with optic nerve sheath fenestration. And so, figuring out, is there a best practice for surgical intervention for patients with IIH? So, we're starting to have more trials like that now than I think we've had in the past. And so, it's exciting to get to have an evidence base for some of the things that we recommend and do. Dr Monteith: And what about some of the treatment for diplopia? Like prisms, and where are we with some of that? Dr Mackay: Yeah, great. So, it's a pretty simple concept, but still kind of difficult in practice. I kind of say there are four different ways to treat double vision: you can ignore it, you can patch or cover one eye, you can treat with prisms, and you can treat with eye muscle surgery. And so, those are the main ways other than, of course, treating the underlying disorder if there's a disorder causing double vision. So those are the main ways to treat. In terms of knowing if someone's going to be a candidate for prism therapy, we also have to remember that prisms are really going to be most helpful for when someone's looking straight forward. So, we need to make sure that their double vision is happening when they look straight forward. So, for example, if they're only having double vision looking to the left or to the right, that patient may not benefit from prisms as much as someone who is having double vision when they look straight forward. So that's one thing I look for. And then strabismus surgery is something to be considered if someone is not tolerating prisms and they're not helping and their eye alignment is stable. So, if you think about it, if someone's eye alignment is changing a lot, you're probably not going to want to do surgery for that patient because it's going to keep changing after surgery. And so, if someone's eye alignment is stable for six months or more and they're not getting the benefit they'd like from prisms, then maybe referral to a strabismus surgeon might be something to consider. Dr Monteith: Great. And then, I guess another question is just popping up in my head selfishly. What are your thoughts about patients that get referrals for exercises? Say they have, like, a convergence efficiency or something causing diplopia, maybe after a concussion. Maybe there's not a lot of evidence, but what is your take on exercising? Dr Mackay: Yeah, excellent question. So, there actually is evidence for exercises for convergence insufficiency. So, we know that those do work. Now where exercises are probably not as helpful, or at least not- there isn't an evidence base for them, is really with just about every other kind of eye misalignment in adults. We hear a lot about eye movement therapies for concussion and barely any other acquired misalignment of the eyes as well. And really, the evidence really hasn't shown us that that's helpful; again, with the exception being convergence insufficiency. So, we know that an office-based vision therapy type program for convergence insufficiency does work, but of course it's kind of inconvenient. It can cost money that may or may not be covered by insurance. And so, there are difficulties even with doing that. And so, I often recommend that patients with convergence insufficiency at least try something called pencil push-ups, where they take a pencil at arm's length and they bring it in and exercise that convergence ability. You know, that's a cheap, easy way to try to treat that initially. So yeah, there can be some limited utility for eye muscle exercises in certain conditions. Dr Monteith: My one example. I was- it was fuzzy, but in a different way. So, what do you do for fun? I mean, it sounds like you like to see a lot of eyeballs? Dr Mackay: I do. I like to see a lot of eyeballs. Dr Monteith: When you're not doing these things, what do you do for fun? Dr Mackay: So, people ask me what my hobbies are, and I laugh because my hobby is actually raising children. Dr Monteith: Oh, okay! Dr Mackay: So, my wife and I have eight kids- Dr Monteith: Oh, wow! Dr Mackay: Ages three to thirteen. So, kind of doesn't allow me to have other things right now. I'm sure I'll have more hobbies later on, but no, I really love my kids. And I- they give me plenty to do. There's no shortage of- in fact, they were really, they were really excited about this podcast today. They're so excited that Dad gets to be on a podcast, and so I'm going to have to show this to them later. They're going to be thrilled about it. Dr Monteith: Excellent. Well, thank you so much for being on the podcast. Dr Mackay: Thank you. It's been my pleasure. Dr Monteith: Again, today I've been interviewing Dr Devin Mackay about his article on approach to diplopia, which appears in the most recent issue of Continuum on neuro-ophthalmology. 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 the 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.

Papilledema describes optic disc swelling (usually bilateral) arising from raised intracranial pressure. Due to its serious nature, there is a fear of underdiagnosis; hence, one major stumbling points is correct identification, which typically requires a thorough ocular examination including visual field testing. In this episode, Kait Nevel, MD speaks with Susan P. Mollan, MBChB, PhD, FRCOphth, author of the article “Papilledema” in the Continuum® April 2025 Neuro-ophthalmology issue. Dr. Nevel is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a neurologist and neuro-oncologist at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, Indiana. Dr. Mollan is a professor and neuro-ophthalmology consultant at University Hospitals Birmingham in Birmingham, United Kingdom. Additional Resources Read the article: Papilledema 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: @IUneurodocmom Guest: @DrMollan Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Nevel: Hello, this is Dr Kait Nevel. Today I'm interviewing Dr Susan Mollan about her article Papilledema Diagnosis and Management, which appears in the April 2025 Continuum issue on neuro-ophthalmology. Susie, welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to our audience. Dr Mollan: Thank you so much, Kait. It's a pleasure to be here today. I'm Susie Mollan, I'm a consultant neuro-ophthalmologist, and I work at University Hospitals Birmingham- and that's in England. Dr Nevel: Wonderful. So glad to be talking to you today about your article. To start us off, can you please share with us what you think is the most important takeaway from your article for the practicing neurologist? Dr Mollan: I think really the most important thing is about examining the fundus and actually trying to visualize the optic nerves. Because as neurologists, you're really acutely trained in examining the cranial nerves, and often people shy away from looking at the eyes. And it can give people such confidence when they're able to really work out straightaway whether there's going to be a problem or there's not going to be a problem with papilledema. And I guess maybe a little bit later on we can talk about the article and tips and tricks for looking at the fundus. But I think that would be my most important thing to take away. Dr Nevel: I'm so glad that you started with that because, you know, that's something that I find with trainees in general, that they often find one of the more daunting or challenging aspects of learning, really, how to do an excellent neurological exam is examining the fundus and feeling confident in diagnosing papilledema. What kind of advice do you give to trainees learning this skill? Dr Mollan: So, it really is practice and always carrying your ophthalmoscope with you. There's lots of different devices that people can choose to buy. But really, if you have a direct ophthalmoscope, get it out in the ward, get it out in clinic. Look at those patients that you'd know have alternative diagnosis, but it gives you that practice. I also invite everybody to come to the eye clinic because we have dilated patients there all the time. We have diabetic retinopathy clinics, and it makes it really easy to start to acquire those skills because I think it's very tricky, because you're getting a highly magnified view of the optic nerve and you've got to sort out in your head what you're actually looking at. I think it's practice. and then use every opportunity to really look at the fundus, and then ask your ophthalmology colleagues whether you can go to clinic. Dr Nevel: Wonderful advice. What do you think is most challenging about the evaluation of papilledema and why? Dr Mollan: I think there are many different aspects that are challenging, and these patients come from lots of different areas. They can come from the family doctor, they can come from an optician or another specialist. A lot of them can have headache. And, as you know, headache is almost ubiquitous in the population. So, trying to pull out the sort of salient symptoms that can go across so many different conditions. There's nothing that's pathognomonic for papilledema other than looking at the optic nerves. So, I think it's difficult because the presentation can be difficult. The actual history can be challenging. There are those rare patients that don't have headache, don't have pulsatile tinnitus, but can still have papilledema. So, I think it- the most challenging thing is actually confirming papilledema. And if you're not able to confirm it, getting that person to somebody who's able to help and confirm or refute papilledema is the most important thing. Dr Nevel: Yeah, right. Because you talk in your article the importance of distinguishing between papilledema and some other diagnoses that can look like papilledema but aren't papilledema. Can you talk about that a little bit? Dr Mollan: Absolutely. I think in the article it's quite nice because we were able to spend a bit of time on a big table going through all the pseudopapilledema diagnoses. So that includes people with shortsightedness, longsightedness, people with optic nerve head drusen. And we've been very fortunate in ophthalmology that we now have 3D imaging of the optic nerve. So, it makes it quite clear to us, when it's pseudopapilledema, it's almost unfair when you're using the direct ophthalmoscope that you don't get a cross sectional image through that optic nerve. So, I'd really sort of recommend people to delve into the article and look at that table because it nicely picks out how you could pick up pseudopapilledema versus papilledema. Dr Nevel: Perfect. In your article, you also talk about what's important to think about in terms of causes of papilledema and what to evaluate for. Can you tell us, you know, when you see someone who you diagnose with papilledema, what do you kind of run through in terms of diagnostic tests and things that you want to make sure you're evaluating for or not missing? Dr Mollan: Yeah. So, I think the first thing is, is once it's confirmed, is making sure it's isolated or whether there's any additional cranial nerve palsies. So that might be particularly important in terms of double vision and a sixth nerve palsy, but also not forgetting things like corneal sensation in the rest of the cranial nerves. I then make sure that we have a blood pressure. And that sounds a bit ridiculous in this day and age because everybody should have a blood pressure coming to clinic or into the emergency room. But sometimes it's overlooked in the panic of thinking, gosh, I need to investigate this person. And if you find that somebody does have malignant hypertension, often what we do is we kind of stop the investigational pathway and go down the route of getting the medics involved to help with lowering the blood pressure to a safe level. I would then always think about my next thing in terms of taking some bloods. I like to rule out anemia because anemia can coexist in a lot of different conditions of raised endocranial pressure. And so, taking some simple blood such as a complete blood count, checking the kidney function, I think is important in that investigational pathway. But you're not really going to stop there. You're going to move on to neuroimaging. It doesn't really matter what you do, whether you do a CT or an MRI, it's just getting that imaging pretty much on the same day as you see the patient. And the key point to that imaging is to do venography. And you want to rule out a venous sinus thrombosis cause that's the one thing that is really going to cause the patient a lot of morbidity. Once your neuroimaging is secure and you're happy, there's no structural lesion or a thrombosis, it's then reviewing that imaging to make sure it's safe to proceed with lumbar puncture. And so, we would recommend the lumbar puncture in the left lateral decubitus position and allowing the patient to be as calm and relaxed as possible to be able to get that accurate opening pressure. Once we get that, we can send the CSF for contents, looking for- making sure they don't have any signs of meningitis or raised protein. And then, really, we're at that point of saying, you know, we should have a secure diagnosis, whether it would be a structural lesion, venous sinus thrombosis, or idiopathic intracranial hypertension. Dr Nevel: Wonderful. Thank you for that really nice overview and, kind of, diagnostic pathway and stepwise thought process in the evaluations that we do. There are several different treatments for papilledema that you go through in your article, ranging from surgical to medication options. When we're taking care of an individual patient, what factors do you use to help guide you in this decision-making process of what treatment is best for the patient and how urgent treatment is? Dr Mollan: I think that's a really important question because there's two things to consider here. One is, what is the underlying diagnosis? Which, hopefully, through the investigational save, you'll have been able to achieve a secure diagnosis. But going along that investigational pathway, which determines the urgency of treatment, is, what's happening with the vision? If we have somebody where we're noting that the vision is affected- and normally it's actually through a formal visual field. And that's really challenging for lots of people to get in the emergency situation because syndromes of raised endocranial pressure often don't cause problems with the visual acuity or the color vision until it's very late. And also, you won't necessarily get a relative afferent papillary defect because often it's bilateral. So I really worry if any of those signs are there in somebody that may have papilledema. And so, a lot rests on that visual field. Now, we're quite good at doing confrontational visual fields, but I would say that most neurologists should be carrying pins to be able to look at the visual fields rather than just pointing fingers and quadrants if you're not able to get a formal visual field early. It's from that I would then determine if the vision is affected, I need to step up what I'm going to do. So, I think the sort of next thing to think about is that sort of vision. So, if we have somebody who, you know, you define as have severe sight loss at the point that you're going through this investigational pathway, you need to get an ophthalmologist or a neuro-ophthalmologist on board to help discuss either the surgery teams as to whether you need to be heading towards an intervention. And there are a number of different types of intervention. And the reason why we discuss it in the article---and we'll also be discussing it in a future issue of Continuum---is there's not high-class evidence to suggest one surgery over another surgery. We may touch on this later. So, we've got our patients with severe visual loss who we need to do something immediately. We may have people where the papilledema is moderate, but the vision isn't particularly affected. They may just have an enlarged blind spot. For those patients, I think we definitely need to be thinking about medical therapy and talking to them about what the underlying cause is. And the commonest medicine to use for raised endocranial pressure in this setting is acetazolamide, a carbonic anhydrous inhibitor. And I think that should be started at the point that you believe somebody has moderate papilledema, with a lot of discussion around the side effects of the medicine that we go into the article and also the fact that a lot of our patients find acetazolamide in an escalating dose challenging. There are some patients with very mild papilledema and no visual change where I might say, hey, I don't think we need to start treatment immediately, but you need to see somebody who understands your disease to talk to you about what's going on. And generally, I would try and get somebody out of the emergency investigational pathway and into a formal clinic as soon as possible. Dr Nevel: Thank you so much for that. One thing that I was wondering that we see clinically is you get a consult for a patient, maybe, who had an isolated episode of vertigo, back to their normal self, completely resolved… but incidentally, somebody ordered an MRI. And that MRI, in the report, it says partially empty sella, slight flattening of the posterior globe, concerns for increased intracranial pressure. What should we be doing with these patients who, you know, normal neurological exam, maybe we can't detect any definite papilledema on our endoscopic exam. What do you think the appropriate pathway is for those patients? Dr Mollan: I think it's really important. The more neuroimaging that we're doing, we're sort of seeing more people with signs that are we don't believe are normal. So, you've mentioned a few, the sort of partially empty sella, empty sella, tortuosity of the optic nerves, flattening of the globes, changes in transverse sinus. And we have quite a nice, again, table in the article that talks about these signs. But they have really low sensitivity for a diagnosis of raised endocranial pressure and isolation. And so, I think it's about understanding the context of which the neuroimaging has been taken, taking a history and going back and visiting that to make sure that they don't have escalating headache. And also, as you said, rechecking the eye nerves to make sure there's no papilledema. I think if you have a good examination with the direct ophthalmoscope and you determine that there's no papilledema, I would be confident to say there's no papilledema. So, I don't think they need to necessarily cry doubt. The ophthalmology offices, we certainly are having quite a few additional referrals, particularly for this, which we kind of called IIH-RAD, where patients are coming to us for this exclusion. And I think, in the intervening time, patients can get very anxious about having a sort of MRI artifact picked up that may necessarily mean a different diagnosis. So, I guess it's a little bit about reassurance, making sure we've taken the appropriate history and performed the examination. And then knowing that actually it's really a number of different signs that you need to be able to confidently diagnose raised ICP, and also the understanding that sometimes when people have these signs, if the ICP reduces, those signs remain. You know, we're learning an awful lot more about MRI imaging and what's normal, what's within normal limits. So, I think reassurance and sensible medical approach. Dr Nevel: Absolutely. In the section in your article on idiopathic intracranial hypertension, you spend a little bit of time talking about how important it is that we sensitively approach the topic of potential weight loss for those patients who are overweight. How do you approach that discussion in your clinic? Because I think it's an important part of the holistic patient care with that condition. Dr Mollan: I think this is one of the things that we've really listened to the patients about over the last number of years where we recognize that in an emergency situation, sometimes we can be quite quick to sort of say, hey, you have idiopathic endocranial hypertension and weight loss is, you know, the best treatment for the condition. And I think in those circumstances, it can be quite distressing to the patient because they feel that there's a lot of stigma attached around weight management. So, we worked with the patient group here at IIH UK to really come up with a way of a signposting to our patients that we have to be honest that there is a link, you know, a strong evidence that weight gain and body shape change can cause someone to fall into a diagnosis of IIH. And we know that weight loss is really effective with this condition. So, I think where I've learned from the patients is trying to use language that's less stigmatizing. I definitely signpost that I'm going to talk about something sensitive. So, I say I'm going to talk about something sensitive and I'm going to say, do you know that this condition is related to body shape change? And I know that if I listen to this podcast in a couple of years, I'm sure my words will have changed. And I think that's part of the process, is learning how to speak to people in an ever-changing language. And they think that sort of signpost that you're going to talk about something sensitive and you're going to talk about body shape change. And then follow up with, are you OK with me talking about this now? Is it something you want to talk about? And the vast majority of people say, yes, let's talk about it. There'll be a few people that don't want to talk about it. And I usually come in quite quickly, say, is it OK if I mention it at the next consultation? Because we have a duty of care to sort of inform our patients, but at the same time we need to take them on that journey to get them back to health, and they need to be really enlisted in that process. Dr Nevel: Yeah, I really appreciate that. These can be really difficult conversations and uncomfortable conversations to have that are really important. And you're right, we have a duty as medical providers to have these conversations or inform our patients, but the way that we approach it can really impact the way patients perceive not only their diagnosis, but the relationship that we have with our patients. And we always want that to be a positive relationship moving forward so that we can best serve our patients. Dr Mollan: I think the other thing as well is making sure that you've got good signposts to the professionals. And that's what I say, because people then say to me, well, you know, kind of what diet should I be on? What should I be doing? And I say, well, actually, I don't have professional experience with that. I'm, I'm very fortunate in my hospital, I'm able to send patients to the endocrine weight management service. I'm also able to send patients to the dietetic service. So, it's finding, really, what suits the patient. Also what's within licensing in your healthcare system to be able to provide. But not being too prescriptive, because when you spend time with weight management professionals, they'll tell you lots of different things about diets that people have championed and actually, in randomized controlled trials, they haven't been effective. I think it's that signpost really. Dr Nevel: Yeah, absolutely. So, could you talk a little bit about what's going on in research in papilledema or in this area, and what do you think is up-and-coming? Dr Mollan: I think there's so much going on. Mainly there's two parts of it. One is image analysis, and we've had some really fantastic work out of the Singapore group Bonsai looking at a machine learning decision support tool. When people take fundal pictures from a normal fundus camera, they're able to say with good certainty, is this papilledema, is this not papilledema? But more importantly, if you talk to the investigators, something that we can't tell when we look in is they're able to, with quite a high level of certainty, say, well, this is base occupying lesion, this is a venous sinus thrombosis, and this is IIH. And you know, I've looked at thousands and thousands of people's eyes and that I can't tell why that is. So, I think the area of research that is most exciting, that will help us all, is this idea about decision support tools. Where, in your emergency pathway, you're putting a fundal camera in that helps you be able to run the image, the retina, and also to try and work out possibly what's going on. I think that's where the future will go. I think we've got many sort of regulatory steps and validation and appropriate location of a learning to go on in that area. So, that's one side of the imaging. I think the other side that I'm really excited about, particularly with some of the work that we've been doing in Birmingham, is about treatment. The surgical treatments, as I talked about earlier… really, there's no high-class evidence. There's a number of different groups that have been trying to do randomized trials, looking at stenting versus shunting. They're so difficult to recruit to in terms of trials. And so, looking at other treatments that can reduce intracranial pressure. We published a small phase two study looking at exenatide, which is a glucagon-like peptide receptor agonist, and it showed in a small group of patients living with IIH that it could reduce the intracranial pressure two and a half hours, twenty-four hours, and also out to three months. And the reason why this is exciting is we would have a really good acute therapy---if it's proven in Phase III trials---for other diseases, so, traumatic brain injury where you have problems controlling ICP. And to be able to do that medically would be a huge breakthrough, I think, for patient care. Dr Nevel: Yeah, really exciting. Looking forward to seeing what comes in the future then. Wonderful. Well, thank you so much for chatting with me today about your article. I really enjoyed learning more from you during our conversation today and from your article, which I encourage all of our listeners to please read. Lots of good information in that article. So again, today I've been interviewing Dr Susie Mollan about her article Papilledema Diagnosis and Management, which appears in the most recent issue of Continuum on neuro-ophthalmology.Please be sure to check out Continuum episodes from this and other issues. And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. Thank you, Susie. Dr Mollan: Thank you so much. 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 the 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.

The inflammatory and infectious optic neuropathies are a broad, heterogeneous, and common group of diseases producing visual loss. Although many now-distinct syndromes have been previously combined as “typical or atypical optic neuritis,” recent developments highlight the importance of precision terminology as well as an individualized evaluation and treatment approach. In this episode, Gordon Smith, MD, FAAN speaks with Eric Eggenberger, DO, MS, FAAN, author of the article “Optic Neuritis” in the Continuum® April 2025 Neuro-ophthalmology issue. Dr. Smith is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a professor and chair of neurology at Kenneth and Dianne Wright Distinguished Chair in Clinical and Translational Research at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia. Dr. Eggenberger is a professor of ophthalmology, neurology, and neurosurgery at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida. Additional Resources Read the article: Optic Neuritis 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: @gordonsmithMD Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Smith: This is Dr Gordon Smith. Today I'm interviewing someone who really needs no introduction, Dr Eric Eggenberger, about his article on optic neuritis, which appears in the April 2025 Continuum issue on neuro-ophthalmology. Eric, welcome to the podcast, and maybe you can introduce yourself to our audience. Dr Eggenberger: Thank you. Thanks for having me. So, my name is Eric Eggenberger. I work at Mayo Clinic Florida, and I am involved exclusively in neuro-ophthalmology. Dr Smith: I just had the pleasure, Eric, of talking yesterday with Lindsey De Lott about non-optic neuritis causes of optic neuropathy. And so, I'm going to kind of reference a little bit what I learned yesterday. She was great. I wonder if you might begin by talking a little bit about nomenclature. You talk about the need for use of precise terminology in your article. And yesterday she taught me a lot about the risk of misdiagnosis and other causes of optic neuropathy, and the two seem related. So, I wonder if you can maybe lay the foundation for our conversation by talking about terminology? Dr Eggenberger: I think that's a great point. So, we are in an era now where, instead of lumping all these different diagnoses together, we have learned to split apart some of these clinical entities. And so, I think it's really important that we focus on precise terminology and recognize that all optic neuritis is not the same. And we have very different, distinct clinical pathways for these imaging pathways, treatment pathways, for these different types of optic neuritis, whether that's MS related, whether it's MOG related or aquaporin-4 related. Dr Smith: So, I wonder maybe we can begin by just, you know, giving our listeners wisdom, pearls, and pitfalls about, how do you recognize when someone with a suspected optic neuropathy has optic neuritis versus a noninflammatory optic neuropathy? Dr Eggenberger: So, that's a really important issue because there's a lot of clinical overlap in terms of exam findings. So, for instance, in any optic neuropathy, let's say it's unilateral, you typically are going to see decreases in acuity and field and color, and you're going to see a relative afferent pupillary defect. And then it's really the context that that occurs in that helps us distinguish different disease entities. So, with optic neuritis, typically you're going to have pain. And that's oftentimes going to be in the younger populations compared to some of the other common optic neuropathies we see, like ischemic optic neuropathy, for instance. Dr Smith: Right. So maybe we can talk a little bit about, kind of, your overall diagnostic approach, right? A lot of this is, of course, based on age and context, but young people get ischemic lesions and older people can have inflammatory lesions. So, what's your overall approach to the patient you just described? Let's say it's a forty-eight-year-old woman who comes to the emergency department with subacute unilateral vision loss and there's dyschromatopsia, APD, reduced acuity. And, you know, let's just say a fairly, you know, benign-looking fundoscopic exam. What do you do to evaluate that patient? Dr Eggenberger: In that particular context, I think we're looking at other contextual clues. Is there other vascular risk factors or other things to point you in one direction or the other? One of the important parts you mentioned was the fundus exam. So, we know with ischemic optic neuropathy, 100% of the time with AIOM, you're going to see disc edema. And so, in the context of that story, we want to confirm on our exam an optic neuropathy, and then we can kind of focus on the retrobulbar courses or different types of optic neuropathies. From an exam perspective, in that particular patient we'd be looking to measure the acuity, quantify that. And in the ER, you're not going to be able to do a perfect field, but you'll get some sense of the field and how much field loss there is. And then as you mentioned, the afferent pupillary defect is critical. And we're going to get a little bit of the historical features in terms of pain. With typical retrobulbar optic neuritis, most of those patients are going to experience some pain, and usually it's pain on eye movements. And those would be the clinical things to focus on. Other exposures the patient may or may not have had, any other concomitant conditions, would all help point you in different directions, perhaps, and then we're probably on towards imaging. Dr Smith: Yeah, maybe you can talk a little bit about that? What's the appropriate use of imaging? I mean, presumably the patients, like the one I just threw out there, are pretty much all going to get neuroimaging. What's your approach to that? How do you protocol the study? What should we be looking for? Dr Eggenberger: In our clinic, we would typically be ordering an MRI orbit and brain, and each of those has a specific purpose. The orbit is going to show us the extent of the optic neuropathy. So, we're particularly looking for a longitudinally extensive optic nerve lesion or more than half of the optic nerve involved. And most patients acutely, if it isn't an “itis" situation, we'll see enhancement. And then the MR brain is going to be useful for looking for other evidence of demyelination within the central nervous system. We may at some point get down to doing an MR cord, but I think acutely it's going to be brain and orbit that most of our patients are getting. Dr Smith: Let's say that we did the scan and, sure enough, there's sort of a shorter segment, so less than half the length of the nerve region of enhancement. What's the rest of your diagnostic evaluation look like for that patient? Dr Eggenberger: So, in that particular case, we would look at the remainder of the brain. So, we're looking for other evidence of demyelination and any other contextual clues, systemically that would point you one direction or another. But with a shorter segment involved, one of the more common things we might encounter would be multiple sclerosis-related optic neuritis. Dr Smith: Would you look for aquaporin-4 and MOG in a patient with what appears to be an isolated, uncomplicated short segment optic neuritis? Dr Eggenberger: So, I think it really depends a bit on the context. I would never fault anybody for looking at MOG or an aquaporin-4 in that context because those are really treatment-altering diagnoses, but the yield in this particular case with a short segment involved and depending on the acuity and other features is probably going to be pretty low. Dr Smith: I really liked as an aside- I wasn't going to go there next, but you kind of got me thinking about it, you have a really nice section in your article. Which, all of it's great, but talking about how to manage low titer MOG antibodies. I wonder if you could talk about that because I think that's a lesson, maybe, that is transferable to a lot of other testing that we do. in terms of pre-prior probability and titer and so forth. Dr Eggenberger: Yeah, that's really an important point. So, we've seen this come up a number of times where the MOG antibody is a very good test, but in low titer it has a relatively low positive predictive value, perhaps 50%. In those cases, particularly without a classic clinical context, you have to be extremely alert for some other diagnosis that could mimic what you think is inflammatory demyelinating optic neuritis, but in fact is infectious or some other cause. Dr Smith: Yeah, super, super important and helpful. In terms of aquaporin-4, how does that compare in terms of predictive values, lower titer positive results? Dr Eggenberger: So aquaporin-4, the test has a very high specificity. So, it's quite useful if positive. You have to keep in mind there can be some false negatives, but the test otherwise is quite specific. And that is a diagnosis, you know, we never want to miss. It's a vicious disease. It tends to be a blinding disease, particularly without treatment. Bad things happen when we miss that, and we want to get on that diagnosis early and do pretty aggressive early and prophylactic treatment. Dr Smith: Your article covers not only the common causes of optic neuritis and, you know, MS, isolated optic neuritis, MOGAD NMO, you talk about a bunch of other things. I wonder, in this patient that we've been discussing, in the absence of any other historical information that seems relevant---or maybe you can define what would seem relevant---would you do other evaluation in that individual, other serologic evaluation and so forth, just in terms of diagnosis? Dr Eggenberger: In that particular case, without other red flags, I don't think I would initially. And follow-up is going to give you a lot of this context. So, you'd be on the lookout for other systemic conditions. So, if the patient had some arthropathy, if the patient had any pulmonary disease hints, if there was anything else that could lead you on a broader expedition. But I think in the context of this case, acutely in the ER, I probably wouldn't do a big lab plug for this. I probably would kind of go down the most likely road and start our treatments, and then follow that patient up. Dr Smith: Yeah, I know your article does a really great job, I think, of outlining when do you need to think about some of these less common causes. Well, can we talk about treatment, Eric? Because I want to move on to some other things. But- so, we've got a patient with isolated optic neuritis, nothing else, you know, in terms of the other antibodies we've talked about. What state-of-the-care- or, state-of-the-art treatment for that patient? Dr Eggenberger: So, the acute treatment for these inflammatory, optic neuritis-type cases is very similar Initially. High dose steroids remains kind of the standard. And then, in MS-related optic neuritis, we may or may not see a taper. So many times it's just an acute treatment of three to five days high dose. Whether that's oral or PO, we could institute either depending on the particular case. And then the taper would depend on the potential cause. So, for instance, with these antibody-driven diseases---so with MOG- or particularly with aquaporin-4---if it's a longitudinally extensive region of optic nerve involved, we tend to use a longitudinally extensive taper. And so, we use prednisone in those cases for several months while we're getting everything else set and deciding what the overall course is going to bring. Dr Smith: What about IV versus oral? There must be something about my practice. I was telling this to Lindsey. Every time on our hospital service, we seem to have at least two patients with optic neuropathies, which I always enjoy, but I find it's a little weird to admit someone who's doing just fine otherwise to the hospital with three days of IV SOLU-MEDROL. So, I'm always trying to figure out, like, how can I get this patient home? And your article had the best term I've heard in a long time, which is “SOLU smoothies.” I mean, are there other strategies that you sometimes use, other than just high-dose IV methylprednisolone? Dr Eggenberger: So, I agree with you. It's sometimes hard to admit somebody for just an IV therapy. And we'll do this as an outpatient, high-dose IV, but we'll also use high-dose orals. And in times in the past when there's been methylprednisolone shortage, we've used high-dose oral or IV dexamethasone as well. I think the IV form, although it's the gold standard, the high-dose oral forms have pretty equivalent bioavailability and are pretty tolerable in my experience. And certainly more convenient. Dr Smith: I wonder if we should switch and maybe talk a little bit about aquaporin-4, I mean, you emphasized that this is a vicious disease---I love the way you describe that---and often blinding. What updates do you have in terms of our therapeutic approach to NMO? That's been rapidly evolving of late. Dr Eggenberger: Right, so these are cases we're always going to share with neuroimmunology. And it requires kind of a multidisciplinary approach, in my opinion, for ideal or for best outcomes. And so, all of these patients are going to get put on prophylactic medications. So, this is a disease you just can't leave untreated. Bad stuff will happen for sure. And we now, fortunately, have some approved, FDA-approved medications that can positively impact the course of this disease. So, that's been a welcome addition. Dr Smith: What are the FDA-approved medications at this point for NMO? Dr Eggenberger: So, there are several at this point, and this is an area that's in growth, fortunately. And again, these are cases we're going to be sharing with our neuroimmunology colleagues. So, these are IV medications typically aimed at complement or CD19. And they all are relatively effective at quieting the course of the disease. Dr Smith: Maybe we can talk a little bit about MOG? I think that most of our listeners are probably pretty familiar with aquaporin-4 and NMO, what- maybe you could describe MOG a little bit and the therapeutic approach for patients with MOG-associated disease? Dr Eggenberger: So, MOG has been a real interesting kind of condition to learn more about. We certainly see a lot of MOG, and I'm sure we saw MOG before it was formally described, but I think we just thought it was kind of a benign, maybe monophasic MS type of presentation. But MOG tends to come in with a loss of acuity that kind of rivals aquaporin-4. So, the acuity tends to be pretty, pretty depressed, but it's very steroid-responsive. So, a lot of times these are the patients, you'll see that their vision will start to improve even when they're on the initial few days of the high-dose steroids. And many times we can get their vision back to 20/20 or very close to that. Dr Smith: And do these patients need chronic management? Dr Eggenberger: So, that's an area of controversy to some degree. About 50% of the optic neuritis MOG-related cases are going to have a relapsing course. And because the disease is steroid-responsive, many times we'll follow these patients after a first attack to see if this is the condition that's going to declare itself to be relapsing or if this is just going to be a monophasic kind of presentation of optic neuritis. We don't have great biomarkers to separate patients who are going to be in that 50% monophasic course versus the other half. It'll be relapsing. And so, it depends on the patient. If there's somebody that's, as many of these patients are, been very steroid responsive, they get back to 20/20, we can teach them about the disease so that if they do have a relapse, we can get them high-dose steroids in a relatively rapid fashion and they're otherwise healthy, we're probably going to watch that patient. And if it's somebody that doesn't recover 100%, there's other issues with treating them with high-dose steroids potentially in the future, then we may learn more towards an earlier prophylactic approach in that patient. Dr Smith: And what would that approach look like? Is it different from NMO or using more IVIG or B cell depletion as opposed to complement inhibition, for instance? Dr Eggenberger: In MOG, we know that the B cell depletion strategies don't work as well. And so most times we're turning to IVIG, and we found that pretty effective. That's kind of our go-to at this point. Dr Smith: Eric, it's a joy talking to you and I'd love to keep going about content, but I'll refer our listeners to your outstanding article. I mean, you're such a highly regarded neuro-ophthalmologist and educator. I wonder if you could talk to us about why you've done neuro-ophthalmology, and maybe this is an opportunity for you to convince all of our great residents that are listening or students what's great about being a neuro-ophthalmologist. Dr Eggenberger: I think neuro-ophthalmology is by far the most interesting part of neurology. So, it's an area that I think a lot of general neurologists, in my view, don't get enough of in their residency. But it's kind of the essence of neurology, where in neurology you're localizing down to the millimeter and in neuro-ophthalmology,  we're localizing down to the micron level. We have several new emerging diseases like these varieties of optic neuritis we're focused on. We're learning lots about those. You get to be involved in lots of different areas of neurology. So, we'll see not just demyelinating conditions, we'll see trauma as it relates to the visual system. And we'll see tumor, and we see all different flavors, stroke, and in any piece of neurology, commonly we'll have some vision aspect that we that we get involved in. So, we see a wide variety of conditions. So, I think it's been a really exciting place to be within neurology. And it's rapidly changing at this point. We're getting new therapeutics. So, it's, I think it's a great time to be a neuro-ophthalmologist. Dr Smith: Yeah, listening to you talk and just reflecting on it, it's really true. Neuro-ophthalmology does cover the entire span of neurology, right? I'm a neuromuscular guy and we see a lot of ocular myasthenia, which is another super exciting area. But we've been talking about optic neuritis, and your article talks about infectious causes and the paraneoplastic and a whole host of things. So, you're a great advocate and salesperson for your field. You convinced me. Dr Eggenberger: Efferent neuro-ophthalmology we love, we could talk about ocular myasthenia and other aspects for another hour. And we get involved in all kinds of cases: third nerve palsies, ocular myasthenia, trauma that involves the efferent system, all different aspects. It's really a great subspecialty, and you get to see a bit of all of neurology. Dr Smith: I'm trying to remember who it was, Eric. It was an attending of mine at medical school. I went to medical school at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, and I want to say it was Manny Gomez, who was a very famous tuberous sclerosis person, who told me that neuro-ophthalmology was the most elegant specialty within neurology. That stuck with me. Thank you so much for joining me today. I really appreciate it. Dr Eggenberger: Thank you. I appreciate it as well. Dr Smith: So again, today I've been interviewing Dr Eric Eggenberger about his really wonderful article on optic neuritis, which appears in the most recent issue of Continuum on neuro-ophthalmology. Be sure to check out Continuum audio episodes from the neuro-ophthalmology and other issues. And listeners, thank you very much 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 the 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.

Optic neuropathies encompass all congenital or acquired conditions affecting the optic nerve and are often a harbinger of systemic and central nervous system disorders. A systematic approach to identifying the clinical manifestations of specific optic neuropathies is imperative for directing diagnostic assessments, formulating tailored treatment regimens, and identifying broader central nervous system and systemic disorders. In this episode, Gordon Smith, MD, FAAN speaks with Lindsey De Lott, MD, MS, author of the article “Optic Neuropathies” in the Continuum® April 2025 Neuro-ophthalmology issue. Dr. Smith is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a professor and chair of neurology at Kenneth and Dianne Wright Distinguished Chair in Clinical and Translational Research at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia. Dr. De Lott is an assistant professor of neurology and ophthalmology at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Additional Resources Read the article: Optic Neuropathies 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: @gordonsmithMD Guest: @lindseydelott Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Smith: Hello, this is Dr Gordon Smith. Today I'm interviewing Dr Lindsey De Lott about her article on optic neuropathies, which appears in the April 2025 Continuum issue on neuro-ophthalmology. Lindsey, welcome to the podcast, and perhaps you can introduce yourself to our audience. Dr De Lott: Thank you, Dr Smith. My name is Lindsey De Lott and I am a neurologist and a neuro-ophthalmologist at the University of Michigan. I also serve as the section lead for the Division of Neuro-Ophthalmology, which is actually part of the ophthalmology department rather than the neurology department. And I spend a good portion of my time as a researcher in health services research, and that's now about 60% of my practice or so. Dr Smith: I'm super excited to spend some time talking with you. One, I'm a Michigan person. As we were chatting before this, I trained with Wayne Cornblath and John Trobe, and it's great to have you. I wonder if we maybe can begin- and by the way, your article is outstanding. It is such a huge topic and it was actually really fun to read, so I encourage our listeners to check it out. But you begin by talking about misdiagnosis as being a common problem in this patient population. I wonder if you can talk through why that is and if you have any pearls or pitfalls in avoiding it? Dr De Lott: Yeah, I think there's been a lot of great research looking at misdiagnosis in specific types of optic neuropathies; in particular, compressive optic neuropathies and optic neuritis. A lot of that work has come out of the group at Emory and the group at Washington University. But a lot of neuro-ophthalmologists across the country really contributed to those data. And one of the statistics that always strikes me is that, you know, for example, in patients with optic nerve sheath meningiomas, something like 70% of them are actually misdiagnosed. And a lot of those errors in diagnosis, whether it's for compressive optic neuropathy or some other type of optic neuropathy, really comes down to the way that physicians are really incorporating elements of the history in the physical. For example, in optic neuritis, we know that physicians tend to anchor pretty heavily on pain in general. And that often tends to lead them astray when optic neuritis was never the diagnosis to begin with. So, it's really overindexing on certain things and not paying attention to other features of the physical exam; for example, say presence of an afferent pupillary defect. So, I think it just really highlights the need to have a really relatively structured approach to patients that you think have an optic neuropathy when you're trying to sort of plan your diagnostic testing and your treatment. Dr Smith: I do maybe five or six weeks on our hospital service each year, and I don't know if it's just a Richmond thing, but there's always at least two people in my week who come in with an optic neuropathy or acute vision loss. How common is this in medical practice? Or neurologic practice, I should say? Dr De Lott: Optic neuropathies themselves… if you look across, unfortunately we don't have any great data that puts together all optic neuropathies and gives us an actual sort of prevalence estimate or an incidence estimate from year to year. We do have some of those data for specific types of optic neuropathies like optic neuritis and NAION, and you're probably looking around five-ish per one hundred thousand. So, these aren't that common, but at the same time they do get funneled to- often to emergency rooms and to neurologists from our ophthalmology colleagues and optometry colleagues in particular. Dr Smith: So, one other question I had before kind of diving into the topic at hand is how facile neurologists need to be in recognizing other causes of acute visual loss. I mean, we see acute visual loss as neurologists, we think optic neuropathy, right? Optic neuritis is sort of the go-to in a younger patient, and NAION in someone older. But what do neurologists need to know about other ophthalmologic causes? So, glaucoma or acute retinal disorders, for instance? Dr De Lott: Yeah, I think it's really important that neurologists are able to distinguish optic neuropathies from other causes of vision loss. And so, I would really encourage the listeners to take a look at the excellent article by Nancy Newman about vision loss in this issue where she really kind of breaks it down into vision loss that is acute and chronic and how you really think through distinguishing optic neuropathies from other causes of vision loss. But it is really important. For example, a patient with a central retinal artery occlusion may potentially be eligible for treatments. And that's very different from a patient with optic neuritis and acute vision loss. So, we want to be able to distinguish these things.  Dr Smith: So maybe we can pivot to that a little bit. Just for our listeners, our focus today is going to be on- not so much on optic neuritis, although obviously we need to talk a little bit about how we differentiate optic neuritis from non-neuritis optic neuropathies. It seems like the two most common situations we encounter are ischemic optic neuropathies and optic neuritis. Maybe you can talk a little bit about how you distinguish these two? I mean, some of it's age, some of it's risk factors, some of it's exam. What's the framework, of let's say, a fifty-year-old person comes into the emergency room with acute vision loss and you're worried about an optic neuropathy? Dr De Lott: The first step whenever you are considering an optic neuropathy is just making sure that the features are present. I think, really going back to your earlier question, making sure that the patient has the features of an optic neuropathy that we expect. So, it's not only vision loss, but it's also the presence of an apparent pupillary defect in a patient with a unilateral optic neuropathy. In a person who has a bilateral optic neuropathy, that apparent pupillary defect may not be present because it is relative. So, you really would have to have asymmetric vision loss between the two eyes. They should also have impairment of their color vision, and they're probably going to have some kind of visual field defect, whether that's central scotoma or an arcuate scotoma or an altitudinal defect that really respects the horizontal meridian. So, you want to make sure that, first and foremost, you've got a patient that really meets most of those- most of those features. And then from there, we're looking at the other features on their history. How acute is the onset of the vision loss? What is the progression over time? Is there pain associated or not associated with the vision loss? What other medical issues does the patient have? And you know, one of the things you already brought up, for example, is, what's the age of the patient? So, I'm going to be much more hesitant to make a diagnosis of optic neuritis in a much older patient or a diagnosis on the other side, of ischemic optic neuropathy, in a much younger patient, unless they have really clear features that push me in that direction. Dr Smith: I wonder if maybe you could talk a little bit about features that would push you away from optic neuritis, because, I mean, people who are over fifty do get optic neuritis- Dr De Lott: They do. Dr Smith: -and people who get ischemic optic neuropathies who are younger. So, what features would push you away from optic neuritis and towards… let's be broad, just a different type of optic neuropathy? Dr De Lott: Sure. We know that most patients with optic neuritis do have pain, but that pain is accompanied---within a few days, typically---with vision loss. So, pain alone going on for a number of days without any visual symptoms or any of those other things I listed, like the afferent papillary defect, the visual field defect, would push me away from optic neuritis. But in general, yes, most optic neuritis is indeed painful. So, the presence of optic disc edema is unfortunately one of those things that an optic neuritis may be present, may not be present, but in somebody with ischemia that is anterior---and that's the most common type of ischemic optic neuropathy, would be anterior ischemic optic neuropathy---they have to have optic disc edema for us to be able to make that diagnosis, and that is a diagnosis of NAION, or nonarteritic ischemic optic neuropathy. An APD in this case, again, that's just a feature of an optic neuropathy. It doesn't really help you to distinguish, individual field defects are going to be relatively similar between them. So then in patients, I'm also looking, like I said, at their history. So, in a patient where I'm entertaining a diagnosis of ischemic optic neuropathy, I want to make sure that they have vascular risk factors or that I'm actually doing things like measuring their blood pressure in the office if they haven't seen a physician recently or checking a lipid panel, hemoglobin A1c, those kinds of things, to look for vascular risk factors. One of the other features on exam that might push me more- again, in a patient with ischemic optic neuropathy, where it might suggest ischemia over optic neuritis, would be some other features on exam like a crowded optic disc that we sometimes will see in patients with ischemic optic neuropathy. I feel like that was a bit of a convoluted answer. Dr Smith: I thought that was a great answer. And when you say crowded optic disc, that's the- is that the “disc at risk”? Dr De Lott: That is the “disk at risk,” yes. So, crowded optic disk is really a disk that is smaller than what we see in the average population, and the average cup to disk ratio is 0.3. So, I think that's where 30% of the disk should be. So, this extra wiggle room, as I sometimes will explain to my patients. Dr Smith: And then, I wonder if you could talk a little bit about more- just more about exam, right? You raised the importance of recognizing optic disc edema. Are there aspects of that disc edema that really steer you away from optic neuritis and towards ischemia-like hemorrhages or whatnot? And then a similar question about the importance of careful visual field testing? Dr De Lott: So, on the whole, optic disc edema is optic disc edema. And you can have very severe optic neuritis with hemorrhages, cotton wool spots, which is essentially just an infarction of the retinal nerve fiber layer either overlying the disc or other parts of the retina. And ischemia, you can have some of the same features. In patients who have giant cell arteritis, which is just one form of anterior ischemic optic neuropathy, patients can have a pallid optic disc edema where the optic disc is swollen and white-looking. But on the whole, swelling is swelling. So, I would caution anyone against using the features of the optic nerve swelling to make any type of, sort of, definitive kind of diagnosis. It's worth keeping in mind, but I just- I would caution against using specific features, optic nerve swelling. And then for visual field testing, there are certain patterns that sometimes can be helpful. I think as I mentioned earlier, in patients with ischemic optic neuropathy, we'll often see an altitudinal defect where either the top half or, more commonly, the bottom half of the vision is lost. And that vision loss in the field corresponds to the area of swelling on the disk, which is really rewarding when you're actually able to see sectoral swelling of the disk. So, say the top half of the disk is swollen and you see a really dense inferior defect. And other types of optic neuropathy such as hereditary optic neuropathies, toxic and nutritional optic neuropathies, they often cause more central field loss. And in patients who have optic neuropathies from elevated intracranial pressure, so papilladema, those folks often have more subtle visual field loss in an arcuate pattern. And it's only once the optic nerves have sustained a pretty significant injury that you start to see other patterns of field loss and actual decline in visual acuity in those patients. I do think a detailed visual field assessment can often be pretty helpful as an adjunct to the rest of the exam. Dr Smith: So, we haven't talked a lot about neuroimaging, and obviously, neuroimaging is really important in patients who have optic neuritis. But how about an older patient in whom you suspect ischemic optic neuropathy? Do those patients all need a MRI scan? And if so, is it orbits and brain? How do you- how do you protocol it? Dr De Lott: You're asking such a good question, totally controversial in in some ways. And so, in patients with ischemic optic neuropathy, if you are confident in your diagnosis: the patient is over the age of fifty, they have all the vascular, you know, they have vascular risk factors. And those vascular risk factors are things like diabetes, hypertension, high blood pressure, hyperlipidemia, obstructive sleep apnea. They have a “disc at risk” in the fellow eye. They don't have pain, they don't have a cancer history. Then doing an MRI of the orbits is probably not necessary to rule out another cause. But if you aren't confident that you have all of those features, then you should absolutely do an MRI of the orbit. The MRI of the brain probably doesn't provide you with much additional information. However, if you are trying to distinguish between an ischemic optic neuropathy and, say, maybe an optic neuritis, in those patients we do recommend MRI orbits and brain imaging because the brain does provide additional information about other CNS demyelinating disorders that might be actually the cause of a patient's optic neuritis. Dr Smith: I wonder if you could talk a little bit about posterior ischemic optic neuropathy. That's much less common, and you mentioned earlier that those patients don't have optic disk edema. So, if there's a patient who has vision loss that- in a similar sort of clinical scenario that you talked about, how do you approach that and under what circumstances do we see patients who have posterior ischemic optic neuropathy? Dr De Lott: So, you're going to most often see patients with posterior ischemic optic neuropathy who, for example, have undergone a recent surgery. These are often associated with things like spinal surgeries, cardiac surgeries. And there are a number of risk factors that are associated with it. Things like blood pressure, drain surgery, the amount of blood loss, positioning of patient. And this is something that the surgeons and anesthesiologists are very sensitive to at this point in time, and many patients are often- this can be part of the normal informed consent process at this point in time since this is something that is well-recognized for specific surgeries. In those patients, though… again, unless you're really certain, for example, maybe the inpatient neurology attending and you've been asked to consult on a patient and it's very clear that they went into surgery normal, they came out of surgery with vision loss, and all the rest of the features really seem to be present. I would recommend that in those cases you think about orbital imaging, making sure you're not missing anything else. Again, unless all of the features really are present- and I think that's one of the themes, definitely, throughout this article, is really the importance of neuroimaging in helping us to distinguish between different types of optic neuropathy. Dr Smith: Yeah, I think one of the things that Eric Eggenberger talks about in his article is the need to use precise nomenclature too, which I plan on talking to him about. But I think having this very structured approach- and your article does it very well, I'll tell our listeners who haven't seen it there's a series of really great tables in the article that outline a lot of these. I wonder, Lindsey, if we can switch to talk about arteritic optic neuropathy. Is that okay? Dr De Lott: Sure. Yeah, absolutely. Dr Smith: How do you sort that out in an older patient who comes in with an ischemic optic neuropathy? Dr De Lott: Yeah. In patients who are over the age of fifty with an ischemic optic neuropathy, we always need to be thinking about giant cell arteritis. It is really a diagnosis we cannot afford to miss. If we do miss it, unfortunately, patients are likely to lose vision in their fellow eye about 1/3 to 1/2 the time. So, it is really one of those emergencies in neuro-ophthalmology and neurology. And so you want to do a thorough review systems for giant cell arteritis symptoms, things like headache, jaw claudication, myalgias, unintentional weight loss, fevers, things of that nature. You also want to check their inflammatory markers to look for evidence of an elevated ESR, elevated C-reactive protein. And then on exam, what you're going to find is that it can cause an anterior ischemic optic neuropathy, as I mentioned earlier. It can cause palette optic disc swelling. But giant cell arteritis can also cause posterior ischemic optic neuropathy. And so, it can be present without any swelling of the optic disc. And in fact, you know, you mentioned one of my mentors, John Trobe, who used to say that in a patient where you're entertaining the idea of posterior ischemic optic neuropathy, who is over the age of fifty with no optic disc swelling, you should be thinking about number one, giant cell arteritis; number two, giant cell arteritis; number three, giant cell arteritis. And so, I think that is a real take-home point is making sure that you're thinking of this diagnosis often in our patients who are over the age of fifty, have to rule it out. Dr Smith: I'll ask maybe a simple question. And presumably just about everyone who you see with a presumed ischemic optic neuropathy, even if they don't have clinical features, you at least check a sed rate. Is that true? Dr De Lott: I do. So, I do routinely check sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein. So, you need to check both. And the reason is that there are some patients who have a positive C-reactive protein but a normal sedimentation rate, so. And vice versa, although that is less common. And so both need to be checked. One other lab that sometimes can be helpful is looking at their CBC. You'll often find these patients with giant cell arteritis have elevated platelet counts. And if you can trend them over time, if you happen to have a patient that's had multiple, you'll see it sort of increasing over time. Dr Smith: I'm just thinking about how you sort things out in the middle, right? I mean, so that not all patients with GCF, sky-high sed rate and CRP…. And I'm just thinking of Dr Trobe's wisdom. So, when you're in an uncertain situation, presumably you go ahead and treat with steroids and move to biopsy. Maybe you can talk a bit about that pathway? Dr De Lott: Yeah, sure. Dr Smith: What's the definitive diagnostic process? Do you- for instance, the sed rate is sky-high, do you still get a biopsy? Dr De Lott: Yes. So, biopsy is still our gold-standard diagnosis here in the United States. I will say that is not the case in all parts of the world. In fact, many parts of Europe are moving toward using other ancillary tests in combination with labs and exam, the history, to make a definitive diagnosis of giant cell arteritis. And those tests are things like temporal artery ultrasound. We also, even though we call it temporal artery ultrasound, we actually need to image not only the temporal arteries but also the axillary arteries. The sensitivity and specificity is actually greater in those cases. And then there's high-resolution imaging of the vessels and the- both the intracranial and extracranial distributions. And both of those have shown some promise in their predictive values of patients actually having giant cell arteritis. One caution I would give to our listeners, though, is that, you know, currently in the US, temporal artery biopsy is still the gold standard. And reading the ultrasounds and the MRIs takes a really experienced radiologist. So, unless you really know the diagnostic accuracy at your institution, again, temporal artery biopsy remains the gold standard here. So, when you are considering giant cell arteritis, start the patient on steroids and- that's high dose, high dose steroids. In patients with vision loss, we use high dose intravenous methylprednisolone and then go ahead and get the biopsy. Dr Smith: Super helpful. And are there other treatments, other than steroids? Maybe how long do you keep people on steroids? And let's say you've got a patient who's, you know, diabetic or has other factors that make you want to avoid the course of steroids. Are there other options available? Dr De Lott: So, in the acute phase steroids are the only option. There is no other option. However, long term, yes, we do pretty quickly put patients on tocilizumab, which is really our first-line treatment. And I do that in conjunction with our rheumatology colleagues, who are incredibly helpful in managing and monitoring the tocilizumab for our patients. But when you're seeing the patients, you know, whether it's in the emergency room or in the hospital, those patients need steroids immediately. There are other steroid-sparing agents that have been tried, but the efficacy is not as good as tocilizumab. So, the American College of Rheumatology is really recommending tocilizumab as our first line steroid-sparing agent at this point. Dr Smith: Outstanding. So again, I will refer our listeners to your article. It's just chock-full of great stuff. This has been a great conversation. Thank you so much for joining me today. Dr De Lott: Thank you, Dr Smith. I really appreciate it.  Dr Smith: The pleasure has been all mine, and I know our listeners will be enjoying this as well. Again, today I've been interviewing Dr Lindsey De Lott about her article on optic neuropathies, which appears in the most recent issue of Continuum on neuro-ophthalmology. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues. I already mentioned Dr Eggenberger and I will be talking about optic neuritis, which will be a great companion to this discussion. Listeners, thank you 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 the 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.

Diagnosing and differentiating among the many possible localizations and causes of vision loss is an essential skill for neurologists. The approach to vision loss should include a history and examination geared toward localization, followed by a differential diagnosis based on the likely location of the pathophysiologic process.  In this episode, Aaron Berkowitz, MD, PhD, FAAN speaks with Nancy J. Newman, MD, FAAN, author of the article “Approach to Vision Loss” in the Continuum® April 2025 Neuro-ophthalmology issue.  Dr. Berkowitz is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a professor of neurology at the University of California San Francisco in the Department of Neurology and a neurohospitalist, general neurologist, and clinician educator at the San Francisco VA Medical Center at the San Francisco General Hospital in San Francisco, California.  Dr. Newman is a professor of ophthalmology and neurology at the Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.  Additional Resources Read the article: Approach to Vision Loss 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: @AaronLBerkowitz  Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Berkowitz: This is Dr Aaron Berkowitz, and today I'm interviewing Dr Nancy Newman about her article on the approach to visual loss, which she wrote with Dr Valerie Biousse. This article appears in the April 2025 Continuum issue on neuro-ophthalmology. Welcome to the podcast, Dr Newman. I know you need no introduction, but if you wouldn't mind introducing yourself to our listeners. Dr Newman: Sure. My name's Nancy Newman. I am a neurologist and neuro-ophthalmologist, professor of ophthalmology and neurology at the Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia. Dr Berkowitz: You and your colleague Dr Biousse have written a comprehensive and practical article on the approach to visual loss here. It's fantastic to have this article by two of the world's leading experts and best-known teachers in neuro-ophthalmology. And so, readers of this article will find extremely helpful flow charts, tables and very nuanced clinical discussion about how to make a bedside diagnosis of the cause of visual loss based on the history exam and ancillary testing. We'll talk today about that important topic, and excited to learn from you and for our listeners to learn from you. To begin, let's start broad. Let's say you have a patient presenting with visual loss. What's your framework for the approach to this common chief concern that has such a broad differential diagnosis of localizations and of causes? Where do you start when you hear of visual loss? How do you think about this chief concern? Dr Newman: Well, it's very fun because this is the heart of being a neurologist, isn't it? Nowhere in the nervous system is localization as important as the complaint of vision loss. And so, the key, as any neurologist knows, is to first of all figure out where the problem is. And then you can figure out what it is based on the where, because that will limit the number of possibilities. So, the visual system is quite beautiful in that regard because you really can exquisitely localize based on figuring out where things are. And that starts with the history and then goes to the exam, in particular the first localization. So, you can whittle it down to the more power-for-your-buck question is, is the vision lost in one eye or in two eyes? Because if the vision loss clearly, whether it's transient or persistent, is in only one eye, then you only have to think about the eyeball and the optic nerve on that side. So, think about that. Why would you ever get a brain MRI? I know I'm jumping ahead here, but this is the importance of localization. Because what you really want to know, once you know for sure it's in one eye, is, is it an eyeball problem---which could be anything from the cornea, the lens, the vitreous, the retina---or is it an optic nerve problem? The only caveat is that every once in a while, although we trust our patients, a patient may insist that a homonymous hemianopia, especially when it's transient, is only in the eye with the temporal defect. So that's the only caveat. But if it's in only one eye, it has to be in that side eyeball or optic nerve. And if it's in two eyes, it's either in both eyeballs or optic nerves, or it's chiasmal or retrochiasmal. So that's the initial approach and everything about the history should first be guided by that. Then you can move on to the more nuanced questions that help you with the whats. Once you have your where, you can then figure out what the whats are that fit that particular where. Dr Berkowitz: Fantastic. And your article with Dr Biousse has this very helpful framework, which you alluded to there, that first we figure out, is it monocular or binocular? And we figure out if it's a transient or fixed or permanent deficit. So, you have transient monocular, transient binocular, fixed monocular, fixed binocular. And I encourage our listeners to seek out this article where you have a table for each of those, a flow chart for each of those, that are definitely things people want to have printed out and at their desk or on their phone to use at the bedside. Very helpful. So, we won't be able to go through all of those different clinical presentations in this interview, but let's focus on monocular visual loss. As you just mentioned, this can be an eye problem or an optic nerve problem. So, this could be an ophthalmologic problem or a neurologic problem, right? And sometimes this can be hard to distinguish. So, you mentioned the importance of the history. When you hear a monocular visual loss- and with the caveat, I said you're convinced that this is a monocular visual problem and not a visual field defect that may appear. So, the patient has a monocular deficit, how do you approach the history at trying to get at whether this is an eye problem or an optic nerve problem and what the cause may be? Dr Newman: Absolutely. So, the history at that point tends not to be as helpful as the examination. My mentor used to say if you haven't figured out the answer to the problem after your history, you're in trouble, because that 90% of it is history and 10% is the exam. In the visual system, the exam actually may have even more importance than anywhere else in the neurologic examination. And we need as neurologists to not have too much hubris in this. Because there's a whole specialty on the eyeball. And the ophthalmologists, although a lot of their training is surgical training that that we don't need to have, they also have a lot of expertise in recognizing when it's not a neurologic problem, when it's not an optic neuropathy. And they have all sorts of toys and equipment that can very much help them with that. And as neurologists, we tend not to be as versed in what those toys are and how to use them. So, we have to do what we can do. Your directive thalmoscope, I wouldn't throw it in the garbage, because it's actually helpful to look at the eyeball itself, not just the back of the eye, the optic nerve and retina. And we'll come back to that, but we have in our armamentarium things we can do as neurologists without having an eye doctor's office. These include things like visual acuity and color vision, confrontation, visual fields. Although again, you have to be very humble. Sometimes you're lucky; 30% of the time it's going to show you a defect. It has to be pretty big to pick it up on confrontation fields. And then as we say, looking at the fundus. And you probably know that myself and Dr Biousse have been on somewhat of a crusade to allow the emperor's new clothes to be recognized, which is- most neurologists aren't very comfortable using the direct ophthalmoscope and aren't so comfortable, even if they can use it, seeing what they need to see. It's hard. It's really, really hard. And it's particularly hard without pupillary dilation. And technology has allowed us now with non-mydriatic cameras, cameras that are incredible, even through a small pupil can take magnificent pictures of the back of the eye. And who wouldn't rather have that? And as their cost and availability- the cost goes down and their availability goes up. These cameras should be part of every neurology office and every emergency department. And this isn't futuristic. This is happening already and will continue to happen. But over the next five years or so… well, we're transitioning into that. I think knowing what you can do with the direct ophthalmoscope is important. First of all, if you dial in plus lenses, you can't be an ophthalmologist, but you can see media opacities. If you can't see into the back of the eye, that may be the reason the patient can't see out. And then just seeing if someone has central vision loss in one eye, it's got to be localized either to the media in the axis of vision; or it's in the macula, the very center of the retina; or it's in the optic nerve. So, if you get good at looking at the optic nerve and then try to curb your excitement when you saw it and actually move a little temporally and take a look at the macula, you're looking at the two areas. Again, a lot of ophthalmologists these days don't do much looking with the naked eye. They actually do photography, and they do what's called OCT, optical coherence tomography, which especially for maculopathies, problems in the macula are showing us the pathology so beautifully, things that used to be considered subtle like central serous retinopathy and other macula. So, I think having a real healthy respect for what an eye care provider can do for you to help screen away the ophthalmic causes, it's very, very important to have a patient complaining of central vision loss, even if they have a diagnosis like multiple sclerosis, you expect that they might have an optic neuritis… they can have retinal detachments and other things also. And so, I think every one of these patients should be seen by an eye care provider as well. Dr Berkowitz: Thank you for that overview. And I feel certainly as guilty as charged here as one of many neurologists, I imagine, who wish we were much better and more comfortable with fundoscopy and being confident on what we see. But as you said, it's hard with the direct ophthalmoscope and a non-dilated exam. And it's great that, as you said, these fundus photography techniques and tools are becoming more widely available so that we can get a good look at the fundus. And then we're going to have to learn a lot more about how to interpret those images, right? If we haven't been so confident in our ability to see the fundus and analyze some of the subtle abnormalities that you and your colleagues and our ophthalmology colleagues are more familiar with. So, I appreciate you acknowledging that. And I'm glad to hear that coming down the pipeline, there are going to be some tools to help us there. So, you mentioned some of the things you do at the bedside to try to distinguish between eye and optic nerve. Could you go into those in a little bit more detail here? How do you check the visual fields? For example, some people count fingers, some people wiggle fingers, see when the patient can see. How should we be checking visual fields? And what are some of the other bedside tasks you use to decide this is probably going to end up being in the optic nerve or this seems more like an eye? Dr Newman: Of course. Again, central visual acuity is very important. If somebody is older than fifty, they clearly will need some form of reading glasses. So, keeping a set of plus three glasses from cheapo drugstore in your pocket is very helpful. Have them put on their glasses and have them read an ear card. It's one of the few things you can actually measure and examine. And so that's important. The strongest reflex in the body and I can have it duke it out with the peripheral neurologists if they want to, it's not the knee jerk, it's looking for a relative afferent pupillary defect. Extremely important for neurologists to feel comfortable with that. Remember, you cut an optic nerve, you're not going to have anisocoria. It's not going to cause a big pupil. The pupils are always equal because this is not an efferent problem, it's an afferent problem, an input problem. So basically, if the eye has been injured in the optic nerve and it can't get that information about light back into the brain, well, the endoresfol nuclei, both of them are going to reset at a bigger size. And then when you swing over and shine that light in the good optic nerve, the good eye, then the brain gets all this light and both endoresfol nuclei equally set those pupils back at a smaller size. So that's the test for the relative afferent pupillary defect. When you swing back and forth. Of course, when the light falls on the eye, that's not transmitting light as well to the brain, you're going to see the pupil dilate up. But it's not that that pupil is dilating alone. They both are getting bigger. It's an extremely powerful reflex for a unilateral or asymmetric bilateral optic neuropathy. But what you have to remember, extremely important, is, where does our optic nerve come from? Well, it comes from the retinal ganglion cells. It's the axons of the retinal ganglion cells, which is in the inner retina. And therefore inner retinal disorders such as central retinal artery occlusion, ophthalmic artery occlusion, branch retinal artery occlusion, they will also give a relative afferent pupillary defect because you're affecting the source. And this is extremely important. A retinal detachment will give a relative afferent pupillary defect. So, you can't just assume that it's optic nerve. Luckily for us, those things that also give a relative afferent pupillary defect from a retinal problem cause really bad-looking retinal disease. And you should be able to see it with your direct ophthalmoscope. And if you can't, you definitely will be able to see it with a picture, a photograph, or having an ophthalmologist or optometrist take a look for you. That's really the bedside. You mentioned confrontation visual fields. I still do them, but I am very, very aware that they are not very sensitive. And I have an extremely low threshold to- again, I have something in my office. But if I were a general neurologist, to partner with an eye care specialist who has an automated visual field perimeter in their office because it is much more likely to pick up a deficit. Confrontation fields. Just remember, one eye at a time. Never two eyes at the same time. They overlap with each other. You're going to miss something if you do two eyes open, so one eye at a time. You check their field against your field, so you better be sure your field in that eye is normal. You probably ought to have an automated perimetry test yourself at some point during your career if you're doing that. And remember that the central thirty degrees is subserved by 90% of our fibers neurologically, so really just testing in the four quadrants around fixation within the central 30% is sufficient. You can present fingers, you don't have to wiggle in the periphery unless you want to pick up a retinal detachment. Dr Berkowitz: You mentioned perimetry. You've also mentioned ocular coherence tomography, OCT, other tests. Sometimes we think about it in these cases, is MRI one of the orbits? When do you decide to pursue one or more of those tests based on your history and exam? Dr Newman: So again, it sort of depends on what's available to you, right? Most neurologists don't have a perimeter and don't have an OCT machine. I think if you're worried that you have an optic neuropathy, since we're just speaking about monocular vision loss at this point, again, these are tests that you should get at an office of an eye care specialist if you can. OCT is very helpful specifically in investigating for a macular cause of central vision loss as opposed to an optic nerve cause. It's very, very good at picking up macular problems that would be bad enough to cause a vision problem. In addition, it can give you a look at the thickness of the axons that are about to become the optic nerve. We call it the peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer. And it actually can look at the thickness of the layer of the retinal ganglion cells without any axons on them in that central area because the axons, the nerve fiber layer, bends away from central vision. So, we can see the best we can see. And remember these are anatomical measurements. So, they will lag, for the ganglion cell layer, three to four weeks behind an injury, and for the retinal nerve fiber, layer usually about six weeks behind an entry. Whereas the functional measurements, such as visual acuity, color vision, visual fields, will be immediate on an injury. So, it's that combination of function and anatomy examination that makes you all-powerful. You're very much helped by the two together and understanding where one will be more helpful than the other. Dr Berkowitz: Let's say we've gotten to the optic nerve as our localization. Many people jump to the assumption it's the optic nerve, it's optic neuritis, because maybe that's the most common diagnosis we learn in medical school. And of course, we have to sometimes, when we're teaching our students or trainees,  say, well, actually, not all optic nerve disease, optic neuritis, we have to remember there's a broader bucket of optic neuropathy. And I remember, probably I didn't hear that term until residency and thought, oh, that's right. I learned optic neuritis. Didn't really learn any of the other causes of optic nerve pathology in medical school. And so, you sort of assume that's the only one. And so you realize, no, optic neuropathy has a differential diagnosis beyond optic neuritis. Neuritis is a common cause. So how do you think about the “what” once you've localized to the optic nerve, how do you think about that? Figure out what the cause of the optic neuropathy is? Dr Newman: Absolutely. And we've been trying to convince neuro-radiologists when they see evidence of optic nerve T2 hyperintensity, that just means damage to the optic nerve from any cause. It's just old damage, and they should not put in their read consistent with optic neuritis. But that's a pet peeve. Anyway, yes, the piece of tissue called the optic nerve can be affected by any category of pathophysiology of disease. And I always suggest that you run your categories in your head so you don't leave one out. Some are going to be more common to be bilateral involvement like toxic or metabolic causes. Others will be more likely unilateral. And so, you just run those guys. So, in my mind, my categories always are compressive-slash-infiltrative, which can be neoplastic or non-neoplastic. For example, an ophthalmic artery aneurysm pressing on an optic nerve, or a thyroid, an enlarged thyroid eye muscle pressing on the optic nerve. So, I have compressive infiltrative, which could be neoplastic or not neoplastic. I have inflammatory, which can be infectious. Some of the ones that can involve the optic nerve are syphilis, cat scratch disease. Or noninfectious, and these are usually your autoimmune such as idiopathic optic neuritis associated with multiple sclerosis, or MOG, or NMO, or even sarcoidosis and inflammation. Next category for me would be vascular, and you can have arterial versus venous in the optic nerve, probably all arterial if we're talking about causes of optic neuropathy. Or you could have arteritic versus nonarteritic with the vascular, the arteritic usually being giant cell arteritis. And the way the optic nerve circulation is, you can have an anterior ischemic optic neuropathy or a posterior ischemic optic neuropathy defined by the presence of disc edema suggesting it's anterior, the front of the optic nerve, or not, suggesting that it's retrobulbar or posterior optic nerve. So what category am I- we mentioned toxic, metabolic nutritional. And there are many causes in those categories of optic neuropathy, usually bilateral. You can have degenerative or inherited. And there are causes of inherited optic neuropathies such as Leber hereditary optic neuropathy and dominant optic atrophy. And then there's a group I call the mechanical optic neuropathies. The obvious one is traumatic, and that can happen in any piece of tissue. And then the other two relate to the particular anatomy of the eyeball and the optic nerve, and the fact that the optic nerve is a card-carrying member of the central nervous system. So, it's not really a nerve by the way, it's a tract. Think about it. Anyway, white matter tract. It is covered by the same fluid and meninges that the rest of the brain. So, what mechanically can happen? Well, you could have an elevated intraocular pressure where that nerve inserts. That's called glaucoma, and that would affect the front of the optic nerve. Or you can have elevated intracranial pressure. And if that's transmitted along the optic nerve, it can make the front of the optic nerve swell. And we call that specifically papilledema, optic disk edema due specifically to raised intracranial pressure. We actually even can have low intraocular pressure cause something called hypotony, and that can actually even give an optic neuropathy the swelling of the optic nerve. So, these are the mechanical. And if you were to just take that list and use it for any piece of tissue anywhere, like the heart or the kidney, you can come up with your own mechanical categories for those, like pericarditis or something like that. And then all those other categories would fit. But of course, the specific causes within that pathophysiology are going to be different based on the piece of tissue that you have. In this case, the optic nerve. Dr Berkowitz: In our final moments here, we've talked a lot about the approach to monocular visual loss. I think most neurologists, once we find a visual field defect, we breathe a sigh of relief that we know we're in our home territory here, somewhere in the visual task base that we've studied very well. I'm not trying to distinguish ocular causes amongst themselves or ocular from optic nerve, which can be very challenging at the bedside. But one topic you cover in your article, which I realized I don't really have a great approach to, is transient binocular visual loss. Briefly here, since we're running out of time, what's your approach to transient binocular visual loss?  Dr Newman: We assume with transient binocular vision loss that we are not dealing with a different experience in each eye, because if you have a different experience in each eye, then you're dealing with bilateral eyeball or optic nerve. But if you're having the same experience in the two eyes, it's equal in the two eyes, then you're located. You're located, usually, retro chiasmally, or even chiasm if you have pituitary apoplexy or something. So, all of these things require imaging, and I want to take one minute to talk about that. If you are sure that you have monocular vision loss, please don't get a brain MRI without contrast. It's really useless. Get a orbital MRI with contrast and fat suppression techniques if you really want to look at the optic nerve. Now, let's say you you're convinced that this is chiasmal or retrochiasmal. Well then, we all know we want to get a brain MRI---again, with and without contrast---to look specifically where we could see something. And so, if it's persistent and you have a homonymous hemianopia, it's easy, you know where to look. Be careful though, optic track can fool you. It's such a small little piece, you may miss it on the MRI, especially in someone with MS. So really look hard. There's very few things that are homonymous hemianopias MRI negative. It may just be that you didn't look carefully enough. And as far as the transient binocular vision loss, again, remember, even if it's persistent, it has to be equal vision in the two eyes. If there's inequality, then you have a superimposed anterior visual pathway problem, meaning in front of the chiasm on the side that's worse. The most common cause of transient binocular vision loss would be a form of migraine. The visual aura of migraine usually is a positive phenomenon, but sometimes you can have a homonymous hemianopic persistent defect that then ebbs and flows and goes away. Usually there's buildup, lasts maybe fifteen minutes and then it goes away, not always followed by a headache. Other things to think of would be transient ischemic attack in the vertebra Basler system, either a homonymous hemianopia or cerebral blindness, what we call cortical blindness. It can be any degree of vision loss, complete or any degree, as long as the two eyes are equal. That should last only minutes. It should be maximum at onset. There should be no buildup the way migraine has it. And it should be gone within less than ten minutes, typically. After fifteen, that's really pushing it. And then you could have seizures. Seizures can actually be the aura of a seizure, the actual ictal phenomenon of a seizure, or a postictal, almost like a todd's paralysis after a seizure. These events are typically bright colors and flashing, and they last usually seconds or just a couple of minutes at most. So, you can probably differentiate them. And then there are the more- less common but more interesting things like hyperglycemia, non-ketonic hyperglycemia can give you transient vision loss from cerebral origin, and other less common things like that. Dr Berkowitz: Fantastic. Although we've talked about many pearls of clinical wisdom here with you today, Dr Newman, this is only a fraction of what we can find in your article with Dr Biousse. We focused here on monocular visual loss and a little bit at the end here on binocular visual loss, transient binocular visual loss. But thank you very much for your article, and thank you very much for taking the time to speak with us today. Again, today I've been interviewing Dr Nancy Newman about her article with Dr Valerie Biousse on the approach to visual loss, which appears in the most recent issue of Continuum on neuro-ophthalmology. Be sure to check out Continuum audio episodes from this and other issues. Thank you so much 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 this episode, Lyell K. Jones Jr, MD, FAAN, speaks with Valérie Biousse, MD, who served as the guest editor of the Continuum® April 2025 Epilepsy issue. They provide a preview of the issue, which publishes on April 3, 2025.   Dr. Jones is the editor-in-chief of Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology® and is a professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.  Dr. Biousse is a professor in the departments of neurology and ophthalmology, as well as the Reunette Harris Chair of Ophthalmic Research, at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia.  Additional Resources Read the issue: Neuro-ophthalmology Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com  Social Media  facebook.com/continuumcme  @ContinuumAAN  Host: @LyellJ  Guest: @vbiouss  Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about subscribing to the journal, listening to verbatim recordings of the articles, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology. Today, I'm interviewing Dr Valerie Biousse, who recently served as Continuum's guest editor for our latest issue on neuro-ophthalmology. Dr Biousse is a professor in the departments of neurology and ophthalmology at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia where she's also the Renette Harris Chair of Ophthalmic Research. Dr Biousse, welcome and thank you for joining us today. Why don't you introduce yourself to our listeners? Dr Biousse: In addition to what you just mentioned, I would like to highlight that I have a French accent because I was born and raised and went to medical school in France in Saint Pete Pierre, where I trained as a neurologist. And I even practiced as a stroke neurologist and a headache specialist in the big university in Paris before I decided to move to the US to pursue my passion, which was really neuro-ophthalmology. And at the time, it was impossible to get a license in the US, so I had to repeat a residency and became an ophthalmologist. And this is what led me where I am today. Dr Jones: We're fortunate that you did that. I'm glad you did all that extra work because your contributions to the field have obviously been magnificent, especially this issue, which I think is an incredibly important topic for neurologists. This is why we include it in the rotation of Continuum topics. We all know the saying that the eyes are the windows to the soul, but for neurologists they are also the windows to the brain. The only part of the CNS that's visible to us is the optic disc. I think in spite of that, I think neurologists, our readers and our listeners would acknowledge the importance of the ophthalmic exam and respect the importance of that aspect of the neurologic exam. It's an area that feels challenging to us, and many of us, even with lots of years of experience, don't always feel very comfortable with this. So, it's a really important topic and I'm glad you have edited this. And let's start off with, you know, as you've reviewed all these articles from, really, the pinnacle experts in their specific topics in neuro-ophthalmology, as you were editing this issue, Dr Biousse, what would you say is the one biggest, most important practice-changing message about neuro-ophthalmology you would want to convey to our listeners? Dr Biousse: I think its technology, advances in technology. Without any doubt. The ophthalmology world cannot evaluate a patient anymore without access to fundus photography, optical coherence tomography (OCT) of the back of the eye, not just the optic nerve, but the retina. These advantages in technology have completely changed the way we practice ophthalmology. The same applies to neuro-ophthalmology. And these techniques can really help neurologists do a basic eye exam. Dr Jones: So, let's get right into that. And I'm glad you started with that because I still feel, even though I've done it thousands of times, I still feel a little fumbly and awkward when I'm trying to examine and fundus through an undilated pupil, right? And so, this is I think where technology has helped us quantitate with, as you mentioned, OCT, but I think from an accessibility perspective, I think nonmydriatic fundus photography is a very interesting tool for neurologists and non-neurologists.  Tell us how, how does that work and how could neurologists implement that in their practice? Dr Biousse: It's a very important tool that of course neurology should be able to use every day. You can take fundus photographs of the back of the eye without dilating the pupil. The quality of the photographs is usually very good. You only have access to what we call the posterior pole of the eye, so the optic nerves and the macula and the vascular arcade. You don't see the periphery of the retina, but in neuro-ophthalmology or neurology you don't need access to the periphery of the retina, so it doesn't matter. What is remarkable nowadays is that we have access to very highly performing fundus cameras which can take pictures through very, very small pupils or in patients of all ages. You can use it on a two-year-old in a pediatric clinic. You can use it on a much older person who may have a cataract or other eye problems. And what's really new and what this issue highlights is that it's not just that we can take pictures of the back of the eye, we can also perform OCT at the same time using the same camera. So, that's really a complete game changer for neurologists. Dr Jones: And that's extremely helpful. If I'm in a neurology clinic and I would like to use this technology, how would I access that? Do I need special equipment? Can I use my smartphone and an app? How would that work in terms of getting the image but also getting an interpretation of it? Dr Biousse: It all depends on what your ultimate goal is. The fundus cameras, they are like regular cameras or like any technology that would allow you to get brain imaging. The more sophisticated, the better the quality of the image, the more expensive they are. You know, that's the difference between a three-tesla MRI and a head CT. You buy a camera that's more expensive, you're going to have access to much easier cameras and to much higher resolution of images, and therefore you're going to be much happier with the results. So, I always tell people be very careful not to get a tool that is not going to give you the quality of images you need or you may make mistakes. You basically have two big sorts of cameras. You have what we call the tabletop cameras, which is a little more bulky camera, a little more expensive camera that's sitting on the table. The table can be on wheels, so you can move the table to the patient or you can move the patient to the table. That's very convenient in a neurology clinic where most patients are outpatient. It works in the emergency department. It's more difficult at bedside in the hospital. Or you can have a handheld camera, which can be sophisticated, a device that just uses a handheld camera or, as you mentioned, a small camera that you place on your smartphone, or even better, a camera that you can attach to some of the marketed direct ophthalmoscopes. In all situations, you need to be able to transfer those images to your electronic medical records so that you can use them. You can do that with all tabletop cameras, most handheld cameras; you cannot do it with your smartphone. So that gives you an idea of what you can use. So yes, you can have a direct ophthalmoscope with a little camera mounted. This is very inexpensive. It is very useful at bedside for the neurologists who do- who see patients every day, or the resident on call. But if you really want to have a reliable tool in clinic, I always recommend that people buy a tabletop camera that's connected to the electronic medical record. Dr Jones: You know, the photos always make it so much more approachable and accessible than the keyhole view that I get with my direct ophthalmoscope in clinic. And obviously the technology and the tools are part of the story, but also, it's access to the expertise. Right? There are not many neuro-ophthalmologists in the world, and getting access to the experts is a challenge, I think, everywhere, everywhere in the world really. When you think about how technology can expand that---and here I'm getting at AI, which I hesitate to bring up because it feels like we talk about AI a lot---are there tools that you think are here now or will be coming soon that will help clinicians, including neurologists, interpret fundus photography or other neuro-ophthalmologic findings, maybe eye movements, to make that interpretation piece a little more accessible? Dr Biousse: Absolutely. It's going to happen. It's not there yet. OK? I always tell people, AI is very important and it's a big part of our future without any doubt. But to use AI you need pictures. To get pictures, you need a camera. And so I tell people, first you start with the camera, you implement the camera, you incorporate the camera in your electronic medical record. Because if you do that, then the pictures become accessible to everyone, including the ophthalmologist who's maybe offsite and can review the pictures and provide an official interpretation of the pictures to help you. You can also transfer those pictures using secure mode of transfers and not your smartphone text application, which you really don't want to use to transfer medical information. And that's why I insist on the fact that those pictures should definitely appear in the patient's medical record. Otherwise you're going to break HIPAA laws, and that's an issue that comes up quite often. Once you have the pictures in the electronic medical record and once you have the pictures in the camera, you can do three things. You can look at them yourself. And many of my neurology colleagues are very competent at declaring that an optic nerve is normal or an optic nerve is swollen or an optic nerve is pale. And very often that's all we need. You can say, oh, I don't know about that one, and page the ophthalmologist on call, give the patient 's medical record number, have them look at the pictures, provide an interpretation, and that's where you have your answer. And this can be done in real time, live, when you're at bedside, no problem. Or you can use AI as what I call “Diagnostic A.” I always compare it as, imagine if you had a little robot neuro-ophthalmologist in your pocket that you could use at any time by just taking a picture, clicking submit on the AI app. The app will tell you never, it's normal or it's papilledema or it's pale. The app will tell you, the probability of this optic disk of being normal is 99% or the probability that this is papilledema. And when I say papilledema, I mean papilledema from rest intracranial pressure that's incredible as opposed to optic disc edema from an optic neuritis or from an ischemic optic neuropathy. And the app will tell you, the probability that this is papilledema is eighty six percent. The probability that it's normal is zero. The probability that it's another cause of disc edema is whatever. And so, depending on your probability and your brain and your own eyes, because you know how to interpret most fundus photographs, you really can make an immediate diagnosis. So that is not available for clinical use yet because the difficulty with the eye, as you know, is to have it have a deep learning algorithm cleared by the FDA. And that's a real challenge. But many research projects have shown that it can be done. It is very reliable, it works. And we know that such tools can either be either incorporated inside the camera that you use---in which case it's the camera that gives you the answer, which I don't think is the ideal situation because you have one algorithm per camera---or you have the algorithm on the Cloud and your camera immediately transfers in a secure fashion the images to the Cloud and you get your answer that way directly in your electronic medical record. We know it can be done because it happens every day for diabetic retinopathy. Dr Jones: Got it. And so, it'll expand, and obviously there has to be a period of developing trust in it, right? Once it's been validated and it becomes something that people use. And I get the sense that this isn't going to replace the expertise of the people that use these tools or people in neuro-ophthalmology clinics. It really will just augment. Is that a fair statement? Dr Biousse: Absolutely. Similar to what you get when you do an EKG. The EKG machine gives you a tentative interpretation, correct? And when the report is “it's normal,” you really can trust it, it's normal. But when it says it's not normal, this is when you look at it and you ask for a cardiology consultation. That's usually what happens. And so, I really envision such AI tools as, “it's normal,” in which case you don't need a consultation. You don't need to get an ophthalmology consultation to be sure that there is no papilledema in a patient with headache, in a patient with possible cerebrospinal fluid shunt malfunction. You don't need it because if the AI tool tells you it's normal, it's normal. When it's not normal, you still need the expertise of the ophthalmologist or the neuro-ophthalmology. The same applies to the diagnosis of eye movement. So that's a little more difficult to implement because, as you know, to have an AI algorithm, you need to have trained the algorithm with many examples. We have many examples of pathology of the back of the eyes, because that's what we do. We take pictures every day and there are databases of pictures, there are banks of pictures. But how many examples do we have of abnormal line movement in myasthenia, of videos or downbeat nystagmus? You know, even if we pulled all our collections together, we would come up with what, two hundred examples of downbeat nystagmus around the world? That's not enough to train an AI system, and that's why most of the research on eye movement right now is devoted to creating algorithm that mimic abnormal eye movements so that we can make them and then train algorithm which job will be to diagnose the abnormal eye movement. There's an extra difficult step, it's actually quite interesting. But it's going to happen. You would be able to have the patient look at the camera on the computer and get a report about “it's normal” or “the saccades, whatever, are not normal. It's most likely an internucleosomal neuralgia” or “it is downbeat nystagmus.” And that's not, again, science fiction. There are very good groups right now working on this. Dr Jones: That's really fascinating, and that- you anticipated my next question, which is, I think neurologists understand the importance of the ocular motor exam from a localizing perspective, but it's also complex and challenging. And I think that's certainly an area of potential growth. And you make a good point that we need some data to train the models. And until we have these tools, Dr Biousse, that will sort of democratize and provide access through technology to diagnosis and, you know, ultimately management of neuro-ophthalmology disorders, we know that there are gaps in the care of these patients right now in the modern day. In your own practice, in your own work at Emory, what do you see as the biggest gap in practice in caring for these patients?  Dr Biousse: I think there is a lack of confidence amongst many neurologists regarding their ability to perform a basic eye exam and provide a reliable report of their finding. And the same applies to most ophthalmologists. And that's very interesting because we have, often, a large cohort of patients who are in between the two specialties and are getting a little bit lost. The ophthalmologist doesn't know what to do. The neurologist usually knows what to do, but he's not completely sure that it's the right thing to do. And that's where the neuro-ophthalmologist comes in. And when you have a neuro-ophthalmologist right there, it's fantastic, okay? We bridge the two specialties, and we often just translate what the ophthalmologist said to the neurologist or what the neurologist said to the ophthalmologist and suddenly everything becomes clear. But unfortunately, there are not enough neuro-ophthalmologists. There is a definite patient access issue even when there is a neuro-ophthalmologist because not only is there a coverage heterogeneity in the country and in the world, but then everybody is too busy to be able to see a patient right away. And so, this gap impairs the quality of patient care. And this is why despite all this technology, despite the future, despite AI, we teach ophthalmologists and neurologists how to do a neuro-op examination, how to use it for localization, how to use it to increase the value and the power of a good neurologic examination so that nothing is missed. And I'm taking a very simple example. Neurologists see patients with headaches all the time. The vast majority of those headaches are benign headaches. 90% of headache patients are either migraine or tension headache or analgesic abuse headaches, but they are not secondary headache that are life threatening or neurologically threatening. If the patient has papilledema, it's a huge retina that really should prompt immediate workup, immediate prevention of vision loss with the help of the ophthalmologist. And unfortunately, that's often delayed because the patients with headaches do not see eye doctors. They see their primary care providers who does not examine the back of the eye, and then they reach neurology sometimes too late. And when the neurologist is comfortable with the ophthalmoscope, then the papilledema is identified. But when the neurologist is not comfortable with the ophthalmoscope, then the patient is either misdiagnosed or sent to an eye care provider who makes the diagnosis. But there is always a delay in care. You know, most patients end up with a correct diagnosis because people know what to do. But the problem is the delay in appropriate care in those patients. And that's where technology is a complete life-changing experience. And, you know, I want to highlight that I am not blaming neurologists for not looking at the back of the eye with a direct ophthalmoscope without pharmacologic dilation of the pupil. It is not possible to do that reliably. The first thing I learned when I transitioned from a neurologist to an ophthalmologist is that no eye care provider ever attempts to look at the back of the eyes without dilating the pupils because it's too hard. Why do we ask neurologists to do it? It's really unfair, correct? And then the ophthalmoscope is such an archaic tool that gives only a very small portion of the back of the eye and is extraordinarily difficult to use. It's really not fair. And so, until we give the appropriate tools to neurologists, I don't think we should complain about neurologists not being reliable when they look at the back of the eye. It's a major issue.  Dr Jones: I appreciate you giving us some absolution there. I don't think we would ask neurologists to check reflexes but then not give them a reflex hammer, right? So maybe that's the analogy to not dilating the pupil. So, for you and your practice, in our closing minutes here, Dr Biousse, what's the most rewarding thing for you in neuro-ophthalmology? What do you find most rewarding in the care of these patients?  Dr Biousse: Well, I think the most rewarding is the specialty itself. I'm a neurologist at heart. This is where my heart belongs. What's great about those neuro-ophthalmology patients is that it is completely unpredictable. They are unpredictable. They can have anything. I am super specialized because I'm a neuro-ophthalmologist, but I am a general neurologist and I see everything in neurology. So my clinic days are fascinating. I never know what's going to happen. So that's, I think, the most rewarding part of my job as an neuro-ophthalmologist. I'm having fun every day because it's never the same, I never know what's going to happen. But at the same time, we are so useful to those patients. When you use the neuro-ophthalmologic examination, you really can provide exquisite localization of the disease. You're better than the best of the MRIs. And when you know the localization, your differential diagnosis is always right, always correct, and you can really help patients. And then I want to highlight one point that we made sure was covered in this issue of Continuum, which is the symptomatic treatment of patients who have visual disturbances from neurologic disorders. You know, a patient with chronic diplopia is really disabled. A patient with decreased vision cannot function. And being able to treat the diplopia and provide the low vision resources to those patients who do not see well is extremely important for the quality of life of our patients with neurologic disorders. When you don't walk well, if you don't see well, you fall. When you're cognitively impaired, if you don't see well, you are very cognitively impaired. It makes everything worse. When you see double, you cannot function. When you have a homonymous anopia, you should not drive. And so, there is a lot of work in the field of rehabilitation that can greatly enhance the quality of life of those patients. And that really covers the entire field of neurology and is very, very important. Dr Jones: Clearly important work, and very exciting. And your enthusiasm is contagious, Dr Biousse. I can see how much you enjoy this work. And it comes through, I think, in this interview, but I think it also comes through in the articles and the experts that you have. And I'd like to thank you again for joining us today for a great discussion of neuro-ophthalmology. I learned a lot, and hopefully our listeners did too.  Dr Biousse: Thank you very much. I really hope you enjoyed this issue. Dr Jones: Again, we've been speaking with Dr Valerie Biousse, guest editor of Continuum's most recent issue on neuro-ophthalmology. Please check it out, 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.

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.

Nonepileptic events are prevalent and highly disabling, and multiple pathophysiologic mechanisms for these events have been proposed. Multidisciplinary care teams enable the efficient use of individual expertise at different treatment stages to address presentation, risk factors, and comorbidities.   In this episode, Kait Nevel, MD, speaks with Adriana C. Bermeo-Ovalle, MD, an author of the article “A Multidisciplinary Approach to Nonepileptic Events,” in the Continuum® February 2025 Epilepsy issue. Dr. Nevel is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a neurologist and neuro-oncologist at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, Indiana. Dr. Bermeo-Ovalle is a professor and vice-chair for Faculty Affairs in the Department of Neurological Sciences at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, Illinois. Additional Resources Read the article: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Nonepileptic Events 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: @IUneurodocmom 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 Nevel: Hello, this is Dr Kait Nevel. Today I'm interviewing Dr Adriana Bermeo about her article on a multidisciplinary approach to nonepileptic events, which she wrote with Dr Victor Petron. This article appears in the February 2025 Continuum issue on epilepsy. Welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to our audience. Dr Bermeo-Ovalle: Hello Dr Neville, it's a pleasure to be here. Thank you very much for inviting me. My name is Adriana Bermeo and I'm an adult epileptologist at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, and I am also the codirector of the NEST clinic, which is a treatment clinic for patients with nonepileptic seizures within our level four epilepsy center. Dr Nevel: Wonderful. Well, thank you so much for being here, and I can't wait to talk to you about your article and learn a little bit about NEST, maybe, during our conversation, and how you approach things. To start us off talking about your article today, could you share with us what you think is the most important takeaway from your article for the practicing neurologist? Dr Bermeo-Ovalle: Wonderful. There's some messages that I would like people to get from working with patients with functional neurologic disorders in general. The first one is that functional neurologic disorders are very common in presentation in the neurologic clinic, almost no matter what your practice of self-specialty care is. The second is that for people who treat patients primarily with seizures or epilepsy, they account for between 5 to 10% of our patients in the clinic, but about 30% of our patients in our epilepsy monitoring unit because the seizures typically do not respond to anti-seizure medication management. Also, that in order to diagnose them, you don't need to have a neuropsychological stress already be available for the patient or the clinician. And the most important thing is that there are available treatments for these patients and that there are options that we can offer them for them to have less seizures and to be more integrated to whatever activities they want to get integrated. Dr Nevel: Wonderful. What do you think a practicing neurologist might find surprising after reading your article? Dr Bermeo-Ovalle: I think still many neurologists feel very hopeless when they see patients with these conditions. They do not have very good answers right away for the patients, which is frustrating for the neurologist. And they don't think there's too much they can do to help them other than send them somewhere else, which is very difficult for the neurologist and is crushing to the patients to see these doctors that they're hoping to find answers to and then just find that there's not much to do. But what I want neurologists to know is that we are making strides in our understanding of the condition and that there are effective treatments available. And I hope that after reading this and engaging with this conversation, they will feel curious, even hopeful when they see the next patient in the clinic. Dr Nevel: Yeah, absolutely. I find the history of nonepileptic seizures really interesting and I enjoyed that part of your article. How has our understanding of nonepileptic seizures evolved over the centuries, and how does our current understanding of nonepileptic seizures inform the terminology that we use? Dr Bermeo-Ovalle: Yeah. The way we name things and the way we offer treatment goes along to how we understand things. So, the functional seizures and epileptic seizures were understood in ancient times as possession from the spirits or the demons or the gods, and then treatments were offered to those kind of influences and that continues to happen with functional seizures. So, we go through the era when this was thought to be a women-only condition that was stemming from their reproductive organs and then treatments accordingly were presented. And later on with Charcot and then Freud, they evolved to even conversion disorders, which is one understanding the most conversion disorders, which is one of the frameworks where this condition has been treated with psychotherapy, psychoanalytic psychotherapy. And in our current understanding, we understand functional neurologic disorders in general as a more like a connection, communication network disorder, between areas of the brain that modulate emotional processing and movement control. And therefore, our approach these days is much more geared towards rehabilitation. You know, I think that's the evolution of thinking in many different areas. And as we learn more, we will be acquiring more tools to help our patients. Dr Nevel: Yeah, great. Thanks so much for that answer. Just reading the historical information that you have in your article, you can imagine a lot of stigma with this diagnosis too over time, and that- I think that that's lessening. But I was wondering if you could talk about that a little bit. How do we approach that with our patients and loved ones, any stigma that they might feel or perceive from being diagnosed with nonepileptic seizures? Dr Bermeo-Ovalle: Thank you for asking that question. Stigma is actually an important problem even for people living with epilepsy. There's still a lot of misunderstanding of what epilepsy is and how it affects people, and that people living with epilepsy can live normal, healthy lives and do everything they want to do with appropriate treatment. And if a stigma is still a problem with epilepsy, it is a huge problem for patients living with functional neurologic symptoms in general, but particularly with functional seizures or nonepileptic seizures. Because the stigma in this population is even perpetuated by the very people who are supposed to help them: physicians, primary care doctors, emergency room doctors. Unfortunately, the new understanding of this condition has not gotten to everybody. And these patients are often even blamed for their symptoms and for the consequences of their symptoms and of their seizures in their family members, in their job environment, in their community. Living with that is really, really crushing, right? Even people talk about, a lot about malingering. They come back about secondary gain. I can tell you the patients I see with functional seizures gain nothing from having this condition. They lose, often, a lot. They lose employment, they lose ability to drive. They lose their agency and their ability to function normally in society. I do think that the fight- the fighting of stigma is one that we should do starting from within, starting from the healthcare community into our understanding of what these patients go through and what is causing their symptoms and what can we do to help them. So there's a lot of good work to be done. Dr Nevel: Absolutely. And it starts, like you said, with educating everybody more about nonepileptic seizures and why this happens. The neurobiology, neurophysiology of it that you outlined so nicely in your article, I'm going to encourage the listeners to look at Figure 1 and 4 for some really nice visualization of these really complex things that we're learning a lot about now. And so, if you don't mind for our listeners, kind of going over some of the neurobiology and neurophysiology of nonepileptic seizures and what we're learning about it. Dr Bermeo-Ovalle: Our understanding of the pathophysiology of functional neurologic seizure disorder is in its infancy at this point. The neurobiological processes that integrate emotional regulation and our responses to it, both to internal stimuli and to external stimuli and how they affect our ability to have control over our movement---it's actually amazing that we as neurologists know so little about these very complex processes that the brain do, right? And for many of us this is the reason why we're in neurology, right, to be at the forefront of this understanding of our brain. So, this is in that realm. It is interesting what we have learned, but it's amazing all that we have to learn. There is the clear relationship between risk factors. So, we know patients with functional neurologic symptom disorder and with functional seizures, particularly in many different places in the world with many different beliefs, relationship to their body, to their expression of their body, have this condition no matter how different they are. And also, we know that they have commonalities. For example, traumatic experiences that are usually either very strong traumatic experiences or very pervasive traumatic experiences or recurrent over time of different quality. So, we are in the process of understanding how these traumatic experiences actually inform brain connectivity and brain development that result in this lack of connections between brain areas and the expression of them, and that result in this kind of disorder. I wish I can tell you more about it or that I would understand more about it, but I am just grateful for the work that has been done so that we can understand more and therefore have more to offer to these patients and their families and their communities that are support. Dr Nevel: Yeah, absolutely. That's always the key, and just really exciting that we're starting to understand this better so that we can hopefully treat it better and inform our patients better---and ourselves. Can you talk to us a little bit about the multidisciplinary team approach and taking care of patients with nonepileptic seizures? Who's involved, what does best practice model look like? You have a clinic there, obviously; if you could share with us how your clinic runs in the multidisciplinary approach for care of these patients? Dr Bermeo-Ovalle: The usual experience of patients dealing with functional seizures, because this is a condition that has neurological symptoms and psychiatric symptoms, is that they go to the neurologist and the neurologist does not feel sufficiently able to manage all the psychiatric comorbidities of the condition. So, the patient is sent to psychiatry. The psychiatry really finds themselves very hopeless into handling seizures, which is definitely not their area of expertise, and these patients then being- “ping-ponging” from one to the other, or they are eventually sent to psychotherapy and the psychotherapist doesn't know what they're dealing with. So, we have found with- and we didn't come up with this. We had wonderful support from other institutions who have done- been doing this for a longer time. That bringing all of this specialty together and kind of situating ourselves around the patient so that we can communicate our questions and our discrepancies and our decision between who takes care of what without putting that burden on the patient is the best treatment not only for the patient, who finally feels welcome and not burden, but actually for the team. So that the psychiatrist and the neurologist support the psychotherapist who does the psychotherapy, rehabilitation, mind the program. And we also have the support and the involvement of neuropsychology. So, we have a psychiatrist, a neurologist, social worker, psychotherapist and neuropsychology colleagues. And together we look at the patient from everywhere and we support each other in the treatment of the patient, keeping the patient in the middle and the interest of the patient in the middle. And we have found that that approach has helped our patients the best, but more importantly, makes our job sustainable so that none of us is overburdened with one aspect of the care of the patient and we feel supported from the instances that is not our most comfortable area. So that is one model to do it. There's other models how to do it, but definitely the interdisciplinary care is the way to go so far for the care of patients with functional neurologic symptom disorders and with functional seizures or nonepileptic seizures in particular. Dr Nevel: Yeah, I can see that, that everybody brings their unique expertise and then doesn't feel like they're practicing outside their, like you said, comfort zone or scope of practice. In these clinics---or maybe this happens before the patient gets to this multidisciplinary team---when you've established a diagnosis of nonepileptic seizures, what's your personal approach or style in terms of how you communicate that with the patient and their loved ones? Dr Bermeo-Ovalle: It is important to bring this diagnosis in a positive term. You know, unfortunately the terminology question is still out and there's a lot of teams very invested into how to better characterize this condition and how to- being told that you don't have something is maybe not that satisfying for patients. So, we are still working on that, but we do deliver the diagnosis in positive terms. Like, this is what you have. It's a common condition. It's shared by this many other people in the world. It's a neuropsychiatric disorder and that's why we need the joint or collaborative care from neurology and psychiatry. We know the risk factors and these are the risk factors. You don't have to have all of them in order to have this condition. These are the reasons why we think this is the condition you have. There is coexisting epilepsy and functional seizures as well. We will explore that possibility and if we get to that conclusion, we will treat these two conditions independently and we- our team is able to treat both of them. And we give them the numbers of our own clinic and other similar clinics. And with that we hope that they will be able to get the seizures under better control and back to whatever is important to them. I tell my trainees and my patients that my goals of care for patients with functional seizures are the same as my patients with epileptic seizures, meaning less seizures, less disability, less medications, less side effects, less burden of the disease. And when we communicate it in that way, patients are very, very open and receptive. Dr Nevel: Right. What do you think is a mistake to avoid? I don't know if “mistake” is necessarily the right word, but what's something that we should avoid when evaluating or managing patients with nonepileptic seizures? What's something that you see sometimes, maybe, that you think, we should do that differently? Dr Bermeo-Ovalle: I think the opportunity of engaging with these patients is probably the hardest one. Because neurologists have the credibility, they have the relationship, they have- even if they don't have a multi-disciplinary team all sitting in one room, they probably have some of the pieces of this puzzle that they can bring together by collaborating. So, I think that missing the opportunity, telling the patient, this is not what I do or this is not something that belongs to me, you need to go to a mental health provider only, I think is the hardest one and the most disheartening for patients because our patients come to us just like all patients, with hopes and with some information to share with us so that we can help them make sense of it and have a better way forward. We as neurologists know very well that we don't have an answer to all our patients, and we don't offer zero seizures to any of our patients, right? We offer our collaborative work to understand what is going on and a commitment to walk in the right direction so that we are better every day. And I do think wholeheartedly that that is something that we can offer to patients with functional seizures almost in any environment. Dr Nevel: Yeah, absolutely. And using that multidisciplinary approach and being there with your patient, moving forward in a longitudinal fashion, I can see how that's so important. What do you find most challenging and what do you find most rewarding about caring for patients with nonepileptic seizures? Dr Bermeo-Ovalle: The thing that I find more challenging are the systemic barriers that the system still places. We discuss with the patients, what is the right time to go to the emergency room or not? Because the emergency room may be a triggering environment for patients with functional seizures and it may be a place where not everybody is necessarily attuned to have this conversation. Having said that, I never tell any of my patients not to go to the emergency room because I don't know what's happening with them. As a matter of fact, we're getting a lot of information on high mortality rates in patients with functional seizures, and it's not because of suicide and is probably not related to the seizure. Maybe this is---you know, this is speculation on my part---that is because they get to more severe conditions in other things that are not the functional seizures because they just experienced the healthcare system as very hostile because we are very in many instances. So, navigating that is a little bit difficult, and I try to tell them to have the doctors call me so that I can frame it in a different way and still be there for them. But I can tell you this clinic is the most rewarding clinic of all my clinical activities. And I love with all my heart being an epileptologist and seeing my patients with epilepsy. But the number of times my patients with functional seizures say, nobody had ever explained this to me, nobody had ever validated my experience in front of my family so that I'm not- like, feel guilty myself for having this episode, I can't tell you how many times. And obviously patients who come to the nonepileptic seizure clinic already know that they come to the nonepileptic seizure clinic, so that- you can say it's a selection of patients that are already educated in this condition to come to the clinic. But I would love everybody to know managing this population can be enormously, enormously satisfying and rewarding. Dr Nevel: Especially for, I imagine, patients who have been in and out of the ER, in and out of the hospital, or seen multiple providers and make their way to you. And you're able to explain it in a way that makes sense and hopefully reduces some of that stigma maybe that they have been feeling. Dr Bermeo-Ovalle: And along with that, iatrogenic interventions, unnecessary intubations, unnecessary ICUs; like, so much. And I think, I have no superpower to do that other than understanding this condition in a different way. And by I, I mean all the providers, because I'm not alone in this. There's many, many people doing excellent work in this state. And we just need to be more. Dr Nevel: Yeah, sure. Absolutely. So, on that note, what's next in research, or what do you think will be the next big thing? What's on the horizon in this area? Dr Bermeo-Ovalle: I think the community in the functional neurologic disorder community is really hopeful that more understanding into the neurobiology of this condition will bring more people over and more neurologists willing to take it on. There was an invitation from the NIH, I think, about four or five years ago to submit proposals for research in this area in particular. So, all of those studies must be ongoing. I'm much more a clinician than a researcher myself, but I am looking forward to what all of that is going to mean for our patients. And for- I think there's other opportunities in that further understanding of the clinical manifestations of many other conditions, and for our understanding of our relationship with our patients. I feel we are more attuned to align with a disease that, when the experience of the patient- and with a disease like this, a condition like this one, we have to engage with the personal experience of the patient. What I mean by that is that we are more likely to say,  I'm an epileptologist, I'm an MS doctor, you know, and we engage with that condition. This condition, like, just makes us engaging with the symptom and with the experience of the person. And I think that's a different frame that is real and rounded into the relationship with our patients. So, I think there's so much that we can learn that can change practice in the future. Dr Nevel: Yeah. And as your article, you know, outlines, and you've outlined today during our discussion, that- how important this is for the future, that we treat these patients and help them as much as we can, that comes with understanding the condition better, because wow, I was really surprised reading your article. The mortality associated with this, the healthcare costs, how many people it affects, was just very shocking to me. So, I mean, this is a really important topic, obviously, and something that we can continue to do better in. Wonderful. Well, thank you so much. It's been really great talking to you today. Dr Bermeo-Ovalle: Thank you, Katie, I appreciate it too. Dr Nevel: So again, today I've been interviewing Dr Adriana Bermeo about her article on a multidisciplinary approach to nonepileptic events, which she wrote with Dr Victor Petron. This article 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 the 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.

Many patients with epilepsy are unable to acheive optimal seizure control with medical therapy. Palliative surgical procedures, neurostimulation devices, and other nonpharmalogical treatments can lead to a meaningful reduction in seizures and improved outcomes. In this episode, Teshamae Monteith, MD FAAN, speaks with Daniel Friedman, MD, MSc, author of the article “Surgical Treatments, Devices, and Nonmedical Management of Epilepsy,” in the Continuum® February 2025 Epilepsy issue. Dr. Montieth 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. Friedman is a professor (clinical) of neurology at NYU Grossman School of Medicine and Director of NYU Langone Comprehensive Epilepsy Center at NYU Langone Health in New York, New York. Additional Resources Read the article: Surgical Treatments, Devices, and Nonmedical Management of 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 Guest: @dfriedman36  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 Daniel Friedman about his article on surgical treatments, devices, tools, and non-medication management of epilepsy, which appears in the February 2025 Continuum issue on epilepsy. Welcome to the podcast. How are you? Dr Friedman: I'm well, how are you? Dr Monteith: Thank you for your article. Dr Friedman: Thank you for the opportunity to talk today. Dr Monteith: Why don't you introduce yourself? Dr Friedman: So yeah, so I'm Dan Friedman. I am a professor of neurology here at NYU Grossman School of Medicine and I am the director of the NYU Comprehensive Epilepsy Center. I'm primarily an adult neurologist and I treat teens and adults with hard- difficult-to-treat epilepsy, including surgical treatments for epilepsy. Dr Monteith: And I know you see a lot of patients because I did my residency there. And so, when you graduate, you get a lot of it, like I think many, many residents. What inspired you to choose epilepsy as a profession? Dr Friedman: I came to neurology through my interest in neuroscience. I was a neuroscience undergraduate. I was very interested in the brain and brain function. Particularly, I was interested in how neurons communicate and organize to entrain and rhythms and that encode information. And through that interest and through my experiences in the laboratory, I actually became interested in how they do that in pathological circumstances like seizures. And so, I started reading about epilepsy, and then when I started seeing patients with epilepsy, you know, I decided this is the specialty for me for a lot of reasons. One is it combines inpatient and outpatient care. You get to establish long-term relationships with patients. For many of my patients, I'm probably the doctor that they see most often. You see people across the lifespan. And what I'm going to talk about today is for some people, you actually get to cure their disease, which at the time I was coming into neurology was something pretty rare. Dr Monteith: Yeah, that's great. Why don't you tell us, what were you thinking when you started writing the article? What did you set out to do? Dr Friedman: What I really wanted to do is to educate neurologists out there about the options that they have for their patients with epilepsy, especially those with difficult-to-treat or drug-resistant epilepsy, and give them the tools to communicate those options. Especially for them to understand the rationale, why we choose the interventions that we do as epileptologists, how to appropriately refer patients and have them be partners in that discussion with patients and families. One of the things that we have known for a long time is that the time to referral for things like epilepsy surgery is too long. You know, the average patient with drug resistant epilepsy who undergoes epilepsy surgery waits about twenty years. And for patients who could have curative therapy, you know, become seizure free, that's a lot of life years lost. If we can get patients to that potentially life-altering therapy earlier, that'd be great. Dr Monteith: Yeah, that is really impactful as you think about it. So why don't you tell us what the essential points of your article? Dr Friedman: The central point of my article is really that when patients have drug-resistant epilepsy, which means that our available anti-seizure medicines are not controlling their seizures to the degree that they need, there are other treatment options. Some of those are what we call curative, which means that they could stop their seizures entirely; and some of them are palliative, they could reduce the frequency or severity of seizures and improve quality of life and other outcomes. The other thing that I wanted to highlight was, in addition to these types of therapies, there are other tools we have at our disposal that can improve the quality of life and safety of our patients with epilepsy, including devices for seizure monitoring. Dr Monteith: And how do you define drug-resistant epilepsy? I feel like that could be a moving target. Dr Friedman: The International League Against Epilepsy actually set out to define it about a decade ago, and they defined it as patients who fail at least two appropriately selected anti-seizure medicines due to lack of efficacy. Then they're still having ongoing seizures. What does that mean? So, that means that the medicine that was chosen was appropriate for the type of seizures that they have, whether it's focal or generalized, and that it didn't work because of a lack of efficacy and not because of side effects. And we know from multiple studies that once patients fail two medications, the likelihood that the third, fourth, fifth, etcetera, medicine will control their seizures becomes smaller and smaller. It's not impossible, but the rates fall below five percent. And so we call those patients drug-resistant. Dr Monteith: So, it sounds like despite newer therapies, really things haven't changed in ten years. Dr Friedman: Yeah, unfortunately, at least when the concept was first investigated back in 2000 by Quan and Brody, they found that a third of patients were drug-resistant. When they went back in the mid-2010s to relook at these patients, despite the introduction of many new medications, the rate of patients who were drug-resistant was essentially unchanged. There may be therapies that are emerging or in development that may have better odds, but right now we don't really understand what makes people drug resistant and how we can target that. Dr Monteith: But you do raise a good point that this is about efficacy and not tolerability. And at least for some of the newer medications, they're better tolerated. If you stop the medicine because you had some side effect, that might change how that person has classified better-tolerated treatments. Dr Friedman: It's true. And better-tolerated treatments, you can potentially use higher doses. One of the things that is not in the definition of drug-resistant epilepsy, but as a practicing neurologist, we all know, is that the patients have to take the medicine for it to be effective. And unfortunately, they have to take it every day. And if the medicine makes them feel bad, they may choose not to take it, present to you as drug-resistant, when in reality they may be drug-sensitive if you got them on medicine that doesn't make them feel bad. Dr Monteith: So why don't we talk about patients that are ideal candidates for epilepsy surgery? Dr Friedman: The ideal candidates for epilepsy surgery… and I'll start by talking about curative epilepsy surgery, where the goal of the surgery is to make patients seizure-free. The best candidates are patients who have lesional epilepsy, meaning that there is a visible MRI abnormality like a focal cortical dysplasia, hippocampus sclerosis, cavernoma in a part of the brain that is safe to resect, non-eloquent, and where you can safely perform a wide margin of resection around that lesion. It helps if they have few or no generalized tonic-clonic seizures and a shorter duration of epilepsy. So the ideal patient, the patient that if they came to my office, I would say you should get surgery right now, are patients with non-dominant temporal lobe epilepsy of a few years' duration. So as soon as they've shown that they're not responding to two medicines, those are the ideal patients to say, you would have the most benefit and the least risk from epilepsy surgery. We know from studies that patients with temporal lobe epilepsy do a little better with surgery. We know patients who have a visible lesion on MRI do better with epilepsy surgery. We know that patients who have infrequent secondarily generalized seizures do better. But all patients with drug-resistant epilepsy should be considered for some form of surgery because even if they're not candidates for a curative surgery, there may be some palliative options, whether it's surgical resections that lessen the severity of their seizures or neurostimulation devices that reduce the frequency and severity of seizures. Ideal candidates, the ones that you would push through sooner rather than later, are those who have the likelihood of the best outcomes and the least risk of neurocognitive decline. Dr Monteith: So, you mentioned that there may be other candidates that still benefit, although maybe not ideal. You mentioned neuromodulation. What other interventions are available? Dr Friedman: For patients who are not candidates for resective surgery, there are several neurostimulation options. There's vagus nerve stimulation, which has been around the longest. It is a device that is implanted in- under the skin near the clavicle and has a lead that goes to the left vagus nerve and delivers stimulation, electrical stimulation to the nerve. For reasons we don't fully understand, it can reduce the both the frequency and severity of seizures. Seldom does it make people seizure free, but the reduction in seizure frequency for many patients is associated with improved quality of life, reduced risk of injury, and even reduced rates of SUDEP. We also have two intracranial neurostimulation devices we use for epilepsy. One is the responsive neurostimulator. So, this is a device that- it has leads that are implanted directly into the seizure focus and sense electrocortical brain activity and deliver electrical stimulation to attempt to abort abnormal brain activity. So functioning kind of like a cardiac defibrillator for the heart, but for seizures in the brain. And because these devices have two leads, they can be used to treat people with more than one seizure focus---so up to two---or be used in patients who are not candidates for resection because their seizure focus is in language cortex, motor cortex, things that would be unable to resect. And the RNS has somewhat better efficacy in terms of percent reduction in seizures compared to the VNS, but obviously because it's an intracranial device, it's also a little riskier. It has more potential for neurosurgical adverse effects. There's also a deep brain stimulator for epilepsies, the same exact device that we use to treat movement disorders. We can implant in the thalamus, in either the anterior nucleus of the thalamus or now, for some patients, into the central median nucleus of the thalamus, and deliver open loop stimulation to treat epilepsy and reduce the frequency and severity of seizures as well. Unlike the RNS, you don't have to localize the seizure focus, so you don't need to know exactly where the seizures are coming from. And you could treat patients with multifocal epilepsy with seizures coming from more than two locations or even generalized seizures. Dr Monteith: So, it sounds like there are a lot of options available to patients. I think one of the things I find challenging is when we have patients that may have some cognitive dysfunction, especially in the hospital, and they've had some seizures that are very obvious, but then there are these, maybe, events that you wonder are seizures. So, what is the utility of some of these seizure detection devices? Dr Friedman: The development of seizure detection devices started out primarily with the observation that a majority of cases of sudden unexpected death and epilepsy, or SUDEP, occurred following tonic-clonic seizures. And there was a need to be able to monitor for convulsive seizures, especially that occur at night when people were otherwise unattended. And so, the first generation of devices that were developed came on the market, essentially detected convulsive seizures, and they alerted caregivers nearby who are able to come to the bedside, provide basic seizure first aid, turn people on the side. And theoretically all this---this hasn't been shown in studies---prevents SUDEP. And so, the ones that are currently available on the market are focused on the detection of convulsive seizures, mostly generalized tonic-clonic seizures, but some devices can also detect other seizures with very prominent motor components. What we don't have yet available to us, and what people are working on, are devices that detect nonconvulsive seizures. We know that patients who have focal impaired aware seizures are often amnestic for their seizures. They don't know they had a seizure if family members aren't there to observe them. They may never report them, which makes treating these patients very difficult. How do you quantify disease burden in your headache patients, for instance? You say, how many headache days did you have since we last met in the clinic? Your patients will be able to report on their calendar, this many days. Well, imagine if the patients had no awareness of whether or not they had a headache day. You wouldn't know if your therapy is working or not. In epilepsy, we need those types of devices which can tell us whether patients are having seizures they're unaware of, and that may be more subtle than convulsions. Dr Monteith: Oh, that'd be great for headache, too. You just gave me an idea, but that's the next podcast. So, you mentioned SUDEP, really important. How good are surgical interventions at reducing what we would think the prevalence of SUDEP? Dr Friedman: For me that is one of the primary motivations for epilepsy surgery in patients who are drug-resistant, because we know that if patients who are candidates for epilepsy surgery have high SUDEP rates. Estimates range from six to nine per thousand patients per year. If surgery is successful, their mortality rates go down to the general population level. It literally can be lifesaving for some patients, especially when you're talking about curative epilepsy surgery. But we also know that the biggest driver for SUDEP risk is tonic-clonic seizures and the frequency of those tonic-clonic seizures. So even our palliative interventions, which can reduce the frequency and severity of seizures, may also reduce the risk of SUDEP. So, we know in study- observational studies of patients with VNS and with RNS, for instance, the rates of SUDEP in patients treated with those devices are lower than expected for the drug-resistant epilepsy population. Dr Monteith: Let's talk a little bit about some of these prediction models. And you have a lot of great work in your article, so I don't want to get into all the details, but how do you use that in the real world? Do you communicate that with patients? How do you approach these prediction factors? Dr Friedman: There are two places where, I think, clinical prediction tools for epilepsy surgery have a role. One is, for me, in my clinic where I'm talking to patients about the risks and benefits for surgery, right? You want to be able to accurately communicate the likelihood that the surgery is going to give you the desired outcome. So patients and their families can make educated decisions, be weighing the risks and benefits. I think it's important to be realistic with patients because surgery, like- you know, any surgery is not without risk, both acute risks and long-term risks. You're removing part of the brain, and, you know, every part of the brain is important. That's where I use prediction tools. But I think it's also important for the general neurologist, especially trying to triage which patients you are going to be aggressive with referring to a comprehensive epilepsy center for evaluation. Where you may use your limited time and capital with patients to counsel them on surgical treatments. Where a healthcare system with limited resources prioritizes patients. So, there's a significant need for having prediction tools that only take the input that a general neurologist seeing a patient in the clinic would have at hand. You know, the history, an MRI, an interictal EEG. Dr Monteith: I guess part of that prediction model includes adverse outcomes that you're communicating as well. Dr Friedman: Certainly, for me, when I'm discussing surgery for the patient in front of me, I will use prediction models for adverse outcomes as well that are informed by the kind of surgery we're proposing to do, especially when talking about things like language dysfunction and memory dysfunction after surgery. Dr Monteith: So, you mentioned a lot of great advances, and certainly since I was a resident, which wasn't that long ago. Why don't you tell me how some of these interventions have changed your clinical practice? Dr Friedman: Thinking about epilepsy surgery, like other surgical specialties, there's been a move to more minimally invasive approaches. For instance, when I started as an epilepsy fellow fifteen years ago, sixteen years ago, most of our surgeries involve removing a large portion of the skull, putting electrodes on the brain, doing resections through big craniotomies which were uncomfortable and risky, things like that. We now do our phase two or intracranial EEG monitoring through small burr holes in the brain using robotically placed electrodes. For many of our patients, we can actually treat their epileptic focus with a laser that is targeted through a small catheter and MRI guidance. And patients are usually home in two days with, you know, a lot less discomfort. Dr Monteith: Well, that's great. I didn't expect that one, but I do think that translates to many areas of neurology. Really just this idea of meeting their goals and personalizing their care. My last question is, what out of these advances and what you know about the future of epilepsy, what makes you the most excited and what gives you the most hope? Dr Friedman: I think there are a lot of exciting things in epilepsy. Last count I heard, there's something like over a hundred biotech companies developing epilepsy therapies. So that gives me hope that people are still interested in meeting the unmet needs of patients with epilepsy. And some of these therapies are really novel. For instance, there's a trial of stem cell treatments for drug-resistant temporal lobe epilepsy that's ongoing now, where inhibitory interneuron progenitor cells are implanted in the brain and kind of restore the brain circuit disruptions that we see in some of these epilepsies. There are combinations of drug and device therapies or gene therapy and device therapies that are in development, which have a lot of promise, and I think we'll have much more precise and targeted therapies within the next decade. Dr Monteith: Awesome. I really appreciate our conversation, and thank you so much for your wonderful article. I learned a lot reading it. Dr Friedman: Thank you. Dr Monteith: Today I've been interviewing Dr Daniel Friedman, whose article on surgical treatments, devices, tools, and non-medication management of epilepsy 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 Teshmae 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.

Emergency treatment may be necessary after a person's first seizure or at the onset of abnormal acute repetitive (cluster) seizures; it is required for status epilepticus. Treatment for these emergencies is dictated by myriad clinical factors and informed by published guidance as well as emerging research.   In this episode, Lyell K. Jones, MD, FAAN, speaks with David G. Vossler, MD, FAAN, FACNS, FAES, author of the article “First Seizures, Acute Repetitive Seizures, and Status Epilepticus,” in the Continuum® February 2025 Epilepsy issue. Dr. Jones is the editor-in-chief of Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology® and is a professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Dr. Vossler a clinical professor of neurology at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle, Washington. Additional Resources Read the article: First Seizures, Acute Repetitive Seizures, and Status Epilepticus 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: @LyellJ  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 Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology. Today, I'm interviewing Dr Dave Vossler, who has recently authored an article on emergent seizure management, taking care of patients with the first seizure, acute repetitive seizures, and status epilepticus, which is an article in our latest issue of Continuum covering all topics related to epilepsy. Dr Vossler is a neurologist at the University of Washington, where he's a clinical professor of neurology and has an active clinical and research practice in epileptology. Dr Vossler, welcome. Thank you for joining us today. Why don't you introduce yourself to our listeners? Dr Vossler: Thank you very much for the introduction, Lyell. It's a pleasure to speak with you on this podcast, and I hope to go over a lot of important new information in the management of seizure emergencies. As you said, I'm a clinical professor in neurology at University of Washington, been in medicine for many decades now and have published and done research in this area. So, I'm anxious to give you not only my academic experience, but also talk about my own management of patients with status epilepticus over the last four decades. Dr Jones: Yeah, that's fantastic. And I always appreciate hearing from experienced clinicians, and I think our readers and our listeners do appreciate that voice of clinical expertise. And I'll tell you this is a topic, you know, as a neurologist who doesn't see many patients with acute seizure emergencies in my own practice, I think this is a topic that gives many clinicians, including neurologists, some anxiety. Your article, Dr Vossler, is really chock-full of helpful and clinically relevant considerations in the acute management of seizures. So, you now have the full attention of a huge audience of mostly neurologists. What's the one most important practice change that you would like to see in the care of patients with either first or acute prolonged seizures? Dr Vossler: Without a doubt, the most important clinical takeaway with regard to the status epilepticus---and for status epilepticus, many, many clinical trials, research trials have been done over the last couple decades and they all consistently show the same thing, that by and large most patients who have status epilepticus are underdosed and undertreated and treated too slowly in the initial stages of the status epilepticus. And it's important to use full bolus dosages of benzodiazepines to prevent mortality, morbidity, and later disability of these patients. To prevent the respiratory depression, many physicians are afraid to use higher doses of benzodiazepines, even guideline-recommended doses of benzodiazepines for fear of respiratory depression. But it's actually counterintuitive. It turns out that most cases of respiratory depression are due to inadequate doses and due to the status epilepticus itself. We know there's greater mortality, we know there's greater morbidity and we know that there's greater need for higher dose, subsequent, anti-seizure medications, prolonged status, if we don't use the proper doses. So, we'll kind of go over that a little bit, but that is the one clinical takeaway that I really would like our listeners to have. Dr Jones: Let's follow that thread a little bit. Dave, I know obviously we will speak in hypotheticals here. We're not going to talk about actual patients, but I think we've all been in the clinical situation where you have a patient who comes into the emergency room usually who's actively seizing, unknown history, don't know much about the patient, don't know much about the circumstances of the onset of the seizure. But we now have a patient with prolonged convulsive seizures. How do we walk through that? What are the first steps in the management of that patient? Dr Vossler: Yeah, well, I'll try to be brief for the purposes of the podcast. We do, of course, go through all of that in detail in the Continuum article, which hopefully everybody will look at very carefully. Really in the first table, the very first table of the article, I go through the recommended guideline for the American Epilepsy Society on the management of what we call established status epilepticus. The scenario you're talking about is just exactly that: established status epilepticus. It's not sort of evolving or developing status. We're okay they're having a few seizures and we're kind of getting there. No, this patient is now having evidence of convulsive seizure activity and it's continuing or it's repeated seizures without recovery. And so, the first phase is definitely a benzodiazepine and then the second phase is then a longer-acting bolus of a drug like phosphenotoine, valproic acid or levetiracetam. I could get into the details about dosing of the benzodiazepines, but maybe I'll let you guide me on whether we wanted to get into that kind of detail right at the outset. It's going to be a little bit different. For children, its weight-based dosing, but for adults, whether you use lorazepam or you use diazepam or you use midazolam, the doses are a little bit different. But they are standardized, and gets back to this point that I made earlier, we're acting too slow. We're not getting these patients quick enough, for various reasons, and the doses that are most commonly used are below what the guidelines call for. Dr Jones: That's great to know, and I think it's fine for the details to refer our listeners to the article because there are great details in there about a step-by-step approach to the established status epilepticus. The nomenclature and the definitions have evolved, haven't they, Dr Vossler, over time? Refractory status epilepticus, new-onset refractory status epilepticus, super refractory status epilepticus. Tell us about those entities, how they're distinguished and how you approach those. Dr Vossler: That's an important thing to kind of go over. They- in 2015, the International League Against Epilepsy, ILAE, which is, again, our international organization that guides our understanding of all kinds of things epileptic in nature around the world. In 2015 they put out a definition of status epilepticus, but it used to be that patients had thirty minutes of continuous seizure activity or repetitive obvious motor seizures with impairment of awareness and they don't recover impairment between these seizures. And that goes on for thirty minutes. That was the old definition of status epilepticus. Now, the operational definition is five minutes. And I think that's key to understand that, after five minutes of this kind of overt seizure activity, you need to intervene. And that's what's called T1 in the 2015 guideline, the international guideline. There are a bunch of different axes in the classification of status that talk about semiology, etiology, EEG patterns, and what age group you're talking about. We won't really get into those in the Continuum article because that's really more detailed than a clinician really should be. Needing to think about the stages, what we call the stages of status epilepticus that you mentioned and I alluded to earlier are important. And that is sort of new nomenclature, and I think probably general neurologists and most emergency room physicians aren't familiar with those. So, it just briefly goes through those. Developing status epilepticus is where you're starting- the patient's starting to have more frequent seizures, and it's heading essentially in the wrong direction, if you will. Established status epilepticus, as I mentioned, is, you know, this seizure act, convulsive or major, major outward overt seizure activity lasting five minutes or more, at which time therapy needs to begin. Again, getting back to my point, what doesn't happen often enough is we're not- we're intervening too late. Third is refractory status epilepticus, which refers to status epilepticus which continues despite adequate doses of an initial benzodiazepine given parenterally followed by a full loading dose of a single non-sedating anti-seizure medicine, which today includes phosphenotoine IV valproic acid or IV levetiracetam. In the United States, and increasingly around the world, people really are using levetiracetam. First, it has some advantages. There's now proof from a class one NIH-funded trial. We know that these three drugs are equivalent at the full doses that I go over in the article. You have your kind of dealer's choice on those. Phenobarbital, which we used to use and I used as a resident as long as forty years ago, is really a second choice drug because of its sedating and other side effects. But around the world in resource-poor countries phenobarbital can be used and, in a pinch, certainly is an appropriate drug. And then finally, you mentioned super refractory status epilepticus and that's status that's persisting for more than twenty four hours. Now, despite initial benzo and non-sedating anti-seizure medicine, but also lasting more than twenty four hours while receiving an intravenous infusional sedating, anesthetizing anti-seizure medicine like ketamine, propofol, pentobarbital or midazolam drips. Dr Jones: So, it sounds like the definitions have evolved in a way that improves the outcomes, right? To do earlier identification of status epilepticus and more aggressive management, I think that's a great takeaway. If we move all the way to the other end of the spectrum, let's move to the ambulatory setting and we have a patient who comes in and they've had one seizure, they're an adult; one seizure, the first seizure. The key question is, how do we anticipate the risk of future seizures? But walk us through how you talk to that patient, how you evaluate that patient to decide if and when to start anti-seizure medicines. Dr Vossler: Well, it depends a little bit if it's an adult or a child, but the decision making process and the data behind it is pretty robust now. And the decision making process is pretty similar for adults and children, with some differences which I can talk about. First of all, first seizures. I think it's really important to stress that there's been so much research in this area. I'd like to get a cross point that they're not as innocuous as I think many general neurologists might suspect. We know that there is a two- to threefold increased risk of death in children and adults following a first seizure. Moreover, the risk of a second seizure, both in kids and adults, is about 36% two years after that first seizure. It's about 46% five years after that first seizure. It's really pretty substantial. The risk of a second seizure is increased twofold. It doubled in the presence of any kind of a history of prior brain insults that could result in seizures. Could be infections, it could be a prior stroke, it could be prior significant brain trauma. It's also doubled in the presence of an EEG, which shows epileptiform discharges like spikes and sharp waves---and not just a sort of borderline things like sharply contoured rhythmic Theta activity. That's really not what we're talking about. We're talking about overt epileptiform discharges. It's doubled in the presence of lesion that can be seen on imaging studies, and it's doubled in the presence of seizures if that first seizure occurs during sleep. So, we have a number of things that double the risks, above the risk of a second seizure, above that 36% at two years and 46% at five years that I spoke about. And so those things need to be considered when you're counseling a patient about that. Should you be on an anti-seizure medicine after that first seizure? Specifically, to the point of anti-seizure medications, the guideline that was done, the 2015 guideline that was done by the American Academy of Neurology for adults, and the 2003 guideline was actually a practice parameter that was done by the Academy and the American Epilepsy Society for children, are really kind of out of date. They talk about the adverse effects of anti-seizure medications, but when you look back at the studies that were included in developing that practice parameter for kids and guidelines for adults, they are the old drugs: carbamazepine, phenytoin, phenobarbital and valproate. Well, I don't think I need to tell this audience, this well-educated audience, that we don't use those drugs anymore. We are using more modern anti-seizure medicines that have been developed since 1995; things like lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and lecosamide. Those three in particular have very low adverse events. So, the guideline that the Academy, American Academy Neurology and American Epilepsy Society put together for kids and for adults talks about this high adverse event profile. And so, you need to take a look at the risks that I talked about of a seizure recurrence and balance that against adverse effects. But I'm here to tell you that the newer anti-seizure medicines---and by newer I'm talking in the last thirty years since lamotrigine was approved in 1995---these drugs have much better side effect profiles. And I think all epileptologists would agree with that. They're not necessarily more effective, but they are better tolerated. That makes the discussion of the risk of a second seizure, the risk of mortality versus side effects of drugs, it really pushes the risk category higher on the first side and not on the side of drugs. We know that if you take an anti-seizure medicine, you reduce your risk of a second seizure by half. Now, that's not sustained over five years, but over the first two years, you've reduced it by half. In a person who's driving, needs to get to work, has to take the kids to school, whatever, most of my patients are like, yeah, okay, sign me up. These drugs are really pretty well tolerated. There's a substantial risk of a second seizure. So, I'll do that. In a kid,  a child that's, you know, not driving yet, that might be a different discussion. And the parents might say, well, I'd rather not have my son exposed, my daughter exposed to this. They're trying to go to school. They're trying to learn. We don't want to hinder that. We'll wait for a second seizure and then if they have a second seizure, which by the way is, you know, one of the definitions of epilepsy, well then they have epilepsy, then they probably will need to go on the seizure medication. Dr Jones: Great summary, Dr Vossler, and it is worth our audience being aware that the evidence has evolved alongside the improvement in the adverse effect profile. And sounds like your threshold is a little lower to treat then maybe it would have been some time ago, right? Dr Vossler: I would say that's exactly correct in my opinion. Particularly for adults, absolutely. Dr Jones: That's fantastic, Dr Vossler. I imagine there are a lot of aspects of caring for these patients that are challenging, and I imagine many scenarios are actually pretty rewarding. What do you find the most rewarding aspect of caring for patients with acute seizure management? Dr Vossler: Yes, I mean, that is really true. I would say that the most challenging things are treating refractory status epilepticus, but worse yet, new onset refractory status epilepticus and the super refractory status epilepticus, which I talk extensively about or write extensively about in the article and provide a lot of guidance on. Really, those conditions are so challenging because they can go on for such a long time. Patients are hospitalized for a long time. A lot of really good clinical guidance doesn't exist yet. There is a tremendous amount of research in that area which I find exciting, and really there's an amazing amount of international research on that, I think most of our audience probably is unaware of. And certainly, with those conditions, there is a high risk of later disability and mortality. We go through all of that in the article. The rewards really come from helping these people. When someone was super refractory status and it were non- sorry, new onset refractory status epilepticus, has been in the hospital for thirty days, it gets really hard for everybody; the family, the patient. And for us, it wears on us. Yet when they walk out the door, and I've had these people come back to the epilepsy clinic and see me later. We're managing their anti-seizure medications. They've survived. The NORSE patients often have substantial disability. They have cognitive and memory and even some psychiatric disability. But yet we can help them. It's not just management in the hospital, but it's getting to know these people, and I take them from the hospital and see them in my clinic and manage them long-term. I get a lot of great satisfaction out of that. We're hoping to do even better, stop patients' status early and get them to recover with no sequelae. Dr Jones: What a great visual, seeing those patients who have a devastating problem and they come back to clinic and you get the full circle. And what a great place to end. Dr Vossler, thank you so much for joining us, and thank you for such a thorough and fascinating discussion on the importance of understanding and managing patients with the first seizure, acute repetitive seizures, and status epilepticus. Dr Vossler: Thank you very much, Lyell. Dr Jones: Again, we've been speaking with Dr Dave Vossler, author of an article on emergent seizure management, first seizures, acute repetitive seizures and status epilepticus in Continuum's most recent issue on epilepsy. Please check it out, 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.

Genetic testing plays a key role in the evaluation of epilepsy patients. With the expanding number of choices for genetic tests and the complexity of interpretation of results, genetic literacy and knowledge of the most common genetic epilepsies are important for high-quality clinical practice. In this episode, Gordon Smith, MD, FAAN speaks Sudha Kilaru Kessler, MD, MSCE, author of the article “Epilepsy Genetics,” in the Continuum February 2025 Epilepsy issue. Dr. Smith is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a professor and chair of neurology at Kenneth and Dianne Wright Distinguished Chair in Clinical and Translational Research at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia. Dr. Kessler is an associate professor of neurology and pediatrics at Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and Children's Hospital of Philadelphia in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Read the article: Epilepsy Genetics 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 Academy of Neurology: aan.com SOCIAL MEDIA facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN  Host: @gordonsmithMD 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 Smith: Hello, this is Dr Gordon Smith. Today I've got the great pleasure of interviewing Dr Sudha Kessler about her article on epilepsy genetics, which appears in the February 2025 Continuum issue on epilepsy. Sudha, welcome to the podcast and please introduce yourself to our audience. Dr Kessler: Oh, thank you so much. I'm Sudha Kessler. I am a pediatric epileptologist here at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania. Dr Smith: Tell us a little bit about yourself. Are you a geneticist too, or how did you get into this particular topic? Dr Kessler: Yes, I want to emphatically say that I am not a geneticist. I'm not an expert in epilepsy genetics at all. I take care of all sorts of patients with epilepsy. I actually do mostly epilepsy surgery-related care. But this part of epilepsy is, every year, increasingly important to our everyday practice. And I think it's fascinating, often a little daunting. I think I was asked to get involved with this article as a non-expert to help translate from the experts to the rest of us. Dr Smith: We're going to get there, because one of the things you do a really good job of in the article is talking about genetic concepts that are germane to everything we do. And I think you're an expert. You do it in a way that I understood. So, I'd like to get there, but- and this is a really hot area. For instance, I really loved your figure that shows the arc of discovery of genetic causes for epilepsy. It's really breathtaking, something we wouldn't have thought possible that long ago. And it's also a lot to digest. And so, I wonder if maybe we can begin by thinking about a framework and, for instance, you talk about these different groups of disorders. And one that seems to be particularly impacted by this unbelievable A-rated discovery. Our developmental and epileptic encephalopathies, or DEEs. What can you tell our listeners about that group of disorders? Dr Kessler: Sure. I think that, you know, most of what we think about in epilepsy genetics now has to do with disorders that are attributable to changes in a single gene. Genetics is obviously much more complicated than that, but that's still where we are in the stage of discovery. And the graph in the article is definitely one to take a look at because it represents the explosion that we've had in our understanding of single gene disorders leading to epilepsy and related manifestations. The DEEs are a group of disorders where any individual disorder is fairly rare, but as a group they are not that rare, and very impactful because they often cause epilepsy at a very young age. And either as a consequence of seizures or as a consequence of the underlying pathophysiology of that gene change, they are typically associated with really significant developmental impairments for a child 's entire life. Dr Smith: My understanding is that there's therapeutic development going on in this space. So, the early recognition of these genetic testing offers the promise of very impactful treatment---like we now do for SMA, for instance---early in the disease course. Dr Kessler: I think that's right. That's one of the most exciting parts of this field is that so much, just around the corner, for drug development, therapy development in this area. And as you can imagine, with a lot of these disorders, earlier intervention is likely to be much more impactful than later intervention when a lot of the developmental consequences are sort of… you know, when the cat 's already out of the bag, so to speak. Dr Smith: Yeah. So, this is really transformational and something that everyone who takes care of kids with epilepsy needs to know about, it seems. So on the other extreme, I guess, there are the self-limited epilepsies. I didn't really know about this in terms of genetic discovery, but can you talk about those disorders? Dr Kessler: Yeah, sure. I mean, I think some of these are the classic childhood epilepsy syndromes that we think about like childhood absence epilepsy or what we used to call benign romantic epilepsy and now call self-limited epilepsy of childhood with centrotemporal spikes. It's a mouthful, shortened to SeLECTS. Those are the epilepsies that occur typically in previously healthy children, that affects them for a few years and often remits so that epilepsy is just age-limited and doesn't continue for life. They clearly have genetic influences because they tend to run in families, but the genetics of them is not generally single gene associated. And so, we haven't actually explained why most of those kids actually get epilepsy. I think that'll be sort of another interesting area of discovery that will help us even understand some really fundamental things about epilepsy, like, why does this syndrome start at this age and tend to resolve by adolescence? Dr Smith: And the other thing I found interesting is disorders that I might have thought going into it would have a defined genetic cause or some of the disorders that there are not. So JME, for instance, or childhood absence, which is a little counterintuitive. Dr Kessler: It's completely counterintuitive. We call them genetic generalized epilepsies, and we know that they run in families, but we still know so little. I would say of all of the disorders that are mentioned in this article, that is the group where I think we have explained the genetic underpinnings the least well. Dr Smith: Yeah. Isn't that interesting? It's… wasn't it Yogi Berra who said, it's hard to predict things, particularly the future? So… Dr Kessler: Yes. Dr Smith: Who would have thought? So, we've talked a lot about kids. What about adults? You know, what role does genetic testing play in adults who have unexplained epilepsy? Dr Kessler: Yeah, I think that that is also a really important emerging area of knowledge. I think many epileptologists may think of genetic epilepsy as being solely pediatric. There are definitely not how many of these disorders can manifest for the first time in adulthood. Not only that, many of our children with childhood onset epilepsy that is due to a genetic problem grow up to become adults and will then need adult epilepsy care. In order to take care of both of those groups, it's really important for all epileptologists, including those that take care of adults, to have some knowledge of the potential impact of genetic testing. And how do you even approach thinking about it? Dr Smith: The message I guess I'm getting is if our listeners take care of patients with epilepsy, no matter how old those patients are, they need to be familiar with this. And the other message I'm getting is, it sounds like there are a lot of patients who really need genetic testing. And this came through in one aspect of your article that I found really interesting, right? So, what are the recommendations on genetic testing? So, the National Society of Genetic Counselors, as I understand it, said everyone needs genetic testing, right? Which I mean, they're genetic counselors, so. Which is great. In the International League Against Epilepsy, they recommended a more targeted approach. So, what's your recommendation? Should we be testing anyone with unexplained epilepsy, or should we be focusing on particular populations? Dr Kessler: Well, I guess I think about it as a gradation. There are certain populations that really deserve genetic testing, where it is going to be absolutely critical. You know, it's very likely that it will be critical knowledge to their care. If you diagnose somebody with epilepsy and you do imaging and that imaging does not reveal an answer, meaning you don't see a tumor or you don't see an old stroke or some other sort of acquired lesion, the next pillar of testing for understanding underlying etiology is genetic testing. That is the point at which I typically send my patients, and that's whether they're refractory or not. I think in the past some people felt that only patients with refractory epilepsy deserve or require testing. I think the reason why not to limit it to that population is that what's on a person's mind with epilepsy, or a family's mind with epilepsy, is what's going to happen to my child or to me in the future? And if genetic testing can shed some light on that, that will have a huge impact on that person's life. Dr Smith: You've got great cases in your article, which, I just want to give you a compliment. The information and entertainment, frankly, for per page: off the charts. It's not a long article, packed with useful information. And, I mean, some of your cases are great examples of patients who are heading down the surgical epilepsy path and you discovered, nope, there's a genetic cause that really impacted their care. What's the yield, right? The number of patients that you send genetic testing on for epilepsy, what percentage come back positive for a relevant sequence variant that you think is either causing or contributing to their epilepsy? Dr Kessler: That's a great question. I think that is actually still in flux because it depends on the population of patients that are being sent for testing, obviously, and then also on what testing is being done. So, I know in at least one large recent meta-analysis, the overall yield was 17%. And somebody hearing that number might think, oh, that's not very high, but it's actually very comparable to the yield for imaging. And we all do MRIs and patients that have new-onset epilepsy where the yield of MRI testing is about 20%  or so. So, quite comparable. And then with children with DEEs, the yield is much, much higher than that. Dr Smith: So, 17% is actually a really great diagnostic yield. When I think of my yield and doing genetic testing on patients who have an axonal CMT phenotype, right? I mean that's better than what I get. So, good for you. That's exciting. Dr Kessler: It's interesting. I think that maybe an assumption might be that you're working somebody up. You do a genetic test, it reveals a difference, and thus surgery is off the table. It's actually quite different than the head, which is that some results may make surgery be even more “on the table” because you might find a gene that is known to be associated with a propensity to vocal cortical dysplasia, for example. And you may take a good second look at that person's MRI imaging or do other imaging to reveal the MRI invisible vocal cortical dysplasia. Dr Smith: Outstanding point. Let's talk a little more about the genetic testing itself. So, we've got all these genes. We understand when to test. What do you do? For instance, last night I just looked at the company that we use for most of our neuromuscular testing and they have a genetic epilepsy next gen panel with, I don't know, three hundred and twenty genes, right? Do you use that kind of panel? Do you go directly to a whole EXO? What's the right approach? Dr Kessler: Yeah, I think that that is quite dynamic right now, meaning that recommendations seem to change often enough that I rely on help. I have the enormous good luck of working here at CHOP where there is a fantastic epilepsy genetics group that I can easily refer to, and I know not everyone has that resource. The current recommendation is to start with an exome if that is available and is covered by that patient's insurance. When exome is not available, then the next best thing is a gene panel. You know, in recent years there have been a lot of sponsored gene panels, meaning free to the patient, administered by a company that then, you know, has other uses for compiled or grouped genetic data. And I think that as long as all of that can be clearly explained to a patient, and- along with all of the other things so you have to explain to a patient before doing genetic testing, about the pluses and minuses of doing it, I think that you sort of go for the best test you can that's available to that patient. Dr Smith: The sponsored programs can be very, very helpful, particularly from a payer or a patient payment perspective. And so, I guess the lesson there is it's great if you got the resources and CHOP to help you decide, but better to get whatever panel you can get than to do nothing; or, of course, refer to a center if you're not comfortable. Dr Kessler: And also, just know that these things change often enough that if it's been a couple of years and you might want to recheck whether the EXO is available to that patient or whether a gene panel can be sent that includes more than they had eight years ago. Dr Smith: So, are there situations to go to the other extreme where you just do targeted sanger sequencing? Like, just sequence the specific gene of interest?  Dr Kessler: Yeah, absolutely. I'm still a big proponent of thinking clinically about a patient. If there are clues in that patient's history, exam, imaging, anything that gives you some sense of the disorder that this patient might have. And I think a classic example would be tuberous sclerosis. If you see an infant who has new onset spasms, you see hypopigmented macules on their skin and their MRI shows a tuber, you know, also known as a focal cortical dysplasia, then sure, send the targeted sequencing for the TSC1 and TSC2 genes. Dr Smith: And Rett syndrome?  Dr Kessler: And Rett syndrome would be another example. And there are many examples where, if you feel like you have a good sense of what the disorder is, I think it's completely acceptable to send the targeted testing.  Dr Smith: So, I'm going to get further down the rabbit hole and get to from easier to harder. I always get confused about things like chromosomal microarrays or, like, karyotypes and rings and stuff like that. What role do these tests play and what do our listeners need to know about them? Dr Kessler: Yeah, I think that it is really important to have at least some knowledge of what each test can't tell you. I tell my medical students at my residence that all the time. With anything in medicine, you should know what you're asking of a test and what answers a test can tell you and can't tell you. It is baseline knowledge before requesting anything. And if you don't know, then it's best to ask. So, chromosomal microarray is used when you think that there is a large-scale derangement in a bunch of genes, meaning there is a whole section of a chromosome missing---that would be deletion, or that that information is duplicated or is turned around in a, you know, in a translocation. That is what- the kinds of things that that test can tell you. I think of doing a microarray when a child has not just epilepsy and intellectual disability, but also has, for example, other organ systems involved, because sections of chromosome can include many, many, many different genes and it can affect the body in larger ways. That's often when I think about that. So, a child with multiple congenital anomalies. Karyotype, which we think of as the most old-fashioned way of looking at our genes, still has some utility because it is useful for looking at a specific situation where the ends of arm of a chromosome get cut off and get sticky and then stick to each other and make a ring. For example, ring chromosome 20 is a disorder which can cause epilepsy, particularly hard-to-treat frontal lobe epilepsy, and that sometimes doesn't show up until adolescence or even early adulthood. That's just one example of something that karyotype can tell you.  Dr Smith: And it goes without saying, but just to emphasize, these are things that you would miss completely on a next generation panel or a next genome? Dr Kessler: That's correct. Because this isn't about sequencing. This is about large structures. You know, with my patients, it's sometimes, I think, very hard to explain. It's hard enough to explain it to other physicians who aren't in genetics, but it's a whole other undertaking to explain it to families who may not have a lot of literacy about cell biology or genetics or, you know, anything related to that. So, I often rely on analogies. And one analogy I use is that if you're- all of your genetic information is like a book, that book is split into chapters and those are the chromosomes. And you can be missing entire paragraphs or have paragraphs duplicated. And that would be the kind of thing that we would be looking for with the chromosomal microarray with sequencing or, you know, with sequencing, we're looking for spelling of words, and we can look at one word at a time. That would be targeted sequencing. Or we can look at many, many words at a time. And that would be next gen sequencing.  Dr Smith: I just want to say that you are the genetic whisperer. You know, translator. I love it.  Dr Kessler: You can continue using it down to the level of explaining the possibility of a variant of unknown significance, which I think is sometimes difficult to explain. So, I often will say, I know how the word color is spelled: C O L O R. But sometimes in other places it will be spelled C O L O U R and that's still the same word, that's still color. That's just what we would call a population variant. If it is spelled C O M O R, that changes meaning; that is not a word, and that is probably a pathogenic variant. But if it gets misspelled and it's K O L O R, then I'm not sure. Could that be a variant that means something different or not. And so that I would call that a variant of unknown significance, meaning its impact is to be determined. Dr Smith: So, I was going to ask you about variant calling, but you'd beat me to the punch. And that's a great metaphor that I will definitely remember. All right, here's another concept that I think people often find challenging, which is read depth. Can you tell us about reading depth or sequence depth?  Dr Kessler: Yes, hopefully I can. Again, not an expert here, but as I understand it, the way next gen sequencing works is that pieces of DNA are getting read. And the number of times any given nucleotide is read in this process is the read depth. It basically just translates to the number of times the processor, the machinery of doing this, pays attention to anyone site. The reason it's important is that the process by which this reading is done can sometimes result in errors. The greater your depth, the more times something is read, the less likely you are to have a mistake.  Dr Smith: In either direction. So, you're presumably less likely to have a false positive or false negative. Yep, again, very well explained. You know, I've got a lot of other questions I want to ask you, but I do want to be respectful of our listeners' time. I wonder if we could pivot a little bit and just let's go back to where we began. Really exciting time, right? Amazing. And you've been doing this long enough. I'm sure you didn't think when you started that it was going to look like this. What does the future look like? I mean, we talked a little bit about therapeutics, but the world's changing fast. Five, ten years from now, what's your hope for that?  Dr Kessler: Oh, that's such a great question. You know, we are at the point with genetic epilepsies that gene-based therapies, either antisense oligonucleotide-based therapies or viral vector-based gene therapies, are actually now being developed and administered in trial situations to actual patients. And so, it always feels like we're on the cusp, but I think actually now we really are on the cusp of having gene-based therapies for genetic epilepsies. I think that there is still so much to sort out, both from basic scientific point and from a practical administering these things to patients and what are the potential long term consequences.For example, unlike medications, which are therapies that you can stop if there are adverse effects, often administering a gene therapy is a one-and-done thing that can't be retracted. Thinking even about the ethical framework of that and the framework of explaining to patients that we don't know the ten, twenty-year consequences of that, is part of the informed consent process, for example. So, there's still so much work that is going to be transformational, not just from the, you know, the big picture, but from developing all, you know, from going through all of these steps to really make these kinds of therapies a reality. Dr Smith: Well, it's really amazing. And, you know, we're seeing this in multiple different areas in neurology. So, well done. You run the child neurology residency program there, I understand. I try to snoop on people before I talk to them because we haven't met before this. And you're obviously a very a very good educator. Thank you so much for talking with me today. I don't spend a lot of time in epilepsy, but every time I do one of these, I kind of want to go back and do something different because it's such a neat field. Thank you.  Dr Kessler: You're welcome. It was my pleasure.  Dr Smith: Again, today I've been interviewing Dr Sudha Kessler about her article on epilepsy genetics, which is truly outstanding. This article 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, 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.

Neuroimaging is a tool to classify and ascertain the etiology of epilepsy in people with first or recurrent unprovoked seizures. In addition, imaging may help predict the response to treatment. To maximize diagnostic power, it is essential to order the correct imaging sequences. In this episode, Aaron Berkowitz, MD, PhD, FAAN speaks with Christopher T. Skidmore, MD, author of the article “Neuroimaging in Epilepsy,” in the Continuum February 2025 Epilepsy issue. Dr. Berkowitz is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and professor of clinical neurology at the University of California, San Francisco Dr. Skidmore is  an associate professor of neurology and vice-chair for clinical affairs at Thomas Jefferson University, Department of Neurology in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Additional Resources Read the article: Neuroimaging 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: @AaronLBerkowitz Guest: @ctskidmore  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 Berkowitz: This is Dr Aaron Berkowitz, and today I'm interviewing Dr Christopher Skidmore about his article on neuroimaging in epilepsy, which appears in the February 2025 Continuum issue on epilepsy. Welcome to the podcast, Dr Skidmore. Would you please introduce yourself to our audience?  Dr Skidmore: Thank you for having me today. I'm happy to talk to you, Dr Berkowitz. My name is Christopher Skidmore. I'm an associate professor of neurology at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia. I'm a member of the Jefferson Comprehensive Epilepsy Center and also serve as the vice chair of clinical affairs for the department.  Dr Berkowitz: Thank you very much for joining us and for this fantastic article. It's very comprehensive, detailed, a very helpful review of the various types of brain pathology that can lead to epilepsy with very helpful images and descriptions of some of the more common findings like mesial temporal sclerosis and some of the less common ones such as cortical malformations, heterotopia, ganglioglioma, DNET. So, I encourage all of our listeners to read your article and take a close look at those images. So, hopefully you can recognize some of these findings on patients' neuroimaging studies, or if you're studying for the right or the boards, you can recognize some of these less common congenital malformations that can present in childhood or adulthood with epilepsy. In our interview today, what I'd like to do is focus on some practical tips to approaching, ordering, and reviewing different neuroimaging studies in patients with epilepsy. So to start, what's your approach when you're reviewing an MRI for a patient with a first seizure or epilepsy? What sequence do you begin with and why, how do you proceed through the different sequences and planes? What exactly are you looking for?  Dr Skidmore: It's an important question. And I think to even take a step back, I think it's really important, when we're ordering the MRI, we really need to be specific and make sure that we're mentioning the words seizures and epilepsy because many radiology centers and many medical centers have different imaging protocols for seizure and epilepsy patients as compared to, like, a stroke patient or a brain tumor patient. I think first off, we really need to make sure that's in the order, so that way the radiologist can properly protocol it. Once I get an image, though, I treat an MRI just like I would a CAT scan approach with any patient, which is to always approach it in the same fashion. So, top down, if I'm looking at an axial image. If I'm looking at a coronal image, I might start at the front of the head and go to the back of the head. And I think taking that very organized approach and looking at the whole brain in total first and looking across the flare image, a T2-weighted image and a T1-weighted image in those different planes, I think it's important to look for as many lesions as you can find. And then using your clinical history. I mean, that's the value of being a neurologist, is that we have the clinical history, we have the neurological exam, we have the history of the seizure semiology that can might tell us, hey, this might be a temporal lobe seizure or hey, I'm thinking about a frontal lobe abnormality. And then that's the advantage that we often have over the radiologist that we can then take that history, that exam, and apply it to the imaging study that we're looking at and then really focus in on those areas. But I think it's important, and as I've illustrated in a few of the cases in the chapter, is that don't just focus on that one spot. You really still need to look at the whole brain to see if there's any other abnormalities as well. Dr Berkowitz: Great, that's a very helpful approach. Lots of pearls there for how to look at the imaging in different planes with different sequences, comparing different structures to each other. Correspondent reminder, listeners, to look at your paper. That's certainly a case where a picture is worth a thousand words, isn't it, where we can describe these. But looking at some of the examples in your paper, I think, will be very helpful as well. So, you mentioned mentioning to the neuroradiologist that we're looking for a cause of seizures or epilepsy and epilepsy protocols or MRI. What is sort of the nature of those protocols if there's not a quote unquote “ready-made” one at someone 's center in their practice or in their local MRI center? What types of things can be communicated to the radiologist as far as particular sequences or types of images that are helpful in this scenario? Dr Skidmore: I spent a fair amount of time in the article going over the specific MRI protocol that was designed by the International League Against Epilepsy. But what I look for in an epilepsy protocol is a high-resolution T2 coronal, a T2 flare weighted image that really traverses the entire temporal lobe from the temporal tip all the way back to the most posterior aspects of the temporal lobe, kind of extending into the occipital lobe a little bit. I also want to see a high resolution. In our center, it's usually a T1 coronal image that images the entire brain with a very, very thin slice, and usually around two millimeters with no gaps. As many of our neurology colleagues are aware, when you get a standard MRI of the brain for a stroke or a brain tumor, you're going to have a relatively thick slice, anywhere from five to eight millimeters, and you're actually typically going to have a gap that's about comparable, five to eight millimeters. That works well for large lesions, strokes, and big brain tumors, but for some of the tiny lesions that we're talking about that can cause intractable epilepsy, you can have a focal cortical dysplasia that's literally eight- under eight millimeters in size. And so, making sure you have that nice T1-weighted image, very thin slices with no gaps, I think is critical to make sure we don't miss these more subtle abnormalities. Dr Berkowitz: Some of the entities you describe in your paper may be subtle and more familiar to pediatric neurologists or specialized pediatric neuroradiologists. It may be more challenging for adult neurologists and adult neuradiologists to recognize, such as some of the various congenital brain malformations that you mentioned. What's your approach to looking for these? Which sequences do you focus on, which planes? How do you use the patient 's clinical history and EEG findings to guide your review of the imaging? Dr Skidmore: It's very important, and the reason we're always looking for a lesion---especially in patients that we're thinking about epilepsy surgery---is because we know if there is a lesion, it increases the likelihood that epilepsy surgery is going to be successful. The approach is basically, as I mentioned a little bit before, is take all the information you have available to you. Is the seizure semiology, is it a hyper motor semiology or hyperkinetic semiology suggestive of frontal lobe epilepsy? Or is it a classic abdominal rising aura with automatisms, whether they be manual or oral automatisms, suggesting mesial temporal lobe epilepsy? And so, take that clinical history that you have to help start to hone your eye into those individual locations. But then, once you're kind of looking in these nonlesional cases, you're also then looking at the EEG and where their temporal lobe spikes, where their frontal lobe spikes, you know, using that and pulling that information in. If they saw a neuropsychologist pulling in the information in from the neuropsychological evaluation; if they have severe reductions in verbal memory, you know, focusing on the dominant temporal lobe. So, in a right-handed individual, typically the left temporal lobe. And kind of then really spending a lot of time going slice at a time, very slowly, because in some of these vocal-cortical dysplasias it can be just the blurring of the gray-white margin. What I find easiest is to identify that gray-white margin and almost track it. Like, you use the mouse to kind of track it around and say, can I outline the exact border of the gray white margin in the frontal lobe that I'm interested in or the temporal lobe that I'm interested in, kind of looking for those subtle abnormalities. Often as neurologists, we don't have the luxury of being able to immediately reformat. As I mentioned, our T1 volume acquisition study is done in the coronal plane, but sometimes you might want it in the axial plane. And so, I might reach out to the radiologist and say, hey, can you reformat this in the axial plane because I'm interested in the frontal lobe epilepsy and it's a little bit better at looking at it in that plane? And I'll have them reformat and put it back on the pack so I can look at it in that manner. And so that's a, kind of another strategy is to take what you have, but also then go back to the radiologist and say, I need to look at it this a different way. Can you reformat it for me? Looking for that gray-white matter junction is the nice way to pick up for kind of subtle cortical dysplasias. And then when you see an abnormality, to be able to put the T1, the T2, and the flare image all up next to each other and use the technology built into most of our browsers to put on what's called the localizer mode, where I can highlight a specific spot that I'm seeing on the T1 and then very easily quickly see, what does it look like on the T2? What does it look like on the flare? To kind of quickly decide, is it a true abnormality or am I only seeing it on one slice because of an artifact on that one imaging sequence? And I think that's the biggest kind of key is to make sure, is it an artifact or is it not an artifact? That's kind of the most common thing that we, I think, get confused with.  Dr Berkowitz: So, some very helpful pearls there in terms of reviewing the imaging, being in dialogue with our neuroradiology colleagues to think about potentially reacquiring certain images on certain planes or looking at the images with our neuroradiology colleagues to let them know more about the clinical history and where we're sort of zooming in about possible abnormalities.  Dr Skidmore: I would just add in there that when looking at especially the mesial temporal structures, because of a lot of artifacts that can be present in an individual MRI machine, it's not uncommon that the mesial temporal structure will appear brighter because of an MRI magnet artifact. And so, it's a good key to look at the hippocampus compared to the insula. And so, the hippocampus and the insula should have similar signal characteristics. You're seeing the hippocampus is bright, but the insula  ipsilateral to it's normal intensity. That would suggest that that's probably a true hyperintensity on the flare-weighted image as opposed to if both are bright, unless you're suspecting a hemispheric abnormality, it's more likely to be a kind of artifact in the MRI machine. Dr Berkowitz: Okay. Those are really helpful tips, not just to analyze the hippocampus and medial temporal lobe itself---let's remember our anatomy and the circuit of Papez---and to look at associated structures for supporting evidence of a possible abnormality in the hippocampus itself. It looks like there may be something subtle. We can use some additional information from the image to try to decide if that is real or artifactual, and of course correlating with the clinical picture and EEG. I'd like to talk briefly now about some other imaging modalities that you discuss in your paper, the use of functional imaging such as PET, SPECT and fMRI. Let's talk a bit about each of these. When would you order a PET scan for a patient with epilepsy? What would you be looking for and how would you be using that to make clinical decisions?  Dr Skidmore: Yeah, so these functional imaging modalities are really utilized when we're evaluating somebody that's not responding to medications. So, they're medically intractable, and we're wondering, could they be a candidate for epilepsy surgery? And so, most of these imaging modalities are really relegated to the world of epileptologists at surgical epilepsy centers. I wanted to include them, though, in the article because I do think it's important for general neurologists to understand kind of what they are, because invariably a patient sees me and then they go back to their general neurology and be like, hey, Doctor Skidmore said I had this PET scan abnormality. What do you think? So, I think it's a good idea for general neurologists to kind of understand them. So, probably the oldest that we've utilized is the FDG PET scan, basically looking at fluorodeoxyglucose and the brain's utilization of glucose. As we all remember, again, glucose is the primary molecule for energy and ATP production in the brain. And so basically, by injecting radioactive glucose in the interictal state--- so not during a seizure but in between seizures---areas of the brain that are not taking up the radiotracer will show as being hypometabolic. So, low metabolism. And hypometabolic regions in the interictal state have been associated with onset regions for epileptic seizures. Let's say you have a patient clinical history, you think they have temporal of epilepsy, EEG suggests temporal of epilepsy, but the MRI is nonlesional, meaning there's no abnormality that anybody could appreciate even at a 3 Tesla scanner. We'll get an FDG PET scan and see, is there hypo metabolism in that temporal lobe of interest? And if there is, well, that's been shown through several published papers, that's just as valuable as having an abnormality on the MRI. And so, we often again use these PET scans, especially in nonlesional cases, to try to find that subtle cortical dysplasia. Now you have your nice epilepsy protocol MRI, it says it's nonlesional. You get your PET scan, it shows hypometabolism in a region of the frontal lobe, let's say, in a in a frontal lobe epilepsy case. And then often we go back, we kind of talked about strategy of how you find those subtle lesions. Then you go back and say, well, look, this gyrus specifically on the PET scan said it's abnormal. You end up looking for really subtle, very tiny abnormalities that, even with somebody that's skilled, often at first review gets missed. So, that's how we use the PET scan. The SPECT scan is done typically in the ictal state. So, now somebody's in an epilepsy monitoring unit often, where you're injecting radio tracer at the exact moment that somebody starts having a seizure. And we know when there's increased seizure activity, the increased seizure activity---let's say it's from my right temporal lobe---is going to increase cerebral blood flow transiently to the right temporal lobe. And then if that seizure discharge spreads from the right temporal lobe maybe to the entire right hemisphere and eventually becomes a focal to bilateral tonic chronic seizure by spreading to the other side, the entire brain is going to be hypoperfused at that point. So, if you want to, as soon as the seizure starts, inject that radio tracer to see, where is the blood flow earliest in the seizure? And then we might do an interictal SPECT when you're not having a seizure. Look at, all right, what's the normal blood flow when somebody's not seizing? What's it like when they're having a seizure? And then the area that has increased activity would- might suggest that's where the seizure started from. But we have to be very careful because again, some seizures can spread very rapidly. So, if you delay injecting an injection ten, fifteen, twenty seconds, the seizure could have already propagated to another region of the brain, giving you a false positive in another location. So, you have to be very careful about that modality. I think what's most exciting is the functional MRI because the functional MRI, for many, many centers, is replacing a very old technique called the WADA test. So, in the WADA test, typically you place a catheter angiogram into the internal carotid artery and transiently introduce a sedative medication to put, let's say, the left hemisphere to sleep because you wanted to see what functions were still active in the right hemisphere. And then the surgeon would move the catheter or the right internal carotid artery, and you inject a sedative on that side after the left hemisphere is recovered and see what the left hemisphere can do. And we used that for language dominance, we used that for memory dominance. And while most individuals did fine with angiograms, unfortunately complications do occur and there's injury to the artery, there could be strokes that can- that have happened, which can be quite devastating for the patient. And so, functional MRI is a nice, noninvasive way for us to map out language function, motor function, sensory function, visual function, and is starting to show some usefulness also for mapping out kind of memory function, dominant memory function, meaning verbal memory compared to visual memory. To be able to do those things noninvasively becomes really important because, if we're talking about epilepsy surgery, we want to make you seizure-free but neurologically intact. And so, we need to understand the relationship between where we think the seizures are coming from and where eloquent cortex is so we can properly counsel you and avoid those regions during any planned surgery. Those are the three most common functional imaging modalities that we're using now to supplement the rest of the presurgical work.  Dr Berkowitz: Very helpful. So, these are studies, PET, SPECT, and fMRI, that would really be obtained predominantly in patients in whom epilepsy surgery was being considered to have more precise lesion localization, as well as with the fMRI to get a better sense of how to provide the safest maximal resection of epileptogenic tissue while preserving functions. Dr Skidmore: That's a perfect summary.  Dr Berkowitz: Fantastic. This has been a really helpful interview with Dr Skidmore and a really fantastic article. As I said, a picture is worth a thousand words, so I definitely encourage you to read the article and look at the images of some of the conditions we've been talking about and some of these findings that can be seen on interictal PET or ictal SPECT to get a sense of the visual aspects of what we've been discussing. So again, today I've been interviewing Dr Christopher Skidmore about his article on neuroimaging and 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 so much to our listeners for joining us today.  Dr Skidmore: Thank you for having me. 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.

EEG is the single most useful ancillary test to support the clinical diagnosis of epilepsy, but if used incorrectly it can lead to misdiagnosis and long-term mental and physical health sequelae. Its application requires proper understanding of its limitations and variability of testing results. In this episode, Katie Grouse, MD, FAAN, speaks with Daniel Weber, DO, author of the article “EEG in Epilepsy,” in the Continuum® February 2025 Epilepsy issue. Dr. Grouse is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a clinical assistant professor at the University of California San Francisco in San Francisco, California. Dr. Weber is the director of adult epilepsy and vice chair of clinical affairs at the St. Louis University in St. Louis, Missouri. Additional Resources Read the article: EEG 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 Guest: @drdanielweber 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 Grouse: This is Dr Katie Grouse. Today, I'm interviewing Dr Daniel Weber about his article on EEG and epilepsy, which appears in the February 2025 Continuum issue on epilepsy. Welcome to the podcast and please introduce yourself to our audience. Dr Weber: Hi, thanks for having me. My name is Dan Weber and I'm an epileptologist at Saint Louis University. I direct the adult epilepsy program here and also serve as the vice chair for Clinical Affairs. Been my pleasure to work on this article. Dr Grouse: I'm so happy to have you today. I read your article. I found it to be incredibly useful as someone who often orders EEG in the general neurology clinic. So, I wanted to start with asking, what is the most clinically relevant message or takeaway from your article that you'd really like neurologists to know?  Dr Weber: Yes, when I was asked to write this article, I looked back at the previous Continuum on epilepsy and just the general literature. And there's a lot of good articles and books out there on EEG and epilepsy and sort of giving you a primer on what you might see and how to interpret it. So, we wanted to try to go a slightly different direction. This article gives you some of that gives you the background of EEG and some of the basic things that you may see, but the real thrust of it is more about the limitations of EEG in the clinical picture of epilepsy and common things you might avoid. There are some things that we get hammered into our brains in training that aren't always true and there's plenty of examples in the literature to review, and this article sort of tries to encapsulate as many of those as possible in a digestible format. The main takeaway would be that EEG is an extremely helpful tool in the diagnosis of epilepsy, is the best tool we have to help supplement your clinical acumen. But it does not make the diagnosis of epilepsy. And there are certain circumstances when it may not be as helpful as you may have been led to believe in residency. Dr Grouse: Maybe not the most comforting of messages, but certainly an important one, very important to learn more about this. So, we appreciate that. Can you tell us your decision-making process when deciding whether to order a routine EEG, an extended EEG, prolonged ambulatory EEG, or inpatient video EEG? Dr Weber: Sure. So, it's a multi-part question because each one, I think, has a different clinical scenario. In the current state, our best data for estimating risk of recurrence after an initial seizure comes with routine EEG abnormalities. So, often I will order routine EEGs in those scenarios. So new patient presentation, new patients coming in with an initial seizure who want to know what's their risk of recurrence. So, risk stratification, I use a lot of routine EEG for, often sleep deprived if possible to increase the sensitivity. If you'd like, the extended EEG does offer higher sensitivity, or you can repeat the routine EEG if the first routine EEG is nonconclusive. For generally extended EEGs, I tend to order them in my practice if patients have come to see me with a suspected diagnosis of epilepsy but haven't yet had any electrographic confirmation. Maybe they've already had routine EEGs done in the past, so we'll try to obtain just a little more data. The longer-term EEGs I tend to use in different clinical scenarios, in patients usually who already have established diagnosis or people who have become refractory and we haven't yet confirmed their diagnosis. I tend to do inpatient EEGs in those situations. Ambulatory EEGs I do more when there are certain characteristics of the patient or the patient 's presentation that may not fit well on the inpatient side. Patients who are reliant on substances who can't use while they're inpatient and may have withdrawal effects complicating the stay. Or people who have a strong activation component to their epilepsy where activity really draws it out, certain activities that they do at home that they might not do during the inpatient stay. Those are the sorts of people I'll do ambulatory EEGs on. There are a couple other scenarios as well that come up less commonly, but everything has its own little niche. Dr Grouse: That's a really helpful review as we sort of think about which way we want to go as we're working up our patients in the inventory setting. Can you tell me a little more about the difference between sensitivity of, for instance, doing maybe two routine EEGS versus prolonged ambulatory EEG? Dr Weber: Generally speaking, the longer you're recording someone's brain waves, the higher the sensitivity is going to be. So routine EEG is twenty to forty minutes at most places. One of those gives you a certain sensitivity. More of them will give you more sensitivity. And there was a recent study highlighted in the article that compared routine EEGs to initial multi-day ambulatory EEG, and the ambulatory EEG obviously, as would be expected, has a higher sensitivity than either of the routines. So, there may be some cases with that initial evaluation where an ambulatory EEG may be held and we get into that in more detail in the article. But with the caveat, a lot of this article is about limitations, and the data that we have to talk about increased risk of recurrence was based off seeing epileptic form discharges on routine EEG. So you could hypothesize that if you only have one epileptic form discharge in three days on an ambulatory EEG, that may not carry the same recurrent significance as catching one on a twenty minute EEG. But we don't have that knowledge. Dr Grouse: Getting a little bit more into what you mentioned about the limitations, when is the scalp EEG less useful or limited in the evaluation of epilepsy? Dr Weber: So, one thing I see a lot in my residence at here and other places where I've worked is, I get them very excited about EEG and they may order it a bit too much. So, if patients have a known, established diagnosis of epilepsy, electrographically confirmed, and they come in with a breakthrough seizure and they're back to their baseline, there's really not a strong reason to get an EEG. We often seem to in the emergency department as part of our evaluation, but we already know what happened to the patient. The patient's not doing poorly right now, so the EEG is not going to give you any additional information. Just like really any test, you should think, what are the possible outcomes of this test and how would those outcomes alter the care of this patient? And if no outcome is going to affect the care of the patient or give you any additional diagnostic information, then probably don't need to be doing that test. Dr Grouse: This is probably a good segue into asking, what is an area of confusion or common pitfalls that you've seen in the clinical application of EEG and epilepsy? Dr Weber: So, a lot of times on the inpatient service, we'll get longer-term EEGs for patients who are having spells that are occurrent while they're in the ICU or other places or altered in some way, encephalopathic. And these patients will have their spell, and in my report, I'll say that there is not any electrographic correlate. So, there's no EEG finding that goes along with the movement that they're doing that's concerning for a seizure. And that doesn't always mean that it's not an epileptic seizure. An EEG is not a one-hundred-percent tool. Epilepsy and seizures are a clinical diagnosis. The EEG is a helpful tool to guide that diagnosis, but it is not foolproof, so you need to take the whole clinical picture into account. Particularly focal seizures without impaired awareness often can be electrographically silent on surface EEG. If you see something that looks clinically like a seizure but doesn't show up on the EEG, there are circumstances that they get to in the paper a little bit where that can still be an epileptic seizure. And you just have to be aware of the limitations of the tests that you're ordering and always fall back on the clinical skills that you've learned. Dr Grouse: Are there any tips or tricks you can suggest to improve the clinical utility of EEG for diagnosis of epilepsy? And also thinking about the example you just gave, but maybe other cases as well? Dr Weber: Again, definitely need to incorporate EEG as part of a larger picture. The video component of EEG is incredibly helpful. You can't interpret EEG in isolation. Regardless of what the EEG shows, you can't make a diagnosis of epilepsy, but you certainly can be very suspicious of one. So, in those cases where you have a high suspicion for an epileptic seizure and the EEG has not given you any confirmatory evidence, it's really helpful to rely on any clinical expertise that you have access to. So, people who have seen lots of seizures may be helpful in that situation. Getting good recordings, good data to prove yourself one way or the other is helpful and continuing to evaluate. So usually, as I said, focal seizures that don't show up well on the EEG. People who have focal seizures will often have larger seizures if left untreated. So, you can try to admit them to an epilepsy monitoring unit where we try to provoke seizures and try to provoke a larger seizure to help confirm that diagnosis. Dr Grouse: This kind of gets into what we've already reviewed to some degree, but what is the easiest mistake to make (and hopefully avoid) when using EEG to diagnose epilepsy or make other treatment decisions? Dr Weber: I think the easiest, most common mistake I see is overreliance on the test. There's a lot of subjectivity to the interpretation of this test. There are a lot of studies out there on interrater reliability for epilepsy and intrarater reliability for epilepsy. We continue to try to make the findings more objective and get more quantified. The articles talk about our six criteria for epileptiform discharges and have reference to where that came from and the sorts of specificity that each of those criteria lead to. Just because an EEG report has said something, that does not diagnose or negate a clinical diagnosis of epilepsy. It is common for folks with non-epileptic seizures to have a history of reported epileptic form discharges on their EEG. Again, because there is some subjectivity to the test, some abnormal-looking normal variants will pop up and get interpreted as epileptiform discharges. It's important to review the whole patient, as much of the data as you can, and make the best clinical judgment you can of the overall case. Dr Grouse: What is quantitative EEG and how can it be clinically useful? Dr Weber: Now that most EEG is obtained digitally through the use of computer software, we have been able to employ computers to do a lot of the work for us. There are many different ways of looking at the EEG data, but it's all frequency bands over time. The quantitative EEG goal is really to simplify and condense what you're seeing on your normal EEG page into a more digestible format. Lets you look at a larger amount of data faster, which becomes more and more important as we're doing more of these long-term recordings, particularly in the intensive care unit. Quantitative EEG can help you assess a lot of data at a snapshot and get a general sense of what's going on with the patient over the past several hours. It does require some extra training to become familiar with it, but it's training that can be done at all levels. Again, it can help you see more, faster. Obviously, like everything, it has its own limitations. Sometimes the sensitivity and specificity may be a little off from the raw data review, and you should always go back to the raw data anytime there are questions. But it can be helpful to make things faster. Dr Grouse: Do you think you could give me a hypothetical example of a case where this would be something really nice to have?  Dr Weber: The most common example is folks with repetitive seizures in the ICU. If you're just looking at the raw data, you will get a sense of how often the seizures are happening. But if you look at the quantitative data, it sort of compresses that all down to a much smaller snapshot. So you can see much more readily, yes, these are how many seizures were happening. And here's where we gave our intervention; and look, there are fewer seizures after that intervention. So, it can help you assess response to treatment, help you assess just overall volume of seizures in a much more condensed fashion, and you can get through it much faster with the appropriate training. Dr Grouse: Can you tell us about any new developments in EEG that are on the horizon we should be aware of?  Dr Weber: Yeah. So, I think my two favorites, which I highlight in the article, are longer-term recordings---so, there's some companies that are working on subcutaneous EEG. So, implanted EEG electrodes that can stay in your body for the short, long term on the order of year or years and constantly send some EEG data. Obviously, it's not a full montage in most of those cases, but some EEG data that can help you assess long-term trends in epilepsy and long-term response to therapies. I think that's going to be really cool. I think it's very exciting and I think it'll change how we do clinical trials in the future. I think we'll be able to rely less on seizure diaries from folks and more on objective seizure data for patients who have these implanted. But with that will come an ever-increasing amount of data to be reviewed, which leads into the other exciting future trend is AI in the use of interpretations. AI is becoming more and more advanced and there are very exciting articles out on how good AI is getting at interpreting our EEGs. I think soon, in the very near future, the AI platforms will be able to dramatically reduce the amount of time it takes the experts to review an EEG. They'll be able to do a lot of the screening for us and then we can go back, just like I was talking about the quantitative EEG, go back and review segments of the raw data rather than having to review every page of every file, which is quite time consuming. Dr Grouse: Wow, that's really exciting. It certainly does seem like AI is making breakthroughs in just about every area of how we touch the practice of medicine. Exciting to hear that EEG is no exception. Dr Weber: Yeah, I'm fully excited. I think it's going to revolutionize what we're doing and also just greatly expand people's ability to access that level of expertise that the AI will offer. Dr Grouse: I wanted to transition to talking a little bit more about you and your career in neurology. How did you become interested in this area of neurology to begin with? Dr Weber: Yeah, it's sort of a roundabout fashion. So, I started out planning to be a neurointerventionalist, and then I realized that I didn't want that sort of call. For a hot minute in my PGI 3 year. I was planning to be a neuro-ICU doctor. I think that's largely because medicine is all I had been exposed to at that point and the ICU seemed like a very comfortable place. Then as I transitioned into PGI 3 we started doing more electives and outpatient rotations in my residency. And then I was planning on being a movement disorder specialist or an epileptologist, couldn't make up my mind for the longest time. And then I started to like EEG more than I liked watching videos. So, tilted myself towards epilepsy and haven't looked back.  Dr Grouse: Well, I really appreciated you coming to talk with us today about your article. I can't recommend it enough to anyone out there, whoever treats patients with epilepsy or orders the EEGs, I just think it was just incredibly useful. And it was such a pleasure to have you. Dr Weber: Thank you very much for having me, Katie.  Dr Grouse: Again, today I've been interviewing Dr Daniel Weber about his article on EEG and 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.  

Epilepsy classification systems have evolved over the years, with improved categorization of seizure types and adoption of more widely accepted terminologies. A systematic approach to the classification of seizures and epilepsy is essential for the selection of appropriate diagnostic tests and treatment strategies. In this episode, Aaron Berkowitz, MD, FAAN, speaks with Roohi Katyal, MD, author of the article “Classification and Diagnosis of Epilepsy,” in the Continuum February 2025 Epilepsy issue. Dr. Berkowitz is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a professor of neurology at the University of California San Francisco in the Department of Neurology and a neurohospitalist, general neurologist, and clinician educator at the San Francisco VA Medical Center at the San Francisco General Hospital in San Francisco, California. Dr. Katyal is an assistant professor of neurology and codirector of adult epilepsy at Louisiana State University Health Shreveport in Shreveport, Louisiana. Additional Resources Read the article: Classification and Diagnosis of 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: @AaronLBerkowitz Guest: @RoohiKatyal 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 Berkowitz: This is Dr Aaron Berkowitz, and today I'm interviewing Dr Roohi Katyal about her article on classification and diagnosis of epilepsy, which appears in the February 2025 Continuum issue on epilepsy. Welcome to the podcast, Dr Katyal, and could you please introduce yourself to our audience? Dr Katyal: Thank you for having me. I'm very excited to be here. I'm Dr Roohi Katyal. I currently work as Assistant Professor of Neurology at LSU Health Shreveport. Here I also direct our adult epilepsy division at LSU Health along with my colleague, Dr Hotait.  Dr Berkowitz: Fantastic. Well, happy to have you here. Your article is comprehensive, it's practical, and it focused on explaining the most recent International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) classification of epilepsy and importantly, how to apply it to provide patients with a precise diagnosis of epilepsy and the particular subtype of epilepsy to guide the patient's treatment. There are so many helpful tables and figures that demonstrate all of the concepts and how to apply them at the bedside. So, I encourage our listeners to have a look at your article, even consider maybe screenshotting some of these helpful tables onto their phone or printing them out for handy reference at the bedside and when teaching residents. Your article begins with the current definition of epilepsy. So, I want to ask you about that definition and make sure we're on the same page and understand what it is and what it means, and then talk through a sort of hypothetical patient scenario with you to see how we might apply these in clinical practice. You talked about, in your article, how the new definition of epilepsy from the ILAE allows for the diagnosis of epilepsy in three different scenarios. So, could you tell us what these scenarios are? Dr Katyal: So, epilepsy in general is a chronic condition where there is a recurrent predisposition to having seizures. As you mentioned, epilepsy can be diagnosed in one of three situations. One situation would be where an individual has had two or more unprovoked seizures separated by more than 24 hours. The second situation would be where somebody has had one unprovoked seizure and their risk of having recurrent seizures is high. And the third situation would be where somebody had---where the clinical features could be diagnosis of an epilepsy syndrome. An example of that would be a young child presenting with absence seizures and their EEG showing 3 Hz characteristic generalized spike in with discharges. So that child could be diagnosed with childhood absence epilepsy.  Dr Berkowitz: Perfect. Okay, so we have these three scenarios, and in two of those scenarios, we heard the word unprovoked. Just to make sure everyone's on the same page, let's unpack this word “unprovoked” a little bit. What does it mean for a seizure to be unprovoked versus provoked?  Dr Katyal: So unprovoked would be where we don't have any underlying provoking features. So underlying provoking features are usually reversible causes of epilepsy. These would be underlying electrolyte abnormality, such as hyperglycemia being a common one which can be reversed. And these individuals usually do not need long-term treatment with anti-seizure medications. Dr Berkowitz: Fantastic. Tell me if I have this right, but when I'm teaching residents, I… did it provoked and unprovoked---there's a little confusing, right? Because we use those terms differently in common language than in this context. But a provoked seizure, the provoking factor has to be two things: acute and reversible. Because some people might say, well, the patient has a brain tumor. Didn't the brain tumor provoke the seizure? The brain tumor isn't acute and the brain tumor isn't reversible, so it would be an unprovoked seizure. I always found that confusing when I was learning it, so I try to remind learners I work with that provoked means acute and reversible, and unprovoked means it's not acute and not reversible. Do I have that right? Am I teaching that correctly? Dr Katyal: That's correct. Dr Berkowitz: Great. And then the other important point here. So, I think we were all familiar prior to this new guideline in 2017 that two unprovoked seizures more than twenty-four hours apart, that's epilepsy. That's pretty straightforward. But now, just like we can diagnose MS at the time of the first clinical attack with the right criteria predicting that patient is likely to have relapse, we can say the patient's had a single seizure and already at that time we think they have epilepsy if we think there's a high risk of recurrence, greater than or equal to sixty percent in this guideline, or an epilepsy syndrome. You told us what an epilepsy syndrome is; many of these are pediatric syndromes that we've studied for our boards. What hertz, spike, and wave goes with each one or what types of seizures. But what about this new idea that a person can have epilepsy after a single unprovoked seizure if the recurrence rate is greater than sixty percent? How would we know that the recurrence rate is going to be greater than sixty percent? Dr Katyal: Absolutely. So, the recurrence rate over sixty percent is projected to be over a ten year period. So, more than sixty percent frequency rate in the next ten years. And in general, we usually assess that with a comprehensive analysis and test. So, one part of the comprehensive analysis would be, a very important part would be a careful history taking from the patient. So, a careful history should usually include all the features leading up to the episodes of all the prodromal symptoms and warning signs. And ideally you also want to get an account from a witness who saw the episode as to what the episode itself looked like. And in terms of risk assessment and comprehensive analysis, this should be further supplemented with tests such as EEG, which is really a supportive test, as well as neuroimaging. If you have an individual with a prior history of, let's say, left hemispheric ischemic stroke and now they're presenting with new onset focal aware seizures with right arm clonic activity, this would be a good example to state that their risk of having future seizures is going to be high. Dr Berkowitz: Perfect. Yeah. So, if someone has a single seizure and has a lesion, as you said, most common in high-income countries would be a prior stroke or prior cerebrovascular event, prior head trauma, then we can presume that the risk is going to be high enough that we could call that epilepsy after the first unprovoked seizure. What if it's the first unprovoked seizure and the imaging is unremarkable? There's no explanatory lesion. How would we get to a diagnosis of epilepsy? How would we get to a risk of greater than sixty percent in a nonlesional unprovoked seizure? I should say, no lesion we can see on MRI. Dr Katyal: You know, in those situations an EEG can be very helpful. An EEG may not always show abnormalities, but when it does show abnormalities, it can help us distinguish between focal and generalized epilepsy types, it can help us make the diagnosis of epilepsy in certain cases, and it can also help us diagnose epilepsy syndromes in certain cases.  Dr Berkowitz: Perfect. The teaching I remember from a resident that I'm passing on to my residents, so please let me know if it's correct, is that a routine EEG, a 20-minute EEG after a single unprovoked seizure, this sensitivity is not great, is that right? Around fifty percent is what I was told with a single EEG, is that right? Dr Katyal: Yeah, the sensitivity is not that great. Again, you know, it may not show abnormality in all the situations. It's truly just helpful when we do see abnormalities. And that's what I always tell my patients as well when I see them in clinic. It may be abnormal or it may be normal. But if it does show up normal, that does not rule out the diagnosis of epilepsy. Really have to put all the pieces together and come to that finally diagnosis. Dr Berkowitz: Perfect. Well, in that spirit of putting all the pieces together, let's walk through together a hypothetical case scenario of a 19-year-old patient who presents after a first event that is considered a possible seizure. First, how do you approach the history and exam in this scenario to try to determine if you think this was indeed an epileptic seizure?  Dr Katyal: So, if I'm seeing them in the clinic or in the outpatient setting and they're hopefully presenting with somebody who's already seen the seizure itself, my first question usually is if they had any warning signs or any triggers leading up to the episode. A lot of times, you know, patients may not remember what happened during the episode, but they may remember if they felt anything different just before or the day prior, something different may have happened around that time. Yeah, so they may report that. Then a very important aspect of that would be talking to somebody who has seen the episode, a witness of the episode; and ideally somebody who has seen the onset of the episode as well, because that can give us very important clues as to how the event or the episode started and how it progressed. And then another very important question would be, for the individual who has experienced it, is how they felt after the episode ended. So, you can get some clues as to if they had a clear postictal state. Other important questions would be if they had any tongue biting or if they lost control of their bladder or all those during the episode. This, all those pieces can guide us as to if the seizure was epileptic, or the episode was epileptic or not. Dr Berkowitz: Fantastic. That's very helpful guidance. All right. So, let's say that based on the history, you're relatively convinced that this patient had a generalized tonic clonic seizure and after recovering from the event, you do a detailed neurologic exam. That's completely normal. What's your approach at this point to determining if you think the seizure was provoked or unprovoked, since that's, as you said, a key component of defining whether this patient simply had a seizure, or had a seizure and has epilepsy? Dr Katyal: The important findings would be from the laboratory test that may have been done at the time when the patient first presented with the seizure. So, we want to rule out features like hypoglycemia or other electrolyte abnormalities such as changes in sodium levels or big, big fluctuations there. We also want to rule out any other metabolic causes or other reasons such as alcohol withdrawal, which can be a provoking factor. Because these would be very important to rule out is if we find a provoking reason, then this individual may not need to be on long term anti-seizure medication. So very important to rule that out first.  Dr Berkowitz: Great. So, let's say you get all of your labs and history and toxicology screen and no provoking factors there. We would obtain neuroimaging to see if there's either an acute provoking factor or some type of lesion as we discussed earlier. Let's say in this theoretical case, the labs are normal, the neuroimaging normal. There is no apparent provoking factor, there's no lesion. So, this patient has simply had a single unprovoked seizure. How do we go about now deciding if this patient has epilepsy? How do we try to get ourselves to either an above sixty percent risk and tell this patient they have epilepsy and probably need to be on a medicine, or they have a less than sixty percent risk and that becomes a little more tricky? And we'll talk about that more as well.  Dr Katyal: For in a young patient, especially in a young patient as a nineteen year old as you present, one very important aspect if I get this history would be to ask them about absolutely prior history of similar episodes, which a lot of times they may not have had similar episodes. But then with this age group, you also want to ask about episodes of brief lapses in awareness or episodes of sudden jerking or myoclonic jerking episodes. Because if you have brief lapses of awareness, that could signify an absence seizure in this particular age group. And brief, sudden episodes of myoclonic jerking could be brief myoclonic seizures in this age group. And if we put together, just based on the clinical history, you could diagnose this patient with a very specific epileptic syndrome, which could be juvenile myoclonic epilepsy in the best case. Let's say if you ask about episodes of staring or relapses of awareness, that's not the case, and there's no history of myoclonic jerking episodes or myoclonic seizures, then the next step would be proceeding to more of our supplemental tests, which would be an EEG and neuroimaging. In all cases of new-onset seizure especially should have comprehensive assessment with EEG and neuroimaging to begin with, and we can supplement that with additional tests wherever we need, such as genetic testing and some other more advanced testing.  Dr Berkowitz: That's very helpful. OK, so let's say this particular patient, you talk to them, you talk to their family, no prior history of any types of events like this. No concerns for spells that could---unlike absence, no concern for movements that could sound like myoclonus. So, as you said, we would be looking for those and we could get to part one of the definition. There is more than one spell, even though we're being consulted for one particular event. But let's say this was the only event, we think it's unprovoked, the neuroimaging is normal. So, you said we proceed to an EEG and as you mentioned earlier, if the EEG is abnormal, that's going to tell us if the risk is probably this more than sixty percent and the patient should probably be on a medicine. But common scenario, right, that the patient has an event, they have a full work up, we don't find anything. We're convinced it was a seizure. We get our routine EEG as we said, very good, an affirmative test, but not a perfectly sensitive test. And let's say this person's routine EEG turns out to be normal. So how would you discuss with the patient their risk of a future seizure and the considerations around whether to start an anti-seizure medicine if their work-up has been normal, they've had a single unprovoked seizure, and their EEG is unrevealing? Dr Katyal: And I'm assuming neuroimaging is normal as well in this case? Dr Berkowitz: Correct. Yeah.  Dr Katyal: We have a normal EEG; we have normal neuroimaging as well. So, in this case, you know, it's more of a discussion with the patient. I tell them of that, you know, the risk of seizure may not be higher than sixty percent in this case with all the tests being normal so far and there's no other prior history of similar episodes. So, we have a discussion with them about the risks that can come with future seizures and decide where the medication should be started or not.  Dr Berkowitz: And so how do you approach this discussion? The patient will say, Doctor Katyal, I had one seizure, it was very frightening. I got injured. You told me I can't drive for however many months. One cannot drive in that particular state. But I don't really like taking medicines. What is my risk and what do you think? Should I take a medicine?  Dr Katyal: I'll tell you this because normally I would just have a direct conversation with them, discuss all the facts that we have. We go over the seizure one more time just to make sure we have not missed any similar episodes or any other episodes that may be concerning seizure, which ruled out all the provoking factors, any triggers that may be seen inseizures like this in a young age. And another thing would be to basically have a discussion with them, you know, these are the medication options that we can try. And if there is another seizure, you know, these are the these are the restrictions that would come with it. And it's a very individualized decision, to be honest. That, you know, not everyone may want to start the medication. And you'll also find that some patients who, you know, some individuals are like no,  I want to go back to driving. I don't want to be in this situation again. I would like to try a medication and don't want to ever have a seizure. So, I think it's a very individualized decision and we have a discussion with the patient based on all of these tests. And I would definitely maintain follow-up with them to make sure that, you know, things have not changed and things have---no seizures have recurred in those cases.  Dr Berkowitz: Yeah, great to hear your approach. And similar experience to you, right, where some patients say, I definitely don't want to take the medication, I'll roll the dice and I hope I don't have another seizure. And we say, we hope so also. As you said, let's keep a close eye. And certainly, if you have another seizure, it's going to be a lifelong seizure medicine at that point. And some patients who, as you said, say, wait, I can't drive for months. And if I don't take a medicine and I have a seizure in the last month, I would have to have another period of no driving. Maybe in that case, they would want to start a medicine. That said, we would present that either of these are reasonable options with risks and benefits and these are the medications we would offer and the possible side effects and risk of those, and make a joint decision with the patient. Dr Katyal: Absolutely correct. Mentioned it perfectly well that this is a very individualized decision and a joint decision that we make with the patient.  Dr Berkowitz: Fantastic. Another topic you touch on in your article is the definition of resolved epilepsy. How is that defined in the guidelines?  Dr Katyal: Yes. So, an epilepsy can be considered resolved if an individual has been seizure-free for at least ten years and has been off of IV seizure medications for at least five of those years. Another situation where epilepsy can be considered resolved would be if they have an age-defined epilepsy syndrome and now they are beyond the relevant age group for the syndrome.  Dr Berkowitz: That's very helpful. So again, a very clear definition that's helpful in these guidelines. And yet, as I'm sure you experience your practice, as I do in mine, sometimes a little challenging to apply. So, continuing with our made-up hypothetical patient here, let's say at some point in the subsequent years, they have a second unprovoked seizure, still have a normal EEG but they do go on an anti-seizure medicine. And maybe four or five years later, they're seizure-free on a low dose of an anti-seizure medicine. And they say, you know, do I really still need this medicine? I'd really like to come off of it. What do you think? Is that safe? How do you talk about that with the patient? This definition of ten years and five years off medicine seems to be---and maybe unless someone's seeing a lot of children and young adults, a relatively uncommon scenario. It's we've had a first unprovoked seizure. We never figured out why. We don't really know why they had the seizure. We can't really gauge their subsequent risk. They're on medicines, they don't want to be on them and it's only been a few years, let's say three, four, or five years. How do you frame discussion with the patient? Dr Katyal: Yeah, so that's the definition of being resolved. But in terms of tapering off medications, we can usually consider tapering off medications earlier as well, especially if they've been seizure-free for two or more years. Then again, as we mentioned earlier, it would be a very individualized decision and discussion with the patient, that we could consider tapering off of medication. And we would also want to definitely discuss the risk of breakthrough seizures as we taper off and the risks or the lifestyle modifications that would come with it if they have another breakthrough seizure. So, all those things will go into careful concentration when we decide to taper off, because especially driving restriction may be a big, you know, hard stop for a lot of patients that, you know, now is not a time to taper off medication. So, all of these factors will go into consideration and we could consider tapering off earlier as well.  Dr Berkowitz: That's very helpful. Yeah, as you said, when we're tapering off medications, if that's the direction the patient wants to go during that period, obviously we wouldn't want them to drive, or be up on a ladder, or swimming alone. You said that some patients might say, actually, I'll keep the medicine, whereas some might say, OK, I'll hold off on all these activities and hope that I can be off this medication. I remember epilepsy colleagues quoting to me at one point that all comers, when a patient's been seizure-free for two years, they estimate the risk of relapse, of having another seizure, somewhere around thirty to forty percent. In your expert opinion, is that about what you would quote to a patient as well,. about a thirty to forty percent, all comers? Obviously not someone who's had a history of status epilepticus and has a lesion or a syndrome, but in the sort of common situation of some unprovoked seizures in an adult, we don't have a clear ideology. Is that thirty to forty percent figure, more or less, you would place the risk when you talk to the patient? Or?  Dr Katyal: Yeah, absolutely, especially if the neuroimaging is completely normal, all their EE GS have been normal. They have been in this situation---you have a young patient with two seizures separated by so many years. After three or four years of being on the medication and, you know, the patient has been adhering. There are no more seizures. Thirty to forty percent seems reasonable, and this is what I usually tell them that the risk of, as we taper off medications, that risk is not zero but it's low. And around thirty percent is relatively where we would place the risk at. Dr Berkowitz: We've said in this theoretical case that the EEG is normal. But last question, I've heard some practitioners say that, well, let's say the patient did have an abnormal EEG early on. Not a syndrome, but had maybe a few focal spike wave discharges or sharps and that made you convinced that this patient had epilepsy. But still becomes seizure free for several years. I've heard of some practitioners repeating the EEG before tapering the anti-seizure medicines and I always wonder, would it change anything? It's a brief twenty-minute period. They still have one spike, but I tell them they can't come off. If the spikes are gone, it may be because of the medication, and maybe when I take them off they would have a spike. And how do you use---do you use or how do you use EEG in that decision of whether to taper a medicine? Dr Katyal: Yeah. In general, I would not always use an EEG for considering tapering off medication. Again, it's very individualized decision. I can give you a hypothetical example, but it's a fairly common one, is that if an individual with let's say focal seizures with impaired awareness, they live alone, they live by themselves. Oftentimes they'll say that, I'm not sure if I'm missing any seizures because nobody has seen them. I may or may not be losing awareness, but I'm not too certain. They have not had any definite seizures for history in the last couple of years and are now considering tapering off medication. So, this may be a situation where I may repeat an EEG, and perhaps even considering the longer EEG for them to understand their seizure burden before we decide to taper off medication. But in most situations, especially if we consider the hypothetical situation you had mentioned for the young patient who had to witness seizures separated by several years and then several years without any seizures, that may be a good example to consider tapering off medication, especially considering all the tests that had been normal before then.  Dr Berkowitz: That's very helpful to hear. And of course, this is your expert opinion. As you said, no guidelines and different people practice in different ways, but helpful to hear how you approach this common and challenging scenario for practitioners. Well, I want to thank you again, Dr Katyal. This has been a great opportunity to pick your brain on a theoretical case, but one that I think presents a number of scenarios that a lot of us---myself as a general neurologist, as well as you and your colleagues as epileptologists, we all see in general practice patients with unprovoked seizures and a revealing workup, and how to approach this challenging scenario based on the guidelines and on your expert opinion. I learned a lot from your article. Encourage our readers again to take a look. A lot of very helpful tables, figures, and explanations, some of the concepts we've been discussing. So again, today I've been interviewing Dr Roohi Katyal about her article on classification and diagnosis of 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 again so much to our listeners for joining us.  Dr Katyal: Thank you for having me. 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, Lyell K. Jones Jr, MD, FAAN, speaks with Jennifer L. Hopp, MD, FAAN, FAES, FACNS, who served as the guest editor of the Continuum® February 2025 Epilepsy issue. They provide a preview of the issue, which publishes on February 3, 2025. Dr. Jones is the editor-in-chief of Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology® and is a professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Dr. Hopp is a professor in the department of neurology at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland. Additional Resources Continuum website: ContinuumJournal.com Subscribe to Continuum: shop.lww.com/Continuum More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @LyellJ Guest: @JenHopp71 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, 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 have access to exclusive audio content not featured on the podcast. If you're not already a subscriber, we encourage you to become one. For more information, please visit the link in the show notes Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum, Lifelong Learning in Neurology. Today I'm interviewing Dr Jennifer Hopp, who recently served as Continuum's guest editor for our latest issue on epilepsy. Dr Hopp is a professor and executive vice chair in the Department of Neurology at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, where she's also director of the Epilepsy Center. Dr Hopp, welcome. Thank you for joining us today. Why don't you introduce yourself to our listeners?  Dr Hopp: Hi, Dr Jones. Thank you so much for having me on this podcast. I really had so much fun working with you and other authors of this issue and serving as editor. I feel like it was yesterday that I was author of an article in the past. And so, it's really a pleasure to take on this new role and create the content for the issue of Continuum for Epilepsy and really particularly to work with the stellar group of experts and authors that we were able to have us join this year.  Dr Jones: I want to thank you for, really, it's a remarkable issue. And we usually don't get into this a lot with our guest editors, but our last issue on epilepsy came out in 2022. Fantastic issue, guest edited by Dr Natalie Jette. When you were designing the table of contents and article topics for this issue, you had some great ideas. Walk us through your thought process on what was most important to convey in this issue.  Dr Hopp: Sure, I'm happy to do so. I think one of the things about Continuum that is so accessible to everybody is that it really is, to me, preeminent format of updating and educating, whether it's epileptologist, neurologist, trainees in every area of epilepsy, which is obviously an enormous task to really pull together all of these data to make updates and then to make it accessible to all of these different levels of learners as well as people like myself. I really read and always look forward to all the Continuum issues outside of my field. I use it to update my knowledge base, get ready for boards. I also read it as an educator because I want to know what my trainees are reading during their rotations and I want to be able to share materials with them. So, I really tried to go back and look at other issues and think about how we could make it fresh. So, I think one of the first challenges is just making sure that we're updating the content of each article based on the literature and the data we have. That really becomes the task of the authors. And so first of all, selecting the authors was both fun but also really important to me. But the second aspect of it to me was really the question of, how could we make this fresh this year? I think Continuum is always fresh and that it has new data, but I wanted to really think outside the box and I appreciate being able to take a few risks. One of them was really headed by Dave Clarke, who provides this incredibly thoughtful and comprehensive review of access to care and epilepsy. I think for anyone who wants a primer on the issues and language used in discussions of diversity or social determinants of health---you first of all do not have to be in the field of epilepsy to read this. So, you should check that out. But I also thought it was really critical to shed more light on these issues. So, we tried to be mindful of this in threading that through as best as we could each article, but also have a stand-alone section that he headed. And so, he addresses issues of how to think about access to care for people with epilepsy, but actually, interestingly, also thinking about the investigators, providers, and researchers, and how we think about diversity in those viewpoints as well. I think we can always do better. Dave concludes with a wonderful focus on hope in this area with next steps for our community. So, I think that that was certainly one area that I wanted to take a risk and I think it was quite successful.  Dr Jones: Totally agree. I very much enjoyed that article. We have an article on implementation of guidelines and quality measures by Dr Christina Baca. I thought that was a great choice from your perspective, not only because Dr Baca is an expert on this, but it felt very practical, right?  Dr Hopp: Exactly. Exactly. And that was the other area that I thought really is always covered so well by the Academy of Neurology. There's so much work in updating the guidelines, whether it's the guideline that just was updated on people with epilepsy of childbearing potential or others outside of the field of epilepsy. And I thought that we could use Continuum to help educate all of the readers on how to take those guidelines and measures and then really bring them into practice. I think there's a whole field of implementation science that I think shines a light on the gap between the guidelines and the measures and then really what we do with them in practice. And that's actually what's most important for our patients and for the providers. And so Christine does just an amazing job as an expert, not only walking us through the guidelines that are relevant for epilepsy, but then helping us and providing, essentially, a toolkit to take those measures and guidelines and use them in a very feasible, accessible way in day-to-day practice. And I would suggest that it's relevant for anyone from a student level resident to an epileptologist who's been in practice, like me, for many years. And so I hope that's relatable and useful to the reader.  Dr Jones: I think it will be. And let's get right into it. So, I always enjoy talking to the guest editor. You're already an expert and now you've just read a bunch of articles and edited a bunch of articles from people who are really the premier experts in their area of the field, right? They're niche within epilepsy. So, as you've read these articles across the issue, if there were one biggest practice-changing recommendation that you would want to convey to our listeners, what would that be? Dr Hopp: I think that's a fabulous question because again, each of these articles, I think, is designed and written by the author to stand alone. But ideally, they need to all be incorporated in practice. And I think what each author was able to really successfully do is not only review the data, but really take us to the next level with practice of epilepsy. For example, I think as we embark on the next couple of decades, clearly increased technology, AI, personalized medicine are all buzzwords and taking the lead. In reality, with advances, we still have to make sure our care is personalized. And we have to remember seizures are really the symptom, but epilepsy is the disease. What I think our authors do well is make sure that our care is personalized to the patients. You could take that from the first article that Roohi Katyall writes about how to approach the patient with epilepsy, which is still, I think, the seminal way to start to think about these patients. But we need to ask issues pertaining to people with epilepsy of childbearing potential; screen for mood, other comorbidities. Mark Keezer does a great job talking about these. And then as we discussed, Christine Baca, PCU, talks about how to then incorporate those practical considerations into practice. Each author also, I think, emphasizes the need to utilize technology and testing and evaluation to make sure that our care is personalized for our patient. For example, we have a focus on certain special populations. Some patients who we see from the diagnosis of epilepsy end up not having seizures. They may have nonepileptic events. And so, Adriana Bermeo-Ovalle and her co-author talk about how to address those patients. Well, Meriem Bensalem-Owen talks about gender based issues in epilepsy as well. And, and that particular article also was updated and refreshed to really address gender and sex-based issues beyond treating the woman with epilepsy. So, I think in summary, each of them really helps us make sure that we're personalizing the care for patients by emphasizing a very thorough and individualized approach to each of our patients that we see with seizures.  Dr Jones: Now that you put it that way, that really did come across as a consistent theme essentially in every article, right? All the way from the evaluation of the patient suspected of having epilepsy to the treatment options to the context of care. Personalization is really kind of a continuous thread throughout the issue. So, I think that's a great one.  Dr Hopp: I think it's still aspirational in some sense, but hopefully practical in another. For example, we certainly are going to make a medication selection when we see each individual patient based on their comorbidities, perhaps genetic considerations, and how they may respond to medications or have risks of rash. But there are certainly still guidelines that we need to approach and think about when thinking about populations of people who have epilepsy as a whole. I think that what's interesting in the field of epilepsy is that we still don't have as much consensus as I think we could on the best way to treat, for example, a drug-resistant patient with epilepsy. One of, I think, the biggest areas of opportunity in terms of personalized medicine as we move forward is that there's such variability on patient care based on the epilepsy center, the tools that we have on how to treat these patients. And I think an aspiration is for us to, in the future, be able to see a patient who has seizures or a person who has seizures, maybe put an FDA-approved device, as Dan Friedman talks about in his article, to help detect the seizures. Use AI with EEG to detect abnormalities in their studies. And then use imaging processing and genetic or metabolic markers to really end up stratifying the risk and creating a treatment plan much akin to what's done in the world of cancer care. I think what's so exciting in epilepsy is that we have made so many advances in terms of our treatments, but I think there's so much to do to really stratify and personalize care for our patients that we really could take a lot of lessons from the world of cancer and in other fields of medicine to really be able to apply to our area of specialization.  Dr Jones: And I guess that's one of the common tensions in neurology---and medicine, really---is the pull between standardizing and protocolizing. And usually we do better when we're standardized in our care versus that personalization, doing the right thing for that individual person. And I guess expertise lies in the middle, which is why we want people to read these articles, right?  Dr Hopp: Exactly. I think you've hit the nail on the head, and I think the takeaway here is really that we need to do both. There's no question that we can't reinvent the wheel for every person who we see in the office who has epilepsy and not apply the knowledge that we've gained based on all of the research and work that's been done in the field of epilepsy. So, for example, we know that if someone is almost 25 years old, Quantum Brody published that shows that if someone does not respond to a few drugs, anti-seizure medicines, the likelihood that they're not going to respond, it is quite high. So, we need to apply data that we have to patients as a whole. But then, I think, what has changed and evolved over the past twenty-five years is our ability to potentially personalize some of that decision making. And that's where I think the field of epilepsy is right now, and hopefully where it's going to go in the next decade or so.  Dr Jones: So, what do you think the next big thing in epilepsy diagnosis or management will be? Dr Hopp: I think that technology is really going to play a role. Technology, I think, will take many forms. We hear a little bit about some of the new advances in technology in several articles in this issue. One, for example, is in the ability to manage even emergent seizures or clusters of seizures in patients. The ability to provide a nasal spray that works very quickly is so different than the tools that we had to treat seizures even 10 years ago. I think that technology will likely thread through many different areas of epilepsy care, whether it's in the treatment and availability of different medications or in the ascertainment of epilepsy itself. I think that one of the very exciting areas in technology is in pharmacogenomics and genetics, which hopefully will allow us to close the gap in selecting one of the better medications or best medication for a patient earlier in their diagnosis and in their treatment plan. If we are able to get patients treated more quickly, whether it's with medication or in selection of the best surgical treatment, hopefully we will close the gap in reducing the possibility of drug resistant epilepsy, but also have impact in quality of life and getting patients and people with epilepsy and doing that, doing the things that they want to do such as driving, going to work, getting engaged in the things that make them happy. And so, I think our ability to use technology, whether it's in using a watch to make a diagnosis of seizures or pharmacogenomics to make a good medication selection, hopefully this will allow us to speed up our algorithm in making a diagnosis and getting an effective treatment plan for patients earlier. And ultimately that's our goal. Our goal for patients is ideally to have no seizures and no side effects with a good quality of life.  Dr Jones: Yeah, the technology has really been breathtaking. You know, one of the commonalities between your practice and my practice is electrophysiology. I do neuromuscular electrophysiology, which is much simpler than what you do with cerebral electrophysiology. And whenever I sit down next to a colleague who is about to review forty-eight hours' worth of EEG recordings, I always think what a massive amount of data and I always feel sympathy for them. What, about AI? What about automated processing tools? Is that something that our listeners should look forward to in the future?  Dr Hopp: I think so. And I hope it's a blend. I hope that---and I always actually talk about this with trainees because I love EEG so much and I love translating the principles of physics and neurophysiology when we're sitting in front of an EEG with our trainees. I am excited about AI and technology. I will admit that I hope that it doesn't replace human readers because I do think that there is an importance in threading history and semiology and thoughtfulness in a human way with the interpretation of EEG. However, you're absolutely right that the amount of data is just becoming overwhelming for epileptologists and for EEG-ers to be able to synthesize in a reasonable and feasible amount of time. So, we already are seeing the applicability of the AI to, for example, prescreen large, large amounts of EEG data and try to at least give us tools for the ability to screen EEG in a more efficient way. I think some of the more exciting areas of EEG that are coming are in the background, which is in the network analysis in high-density EEG. There are very, very smart mathematicians that currently I'm collaborating with in utilizing network analysis of EEG that will hopefully allow us to apply these algorithms to EEGs that even look normal to the naked eye, but actually may have signals that help us predict who may or may not have seizures. I agree with you wholeheartedly. I think there's so much to come and our collaboration and integration with engineers and mathematicians, I think, is going to be paramount. Dr Jones: Dr Hopp, what was your path to epilepsy?  Dr Hopp: Dr Jones, that is a great question. It was not linear and it really evolved over time, but basically went something like this. I majored in behavioral biology in college, and I was fascinated by the brain and how behavior was controlled by either physiology or anatomy or abnormalities in brain function. And as I moved along in my career and education, I really had a passion for neurology and for behavioral science. But I went to medical school and absolutely loved most of the rotations I did. And in fact, I loved OBGYN so much that I changed my entire career path with the goal of becoming an OBGYN and delivering babies. And I was really torn between two specialties of going into neurology or OB. And I went to a very sage advisor, Greg Kane up at Jefferson. And I said, I really don't know what field to go into. I love aspects of both. I like doing testing. I like making immediate impact. But I also love neurology. And he gave me some of the best advice, I think, that I have ever heard. And I try to share with our trainees all the time. He said, Jenny, I think you'll be successful at either, but which do you like reading about? And I had a relative epiphany at the time, and it was no question that I loved reading about neurology. It was very clear to me that reading about neurology and learning about the brain was just fascinating and led me to do a neurology residency where I was exposed to patients with epilepsy. And it really just continued to pique my interest to read about a field that I felt I could have such an impact. I really could help patients make a diagnosis relatively quickly and have a significant impact, maybe as I would in OBGYN but in a little bit different way. And it really has been, to me, the best choice that I could have made. And on a day-to-day basis, I still love reading about neurology. So, it was some of the best advice that I was given and I try to share that with others. Dr Jones: What a great question for a mentor to ask. And I wonder if he was really thinking, if she likes to read, she probably should be a neurologist to begin with. You like to read, don't we?  Dr Hopp: I think so. I think he was spot on. I think he knew the answer before he asked the question.   Dr Jones: Dr Hopp, thank you for joining us today. Thank you for such a thorough and fantastic discussion on caring for patients with epilepsy and our recent issue on epilepsy for Continuum. Dr Hopp: My pleasure. Thank you for having me. Dr Jones: Again, we've been speaking with Dr Jennifer Hopp, guest editor of Continuum 's most recent issue on epilepsy. Please check it out. 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. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Informal care partners are essential to the care of people living with dementia, but they often experience significant burden and receive minimal training, support, and resources. Multicomponent interventions can mitigate burden and other negative consequences of caregiving. In this episode, Gordon Smith, MD, FAAN speaks with Angelina J. Polsinelli, PhD, ABPP-CN, author of the article “Care Partner Burden and Support Services in Dementia” in the Continuum® December 2024 Dementia issue. Dr. Smith is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and professor and chair of neurology at Kenneth and Dianne Wright Distinguished Chair in Clinical and Translational Research at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia. Dr. Polsinelli is an assistant professor of clinical neurology at the Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, Indiana. Additional Resources Read the article: Care Partner Burden and Support Services in Dementia 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: @gordonsmithMD 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 Smith: This is Dr Gordon Smith. Today, I've got the great pleasure of interviewing Dr Angelina Polsinelli about her article on care partner burden and support services in dementia. This article appears in the December 2024 Continuum issue, which is on dementia. Ange, welcome to the podcast. And maybe you can begin by just introducing yourself to our audience?  Dr Polsinelli: Yeah. Well, thank you for having me. I'm very excited to be here. I'm Ange Polsinelli. I'm a neuropsychologist at Indiana University School of Medicine, where I work in the Department of Neurology. I also work with the Longitudinal Early Onset Alzheimer's Disease study that's led by Liana Apostolova. And I also do some work with the Outreach, Recruitment and Engagement Core of the Indiana Alzheimer's Disease Research Center. This topic that we're going to talk about today is extremely near and dear to my heart. Dr Smith: Well, thanks for joining me. And of course, IU is a powerhouse for Alzheimer's and basketball, in that order. So, we're really excited to have you. I'd like to get right into it. I'll emphasize, we were chatting a little bit about this, Ange, before we started recording, that your topic today is so important for all of us. And I think, you know, this is a podcast that not only neurologists listen to, but students and, and I think increasingly members of the lay public. And this conversation is going to be very important for neurologists and our neurology learners. But I lost my grandmother to Alzheimer's disease. I lost my uncle just in the last week. So, this touches all of us. So, I'm really excited. And then with that in mind, I wanted to begin with a statistic that- you can correct me if I misunderstood it, but it really blew my mind. And that is across the world, as I understand it, care partners provide one hundred and thirty three billion hours of care for people living with dementia yearly, which is pretty staggering. But what's really amazing is that by 2030 that number is expected to go to one point four trillion hours, which I couldn't grab my mind around it. So, I figured I'd try and determine how many years of person work is that and if my math is right, that's almost a hundred and sixty million person years of worth caring for people with dementia yearly across the world. One, are those numbers right? Did I get it right? And then, assuming so, can you put a human face or experience to these numbers?  Dr Polsinelli: Yeah, unfortunately those numbers are correct. And with our increasing aging population across the world, that's why you're getting that, you know, exponential increase in care per hours, compounded by the fact that the majority of the caregiving that happens is not done by doctors, physicians, but it's done by these informal care partners, these family members, these friends, these siblings, children, who are providing these really important services and unfortunately not being trained to do this, doing it largely on their own in a lot of respect. But again, these are people who are loved ones of the person living with dementia. There are a variety of kinships, as I mentioned, siblings, children, spouses, friends; and all sorts of age ranges as well. A large majority of them being spouses, and then the second largest majority being children. So, kind of a sandwich generation of people who are caring for parents with Alzheimer's or dementia and then caring for children as well. Dr Smith: Yeah, I was actually struck by the statistic that a quarter of caregivers or so called sandwich caregivers; in other words, they're taking care of a parent and a child. But listen to what you said. But just to call it out, two-thirds of care partners are women, which is a striking statistic.  Dr Polsinelli: Absolutely. Women are not only more likely to have dementia, but they are also more likely to be the care partners of somebody who has dementia. And so, the research shows, too, that if you're a care partner, you're at higher risk of developing dementia yourself. So, there's a lot of risk for women when it comes to dementia, development of dementia, but also that the burden and the majority of care needs that are that are supported by women as well. Dr Smith: Right. And there's a lot to unpack in that observation, and maybe we can come back to that. But I wonder if you might talk to us a little bit about the risk of dementia in women caregivers. That's really striking. Is there any thought regarding mechanism for that? Why is that the case? Is it a shared risk factor? Is it cause and effect? What's the story?  Dr Polsinelli: So, there are - this is kind of a dissociable or different - kind of two aspects to this, this question. There's the fact that women are at higher risk for developing dementia in general. I think the researchers feel sort of out about why exactly that is. It's not just that women are at higher risk or more likely to develop dementia because they're living longer than men, but there's probably some hormonal aspects of their higher risk factor for dementia. But then there's the other aspect of it too, is that as caregivers, caregivers are at higher risk of developing dementia. And because caregivers tend to be women, that increases or compounds the risk for women as well. We know with caregiving, particularly with someone who's living with dementia, there's more risk of developing things like depression, high stress, health problems, psychological distress, and all of these things increase somebody 's risk for developing dementia as well. Dr Smith: So, I wonder if you might talk a little more, Ange, about what you mean by burden? I think we have in our mind what that is. But in reading your article, there's a lot of- a lot more to it than may meet the eye. Dr Polsinelli: Yeah, it is a more complicated, I guess, topic or terminology that's gone through several iterations over the course of doing research into burden. But when we think about burden, it's really a kind of a combination of both objective experiences and subjective experiences. And these objective, subjective experiences fall into the categories of physical burden, emotional burden, psychological burden. So, there's a lot of different areas of life in which someone can experience burden. But really, it's a combination of factors of both the objective experience, lived experience, and the person 's perception of that experience or what they're dealing with. I should also mention that it appears to be more of that subjective experience or that perception that people have of their objective experience of stressors or burden. That really does determine the person's response to that, if whether they actually perceive their lived experience as being burdensome.  Dr Smith: One of the things I found really interesting was the societal and cultural context surrounding this, that there are different cultural expectations and societal dynamics, both in the nature of the burden care partners may feel and how they're viewed. I wonder if you could talk about that? I think it's something that it would seem all of us need to be attuned to as we're working with our patients and their families.  Dr Polsinelli: Yeah, this is a topic we could talk for a very long time on. I will try and- I will try not to kind of provide too much of a, or too lengthy of a response. But what we know now is basically that our models of stress and burden that we have typically used or historically used do not incorporate a lot of factors of cultural identity of social and structural determinants of health factors. And so, what we understand now is that stress and the way that people perceive burden is influenced by so many other factors than just kind of an experience and a perception. Because that perception is influenced by so many factors, including, as you mentioned, cultural factors that include how society's familial expectations for us, cultural expectations for us, as well as what our resources are that are determined by, again, structural and social determinants of health, what our community resources are. They're just a lot of different factors that go into how somebody perceives their ability to cope with, again, this kind of life-altering diagnosis that their loved one has received and them being the person who is caring for them through that. Dr Smith: Your article actually goes through in some detail the types of burdens and what drives the burden. And that changes over time. And so I wonder if maybe you can talk a little bit about what the specific natures of the burden are from the caregiver perspective. I mean, what  sort of tasks there are, you know, from the many of us who take care of patients, we still don't know unless we've been in the room or in the home watching this happen. So maybe you can describe that for those of our listeners who maybe haven't lived through this?  Dr Polsinelli: Yeah, absolutely. I will say upfront that the caregiving experience is going to be different for every single person. And again, kind of dependent on some of those factors that I mentioned before. So, it's going to look different for most people. It's also going to look different through the dementia journeys. The experiences and the requirements earlier on in dementia are going to be a vastly different than what occurs later on when dementia is in the more late stage, moderate or severe stages of the disease. Those care responsibilities absolutely change over the spectrum of that time as well. We know that early on the stage of disease, primary care partner might be spending forty plus hours a day. So, a full-time- or not a day. I'm sorry, a week. So, a full time job carrying it. But that number increases up to a hundred and fifty or so hours per week once the person is more advanced in their disease. So, I say that because the number of hours, I think, make all, like- putting that into perspective of somebody having a full time, multiple full time jobs, basically providing care, I think is really important. But the responsibilities of the care partner are going to range from everything from just helping the person early on in terms of managing finances or managing them, making sure they're reminding them to take their medications, scheduling their medical appointments for them, maybe taking over all of the driving to get them to their appointments or to get them to family outings and things like that. They're going to be the ones that's going to be the most responsible for reminding people to do something: to eat, to maybe stay on track for a recipe or something that they are making. So, kind of being the eyes and ears for this person right away, basically right at the beginning, even early stages. And then that progresses over time to the person who is caregiving, who is doing potentially everything for this person. So that means helping them use the restroom when they need to, helping them shower. So, there's a physical component to the caregiving as well as that- sort of what we call instrumental support in terms of organizing medical appointments and things like that. They're just basically doing it all for that person.  Dr Smith: So, what about a busy clinician who has half an hour to see a dementia patient follow up? Kind of hard to- in these days, you know, we've got, you know, these new therapies to think about as well. What advice do you have to neurologists and other professionals caring for patients? Dr Polsinelli: Yeah. And I think neurologists, I mean, we all have limited time. And I know neurology in particular is like primary care, has even more constrained time. I think one of the biggest things that neurologists can do is really check in with the care partner. So, take a moment to check in with the care partner who's there with the person with dementia to see how are they doing. You're looking for signs of burden or stress, so things like physical complaints like headaches or stomach ache, mentioning feeling burnt out or overwhelmed, maybe feeling depressed or something like that. There's also some short kind of questionnaires that you could give care partners prior to an appointment that they could fill out. You could kind of get a sense of where is this person at this point and then help connect them potentially to some resources that might be available. And I would refer people to that article that has a list of resources in there that you could just basically print out and give to somebody.  Dr Smith: Yeah, I was going to make the same point, Ange. Your article is a treasure trove of information. And you know, I'm certainly, I keep all of these on file, as you might imagine, but I'm keeping it in hand for future use. One of the things you talk about that really hit home for me among many is the idea of self-care, and I think sometimes the best care partners are susceptible to burnout because they they're so dedicated. You made the airplane oxygen mask metaphor, which I love. So maybe you can talk about what airplane oxygen masks have to do with dementia care and what advice you have for us and helping our patient's care partners take care of themselves? Dr Polsinelli: Yeah, absolutely. Self-care is the number one thing I tell care partners to do. It's also one of the hardest things for care partners to do. Like you mentioned, there is a deep, generally speaking, a deep love and caring for the person with who is living with dementia. And the focus becomes on them. And understandably so, the care partners sort of loses focus on themselves and making sure that they're doing okay. So I oftentimes use this oxygen airplane metaphor for people, which is basically, you know, when you're in an airplane and if there's some kind of pressure change in an airplane, they always tell you, put your oxygen mask on first before you help somebody else because you're not going to be any good to anybody if you're passed out. In the airplanes, the pressure changes, you know. You need to be available. you need to be getting what you need in order to help somebody else. So, I think that metaphor, that analogy really works well in dementia care is you need to be- the care partner needs to be caring for themselves and replenishing themselves in order to be the best care partner they can be for their loved one.  Dr Smith: Another challenge that, it strikes me as shared between people living with dementia and their care partner is that of social isolation and loneliness, right? If you're working a hundred and fifty hours a week doing anything, you don't have time to care for yourself or very hard to engage in social connections. And one of the loud messages I think I heard from your article is the power of social connectedness, both in terms of resilience and in many different ways. I wonder if you can talk a little bit about loneliness? And I just reflect that in a postpandemic world, this is probably a bigger issue than it was four years ago or four years and three months ago. Dr Polsinelli: Yeah, absolutely. Loneliness and social isolation was a big problem before, and it's even worse now is when I'm hearing from my patients. What I'm seeing in the literature is this postpandemic time is even more has been even more isolating and more problematic for people, but this social network cannot be, as you said, it cannot be overstated in terms of the importance for people. So that social network is important for not only providing potential instrumental care - so that practically care that care partners can use can lean on other people to come into the home to do things for the person living with dementia so the care partner can go practice self-care or go do those errands that need to be done - but also the emotional support as well that social networks can provide for people. And also, you know, social networks for not just the person, the care partner, but for the person living with dementia as well. We know that social engagement in particular is really good for brain health. I mean, we don't think about it, but social engagement is a very cognitive activity. And so, it helps give the brain a bit of a workout. So that social network is important for a lot of different reasons, and understandably a lot harder to maintain in this sort of postpandemic world as well. Dr Smith: As our time starts to come to- close to a close, we're not done yet, but I think we're probably going to have to start winding up. I wonder if we could pivot to something positive and then talk about the joy in this. And by that, I mean you describe and I think we've witnessed relationships and caring, caregiving situations that, as challenging as they are, provides fulfillment and the connection one has with a loved one or sort of that social aspect. Are there things that- predictive of that kind of positivity, and are there ways that we as professional caregivers for patients and their families can facilitate that? Dr Polsinelli: Yeah, there are. There are a couple of things. So, one of which is basically the quality of relationship between the care partner and the person living with dementia already. So that's the quality of that relationship. The better the quality of that relationship, the more likely it is that the care partner will experience more meaning and fulfillment and joy associated with caregiving, kind of outweighing that burden. But the additional piece of that is the more resources, the more mastery they feel about their caregiving or care partnering abilities, the more competent they feel and their ability to do good by the person, their loved one, the person living with dementia, the more likely they are to find that role fulfilling and meaningful. And I think that's where neurologists and other providers can kind of come in as helping people make sure that they have those resources that they are connecting to places where they can learn skills for giving appropriate care so that they can feel confident in what they're doing. There's the preexisting relationship piece that matters a lot. But I think that there's a lot of modifiability that neurologists have, too, in making a positive impact on the care partner and the person living with dementia. Dr Smith: That's really great advice, Ange. And I definitely will refer our listeners yet again to your article, which is a compendium of useful advice about this, both in terms of the text itself and in tables that provide lists of resources, websites, books, organizations, good case examples. It's a home run and I hope all of our listeners check it out. I'd like to wind up by talking a little bit about your work. And as I understand it, you obviously are very passionate about this topic, but you have specific interests in caregiver burden and underserved and marginalized communities. And then, we've touched on this, but this is a huge percentage of our population. And when you look out globally, it's even bigger than that. Tell us about what you're working on. And then maybe following that, what's the future look like? Where are we going to see advances in this in the coming years?   Dr Polsinelli: So just a really quick kind of brief history is that I've worked in dementia for almost twenty years or so now. And what I've consistently seen is when you give care partners good supports and education and resources, there are better outcomes for them and their families. The unfortunate thing is, a lot of these really great interventions and things that we have are not necessarily really accessible by a lot of people, but particularly not accessible by those living in underserved communities. The last few years in particular, I've really shifted into wanting to better understand that and better understand how do we provide culturally and socially appropriate interventions and education for these care partners and their families. With the current research project that I'm working on, we're looking at better understanding the needs of care partners of people who have early onset Alzheimer's disease, specifically from Black and African American individuals and other underrepresented groups. Again, the idea of this is to understand the needs before building an intervention for these groups, and I'm very excited about it. I know that there are lots of really great people who are working in this area, including Dr Dilworth Anderson and Kalisha Bonds Johnson, doing really fabulous work in this area. So, and building on what they're doing as well. In terms of what the future holds, one, I think we absolutely need to, we have lots of really great care partner interventions out there that have been lots of research going on, but it's not really transitioning into the clinical sphere. It's really kind of staying in that research sphere. So, I think it's really important that we get some implementation scientists who are taking those interventions and moving them into the clinical sphere, into the sort of like everyday, how do these actually work for people sphere. And then similar to some of this conversation we're having in terms of serving, making sure our interventions and making sure that our resources are appropriate and accessible for underserved communities, we really need to be taking a look at what these communities need rather than kind of saying, this is what's available. Kind of, hopefully this works for you. Speaking with these communities, engaging stakeholders and understanding what are the needs in these groups so that we can provide the appropriate resources, the appropriate interventions, the appropriate supports for care partners and people living with dementia. Dr Smith: And I'm just thinking, imagine what this looks like with effective treatments for Alzheimer's disease, that slow progression. And you know, that's going to make the caregiving even more important, it seems to me. But there's an opportunity to make it a better rewarding and a better-supported system as we develop these new therapies. So, this is a, like a Clarion call for learners listening that they should all become dementia neurologists and neuropsychologists like here. Thank you. That was outstanding. Say, Ange, I want to thank you a lot for a really engaging conversation. This fulfilled every hope I had coming into it. I was really excited to talk to you. I always love talking to neuropsychologists, but I think again, this is really useful for neurologists, learners, people who are nonneurologists everyone. And so, thank you very much. I've learned a lot and I really would encourage everyone to check out the article.  Dr Polsinelli: Well, thank you so much for having me on and giving me the opportunity to talk about the stuff that is really important to me and, I think, to most of us out there. So, hopefully people find the article and the resources in there useful and, and thanks again for having me.  Dr Smith: I'm sure they will. Again, today I've been interviewing Dr Angelina Polsinelli, whose article on care partner burden and support service in dementia appears in the most recent issue of Continuum, which is on dementia. Be sure to check out Continuum audio episodes from this and other issues. And thanks to you, 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.

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.

Recent progress in neurogenetics and molecular pathology has improved our understanding of the complex pathogenetic changes associated with neurodegenerative dementias. In this episode, Katie Grouse, MD, FAAN, speaks with Sonja W. Scholz, MD, PhD, FAAN, an author of the article “Genetics and Neuropathology of Neurodegenerative Dementias,” in the Continuum® December 2024 Dementia issue. Dr. Grouse is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a clinical assistant professor at the University of California San Francisco in San Francisco, California. Dr. Scholz is a senior investigator at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland and an adjunct professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. Additional Resources Read the article: Genetics and Neuropathology of Neurodegenerative Dementias 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 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 Grouse: This is Dr Katie Grouse. Today I'm interviewing Dr Sonia Scholz about her article on genetics and neuropathy of neurodegenerative dementias, which appears in the December 2024 Continuum issue on dementia. Welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to our audience.  Dr Scholz: Thank you so much for inviting me. My name is Sonia Scholz. I'm a neurologist working at the National Institutes of Health. My main focus of research and clinical work are neurodegenerative diseases, and I have a particular interest in using modern genomic tools to understand these diseases and potentially leverage it for new translational applications. Dr Grouse: Sonia, we're really excited to have you today and thanks for joining us.  Dr Scholz: I'm pleased to be here.  Dr Grouse: I'd like to start by asking what you think is the most important message or takeaway point from your article? Dr Scholz: So, this is an article that really captures a very broad and exciting field. So, one thing I wanted to really highlight is that there's a lot of heterogeneity, clinical, pathological, molecular heterogeneity in age-related neurodegenerative dementia syndromes. Our article was really aimed at providing a bird's eye view of the pertinent pathological characteristics, but also important genetic advances and insights and how we can leverage that, particularly in the new physician medicine era, hopefully come up with better treatments and better ways to counsel our patients.  Dr Grouse: What do you think is the most challenging aspect of understanding the genetics and neuropathologic basis of neurodegenerative dementias?  Dr. Scholz: That's a good question. There're many big and challenging questions, but I think one of the things we struggle the most with is really the heterogeneity. I see patients with one and the same Mendelian form of dementia. One patient is in their forties another patient is in their eighties, and the clinical manifestations can be very different from one patient to another. There's a lot of heterogeneity, also, on the pathological level. Not every patient has exactly the same distribution. And so, we're starting to slowly define what the underlying causes are, but it's still quite baffling and quite challenging to put them together and understand them. Dr Grouse: Do you feel that the genome-wide association studies has helped our understanding of these diseases, specifically the heterogeneity? And if so how?  Dr Scholz: That's a great question, but you're talking to a geneticist here. And I definitely would say genome-wide association studies have helped us a lot in identifying what the underlying disease pathways are and what the relationships between neurodegenerative disease entities are. It really also gave us a better understanding of apparently sporadic diseases where genetic factors are still playing a role. And we can leverage that type of knowledge increasingly to highlight high-risk groups, but also, we can increasingly use it to stratify patients for clinical trials, for example. And that's really exciting and there's still a lot of knowledge that we have to garner very quickly, especially in the non-Alzheimer dementia space.  Dr Grouse: You've mentioned, of course, the heterogeneity and these syndromes. And in your article, you go into a lot of the issue of the significant crossover between the genetic links and the neuropathological findings for the various types of neurodegenerative dementias. Do you think that this crossover has been more of a help or a hindrance in better understanding these diseases? Dr Scholz: Yeah, it can be a little bit, you know, challenging to wrap one 's mind around it. But by and large, I think it's actually good news because it highlights that there is a shared biology between many of the neurodegenerative disease entities. And by figuring out which the pathways are that are very often involved, we can prioritize certain targets for therapy development. But we can also be smarter about how we developed treatments. We could repurpose a drug that has been developed for Alzheimer's disease very easily for Lewy body dementia because we increasingly understand the overlap. And we can also leverage new clinical trials design, like basket trials. This is something that has been really transformative in the oncology sphere and now, increasingly, neurodegeneration. We're trying to apply that kind of thinking as well to our patient populations. Dr Grouse: What do you think our listeners will find to be most surprising when they read the article? Dr Scholz: We often present these diseases in our textbooks as these black-and-white entities, but the reality is that there's a lot of overlap. And we also see that co-pathologies are actually the norm and not the exception, and a lot of the molecular risk factors are shared. It's not really surprising. And I think that overlap and crosstalk between the various diseases is something that's a little bit strange to think about, but it actually makes increasingly sense now that we see the genetic risk profiles coming up. Dr Grouse: In reading your article, I was really struck by how many, or how much the prior studies have been lacking in inclusion of different ethno-racial backgrounds in the patients who've been studied. How can this be improved going forward?  Dr Scholz: Yeah, thank you. That's a really important and crucial question, and I think it really takes the collective effort of everybody in the healthcare research community to improve upon that. We need to talk to our patients about genetic testing, about brain donation programs, about referrals to clinical trials, and don't feel shy about reaching out to our colleagues and academic centers, even if you don't have the resources in a smaller institution. We also not only need to engage with the communities, we also need to build up a healthcare research community that has representatives from these various communities. So, it's really a collective effort that we build up and are proactive about building a more equitable healthcare system and research system that works for all of us and that really is going to provide us with the precision medicines that work for everybody. Dr Grouse: What do you think is the biggest debate or controversy related to the genetics and neuropathology of neurodegenerative dementias?  Dr Scholz: Yeah, there are loads of interesting debates, but I think in my field, in particular in the genetics is what to do with risk variance. What is it that I actually communicate to the patient? Obviously, I can learn a lot on the bench and I think I can use a lot of the genetic risk factors for molecular modeling, etc. But to which extent should I share that information? Because genetic information is something that we cannot alter and many of the risk factors are actually mild, that they may never result in disease. And so, communicating risk with patients is something that's very challenging and we used to just steer away from it. But now the discussion is starting to shift a little bit. You know, nowadays we are starting to offer, for example, testing for the APOE4 allele in individuals who are considering antiamyloid therapies. And this really, this is precision medicine in his earliest days because it allows us to stratify patients into those that are high-risk versus low-risk and those that need more frequent follow-up or may be advised not to pursue this treatment. And we're probably going to see more of those discussions and the ethics around it. And it's even harder in an aged population where you know, you may never manifest any of the symptoms despite carrying a lot of these risk deals. Dr Grouse: You mentioned, you know, that testing, APOE4 testing for certain populations when deciding to do the antiamyloid immunotherapies. Apart from that, which I think is a really good example of where genetic testing makes sense, what other scenarios do you think it makes sense at this point in time to recommend genetic testing for symptomatic patients who are concerned about neurodegenerative dementias? Dr Scholz: Yeah. So, I usually have a very frank discussion with patients in whom I suspect the genetic etiology. So those are individuals who have a strong family history, individuals from very early onset of the disease where genetic testing may allow us to establish a molecular diagnosis, individualize and refine our counseling, and potentially get them into targeted clinical trials that may be suitable for that. Those are always very nuanced discussions, but I usually start with those high-risk individuals. Increasingly patients are, even with the apparently sporadic forms, are asking me about it. And then I have a frank discussions about the pros and cons and offer it to the patients who really would like to pursue it.  Dr Grouse: That makes a lot of sense. What about in the case of patients who are asymptomatic but might have high risks because of, well, family members with certain types of neurodegenerative dementias? When would it make sense, if ever, to do genetic testing for them? Dr Scholz: Yeah, that's a that's a tough situation, to be honest. By and large, I would say I would like to understand what the motivation is to learn about the genetic status. If the motivation is something like family planning, future care planning, etc, then it may be a reasonable thing. But I also want to make it very clear upfront that knowing a genetic status, at least aside from APOE status, at least for now, doesn't actually change the clinical management. And I want to make sure patients understand if they are trying to lower their risk, knowing that genetic status is not going to lower their risk. There are other things, brain health habits, that are really important, that patients should double down on: avoiding vascular disease, avoiding traumatic brain injury, excessive alcohol use, etcetera. It's a discussion that really tries to understand the motivations behind the testing. But some patients are very frank and they want to have it. They may want to contribute to the research community, and so in those instances we may offer it, but I also really want to make them understand that knowing a genetic diagnosis may be acceptable to them, but family members who are related to them may not wish to know. And they can really cause a lot of psychological stress that extends beyond the individual. And then that's something to really consider before actually pursuing testing. Dr Grouse: I think that's a really good reminder, especially about how this can even affect people outside of the patient themselves. I think a lot of us don't even think about that. And certainly, our patients may not either. Taking it a step further, thinking about newly available biomarkers, imaging modalities, how should we incorporate the use of these for our patients when we're suspicious of things like Alzheimer's disease or dementia with the Lewy bodies? Dr Scholz: So by and large these biomarkers are used in in the research area, but we can, in a given patient where maybe the clinical presentation is somewhat atypical, we can use it to help with our diagnostic impression. It doesn't get rid of the clinical evaluation, but at least it gives us a little bit more certainty. Here are the you know, the molecular features, the abnormal amyloid tau deposits, for example, that we're there we're detecting supports diagnosis. May also sometimes help in patients where we suspect there could be even the co-pathology going on where we get a mixture of features, where we can counsel the patients and you know, detecting copathologies is something that is certainly challenging. We know that patients who have more pathologies on average are not doing as well as the ones who have relatively pure disease forms. But this is also an area of intense research and as long as it's used judiciously to help with the diagnostic compression, to reduce a diagnostic odyssey, I think there's a lot of potential there to improve the clinical evaluations nowadays. Dr Grouse: It is really exciting to see the options that are opening up as the years go by, which brings me to my next question. There is certainly, as we know, this new category of disease modifying therapies that are available in the form of the anti-amyloid immunotherapies. What else do you think's on the horizon for treatment and prevention, neurodegenerative dementias, going down the road five, ten, fifteen years down the line?  Dr Scholz: Yeah, I think we're entering the era of precision medicine already and we're, we're seeing it already with the anti-amyloid therapies. By and large, I think the standard of care is going to be a multidisciplinary individualized treatment plan that incorporates a more holistic view. It incorporates diet, lifestyle factors, symptomatic management, but also disease modification strategies and potentially even multitarget disease modifying strategies. I think there's a lot more work that we have to do, especially in in the non-Alzheimer's dementia field. But overall, we're becoming much better in refining our diagnostic impression and in treating some of the complications that arise in these very complex diseases.  Dr Grouse: I'm curious, with the future of dementia care and diagnosis being more of a precision medicine model, how do you think this will be possible in an aging population with already, I think, probably a limited access to neurologists even in current state? Dr Scholz: Yeah, this is- these are these are very challenging societal questions. Increasingly, you know, we can use modern technologies such as televisits for follow up, but also, you know, remote monitoring devices. We have to educate the next generation, we need more neurologists, we can't do it alone; but we also need to empower primary care doctors who are usually the first go-to person. And perhaps biomarker testing will become much more common even in the primary care setting. I think overall, you know, we can tackle it by educating the community, empowering participants in various clinical trials, and being flexible of embracing certain new technologies. Dr Grouse: Absolutely. I think that makes a lot of sense and hopefully this will be another call to arms to try to get the word out, get more access to neurology and more people interested and like you said, getting our other colleagues involved and being able to manage it as well.  Dr Scholz: Yeah.  Dr Grouse: I wanted to transition a little bit into learning more about you. How did you become interested in genetics of neurodegenerative dementias? Dr Scholz: Yeah, it's something, it's an interest that has grown gradually. I started out as a neuroscientist in in Austria, where I was fortunate to work with a group that was very strongly involved in Parkinson's disease care. And I was so thrilled to see patients, you know, treated with deep brain stimulation. But yet in the same clinic, I also saw the patients who were not eligible because they had atypical neurodegenerative diseases. And it's the realization that there is such a broad spectrum of diseases that we frankly don't understand very well, that we really need to work with, understand and hopefully develop the treatments with. That's really has resonated with me. And I've since then really built my entire career around it through different countries at the United Kingdom and the United States. And I'm very fortunate to work at the National Institutes of Health, where I can pursue a lot of these research passions and work with interesting patients and colleagues.  Dr Grouse: Well, I've learned a lot today, and I'm sure our listeners would agree. Thank you so much for joining us. It's really been a pleasure speaking with you.  Dr Scholz: Well, thank you so much for allowing me to contribute. And, you know, I hope the review article conveys a lot of the exciting developments in this really challenging field. But there's loads of hope that we will eventually get to the point to tackle these conditions.  Dr Grouse: I encourage all of our listeners to check out Dr Scholz 's article. It is a great overview of these conditions and the genetics and neuropathology underlining them. Again, thank you so much.  Dr Scholz: Thank you for having me. Dr Grouse: Again, today I've been interviewing Dr Sonia Scholz, whose article on genetics and neuropathology of neurodegenerative dementias 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 continpub.com/AudioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Blood-based biomarkers for dementia diagnosis are emerging and rapidly evolving. These fluid biomarkers should be used when the results will impact management decisions, including patient and family counseling, symptomatic therapies, and disease-modifying therapies. In this episode, Allison Weathers, MD, FAAN, speaks with Joseph F. Quinn, MD, FAAN, an author of the article “Fluid Biomarkers in Dementia Diagnosis,” in the Continuum® December 2024 Dementia issue. Dr. Weathers is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and associate chief medical information officer at the Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio. Dr. Quinn is a professor in the Department of Neurology at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, Oregon. Additional Resources Read the article: Fluid Biomarkers in Dementia 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 More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN 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 Weathers: This is Dr Allison Weathers. Today, I'm interviewing Dr Joseph Quinn, author along with Dr Nora Gray, of Fluid Biomarkers in Dementia Diagnosis from the December 2024 Continuum issue on dementia. Welcome to the podcast and please introduce yourself to our audience. Dr Quinn: Sure. I'm Joe Quinn. I'm a neurologist at the medical school in Oregon, Oregon Health Science University, and I work in neurodegenerative disease, Alzheimer's disease, and Parkinson's disease.  Dr Weathers: Certainly some really weighty topics. But again, as I said, today we want to focus on a really fascinating one, the concept of fluid biomarkers in dementia diagnosis. And we'll perhaps get into monitoring of treatment as well. So, this search for reliable biomarkers in the diagnosis of dementia, certainly not a new topic, but you and your co-author Dr Nora Gray did a really fantastic job in the article right from the get-go, laying out the urgency around this now that there are FDA of treatments that depend on pathologic diagnosis. And it feels like they're more and more announced by the day. Even as I was preparing for this interview a few days ago, the FDA approval for donanemab was announced, with the news making every major media outlet. Well, there are several really critical points made by you both in the article. What do you feel is the most important clinical message of your article? What do you want our listeners to walk away with as their one key takeaway?  Dr Quinn: I think we still have the best evidence for CSF biomarkers, cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers, really making a diagnosis with some confidence. PET scans are available for visualizing amyloid and Tau now, but they're so expensive and they're not covered. So, the spinal tap information is what most of us around here really rely on when we want to be sure about what's going on. The blood tests are very promising, very exciting, but as you probably know, there's a lot of different opinions about this out there. Some people are sure that it's a done deal and that we now have a blood test for Alzheimer's disease. After I sent the article off, I opened up my issue of Neurology and there was an editorial saying these blood tests will never work. So, there's different ends of the spectrum on this and we tried to strike a balance with that. So they're very promising. I think before the article is due for revision, things are going to be different. But right now, spinal fluid is probably where we have the most confidence. Dr Weathers: I think that's a really solid takeaway to start our discussion with. And then, I think you both did really strike that very delicate balance in what is right now an area where, as I said, you know, things still are changing by the day. I know for our listeners who do subscribe, and I hope that most of them do, Table 9.1, clinically useful CSF biomarkers for the differential diagnosis of dementia, is one that I personally think I will frequently return to. You and Doctor Gray did just a wonderful job organizing these very complex concepts into an easy read and really powerful tool, especially for use at the bedside. Along the lines of knowing which biomarker to use, how frequently routine care are you ordering these tests on your patients? And do you anticipate this changing the media future? Is this another one of those things that by next week, we'll have a different kind of answer in how we use these tests? Dr Quinn: Yeah, as you said in your preliminary comments, the whole picture has been changed by the approval of these antibody therapies for Alzheimer's disease, lecanumab and just last week, donanemab. Prior to the approval of those two medications, I didn't use spinal fluid tests routinely, but I relied on them when I really needed to make a diagnosis with certainty of something really important hung in the balance. If we were trying to rule out some other treatable, more treatable problem. You know, for example, if it was a question of whether somebody primarily had a psychiatric problem or a neurodegenerative disease, this is something that would really allow me to objectify things. And- but that was a minority of people that I would see for dementia evaluation. You know, now that the two therapies are approved, I'm not actively engaged in administering those therapies very frequently but I can see already that the, the patients that I am discussing this with that spinal fluid is where we're probably going to rely for making a diagnosis of the amyloid burden in the in the living patient until PET scans are approved. If amyloid PET scans are- not approved, but covered by insurance, then those will probably replace the spinal fluid. So those tests in that table, A beta 42, tau, p-tau, one of them that's relatively new is this test for aggregated alpha-synuclein. Those I order with some frequency when I'm in those circumstances.  Dr Weathers: That's really helpful for our listeners to hear from an expert such as yourself and to think about as they encounter similar patients. Whenever discussing complex topics such as this one, I'm always curious about, what is the most common misconception or pitfall regarding the use of biomarkers for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's and other dementia that you encounter?  Dr Quinn: With respect to the blood biomarkers, you know, we were saying a moment ago that there's a lot of evidence available, but the jury is still out to some degree as to how reliable they are. And I think an important message with respect to those blood biomarkers is that they really are confounded by comorbidities. Remember, we're dealing with an elderly population, so comorbidities like hypertension and renal insufficiency and those kinds of things are relatively common and they can really throw off the blood biomarkers in a more dramatic way than cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers. The other fact, and I can't remember how well we cited this in the article, was that the blood biomarkers don't perform as well in underrepresented minorities. And you know, all of us are appropriately paying more attention to that problem in our practice of medicine. And for these blood biomarkers, that's a real issue. And whether the inferior performance in underrepresented groups is due to more comorbidity or just due to genetic differences is unclear at this time. So those are really important cautions. We mentioned the renal insufficiency and, I think, some of the other comorbidities, but it's a reason to really be careful with the blood biomarkers.  Dr Weathers: I think a really important point, especially again, kind of going back to what we were talking about at the beginning of our discussion, there's so much excitement around them. There's so much potential. People think we finally have that kind of silver bullet of diagnosis. So, I think really something to keep in mind.  What about in the use of their- in monitoring the efficacy of treatments?  Dr Quinn: So that's I think a little earlier in its history in terms of what biomarkers would be useful for monitoring. But the donanemab trial really relied on blood biomarkers as outcome measures and really showed some interesting phenomena. One of them was that plasma neurofilament light, which is all the rage now and all over neurology, people are measuring plasma neurofilament light. It's a nonspecific marker of neuronal damage that makes it out into the serum. So, you can measure it in serum and detect CNS damage in the serum. And intuitively, you would think that would be a good measure of efficacy, but in terms of detecting a treatment effect with donanemab, it didn't perform very well. Conversely, GFAP, which is a marker of astrocyte activation, which I would not have predicted was going to be a sensitive marker for treatment efficacy, performed well in at least the donanemab trial. So, I think it's early in the history of using these markers as outcome measures in clinical trials. And I think we're going to continue to learn as each therapy comes along and as these things come to pass.  Dr Weathers: Don't make any assumptions yet? Would that be a good way to sum that up?  Dr Quinn: I think that's, yes. I think that's very fair that that we have to be careful about these things.  Dr Weathers: OK. So, in summary, I think, does it sound like it's fair to say that the pitfall might be to say it's too early to make any assumptions or any conclusions quite yet? Dr Quinn: That's right. And, and I think, you know, we're going to need to monitor these therapies. I think all of us in neurology have become very accustomed to how you do that in multiple sclerosis, right? We've got MRI scans to be used to monitor therapy, maybe NFL is going to be an appropriate assay there as well. But, you know, there we've all had the experience of a chronic disease and seeing how well your therapy is doing, changing therapy if it fails. So, we're absolutely going to need those things in in Alzheimer's disease and other neurodegenerative diseases, but it's a little early for us to be sure exactly what the right measures are to make those important decisions. Dr Weathers: And a lot more work to be done for sure. As I mentioned, this is a topic of such great interest and I know, you know, certainly most of our listeners are neurologists or people in our world, medical students and trainees. I know I have one regular nonneurologist listener, my father. He really gets a kick out of listening to my interviews. Even though he is a retired sales manager from IBM and most of the time the topics of discussion are pretty different from his usual favorite podcasts. But this one he will be particularly interested in and I'm sure I will get a list of questions about, particularly because my grandfather unfortunately had Alzheimer's disease. So, I'm sure one of his questions will be about the use of these biomarkers in asymptomatic patients. How do you counsel family members of patients when they inquire about the use of biomarkers for that youth case? What is their utility in presymptomatic testing? Dr Quinn: We know from studies like the Alzheimer's disease neuroimaging initiative and other biomarker studies that some of these markers will be sensitive to pathology. Even in asymptomatic people, that pathology appears long before people develop symptoms. Despite that, I don't recommend that asymptomatic people get any of the testing right now because we do not have evidence that early intervention at the completely asymptomatic stage is valuable. And those clinical trials are underway. There are trials underway right now for people who don't even meet the memory deficit required to have a diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment, people who are entirely cognitively intact, but who on one biomarker study or another have evidence of pathology burden. And the interventions are being started early. And in a few years, we'll know the answer to that. Right now, for somebody to find out that they have pathology without any ability to act on it, I think is not valuable. So, I discourage people from pursuing that.  Dr Weathers: And that is really important guidance. Thank you. I know you have, as you mentioned, a beginning in a really diverse neurologic background with expertise, as you said, not only in dementia, but also in Parkinson's disease. And you didn't even mention this, but I know expertise in stroke as well, but your research has been primarily in Alzheimer's. What drew you to dementia and to this specific the aspect of it? How did you become an expert in biomarkers?  Dr Quinn: Well, I'll start with the dementia part. So, you know, I was always just interested intuitively in trying to understand how, you know, the brain mediates the mind. So as an undergraduate, I got started working in a lab that was working on the cholinergic system in the brain, which was still being sorted out at that time. It is important in Alzheimer's disease, but it was really where the focus was. And that's what got me interested in Alzheimer's disease, which incidentally is what got Alzheimer interested in Alzheimer's disease. You know, he was very interested in trying to find the biological footprints of all these different neurological and psychiatric diseases. And he usually came up empty-handed until he came across the patient with Alzheimer's disease where there were actual footprints in the brain that he thought was pointing towards what was going on. And we're still wondering about that a hundred years later, I guess that's how I got interested in dementia and Alzheimer's disease. I think I have always spent part of my time as a clinician. I think that's what got me interested in biomarkers, that this problem has always been there that, you know, we've got quite, you know, research criteria for making diagnosis and all that sort of thing. But we've really needed some biological evidence to help us firm this up even before the availability of the therapies. And that's what got me interested in- I'm making another point. I thought that computer research biomarkers are going to help point me towards the causes of the disease, and unfortunately that part hasn't entirely panned out. We've got some research in that area on micro-RNA biomarkers that maybe will bear some fruit down the road, but that's been a tougher, tougher nut to crack. Dr Weathers: But it's so incredibly important work. Well, this has been wonderful. I really enjoyed our conversation, and I always like to end on a hopeful note. What developments in the biomarker space are coming on the horizon are you most excited about? Dr Quinn: I'm hoping that these biomarkers that allow us to evaluate disease efficacy, blood biomarkers that don't require extraspinal taps and that sort of thing. I hope that all comes to pass. And I do think that there is a lot of research underway looking at biomarkers in a novel way that I think could help point us to new targets for therapy, things that you and I haven't even thought of yet. Those are the two things. I guess you asked me for one, I gave you two.  Dr Weathers: Oh I think very fair. I agree. Both of those would certainly be wonderful and, and I'm excited as well. Well, thank you, Dr Quinn, for taking the time to speak with me this evening.  Dr Quinn: A pleasure. Thank you for having me. Thank you for inviting me to do the piece. It was really a great experience.   Dr Weathers: Again, today I've been interviewing Dr Joseph Quinn, who's written with Doctor Nora Gray on fluid biomarkers and dementia diagnosis. This article appears in the December 2024 Continuum issue 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 continpub.com/AudioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Although Alzheimer disease (AD) is the most common neurodegenerative cause of dementia, other etiologies can mimic the typical amnestic-predominant syndrome and medial temporal brain involvement. Neurologists should recognize potential mimics of AD for clinical decision-making and patient counseling. In this episode, Kait Nevel, MD, speaks with Vijay K. Ramanan, MD, PhD, an author of the article “LATE, Hippocampal Sclerosis, and Primary Age-related Tauopathy,” in the Continuum December 2024 Dementia issue. Dr. Nevel is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a neurologist and neuro-oncologist at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, Indiana. Dr. Ramanan is a consultant and assistant professor of neurology in the Division of Behavioral Neurology at Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science in Rochester, Minnesota. Additional Resources Read the article: LATE, Hippocampal Sclerosis, and Primary Age-related Tauopathy 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 Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: IUneurodocmom Guest: @vijaykramanan Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyle 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 Nevel: This is Dr Kait Nevel. Today I'm interviewing Dr Vijay Ramanan about his article he wrote with Dr Jonathan Graff-Radford on LATE hippocampal sclerosis and primary age-related tauopathy, which appears in the December 2024 Continuum issue on dementia. Welcome to the podcast. Vijay, can you please introduce yourself to the audience? Dr Ramanan: Thanks so much, Kait. I'm delighted to be here. So, I am a cognitive neurologist and neuroscientist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. I have roles in practice, education and research, but amongst those I see patients with cognitive disorders in the clinic. I help direct our Alzheimer's disease treatment clinic and also do research, including clinical trial involvement and some observational research on genetics and biomarkers related to Alzheimer's and similar disorders. Dr Nevel: Great, thanks for that. So, I'd like to start off by talking about why is LATE hippocampal sclerosis, why is this important for the neurologist practicing in clinic to know about these things? Dr Ramanan: That's a great question. So, if we take a step back, we know that degenerative diseases of the brain are really, really common, and they get more and more common as we get older. I think all neurologists, and in fact most clinicians and large swaths of the general public, are well aware of Alzheimer's disease, which is the most common degenerative cause of cognitive impairment in the population. But there are non-Alzheimer's degenerative diseases which can produce cognitive difficulties as well. And it's important to be aware of those disorders, of their specific presentations and their implications, in part because it's always a healthy thing when we can be as precise and confident about diagnosis and expectation with our patients as possible. I'll look to the analogy of a patient presenting with a myelopathy. As neurologists, we would all find it critical to clarify, is that myelopathy the result of a compressive spondylotic change? The result of an inflammatory disorder, of a neoplastic disorder, of an infectious disorder? It's critical to guide the patient and choose appropriate management options based on the cause of their syndrome. It would potentially harm the patient if you treated an infectious myelopathy with steroids or other immune-suppressant drugs. So, a similar principle holds in cognitive neurology. I accept with humility that we can never be 100% crystal clear certain about things in medicine, just because when you think you got it all figured out there's a curveball. But I want to get as close to that 100% as possible. And recognizing that disorders like LATE or PART can mimic the symptoms, sometimes even the imaging features of Alzheimer's disease. I think it's critical to have heightened awareness of those disorders, how they look, to be able to apply appropriate counseling and management options to patients. I think this becomes particularly critical as we move into an era of disease-specific, and sometimes disease-modifying, therapies, where applying a choice of a treatment option could have significant consequences to a patient if the thing you're treating isn't the thing that the drug is trying to accomplish. So, having awareness and spreading awareness about some of these non-AD causes of cognitive difficulty, I think, is a big mission in the field.  Dr Nevel: Yeah, that makes total sense. And kind of leaning into this, you know, trying to differentiate between these different causes of late-life amnestic cognitive impairment. You know, I'll point out to the listeners today to please read your article, but in addition to reading your article, I'd like to note that there's a really nice table in your article, Table 6-1, where you kind of go through the different causes of amnestic cognitive impairment and the different features that better fit with diagnosis X, Y, or Z, because I think it's a really nice table to reference and really easy to look at and reference back to. But on that note, what is your typical approach when you're seeing a patient in clinic, have a new referral for an older patient presenting with a predominantly progressive amnestic-type features? Dr Ramanan: Excellent question. And this is one that I think has relevance not just in a subspecialty memory clinic, but to all the clinicians who help to diagnose and manage cognitive disorders, including in primary care and general neurology and others. One principle that I think it's helpful to keep in our minds is that in cognitive neurology, no one data point takes precedence over all the others. We have a variety of information that we can gather from history, from exam, from imaging, from fluid biomarkers. And really the fun, the challenge, the reward is in piercing together that information. It's almost like being a lawyer and compiling the evidence, having possibilities on your list and raising and lowering those possibilities to get as close to the truth as you can. So, for patients with a cognitive syndrome, I think the first plank is in defining that syndrome. As you mentioned, if I'm seeing someone with a progressive amnestic-predominant syndrome, I first want to make sure, are we talking about the same thing, the patient, the care partner, and I?  Can often be helpful to ask them for some examples of what they see, because sometimes what patients may report as memory troubles may in fact reflect cognitive difficult in other parts of our mental functioning. For example, executive functioning or naming of objects. And so helpful to clarify that in the history to get a sense of the intensity and the pace of change over time, and then to pair that with a good general neurologic exam and some type of standardized assessment of their cognitive functioning. At the Mayo Clinic, where partial to the short test of mental status. There are other ways to accomplish that, such as with an MMSE or a MoCA. If I understand that the syndrome is a progressive amnestic disorder, Alzheimer's disease is the most common cause of that presentation in older adults, it deserves to be on my differential diagnosis. But there might be some other features in the story that could raise or lower those mimics on my list. So, in patients who are, say, older than the age of seventy five, disorders like LATE or PART start to rise higher on the likelihood for me, in particular if I know that their clinical course has been more slow brewing, gradually evolving. And again, most degenerative disorders we expect to evolve not over days or weeks, but over many months to many years. But in comparison with Alzheimer's disease, patients with LATE or with PART would be expected to have a little more slow change where maybe year over year they or their care partners really aren't noticing big declines. Their daily function is relatively spare. There might not be as much involvement into other non-memory cognitive domains. So, these are some of the pieces of the story that can help to perhaps isolate those other non-AD disorders on the list as being more likely and then integrating, as a next level, diagnostic testing, which helps you to rule in and rule out or support those different causes. So, for example, with LATE there can be often out of proportion to the clinical picture, out of proportion to what you see on the rest of their imaging or other profiles, very predominant hippocampal and medial temporal volume loss. And so that can be a clue in the right setting that you may not be dealing with Alzheimer's disease or pure Alzheimer's disease, but that this other entity is there. So, in the big picture, I would say being systematic, recognizing that multiple data points being put together helps you get to that confident cause or etiology of the syndrome. And in particular, taking a step back and thinking about big picture factors like age and course to help you order those elements of the differential, whether AD or otherwise. Dr Nevel: Great, thanks. In your article, you talk about different imaging modalities that can be used, as you mentioned, you know, just another piece of the puzzle, if you will, to try and put together what may be going on with the patient, and recognizing that some of these imaging techniques are imaging is special imaging, not available in a lot of places.  You know, and maybe other diagnostic type tests that could be helpful in differentiating between these different disorders may not be available, you know, for the general neurologist practicing in the community. So, what do you suggest to the general neurologist maybe practicing somewhere where they don't have access to some of these ancillary tests that could assist with a diagnosis?  Dr Ramanan: Critical question. And here I think there's not likely to be one single answer. As with most things, awareness and recognition is a good place to start. So, some of those clues that I mentioned earlier about the clinical course, about the age, the- we're talking about clinical setting there. So, comfort with and understanding that the clinical setting can help you to be more confident about, for example, LATE or PART being present in contrast to AD. That's important information. It deserves to be part of the discussion. It doesn't necessarily need other tests to have value on its own. A second piece is that tests help, in some cases, to rule in and rule out causes for cognitive difficulty. As part of a standard cognitive evaluation, we would all be interested in getting some blood tests to look for thyroid dysfunction or vitamin deficiencies. Some type of structural head imaging to rule out big strokes, tumors, bleeds. Head CT can accomplish some of that perspective. It's ideal if a brain MRI can be obtained, but again, keeping in mind, what's the primary goal of that assessment? It's to assess structure. Occasionally you can get even deeper clues into a syndrome from the MRI. For example, that very profound hippocampal or medial temporal atrophy. So, increasing awareness amongst clinicians throughout our communities to be able to recognize that change and put it in the context of what they see in other brain regions that can be affected by Alzheimer's or related disorders. For example, the parietal regions can be helpful. And recall that MRI can also be helpful in assessing for chronic cerebrovascular disease changes. This is another mimic that shows up in that table that you mentioned. And so multiple purposes can be satisfied by single tests. Now, you're absolutely right that there are additional test modalities that, perhaps in a subspecialty clinic at an academic medical center, we're very used to relying on and finding great value on; for example, glucose PET scans or sometimes fluid biomarkers from the blood or from the spinal fluid. And these are not always as widely available throughout our communities. Part of the challenge for all of us as a field is therefore to take the expertise that we have gathered in more subspecialty settings and tertiary care settings and translate and disseminate that out into our communities where we need to take care of patients. That's part of the challenge. The other challenge is in continued tool and technological development. There's a lot of optimism in our field that the availability of blood-based biomarkers relevant for Alzheimer's disease may play a part in helping to address some of the disparities in resource and access to care. You can imagine that doing a blood test to give you some high-quality information, there are going to be less barriers to doing that in many settings compared to thinking about a lumbar puncture or a PET scan, both in terms of cost to the patient as well as infrastructure to the clinicians and the care team. So I'm optimistic about a lot of those changes. In the meantime, I think there are, through both clinical evaluation and some basic testing including structural head imaging, there are clues that can help navigate these possibilities. Dr Nevel: So, let's say you have your patient in clinic, you've done your evaluation, maybe gotten some ancillary testing, and you highly suspect either LATE or PART. How do you counsel those patients and their families? How do you manage those patients moving forward who you really suspect don't have, you know, some sort of co-pathology? Dr Ramanan: So, it's- I think it's helpful to remember when patients are coming to see us, either they or the people around them have noticed an issue. And very likely it's an issue that's been brewing for a little while. I think it can be very valuable, very helpful for patients to have answers. What's the cause for the issue? Once you have answers, even if sometimes those answers are not the most welcome things or the things that you'd be looking forward to, answers give you an opportunity to grab hold of what's going on, to define a game plan. So, understanding there is a degenerative disease there, it sheds light on why that individual had had memory symptoms over the years. And it gives them a general expectation that over time on an individualized basis, but generally expecting gradually over many months to many years, there may be some worsening in some of those symptoms helps them to plan and helps them to make the adaptations that are a-ok and great to make to just help you to do the things you want to do. As much as I can, I try to put the focus here closer to how we would view things like high blood pressure or high cholesterol. Those are also chronic issues that tend to be more common as we get older, tend to get more troublesome as we get older. The goal is, know what you're dealing with and take the combination of lifestyle modifications, adaptations in your day-to-day and maybe medications to keep them as mild and as slow-changing as possible. With something like LATE, we don't have specific medication therapies to help support cognitive functioning at this time. There's a lot of hope that with additional research we will have those therapies. But even so, I think it's an important moment to emphasize some of those good healthy lifestyle habits. Staying mentally, socially and physically active, getting a good night's sleep, eating a healthy, balanced diet, keeping good control of vascular risk factors, all of that is critical to keeping the brain healthy, keeping the degenerative disease as mild and slow-brewing as possible. And understanding what some of the symptoms to expect could be. So, with LATE the syndrome tends to be very memory-predominant. There may be some trouble with maybe naming of objects or perhaps recall of emotionally salient historical knowledge, world events, but you're not expecting, at least over the short to medium term, huge intervening on other cognitive functioning. And so that can be helpful for patients to understand. So, the hope is once you know what what you're dealing with, you understand that the disease can look different from person to person. Having a general map of what to expect and what you can do to keep it in check, I think, is the goal. Dr Nevel: I agree with you 100% that it really can be helpful even if we can't, quote unquote, fix it, that for people, family, the patient have a name for what they have and kind of have some sort of idea of what to expect in the future. And they may come in thinking that they have Alzheimer's or something like that. And then, so, to get that information that this is going to be a little different, we expect this to go a little bit differently then it would if you had a diagnosis of Alzheimer's, I can see how that would be really helpful for people.  Dr Ramanan: I completely agree. And here's another challenge for us in the field when most patients have heard about Alzheimer's disease and many have perhaps even heard of dementia with Lewy bodies or frontotemporal dementia, but may not have heard of things like LATE. And they're not always easy to go online or find books that talk about these things. Having a name for it and being able to pair that with patient-friendly information is really critical. I see our appointments where we're sharing those diagnosis and making initial game plans as an initial foray into that process.  Dr Nevel: Yeah, absolutely. What is the greatest inequity or disparity that you see in taking care of patients with progressive amnestic cognitive impairment? Dr Ramanan: Yeah, great question. I think two big things come to mind. The first, you hinted at very well earlier that there are disparities in access to care, access to diagnostic testing, access to specialists and expertise throughout our communities. If we want diagnostics and therapeutics to be broadly applicable, they do need to be broadly available. And that's a big challenge for us as a field to work to address those disparities. There's not going to be one single cause or contributor to those iniquities, but as a field, I'm heartened to see thought and investment into trying to better address those. Another big weakness, and this is not just limited to cognitive neurology, it's a challenge throughout neurology, is that too many of our research studies are lacking in diversity. And that impacts our biological and pathophysiological understanding of these disorders. It also impacts our counseling and management. Again, if we want a new drug treatment to be broadly applicable throughout all of the patients that we take care of, we need to have data which guides how we apply those treatments. And so again, I'm heartened. This is a big challenge. It's a long standing challenge. It will take deep and long standing committed efforts to reverse. But I'm heartened that there are efforts in the field to broaden clinical trial enrollment, broaden observational research enrollment, and again, broaden access to tools and expertise. As a neurologist, I got into this field because I want to help people, use my expertise and my training to help people. These are steps that we can take to make sure that that help is broadly applicable throughout everybody in our communities. Dr Nevel: Yeah, absolutely. So, kind of segueing from you mentioning research and how we can better include patients in research. What do you think the next breakthrough is going to be? What do you think the next big thing is going to be in these disorders? What do we still need to learn? Dr Ramanan: There's a lot. I think for LATE and PART, the development of specific biomarkers would be top of the agenda. Now, biomarkers are by their nature imperfect. Even with Alzheimer's disease, where in comparison, we know quite a lot. We have a variety of imaging and fluid biomarkers that we can use to support or rule out a diagnosis. There are nuances in how you interpret those biomarkers. Patients can have signs of amyloid plaques in their brain and have completely normal cognition. They may be at risk for developing cognitive trouble due to Alzheimer's disease in the future, but it's one piece of the puzzle. Patients can have the changes of Alzheimer's disease amyloid plaques and tau tangles in the brain. We can confirm that through biomarkers. But at the end of the day, their cognitive syndrome might be driven by something else. Maybe it's Lewy body disease, maybe it's LATE, maybe it's a combination of factors. So, integrating and interpreting those biomarkers is challenging. But I do think, again, from the standpoint of giving patients answers with a diagnosis, having those biomarkers is really critical to just kind of closing the loop. It will also be critical to have those biomarkers as we're assessing for treatment response. So, for example, patients who may have coexistent Alzheimer's disease and LATE, I don't think we know the answer fully as to how likely they are to benefit from, say, newer antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies for Alzheimer's disease in the setting of that second pathology. So, wouldn't it be great if, similar to an oncologic setting where you engage in a treatment and then you're tracking two or three or four plasma measures and you're tracking tumor size with imaging, if we had this multimodal ability to track neurodegenerative pathology through biomarkers? I think that'll be a critical next step. And so, filling out that for non-Alzheimer's diseases, including LATE and PART, I think is item number one on the agenda. Dr Nevel: Wonderful, thank you so much. I really appreciate you taking the time to chat with me today about your article. I really enjoyed our conversation, certainly learned a lot. Dr Ramanan: Thank you so much, Kait. Love talking with you. And again, it was an honor to write this article. I hope it's helpful to many out in the field who take care of patients with cognitive issues.  Dr Nevel: Yeah, I think it will be. So again, today I'm interviewing Dr Vijay Ramanan about his article that he wrote with Dr Jonathan Graff-Radford on LATE hippocampal sclerosis and primary age-related tauopathy, which 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, Vijay, 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.

Vascular cognitive impairment is a common and often underrecognized contributor to cognitive impairment in older individuals, with heterogeneous etiologies requiring individualized treatment strategies.  In this episode, Katie Grouse, MD, FAAN speaks with Lisa C. Silbert, MD, MCR, FAAN, an author of the article “Vascular Cognitive Impairment,” in the Continuum December 2024 Dementia issue. Dr. Grouse is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a clinical assistant professor at the University of California San Francisco in San Francisco, California. Dr. Silbert is is co-director at Oregon Alzheimer's Disease Research Center, a Gibbs Family Endowed professor of neurology, a professor of neurology at Oregon Health & Science University, a staff neurologist, director of Cognitive Care Clinic, and director of the Geriatric Neurology Fellowship Program at Portland Veterans Affairs Health Care System in Portland, Oregon. Additional Resources Read the article: Vascular Cognitive Impairment 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 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, 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 Grouse: This is Dr Katie Grouse. Today I'm interviewing Dr Lisa Silbert about her article on vascular cognitive impairment, which is part of the December 2024 Continuum issue on dementia. Welcome to the podcast and please introduce yourself to our audience.  Dr Silbert: Hi Katie. Thanks for having me here today. Like you mentioned, my name is Lisa Silbert. I am a behavioral neurologist at Oregon Health and Science University and my research focus is in the area of vascular contributions to cognitive impairment and dementia. Dr Grouse: It's such a pleasure to have you and I really enjoyed reading your article. Just incredibly relevant, I think, to most practicing general neurologists, and really to any subspecialty. I'd like to start by asking, what do you think is the main takeaway point of your article for our listeners?  Dr Silbert: Yeah. I think, you know, the field of vascular cognitive impairment has changed and evolved over the last several decades. And I would say the main take-home message is that vascular cognitive impairment or vascular dementia is no longer a diagnosis that is only considered in someone who's had acute decline following a clinical stroke. That we have to expand our awareness of vascular contributions to cognitive impairment and consider other forms of the disease that can cause a more subacute or slowly progressive form of cognitive impairment. And there are many, many forms of vascular cognitive impairment that present in a more slowly progressive manner. The other thing I would say as a major take-home message is that we know that cerebrovascular disease is a very common copathology with other forms of dementia and that it lowers one 's threshold for manifesting cognitive impairment in the context of multiple pathologies. And so, in this way, vascular cognitive impairment should be considered as a contributing and potentially modifiable factor in any dementia.  Dr Grouse: I found that last point just really, really fascinating. And also, you know, the reminder that a combination of pathologies are more common than any one. To your initial point, I'm actually curious, could you kind of outline for us how you approach diagnosing vascular cognitive impairment?  Dr Silbert: Yeah. So with everything in neurology, a lot of it comes down to the initial history taking. And so part of the work up always includes a very detailed history of the presentation of cognitive impairment. Any time there is an acute change in cognition, vascular contribution should be considered, particularly if it's in the context of a clinical stroke or some kind of event that might have lowered cerebral blood flow to the brain. And then having said that, I already mentioned there are many forms of vascular cognitive impairment that can mimic neurodegenerative disease in terms of its course. So being more slowly progressive. And so because of that neuroimaging, and in particular MRI, has become an extremely valuable tool in the workup of anyone who presents with cognitive impairment in order to evaluate contributions from cerebral vascular disease. And so, MRI is a really helpful tool when it comes to teasing out what may be contributing to a patient's clinical syndrome, as well as their other comorbid medical issues, including stroke risk factors and other kind of medical conditions that might contribute to reduce cerebral blood flow. Dr Grouse: I'd love to talk a little bit more about that. You know, as is often the case with neurologic disease associated with vascular pathology, the importance of prevention, you know, focusing on prevention of vascular diseases is so important. What are some things that we can make sure to focus on with our patients and, you know, particularly anything new to be aware of in counseling them? Dr Silbert: Yeah, I'm really glad you asked me that question because like I mentioned, you know, cerebral vascular disease is so common, it lowers one's threshold for cognitive impairment in the face of other age-related brain pathologies. And so, it's really important for all of us to focus on preserving our cognitive health, even starting in midlife. And so, there are a number of areas that I counsel my patients on when it comes to preserving cerebral health and maximizing cerebrovascular health. And so, these stem from the American Heart Association's Life's Essential 8 because we know that preserving cardiovascular health is likely going to also preserve cerebral vascular health. And so, some of the things that I'm very commonly discussing with my patients are controlling stroke risk factors such as blood pressure, blood sugars and cholesterol, maintaining a healthy weight, and then also working towards a lifestyle that includes a healthy diet, no smoking, regular exercise. And then new within the last couple years is also the recommendation that people get adequate sleep, which is something that hasn't been focused on previously. Dr Grouse: I was really interested in reading your article to learn about enlarged perivascular spaces and the role as a mediating factor in the interaction between through a vascular dysfunction and development and progression of neurodegenerative pathology. Can you elaborate on this further? Dr Silbert: So, this is an area that's still largely unknown in the field, and it's an area where there's a lot of emerging work being done. The short answer is, we really don't know with great certainty how it directly connects with accumulating Alzheimer's pathology. But there is some evidence to suggest that the perivascular space is involved in the clearance of toxic solutes from the brain, including Alzheimer's disease pathology. And so there's a lot of work looking at how potentially cerebrovascular risk factors might affect the clearance of those toxic solutes through the perivascular space, including pulse pressure changes that might occur with accumulating cerebrovascular disease and other potential contributors. But one thing I can say with more certainty is that the, you know, location of perivascular spaces is thought to help distinguish those who might have cognitive symptoms due to cerebrovascular disease versus due to cerebral amyloid angiopathy. Or I guess I should say location is helpful in terms of recognizing vascular contributions to cognitive impairment that's due to arteriolosclerosis versus that due to cerebral amyloid angiopathy. In so much that… when we see a lot of perivascular spaces in the basal ganglia in the subcortical structures, that is thought to be more associated with arteriolosclerosis and hypertension type related vascular cognitive impairment. Whereas when we see multiple perivascular spaces within the centrum semiovale, that tends to be more associated with cerebral amyloid angiopathy. Dr Grouse: That's so interesting. And on the topic ofcerebral amyloid angiopathy, you did go into this a good deal. And you know, I think I encourage everybody to revisit the article to remind themselves about, you know, the findings that can increase the suspicion of tribal amyloid angiopathy. However, you also talked about transient focal neurologic episodes, which I think is just a great reminder that, you know, these can occur in this setting and definitely not to miss. Tell us more about what to look for with these types of episodes.  Dr Silbert: Transit focal neurologic episodes can be very difficult to tease apart from a transient ischemic attack. And these transient focal neurologic episodes due to CAA can present in a number of different ways. And I think the important take home message for that is that in people who have neuroimaging evidence of CAA to inform them that they are at increased risk for having these focal neurologic episodes and that if they do present to a hospital or an emergency department with any kind of neurologic event, that those treating them are aware that they have evidence of CAA on their neuroimaging because the treatment of course is quite different. So, it's someone presenting with ATIA who has transient neurologic symptoms might be considered urgently to get a thrombolytic or, you know, TPA, whereas someone who has known cerebral amyloid angiopathy or suspected CAA, they likely already have microbleeds on their neuroimaging and in those cases thrombolytics and TPA would be contraindicated and not helpful in terms of the etiology of their neurologic symptoms. Dr Grouse: That's a really good point to make. And I think also in your article you mentioned the use of aspirin if you're suspecting ATIA versus a, you know, a transient amyloid related focal neurologic episode. You know, one you would treat with aspirin and the other one you wouldn't.  Dr Silbert: That's right.  Dr Grouse: Another sort of interesting topic you delved into was cerebral microinfarct and how this can also contribute to vascular impairment. Could you elaborate a little more on that? Dr Silbert: Yeah. So cerebral microinfarcts are kind of the hidden cause of or a hidden cause of vascular cognitive impairment. And it's extremely challenging because by definition they are not visible on routine clinical neuroimaging. It's something that we are more aware of based on pathological studies and neuroimaging studies that have been done at ultra-high field strength like 7T MRI. And so, we are just learning more about how prevalent they are in certain conditions and how we can only look at these after death when we're looking at brain tissue and then go back and realize that these play a significant role in cognitive decline when someone is alive. It's important to understand that we're probably only appreciating kind of the tip of the iceberg when we're evaluating a patient and looking at their neuroimaging. That what we're actually seeing on MRI are only the things that are actually quite relatively big and obvious. And that a lot of these neuroimaging features of vascular cognitive impairment are actually associated with pathologic features that we're missing such as microinfarcts. But the hope is that by treating all individuals, particularly those who already have signs of vascular cognitive impairment, by modulating their stroke risk factors and focusing on maintaining brain health, that those will, interventions will also reduce the incidence of microinfarcts. Dr Grouse: What do you think is the greatest inequity or disparity you see in treating patients with vascular cognitive impairment? Dr Silbert: I think the greatest disparity is- really starts way before I treat a patient. That relates to really focusing on healthy lifestyle factors early in life and being able to, you know, afford fruits and vegetables, and having the advantages of being able to exercise regularly, and just being aware that all of these things are extremely important before older age. So, these are things that, you know, I think more education and awareness and greater access to healthcare will definitely improve access to. Even preventative healthcare is a disparity and not available across all of the population and geographic locations. So, I think of the- all the dementias, vascular cognitive impairment probably has the greatest association with health and social disparities in terms of primary prevention and access to care.  Dr Grouse: All really important things to consider. I have to say when, you know, reading your article, dare I say I came away with a little bit of hope thinking, you know, even with, you know, how little we still, you know, or how much we still need to do to really learn how to fight Alzheimer's and, you know, prevent it and, and, you know, help with its progression. The idea that in so many cases, even just doing what we can to prevent the vascular or cognitive impairment can really help any type of dementia. That was really a strong message for me. Do you mind elaborating on that a little more?  Dr Silbert: No, not at all. I agree. I really am hopeful about the prevention and treatment of dementias and through the treatment and prevention of cerebrovascular disease. I think that is a true reality, just like, you know, as we were discussing before, the treatment and prevention of cerebrovascular disease really should be a part of the treatment of any type of cognitive impairment and recommendations for prevention of cognitive impairment. This is the, you know, one thing we know is largely modifiable and preventable in most cases. I think the, really the key thing is just education and making sure that people understand that these are things that really need to be, they need to be engaged in in midlife and that it's much harder to reverse these- the damages once you have them in later life. Having said that, I do think that there's greater awareness of maintaining healthy lifestyle and maintaining awareness of stroke risk factors. And I think we're already starting to see a reduction in dementia worldwide in several large population-based studies, and probably that is due to more attention to the modifying stroke risk factors. So, I agree with you, it's very encouraging.  Dr Grouse: Is there anything exciting on the horizon that you can tell us about that we should all be keeping our eyes out for? Dr Silbert: Yeah. So, you know, I'm really interested in this connection between vascular cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease. And it's a real area of exciting new research. And so I think we're going to have more answers as to how, whether and how, cerebrovascular disease is directly linked to accumulating neurodegenerative disease or neurodegenerative pathologies. The other area that's, I think, really exciting, that's moving forward, is the in the area of blood-based biomarkers for vascular cognitive impairment. As these emerge, we'll be able to really identify those at greatest risk for vascular cognitive impairment, but also identify novel mechanisms that lead to VCI that can be targeted for therapeutic intervention. Dr Grouse: Well, I'm really excited to see what's coming down the pipeline and what more we'll learn in this area. So, thank you so much for everything you've done to contribute to this field. Dr Silbert: Yeah.  Dr Grouse: I wanted to ask a little bit more about you. What drew you to this work?  Dr Silbert: Well, actually, so my very first published manuscript in medical school was a case report and review on MELAS, which is mitochondrial encephalopathy with lactic acidosis and strokelike syndrome. And so, I was really fortunate to have Dr Jose Biller, who is a renowned expert in stroke and cerebrovascular disorders, as my mentor for that paper. And so, that got me really interested in neuroimaging findings of cerebral vascular disease. And so when I was a fellow at Oregon Health and Science University, I was then really fortunate to  be able to work with Jeffrey Kaye's oldest old population. And in working with that population, I really became interested in their neuroimaging findings of these white matter lesions and just realizing how prevalent they were in that population, you know, it just led me to start investigating their clinical significance and etiology, which kind of led me along this path. Dr Grouse: You know, Lisa, thank you so much. I really learned a lot from your article, and I think our listeners will definitely find that it was very helpful for their practice. Thank you so much for joining us. Dr Silbert: Thank you so much, Katie. It's been really fun.  Dr Grouse: Again, today I've been interviewing Dr Lisa Silbert, whose article on vascular cognitive impairment 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 continpub.com/AudioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Lewy body dementia is a common cause of cognitive impairment in older adults but is often subject to significant delays in diagnosis and treatment, increasing the burden on patients and family caregivers. Understanding key features of the disease and use of biomarkers will improve recognition. In this episode, Allison Weathers, MD, FAAN, speaks with James E. Galvin, MD, MPH, author of the article “Lewy Body Dementia,” in the Continuum December 2024 Dementia issue. Dr. Weathers is a Continuum® Audio interviewer associate chief medical information officer at the Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio. Dr. Galvin is a professor of neurology at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Miami, Florida. Additional Resources Read the article: Lewy Body Dementia 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 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 Weathers: This is Dr Allison Weathers. Today I'm interviewing Dr James Galvin, author of Lewy body dementias from the December 2024 Continuum issue on dementia. Welcome to the podcast, Dr Galvin. Please introduce yourself to our audience.  Dr Galvin: Thank you, Allison. My name is Jim Galvin. I'm a neurologist, a professor of neurology at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine. Dr Weathers: We're so happy to have you with me today. Thanks, Jim, for your time. And as you highlight right from the start in your really outstanding and comprehensive overview of this really complex topic, even though Lewy body dementia is the second most common cause of neurodegenerative dementia, it often goes unrecognized in clinical practice, resulting in really potentially lengthy diagnostic delays. So, this is a really important article for a neurologist and an important topic for our listeners. So, I'm thrilled we're having this conversation today. While I traditionally start by asking the authors what they feel is the most important clinical message of their article, I would love to actually start a step earlier in this conversation with you. Can you start us off by explaining what's actually meant when we say Lewy body dementia? Dr Galvin: Great. So, you know, I think this is a, this is an interesting concept. So, we're really talking about two diseases that have a shared common pathology. So, Parkinson's sees dementia and dementia with Lewy bodies. So, their shared pathology is a Lewy body and that's why they're often grouped together as the Lewy body dementias. And then there's arguments back and forth as to whether these are distinct diseases or sort of two ends of the same candle burning in different directions. So, Parkinson's dementia is a lot like what it sounds like. So, if someone has Parkinson's disease, then at some point later they develop a dementia. And so back in the 1800's when Parkinson's disease was like first described as an entity, we basically felt that cognition wasn't affected. But we now know that's not true. And so most patients with Parkinson's do have some cognitive symptoms and a large proportion of them will eventually develop dementia. Perhaps up to 80% of Parkinson's patients will develop a dementia. The flip side is the dementia with Lewy body picture. And these are people who present primarily with a cognitive behavioral syndrome that may or may not have parkinsonism. So, they will sometimes have bradykinesia. They rarely have a rest tremor. And so, these are the people that are very much in the delayed diagnosis group. The Parkinson's dementia is more whether the clinician is checking their cognition as part of their annual visit. The flip side is that the people with DLB are often misdiagnosed early on, but together, this is Lewy body dementia, which is the most common disease that many people have never heard of. Dr Weathers: That's a great tagline, I think, for the whole article and for this concept. So now that that we're all on the same page about what's meant when we use that the term, what would you want our listeners to walk away with as their one key takeaway from our conversation today? Dr Galvin: Well, I think the article makes several key points, but I think if I put those all together into a single key point, it would really be that the Lewy body dementias are underrecognized, they're underdiagnosed, yet it is very possible to make the diagnosis using the standardized clinical criteria. They're very, very, very specific. They lack a little bit in sensitivity. So, because other diseases sometimes can look like this, but they're really quite specific. So, if you're confident clinically that the person has Lewy body dementia, you're probably going to be right. And in today's world, we have tests available to help confirm our diagnosis. The world is changing. We can make these diagnosed with much more confidence and we have confirmatory diagnosis laboratory tests that can help us. Dr Weathers: I want to talk more about the diagnosis in one minute, but first, how common actually are dementia with Lewy bodies and Parkinson's disease dementia? Dr Galvin: That's a great question. I think one of the challenges, of course, we really don't know how many people have any disease because it's going to largely rely on how well people code the diseases in the medical record. So, if you look at the most common cause of dementia in the United States, it's really dementia not otherwise specified, right? But we believe it to be the second most common cause of dementia. The Lewy Body Dementia Association, about a decade ago, started to try to develop some estimates. So, we have an estimate about how many people roughly have Parkinson's disease and that about 80% of those individuals would go on to develop dementia. And we know from the dementia population that about 40% of those individuals coming to autopsy have Lewy bodies. So, when you start to put that all together, you can get a reasonable estimate of how many people likely have the disease. And then that can be expanded on an annual basis, just like the Alzheimer's Association uses, by extrapolating those estimates onto the census data. So, we estimate right now there are about 1.4 to 1.6 million Americans who are living with Lewy body dementia. That's less than the 6.8 million people who have Alzheimer's disease, but more than a lot of other common diseases. So, if you think about, again, I said before, it's the most common disease no one's ever heard of. You know, there are about a million people who have multiple sclerosis. There are about eight hundred thousand people who have a stroke. There are about seven hundred thousand people who have a brain tumor. There are two hundred and fifty thousand people who have muscular dystrophy. There are twelve thousand people who have ALS. But I think if you stopped clinicians or people in the street and say have you ever heard of ALS or muscular dystrophy, they would say yes. If you ask them if they've heard of Lewy body dementia, they would say no.  Dr Weathers: That's an excellent point. And I know over the years I think there's been some increased awareness. I think sadly with some of the celebrities that have been impacted, I think that did a lot to raise awareness. But I think you're right that it's still so less commonly recognized by the lay public, by non-neurologists, than so many other diseases that you mentioned. And I think that leads back well into my next question into something that we've already mentioned just a few times already in our short conversation, this unfortunate and very common delay in the diagnosis. Why? And you mentioned earlier that there are these, you know, clinical criteria, these now ancillary tests. So, what makes the diagnosis so challenging? What aspects in particular do you think that neurologists find to be the most challenging in diagnosing patients? What trips us up?  Dr Galvin: So, there's an old analogy, right, that, you know, if you'll be three blind men to an elephant and each of them are touching a different part of the elephant, they'll each think it's something different. So because Lewy body dementia has so many different diverse kind of symptoms, it would really depend on who's seeing the patient first. So, if a person presents predominantly with a memory cognitive disorder and they go see someone who specializes in memory disorders, they're highly likely to be called Alzheimer's disease. If they present predominantly with the movement problem, they're going to see a movement disorder person and be called Parkinson's disease. If they present with a behavioral disorder, they're going to go see a psychiatrist. Then they'll get diagnoses like, you know, geriatric schizophrenia or bipolar disease or major depressive disorder. If they present with the constitutional symptoms, which are very common and drive patients absolutely batty. So chronic constipation, REM sleep disorder, runny nose, you know, heat intolerance, urinary frequency, obstipation, and you know, they're going to be called all sorts of things. So, if you start thinking about this, who do you show up with first is going to guide how fast you can get a diagnosis. So, we interviewed at point over a thousand caregivers and what we found was there was about an eighteen month delay after seeing five to six doctors for the majority of patients, of which Lewy body dementia was misdiagnosed about 75% of the time for the initial diagnosis.  Dr Weathers: Wow, what a sobering statistic. And you spoke about the criteria and some of the ancillary tests. What can really help, do you think, kind of mitigate or prevent this misdiagnosis? What is your approach in your own patients?  Dr Galvin: Well, I think like every good clinician, not starting off with a preconceived notion of what the person has and trying to collect all the valuable information. So, one of the things I highlighted in the article was, while there are diagnostic criteria and people can follow diagnostic criteria, the truth is at your fingertips. You don't always sit and think about whether someone meets diagnostic criteria. So, in the first table in the article, we tried to really then put all the different common symptoms into buckets, right? Because people present like that. They say, well, I have this and I have this and I have this and I have this. Well, then you can start to think about, well, they have a cognitive symptom that's predominantly executive attention or visual perceptual in nature. And gee, they have constipation and heat intolerance and they say they can't smell quite as well as they once did, right, and they're having some disturbance in their sleep with excessive daytime sleepiness. Now you can start to say, well, even though that didn't fit the core and suggestive criteria, the fact is that spectrum of symptoms makes it much easier to begin to make a diagnosis. And so, it's investigative work. A lot of neurology is still investigative work. The old days, they used to say, we knew everything but could do nothing, but now we know everything and can do something about it. And so, I think it's really important that we try to apply this information in clinically useful ways. That was part of the gist of putting this Continuum article together was to try to present it not just as listing the diagnostic criteria, because you can get that anywhere, but how do you actually apply it in clinical practice? Dr Weathers: That's a great point. And that table that you referenced was really fantastic. And I know I say this a lot, but they're true. So, you know, many of the tables, the reference to Continuum, one I will certainly kind of come back to again, again, as an excellent point of care tool. So, I know in, in preparing for today and reading more about, about you and your areas of research that one of your particular areas of focus and expertise is in healthcare disparities, especially in the early detection of neurodegenerative dementias. What is the greatest inequity or disparity that you see in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with Lewy body dementia?  Dr Galvin: So, there's a couple things that are that are really interesting. So first, unlike Alzheimer's disease, which tends to be a little bit more female predominant, the Lewy body dementias are male predominant. It's about 1.6 men for everyone woman. So, it's going to be a different presentation. It's going to be largely men and their caregivers are largely going to be their spouses. So, you're going to see sort of a different person looking, you know, staring on the other side of the table to you. It's going to be largely a male. And the other thing that's really interesting is that almost all of the series, case series, case reports, clinical papers are in predominantly white populations. So, this lends to some interesting things. So, you know, is the disease less common in African Americans and other minority populations or are we just really bad at ascertaining the disease? You know, many of the case reports in Alzheimer's disease include African Americans. In fact, we know that African Americans may be at a twofold increased risk of developing Alzheimer's disease compared to nonHispanic whites, probably due to vascular risk factors. But in case series of Lewy body dementia, almost all the patients are non-Hispanic white. There also seems to be a higher risk in Asian populations, and in fact, some of the very earliest case reports were from Japan. Is this a case ascertainment problem or is this really a disparity in how the disease presents? And I think those are really important questions that still need to be asked. I know as researchers, we struggle to try to develop cohorts that could help us understand that. I would say in my twenty five years of seeing these patients, I would say the large percentage of them, and I've seen a lot of them, have been no-Hispanic white.  Dr Weathers: So, so definitely more research needed in this very important area. So, moving on to somewhat of a personal question, I always, this is such an honor. I always talk about that I get to have this time to sit down with the authors of these outstanding articles and learn not only more about their subjects, but about them as people. I had shared during my last interview that my paternal grandmother had Alzheimer's disease, and unfortunately also my maternal grandmother actually did as well. In preparing for this, I had listened to one of your previous interviews and learned that you also have a personal connection that led you to this subspecialty with several family members impacted. How has this connection inspired your research and your interactions with your patients?  Dr Galvin: Yeah, I mean, so my personal connection was that my maternal grandfather had Lewy body dementia. So, I grew up in a two family home in New Jersey. My grandparents lived on the second floor. We lived on the first floor. I wass very close to my grandparents. I'm still close to my grandmother, who's a hundred and three years old. But when I was a high junior in high school, my grandfather was driving me home from a swimming practice. I was thinner, fitter and more athletic at that point in my life, and he made the world 's slowest left hand turn and we were broadsided. So luckily no one was hurt. But I remember because I was sixteen at the time and just learning how to drive us, Grandpa, what happened? And he's like, oh, the car didn't react. Or, you know, he was blaming the car. And I didn't think much of it because, you know, I was sixteen years old. Sometime after that he was at work, and he was a greaser. So, he would climb through the machines at Colgate Palmolive and keep them all moving. And so, he was at work and he fell off a ladder and then broke his ribs. And in the emergency room, when my grandmother went to pick him up, the ER doctor turned to her and said, how long has your husband had Parkinson's disease? And she's like, what are you talking about? And then that was the first time that all of us had noticed his rest tremor. And the reason he turned the wheel so slow is because he was Bradykinetic. And so then over the next few years, he progressed in his motor symptoms. And then as I got into college, he developed the cognitive symptoms. And so, by the time I had finished medical school that was doing my residency, he was no longer oriented to time. So that even though I had finished medical school, I was in my neurology residency, I was married and with children, I was still in college at that time for him. So, he would always ask me, you know, have I heard anything from getting to medical school and the like. So, I got to watch this person who I grew up with go through all of the different stages of disease. And then eventually he developed lots of hallucinations. And although he was relatively immobile, he experienced a hallucination and jumped out of his chair, fell down, and broke his hip. And so, he underwent a hip replacement, being rather severely demented, and then passed away in the rehab hospital. As I was living this with my grandparents, the one thing that my grandfather, while he could still communicate, and that my grandmother continued to say to me, you know, up until fairly recently was, you know, what are you going to do about this? You know, we're counting on you to make a difference. And so, a lot of my research is really focused on how I can make a difference for people. One, to make sure they get diagnosed properly. Two that we would have something to offer the patient and the family. And three, we can provide hope that we are actually going to come away with effective treatments to make a difference in their lives. Dr Weathers: Well, that is really inspiring. And I think you have really done that in your work. I always like to end these conversations on a hopeful note. So, what are the developments that are on the horizon in terms of diagnosis and treatment of Lewy body dementia that you are most excited about?  Dr Galvin: Well, I think there are three things that are of great interest right now. I mean, there's lots of things, but I think three things of great interest are, one, on the diagnostic side is that we now have assays that allow us to assess synuclein in body fluids and body tissues. So, we can measure synuclein seeding assays in the spinal fluid and we can visualize Lewy bodies through skin biopsies. And that's a tremendous advance because we were really, really limited otherwise to using indirect evidence, and the only indirect evidence we had was abnormalities on DAT scanning. So, we're looking at dopamine deficiencies. But as I mentioned earlier, that's very abnormal in Parkinson's disease. But in dementia with Lewy bodies, it's a little more subtle. So, the extent of dopamine degeneration in- particularly in early DLB is limited. So, you have to look very carefully. If we're not doing quantitative DAT scan imaging, then you may miss those subtle changes. So, I think that being able to directly visualize either synuclein seeding or synuclein aggregation has really changed the game. Plasma assays, blood-based biomarkers are probably a little farther away because they're- the red blood cells have a lot of synuclein and so it interferes with the ability to get a good sensitive assay. But I do think in the next couple of years we will see PET ligands that also bind  synnuclein. So, I think diagnostically we're going to be able to provide better, earlier, and more precise diagnoses. From a treatment perspective, traditionally we've just borrowed medicines from other fields to treat symptoms, but there are a number of disease-modifying trials that are ongoing. I was fortunate to be the academic PI on two very large NIH grants where we test tested disease modifying medicines. Both of those studies are fully recruited and we should get a readout toward the end of 2024 or the beginning of 2025. So very, very excited about that. I also am fortunate to be MPI an NIH grant where we're just going to be testing the first inhuman synuclein vaccine. So very, very excited about the potential to offer disease-modifying medicines and to fulfill the promise that I made to my grandma and grandpa twenty years ago. And I think the third thing is that right now there's a little bit of like an emerging controversy about developing some integrated staging paradigms between the movement disorder world and the cognitive world. And so, while those paradigms are currently published, you know, not everybody agrees with them. But I think whether I like that staging paradigm now or not, the fact that we're coming together and trying to develop some unified staging paradigms, I think, is going to make a big difference in increasing the ability for clinicians to make early diagnoses that are more precise so that we can either get people into clinical trials or into clinical treatment protocols at the earliest possible time. And that's going to make all the difference in the world for the patients and their families.  Dr Weathers: I think that was a fantastic answer. Really, all really exciting things that I think are all, I normally, I say on the horizon. I'm thinking, you know, pretty far ahead. And I think the really wonderful thing is that all of these are either here now or very, very close to being here. So, definitely a very positive way to end this discussion. Well, Jim, thank you so much for taking the time to speak with me today. Dr Galvin: Thank you. This was wonderful. I hope the listeners found this enjoyable and interesting and read the Continuum issue. I think it's going to be the latest and greatest on what we know about the dementias.  Dr Weathers: Again, thank you again, Dr Galvin, for joining me on Continuum Audio. Again, today I've been reviewing Dr James Galvin, his article on the Lewy body dementias, dementia with Lewy bodies, and Parkinson's disease dementia appears in the December 2024 Continuum issue 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 continpub.com/AudioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

A pragmatic and organized approach is needed to recognize patients with symptomatic Alzheimer Disease in clinical practice, stage the level of impairment, confirm the clinical diagnosis, and apply this information to advance therapeutic decision making. In this episode, Aaron Berkowitz, MD, PhD, FAAN, speaks with Gregory S. Day, MD, MSc, MSCI, FAAN, author of the article “Diagnosing Alzheimer Disease,” in the Continuum December 2024 Dementia issue. Dr. Berkowitz is a Continuum® Audio interviewer associate chief medical information officer at the Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio. Dr. Day is an associate professor in the Department of Neurology at Mayo Clinic Florida in Jacksonville, Florida. Additional Resources Read the article: Diagnosing 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: @AaronLBerkowitz Guest: @GDay_Neuro Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Doctor 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 Berkowitz: This is Dr Aaron Berkowitz, and today I have the pleasure of interviewing Dr Gregory Day about his article on Alzheimer disease, which appears in the December 2024 Continuum issue on dementia. Welcome to the podcast, Dr Day. Would you mind introducing yourself to our audience?  Dr Day: Thanks very much, Aaron. I'm Gregg Day. I'm a behavioral neurologist at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida, which means that my primary clinical focus is in the assessment of patients presenting typically with memory concerns and dementia in particular. Dr Berkowitz: Fantastic. Well, as we were talking about before the interview, I've heard your voice many times over the Neurology podcast and Continuum podcast. I've always learned a lot from you in this rapidly changing field over the past couple of years, and very excited to have the opportunity to talk to you today and pick your brain a little bit on this very common issue of evaluating patients presenting with memory loss who may have concerns that they have dementia and specifically Alzheimer disease. So, in your article, you provide a comprehensive and practical approach to a patient presenting for evaluation for possible dementia and the question of whether they have Alzheimer disease. The article is really packed with clinical pearls, practical advice. I encourage all of our listeners to read it. In our interview today, I'd like to talk through a theoretical clinical encounter and evaluation so that I and our listeners can learn from your approach to a patient like this. Let's say we have a theoretical patient in their seventies who comes in for evaluation of memory loss and they and/or their family are concerned that this could be Alzheimer disease. How do you approach the history in a patient like that? Dr Day: It's a great way to approach this problem. And if you're reading the article, know that I wrote it really with this question in mind. What would I be doing, what do we typically do, when we're seeing patients coming with new complaints that concern the patient and typically also concern those that know the best? So be that a family member, close friend, adult child. And in your scenario here, this seventy year old individual, we're going to use all the information that we have on hand. First off, really key, if we can, we want to start that visit with someone else in the room. I often say when talking to individuals who come alone that there's a little bit of irony in somebody coming to a memory assessment alone to tell me all the things they forgot. Some patients get the joke, others not so much, but bringing someone with them really enhances the quality of the interview. Very important for us to get reliable information and a collateral source is going to provide that in most scenarios. The other thing that I'm going to start with, I'm going to make sure that I have appropriate time to address this question. We've all had that experience. We're wrapping up a clinical interview, maybe one that's already ran a little bit late and there's that one more thing that's mentioned on the way out the door: I'm really concerned about my memory or I'm concerned about mom 's memory. That's not the opportunity to begin a memory assessment. That's the opportunity to schedule a dedicated visit. So, assuming that we've got someone else in the room with us, we've got our patient of interest, I'm going to approach the history really at the beginning. Seems like an easy thing to say, but so often patients in the room and their caregivers, they've been waiting for this appointment for weeks or months. They want to get it out all out on the table. They're worried we're going to rush them through and not take time to piece it together. And so, they're going to tell you what's going on right now. But the secret to a memory assessment, and particularly getting and arriving at an accurate diagnosis that reflects on and thinks about cause of memory problems, is actually knowing how symptoms began. And so, the usual opening statement for me is going to be: Tell me why you're here, and tell me about the first time or the first symptoms that indicated there was an ongoing problem. And so, going back to the beginning can be very helpful. This article is focused on Alzheimer disease and our clinical approach to the diagnosis of Alzheimer disease. And so, what I'm going to expect in a patient who has a typical presentation of Alzheimer disease is that there may be some disagreement between the patient and the spouse or other partners sitting in the room with me about when symptoms began. If you've got two partners sitting in the room, maybe an adult child and a spouse, there may be disagreement between them. What that tells me is at the onset, those first symptoms, they're hard to pin down. Symptoms typically emerge gradually in patients with symptomatic Alzheimer disease. They may be missed early on, or attributed or contributed to other things going on in the patient's time of life, phase of life. It's okay to let them sort of duke it out a little bit to determine, but really what I'm figuring out here is, are we talking about something that's happened across weeks, months or more likely years? And then I'm going to want to listen to, how did symptoms evolve? What's been the change over time? With Alzheimer disease and most neurodegenerative diseases, we expect gradual onset and gradual progression, things becoming more apparent. And at some point, everyone in the room is going to agree that, well, as of this state, there clearly was a problem. And then we can get into talking about specific symptoms and really begin to pick that apart the way that we traditionally do in any standard neurological assessment. Dr Berkowitz: Fantastic. And so, what are some of the things you're listening for in that history that would clue you in to thinking this patient may indeed be someone who could have Alzheimer's disease and going to require a workup for that diagnosis? Dr Day: It's pretty common when I have new trainees that come to clinic, they just head into the exam room and they sort of try to approach it the way that we would any patient in the emergency department or any other clinical scenario. The challenge with that is that, you know, we're taught to let the patient speak and we're going to let the patient speak - open-ended questions are great - but there's only so many questions you need to sort out if someone has a memory problem. And memory is really only one part, one component, of a thorough cognitive evaluation. And so, I'm going to help by asking specific questions about memory. I'm going to make sure that there is memory challenges there. And whenever possible, I'm going to solicit some examples to back that up, add credibility and sort of structure to the deficits. I'm also going to choose examples that help me to understand how does this concern, or this complaint, how does that actually affect the patient in their day-to-day life? Is it simply something that they're aware of but yet hasn't manifested in a way that their partner knows about? Is it to a level where their partner's actually had to take over their responsibility? It's causing some difficulties, disability even, associated with that. That's going to be important for me as I try to understand that. So, I'll ask questions when it comes to memory, not just, you know, do you forget things, but do you manage your own medications? You remember to take those in the morning? Do you need reminders from your partner? What about appointments; health appointments, social appointments? Are you managing that on your own? Sometimes we need a little bit of imagination here. Partnerships, and particularly those who have been together for a long time, it's natural that different people are going to assume different responsibilities. And so, might have to say, Imagine that you went away for the weekend. Would you worry about your partner remembering to take their medications over that time frame? That can help to really solidify how much of an impact are these challenges having on a day-to-day basis. I may ask questions about events, something that they maybe did a couple of weeks ago. Is the patient likely to remember that event? Are they going to forget details? Maybe the most important of all, with each of these, when there's a yes or an affirmation of a problem, we want to be clear that this represents a change from before. We all have forgetfulness. Happens on a day-to-day basis, and we all pay attention to different details, but what we're concerned about and typically the reasons patients want to come and see us as neurologists is because they've noticed a change. And so, I'm going to focus in on the things that represent a change from before. After I've discussed memory, I think it's really important to talk about the other domains. So, how is judgment affected? Decision-making?  In a practical way, we often see that borne out in financial management, paying the bills. Not just paying them on time and consistently, but making wise choices when it comes to decisions that need to be made. You're out at a restaurant. Can you pay the bill? Can you calculate a tip? Can you do that as quickly and as efficiently as before? Are we starting to see a breakdown in decision-making abilities there? We can sometimes lump in changes in behavior along with judgment as well. The patient that you know, maybe isn't making wise choices, they've picked up the phone and given their social security number out to someone that was calling, seeming to be well-meaning. Or maybe they've made donations to a few more institutions than they would have otherwise? Again, out of- out of order. Again, something that could be atypical for any individual. Looking for behavioral changes along with that as well. And then I'm going to talk about orientation. What's their ability to recognize days of the week, date of the month? Do they get lost? Is there concerns about wayfinding? Thinking about that, which is really a complex integration of some memory, visuospatial processing, judgment, problem solving, as we look to navigate our complex world and find our way from point A to B. And then I like to know, you know, what are they doing outside of the home? What are they doing in the community? How are they maintaining their engagement? Do they go to the store? Do they drive? An important topic that we may need to think about later on in this patient 's assessment. And inside the home? What responsibilities do they maintain there? Are the changes in decision making, memory problems, are they manifesting in any lost abilities inside the home? Cooking being a potentially high-risk activity, but also using typical appliances and interacting with technology, in a way that we are all increasingly, increasingly doing and increasingly reliant on. And last but not least, you know, maybe the one that everyone wants to think about, well, I can still manage all of my own personal care. Well, good news that many of our patients who have early symptoms can manage their own personal care. Their activities of daily living are not the big problem. But we do want to ask about that specifically. And it's not just about getting in the shower, getting clean, getting out, getting your teeth brushed. Do you need reminders to do that? Do you hop in the shower twice because you forgot that you'd already been in there once during the day? And so, asking some more of those probing questions there can give us a little bit more depth to the interview and really does sort of round out the overall comprehensive history taking in a patient with a memory or cognitive concern. Dr Berkowitz: Fantastic. That was a comprehensive master class on how to both sort of ask the general questions, have you noticed problems in fill in the blank memory, judgment, behavior, orientation, navigation and to sort of drill down on what might be specific examples if they're not offered by the patient or partner to try to say, well, in this domain, tell me how this is going or have you noticed any changes because the everyone's starting from a different level cognitively based on many factors. Right? So, to get a sense of really what the change is in any of these functions and how those have impacted the patient's daily life. So, let's say based on the history, the comprehensive history you've just discussed with us, you do find a number of concerning features in the history that do raise concern for dementia, specifically Alzheimer's disease. How do you approach the examination? We have the MoCA, the mini-mental. We have all of these tools that we use. How do you decide the best way to evaluate based on your history to try to get some objective measure to go along with the more subjective aspects of the history that you've ascertained? Dr Day: And you're honing in on a really good point here, that the history is one part of the interview or the assessment. We really want to build a story and potentially and hopefully a consistent story. If there are memory complaints, cognitive complaints from history, from reliable- that are supported by reliable collateral sources, we're going to expect to see deficits on tests that measure those same things. And so, I think that question about what neuropsychological measures or particular bedside tests can we integrate in our assessment is a good one. But I'll say that it's not the end-all-be-all. And so, if you've got a spouse, someone that lives with an individual for twenty or thirty years, and they're telling you that they notice a change in daily activity and it's impairing their day to day function, or where there's been some change or some concern at work, that's going to worry me more than a low score on a cognitive test with a spouse saying they haven't noticed any day-to-day impact. And so, we're going to take everything sort of in concert and take it all together. And it's part of our job as clinicians to try to process that information. But often we're going to see corroborating history that comes from a bedside test. He named a few that our listeners are probably pretty familiar with. I think they're the most common ones that are used. The Mini-Mental State Exam, been in practice for a long time. All the points add up to thirty and seems to give a pretty good sample of various different cognitive functions. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, another favorite; a little bit more challenging of a test, I think, if we're if we're looking at how people tend to perform on it. And like the MMSE, points add up to thirty and gives a pretty good sample. There are others that are out there as well, some that are available without copyright and easy for use in clinical practice. The Saint Louis Mental Status Exam comes to mind. All these tests that we're willing to consider kind of share that same attribute. They can be done relatively quickly. They should sample various different aspects of function. There should be some component for language reading, spoken, spoken word, naming items, something that's going to involve some kind of executive function or decision making, problem solving. Usually a memory task where you're going to remember a set of words and be asked to recall that again later. So, learn it, encode it, and recall it later on. And then a few other features, I mean, some of them, these tests, most of these tests use some sort of drawing tasks so that we can see visuospatial perception and orientation questions about date, time, location, sort of the standard format. Any of these tests can be used aptly in your practice. You're going to use the one that you're most comfortable with, that you can administer in a reasonable amount of time and that seems to fit with your patient population. And that's the nuance behind these tests. There are many factors that we have to take into account when we're picking one and when we're interpreting the test results. These tests all generally assume that patients have some level of traditional sociocultural education that is westernized for the most part. And so, not great tests for people that aren't well into integrated into the community, maybe newcomers to the United States, those that have English as a second, third, or fourth language, as many of our patients do. Statements like no ifs, ands, or buts may not be familiar to them and may not be as easy to repeat, recall and remember. And so, we want to weigh these considerations. We may need to make some adjustments to the score, but ideally, we're going to use these tests and they're going to show us what we expect and we're going to try to interpret that together with the history that we've already ascertained. When I obtain that history and I'm thinking about memory loss, I'm going to look at the specific domain scores. And so, if I'm using the mini mental state examination thirty point test, but three questions that relate to relate to recall. Apple, penny, table. And so, depending on how our patients do on that test, they could have an overall pretty good score. Twenty seven. Oh, that looks good. You're in the normal range according to many different status. But if I look at that and there's zero out of three on recall, they could not remember those three items, that may support the emergence of a memory problem. That may corroborate that same thing on the MoCA, which uses five-item recall, and other tests in those same parameters. I mentioned some other caveat cities testing. Are patients who are presenting with prominent language deficits important part of cognition. They can't get the words out. They can't frame their sentences. They may really struggle with these tests because a lot of them do require you to both understand verbal instructions and convey verbal instructions. People with prominent visual problems, either visual problems that come because of their neurodegenerative disease and so part of cognition, visual perceptual problems, or people who simply have low vision. Are there difficulties for that? These tests require many people to read and execute motor commands, to draw things, to follow lines and connect dots, all very difficult in that setting. And so, we have to be cautious about how we're interpreting test results in patients who may have some atypical features or may arrive with sort of preexisting conditions that limit our ability to interpret and apply the test to clinical practice.  Dr Berkowitz: Really fantastic overview of these tests, how to use them, how to interpret them. It's not all about the number. As you said, it depends if all the points are lost in one particular domain, that can be salient and then considering, as you said, the patient 's background, their level of education, where English falls in their first language, second, third or fourth, as you said, and then some of the aspects of the MoCA, right, are not always as culturally sensitive since it's a test designed in a particular context. So, let's say your history and exam are now concerning to you, that the patient does indeed have dementia. Tell us a little bit about the next steps in the laboratory neuroimaging evaluation of such a patient?  Dr Day: I've got a history of memory and thinking problems. I've got some corroborating evidence from bedside cognitive testing, a normal neurological exam. This is where we think about, well, what other tests do we need to send our patients for? Blood testing really can be pretty cursory for most patients with a typical presentation who have typical risk factors, and that can include a thyroid study and vitamin B12. So, measuring those in the blood to make sure that there's no other contributions from potential metabolic factors that can worsen, exacerbate cognitive function. And pretty easy to do for the most part, if patients have other things in their history, maybe they come from a high-risk community, maybe they engage in high risk behaviors, I may think about adding on other tests that associate with cognitive decline. We'll think about the role of syphilis, HIV, other infections. But generally, that's when it's driven by history, not a rule of thumb for me in my typical practice. But beyond the blood tests, neuroimaging, some form of structural brain imaging is important. A CT scan will get you by. So, if you have a patient that can't get in the scanner for one reason or another or won't get in the scanner, or you don't have easy access to an MRI, a CT scan can help us in ruling out the biggest things that we're looking for. That's strokes, hemorrhages, and brain masses. So other things that obviously would take us down a very different path, very different diagnosis and very different treatment approach. An MRI, though, is going to be preferred, not only because it gives us a much higher-resolution view, but also because it helps us to see sort of regional areas of atrophy. It's a sensitive scan to look for small vessel disease, tiny strokes, tiny bleeds, microhemorrhages that again might point towards meteorology for us. Of course, it's better at finding those small masses, whether they be metastasis or primary masses, that could give us something else to consider in our diagnostic evaluation. I get an odd question often from patients, well, can you see Alzheimer's disease on an MRI? And the true answer to that is no, you can't. Can we see the signs of Alzheimer's disease? Sure, in some patients, but really what we see on an MRI is a reflection of neurodegeneration. And so, we see evidence of tissue loss and typically in areas that are most often involved early on in Alzheimer's disease. The hippocampus, the entorhinal areas around the hippocampus, we may see atrophy there. We may see biparietal atrophy, and of course, as the disease progresses, we're going to see atrophy distributed throughout other areas of the brain. But if you're looking for atrophy, you've got to have a pretty good idea what's normal for age and what you expect in that patient population. So, I do encourage clinicians who are assessing patients routinely, look at your own images, look at the images for patients with and without cognitive impairment. So we develop a pretty good sense for what can be normal for age, and of course work with our colleagues in radiology who do this for a living and generally do an excellent job at it as well.  Dr Berkowitz: Perfect. So, you're going to look for the so-called reversible causes of dementia with serum labs, structural imaging to either rule out or evaluate for potential structural causes that are not related to a neurodegenerative condition or patterns of regional atrophy suggestive of a neurodegenerative condition, and maybe that will point us in an initial direction. But the field is rapidly expanding with access to FDG-PET, amyloid PET, CSF biomarkers, genetic testing for APOE 4, probably soon to be serum biomarkers. So, patients may ask about this or a general neurologist referring to your clinic may ask, who should get these tests? When should we think about these tests? How do you think about when to send patients for advanced imaging, CSF biomarkers, genetic testing for APOE 4? Dr Day: It's not that patients may ask about this. Patients will ask about this. And you've probably experienced that in your own world as well. They're going to ask about any of these different biomarkers. Certainly, whatever they've recently read or has been covered on television is going to be common fodder for consideration in the clinic environment. It's important to know what tests you can get, what reliable tests that you can get, and to know the differences between some of these tests when making a recommendation or weighing the pros and cons of doing additional testing. I think common practice principles apply here. Let's order tests that are going to change our next steps in some way. And so, if we have a patient, particularly a patient like the one that we've been talking about: seventy something year old, presenting with memory complaints, they're concerned, the family is concerned. We've got that history, physical exam, and now we may need to really hone in on the etiology. Well, I say may need because for that patient it may be enough to know, yeah, I agree, there's a problem here. And I can say it's an amnestic, predominant, gradual-onset progressive cognitive decline. This is probably Alzheimer disease based on your age. And maybe that's all they want to hear. Maybe they're not ready to pursue additional testing or don't see the value or need for additional testing because it's not going to change their perspective on treatment. In that case, it's okay to apply an often underrated test, which is the test of time. Recognizing this is a patient I can follow. I can see them in six months or twelve months, depending on what your clinic schedule allows. If this is Alzheimer disease, I'm going to expect further gradual progression that may affirm the diagnosis. We can think about symptomatic therapies for a patient like that, perhaps Donepezil as an early, early medication that may help with symptoms somewhat and we can leave it at that for the time being. But there's many scenarios where that patient or the family member says, look, I really need to know. We really want this answer. And as you pointed out, there are good tests and increasingly good tests that we have access to.  Dr Berkowitz: Well, that's a very helpful overview of the landscape of more precise diagnostic testing for Alzheimer disease specifically and how you think about which tests to order and when based on your pretest probability and the patient 's candidacy for some of these new potential therapies. To close here, as you said, treatment is discussed in another podcast. There's another article in this issue. So, we won't get into that today. But let's say you have gotten to the end of the diagnostic journey here. You are now convinced the patient does have Alzheimer's disease. How do you present that diagnosis to the patient and their family? Dr Day: I think here we're going to recognize that different styles align with different patients and families, and certainly different clinicians are going to have different approaches. I do tend to take a pretty direct approach. By the time that patients are coming to see me, they've probably already seen another neurologist or at least another physician who's maybe started some of the testing, maybe even built the foundation towards this diagnosis and shared some indications. Certainly, when they look up my profile before they come to see me, they know what I specialize in and so, they may even have done their own research, which has ups and downs in terms of the questions that I'll be faced with at that point in time. The way I like to start is first acknowledging the symptoms. And the symptoms that the patients have shared with me, recognizing if those symptoms are impacting daily life, how they impacted daily life, and usually using that information to synthesize or qualify the diagnosis. Is there cognitive impairment, yes or no? And at what level is that cognitive impairment? Is this mild cognitive impairment? Is this mild dementia? Is it maybe more moderate or severe dementia? So, using those terms directly with patients and explaining the meaning of them. But I then transition in relatively quickly to the important point of not leaving it at the syndrome, but actually thinking about the cause. Because it is cause that patients come to talk about. And if they don't say that directly, they say it in their next question, which is what are we going to do about it and how are we going to treat this? And so, I will use the information I have available at that time to suggest that based on your age, based on the history, the normal physical examination, the performance and the bedside testing that we've done. And hey, that's pretty normal structural imaging or imaging that only shows a little bit of atrophy in a few areas. I think that this condition is most consistent with symptomatic Alzheimer's disease, mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease, or mild dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. And then I'll discuss the next options in terms of testing and try to get a feel of what our patients are thinking about when it comes to treatment. Do they want to be on the cutting edge with brand-new therapies that offer potential benefits but counterbalance by pretty substantial risks that warrant individualized discussions? Are they interested in symptomatic therapies? Would that be appropriate for them? And I can usually round out the discussion with advice that works for everyone. And that's where we talk about the importance of brain health. What are the other things that I should be doing, you should be doing, and our patients and their partners should be doing as well to maintain our brain in its best possible state as we hope that we all continue to age and look towards the future where we maintain our cognition as best as possible? And that is still the goal. Even when we're talking to patients who have neurodegenerative diseases that are working against our efforts, we still want to do what we can to treat other problems, to evaluate for other problems that may be contributing to decline and may be amenable to our management as well.  Dr Berkowitz: Well, thank you so much for taking the time to speak with us today. I've learned a lot from your very nuanced and thoughtful approach to taking the history, performing the examination, making sense of cognitive tests and how they fit into the larger picture of the history and examination, and thinking about which patients might be candidates for more advanced imaging as we try to make a precise diagnosis in patients who may be candidates and interested in some of the potential novel therapies, which we both alluded to a few times, but are deferring to another podcast that we'll delve more deeply into that topic in this series. So, thank you so much again, Dr Day. Again, I've been interviewing Dr Gregory Day from the Mayo Clinic, whose article on 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 so much 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, Lyell K. Jones Jr, MD, FAAN, speaks with Lisa C. Silbert, MD, MCR, FAAN, who served as a guest editor of the Continuum® December 2024 Dementia issue. They provide a preview of the issue, which publishes on December 2, 2024. Dr. Jones is the editor-in-chief of Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology® and is a professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Dr. Silbert is co-director at Oregon Alzheimer's Disease Research Center, a Gibbs Family Endowed professor of neurology, a professor of neurology at Oregon Health & Science University, a staff neurologist, director of Cognitive Care Clinic, and director of the Geriatric Neurology Fellowship Program at Portland Veterans Affairs Health Care System in Portland, Oregon. Additional Resources Continuum website: ContinuumJournal.com Subscribe to Continuum: shop.lww.com/Continuum More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @LyellJ 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, 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 have access to exclusive audio content not featured on the podcast. If you're not already a subscriber, we encourage you to become one. For more information, please visit the link in the show notes.  Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology. Today I'm interviewing Dr Lisa Silbert, who recently served as Continuum's co-guest editor for our latest issue on dementia alongside Dr Lianna Apostolova. Dr Silbert is a professor in the Department of Neurology at Oregon Health and Science University of the School of Medicine in Portland, Oregon, where she's also the director of the Neuroimaging Core and now the co-director of the Alzheimer's Disease Research Center. She also serves as director of the dementia clinic at the VA Portland Healthcare System. Which, Dr Silbert, sounds like a lot of work? Anyway, welcome. I really appreciate you taking the time to join us today and co-guest editing this issue. Why don't you introduce yourself a little bit to our listeners?  Dr Silbert: Well, thank you so much for interviewing with me today and for inviting me to be the guest, co-guest editor of this issue. It's a really exciting time for dementia care and dementia research. As you already said, my name is Lisa Silbert. I'm in Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, Oregon. I've been involved in caring for dementia patients and their families for over twenty years now and been involved in a lot of really exciting research during that time. But I would say now is probably the most dynamic time in dementia research and care that I've seen. So, it's really, really exciting to be here.   Dr Jones: It really is an interesting time. So, I look back  in our last issue of Continuum focusing on dementia came out in 2022, which doesn't sound like that long ago, but a lot has changed, right? With the anti-amyloid monoclonals for Alzheimer's disease, new biomarkers and so on. And as the guest editor, you have this unique view, Dr Silbert, of the issue and the whole topic of dementia. As you were reading these really outstanding articles, what was the biggest “aha” moment for you or the biggest change in practice that you saw that's come up over the last couple of years?     Dr Silbert: I think, you know, in reading through the different manuscripts or chapters in this issue, it really struck home the advances that have been made throughout all the different areas of dementia. Not just- so, we hear a lot about Alzheimer's biomarkers and Alzheimer's treatments on the horizon, which is really exciting, but this is happening across other dementias as well. There's biomarkers on the horizon for a Lewy body disease and potentially for some of the frontaotemporal dementias. And so that to me really struck home as this is really, across the board, a change in the entire field that we're looking at.  Dr Jones: That is exciting. And I'd like to come back to some of those biomarker developments because I think that's an area where we've really been lacking in neurology as a specific way to diagnose those disorders. I think a topic which you just alluded to that a lot of our listeners and readers are thinking about are those antiamyloid monoclonal therapies for Alzheimer's disease. So, addicanumab, lecanumab and most recently the approval of donanemab. For these drugs specifically, how are you using them in your practice and how should our listeners be thinking about these drugs?  Dr Silbert: These are, you know, relatively new, really exciting new and emerging therapies for Alzheimer's disease. They are shown to remove amyloid from the brain. Patients who have clinical manifestations of Alzheimer's disease, and that is those in the stages of mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia. We are using lecanemab at Oregon Health and Science University through our therapeutics and clinical units. It's a really exciting time and it's a time where we have to be, also, cautious about who undergoes these therapies. So being really informed about the use, who's appropriate to undergo these therapies, what kind of safety tests need to be undergone, how do you assess risk in individual patients so that you can counsel them.  So, all of these factors need to be weighed in when you're making a decision about whether or not to treat a patient with a monoclonal antibody therapy. And specifically, we do neuroimaging to assess whether there are already the presence of microhemorrhages in the brain. We do genetic testing to look for APOE 4 genotypes that can increase the risk of Aria, which is amyloid-related imaging abnormalities. And all of these factors go into how we counsel patients and discuss whether or not to pursue treatment with monoclonal antibodies.    Dr Jones: So certainly a complex patient selection process and drug administration and monitoring of therapy for those patients.  And that- it brings to mind for me how we already have too few neurologists in the US. And now for a really prevalent disorder, Alzheimer's disease, we're making it a lot more complicated to deliver these new disease-modifying therapies. What do you think or what do you see as the role of the neurologists in caring for patients with dementia? And do these developments change that role?  Dr Silbert: For now, I think these developments make it even more important in a way that neurologists are involved in making a very specific clinical diagnosis of which dementia is playing a factor in the patient 's clinical presentation. I think one thing to note is with these emerging biomarkers, a lot of them can be positive before there are clinical symptoms and multiple etiologies are also very prevalent. And so just having one positive biomarker, it doesn't necessarily tell you what's going on with an individual patient. You need to take the whole picture into consideration. So, I think a really detailed evaluation by the neurologist, especially with these emerging therapies that have potential risks, is extremely important right now. Just getting a test is really not sufficient. You really have to take the entire clinical picture into account and know the ins and outs of the risks involved in these disease-modifying therapies.  Dr Jones: Which brings us back to something you mentioned earlier, right? Which is good news. We have on the horizon new potential biomarkers for other neurodegenerative causes of dementia. I can foresee and maybe I'm, you know, being an alarmist here, Dr Silbert, but if we have sensitive biomarkers for other neurodegenerative conditions, we know patients often have copathologies. Is that going to help clarify things? Is it going to confuse us? How is that going to work?  Dr Silbert: Well, I think ultimately, it's going to help clarify things. Because there are multiple pathologies that are common in age related cognitive impairment, any kind of additional specific input that we can get with different biomarkers is going to be helpful in putting the pieces together to come up with what's happening clinically with each individual patient. Ultimately, I think these biomarkers, they're not- any one biomarker isn't going to be a solution to diagnosis, but putting them together to help improve early and accurate diagnosis is really the goal here. Having a very early diagnosis, having a very accurate diagnosis will improve our ability to give prognosis and also improve effective treatment strategies moving forward. I think that these biomarkers have the promise in facilitating that for us.  Dr Jones: And progress is always a good thing. We just have to learn how to adapt and use the evidence appropriately. There have been and I think most of our listeners will be familiar with some of the controversies related to these, these new disease-modifying drugs for Alzheimer's disease. Do you want to walk us through a couple of those, and what are your thoughts about those controversies?  Dr Silbert: Yeah, these new therapies, they're very exciting for everyone in the field, but they, like you mentioned, they're not without their controversies. I think one controversy or one potential downside to these therapies is access to them. Like you already mentioned there, there's really not enough neurologists out there. There's not enough behavioral neurologists out there. There's limitations to infusion centers, sites and prescribers. Access to these therapies is is significantly limited. They are requiring infusions quite frequently. So, if you're not living near specialty care, you're not really able to feasibly undergo these kinds of treatments. Another controversy is the fact that the treatment effects are considered by some to be fairly modest when looking at the clinical data and in association with that, there are risks involved. Like I already mentioned, there's the amyloid-related imaging abnormalities, which sounds kind of like a benign thing, but they really consist of microhemorrhages that can lead to bigger hemorrhages and edema in the brain. These risks are relatively small - they are seeing more commonly in those who have a specific genotype, an APOE E 4 genotype - but they're risks nonetheless.  And so, there's controversy about the risk-benefit ratio and access to care with these new therapies.  Dr Jones: It's very exciting, but we should be cautious, right? I recall a few years ago as a program director, a neurology residency program director, interest in different areas of neurology would often follow developments in those areas, right? Lots of interest in autoimmune neurology when those developments would proceed in neuro oncology, etc. And I wonder if the therapeutic advances in in behavioral neurology and neurodegenerative cognitive disorders, I wonder if that's going to stimulate interest among our trainees to pursue behavioral neurology? Do you have a view on that or have you seen much change in interest in in this field?  Dr Silbert: You know, we are seeing a lot more interest in our trainees. The residents are very interested in these new therapies and how to apply them. And I'm really excited about that.  I'm hopeful that this will stimulate interest in the field. And we need those specialists, we need those sub specialists to undergo fellowship training in behavioral neurology and geriatric neurology so that we have more access to the subspecialty care and delivering these new therapies. So, I agree with you, I'm hopeful about it and I am seeing new interest in our trainees about these new therapies.  Dr Jones: We can hope so. And all the other fellowship directors will be anxious if neurology residents start leaving to go into behavioral neurology. But there's certainly demand. And I know that under the best of circumstances, dementia is so common. It's something that we have to care for in partnership with primary care and community resources. And these disease-modifying therapies capture a lot of attention, but it's really a small part of the continuum of care of these patients. And Dr Silbert as an expert, you know, if we put that disease-modifying therapy to the side for a second and just said, well, what are the biggest gaps in the care for patients with dementia? What do you see as those biggest gaps and, and what can we do to fix them at not just a neurology level, but at a societal level?  Dr Silbert: That's a big question. And you know, what I see almost every day are gaps in the support mechanisms for families who are caring for patients with dementia. These caregivers are under a lot of stress and oftentimes they just don't have the resources to take care of somebody who at some point will often need twenty-four hour care and supervision. Caregivers are older, usually of older age themselves and have their medical issues as well. And then we're just not doing a good job as a nation in in supporting patients and their families with like supportive care and respite care that's really needed. So, you know, I'm not just seeing and treating patients with dementia, but I'm seeing and I'm really trying to support and care for those who are taking care of patients with dementia. To me, that's the biggest gap in our system. Dr Jones: Yeah. And as I look through this issue of Continuum, we touched on not only the conventional topics in dementia and behavioral neurology. I'm really happy in hindsight that we have invited some discussion of the psychiatric symptoms in dementia, which I think are really important and often underrecognized and maybe undermanaged or mismanaged, and really also focusing on the caregiver burden and support services. We do have an article dedicated to that as well, and I think that'll be useful to our readers and listeners when we when we publish those podcasts. We we've heard this year especially a lot of public conversation about cognitive impairment and dementia. I sometimes wonder if that public attention is helpful and constructive for the population of patients with dementia. Sometimes I wonder if that conversation is counterproductive. What's your take on that?  Dr Silbert: You know, I think it's- it can be a mixed bag, but ultimately, it's in the conversation. We're talking about it. And I think that's only a good thing. There's more public awareness of it.  There is more interest in therapies. So, I think at the end of the day, talking about it, making it more prevalent in the ether, it stimulates the conversation and discussion. And even if there's controversies about it, we're talking about it. And I think that's kind of the first step in acknowledging that we need more support, we need more therapies.  Dr Jones: Yeah, I agree. And I think often patients with neurologic disorders and their caregivers and families often appreciate being seen.   Dr Silbert: Yeah, no, absolutely true. So, I'd say in regards to the monoclonal antibody treatments, you know, despite the controversies with these new treatments, I think there's a real promise and a real hope and a real excitement across a lot of behavioral neurologists, including myself, that this is just the beginning. That even if these first line, first generation therapies maybe have downsides, that there'll be second generation and third generation variations on these kinds of treatments that are going to be more accessible, have less side effects and hopefully be more clinically effective. And, and down the line, the other real hope for the field is that these maybe second generation therapies will actually delay the onset or prevent clinical manifestation of the disease. And that's the real goal here.  Dr Jones: And that's a great segue to the to the next thing I wanted to ask you about and you, you may have already answered the question. We talked about how we have and will have new biomarkers which will help us with diagnosis. We have hopefully the first phase in increasingly effective disease modifying therapies for Alzheimer, maybe prevent Alzheimer's disease. Wouldn't that be great? Are there any other things on the horizon that you see maybe for other neurodegenerative disorders from a therapeutic perspective? What do you, what do you think the next big thing will be in that area?  Dr Silbert: Well, that's a great question. I think, you know, there's a lot of exciting research in Lewy body dementia and targeting alpha synuclein pathologies. We really need biomarkers.  So, we're ways off from therapeutics, but I think there's a lot of exciting progress in that area.  Dr Jones: So, like many areas of neurology, there are rewarding and challenging aspects to the care of these patients. What  do you- what's the most rewarding aspect of your practice, Dr Silbert?   Dr Silbert: You know, a lot of… I hear from trainees over the years that, you know, they can't imagine or it's difficult for them to think about caring for patients who have a neurodegenerative disease that has no cure. But I feel like that's a lot of what neurologists do. We don't necessarily cure all diseases, but we treat the patient throughout their disease process. And to me that is extremely satisfying. You know, I enjoy listening to patients' stories and hearing about what they have been through over the years. And I really feel, like, appreciated for the care that I provide in giving not just an accurate diagnosis, which a lot of people come in lacking, but talking about future planning and, really, treatment throughout the course of the disease. And I was in clinic yesterday and talking to one of my patients' caregivers, and we were talking about a particularly difficult behavioral manifestation that her husband was going through. And we were talking through how to manage it. And she said to me, you know, Dr Silbert, I really feel like I have a partner in going through this disease. And you know, that's kind of what it's all about for me. So, to me, it's extremely rewarding field. It's also a very exciting field, especially right now with all these new biomarkers and treatments. So, I just think there isn't a better area of neurology to be involved in right now.   Dr Jones: What a great place to land and end the interview. And I hope our listeners and our readers really do enjoy this issue. It's really a fantastic, not just an update, but a survey of a very dynamic aspect of the field of neurology. And Dr Silbert, I want to thank you for joining us and thank you for such a thorough and fascinating discussion on caring for patients with dementia.    Dr Silbert: It was my pleasure. Thank you.    Dr Jones: Again, we've been speaking with Dr Lisa Silbert, co-guest editor, alongside Dr Leanna Apostolova for Continuum 's most recent issue on dementia. Please check it out, 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. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. 

For certain diagnoses and patients who meet clinical criteria, neuromodulation can provide profound, long-lasting relief that significantly improves quality of life. In this episode, Aaron Berkowitz, MD, PhD, FAAN speaks with Prasad Shirvalkar, MD, PhD, author of the article “Neuromodulation for Neuropathic Pain Syndromes,” in the Continuum® October 2024 Pain Management in Neurology issue. Dr. Berkowitz is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a professor of neurology at the University of California San Francisco in the Department of Neurology and a neurohospitalist, general neurologist, and clinician educator at the San Francisco VA Medical Center at the San Francisco General Hospital in San Francisco, California. Dr. Shirvalkar is an associate professor in the Departments of Anesthesia and Perioperative Care, Neurological Surgery, and Neurology at Weill Institute for Neurosciences at the University of California, San Francisco in San Francisco, California. Additional Resources Read the article: Neuromodulation for Neuropathic Pain Syndromes 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: @AaronLBerkowitz Guest: @PrasadShirvalka 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 Berkowitz: This is Dr Aaron Berkowitz, and today I'm interviewing Dr Prasad Shirvalkar about his article on neuromodulation for painful neuropathic diseases, which appears in the October 2024 Continuum issue on pain management in neurology. Welcome to the podcast, and if you wouldn't mind, please introducing yourself to our listeners.  Dr Shirvalkar: Thanks, Aaron. Yes, of course. So, my name is Prasad Shirvalkar. I'm an associate professor in anesthesiology, neurology and neurological surgery at UCSF. I am one of those rare neurologists that's actually a pain physician.  Dr Berkowitz: Fantastic. And we're excited to have you here and talk to you more about being a neurologist in in the field of pain. So, you wrote a fascinating article here about current and emerging neuromodulation devices and techniques being used to treat chronic pain. And in our interview today, I'm hoping to learn and for our listeners to learn about these devices and techniques and how to determine which patients may benefit from them. But before we get into some of the clinical aspects here, can you first just give our listeners an overview of the basic principles of how neuromodulation of various regions of the nervous system is thought to reduce pain? Dr Shirvalkar: Yeah, I would love to try. But I will promise you that I will not succeed because I think to a large extent, we don't understand how neuromodulation works to treat pain, to describe or to define neuromodulation. Neuromodulation is often described as using electrical stimuli or a chemical stimuli to alter nervous system activity to really influence local activity, but also kind of distant network activity that might be producing pain. On one level, we don't fully understand how pain arises, specifically how chronic pain arises in the nervous system. It's a huge focus of study from the NIH Heal Initiative and many labs around the world. But acute pain, which is kind of when you stub your toe or you burn your finger, is thought to be quite different from the changes over time and the kind of plasticity that produces emotional, cognitive and sensory dimensions. Really what I think is its own disease, chronic pain, of which there are multiple syndromes when we use neuromodulation, either peripheral nerve stimulation or electrical spinal cord stimulation. One common or predominant theory actually comes from a paper in science from 1967 and people still use it, foundational theory and it's called the gate control theory. Two authors, Melzack and Wall, postulated that at the spinal level, there are, there's a local inhibitory circuit or, you know, there's a local circuit where if you provide input to either peripheral nerves or either spinal cord ascending fibers that to kind of summarize it, there's only so much bandwidth, you know, that nerves can carry. And so that if you literally pass through artificial signals electrically, that you will help gate out or block natural pathological but natural pain signals that might be arising from the periphery or spinal cord. So, you know, one idea is that you are kind of interfering with activity that's arising for chemical neuromodulation. The most common is something known as intrathecal drug infusion drug delivery ITTD for that we quite literally put a catheter in the spinal fluid, you know, at the level of the dorsal horn neurons that we think are responsible for perpetuating or creating the pain. Where's the pain generator? And you really, you can infuse local anesthetic, you can infuse opioids. And what's nice is you avoid a lot of systemic side effects and toxicity because it goes right to the spinal cord, you know, by infusing in the fluid. So there's a couple of modalities, but I will say just, like maybe all of our living experience, pain is in the brain. And so, we don't really understand, I would say, what neuromodulation is doing to the higher spinal or brain levels. Dr Berkowitz: Fascinating topic. And yeah, very interesting to hear both what our current understanding is that some of our current understanding is based on data that's 60 years old and that we're actually probably learning about pain by using these modulation techniques, even though we don't really understand how they might be working. So interesting feedback loop there as well as in as in the as in this land. So, your article very nicely organizes the neuromodulation techniques from peripheral to central. So, encourage our listeners to check out your article. And first before we get into some of the clinical applications, just to give the listeners the lay of the land, can you sort of lay out the devices and techniques available for treating pain at each level of the neuroaxis? We'll get into some of the indications in patient selection in a moment, but just sort of to lay out the landscape. What's available that you and your colleagues can use or implant at different levels when we're thinking of referring patients too? Dr Shirvalkar: Absolutely. So, starting from the least invasive or you know, over the counter patients can purchase themselves a TENS machine. Many folks listening to this have probably tried a TENS machine in the past. And the idea is that you put a couple of pads, at least two. So you have like a dipole or you have a positive and a negative lead and you basically inject some current. So, the pads are attached to a battery and you can put these pads over muscle. If you have areas where myofascial pain or sore muscles, you can put them, frankly, over nerves as well and stimulate nerves that are deeper. Most TENS machines kind of use electrical pulses that occur at different rates. You change the rates, you can change the amplitude and patient can kind of have control for what works best. Then getting slightly more invasive, we can often stimulate electrically peripheral nerves. To do this we implant through a needle, a small wire that consists of anywhere from one electrical contact to four or even eight electrical contact. What I think is particularly cool, like TENS, which is transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation that goes through the skin. Peripheral nerve stimulation aims to stimulate nerves, but you don't have to be right up against the nerve. So, yeah. We typically do this under an ultrasound and you can visualize a nerve like the sciatic nerve, peroneal nerve, or you know, even if someone has an ulnar or a neuropathy, you know, that's the compression. There's a role obviously for surgery and release, but if they have predominantly pain, it's not related to a mechanical problem per se, you could prevent a wire from a peripheral nerve stimulator as far as one centimeter from a nerve and it'll actually stimulate that that modulated and then, you know, kind of progressing even more deeply. The spinal cord stimulation, SCS, it's probably the most ubiquitous or popular form of neuromodulation for pain. People use it for all kinds of diseases. But what it roughly involves is a trial period, which is a placement of either two cylindrical wires, not directly over the spinal cord, but actually in the epidural space, right? So, it's kind of like when you get an epidural injection or doing labor and delivery, when women get epidural catheters, placing spinal cord stimulator leads in that same potential space outside the dura, and you're stimulating through the dura to actually target the ascending dorsal column fibers. And so, you do a trial period or a test drive where the patients get these wires put in. They're coming out of the skin, they're connected to a battery, and they walk around at home for about a week, take careful notes, check in with them, and they keep a diary or a log about how much it helps. Separately. I will say it's hard to distinguish this, the placebo effect often, but you know, sometimes we want to use the placebo effect in clinical practice, but it is a concern, you know, with such invasive things. But you know, if the trial works well, right, you basically can either keep the leads where they are and place a battery internally. And it's for neurologists. You're familiar with deep brain stimulation. These devices are very similar to DVS devices, but they're specifically made for spinal cord stimulation. And there's now like seven companies that offer manufacturers that offer it, each with their own proprietary algorithm or workflow. But going yet more invasive, there is intrathecal drug delivery, which I mentioned, which involves placement of the spinal catheter and infusion of drug into spinal fluid. You could do a trial for that as well. Keep a patient in the hospital for a few days. You've all probably had experience with lumbar drains. It's something real similar. It just goes the other way. You know, you're infusing drugs, and it could also target peripheral nerves or nerve roots with catheters, and that's often done. And last but not least, there's brain stimulation. Right now, it's all experimental except for some forms of TMS or transcranial magnetic stimulation, which is FDA approved for migraine with aura. There are tens machine type devices, cutaneous like stimulators where you can wear on your head like a crown or with stickers for various sorts of migraines. I don't really talk about them too much in in the article, but if there's a fast field out there for adjunctive therapy as well,  Dr Berkowitz: Fantastic. That's a phenomenal overview. Just so we have the lay on the land of these devices. So, from peripheral essentially have peripheral nerve stimulators, spinal cord stimulators, intrathecal drug delivery devices and then techniques we use in other areas of neurology emerging for pain DBS deep brain stimulation and TMS transcranial magnetic stimulation. OK let's get into some clinical applications now. Let's start with spinal cord stimulators, which - correct me if I'm wrong - seem to be probably the most commonly seen in practice. Which patients can benefit from spinal cord stimulators? When should we think about referring a patient to you and your colleagues for consideration of implantation of one of these spinal cord stimulator devices?  Dr Shirvalkar: So, you know, it's a great question. I would say it's interesting how to define which patients or diagnosis might be appropriate. Technically, spinal cord stimulators are approved for the treatment of most recently diabetic peripheral neuropathy. And so, I think that's a really great category if you have patients who have been failed by more conservative treatments, physical therapy, etcetera, but more commonly even going back, neuropathic low back pain and neuropathic leg pain. And so, you think about it and it's like, how do you define neuropathic pain. Neuropathic pain is kind of broadly defined as any pain that's caused by injury or some kind of lesion in the somatosensory nervous system. We now broaden that to be more than just somatosensory nervous system, but still, what if you can't find a lesion, but the pain still feels or seems neuropathic. Clinically, if something is neuropathic, we often use certain qualitative descriptors to describe that type of pain burning, stabbing, electric light, shooting radiates. There's often hyperpathia, like it lingers and spreads in space and time as opposed to, you know, arthritis, throbbing dull pain or as opposed to muscle pain might be myofascial pain, but sometimes it's hard to tell. So, there aren't great decision tools, I would say to help decide. One of the most common syndromes that we use spinal cord stimulation for is what used to be called failed back surgery syndrome. We never like to, we now try to shy away from explicitly saying something is someone has failed in their clinical treatment. So, the euphemism is now, you know, post-laminectomy syndrome. But in any case, if someone has had back surgery and they still have a nervy or neuropathic type pain, either shooting down their legs and often there's no evidence on MRI or even EMG that that something is wrong, they might be a good candidate, especially if they're relying on long term medications that have side effects or things like full agonist opioids, you know that that might have side effects or contraindication. So, I would say one, it's not a first line treatment. It's usually after you've gone through physical therapy for sure. So, you've gone through tried some medications. Basically, if chronic pain is still impacting your life and your function in a meaningful way that's restricting the things you want to do, then it it's totally appropriate, I think, to think about spinal cord stimulation. And importantly, I will add a huge predictor of final court stimulation success is psychological composition, you know, making sure the person doesn't have any untreated psychological illness and, and actually making sure their expectations going in are realistic. You're not going to cure anyone's pain. You may and that's, you know, a win, but it's very unlikely. And so, give folks the expectation that we hope to reduce your pain by 50% or we want you to list personally, I like functional goals where you say what is your pain preventing you from doing? We want to see if you can do X,Y, and Z during the trial period. Pharmacostimulation right now. Yeah. Biggest indication low back leg pain, Diabetic peripheral neuropathy. There is also an indication for CRPS, complex regional pain syndrome, a lesser, I'd say less common but also very debilitating pain condition. For better or worse. Tertiary quaternary care centers. You often will see spinal cord stem used off label for neuropathic type pain syndromes that are not explicitly better. That may be for example, like a nerve injury that's peripheral, you know, it's not responding. A lot of this off label use is highly variable and, you know, on the whole at a population level not very successful. And so, I think there's been a lot of mixed evidence. So, it's something to be aware about.  Dr Berkowitz: That's a very helpful framework. So, thinking about referring patients to who have most commonly probably the patients with chronic low back pain have undergone surgery, have undergone physical therapy, are on medications, have undergone treatment for any potential psychological psychiatric comorbidities, and yet remain disabled by this pain and have a reasonable expectation and goals that you think would make them a good candidate for the procedure. Are those similar principles to peripheral nerve stimulation I wasn't familiar with that technique, I'm reading your article, so are the principles similar and if so, which particular conditions would potentially benefit from referral for a trial peripheral nerve stimulation as opposed to spinal cord stimulation?  Dr Shirvalkar: Yeah, the principles are similar overall. The peripheral nerve stimulation, you know, neuropathic pain with all the characteristics you listed. Interestingly enough, just like spinal cord stim, most insurances require a psychological evaluation for peripheral nerve stim as well. And we want to make sure again that their expectations are reside, they have good social support and they understand the kind of risks of an invasive device. But also, for peripheral nerve stem, specifically, if someone has a traumatic injury of an individual peripheral nerve, often we will consider it seeing kind of super scapular stimulation. Often with folks who've had shoulder injuries or even sciatic nerve stimulation. I have done a few peroneal nerve stimulations as well as occipital nerve stimulation from migraine, so oxygen nerve stimulation has been studied a lot. So, it's still somewhat controversial, but in the right patient it can actually be really helpful. Dr Berkowitz: Very helpful. So, these are patients who have neuropathic pain, but limited to one peripheral nerve distribution as opposed to the more widespread back associated pains, spine associated pains. Dr Shirvalkar: Yeah, Yeah, that's right. And maybe there's one exception actually to this, which is brachial plexopathy. So, you know, folks who've had something like a brachial plexus avulsion or some kind of traumatic injury to their plexus, there is I think good Class 2 evidence that peripheral nerve stem can work. It falls under the indication. No one is as far as to my knowledge, No one's done an explicit trial, you know PNS randomized controlled trial. Yeah, that's, you know, another area one area where PNS or peripheral nerve stems emerging is actually, believe it or not in myofascial low back pain to actually provide muscle stimulation. There are some, there's a company or two out there that seeks to alter the physiology of the multifidus muscle, one of your spinal stabilizer muscles to really see if that can help low back pain. And they've had some interesting results.  Dr Berkowitz: Very interesting. You mentioned TENS units earlier, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation as something a patient could get over the counter. When would you encourage a patient to try TENS and when would you consider TENS inadequate and really be thinking about a peripheral nerve stimulator?  Dr Shirvalkar: Yeah, you know TENS we think of as really appropriate for myofascial pain. Folks who have muscular pain, have clear trigger points or taught muscle bands can often get relief from TENS If you turn a TENS machine up too high, you'll actually see muscle infection. So, there's an optimal level where you actually can turn it up to induce, like, a gentle vibration. And so folks will feel paresthesia and vibrations, and that's kind of the sweet spot. However, I would say if folks have pain that's limited or temporary in time or after a particular activity, TENS can be really helpful. The unfortunate reality is TENS often has very time-limited benefits - just while you're wearing it, you know? So, it's often not enduring. And so that's one of the limitations. Dr Berkowitz: That's helpful to understand. We've talked about the present landscape in your article, also talk a little bit about the future and you alluded to this earlier. Tell us a little bit about some off label emerging techniques that we may see in future use. Who, which types of patients, which conditions might we be referring to you and your colleagues for deep brain stimulation or transcranial magnetic stimulation or motor cortex stimulation? What's coming down the pipeline here?  Dr Shirvalkar: That's a great question. You know, one of my favorite topics is deep brain stimulation. I run the laboratory that studies intracranial signals trying to understand how pain is processed in the brain. But, believe it or not, chronic pain is probably the oldest indication for which DBS has been studied. the first paper came out in 1960, I believe, in France. And you know, the, the original pivotal trials occurred even before the Parkinson's trial and so fell out of favor because in my opinion, I think it was just too hard or too difficult or a problem or too heterogeneous. You know, many things, but there are many central pain syndromes, you know, poststroke pains, there's often pains associated with Parkinson's disease, epilepsy, or other brain disorders for which we just don't have good circuit understanding or good targets. So, I think what's coming down the pipeline is a better personalized target identification, understanding where can we stimulate to actually alleviate pain. The other big trend I think in neuromodulation is using closed loop stimulation which means in contrast to traditional electrical stimulation which is on all the time, you know it's 24/7, set it and forget it. Actually, having stimulation respond or adapt to ongoing physiological signals. So that's something that we're seeing in spinal cord stem, but also trying to develop in deep brain stimulation and noninvasive stimulation. TMS is interestingly approved for neuropathic pain in Europe, but not approved by the FDA in the US. And so I think we may see that coming out of pipeline broader indication. And finally, MR guided focused ultrasound is, is a kind of a brand new technique now. You know, focused ultrasound lesions are being used for essential tremor without even making an incision in the skull or drilling in skull. But there are ways to modulate the brain without lesioning. And, you know, I think a lot of research will be emerging on that in the next five years for, for pain and many other neuronal disorders. Dr Berkowitz: That's fascinating. I didn't know that history that DBS was first studied for pain and now we think of it mostly for Parkinson's and other movement disorders. And now the cycle is coming back around to look at it for pain again. What are some of the targets that are being studied that are thought to have benefit or are being shown by your work and that of others to have benefit as far as DBS targets for, for chronic pain? Dr Shirvalkar: You know, that's a great question. And so, the hard part is finding one target that works for all patients. So, it may actually require personalization and actually understanding what brain circuit phenotypes do you have with regards to your chronic pain and then based on that, what target might we use? But I will say the older targets. Classical targets were periaqueductal gray, which is kind of the opioid center in your brain. You know, it's thought to just release large amounts of endogenous opioids when you stimulate there and then the ventral pusher thalamus, right. So, the sensory ascending system may be through gait control theory interferes with pain, but newer targets the answer singlet there's some interest in in stimulating there again, it doesn't work for everybody. We found some interesting findings with the medial thalamus as well as aspects of the caudate and other basal ganglion nuclei that we hopefully will be publishing soon in a data science paper.  Dr Berkowitz: Fantastic. That's exciting to hear and encourage all of our listeners to check out your article. That goes into a lot more depth than we had time to do in this short interview, both about the science and about the clinical indications, pros and cons, risks and benefits of some of these techniques. So again, today I've been interviewing Dr Prasad Shirvalkar, whose article on neuromodulation for painful neuropathic diseases appears in the most recent issue of Continuum on pain management in neurology. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues. And thank you again to our listeners for joining today.  Dr Shirvalkar: Thank you for having me. It was an honor. 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.

Opioids may be considered for temporary use in patients with severe pain related to selected neuropathic pain conditions and only as part of a multimodal treatment regimen. Close follow-up when initiating or adjusting opioid therapy and frequent reevaluation during long-term opioid therapy is required. In this episode, Allison Weathers, MD, FAAN speaks with Friedhelm Sandbrink, MD, FAAN, an author of the article “Opioids and Cannabinoids in Neurology Practice,” in the Continuum® October 2024 Pain Management in Neurology issue. Dr. Weathers is a Continuum Audio interviewer and the associate chief medical information officer at the Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio. Dr. Sandbrink is the national program director of Pain Management, Opioid Safety and Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs at the Veterans Health Administration, Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Maryland. Additional Resources Read the article: Opioids and Cannabinoids in Neurology Practice 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 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 Weathers: I'm Dr Allison Weathers. Today I'm interviewing Dr Friedhelm Sandbrink, who is one of the authors of the article Opioids and Cannabinoids for the Practicing Neurologist from the October 2024 Continuum issue on pain management Neurology. Welcome to the podcast and please introduce yourself to our audience.  Dr Sandbrink: Yeah, hi. So, I'm Friedhelm Sandbrink. I'm a neurologist and pain physician. I work at the Washington DC VA Medical Center, where I lead our intercessory pain management team, and I have a role also in the VA central office for pain management. I'm also associate professor, clinical associate professor at George Washington University and at the Uniformed Services University in Bethesda.  Dr Weathers: A lot of expertise, which you obviously brought to this article. And I do want to emphasize before we get started, although the article discusses both opioids and cannabinoids, as I said in the introduction, you worked in specifically on opioids. And so that's the part of the article where we'll focus our conversation today. Of course, I think all of our Continuum Audio topics are really fascinating. I know that some may not resonate as much, especially with our non-neurology listeners as others. Clearly not the case with your articles. I was reading it and preparing for a conversation today. I was really struck by how broadly applicable this topic is, not only to all neurologists but, really, all physicians, and even it should be to all of our listeners. Especially with what happened been going on over the last several years, what's been in the news about the opioid epidemic. And while usually like to start with this question, it feels even more pertinent in your case, what is the most important clinical message of your article? Dr Sandbrink: So, the role of the opioid, the role of opioid therapy, really, for pain care has changed dramatically over the last many years right? I mean, it's we, we still consider opioids like the most potent analgesic medication for treatment of acute pain. The benefit for chronic pain really has changed right I mean, you know, we- the understanding in that regard and they're controversial. So, they're generally not recommended for chronic treatment for neuropathic pain conditions or for headache, but there are probably situations when opioids are still indicated and may be considered especially for temporary use. So, one example is probably the patient who has severe acute post hepatic neuralgia and we know that we use other medications for that, you know, the gabapentinoids and duloxetine and but they may take several days or weeks to work, right? And we have to titrate them up. And when more acute pain relief is needed, the opioid medication may be may be an option for temporary use. But I think what we need to keep in mind is that when we use it, we need to be informed about how to mitigate the risks, right? What, what are our best ways to reduce harms? And we need to also know the regulatory, you know, situation right I mean, what is that that we have to do nowadays to stay within the frameworks, right? And so, one of the main emphasis on this article is really go through what the clinical that the CDC has now established as the standards for opiate therapy when we use opioids I think we all need to know the rules right I mean, we know what to do to mitigate risks. What is expected from us in regard to use it as safely as possible, right? And that's important for the patient. That's also important for us in our practice.  Dr Weathers: I think very important advice. And this seems so obvious, but at the same time, I think it's worth very clearly stating why is it so important for neurology clinicians and again, really all clinicians, to read this article? Dr Sandbrink: Yeah. We need to know the words regarding opiate prescribing right in the clinic. You know, the CDC has now issued their opiate practice guide, the Opiate Therapy Guideline. Really, it's a guideline for pain care in 2022. It's an update from 2016 that made some major changes in that regard. And I think we need to know really where we are nowadays in regard to expectations. I think we need to place the opiate therapy appropriately in our armamentarium regarding the many options that we have for pain care. But then when we use them, we need to know what we need to do to make it safe. Right? So, I'm thinking about the prescription drug monitoring programs and the patient education that's expected. We use in our practice an informed consent process even for patients on chronic pain, When and how to interpret urine drug screens, right? And how to issue, and maybe when to issue a naloxone comedication in order to have a rescue medication in case the patient is in a terrible situation. So, these are just things that have become nowadays standards of care and part of our practice. And we need to be familiar with it and use them as we take care of the patients. And for instance, in regard to opiate medication, we need to know about the specific rules regarding telehealth, prescribing of controlled substances, controlled Substances Act and the Ryan Hate Act that mandates in person evaluations for patients when we prescribe controlled substances. That obviously has been somewhat amended or changed or temporarily put on hold during the COVID crisis. And many states now have started developing their own guidance in regard to what's available and what's possible during telehealth. And we need to be familiar about that also.  Dr Weathers: I think those are such important and thoughtful points. I, I've mentioned it several times on this podcast before. I am a clinical informaticist and this is a topic that really lends itself to the EHR being able to help support. So, a lot of the things that you just mentioned, the consents for patients, the prescribing of naloxone, some of the support, clinical decision support can really be done in the electronic health record to help support providers. However, it's also one of those things where if people don't understand what's behind it, it can become a little bit of a crutch. And so, as I was reading the article, I was really struck by how helpful it is to really have that background. I think people can become very dependent and it becomes almost just doing it all for them and, and they lose the- then you can make this argument about probably a lot of the other clinical decision supports in there, but really understanding the why behind a lot of the support that's there around all of the, the tools that are in there to, to support safe opioid prescribing. I think it's so important for that people have that background that the article provides.  Dr Sandbrink: I think often it feels like you're going through a checklist of things to do right and, and, and you do right. But at the same time, as you said, you need to know why you're doing it right And, and I think it's very important for us to know what the rules are and the expectations in regard to standards of care. So, we also know what is the framework that we have to follow, but where can we make modifications? Where can we individualize based on the patient's need? What is really that that is still within our ability to do and how to modify that? Because in the very end, it really is about good care of the patient. We need to know what we are allowed to do, but we also need to know where the limits are right And I hope that that article provides really some information about that, especially as it outlines what the CDC expects. But then also, I think it gives - hopefully, and this is a message that the CDC also has – it really emphasizes that it's about good communication with the patient, truly informing them and about what are the range of options and the limits that we have, but also at the same time never to abandon the patient. You know, I think this is something that we need to understand. It's not really about us. The rules are there to make the care of the patients safer. The rules are not the primary goal itself. It is still patient care. So, in that regard, we need to make sure to never abandon the patient, even if the patient for instance, may come to us and maybe they took more opiates and prescribed or you know, and they ran out early and figure out what exactly was that drove the patient for that, right? I mean, you know, so that we know maybe it is actually worse than pain. Maybe there was something that happened that caused the patient to have a significant increase of it. You know, I think one of the biggest misconceptions is really also that patients who make sure some misuse of medication, that everybody has opioid abuse disorder, addiction. Common, far too common, right? And I think we've learned over the years how common it is. Clearly pain itself, intractable pain is a very strong driver of behavior. If you're in pain, if a patient is in pain, they are desperate often to seek some kind of relief. And taking extra medication in itself, while it's not at all something that we can endorse and tolerate, obviously in many ways, right, we have to still take it as a possible sign of pain control rather than opiate use disorder in itself. So, we need to be very careful of how to assess such a patient and that we guide them into the right direction in regard to the next.  Dr Weathers: That, again, is very important advice, and thinking about how chronic pain on a very different level than acute pain, right? Understanding how these patients are processing pain in a very different way than patients with acute pain. And again, also, I think a very important point that the pendulum has swung kind of back and forth over the years. You know, that they were in pain was another vital sign and it was make sure you're asking your patient about pain. And then all of a sudden it was, oh, we have to be really careful and people should not, nobody should be on these medications, which you- to your point, led to sudden abandonment. And that's not the point. That's not what we should be doing as providers. I know, though, there's very sensitive and challenging situations when you find out a patient though, perhaps taking more than expected because of chronic pain, but perhaps diversion. How have you handled those challenging cases? Dr Sandbrink: I think diversion needs to be taken obviously very, very seriously. And you know, if a patient is truly diverting medication and there are obviously multiple variations of that, right? I mean, it's like giving it to a family member, for instance. That's one thing. It's on the other hand actually selling it. I think a patient who diverts is such a situation where opioid prescribing has to stop immediately, right? I mean, this is not a patient that we would take off at this point. I mean, so I think it's one of the very, very few occasions where you'd say that you have to just stop it immediately. I think there are other situations really in general, I think the patients who have been on opioids long term, especially in higher doses, I mean the majority of patients are not different. We have to be aware of it. We have to always look out for it. That's part of our risk mitigation. But we also have to make sure that patients on long term opioid therapy, right, that we guide them appropriately. I think the guidance probably in many ways is that we want to make sure whether opioids, the opioid medications still have helps them to achieve their functional goal. Are they truly helpful for the patients in achieving what they aspire to do in regard to their work life, in regard to the family situation. I think a lot of times for patients who have been on opioids long term, it's probably not that it really helps them that much for pain anymore, but they've often made that experience and they try to stop it. Pain gets worse, which is the effect obviously, that that happens with opiates right I mean, the moment you stop them, the opposite of the effect happens right I mean, they become irritable, right? The sleep gets worse, the pain gets worse, right? And it's a temporary phenomenon. And so, when we try to talk to a patient about possibly reducing the medication, I think this is one of the most challenging aspects that we have, that we really look at the patient and try to motivate them to be part of that plan. It's not something that we want to impose on the patient, but rather that we motivate the patient to look towards in the long term, probably more efficient pain care, which is really much more comprehensive pain care using all modalities. And I think one of the things that we learned over the last years is that when we make opiate medication reductions, we have to go very slowly. I think in the past we've talked about a matter of weeks and now the guidance including from the CDC guideline is probably more- closer to 10% per month to reducing it. So, you make reductions that may take many months to a year even, right. And the patient is allowed to help us, guide us how fast we can go. And you're allowed to make pauses if needed for the patient to adjust physiologically to reduction. And we want to go slowly enough that we don't run into an acute withdrawal situation right If you do it very gradually, it's much more manageable for the patient to do that. Then they'll be much more motivated to work with you. But still, it's a challenge right I think that we do. And I think at the very end, it's really providing good patient care that allows us to build that rapport with the patient that they trust us and that they say, Hey, you know, yes, I'm, I'm willing to work with you, doc, to maybe reduce my reliance on the medication, right? So that that I don't end up on this. You know, one of the things that I sometimes do is asking patients when they come to us this first time and there are a lot of opiate medication maybe is like, what's your goal in this regard? Where do you see yourself in, in five or ten years? Are you thinking you will still be on this medication or would you want to come off? And how can we help you then if that's your goal? So, I think this is all part of our important conversation that we have to have in order to motivate the patient.  Dr Weathers: What I heard you say repeatedly through that. And what I really want to emphasize for our listeners is that the therapeutic relationship with that patient that no matter what that scenario, really keeping them and their goals at the focus and really making it a partnership, not a paternalistic relationship, not dictating to them what the plan will be, but really emphasizing shared decision-making. And I think again, that's such a key take home point for our listeners. And also, even going back to my original question about diversion, what really struck me in your response is even though you said yes, then that was one of the few cases or perhaps even the only case where you said, all right, this is where we have to cut it off immediately. It still wasn't abandoning them as a patient, although you said we have to stop the medication. It wasn't about ending that relationship with that patient necessarily, but ending that therapy option. So really critical in how we think about opioids therapy and our relationship overall with patients.  Dr Sandbrink: So, Allison, maybe I can add on, you know, I think the patient with diversion is the one aspect where we have to look at the population as a whole and the opioid that makes it to somebody else, potentially a vulnerable child, right, even you know, who could die from it, right? Another aspect of probably the patients we mentioned them earlier who have opioid use disorder, who maybe take more than prescribed and where we as a neurologist feel often quite uncomfortable dealing with that. And I think that's so important that at that point we don't abandoned the patient, right. I mean, you know, maybe we want to continue, we don't want to continue the opiate medication for the treatment of the pain. But as we diagnose and initially suspect opiate use disorder and have a conversation about it with a patient, we need to guide them to therapy. It's a treatable condition, right? It's an untreated, it's, it's actually rather lethal in many situations, right? So, we have to make sure that we provide an integrated access to the treatment or we have a warm hand off to somebody who will continue that and not abandon the patient in regard to that pain care, as we said earlier also, right? I mean, because that second condition really doesn't obviously I mean in any way that the pain is any better. No, I mean it's a common concurrent situation and we need to make sure that they still have the better pain care possible. Dr Weathers: Again, it's a really key point for our listeners as and as I emphasized at the beginning, regardless of their subspecialty or specialty or even if they're physicians, I hope for everybody listening they can take away something from this. How did you become interested in pain management? I know that this was something that that you became interested in even when still in training. What struck you about this? Dr Sandbrink: So, yeah, so my initial fellowship actually after residence was clinical neurophysiology. So, you know, a lot of the spine and different nerve conditions really was, was, but then when I began practice, clearly longitudinal care, chronic disease management, I think many of us in neurology do that right That, that became an emphasis. And I think building that accord with the patients right and, and, and that having that ability to provide pain care is something that really worked out very well. I think I love teamwork and part of teamwork pain care in in our setting is a collaborative approach right You have other disciplines, physical therapist, psychologist, right? You know, you have intervention and nonintervention provider. I think nowadays we even have integrative modalities available to us. So, I'm working together on a team, trying to optimize it here with many team members that we have with everybody bringing that personal expertise is something that I really cherish. Dr Weathers: I feel like that's such a great example and I feel like a lot of people don't necessarily think about this specialty as one that is, that is collaborative in that way. And it really is. So, I, I think that's a wonderful way to highlight it. I always like to end on a hopeful note. And I know that there hasn't been necessarily a lot of hope or positive news in regards to, to opioid use, opioid therapy in the last several years. But are there developments that give you hope that you're excited about?  Dr Sandbrink: So, you know, I think there are probably two things I would mention. On one hand, I think patients are so much more aware now about the risk of opioids. So that is actually much easier to look and get them motivated about comprehensive pain care. There's much more interest in integrative modalities. Patients nowadays would be much more willing to maybe try acupuncture or mindfulness or yoga or Tai chi. So, I think that's actually a really nice development in that regard. But if I think about opioids specifically, I think the availability of buprenorphine as a medication, it's certainly something we should mention in this interview here, right? I mean, buprenorphine is now increasingly used for pain as well, not just in the higher dosage for opiate use disorder. It really is a good choice for patients who have. pain conditions, chronic pain conditions, severe pain and to require a daily opioid, especially in regard to safety aspect when the patient has medical conditions or mental health conditions that may put them at higher risk and they have to be on an opiate anyway. This is really something that I think has changed our practice. As you know, we don't have to rely on the X waiver anymore. Anybody with a DA license can prescribe buprenorphine. Even for opiate disuse disorder, it really has become something that I think many of us integrate much more into our practice and I want to encourage the listener to really look into that direction.  Dr Weathers: Excellent advice and I'll actually refer our listeners who are subscribers of Continuum to reference, specifically, Table 4 where you dive into the buprenorphine. It's just a fantastic table, as are all the tables. It really goes into detail of the commonly prescribed opioids for pain with the special characteristics and the conversion of morphine equivalent, but especially for this one about how to prescribe the details of us. Again, when I was preparing for this, I said wow. Like for me as a neurohospitalist and thinking about when I'm on service, how to use it, when to use it, I thought it was incredibly useful for that management of patients, especially as a powerful point of care tool. Well, thank you so much for being here with me today for this great conversation.  Dr Sandbrink: Yeah, thank you. That was my pleasure. Dr Weathers: Again, today I've been interviewing Dr Friedhelm Sandbrink, whose article on opioids and cannabinoids for the practicing neurologist, written with Dr Nathaniel Schuster, appears in the most recent issue of Continuum on Pain Management and Neurology. To learn more about the topics of opioids and cannabinoids, be sure to read the full article. And don't forget to listen to Continuum audio episodes from this and other issues. 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.

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 the patient populations treated by neurologists, central neuropathic pain develops most frequently following spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, or stroke. To optimize pain relief, neurologists should have a multimodal and individualized approach to manage central neuropathic pain. In this episode, Lyell K. Jones Jr, MD, FAAN, speaks with Charles E. Argoff, MD, author of the article “Central Neuropathic Pain,” in the Continuum October 2024 Pain Management in Neurology issue. Dr. Jones is the editor-in-chief of Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology® and is a professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Dr. Argoff is a professor of neurology and vice chair of the department of neurology, director of the Comprehensive Pain Management Center, and director of the Pain Management Fellowship at Albany Medical College in Albany, New York. Additional Resources Read the article: Central Neuropathic 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 Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @LyellJ Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Doctor 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 Jones: This is Doctor Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology. Today I'm interviewing Dr Charles Argoff, who recently authored an article on central neuropathic pain in the latest issue of Continuum covering pain management. Dr Argoff is a neurologist at Albany Medical College where he's a professor of Neurology, and he serves as vice chair of the Department of Neurology and program director of the Pain Medicine Fellowship Program there. Dr Argoff, welcome. Thank you for joining us today. Why don't you introduce yourself to our listeners?  Dr Argoff: I'm Charles Argoff. It's a pleasure to be here and thank you so much for that kind introduction. Dr Jones: I've read your article. Many of our listeners are going to read your article. Wonderful article, extremely helpful. Closes a lot of gaps, I think, that exist in our field about understanding central neuropathic pain, treating central neuropathic pain. You now, Doctor Argoff, you have the attention of a huge audience of mostly neurologists. What's the biggest point you would like to make to them, or the most important practice-changing advice that you would give to them? Dr Argoff: I think it's at least twofold. One is that central neuropathic pain is not as uncommon as you think it might be, and it occurs in a variety of settings that are near and dear to a neurologist's heart, so to speak. And secondly, although we live in an evidence-based world and we want to practice evidence-based medicine - and I'm proud to have formerly been a member of the Quality Standard subcommittee, which I think has changed its name over time. And so, I understand the importance of, you know, treatment based upon evidence - the true definition of evidence-based medicine is using the best available evidence in making decisions about individual patients. And so, I would urge those who are listening that, although there might not be as robust evidence currently as you'd like, please don't not take the time to try to treat the patient in front of you o r at least acknowledge the need for treatment and work with your colleagues to address the significant neuropathic pain associated with that central neurological disorder. Because it can be life-changing in a positive way to make even a dent and to really work with somebody, even though not clear-cut always what's going to work for an individual patient. Dr Jones: Well said. I'm glad you brought that up. So, to put it a different way, absence of evidence is not an excuse for absence of treatment. Right? Dr Argoff: Exactly. And I think that, I hope that we would agree that especially in neurology, what we do is about as far from, ‘Yep, you've got strep throat, here's that antibiotic that's going to work for you and all you have to do is take the medicine.' I mean, most of what we do is nowhere near that.  Dr Jones: It's complicated stuff. And this is a complicated topic. And I'll tell you, I learned a lot reading your article. I think most of us in neurology and medicine, when we hear the term neuropathic pain, it feels roughly synonymous with peripheral generators of that pain, such as diabetic neuropathy or posttraumatic neuralgia. But as you mentioned, there's central mechanisms for pain generation. How is it defined? What is central neuropathic pain? Dr Argoff: It's defined as pain caused by a lesion or disease of the central somatosensory system . Though neuropathic pain in general is pain associated with the lesion of the somatosensory system; and to your point, that can be peripheral, which of course is outside the spinal cord, or brain or central, which is within the spinal cord or brain. And central neuropathic pain is defined specifically as pain caused by a lesion or disease of the central somatosensory system. That's either brain or spinal cord. But there's an interesting follow-up, and I'm going to ask if you could remind me because I know we're talking about definitions now, but I'll just bring something up and we can come back to it. What's interesting about that is that my - whoever 's listening, that's not to say that they're not connected. And in fact, they are very much connected. And there's very new work, which I included in the article, down at Washington University in Saint Louis, that suggests you can actually affect central neuropathic pain by addressing peripheral input to the central nervous system. If you remember Ken Casey at the University of Michigan at the World Pain Congress in Vancouver, British Columbia many years ago, he ended his talk on pain with a limerick, of which the last line was, Remember, there ain't no such thing as pain without a brain. And so that kind of summarizes that. Dr Jones: Well, and it goes both ways too, right? We know that there's some central sensitization that can happen with peripheral generators, right? So we really have to think about the whole circuit. Dr Argoff: Yes. And that's been sometimes the bane of my existence as a colleague of others and a sometimes debater. Is the pain central? Is it peripheral? Well, it's everything. And it's important to know as many of the mechanisms and many of the targets that you could use for treatment so that you can affect the best outcome for your patients. Dr Jones: Yeah, so - and you mentioned in your article what some of the common causes of central neuropathic pain are. What are the big ones in your experience?  Dr Argoff: So, the biggest ones are spinal cord injury-related pain, MS-related pain - and I'd like to come back to a point and just if I do the third one - and central poststroke pain. And what struck me, I think Tim Vollmer published a survey about the incidence, the prevalence of ongoing pain in patients with multiple sclerosis. And it blew my mind several years ago because it was incredibly high. Like in this survey of MS patients who, you never hear about pain, you hear about these modifying treatments, all the wonderful expanses that have been made. I mean, like seventy something percent of people say they have moderate to severe pain. And when you think about how sensory processing occurs, it makes perfect sense that a demyelinating disorder is going to interrupt the flow of information for a person to feel normal.  Dr Jones: Yeah, I think it's a good example of, there are things that we tend to focus on as clinicians where we worry about deficit and function and capacity. But if we're patient-centered and we ask patients what they care about, pain usually moves up higher on the list. And so, I think that's why we, it's maybe underrecognized with some of those central disorders, right? Dr Argoff: I think so, and I and I think you hit the nail on the head that - and we're also trained that way. I tell this to my patients very often so that they are reassured when I examine them and I say, and I tell them that everything looked pretty OK. It's not a medical term, I understand that. Because what we do in a typical neurological exam, even if it's detailed, doesn't really address all the intricacies of the nervous system. So it's really a big picture and sensory processing and especially picking up sensory deficits; you know, we use quantitative sensory testing and research studies and things like that, but bedside testing may not reveal the subtle changes. And when we don't see overt changes, we often think - that can lead someone to think that everything is OK and it's not. Dr Jones: So, when you when you see a patient who you've diagnosed with a central mechanism, so central neuropathic pain, how do you approach the management of those patients, Dr Argoff? Dr Argoff: I always review what treatments and what approaches have been addressed already. And I see if - a handful of time, we actually just submitted a paper for publication regarding this in a group of patients with pelvic pain who had untreated, difficult-to-treat chronic pelvic pain, seen all the urological kinds, gynecological things. Look, we picked up two patients who had unknown MS. So, it's just interesting when it comes down to that level. And we also picked up some patients who had subacute combined degeneration. So that's another central kind of disorder as well. Again, the neurologist in us says to make sure that we have specific diagnosis that underlies the central neuropathic pain. And so interestingly, of course, for somebody with MS - or even though it's uncommon, it could be more than one. Somebody with MS might have a stroke, somebody with MS might have a cord injury due to cervical, you know, joint disc disease. Not to overcomplicate things. Know the lay of the land, know the conditions, know what you're battling and lay out so that you can treat the treatable; you want to treat whatever you can correct? So, for MS you simply want to have the best disease-modifying treatment on board, tolerable and appropriate for that person, and so on. And then you really want to take a history of past treatments - and your treatments can be everything and anything, including behavioral modification, physical rehabilitative approaches, as well as pharmacologic management. That's - as I think I put in my article, we concentrated in the article on pharmacologic management because honestly, that's what most patients are looking for, is ‘what can we, what can you do to help me now, in addition to what I can do myself.' And that's what we typically think of. There are also some more interventional approaches, invasive options, that have developed over time. And of course, those are the ones, some of them, especially in neuromodulation, that we have the least information about, but it appears somewhat promising.  Dr Jones: No, that's exactly what we need to hear. And you also mentioned something that I think is important. This is a common theme throughout the issue because I think it's true for the management of many different types of pain and interdisciplinary approach. In other words, not just honing in on pharmacotherapy or neuromodulation as a one-size-fits-all magic pill, right? So, that - tell us a little bit more about that interdisciplinary approach and how that's important for these patients. Dr Argoff: So, let me back up and give an example. Let's look at Botox for chronic migraine. So, the pre-M studies that led to the approval of Botox for chronic migraine: two treatment sessions versus two random, two placebo session in different patients. The mean headache frequency was, let's say, fifteen to twenty in each group. It was like seventeen, eighteen, something like that. But the mean pain headache day reduction was somewhere between four and five after two treatments compared to a lesser, a lower number in the placebo group. So, if you think about that, that means that you went from nineteen, let's say, to fourteen, thirteen, or twelve. Want to be generous, eleven or ten. But that means that person, everyone 's happy. We use treatment. We have better data than that because the longer you use it, the better it gets in general, but it means that people are still going to be symptomatic. So that drives home in a different painful disorder the importance of yes, treatment can be effective, but it's not the only treatment that a person is going to likely need. And so, I think that's what's so important about multidisciplinary approach. I- we may affect positive changes, reduction in pain intensity with a particular pharmacologic agent, but we don't anticipate it's like taking an antibiotic or a strep throat, not curative. And so, we want to, early on, to explain that logically, methodically, step by step. There are many options for you and we're going to, you know, systematically go through them. And I may need to call in some colleagues to help because I don't do everything. No one does everything, right? But don't feel as if there isn't any hope because there is. If we were to use intraspinal Baclofen for someone who has painful spasticity following a stroke or a spinal cord injury, combining that with physical therapy might give more effect, maybe synergistic. Some targeted muscles, some local muscles may not respond as well to the intraspinal Baclofen, so is that - what can we do? Well, we could use oral agents or we might be able to target that with botulinum toxin, and so on and so forth. So it's limitless, virtually, in what you can do. Dr Jones: There's kind of setting expectations and letting people know that you, you're going to need a lot of different approaches, right? To sort of get them the best possible outcome. Dr Argoff: Yeah, I think that's so important. And of course, no matter what we try to set out, there are going to be individuals - for those of you who are listening, we all know - who expect to be cured yesterday. That might be challenging for us not only to actually complete, but also, it's challenging for some individuals to appreciate that we're with them, we're going to work with them. It'll be a process, but we've got your back. Dr Jones: Great. And you know, this is a question that I get all the time from patients and from other clinicians is, you know, what about cannabinoids? What's the role of cannabinoids for the management of central neuropathic pain? Dr Argoff: First, I'll say that the short answer to that is we don't know. The second part of my response would be, there is new evidence that it might be helpful in the acute treatment of migraine. And I'm happy to say that the editor of this edition of Continuum is the person who developed that evidence, and it's been recently presented at the American Headache Society. But the challenge and the conundrum that we all face is, everywhere within our nervous system where there's pain being processed, there are endocannabinoid receptors. There also happen to be opioid receptors, but that's a separate issue. And the endocannabinoid system, the peripheral or central, you know, CB1, CB2, is very, very important, but we haven't figured out a way of harnessing that knowledge in developing an analgesic, an effective analgesic. And part of that is that there are so many chemical agents that have cannabinoid properties and there are different… the right balance has not yet been found. But even the legalization, the available of medical cannabis, hasn't led to a standardized approach to evaluating if a preparation does help. And that's part of the conundrum. It's like saying, ‘does medicine work?'Well, yeah, sometimes. But which medicine? Which receptor? How do you harness the right ratio between TBD, THC, other active agents, et cetera? And I think maybe as we go forward in the future, we'll be able to do that with - more precise. I mentioned Dr Schuster's study in which he had defined ratios of THC effect and CBD and was able to clearly show effect based upon that. But the average person going into a dispensary doesn't really get that. We don't get to study that. Each person's an NF1  and it's not very helpful to understand how to do that. I would say, as I'm sure you remember, there was a practice parameter that was published probably over a decade ago about using cannabis symptomatically in different neurological disorders. And I believe that it was what they studied or what they reviewed was helpful in MS-related urinary discomfort and spasticity, but not necessarily pain.  Dr Jones: And we're still in the early days of studying it, right? Dr Argoff: Yes.  Dr Jones: That's part of the point, as we got started late and we're still waiting for high-quality evidence. And I guess, if you look at the horizon, Dr Argoff, or the future of management of central neuropathic pain, what's going to be the next big thing?  Dr Argoff: One of the joys of being asked to get involved in a project like this is that inevitably we learn so many new things because, you know, that's when anyone says, oh, you must be an expert, I say, I don't know anything because I'm always learning something new. One of the reasons why I moved to Albany Medical College about seventeen years ago was to be able to further my interest in studying why people benefit from topical analgesics by working with a scientist at Albany Med who studied keratinocyte neurochemistry and its impact on pain transmission. And that's a separate issue, but it indicates my love for the peripheral nervous system. And one of my thoughts historically, that is, what the central nervous system processes is what it processes and it might get input, as you mentioned earlier, from the peripheral nervous system, so that topical agents could be dampening central mechanisms. And lo and behold, as I was doing research for this article, I learned that people doing peripheral nerve blocks - so blocking peripheral input at the into the spinal cord - at Washington University, Simon Guterian and colleagues, demonstrate that they could give prolonged benefit from central pain by blocking peripheral input. And that's wild because certainly the nervous system is a two-way street. It's an understatement. What I really found amazing was that, again, blocking input helped the injured central nervous system to behave better.  Dr Jones: That is kind of cool to think about. And I'll tell you, as editor of the journal, one of the funnest things is getting to learn all about neurology, including pain and including central neuropathic pain, when in the end you're doing all the work, I just get to sit here and enjoy it. And you're a program director of a pain fellowship. What's the pipeline look like? Are neurologists more interested in pain than they used to be?  Dr Argoff: I'm happy for this. We are seeing more and more applicants from neurology into our pain management programs. I would say… I was going to say tragically. If I say tragically, it's because what specialty better understands how to diagnose, figure out, assess, come to a conclusion? You can't have pain without your brain. It's always amazed me that more neurologists weren't interested, and I understand the background and such. Just like in migraine, it's only advances in understanding mechanisms of migraine that allow neuroscientific advances that are leading to great therapeutics - that's happening and increasing in ‘pain.' Today, as program director, we had our fellowship interviews earlier today and three of the nine applicants that we interviewed were neurologists. Last week, I think we interviewed two or three also. That would not have happened five years ago or six years ago. And if you think about it, we can not only diagnose, quote-unquote figure out what's happening, but we now, with pain management training, we can offer people a variety of both invasive and noninvasive options, all while understanding what we're doing with respect to the nervous system in a way that's different than the other specialties that typically go into pain med. And that's such - for me, it's a beautiful experience and something I really enjoy doing. There isn't a neurological condition in the most part that either doesn't have pain associated with it or doesn't have mechanisms that overlap. If you think about epilepsy, and please don't think I'm crazy, but epilepsy is associated with disinhibited hyper-excitatory behavior, just to put it loosely, among certain neurons. That's what pain and neuropathic pain is about too. And you, in fact, we know that several mechanisms since now what medicines are used for both. But what was interesting since, if I may just go back to another point, one of the advances since I brought up the migraine that's very exciting is the whole story about sodium channels. Dr Harouthounian at WashU and his group used lidocaine injection. Lidocaine's a more generalized sodium channel blocker, but some of the newest treatments for treating neuropathic pain. Our NAV specific sodium channel blocker's trying to match up mechanism to treatment. Not exactly the way that we do with migraine, but still a step forward to not just generally treat but really target different neuronal mechanisms. It's an exciting time.  Dr Jones: So, the pipeline is doing better because we're getting better understanding of disease, and hopefully that pulls in more interest because obviously there are big gaps in caring for patients with pain. And again, thank you, Dr Argoff, for an amazing article. Thank you for joining us and thank you for such a fascinating discussion. I enjoyed the article. I read the article, I learned from our conversation today. So, thank you for joining us to talk about central neuropathic pain. Dr Argoff: Thank you for having me. Dr Jones: Again, we've been speaking with Dr Charles Argoff, author of an article on central neuropathic pain in Continuum 's most recent issue on pain management. Please check it out, 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, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the 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.

Peripheral neuropathic pain is primarily influenced by the biology and pathophysiology of the underlying structures, peripheral sensory nerves, and their central pathways. In this episode, Kait Nevel, MD speaks with Miroslav Bačkonja, MD, an author of the article “Peripheral Neuropathic Pain,” in the Continuum October 2024 Pain Management in Neurology issue. Dr. Nevel is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a neurologist and neuro-oncologist at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, Indiana. Dr. Bačkonja is the clinical director in the Division of Intramural Research at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. Additional Resources Read the article: Peripheral Neuropathic 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 facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @IUneurodocmom 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 Nevel: Hello, this is Dr Kait Nevel. Today I'm interviewing Dr Miroslav Backonja about his article on peripheral neuropathic pain, which appears in the October 2024 Continuum issue on pain management and neurology. Welcome to the podcast.  Dr Backonja: Thank you.  Dr Nevel: Misha, can you please introduce yourself to the audience? Dr Backonja: Yes, I'm Miroslav Backonja, but everybody calls me Misha. So everybody knows me by that. I'm a training neurologist, and I also have training as well as certification in pain management. And most of my practice has been where neurology meets the pain, which is neuropathic pain. I spend some time basic science lab and then transition into clinical research. And I was in academia for a couple of decades and was most recently recruited by NCCIH National Center for Complementary and Integrated Health and have been there for two and a half years now.  Dr Nevel: That's wonderful. I would love to hear more about your career at the NCCIH, a little bit and what you do in your role now, and how that came to be. Dr Backonja: Yeah, I was recruited to help and provide clinical support to efforts at NCCIH in the phenotyping of pain and neurologists who've done research in quantitative sensory assessment and other quantitative means of assessment of pain. Coming to NIH was very rewarding and quite of a learning experience. After six months being there, I've discovered that NIH is the biggest secret in plain sight. They say in the plain sight because it's public institution and everything is open to public and it's a secret because we don't think about it. This is in particular in reference to biomedical research training, including clinical trainings. So, I would encourage everybody to think of NIH as a place to spend some time and learn. There are wonderful research opportunities as well as educational opportunities. Vast library of presentations, green rounds and different other types of courses - some of them open to public, and some of them are up to FAS, which is a foundation of advances in science education by discovering. I feel like being back in school and having fun.  Dr Nevel: That's wonderful. Can you share with us a little bit about how you became interested in peripheral neuropathy and pain management of peripheral neuropathic pain?  Dr Backonja: It actually goes back to my residency and fellowship. And actually, you know, I had the luck of being exposed to a couple of clinicians who actually became my mentors. First was Jose Ochoa, who was one of the first people to quote from a small fiber, C fiber specifically, and he also was pioneered in quantitative sensory testing. And the other one was Charles Cleland, who was a psychologist and who pioneered assessment of patient symptoms, developing the Brief Pain Inventory is one of the tools. That actually peaked my interest in the topic of pain and once when I started learning about pain, what is the kind of mysterious experience of humans' pain, turns out that we have learned a lot of science about the pain and can make the pain very accessible. And I hope some of this will come to the chapter that we've provided.  Dr Nevel: Thank you for sharing that. I think of peripheral neuropathy and I think most neurologists think of peripheral neuropathy as one of the bread-and-butter diagnosis within our field. For the practicing neurologist out there who might be listening, what do you think is the most important takeaway from your article that maybe they don't already know about peripheral neuropathic pain? Dr Backonja: When it comes to peripheral neuropathy and peripheral neuropathic pain, it goes back to my early experience and still holds the truth. Neuropathies don't kill people, they just maim them. They create- cause lots of disability and if you add a pain to it, it can be quite disabling. In some regards, it has been neglected the area of development in neurology in terms of scientific discoveries, although things are changing quite rapidly as of recently. Main take home messages, and especially when it comes to a sensory neuropathies and painful neuropathies, is that it's one of the skills that has not been well researched and then not well communicated to the vaccine neurologist in terms of what to do with it. But most neurologist sensory symptoms are just like a noise because, especially when it comes to pain and prosthesias and allodynia and hyperalgesias, like, what is that like? It's just not knowing what to make of it. Frequently associated also with emotional components in terms of the people are either depressed because of persistence of pain or anxious, not knowing what's going on. And that really can create quite a bit of a challenge in terms of what to do with it. But once anybody who's interested learns the fact that sensory neuropathies and fever neuropathies as well could be as well and is easily diagnosed by a neurologist who pays a little bit of attention and gains some skills in assessing not only negative sensory phenomena, because that's what he as a neurologist get trained to detect and quantify sensory deficits as well as motor deficits and loss reflexes. Also, if you pay attention to positive sensory phenomena, which is part of the repertoire of symptoms that patients with neuropathic pain experience, it's not whether patients would have either positive sensory phenomena like prosthesia and pain or negative sensory phenomena. Actually, they have all of them. And that's kind of puzzling for many patients. And lots of times, very patients say, like, how can I hurt when I don't feel like, let's say, like most commonly it's lower extremities. Like I don't feel my feet, but it hurts. I mean, how come? Oh, that's a cardinal feature of neuropathic pain, neuropathic painful neuropathy. Dr Nevel: Yeah, thanks for that. You know, I really thought that your Table 3-1 was really nice. It kind of lists through the common causes of peripheral neuropathic pain and just demonstrates the diversity of the different etiologies or other conditions that can cause neuropathic pain. And so, I encourage the listeners to review that table. But, on that topic, can you share with us what you think are the most important components of evaluating patients with neuropathic pain to maybe come to a diagnosis, to find what the underlying etiology or driver is?  Dr Backonja: When it comes to painful neuropathies, there are actually two problems you have to solve. So, don't forget that part. The first one is finding a pathological theology. Why a person has a neuropathy, what kind of neuropathy. And then second is, what's the nature of the sensory problems? What's the nature of the sensory symptoms, specifically pain, levodenia and hypogesia. So, figuring out the theology of the B12 deficiency or diabetic painful neuropathy, you can relatively quickly or hopefully one would relatively quickly come to that at theological diagnosis. But then the second part is the diagnosis of symptoms. What's the underlying metaphysiology of that. And again, just reminding colleagues that the specific sensory phenomena such as thermal hyperalgesia is now well established to be due to what's called peripheral sensitization of C fibers, which are the small unmyelinated fibers, expressed TP 1 receptors. So, patients who will report that taking a hot shower is very painful. An example of that or when conducting sensory exam and applying if you come to the point of examining the perception of warm and hot and patient affords the pain. That's just the hallmark of the C hurtful sensitizations to C fibrous sensitization. On the other hand, if somebody has mechanical ordinia like putting the shirt on hurts, putting the socks hurts. Well, that's evident to central sensitization. These are the simple, relatively simple but symptoms or signs that could have implication if those patients with central sensitization are more than likely to benefit from medications that restore descending inhibition, such as tricyclic antidepressants or SNRI's. And so just paying attention to that, it gives a clinician being a clinician or a neurologist, like, let me consider prescribing medication that have central A acting properties. Or if it's purpose sensitization, something we have like a sodium channel blocking property, things of that sort. Actually, there are some other strategies such as antagonist TRPV1receptors, the capsaicin base. Those are the kind of things that can help a neurologist kind of take the evaluation of painful neuropathies to the next level. Dr Nevel: Yeah, the- by getting a careful history and exam, that can influence what treatment you prescribe to patients. Understanding whether it's central or peripheral. On the topic of treating patients and talking with patients and evaluating them, what do you think is most important to counsel our patients about who we are treating for neuropathic pain? Dr Backonja: Number one: by getting good history and exam. Well, really in the coming to specific diagnosis is huge relief to the patients who thinks many themselves that they're just going nuts are crazy because nobody else understands these symptoms. So, validation in terms they have a real problem. Second important step is that for the most patients, there is probably reasonable degree of therapeutic interventions that can lead to relief of pain. And also, with applying the integrative approaches with complementary medicine is that patients are given tools to deal with what is otherwise underlying problem. Those two steps make a huge difference.  Dr Nevel: Absolutely. What's the most challenging aspect about managing patients with peripheral neuropathic pain? Dr Backonja: Actually, there are a couple. Number one thus far: we do not have a cure for any other neuropathies or painful neuropathies. So that's one of the big disappointing things one would need to communicate to the patient. The second challenge is actually the therapies that actually for neuropathic pain. There's a half a dozen- yeah, half a dozen FDA approved treatment. One thing that's interesting characteristic that all of them prove proven efficacy in clinical trials. If you scratch the surface, you find out that only 40% of patients obtain 30% pain relief. So, it's a rare patient that gets 100% pain relief, and even those, too, get what we call clinically significant, and then in studies, basically significant benefit. It's only partial penalty. But for the most those who do get the benefit, pain goes down probably enough for them to get some a semblance of normality in terms of having some control over the symptoms and their function. It's then the third challenge is really working through those available therapies to find what works for individual patients because we're not at the point yet where for example, other fields like oncology, you can quickly through the means of biomedical and other evaluation come to the patient specific therapy. So, at this point in time you're far from that. What we end up doing with when it comes to management for painful neuropathies is a trial. Sometimes patients say, well, trial and error. I would say, well, it's a treatment trials. We try one thing at a time, assess the risks and benefits and then there was many treatments that carry the benefit. If you carry it on when once, when they don't or if there's adverse events, side effects, we discontinue them. And then most of the patients end up with a combination of pharmacological and now pharmacological treatments and most of them can get some semblance of symptoms control. Dr Nevel: I really appreciate your point on preparing our patients and you know, expectations and things like that and working with them and looking for things that may help. But also having an understanding that the likelihood of complete pain relief is maybe not a super high chance of complete pain relief.  Dr Backonja: But if you're going back to the kind of preparing patients, it's a good to acknowledge or give a chance to express themselves because many times they patients are confused because they have symptoms that are confusing to them. And so just to have them express it. And for example, my alma mater, we developed the color paint drawing where the different sensory qualities are presented by different colors. And then on the body diagram, patients draw where they have symptoms. And this is probably one of the rare examples where you can literally see a pain because these neurologists can recognize the patterns. You can see the pattern of the motor, right, is multiplex or radiculopathy or the list goes on and on. So, this is one of the kind of tools that's very simple, but gives the patients another way to communicate because lots of times they really have difficulties expressing themselves. Dr Nevel: Right. So, the opposite of the most challenging, can you share with the listeners what you find the most rewarding about taking care of patients with peripheral neuropathic pain? Dr Backonja: What is rewarding is that with some work- and again, it's not easy work because it does require multiple visits and multiple assessments and the reassessments, most patients can get control over their symptoms to the point of coming to beginning some of the functional improvement and aspects of quality of life like sleep and work, they are definitely rewarding and most of the time it's fairly obvious. And again, pain management is definitely a team sport where really, it's important to gauge colleagues. Most of the places don't have what I have had when I was in academic institutions, easy access to health psychologist or physical therapist. Most communities do have those specialties. And many patients actually benefit from things that are what's considered a complementary medicine, such as Tai chi or yoga. And actually, in my practice, Tai chi was probably most common prescription for my patients because, as I tell them, there are multiple benefits. Number one: one of the risks of patients, especially prophyl neuropathies and lower extremities, is a loss of proprioception. Again, even those who have a reasonable preserved proprioception over welding, noise of pain actually makes the problem walking the at risk of falling. Actually, Tai chi one gets improvement in balance. There's also medicating component to it. So, mindfulness medication is kind of built in it and that all kind of gives the patients a better control of symptoms. So, some of those interventions are easily accessible in community. So, it's, again, it's a patient education that really takes important part. Dr Nevel: Yeah. And that Tai chi is maybe one of the answers to the next question that I have for you. But as the clinical director of the Division of Intramural Research at the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, I have to ask you, Misha, what sort of integrative and complementary type interventions do you counsel your patients about, maybe beyond Tai chi, and which ones do you think are the most helpful? Dr Backonja: To clarify, the NIH patients I see are all admitted per protocol. Actually, NIH has the largest research hospitals called clinical NIH Clinical Centre, which has a hospital and clinics. All the patients that come to our program, they come per protocol for the most part. They come for specific investigations. At the moment, we do not have intramural treatment protocols, although in near future one of my goals is to establish that. The NIH funds- 90% of funding from NIH goes extramurally to academic institutions and other healthcare organizations and so on, and only 10% goes for intermural research. So, what we do is much smaller in scope, much more focused. So, what do we support NCCIH actually support extramurally full range of anything from probiotics, research in microbiome related to health and pain all the way to interventions such as mindfulness meditation? Intramurally, once when patients come for protocol, we evaluated and it's unavoidable to be a question. So, what do we do now? What recommendations do we make? Again, we don't- with the present time, we have treatment protocols and then, most of the time, what I can do is provide recommendations to the patients when they go back to the treating community, to the treating providers. It's usually a fairly comprehensive list including pharmacological and non-pharmacological accommodations for those who have had experience with pharmacology. Sometimes I can just say yes, continue or change or whatever. But then when it comes to additional complementary accommodations, they always provide information. For example, why do I recommend Tai chi? Or, what's the benefit of yoga and why would one want to try to learn trying to behavioral therapy or mindfulness meditation? What's the benefit of turmeric and some other components of what's called anti-inflammatory diet and what's the rationale behind all of that? So rather than just giving a list of recommendations and leaving it that, I try to engage patients in terms of having to understand why something is recommended, whether the fits with their expectations and what fits with their lifestyle and so on. Dr Nevel: Yeah. So, what's coming up, what's next in painful peripheral neuropathy? What do you think is exciting? Where do you foresee some breakthroughs in this field? Dr Backonja: Probably what will make the most difference is application of some of the really molecular biology tools that are being applied to peripheral neuropathy. So hopefully one of these days you'll have a cure for neuropathy and pain and anything would come to that will be probably interaction between a nervous system and an immune system, in particular neuroinflammation. That's kind of my bias. They're probably that's- well, the answer will be, but many painful neuropathies - actually every painful neuropathy, because they come from, as a result, specific pathologies - are different in a sense of trajectory natural course that will have to be first addressed. And again, depending on the underlying disease and molecular biology of that and genetics of it will determine that. But on the other hand, there are some common denominators, as we talked, when it comes to painful neuropathies, which is drivers of peripheral and central sensitization. And maybe one of these days, we'll find what are those drivers and how to change the system so it does not produce pain and other associated symptoms. Dr Nevel: So once again, today I've been interviewing Dr Miroslav Misha Backonja, whose article on peripheral neuropathic pain appears in the most recent issue of Continuum on pain management in neurology. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues. And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. And thank you, Misha, so much for talking with me today about your article. I encourage all of the listeners to read it. It was very comprehensive and just really wonderful to read. Dr Backonja: Thank you. Enjoyed it. 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.

Spine pain is one of the most common presenting concerns in health care settings. It is important for neurologists to understand strategies for evaluating and managing patients with spine pain. In this episode, Katie Grouse, MD, FAAN, speaks with Vernon B. Williams, MD, FAAN, author of the article “Spine Pain,” in the Continuum October 2024 Pain Management in Neurology issue. Dr. Grouse is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a clinical assistant professor at the University of California San Francisco in San Francisco, California. Dr. Williams is the director of the Center for Sports Neurology and Pain Medicine at Cedars-Sinai Kerlan-Jobe Institute in Los Angeles, California. Additional Resources Read the article: Spine 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 facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Guest: @VernWilliamsMD 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 Grouse: This is Dr Katie Grouse. Today I'm interviewing Dr Vernon Williams about his article on spine pain, which appears in the October 2024 Continuum issue on pain management in neurology. Welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to our audience.  Dr Williams: Oh, well, thanks for having me. My name is Vernon Williams and I'm a neurologist here in Southern California. Dr Grouse: So, I want to start off today by asking, what do you feel is the key message from your article? Dr Williams: So, I think the key message is that we want to make sure people understand that there's really a distinction between abnormal imaging, tissue damage, nociception, and this experience of spine pain. So, the concept is that nociception is different from the clinical experience of pain; nociception, meaning the electrical signaling from these, quote unquote, pain generators and that kind of thing. But it's really an incomplete framing. We really want people to understand that the experience of pain is colored by a number of other things, things like genetics, biochemical factors, behavior and psychological factors, social factors, those kinds of things. So that's one of the big messages, this distinction between nociception and this clinical experience of pain.  Dr Grouse: Why do you think it's important for neurology clinicians to read this article? Dr Williams: Well, I think, you know, for one thing, spine pain is very common. So, it is likely that neurologists will encounter patients who come to see them because of that chief complaint. But I think that if we want to really be successful at treating spine-related pain, then we really have to know all of that basic information, the basic knowledge that we came to learn as residents and medical students or what have you. But it's also important to know that that knowledge is necessary, but it's insufficient. You really also have to confront pain from the standpoint of these other things, these other behavioral factors, psychological factors, social factors, and you got to kind of combine those things to be the most successful in treating this very common condition.  Dr Grouse: You know, you mentioned earlier about the difference between tissue damage pain and nociception. I find this to be, you know, a really great lens thinking about these concepts to view this topic and your article specifically. Can you go a little more into what the difference between, specifically, pain and nociception really is? Dr Williams: Yeah. I mean, so when we talk about nociception, in many ways we're talking about the electrical activity. And so, there's the stimulation of these nerves, in the periphery typically, and that electrical signal is transmitted, you know, from those nociceptive fibers into the spinal cord. And it's headed from the first-order neuron to the second-order neuron and axons in the spinal cord and eventually reaches the brain. But essentially the concept is that it's not pain at that point. It's not pain until those signals reach the cortex and they are experienced in some context. And that context really colors whether or not, and to what extent, people experience pain or suffer pain as a result. So, when we think about nociception, we tend to think about kind of tissue damage or the threat of tissue damage. And in clinic, we tend to kind of focus on that and we look for relationships between abnormalities on imaging studies that could be causing those kinds of electrical signals. And we tend to focus less on that second but critical aspect of things, and that's that individual 's personal experience, which is colored by a number of different things: their attention, their expectation, colored by how we interact with them, our verbal and non-verbal communication with them. And again, like we talked about: their history, who are they, their genetics, their behavioral history, their psychological history and those kinds of things. So, it's really this combination of things that we have to be aware of when we're treating spine pain. And I think the tendency is for us to focus on the first half and less on the second half. Dr Grouse: Absolutely. I certainly think our training and our focus on localizing the lesion may in some ways hurt us in that sense because we really focus so much on the first and not so much the second. Would you say that's probably right? Dr Williams: Yeah, I mean, that's part of our heritage as clinicians, particularly neurologists. It's, where's the lesion? And so, what happens when there is no, quote unquote, lesion? What happens if there are multiple potential lesions? And so, these kinds of concepts, I think, become really important, and the context in which you're examining and evaluating that patient becomes important. And I think they are at least as important as the potential pain generator or the nociceptive signal.   Dr Grouse: Now, you mentioned earlier something about sort of how we approach the patient and the language we're putting out, the body language. I found the concept of nocebo and maladaptive pain-related neuroplasticity to be absolutely fascinating when I was reading your article, and I was really surprised to learn that clinicians can really contribute to this effect unknowingly through their body language, verbal language, nonverbal messaging, and even how they're interpreting the test results? When a patient comes to see you with chronic back pain, how do you approach the whole process to minimize this effect and, really, to set the stage for more constructive and therapeutic evaluation? Dr Williams: Yeah, Katie, I think that's… it's tough because our culture is so, you know, it's so ingrained in our culture to look for a structural abnormality as an explanation for an individual 's symptoms. And so, I find myself struggling with that all the time, not only discussing why we're ordering an imaging study, but, if that person comes back and I'm describing to them the abnormalities on that imaging study, I've got to be very careful about describing them in the context of what we expect. And so, I'll typically try to use words like, well, you've got some wear-and-tear changes that we all get, as compared to saying, well, you've got a disc herniation abnormality at L five S one that's causing your pain. That statement could have a negative effect on that individual's framing of what's going on. Maybe that L five S one disc is contributing to their symptoms and maybe it isn't. Maybe it's been there or for years and maybe it's new. And even if it is new, does that mean, in that patient's mind, that now they've got an abnormality that has to be fixed or else they will continue to have pain? And so, kind of trying to keep all of those things in mind is why we want to kind of color that interaction. And I mentioned both verbal and nonverbal interaction and communication with the patient, because I think that they are picking up on all of these signals. Some of them are very obvious and some of them are very subtle. But keep in mind their brains, their nervous systems are primed to interpret all of these signals, both verbal and nonverbal. And that's going to have a downstream - or upstream, I would say - effect on their framing and how they interpret the interaction and what they think it means for them and their future. So, you know, it's kind of a big thing to think about when you- every time you walk in a room, but it's an important thing to think about when we're communicating with patients.  Dr Grouse: It's absolutely fascinating and has really made me go back and think about, gosh, are there ways that I could have done things better to really message this in a more helpful way? And on that note, do you have any tips or tricks on how to put out that that messaging, both verbal and nonverbal; to be, you know, to avoid those pitfalls of kind of reinforcing the wrong message about tissue damage? Dr Williams: Yeah. I mean, so one of the main things is trying to be very purposeful about educating people on the difference between tissue damage or potential tissue damage and pain. And so being careful not to use statements like, well, I think your pain is coming from this disc or this structural abnormality because again, we want to try to separate those things. They are different. I think that, you know, how we discuss imaging studies is very important because you want people to understand that an imaging study is just that. It's anatomy and it doesn't equal function, it doesn't equal what they experience in terms of sensory symptoms and pain. But I think the goal is to try to be very purposeful and maybe even reexamine how we discuss those things or when we discuss those things. One of the things I've found helpful is kind of the order in which I perform my clinical assessment. So traditionally, I was taught, like many, take the history, do the physical examination, and then start to discuss and educate patients. Right? Here's the test I want to order, here's what I think may be going on, so on and so forth. I think in some cases it's more beneficial to take the history and, before the physical examination, discuss what I'm thinking, taking that opportunity to discuss the differences between nociception, tissue damage, the experience of pain, the importance of movement, so on and so forth. And then do the physical examination so that that person has some idea of what is it that he's looking for. How is this going to inform his opinions and recommendations and so on and so forth. But also provide them with the concept that movement, for instance, is safe unless they have certain kinds of red flags on their history. I'm encouraging movement and I'm encouraging them to recognize that some of these movements they may have predicted would have been painful for them actually aren't painful, and they may start to internalize the concept that they can do it once without paying, that probably means that they're not damaging themselves every time they perform that movement. And if they can do one pain-free rep, that's important, and that may counteract the concept that they are damaging themselves every time they move and every time they feel pain, that means that there's tissue damage. So, what we talk about, how we talk about it and even when we talk about it during the course of that evaluation may have some negative or positive effects. And it may be beneficial to kind of think about those things and whether or not our typical approach might be the best or maybe we can improve on that or adjust that, particularly in certain situations and with certain patients. Dr Grouse: That's absolutely fascinating, and great tips I think that all of our listeners will want to incorporate as we're approaching this patient population. You know, in your article, I also wanted to talk about, you mentioned some really interesting treatments for pain is that I think would include, or would, fall under the category of neuromodulation. Can you summarize some of these options for us? Dr Williams: Yeah. I mean, so I think that the concept of neuromodulation, I tend to think of it in a very holistic sense. And so not only focusing on the application of external stimuli and that could be, you know, electrical stimuli, magnetic stimuli, cryo, analgesia, those kinds of things in order to turn up or down nervous system activity, electrical signals, what have you. I think of neuromodulation in a global sense. I think in a way, cognitive restructuring and education, in a way, is a form of neuromodulation. It's affecting how that individual frames the concept of their pain, structural changes versus experience, so on and so forth. But generally, I'm talking about these kinds of things. So, there are some very interesting approaches with electrical stimulation and it doesn't necessarily have to be permanent implantation of a stimulator as we tend to think about with spinal cord stimulation, but there are some interesting temporary peripheral nerve stimulators that that can be very helpful for various kinds of spinal pain. And then there's also these technologies that I find fascinating. Some of them are in the wearables category. So, combining the education and framing and cognitive restructuring with things like virtual reality, there are some interesting programs that combine some predictive modeling with virtual reality, such that an individual has goggles on, they are participating in some activity that requires them to move in a certain direction and move to a certain extent that may or may not match what they are seeing visually in the goggles. So, you can kind of begin to kind of dissociate their expectation of when they may experience pain as a function of their movement from what actually happens. So, these kinds of things, I think, are really interesting ways to augment our traditional approaches to pain, physical therapy, rehabilitation, medications, some kinds of injections, with these additional approaches that really have an effect on the nervous system as opposed to just focusing on what I would call kind of the mechanical anatomy, the joints and the discs and what have you, with traditional approaches. Dr Grouse: It's really exciting to hear about some of these new options that can be tried to help with this neuromodulation and sort of cognitive restructuring. Of course, understanding that there's some things that we do ourselves that do this in the clinic encounter, which I think is a great reminder. I wanted to touch on, in your article, you had mentioned that we really have to be aware as clinicians, that health inequities and disparities and even the social determinants of health have inevitable effects on spine pain. How can our listeners better recognize and ensure equitable care for this patient population, particularly in light of the fact that many of these therapies that we've just been talking about can be difficult to access even in the best circumstances? Dr Williams: Well, you know, thanks for asking that question. I think that's a great question. I think from the standpoint of, you know, health equity and addressing, you know, disparities and that kind of thing, the first thing is to just acknowledge and recognize that these things are present. And even, you know, though we may have the best intentions, there may be scenarios where our practices are affected and our patients are affected by these kinds of things. So, I think the first thing is the acknowledgement. And then the second thing is kind of trying to figure out if there are things that we can do as individual practitioners, or our offices can do or the entities that we interact with, maybe that's a hospital system or what have you to address these kinds of things. So, we know, for instance, from the standpoint of race and ethnicity, there's disparities with respect to African Americans, with Hispanics and other ethnic minorities and the kind of care they receive. We know that access resulting from insurance coverage and geographical limitations, that kind of thing can be significant. And interestingly, it doesn't necessarily mean that the person is uninsured. So, for instance, we will often see individuals who've had work injuries and who are covered by the workers' compensation system have certain limitations placed on what they have access to, often resulting in lots of frustration from those patients. And that's a reality that we sometimes have to work really hard to overcome. Socioeconomic status, provider bias. And again, this is something that we have to kind of do some internal searching to say, hey, am I approaching these individuals on a on a more equal and equitable basis, or am I also subject to some of the biases that that I've been exposed to and trying to overcome that? So, I think that's a huge part of the context. And when we talk about how we learn, whether we're talking about spine pain or anything else, I'm a believer in that kind of cycle of pedagogy that includes content-based information, which is kind of the very basic foundational information, that includes things we can memorize and definitions we can memorize. And that may include things like what we've talked about relative to kind of the nociception and pain pathways, so on and so forth. But then there are concepts, and we've talked about the concept of verbal communication and nonverbal communication, the concept of cognitive restructuring and neuromodulation as an approach. But then context is kind of that last level, probably the most significant level in terms of how we can integrate all this information and really master information. And that context has to do with things like social determinants and disparities and the reality that these things have an effect on how we evaluate and manage patients and the success with which patients can be managed. And so, I appreciate that question, I think it's a great question, because it gets that kind of the reality of what does this look like in real life as opposed to just on the page or just in a textbook. Dr Grouse: Well, that's really helpful and certainly something that we can all keep in mind as we try to be more aware of this, and I like the idea of just acknowledging it and just having it there, knowing that this exists and helping that inform how we approach these patients. I wanted to ask you, what do you think the biggest controversy is currently in the evaluation and management of spine pain? Dr Williams: You know, I think that there's a couple of controversies that are interesting. Nowadays, one of them has to do with the utility of some of the things that have been performed and done most frequently for spine pain, and that's things like epidural injections, facet injections, some of the interventional procedures. There's some controversy among some as to whether or not these things are effective, you know, what role they have in treatment because some people will say, oh, is there any long-term effect from these kinds of procedures? Even patients will sometimes say, hey, listen, I'm not sure if I want an injection because isn't that just temporary, or, isn't that just a band aid? But I think that when we talk about pain from the perspective of it potentially being a progressive disorder and trying to be aggressive with managing pain so that we are less likely to see some of the chronic manifestations that occur with maladaptive neuroplasticity it's important to be aggressive with stopping no subceptive signals, reducing an individual 's experience of pain, optimizing their function, and having a positive effect on the ability to treat and eliminate pain, even if that means with epidural injections or blocks or what have you, as long as they're safe and effective. I think that there are some controversies evolving related to some of the regenerative procedures that have been done for other kinds of musculoskeletal pain. So, for instance, PRP and stem cells, you know, people have been doing those for knees and muscle tears and what have you. And of course, that technology has kind of evolved into potential approaches for spine pain. People are often interested in whether PRP or stem cells may help their spine pain. And so, I think that's another area of potential controversy because there hasn't been a ton of, you know, high-level evidence, although there are some, you know, there's some studies out there and there's some evidence that they may be of benefit. And I think the role of stimulators and implants for axial pain is another area of potential controversy. Those are probably the biggest things in this area of spine pain that are topics of controversy. There are things that have people talked about for years in terms of chiropractic care versus traditional medical care. But I think right now it's the utility of these kinds of interventional procedures, the role of regenerative procedures and injections, and then the role of more aggressive interventions like permanent implantation of stimulators and that kind. Dr Grouse: Is there anything coming on the horizon in the field of managing spine pain that we should be looking out for? Dr Williams: Well, you know, I am still bullish on the concept of neuromodulation and we've talked about that peripheral nerve stimulation, spinal cord stimulation, and then other wearables, VR, so on and so forth. I think that those things will continue to evolve, and I think that technologies continue to evolve that are likely to help with spine related pain. Some of them are very interestingly related to the ability to strengthen multifidus muscles and improve muscular function in individuals with spine pain. But I think that's one area - neuromodulation - that we'll continue to see evolution. I think that- I'm interested to see what the role of regenerative injections and regenerative procedures may play. And then just like every other field of human endeavor, artificial intelligence, machine learning, those kinds of things are likely to have a significant effect on how we diagnose an individuals, on treatment options for various individuals, and even a predicting outcome from various treatment. So those, I think, are examples of areas that we'll see continued growth and evolution with respect to spine pain. Dr Grouse: Well, I'm very excited to see what comes down the pipeline and both vastly more to come, I'm sure. So, thank you so much, Vernon, for joining us. I really enjoyed reading your article. I really enjoyed talking about this topic. I think I've learned a lot and I hope that our listeners will take the time to read this article. It's really, really helpful. Dr Williams: Well, I appreciate the opportunity. I really enjoy participating in this process. The interview was fun, so thanks a lot for having me. I really appreciate it. Dr Grouse: Again, today I've been interviewing Dr Vernon Williams, whose article on spine pain appears in the most recent issue of Continuum on pain management in 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 Continnpub.com/AudioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Neurologists bring special skills to pain evaluation and management and are well equipped to appreciate both the focal and diffuse nature of pain. By using expert knowledge of the nervous system and implementing relevant therapies, neurologists can succeed at and find meaning in optimizing patient outcomes. In this episode, Allison Weathers, MD, FAAN, speaks with Beth B. Hogans, MD, PhD, author of the article “Principles of Pain Management,” in the Continuum October 2024 Pain Management in Neurology issue. Dr. Weathers is a Continuum® Audio interviewer associate chief medical information officer at the Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio. Dr. Hogans is an associate professor in the department of neurology at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and an associate director for education and evaluation at the Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center at the VA Maryland Health Care System in Baltimore, Maryland. Additional Resources Read the article: Principles of Pain Management 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 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 Weathers: This is Dr Allison Weathers. Today I'm interviewing Dr Beth Hogans, author of Principles of Pain Assessment, Diagnosis, and Management from the October 2024 Continuum issue on pain management and neurology. Welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to our audience.   Dr Hogans: Good afternoon. My name is Beth Hogans. I'm a neurologist. My faculty appointment is at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in the Department of Neurology, where I'm an assistant professor. I also serve at the Baltimore VA Medical Center, where I'm the Associate Director of Education and Evaluation for the Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center, as well as a neurologist.   Dr Weathers: Thank you so much for, again, being with us today and taking the time to speak with me. I was really struck by how broadly applicable this topic is, not only to all neurologists, but to all physicians and even to all of our listeners, given how prevalent these conditions are. Nearly all physicians involved in direct patient care treat some type of pain disorders, and we all experience pain at some point, though hopefully not chronic pain. Well, usually like to start with a question - again, it feels especially pertinent here in getting to speak with you - what is the most important clinical message of your article? Dr Hogans: So, I'm going to say there's two key messages. The first one is that all pain has a differential diagnosis, and the second one is that all meds work better with non-pharmacological and whole-health comprehensive management incorporated. So that's why I structured the article around the ideas of assessment, diagnosis and management. It's a pretty sort of traditional, basic approach to how we look at clinical problems, but we definitely want to start with proper assessment, go on to a thoughtful differential diagnosis, and then move towards a management plan that is not just, you know, one stop shop, but actually kind of brings several aspects together. Because pain is so multidimensional; you know, it's represented in multiple places in the brain as well as other levels of the nervous system. And so, I think we're still in an era, and we may stay in an era, of, you know, needing something to go along with medication in many cases.   Dr Weathers: I think those are two absolutely critical points for our listeners to keep in mind, both, again, keeping that broad differential, and - we'll get more into management in a bit, but again - that dual strategy of both the pharmacologic and the non-pharmacologic. And again, going down a little bit more there on that management track, a really recurring theme that I picked up in your article is the importance of interprofessional collaboration in the assessment and the management of patients with pain. In the abstract, you actually use the phrase “remarkable” for the diversity of health professions, which I really loved. What other clinicians do you work with in diagnosing and managing pain conditions, and what are their roles in the care of these patients? Dr Hogans: So, something you hear over and over again at pain meetings is, “there is no I in team.” They say that all the time. And it's one of the things I really love about pain, is that we get to work with great colleagues who have their own perspectives, approaches and therapies for pain. So, in my particular practice, which I do focus kind of more at the interface between neurological and musculoskeletal pain because of my passion and interest for spinal pain, you know, ranging from neck to tailbone, but most especially in the lower back. Physical therapy, clinical psychology, sleep sedicine, nursing, pharmacy, rehab… Podiatry is something that people don't often think of, but is really important for getting spine mechanics correct… Ergonomics. But I want to just say something about clinical psychology because there may not be enough clinical psychologists in the United States, but we as neurologists are also brain doctors. You know, we have to stay within our scope of practice. But there's a move now to talk about psychologically informed physical therapy. So why don't we talk about psychologically informed neurology? I think we could do an even better job of kind of leveraging our knowledge of the brain and how it works to kind of bring that into our practice. And so, people with pain often need a lot of empathetic support, for example, as well as knowledge about their condition. So, I would encourage people to build local networks of folks that they refer to and work with. Because when I was a younger doctor, physical therapists taught me a lot of what I know now - because I didn't get it at med school, although by the time I got to residency, I had some really great teachers. But clinical psychology, PT, sleep medicine, those are, like, almost all-the-time collaborators for me. And then like I said, nursing, pharmacy, rehab, podiatry, et cetera, et cetera, prosthetics… those things are all important for pain. Dr Weathers: I was struck by the quote, “one of the things I really love about pain.” That's a great line, and understand how it was meant, but I think - again, a really great quote, but I think you make such important points and, really, it is such a critical team approach. And I love all of those roles you called out. And I was struck in listening to your really thoughtful answer about how I've spoken with several other authors of actually very different topics, but about how we're thinking now about a trauma-informed care approach to many neurological conditions and the similarities with this patient population, how it likely informs very much the approach to this patient population as well and probably the significant potential.   Dr Hogans: A hundred percent! And so, for example, one of the things that probably does factor in for chronic pain - not in everyone, but in, let's say, many cases - is a prior exposure to trauma, whether it's PTSD or adverse childhood events. And so that's why, you know, clinical psychology is, like, very high up on my list of collaborators. And one of the things that I really like - you could say love - about working in the BA system is the ready availability of mental health co-management. So, I would say about a third of my patients in neurology are co-managed by mental health. And what it does is it sort of defuses a lot of what would otherwise come into the visit and be my job as a neurologist to manage, if not treat, right? I still have to manage, you know, someone who comes in with untreated mental trauma or mental health conditions if they're coming into that visit, and I'm trying to open the topic of whether mental health co-management could be helpful. That can sometimes, strangely enough, antagonize people. We're still in an era of substantial stigma. But I can just say the practice of neurology, together with appropriate mental health co-management, is far superior than going alone. Dr Weathers: Absolutely. And how fortunate that for a lot of your practice, your patients do have those resources available to them. And I think it speaks to the importance of those resources, that all of our patients should really have that availability, and the importance of access. Dr Hogans: Right. So, at Johns Hopkins, we also have exceptional access to, you know, some of the world 's best clinical psychologists. And I've been really privileged to work with my colleagues in clinical psychology. The challenges that - in some of my roles, I interact with trainees and learners who are in clinics that are not as well resourced. And therein lies just tremendous heartache and difficulty. We've been trying to build some resources. There are federal resources that can help to open those conversations and maybe take some of the initial steps towards things like cognitive behavioral therapy, acceptance commitment therapy, mindfulness-based stress reduction. There's many of these psychological therapies that are proven to be effective for pain and chronic pain, and yet we haven't really had that conversation as a society about, how do we get people connected with those therapies? Many of them can be delivered on a larger scale. And I think we just need to think a lot more thoughtfully about, how can we have more of a public health approach to chronic pain and wellness? Dr Weathers: Absolutely. Such really important points. So, we've talked about the really kind of important, obvious points for what we very much kind of know to be accurate. I want to talk now about, what are the most common misconceptions that you've encountered in treating patients with pain disorders?   Dr Hogans: Yeah. So, this is where, you know, physician as advocate for the patient really comes into play. So, I think the number one misconception that I and many of my colleagues encounter: that pain is the patient 's problem, or that that pain reflects an excessive sensitivity. I think one analogy that I use with students that helps to kind of piece this apart is the immune system, right? There are people who have immunodeficiencies that they're not sufficiently protected from the environment, and then there are - lots of people have allergies where their immune system is sort of hyper-alerted to things that are not a true threat. And the pain system is exquisitely regulated. The neurology of the pain system is fascinating and compelling, and once you learn a little bit about it, you can apply it at the bedside, time after time after time. So, number one: pain is real. And there is an association between strong pain and increased risk for chronic pain. And then sort of the flip side of that is that malingering or, you know, fictitious pain is probably a lot like other functional disorders in that it's part of a complex. So, I think we need to do a lot more work to discover, you know, quote, what is pain that people think is amplified or manufactured and how can we frame that in a clinical context rather than just casting blame or- we already mentioned stigma. You know, stigmatizing people does not help. And there are people who have real pain problems that are really severe and disabling, and neurologists can actually help support those people as they encounter their environment. Dr Weathers: I really love that response. And I think you're right in that we do so often, in the medical system, tend to stigmatize these patients, even as we say the right things and we, I think, talk about it and we recognize… and yet, still, it's almost these unconscious biases. I think, as good as we've gotten in some areas, it's still hard to separate them. It's almost kind of one of the last unspoken, still-acceptable ones in some ways that oh, they must be drug-seeking or, you know, to your point, you use the word, kind of malingering, that they're somehow, you know, either at fault or that there's some nefarious behavior going on there. And I think you made such really important points that we have to change our way of thinking that it is such a common and, frankly, wrong misconception that a lot of us really carry around and it's really hard to break. We have to kind of recognize these biases in ourself and really fight against them when we encounter these patients. Dr Hogans: I think part of how we got there is the opioid crisis. Dr Weathers: Yes. Dr Hogans: You know, unfortunately we still do not have a fantastic understanding of opioid durability. Like, how long does opioid analgesia last? Not from, like, hour to hour, but, like, from month to month. Roger Cho has done some awesome work looking at long-term efficacy of opioids, and it's surprisingly modest. And yet, opioids have this profound kind of behavioral impact, that they really are highly reinforcing. And so, once they're in the conversation, you find yourself in, like, almost this life-or-death struggle between, you know, am I going to get opioids at this visit? How many? You know, if not, why not; are you going to decrease? And so those of us who are working today, you know, and have been working for the last five years, have been through this terrible struggle. And that struggle is not yet resolved. But once opioids are kind of off the table or neutralized, then we actually have a conversation that is really, you know, A: how good of a clinician are we? Do we really understand what our patient is going through? And how can we bring, like Hippocrates said, you know, get the system to bear on the problem and not just, you know, try to throw drugs at it. So I think that, really, pain challenges us to be our best selves and to, you know, really be clever and kind and helpful. And it is a really great opportunity to help. And as I said, the mechanisms of pain are fascinating neurologically. So, it kind of satisfies some of what we come to work for, but I think it's not all done yet. One of my challenges has been, I wrote an article in 2011 with one of my trainees where we counted up the number of hours documented in the double AMC database for med schools, and we found that the modal value for US medical schools at that time was four. So out of four thousand curricular hours, there were four pain hours. And when you think about the prevalence of pain, that's just a drop in the bucket. So, you know, it's getting better, but we need to come up with some new strategies. So I wrote, I've written three books now. The latest one is really designed to give that intro-level knowledge of pain. But also, obviously, the Continuum article, I wanted to kind of set the table, lay the foundation, and give people some core knowledge to get started with. Dr Weathers: And again, a fantastic article. If our listeners haven't read it, I strongly encourage them to go back because I think you did just that. And as you were just talking, I was thinking about that, especially for those of us who, you know, depending on when in your training was, you know, mine started in the early 2000s. We've kind of lived through that era with the pendulum swinging. Where was, you know, the signs were posted in each clinic room. You know, don't forget to ask, you know, your provider about your pain meds, and it was the sixth vital sign, and all of that. And then the pendulum swung very quickly and very severely the other way, where it was, you have now created this problem, right? We have all caused this epidemic and we're supposed to immediately take these meds away, right? And now to your point, you know, we've all been in these situations with opioids where that was all that was talked about, right? So, you know, we've all been on call and now you're getting the call overnight from people trying to get their opioids filled when, you know, not their prescriber because they knew if they called - or family members, as soon as you got prescribing rights, were now calling and asking. And we've all been in these very hard situations. Dr Hogans: Just because you have a hammer doesn't mean that everything is a nail. Dr Weathers: I know. So, in trying to negotiate and navigate, you know, these very rough situations… And I think now we're reaching kind of this new era where, to your excellent point, realizing that there are a lot of other solutions. And I love how you framed it, that this is really where we can be our best selves as providers. And actually, to that point, so - as I've mentioned on this podcast many times, clinically, I'm a neuro-hospitalist and I actually wanted to get your opinion as one of the foremost experts. So, a challenging situation I'm also often faced with in my clinical role is when a patient with a chronic pain condition such as diabetic neuropathy or lumbar radiculopathy is admitted to the hospital, often with a totally unrelated condition that either results in a new acute pain, but often also exacerbates their underlying chronic pain, what's your approach to the assessment and management of similar cases? I know our listeners will return again and again to that fantastic approach you laid out in Figure 1.1 with the coordination of the pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic therapies, as we've talked about several times just throughout our conversation, how important both of those approaches are. But a lot of those options are unfortunately limited in the in-patient setting. So how do you balance those? Dr Hogans: So, there's a whole other toolkit that comes into play for acute pain or sort of pain palliation. And you actually have some important allies in the hospital. It turns out that nurses, generally speaking, have some more education than do most physicians about pain. And the nurses that I encounter really see themselves as genuine, sincere advocates for the patient 's interest. They're at the bedside, they're working very closely, and their training actually does, I think, give them a number of tools and a set of inspirational ideas that build towards patient comfort. So, if you communicate with nursing staff about your desire to provide more comfort for the patient, whether it's padding, positioning, activities such as, you know, having them participate in something, you know, whether it's just having a family member, you know, take them for a walk, whether it's in a wheelchair or having an older adult sit by the nurse's station just to give some form of distraction. Ice, you know, cool packs and hot packs, you know, supportive toweling or pillows, all of that can really help. Years ago, nurses used to actually be trained in giving massages, and that can provide some comfort. You know, supportive touch is kind of how we frame that nowadays. But the other piece that you have is, in many cases, PT is getting involved much earlier in the patient, you know, rehabilitation course. And remember that motion is lotion. So, our endogenous analgesia system, which actually involves both endogenous opioids and endogenous cannabinoids, can be activated through many forms of motion, as well as immobility is actually a cause of pain itself. So, you just, you break out your in-patient tool kit and, you know, there are other tools and there's other allies that you want to think about in that context. Dr Weathers: Those are all really great tips, many of which, I know, as you said, a lot of us tend in our thinking to go right to pharmacologic strategy, so wouldn't even be considered, but I think really thoughtful, and that we do have at our fingertips. So- Dr Hogans: I wish I had thought to put them in the article. Dr Weathers: No, they were fantas- but again, why we podcast, agree for complimenting the article… we encourage people to take advantage of both. Well, this has been wonderful, and I know I have learned so much, even more than was in the article. I always like to end on a hopeful note, so I would love to hear what developments in the field of pain that you're most excited about. What do you think is coming down the pipe? Dr Hogans: Well, I think, like a lot of people, I've been waiting for the opportunity that's happening right now, which is, there's a massive investment in pain science being made by the NIH. Finally. You know, we've moved from, you know, just like, little things here or there, commercial kind of entities, to, we now have large NIH dollars flowing into pain. I'd like to see not only a focus on small molecule development, which will ultimately lead to better pharmacological agents, but I'd also like to see a thoughtful approach to non-pharmacological therapies, whole health approaches. Things like healthy communities, safe exercise spaces for all ages, more nutritious food, yoga, Tai chi. We know from Skelly and Cho's article in 2020 that there are many, many non-pharmacological therapies that actually work for chronic pain. There're some things we still don't know. Like, do older adults respond as well as middle-aged adults? And how can we get NPTs - non-pharmacological therapies - more accessible to people who are subject to disparities? I think part of what happened during the opioid era is that you could get, you know, a bottle of pills for a four-to-ten dollar co-pay and physical therapy was twenty dollars a shot. And we know PT will get you to a better place, but that person that you're talking to may not have three hundred dollars to go to a course of PT. And we need to figure out, you know, how do we do this better, safer, more healthfully. Dr Weathers: And, I think, forgetting even the co-pay; it's the coordination, the time off work, all of it, right? So it's, I think, all of those challenges, but I think all of that are such important points about - and I think, that's really where I'm hopeful. Right? The emphasis, we talked a little bit about trauma-informed care earlier in our conversation, but the focus now on addressing the underlying social disparities of health and overall healthcare disparities, I think, is so promising. Dr Hogans: We need to think about the long-term consequences for human health; and pain has a terrible impact on human health for many reasons, and, I hope, will continue to be the focus of effort for years to come. Dr Weathers: Absolutely. Well, that is such an important statement to end on. Thank you again, Dr Hogans, for such a fantastic conversation and again, such an overall excellent article. Dr Hogans: Thank you, Dr Weathers, it was great to speak with you today again. Dr Weathers: Today I've been interviewing Dr Beth Hogans, whose article on principles of pain assessment, diagnosis, and management appears in the most recent issue of Continuum on pain management and neurology. To learn more about the topics of pain assessment and other topics of pain management, don't forget to listen to Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues. 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, Lyell K. Jones Jr, MD, FAAN, speaks with Nathaniel M. Schuster, MD who served as the guest editor of the Continuum® October 2024 Pain Management in Neurology issue. They provide a preview of the issue, which publishes on October 2, 2024.  Dr. Jones is the editor-in-chief of Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology® and is a professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Dr. Schuster is an associate professor and associate clinic director in the Center for Pain Medicine and Department of Anesthesiology at the University of California, San Diego in La Jolla, California. Additional Resources Continuum website: ContinuumJournal.com Subscribe to Continuum: shop.lww.com/Continuum More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @LyellJ Guest: @NatSchuster 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, 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 have access to exclusive audio content not featured on the podcast. If you're not already a subscriber, we encourage you to become one. For more information, please visit the link in the show notes.   Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology. Today, I'm interviewing Dr Nathaniel Schuster, who recently served as Continuum's guest editor for our latest issue on pain management and neurology. Dr Schuster is a pain neurologist at the University of California, San Diego, where he is an Associate Professor of Anesthesia. Dr Schuster, welcome. Thank you for joining us today. Why don't you introduce yourself to our listeners?   Dr Schuster: Thank you so much, Dr Jones, for having me. My name is Nat Schuster. I am a pain and headache neurologist at UC San Diego, in the Department of Anesthesiology. I do research, clinical practice, and of course, education of med students through pain fellows, and it's been a pleasure to be the guest editor for this forthcoming issue of Continuum.   Dr Jones: Well, I want to thank you for editing the issue. I want to thank you for putting together, really, an incredible list of topics and, really, expert authors. It's been a long time since Continuum has dedicated significant space in an issue to pain management, which is obviously a hugely prevalent, major problem in society, and I think a big gap for many of us – I know it is for me in my practice, so I've enjoyed learning about it – so I want to congratulate you on the issue and thank you for doing it.   Dr Schuster: Yeah. I was just at AAN a few weeks ago. I was chatting with the person who edited one nearly 20 years ago, a prior pain Continuum issue - so, really glad that for another generation of neurologists that we're going to have this as a reference, and hopefully, it'll serve them in their care of so many patients, because this is just such a ubiquitous problem facing Americans and people around the world.   Dr Jones: Yeah, and a lot's changed in 20 years, so let's get into it. And I will say, you know, now that with our open podcast model, we're interviewing the guest editors, you have, really, an incredible view of the entire field at the moment. And with your reading of the issue and your experience as a pain expert, Dr Schuster, what do you think is the biggest controversy in pain medicine right now?   Dr Schuster: Yes, certainly. I think the most controversial thing facing our practicing neurologists is the opioid issue and how things have been changing with national guidelines since 2016, and, fortunately, we are going to have an article by Dr Friedhelm Sandbrink - who is not only a neurologist, but he is the national director for the VA system - on pain management, opioid safety, and prescription drug monitoring programs. So, it's really wonderful that we have him as an author, and I hope that all the neurologists take an opportunity to read his really important manuscript, because it's dizzying, and, you know, if you're not reading the latest things from people like Dr Sandbrink pretty much every couple of years, you're probably falling behind when it comes to what are current attitudes, what is necessary to be, you know, most responsibly continuing your patients who have been on opioids for so long (many of whom have really debilitating neurologic conditions, nothing else is helpful for them), how are you able to best treat them, best monitor them in the appropriate ways to be doing things in compliance with guidelines.   Dr Jones: And I think monitoring is one of the things that, for neurologists who are uncomfortable with pain management, uncomfortable with the modern role of opioids, I think part of it is, well, what are my accountabilities? What are my responsibilities for doing that? That article will have great insights for our readers. Cannabinoids - that's another one I hear a lot of questions about, and it's obviously evolving. The science is relatively less mature there. From your perspective, what's the role of cannabinoids in a modern pain practice?   Dr Schuster: Yeah. Once again, so much controversy there and so much variability across the US, of course, between institutions, between states - hugely different. And as we speak, it's looking like cannabis will very likely be recategorized as being schedule III, so things are changing, you know, even between right now, probably, and when people are going to be reading the forthcoming Continuum and listening to this podcast. At UC San Diego, we certainly have been on the forefront of doing clinical trials, looking at these clinical trials. They're academic studies using the NIDA drug supply. So, they're not the size and scope of so many of the things that we use that have had industry-funded, large, multicenter studies done, but the research that we've done has shown promise for quite a few different neurologic conditions, ranging from my most recent research was in the migraine space, looking at acute migraine (and I just had the pleasure of presenting that data at AAN a few weeks ago), looking at other things over the years, looking at spasticity pain and multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury pain, diabetic peripheral neuropathy, other peripheral neuropathies. So, in the conditions that we as neurologists so often do treat, that does seem like there is a lot of promise. It's something that in our practice, some of our doctors are more comfortable with it, others are less comfortable. I know, myself, I'm very conservative when I discuss it with patients, because there is, you know, addiction concerns, misuse concerns, abuse concerns - I don't believe that it's to the degree of opioids, and I don't think that the risks are anywhere close to what they are with opioids - and while it's less in opioids, we have other things, fortunately, in this field that don't carry those concerns, and so, I certainly try to use those other options as much as possible before having the discussions about cannabinoids. That said, so many people are using them, and so I'm able to guide them towards, you know, telling that very often, doses that are lower than what they might need to get intoxicated might actually be the doses that are therapeutic, and recommending using high CBD and low THC is probably going to have less side effects, and there's some evidence towards, hopefully, having more therapeutic benefit, especially in our most recent study looking at acute migraine that you want to have that CBD component with the THC.   Dr Jones: That's outstanding. So, we know more than we used to. It still feels like a relatively understudied area (and that's partly been the regulatory barriers to doing science on cannabinoids), so we'll look forward to hearing the latest and greatest in the issue. When we think about in neurology - and I'm thinking here as a clinician - when we think about pain and neurology, we often think about neuropathic pain. And, personally, you know, I see a lot of patients who have peripheral generators for those symptoms of neuropathic pain, but central neuropathic pain is an issue, too - and we have articles on both of those, one on peripheral neuropathic pain, one on central neuropathic pain. For our listeners, what should they know about the differences between those two and the treatment approaches to those?   Dr Schuster: Yeah. So, we fortunately have two wonderful articles - one of them from Dr Charles Argoff looking at central neuropathic pain, another one looking at peripheral neuropathic pain from Drs Misha Bačkonja and Victor Wang. And one thing that I think is really interesting about central neuropathic pain is that for these same patients, we don't need to only be thinking about the central neuropathic pain alone, and not everything that they're experiencing is going to be central neuropathic pain, because they can have “frozen shoulder” - post-stroke shoulder pain is actually a really big deal. Of course, you need to be concerned about things like sacral decubitus ulcers in so many of these patients. And so, they can have nociceptive components in those same patients, and us as neurologists, taking care of these very complicated patients, need to have our eyes open for the central neuropathic components, but also in those same patients, the other pain generators that we can do a lot for.   Dr Jones: So, the musculoskeletal and other generators of pain are relevant. I think that's something that many of us have experienced. Certainly, when I trained, Dr Schuster, the general construct around pain was that it was a really biological phenomenon, and it's an adaptive phenomenon, but it becomes a clinical problem when the pain is unmanageable or out of proportion to the patient's coping skills, and it seems to have evolved - at least in terms of our understanding of it, how it impacts people's lives. It's not just a physical or biological process, right? There are psychological factors here, there are social factors here. How does that inform your thinking about management of pain?   Dr Schuster: Yeah, so, I think that that's one of the most important running themes throughout this issue of Continuum that readers will find, is that there's a movement away from the biomedical model towards the biopsychosocial model in thinking about patients. And, at least for myself, when I was coming out of neurology residency, my training was much more on the biomedical model and on medication treatments. And throughout this issue, what you'll find is discussions of the importance of the biopsychosocial model, having pain psychology as being a component of the treatment for so many of these patients. That medications alone (for many of our most challenging patients) won't be the answer by themselves - that you'll need to have involvement of physical therapy, of pain psychology. And we have an article written by the pain psychologist who I work with at UCSD, Dr Mirsad Serdarevic, which I think will be very interesting for so many neurologists. It's also wonderful that we have an article on facial pain that's written by a neurologist, Dr Meredith Barad, together with a dentist, Dr Marcela Romero-Reyes. So, it really takes a team to treat so many of these very challenging patients who we are treating in our neurological practices.   Dr Jones: Yeah, thanks for that. I realize that with a complex problem, a lot of times you need more than one area of expertise, right? It's a team process and a team effort. When you think about your own practice, Dr Schuster, when do you bring in other specialists or other perspectives in the management of patients with pain?   Dr Schuster: So, one of the articles that I really enjoyed reading in this forthcoming issue of Continuum is the one from Dr Narayan Kissoon on widespread pain syndromes. These patients who have widespread pain syndromes very often are the patients that I'm referring to our pain psychologist. Neurologists can do so much for these patients by making the right diagnosis. So often, these patients might be treated by one specialist for one organ system, another specialist for another organ system, and they can have so many different specialists, and they can be going from institution to institution. And a neurologist is in a really good position to be able to take the full history, put everything together and say, “I think you have a chronic overlapping pain condition. I think you have central sensitivity syndromes” - to be able to talk to them about their central nervous system being amped up, and that there are treatments that we can give them to help to treat these conditions, fibromyalgia and others, that affect so many of our patients who we encounter in neurologic practice. So, the International Association for the Study of Pain now has this term, nociplastic, and some people use the term neuroplastic to talk about these central sensitivity syndromes, and while not all neurologists maybe are hearing those terms used yet in clinical practice, I think it gives us a good framework - and between Dr Kissoon's article, as well as Dr Beth Hogans' article on general principles of pain, I think that those will give the practicing neurologist a lot of good updates as to how our thinking about these patients has evolved.   Dr Jones: I know, as clinicians, we have a very cause-and-effect kind of component to our training, right? Here is the problem, here is the lesion, here is the result, and what do I do about it. I think patients also want to know what is the cause of the pain, and I think it's, maybe, historically been frustrating when someone clearly has pain and there's not a single factor, especially a removable factor, that causes it. So, I think, hopefully, having this language that we can use to communicate it with our better understanding of pain, hopefully that will help. Does that help you in your practice when you're talking to patients, when you explain what's going on? Is that well-received in general?   Dr Schuster: Yeah, you know, I think a lot of doctors are afraid to talk about fibromyalgia, for example, with patients. And what I'm finding in my practice, actually, is that a lot of patients are liberated when they can receive a diagnosis, such as fibromyalgia, that they can read about, they can learn about treatments for it, they can join support groups online and find that they're not alone - indeed, this condition affects 2 to 4% of people, and that very well could be a underdiagnosis. It keeps them from looking to different specialists for each painful body part and potentially having unneeded surgeries - and surgeries that might make things worse. So, I think physicians are understandably concerned because there is stigma - there's stigma around a lot of painful conditions, and there's stigma around some of the treatments that we use to treat these patients - and I think that physicians who are sensitive to that can sometimes be hesitant, but I'm really surprised how often patients are just really appreciative to get the right diagnosis.   Dr Jones: And you mentioned a minute ago that things have changed even since you came out of training, and, obviously, training is really important to know how to manage these problems. In my own world, I've seen, I think, an increase in the interest in pain management as a subspecialty among neurology trainees. There's obviously something that grabbed you, something that pulled you into this field. What's been your path to being a pain specialist?   Dr Schuster: Yeah, so I was a neurology resident at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, and fortunately, there, they have a few pain neurologists - and also, in the community, we have a few other pain neurologists as well that I had the great fortune to work with. And I was so impressed, especially those who are doing both pain and headache treatment, that you were able to help so many people treating very high-prevalence conditions - very often, younger patients, people who are going through school, building families - and being able to really reduce their disability, improve their quality of life and the quality of lives of their families is very gratifying. So, I encountered that as a neurology resident. I had their mentorship. And then, I applied for both headache and pain fellowships, and I did both a headache fellowship and a pain fellowship - and I think that that's been a wonderful combination for my career. To have that mix of patients has been really wonderful for preventing burnout. I think having a combination of slightly different patient populations between the headache population and the pain population, as well as, of course, those who have comorbid headache and pain conditions, has been very gratifying to treat people with these conditions. Not that many neurology residents think about doing a pain fellowship, and I wrote, together with my good friend and colleague Jacob Hascalovici, back in 2018 (that was published in the Green Journal), an article on pain neurology as an emerging subspecialty within neurology - and certainly, I would encourage any neurology residents who are interested in potentially pursuing a pain fellowship to read this article. There's such a need for neurologists in the pain field.   Dr Jones: It can be a little bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, right? So, obviously, role modeling was important to you, right? You could see the practice when you were in training, when you could still make the decision, and if there aren't enough pain neurologists (which I think we can agree that there aren't), there are probably a lot of trainees who don't have that window into what that practice can be like, which, again, makes it kind of a barrier to folks entering the field - so, hopefully, being more comfortable with it will help our listeners and our readers, you know, integrate this into their practice and see it as a path forward for their own careers if they're interested. One last question for you, Dr Schuster, is - you know, looking into the future, obviously, when we have more options to treat these patients, it's rewarding and engaging and exciting - what do you think the next big thing in pain management is going to be? What should our listeners know that's coming down the road for these patients?   Dr Schuster: Yeah, so the interventional segment and the neuromodulation treatments are really changing a lot these last few years, and I believe are going to keep on evolving with new treatments coming down the pathway. And so, we have two wonderful and really nicely balanced articles on these topics: one of them from one of my former mentors from my UCLA days, Dr Vernon Williams, wrote one on spine pain, and he talks about the interventional pain treatments; and another from Dr Prasad Shirvalkar on neuromodulation for painful neuropathic diseases. And these are really wonderful articles for the neurologist who wants to learn about what treatments are available that, they might not personally be doing these, but that they can refer to colleagues - and these are changing a lot. Epidural steroid injections, for example: helpful for a lot of patients, but there's so much more to the interventional pain field than just that, and I think our practicing neurologists will learn a lot about, “Oh, what can neuromodulation be useful for within the pain field?” And, of course, because there's industry involvement in neuromodulation research, you need somebody who's really good at being very balanced, and I think Dr Shirvalkar did an incredible job about writing a really balanced article about the neuromodulation options that we have for patients with neuropathic pain disorders.   Dr Jones: It's exciting stuff. I think there's a lot to look forward to. I think the update that our readers and listeners will have from this issue will be extremely helpful for themselves in their practice and for their patients. For people who are audiophiles, each of these articles will have a corresponding podcast, so we'll refer people to that. And with that, Dr Schuster, I want to thank you for joining us for a really thorough, fascinating discussion on the field of pain neurology and our brand-new issue on pain neurology. And again, we've been speaking with Dr Nat Schuster, Guest Editor for Continuum's most recent issue on pain neurology. Please check it out. 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. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Over the past 20 years, more than 50 antibodies have been identified and associated with autoimmune neurologic disorders. Although advances in diagnostic testing have allowed for more rapid diagnosis, the therapeutic approach to these disorders has largely continued to rely on expert opinion, case series, and case reports. In this episode, Allison Weathers, MD, FAAN, speaks with Tammy L. Smith, MD, PhD, an author of the article “Therapeutic Approach to Autoimmune Neurologic Disorders,” in the Continuum® August 2024 Autoimmune Neurology issue. Dr. Weathers is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and associate chief medical information officer at the Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio. Dr. Smith is a GRECC investigator and staff neurologist at George E. Wahlen Veteran Affairs Medical Center and an assistant professor of neurology, at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, Utah. Additional Resources Read the article: Therapeutic Approach to Autoimmune Neurologic Disorders 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 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 Weathers: This is Dr Allison Weathers. Today, I'm interviewing Dr Tammy Smith about her article on therapeutic approach to autoimmune neurologic disorders, which she wrote with Dr Stacey Clardy. This article is a part of the August 2024 Continuum issue on autoimmune neurology. Although, one of the things I love most about being an interviewer for Continuum is getting the opportunity to meet new neurologists and learn all about their areas of expertise, there's something really special when I get the chance to interview and catch up with old colleagues - and today, I'm fortunate to do just that. I had the privilege of working with Dr Smith when she was a resident at Rush, and I'm so excited to be able to speak to her today about her fantastic and really comprehensive article on this very timely topic. Welcome to the podcast, Dr Smith, and please introduce yourself to our audience.   Dr Smith: Hi. Yeah, thank you for inviting me to participate in the podcast and to write this article. So, I'm Tammy Smith. I am a neurologist who practices in Salt Lake City. I primarily work at the Salt Lake City VA Medical Center where I get to treat veterans with all sorts of neurologic diseases. I'm also an assistant professor of neurology at the University of Utah in the division of Neuroimmunology and Autoimmune Neurology, and I serve as a Clinical Consultant for ARUP Laboratories to help improve diagnostic testing for immune-mediated neurologic diseases.   Dr Weathers: Wow. That is a lot of different roles and things that you have on your plate. I want to start, actually, by talking about the article. Again, you cover so much ground (you and Dr Clardy) in this really comprehensive article, but if you had to choose the one most important message - if you wanted our listeners to walk away remembering one key point, what would it be?   Dr Smith: I think the key point I want our listeners to think about is just to use the resources that are available to you. Nobody can have all of these drugs (as we're talking about treatment of autoimmune neurologic diseases in this article) - no one can have all of those drugs memorized, all of the mechanisms of action, all of the approved treatments and off-label treatments, and all of the symptomatic therapies. But that's why resources like the Continuum exist - so that we can provide those resources to clinicians who are busy at that touch of, er, hopefully - or when they open their issue - to get the information they need to make decisions to take good care of their patients.   Dr Weathers: I think that is so reassuring. As I was reading this article, that was, like, one of the things that really struck me is that, you know, thinking about even being a resident and studying for something like the rate exam, you know, how much easier it used to be when there was such a limited number of drugs thinking about the autoimmune diseases or epilepsy, where just the number of drugs has just, kind of, multiplied so manyfold since I was in training, that it's really overwhelming. And I think you make a great (and as I said, a very reassuring) point that we don't have to memorize these, that there are these incredible resources (like Continuum) where it's not any longer about kind of memorization and keeping it in our heads, that it's more about knowing where to look and thinking about what's the right thing for the patient - knowing how to go and get the information is the more important knowledge there. And, actually, thinking about that and moving on, given your expertise, how do you personally approach the management of a patient with an autoimmune neurologic disorder? Again, in the article, you speak about all the different things to keep in mind, both from a therapeutic (really, treatment) standpoint, as well as a symptomatic standpoint - but what is your personal approach?   Dr Smith: My personal approach really involves considering whether the diagnosis of an autoimmune neurologic disorder is correct, first and foremost, and gathering the information to help support that diagnosis - and I think that's something that often gets overlooked in the excitement of a patient coming in with a rare-looking syndrome. Someone sends off diagnostic testing, rules out a few things, decides it's autoimmune, and starts down a pathway and keeps pushing forward. And I understand that inclination on a busy neurology service or in a busy clinic to just decide on one path and move forward, but I'm always questioning the diagnosis, even in the presence of positive antibody results sometimes. If my patient doesn't respond to the treatment that I'm giving them based on their presentation and the antibody results, I reassess and wonder if there's something else going on, are there two syndromes going on, or was that antibody result really not the right answer for some reason. So, I think my approach, really, is to always have a healthy amount of skepticism around the diagnosis, and even when I'm fairly confident in the diagnosis, to continually reassess that patient and their unique response to treatment. And then, also, their unique circumstances - so, everyone will need different symptomatic management, as well as different rehabilitation resources and other resources mobilized to help them maximize their recovery. And so, there's just not a “one size fits all” approach, but always keep talking to the patient, keep re-evaluating, stay curious, and don't be afraid to change paths when things aren't making sense.   Dr Weathers: I think that is incredibly sound, really thoughtful advice. So, I can imagine how incredibly challenging those cases must be when you think you have the right answer, it looks like it's lining up, the antibodies are pointing you in the right direction, and then, they're not responding. What else do you feel is the most challenging aspect of the management of these conditions? Is there some other kind of aspect that you also feel is really challenging in the treatment of these patients?   Dr Smith: Yeah, I think other challenges are really access to state-of-the-art therapies due to financial barriers - I think that's a pretty significant challenge for a lot of these patients, and I think we need to continue to work on advocacy efforts to make sure all patients have access to the medications they need to treat the disorders they are diagnosed with. And it's a real challenge, even when there's FDA-approved therapeutics - a lot of them are quite expensive, and then we end up playing the insurance game, and we learned that AI is automatically denying people's insurance claims, and so, we're battling computers as well as insurance companies. And I think that's a really significant challenge for a lot of these patients. And then, really, just the fact that a lot of immune-mediated neurologic disorders have a long tale. So, we don't treat a patient the same way we do for an infection and expect a dramatic and rapid recovery - a lot of the recovery for these patients happens over months to years. It's a process, and I think it's really important to be counseling patients and caregivers and other providers and educating them about this that we continue to mobilize resources to help our patients long past their inpatient hospitalization and the most dramatic part of their recovery.   Dr Weathers: Again, you raised some really insightful points there. No, I think they're really key. And I think, to your point, that even for some of these patients, that even if we can get over the economic barriers of the medications themselves and get them authorized, get them covered, you're left with, for a lot of patients, all of the other limitations of some of their social determinants of health challenges, right? So, the transportation challenges to even kind of get them to the appointments, and some of the other challenges they face, which makes some of these treatments very, very hard for them to be able to accomplish. So, it is very challenging - I think that's a very important call-out. What do you think is the easiest mistake to make when treating patients with autoimmune neurologic disorders, and how should our listeners avoid it?   Dr Smith: Yeah, that's an excellent question. One of the most common mistakes I see is either overvaluing diagnostic testing or not ordering the appropriate diagnostic testing for the clinical syndrome in any given patient. And where this comes into play, really, is the fact that when we order diagnostic testing in the United States for immune-mediated neurologic disorders, these autoantibody panels are available to us that test for a multitude of autoantibodies all at the same time, and if we don't choose the appropriate test for the clinical syndrome that the patient is there with, we run the risk of getting a positive result for an antibody that's unrelated to the syndrome we're seeing in the patient – and no test is 100% specific (or 100% sensitive, for that matter), but these low-specificity issues when you indiscriminately test really can cloud the clinical picture and delay getting the appropriate diagnosis. And so, I really think that one of the biggest mistakes is seeing maybe a low-positive result for an antibody that does not match the clinical syndrome if you go back to the books and use your resources to figure out if that result is meaningful - overvaluing that antibody result and maybe plowing forward with a treatment plan that involves a long course of immunomodulatory therapy is a pretty significant mistake. And then, on the flip side is that because these panel tests, you order them as a block, and you think that you ordered the right thing - or you think that whoever you asked to order the order for you ordered the right thing – and so often, people say the panel was negative, and they don't look at the individual results of the antibodies that were tested in the panel, and because different antibody panels are designed to test for different clinical phenotypes. I see the error where a clinician thinks that all of the antibodies necessary to test for were tested for and negative, and now they feel like their hands are tied. And so, it's both this overvaluing the diagnostic testing and forgetting to question the testing results if they're not what you expect once you get more clinical data - I think both of those are pretty big mistakes. And continuing, again, always be curious, always recheck results, and don't take laboratory values in an EMR that are in black and white as the stone-cold truth that tells you your answer - you have to stay curious about the patient, their history, their neurologic presentation, their response to treatment over time, and really keep assessing. My other soap box here about diagnostic testing is that, historically, a lot of the antibodies that we test for were called paraneoplastic (and that's because they were some of the first antibodies discovered, so, they were some of the earliest ones that we developed tests for), and clinical reference laboratories continue to offer paraneoplastic panels for historical reasons and because a lot of people think that that's what they want. But, paraneoplastic panels, in and of themselves, are not representative of a specific clinical phenotype - they just diagnose patients who have a high risk of malignancy associated with an antineural antibody. And so, most of the clinical reference labs I know of - certainly at ARUP, we have a notice on our testing page, I know Mayo Clinical Laboratories also has a notice that says, “Paraneoplastic panels are not generally the recommended panel to test for antineural antibodies. Consider ordering the phenotype-specific panel that fits the patient's clinical syndrome”. And I think that's super important – we still have paraneoplastic stuck in our head for historical reasons, and it is almost never the right answer.   Dr Weathers: It's really interesting. At my organization, you know, we actually have had some really thoughtful conversations about, do we really restrict it (you know, as part of lab stewardship efforts) - and, you know, these are expensive, and to your point, they can be frankly, really dangerous, you know, to really send somebody down this wrong path with a lot of surveillance, committing them to immunomodulatory therapies, and take you in completely the wrong direction when, actually, your low test probability was very low. So, I think that is an excellent one to really call out and for people to be very thoughtful of - and the way, again, to avoid it is to be very thoughtful about the panels. And for people, certainly, they are very convenient, but people need to be really aware of what's in them and what they are ordering and how to interpret them. And I love that advice about not just thinking about the wholesale as negative - really, you know, for many of us, they are still coming in as scan documents, you know, click into them, read every line, really understand what those results mean.   Dr Smith: And I would also say that I think people don't realize, but clinical reference laboratories would love for you to reach out when there are questions. So, if you don't understand the diagnostic testing that was performed or result, you pretty much all have hotlines. You can call and reach out to an expert in the testing and ask them some questions, and don't be afraid to reach out to your colleagues who might have more experience. We love hearing from people with questions and helping to direct them to the right testing and help them get the answers that they really want to for their patients.   Dr Weathers: I think that is a great plug. Before you order, preferably, before you send in.   Dr Smith: I do like when I hear from people before mistakes were made. Yes. That's nice.   Dr Weathers: It's a great point.   Dr Smith: When you order these panels, you do run the risk of having these low positive results that may or may not be clinically meaningful. And we do recommend that most of the diagnostic testing be ordered in both serum and CSF. And so, a good example of a mistake that can be made is a very low-positive NMDA-receptor antibody in serum - maybe it was ordered for a patient with cognitive decline or confusion (maybe not under the ideal clinical scenario for ordering), and then it's negative in the CSF. So, an NMDA-receptor positive, negative in the CSF, not the right clinical picture, people can get really jazzed and want to treat an NMDA-receptor encephalitis, that in that case, really isn't meeting diagnostic criteria, and there are excellent diagnostic criteria that have been developed and published for that disorder and for several other autoimmune neurologic disorders, and I think going back to those criteria and really questioning yourself before you start blindly down a path based on a lab result is really important.   Dr Weathers: I think that's excellent advice, too, always keeping that in mind that just because you have gone down this path and gotten that result doesn't mean that you are stuck and committed to it. Always keeping that criteria in mind, always going back, always checking it is really important as well. Moving on from mistakes to kind of an adjacent question, what do you think is the biggest controversy right now when it comes to the treatment of patients with autoimmune neurologic disorders?   Dr Smith: You know, one of the big controversies that I see and I'm concerned about is that we've gotten into a habit of treating the way we've always treated based on expert opinion, and while experts have their opinions based on a lot of experience, they don't take the place of well-designed randomized controlled clinical trials - and in rare diseases (like autoimmune neurologic diseases), it can be really challenging to conduct those trials, especially in the face of people who have a pathway that they always do with their patients. If they have a NMDA-receptor encephalitis patient, they feel very comfortable doing their standard of care with IV steroids and then either plasma exchange or IVIG, and then possibly (and very often), I see following with a B-cell inhibitor, like rituximab, as sort of just a “kitchen-sink” approach to treatment. And while I understand the passion and the desire to make a really sick patient sitting in front of us better as fast as possible, I don't think we have adequate evidence to support that being the “one-size-fits-all kitchen-sick” approach for treatment. And I really am passionate about all clinicians all over the world, supporting randomized controlled clinical trials that are well-designed with the backing of experts in the community, so that when we look at a patient and tell them that we recommend a course of treatment, we're recommending it based on the best quality evidence available, not just what everyone's always done before. I think we can do better than that. And I think there's some controversy in this. Some people think that it doesn't make sense, we already know the answer, but I would say we haven't asked the right question and thoroughly investigated enough. And this is especially important with children, right? We know pediatric patients often don't have well-designed clinical trials to guide their treatments - but in NMDA-receptor encephalitis, many of the patients are children, and I think that they deserve to be involved in well-designed clinical trials in order to support the recommendations that we make for treatment.   Dr Weathers: And in addition to children, think about all of the other patient populations that have traditionally not been well represented in trials, right - pregnant patients, patients of color (historically very underrepresented in trials) - many, many other patient populations that have not been adequately represented.   Dr Smith: Absolutely. Yeah. I think we need to really care about that and face that problem head on and speak to it. We can't just say this is the way we've always done things, so we're going to keep doing it that way. I think we owe it to our patients and ourselves, when we look our patients in the eye, to say that we have good evidence to support the recommendations we're making.   Dr Weathers: I think we have already answered this question in many ways with each of the questions we've already talked about, but is there any other strong arguments that you can make for why it's important for neurology clinicians to read your article?   Dr Smith: Dr Clardy and I spent a lot of time working on this article, trying to put together a piece that will be a resource that people could turn to again and again. I don't think that this article is something that you should read from top to bottom and think that you've absorbed and digested everything, right? So, what we work to do was to really provide a structure and a framework to think about the treatment of immune-mediated neurologic diseases. So, rather than memorizing specific drugs for specific conditions, we developed sort of a space where you could talk about B-cell targeting therapies and the different ways we can target B-cells, we talked about complement inhibitors, neonatal FC receptors, and, really, just at a high level, how these drugs work and how they're targeted, so that going forward in three, four, five years, what I believe we'll know more about each of the individual diseases mediated by antineural antibodies. When we understand what causes that disease, we'll be able to go to a resource like this and choose rationally based on mechanism of action, a drug to treat our patient - even if it's in a patient with such a rare disease that we don't have the luxury of a clinical trial to guide our choices.   Dr Weathers: That's a really excellent point - and I know I've said it a few times, but I think you guys did such a really excellent job at really laying it out in a way that makes it this really comprehensive, really easy-to-use resource at that point of care for providers to be able to do exactly that. Well, I always like to end on a hopeful note, so, this is always my favorite last question – but, what do you think is the next breakthrough coming in the treatment of patients with autoimmune neurologic diseases?   Dr Smith: Yeah, I think in the near future (I certainly hope, at least) that the next breakthrough is going to be in really being able to deliver personalized care based on what we understand about the mechanisms of a patient's rare disease. So, again, right now, I find we're kind of left with the “kitchen-sink” approach because we know so little about the mechanisms that drive each of these unique neurologic diseases and we don't have enough information from clinical trials to inform rational treatment decisions, so we go with these broad approaches - and I really think that in the near future, with work being done by a lot of people (dedicated people over the world) on biomarkers and things that predict either onset of disease or relapse or disease severity or really looking at basic fundamental mechanisms that drive disease, we're going to be able to make more rational choices in the treatment of these patients and mobilize the resources that are expensive, but valuable for the right patient at the right time.   Dr Weathers: That is a very exciting and hopeful future to look towards. Thank you, Dr Smith, for joining me on Continuum Audio. It was wonderful to get to spend this time with you again. Again, today, I've been interviewing Dr Tammy Smith, whose article on therapeutic approach to autoimmune neurologic disorders, written with Dr Stacey Clardy, 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 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.

Basic knowledge of the common CNS manifestations of rheumatologic diseases and sarcoidosis is important. In the context of many systemic inflammatory diseases, CNS disease may be a presenting feature or occur without systemic manifestations of the disease, making familiarity with these diseases even more important. In this episode, Kait Nevel, MD speaks with Jennifer A. McCombe, MD, author of the article “Neurologic Manifestations of Rheumatologic Disorders,” in the Continuum® August 2024 Autoimmune Neurology issue. Dr. Nevel is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a neurologist and neuro-oncologist at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, Indiana. Dr. McCombe is an associate professor in the Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine at the University of Alberta, Edmonton in Alberta, Canada. Additional Resources Read the article: Neurologic Manifestations of Rheumatologic Disorders 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 Nevel: Hello. This is Dr Kait Nevel. Today, I'm interviewing Dr Jennifer McCombe about her article on neurosarcoidosis and neurologic involvement of rheumatological disorders, which appears in the August 2024 Continuum issue on autoimmune neurology. Welcome to the podcast, and I would love to have you introduce yourself to the audience.   Dr McCombe: Well, thank you, and thank you for having me. As you said, my name is Jen McCombe. I'm a neurologist in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, where I spend kind of a third of my time in teaching roles (I coordinate the undergraduate block for our medical school there), I spend about a third of my time in a neuroinflammatory clinic in Edmonton, Alberta, and then about a third of my time doing clinical research.   Dr Nevel: Wonderful. Well, thank you so much for being here today and for chatting with me about your article on this topic.   Dr McCombe: Thank you for having me.   Dr Nevel: To start off, can you share with the listeners a little bit about your career path?   Dr McCombe: Absolutely. Yeah. So, I've had, uh, a bit of a circuitous career path. I did my medical school in Queens (which is in Eastern Canada, in Kingston, Ontario) and then went back to Edmonton, Alberta, for my residency (in Canada, we have a five-year residency program, so a little bit different than the US), but finished my residency and then did a master's degree in Public Health at Johns Hopkins while completing clinical research in HIV, actually, and did this thing we call the Clinical Scholar Training Program – so, kind of like a fellowship, but a little bit more, you know, research and academic-based. So, when I first started, I was focused more on neuroinfectious diseases, and that's kind of what my career path looked like at the time - but, actually, shortly after I finished my residency program, I also had my first child, and he, unfortunately, developed opsoclonus-myoclonus syndrome, and at the time (this was in 2010), it was a rather rare condition, so, I ended up finding myself having to become a bit of a neuroinflammatory disease specialist at the same time. So, at that point, I transitioned into working in the neuroinflammatory clinic with some mentorship but was getting all of the kind of weird and wonderful referrals and diagnostic dilemmas from my colleagues who recognized I kind of developed some expertise, and so decided (actually, mid-career) to take a sabbatical, and in 2021, completed a fellowship in autoimmune neurology at the Mayo Clinic. So, I finished that quite recently and then went back, and now I'm feeling much more, I guess, confident, too. Sometimes, you wonder about, you know, the choices you're making. I recognize most of the conditions I'm dealing with don't have, in fact, any evidence for their treatment, and that was confirmed when I went to the Mayo Clinic and found that, really, it was just trying to gain an understanding of the disease process to make a rational choice to medications and treatments. So, now, I'm back and kind of trying to focus a little bit more on some clinical research in that area since I've kind of solidified that expertise.   Dr Nevel: Wow. Well, thank you for sharing with us your career path and how, you know, unexpected life events kind of changed your interests or molded your interests (changed kind of the things that you became expert in, you know), and being fluid in your career path and willing to kind of take a break and reassess and get additional training. That's really inspiring to, I think, to me, and probably to a lot of listeners, that you can always, you know, develop more expertise in the more niche area or additional area no matter where you are in your stage of life or career path.   Dr McCombe: Yeah.   Dr Nevel: So, can you tell us a little bit more about - you know, you shared with us kind of autoimmune inflammatory disorders and how you became interested in that, neurosarcoidosis, specifically (you know the article focuses on that), and what's your background in neurosarcoidosis, how you became interested in that specifically and in neurologic manifestations of rheumatologic disorders?   Dr McCombe: I started in our neuroinflammatory clinic over a decade ago, and, you know, at the time, a lot of the expertise in any of these neuroinflammatory disorders was quite spread out over the country, and so, as I kind to alluded to before, often some of the more complicated patients where there wasn't necessarily clear-cut evidence or even, you know, a fellowship path to get there, I would end up getting referrals for - and so, I developed quite a cohort of patients with central nervous system primarily, but other types of neuroinflammatory and autoimmune neurologic diseases, and part of that cohort was a rather large (and still growing) group of patients with neurosarcoidosis. And so, I kind of developed some practical expertise, although, as you can see in the article (and as I'm sure you all know), the approach to the treatment is extremely variable. One of the most telling things is when we were at the Mayo Clinic, one of my co-fellows actually pulled all of the neurologists in neuroinflammation at all of the Mayo Clinic sites and asked them, you know, what is your treatment approach to a patient with neurosarcoidosis, and I think got twelve completely different responses as to the medications chosen and the length of time for the tapers and things like that. So, you know, it is very much a part of neurologic disease treatment that we still really don't have great evidence for, and although we do have some kind of rational choices that we can make based on other types of evidence, so -   Dr Nevel: Yeah.   Dr McCombe: And I enjoy working with patients with these types of diseases where we can kind of work together to come up with a treatment plan that makes sense for them and also makes sense based on whatever evidence we do have at this time.   Dr Nevel: Yeah. So, moving on to the article a little bit, knowing that this is a area of neurology where there's a lot of, you know, maybe personal expertise and experience but not a ton of data or evidence to necessarily guide our standardization to our treatments and approach, what do you think is the most important clinical takeaway from your article for our listeners?   Dr McCombe: Well, I mentioned before I coordinate the neuro block for our undergraduate program here, so I've developed over the years (I've been doing that for a number of years) a curriculum that's all based on, kind of, that approach to - and I like to do it that way because it's very practical. I like the students to be able to basically take their class notes and then go to the emergency department on their first shift as a clerk and, you know, use their approach to headache that I've developed for them to kind of take a clinical history and examine a patient with that sort of problem. And so, similar to that, I tried to do an approach to, you know, a couple of the more common presentations that would make you think of a rheumatologic condition or neurosarcoidosis in looking at the approach to CNS vasculitis and the approach to, uh, pachymeningitis - and these are difficult differentials for lots of neurologists, because it really relies on a lot of medicine knowledge, and we graduate from our residencies slightly more confident in our medicine knowledge, because we get a lot of that in our residencies. But as neurologists, as we go through our careers, we get much more confident in our areas of specialty, and at least for myself and many of my colleagues, much less confident in other things like general medicine. And so, it's difficult, because you have to face your areas of potentially less confident knowledge and really think about that in the differential - and so, I think, you know, I put those two big “approach to” sections in there, because they're the most relevant for the conditions that I was covering. But, I think also what I would say to a learner or a more experienced neurologist who might be reading the article, kind of pick out the little things that you might add to your own kind of approach to - you know, when you see that person with an ataxia, remember that Sjogren syndrome is one of the things you might consider that could be a treatable cause, or you want to see a sensory neuronopathy, don't just think paraneoplastic – again, Sjogren syndrome. So, kind of pick out those little pearls and add them to your approach to that patient that we all see, and I think that would be my biggest takeaway.   Dr Nevel: Yeah. Thank you. So, kind of like, keep this information from the article in mind so that you keep rheumatologic disorders in mind as a possibility when you're approaching a patient with whatever neurologic symptoms they're presenting with. So, what do you think is challenging? You kind of already mentioned a little bit, you know, just that it stretches us maybe into the medicine arena and so maybe stretches our medical knowledge, especially as we become more subspecialized or focused in neurology - but what is challenging about identifying, diagnosing neurologic symptoms as being related or due to an underlying rheumatologic disorder?   Dr McCombe: Absolutely. Yeah. Well, as you said, you know, it forces us to kind of face that medicine stuff that we might not be as comfortable with, but I think what else is challenging is that, sometimes, those medical clues aren't there. For the rheumatologic disorders for the most part, they are. Sjogren's is potentially a little bit different in that, potentially, the symptoms are less obvious or a little bit more subtle. But, in particular, with neurosarcoidosis, there's a distinct proportion of the patients that won't, in fact, have any systemic complications of their underlying disease, and so, you have to think about it even when the clues aren't there. That's why you have to add it to those kind of differential diagnoses where it might be considered, because those systemic clues that we all rely on when we do our review of systems and we ask about rashes and joint pain and lung issues, and these sorts of things may not be there - and so, you still have to think about it even when it might be completely isolated to the central nervous system.   Dr Nevel: What is our understanding of why some patients with rheumatologic disorders develop neurologic involvement? Do we have an understanding? Do we know why some patients do and some patients don't? I know that's, you know, kind of, uh - that's a tough question, but that was something that I thought of as I was reading your article, like, why does this happen to some people?   Dr McCombe: Absolutely. I mean, I think, potentially, it's a little bit more clear for some of them, like rheumatoid arthritis, because, typically, if you develop a CNS complication of this, it's, in fact, just because you've had the disease for a very long time, and often, it's uncontrolled, and so you think about the disease “spreading” now to the central nervous system - but for other conditions, like neurosarcoidosis, it is much less clear, and even if you look at the epidemiologic patterns for that, it makes it even more muddied in that in some populations, it appears that they develop more central nervous system disease, whereas in others, less. And so, why that is the case and why certain individuals might develop this complication of these diseases I think is yet to be seen.   Dr Nevel: Yeah, that's always the crux of things if we can figure out the why, then maybe we could prevent it, right?   Dr McCombe: Million-dollar question always.   Dr Nevel: Always. So, what do you find the most intriguing about neurologic involvement of rheumatologic disorders?   Dr McCombe: Well, I think one of the things that, really, I mean, for neurosarcoidosis in particular, so many patients do so well, and that's what I really like about it. You know, you see patients who present with an incredible burden of disease radiologically, and yet, don't look nearly as sick as they should when they're sitting in front of you. And then, you start them on therapies and some of them do so well, and even those with relatively devastating deficits, or moderate disease who do have neurologic symptoms, have a remarkable improvement in their neurologic symptoms with treatment. And so, that's always something that's quite rewarding when you get to see these patients in follow-up, and they're generally quite thankful because they're doing so well. And it's different from many of the neurologic diseases that we treat. I mean, in autoimmune neurology, we're lucky because we do have a number of diseases that are quite treatable and patients can have wonderful outcomes. But, you know, it's always scary when we see patients with devastating neurologic signs and it's great to see improvement with treatment. And so, that really draws me to it.   Dr Nevel: Yeah, absolutely. That's really rewarding when you're able to help somebody get better in such a profound way.   Dr McCombe: Mm hmm.   Dr Nevel: What is one common misconception about neurologic manifestations of rheumatologic disorders? Or what do you think is not well understood by treating clinicians?   Dr McCombe: I think probably one of the things I see the most is, sometimes, an undertreatment of the patient. And so, I see patients who, you know, other clinicians may have seen and have made the diagnosis, and perhaps it's a lack of confidence in the diagnosis and so they kind of want somebody else with a subspecialty to kind of confirm the diagnosis, but that treatment hasn't been initiated despite pathological confirmation on biopsy of another tissue. And these patients, like I alluded to before, they do well, but you need to treat them and you need to treat them adequately, and when their symptoms are quite impairing, you need to treat them adequately now. And so I think, sometimes, that delay in starting a second-line therapy and relying on steroids for too long - those sorts of things can really expose a patient to a lot of different side effects and to a lot of different complications that they may not have had, too. So, that's why I spent some time focusing on the treatment, because I think just gaining a little bit of comfort with some of these more common second-line medications is a good thing, because starting those early, I think, makes sense because you can really save the patient a lot. And then, the other thing, too, is that when you're using steroids, think about all of the systemic things that you're causing - think about the increased risk of infection and the fact that you need to prophylax for certain infections, think about bone health, think about protecting the lining of someone's stomach - so not only kind of thinking about your disease in isolation and what you need to do for treatment, but that you need to ensure that you're appropriately prescribing the patient all of the things they need to do to protect themselves during these times.   Dr Nevel: Yeah. I think that's so important. And I'm glad that you brought that up, because I think, unfortunately, many of us have seen a patient who ended up having PJP pneumonia (or something like that) because they weren't put on antibiotic coverage for prolonged steroid use or, you know, bone health - all of that is really important to think about. So, this may be entering a territory where there's no, you know, great evidence, but you mentioned, you know, starting kind of that maintenance or second-line agent - when do you decide to do that in patients? And maybe we can focus (since it gets a little broad), but, you know, in a patient with neurosarcoidosis, let's say - when you're starting the steroids, when do you decide, okay, this person is also going to need a maintenance therapy? Is that something that you do at the beginning when you're starting the steroids, or is that something that you think about later on depending on how their course goes?   Dr McCombe: Yeah. In my practice, I do it at the outset - again, because I'm quite focused on, you know, as soon as I get them on it, getting people off steroids - and so I start essentially almost all of my patients on it unless there's some other contraindication or complication to their disease. And because I deal with central nervous system complications in the vast majority of my patients, I'm starting a TNF-a inhibitor as well as methotrexate, and that's because I see a lot of patients with cord disease and significant brain disease, and so I want to treat them kind of more aggressively from the outset. And so, typically, they'll be on steroids, um, a TNF-a inhibitor, as well as methotrexate, and then I just back off, actually, as they do well. And so, I try to taper the steroids quite quickly over the course of just a number of weeks, or kind of two to three months at most. I maintain the TNF-a inhibitor, and then in some patients, depending on how they're doing, I might eventually stop the methotrexate. Some patients tolerate it so well that we don't for a number of months - other patients want to try to minimize their medications as quick as they can. So, that's my personal practice. In the province where I live, we don't have to worry about access to these medications, and so I understand that that might be an issue in some centers where people practice and have different access and different funding. Of course, I live in a country where we have universal healthcare, and in our province, I have very good access to these medications and they're funded from my patients regardless of socioeconomic status, and so I have the luxury of making these choices and I understand that other people might not, but that's my personal practice and I find it works quite well in the vast majority of patients.   Dr Nevel: Yeah. And you bring up a really good point that, you know, access to some of these medications for patients with CNS manifestations of sarcoidosis, neurosarcoidosis, sometimes can be challenging to treating the patient with medications that you feel like would be best for them. But that's wonderful that you don't have those access issues where you live. How long do you typically continue the TNF-a inhibitor in patients, since you mentioned, you know, tapering off the steroids, tapering off the methotrexate, potentially depending on patient tolerance and course. What's your approach to the TNF-a inhibitor?   Dr McCombe: Yeah, so, of course I follow them clinically, and then radiologically as well, and it's really satisfying if you can see the resolution of their symptoms as well as resolution of the abnormalities and the MRI, so I let that guide me a little bit. But, in most patients, I keep them on therapy for about one to two years, and then at that point, see if I can cease it in some patients. And I, again, continue to follow them radiologically and clinically after I cease it so that I can ensure that I'm catching their disease more quickly if it does come back and then can just reinitiate therapy, but in lots of patients you're able to stop the medication and they have persisting, kind of, disease freedom after that, and so they don't need to be on anything.   Dr Nevel: Yeah, great. And I'm almost hesitant to focus so much on neurosarcoidosis. (It was the rheumatologic manifestation that you talked about the most in your article.) I'm going to put in a plug for everybody to read your article so that they can read about neurologic manifestations of rheumatoid arthritis, Sjogren's, lupus, Behcet's - many more things. But focusing on neurosarcoidosis, it can be difficult in my experience to definitively diagnose, and people who have neurosarcoidosis particularly, and people who don't seem to have any systemic manifestations or, you know, imaging findings consistent with sarcoidosis - can you share your approach with us? And you outlined this in your article nicely, too, but your personal approach to patients with suspected neurosarcoidosis, and how you make that clinical decision to treat somebody with possible neurosarcoidosis, somebody who maybe you're not able to get pathologic evidence on?   Dr McCombe: Absolutely. Yeah, those ones are difficult. And, you know, whenever possible (as I mentioned in my article), I think pathological evidence of a diagnosis is important, because then when you find yourself a year down the road and a treatment path and you have uncertainty, it's much more difficult to consider continuing medications that can have quite a number of side effects when you're not absolutely certain about that diagnosis. But, in some patients, you know, I've had patients who might have nondiagnostic biopsies (if you attempt to do a biopsy), or they have disease in a site that really just isn't amenable to biopsy, or they have some other reason they can't have a biopsy. So, how I approach that is that, you know, if you think about possible neurosarcoidosis similar to any other nondiagnosed, you know, blow out-like lesion (for lack of a better term) in the CNS, if it's steroid-responsive, I think that kind of going down a path of treating it as a steroid-responsive lesion is kind of the approach that I take - so the diagnosis in the chart might be possible neurosarcoidosis, but in the back of my mind, I'm just thinking of kind of a steroid-responsive nondiagnostic or idiopathic lesion. So, I then follow that up typically with something like methotrexate (so, a more broader- spectrum immunosuppressant-type medication), and if the methotrexate is able to maintain the response that the steroids initiated, then eventually get them off the steroids. And so, you know, if I think about my patients that I've treated in the past, if they have a diagnosis of possible neurosarcoidosis, I probably don't start a TNF-a inhibitor as quickly in them, because in the back of my mind, I'm always wondering what type of inflammatory lesion this is, but that steroid responsiveness really helps me decide to start a second-line or maintenance therapy and then, typically, in those patients, as I mentioned, I'll start something like methotrexate a little bit more soon.   Dr Nevel: Yeah, great. Thanks for sharing that with us. So, what do you think comes next in this field? What excites you? Where do you think our next kind of development or understanding or breakthrough, whether it's diagnostic or treatment-wise?   Dr McCombe: I think, in the field, you know, any immunologic diseases, we've been really gaining a much better understanding of pathophysiology, and that's honestly what excites me the most, when you can know precisely what part of the immune system is at play here (whether it's, you know, complement-mediated or antibody-mediated) and then being able to then rationally choose medications based on a really clear understanding of the disease is something that I think is kind of novel in a way. For so many years, we would use kind of big broad-spectrum immunosuppression - even in multiple sclerosis, still, we use medications that, historically, we've found to be helpful - but we don't have a great understanding sometimes of why the medicines work. So, kind of going at it from the other way, where we're actually determining what is the exact pathophysiology of disease and then making a rational approach to a therapy, or choosing a therapy based on that, I think is what excites me the most, and I think we'll gain a better understanding of even a broader swath of diseases and be able to make those choices more often. That's what I like about this field.   Dr Nevel: Great. Well, thank you so much for sharing that - and looking forward to the future in this area of neurology. And thanks so much for talking with me today and sharing your story and your expertise and knowledge.   Dr McCombe: Well, thank you for having me. It's been fun.   Dr Nevel: And I encourage all the listeners to read your article. Again, today, I've been interviewing Dr Jennifer McCombe, whose article on neurosarcoidosis and neurologic involvement of rheumatologic disorders 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 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.

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.

Stiff Person Syndrome (SPS) is treatable if managed correctly from the outset. It is essential to distinguish SPS spectrum disorders from disease mimics to avoid both overdiagnoses and misdiagnoses. In this episode, Allison Weathers, MD, FAAN, speaks with Marinos C. Dalakas, MD, FAAN, author of the article “Stiff Person Syndrome and GAD Antibody–Spectrum Disorders,” in the Continuum® August 2024 Autoimmune Neurology issue. Dr. Weathers is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and associate chief medical information officer at the Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio. Dr. Dalakas is a professor of neurology and director of the neuromuscular division at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; a professor of neurology and chief of the neuroimmunology unit and the National and Kapodistrian at the University of Athens in Athens, Greece. Additional Resources Read the article: Stiff Person Syndrome and GAD Antibody–Spectrum Disorders 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 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 Weathers: This is Dr Allison Weathers. Today, I'm interviewing Dr Marinos Dalakas about his article on stiff-person syndrome and GAD antibody-spectrum disorders, which is part of the August 2024 Continuum issue on autoimmune neurology. Dr Dalakas is a world- renowned expert in neuromuscular diseases and, really, the first name any neurologist thinks of when they hear the diagnosis of stiff-person syndrome. Dr Dalakas, this is such an honor to be able to speak to you today. Welcome to the podcast, and would you please introduce yourself to our audience?   Dr Dalakas: Yes, thank you very much. I'm so happy to participate in this interview. I'm the Chief of the Neuromuscular Division at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, and I am interested in autoimmune neuromuscular diseases for many years and also on disease mechanisms and immunotherapy.   Dr Weathers: Thank you again for talking with me today. So, given how very rare stiff-person syndrome and the GAD antibody-spectrum disorders are, prior to December 2022, I would have started our time together by asking you to explain this collection of diagnoses to our listeners and by also talking about how often they occur. It feels like that's a bit unnecessary ever since Celine Dion went public with her diagnosis - that moment really changed the public awareness of what was previously outside of neurology and almost unheard-of disease. So, instead, I'll start with, what is the key message of your article? If our listeners are going to walk away remembering one thing from our discussion, what would you like it to be?   Dr Dalakas: Well, I think the publicity has been very good for the disease, this disease spectrum. On the other hand, there have been some misleading messages, like, it's extremely rare, it's untreatable, it's disabling – which, they are partially correct, so, my message is, first, to make sure the neurologists make the correct diagnosis, because there are a lot of diseases similar to stiff-person, but they are not stiff-person. So, to make sure the diagnosis is correct and to make the patients aware of what to expect when they have this disease and what therapies we have and what we may have in the future. So, the number one message is the correct diagnosis and then to avoid overdiagnosis or misdiagnosis, because now we see both - we see overdiagnosis and misdiagnosis.   Dr Weathers: I think that's such a critically important point, and one you really delve into really beautifully in the article, so I encourage our listeners who do have access to it to really read through it. As I said, you do a great job really explaining that - and, actually, to go into that further, could you explain how you approach the diagnosis of a patient with possible stiff-person syndrome or one of the other GAD antibody-spectrum disorders? And I know you probably get asked that on a daily basis. As I was telling you before we actually formally started recording, I remember back when I was a resident and saw my first case of a suspected patient with stiff-person syndrome, my mentor advised me to look up your case series, your articles at the time, and really use that to guide my diagnosis. What do you feel is the most challenging aspect of diagnosing a patient with one of these conditions?   Dr Dalakas: Well, the first is the clinical symptomatology. We say the patients present with spasms and stiffness, but also, there are phobias. They are very hyperexcitable to sudden stimulations, to sudden noises, to unexpected touches, and all of them can cause spasms, and then when you examine the patients, they have stiffness. Now, the stiffness (if there is a true stiffness) results in gait abnormalities (the patients are falling because they're so stiff), and also, the hyperexcitability causes a lot of anxiety and a lot of phobias (they're afraid to cross the street, they're afraid to make a destination promptly) – so, all these things are sort of suggestive of stiff-person. So, these are the symptoms that you hear, you listen, and you ask the patients, and then, when you examine the patient, you look for certain signs that there are, specifically, like stiffness of what we call agonist muscles and antagonist muscles, which means there is stiffness of the abdominal muscles and at the same time, stiffness of the back muscles - so, this concurrent stiffness of these opposing muscles is very specific, very characteristic of the stiff person, so if you see that, and then you listen to the history, you're very close to the diagnosis, and then you do the antibodies. And the antibodies (the specific antibodies, the GAD antibody), but it is specific as we say in the article, and we tried to make this very clear to the neurologists, that it's the high titers that matter, because low titers are not necessarily specific. So high titers of antibodies in the serum, above 10,000 by ELISA (or whatever method they use; but it has to be this many times above normal), and then if you have high serum titers and all the symptoms they mentioned, it is stiff-person. On the other hand, if the titers are low, then you may want to do a spinal tap to see if there is synthesis of antibodies in the spinal fluid. That helps you. Now if the GAD antibodies are negative, then you start wondering, is this seronegative SPS? And how do you confirm the seronegative SPS? You do electrophysiology, and the electrophysiology is, again, to see if there is activity (muscle activity) concurrently from the agonist and antagonist muscles - in other words, from the, let's say the tibialis anterior and the gastrocnemius (so, it's two opposing muscles, eg, biceps and triceps) - and if you see activity in both of these opposing muscle groups, and you see also hyperexcitability (you touch the patient, you stimulate just a little, and you see activity in other muscle groups). So, the electrophysiology is very important if the patient's antibody negative, but they have the other symptoms that I mentioned before.   Dr Weathers: I can imagine how challenging those must be (those seronegative cases) to try to really make sure you're identifying and carefully determining that you have the right disease as you alluded to at the beginning. I know how hard it must be for patients to want to at least have some answers to have a diagnosis.   Dr Dalakas: And this is the main thing today, because the publicity, as I mentioned, the beginning, increased the receipt of some information, so they overdiagnose it, like, “Oh, you have this and this and this, so it may be stiff-person”. And so, in fact, recently, we had a series of patients together with the Mayo Clinic Group of out of 173 patients referred to the Mayo Clinic for stiff-person – that's referred to them - only 28% had stiff-person. It's a low percentage, but it is an indication that the neurologists now refer patients to us for stiff-person, but we need to be very careful to correctly make a diagnosis.   Dr Weathers: On one hand, it's good that people are aware and considering the diagnosis, but it does highlight that risk of overdiagnosing.   Dr Dalakas: Yeah. It's the opposite of when I started this stiff-person syndrome (was close to 30 years ago at NIH) - at that time was underdiagnosed. This was the most rare disease, and I collected patients because at the NIH, I was also the Chief of the neuromuscular division there, and I was doing a study, so it was easy to collect patients (I collected more than 100 patients), but at that time, it was misdiagnosed. So, we had patients that I was seeing and they're really disabled, because they have been having the disease for many years, but they had been diagnosed either for Parkinson disease, for anxiety disorder, for psychiatric diseases, or for MS, or for myelopathies, or for myelitis - so many different things, and of course, they didn't have the correct diagnosis and they were disabled.   Dr Weathers: The side effect of having one of the most famous celebrities in the world having this rare disease - you know, the downside of the increased awareness, as we've said. So, moving on from the diagnosis to treatment - again, you do a, obviously, you know, an incredible job in the article, really going through the treatment options and your algorithms - what would you say is the most common misconception you've encountered in treating patients with this disease?   Dr Dalakas: The most common is now (with the publicity) is that it is a disabling disease. Well, it is disabling, but if you treat the disease correctly and early on, I'm not saying we're curing the disease - many diseases (autoimmune diseases), we help a lot, so there are some we make the patient feel normal, but the disease is there - so, if we start the correct therapy early, a good number of patients respond very well. But by the time the patients come to us, they are so stiff, they walk like a statue, or they come in a wheelchair - of course, it's difficult to reverse this, although we have been very happy to see patients with immunotherapies to get out of the wheelchair, to walk, to enjoy normal activities. So, we have made enough progress with the therapists to help a good number of patients. Now, what is the first therapy we do? Well, is what we call the antispasmodics - these are drugs that relax the stiffness that patients have, sort of a symptomatic therapy. It's not going to address the disease itself, but we address the symptoms. And of course, the symptomatic therapy in SPS is not just to relax the patients - it is related to the so-called GABAergic inhibition. So, the drugs that we use (like the benzodiazepines, or the baclofen, et cetera), these are the drugs that work on the GABAergic pathways. So, it is symptomatic therapy, but it works also on the mechanism, so it's not just a relaxing basis - but since the patients have a lot of phobias, the benzodiazepines also help the phobias. The anxiety and the phobias make the patients worse - they make them more stiff. And in the beginning, they go to psychiatrists because they are so phobic - they're phobic to walk. They hear something, they get so stiff. And I have patients coming at the National Airport in Washington to come to there needing aids in getting out of the plane - some of them get so stiff, they have to get an ambulance to come to the hospital because they're stiff everywhere. So, these phobias and anxiety have triggered a lot of my interest to the point of asking the investigators at the National Institute of Mental Health to see if there is any such thing like autoimmune phobias, because these patients have an autoimmune disease, so, well, maybe we can treat the phobias of immunology - well, we did not find anything, but I just sort of brought the idea maybe we have an autoimmune phobia. But on the other hand, when the patients get better, the phobias are reduced and they're more comfortable to walk. So, it's a very interesting complexity of the symptoms altogether.   Dr Weathers: That is – and, actually, that leads into my next question somewhat, that, as I mentioned in your introduction, you are the world expert in this rare disease. How did that happen? You talked about it a little bit just now. But how did you develop this particular interest and expertise? What drew you to this particular disease?   Dr Dalakas: Yes. It's interesting. I was interested in autoimmune neuromuscular diseases (many of them) and neuropathies and myopathies, and one day, I had a good friend of mine who was the clinical director of NINDS at that time, Dr Hallett. So, he saw patients in the movement disorder clinic and they had stiff-person (I don't know why they went to the movement disorder, but they went there), and Dr Hallett said, “Well, this is an autoimmune disease. You should work on this.” And then, I started seeing one or two patients, and I was very impressed. Really, the symptomatology is so interesting. The patients are suffering, and they sort of give the impression that they're neurotic. So, it's just a combination of when you listen to the symptoms, I was very impressed with the depth of the discomfort that they have and without seeing anything - but, when you examine the patient, you see the stiffness and nothing else. They're not weak, like, we see patients with MS, with myopathies, with neuropathies - they have weakness. They may use a cane, they may use two canes, they may use a walker, because they're stiff. So, it's a different disability than you see in patients who are weak. So, this really made me so interested to understand the mechanism - what's going on here - and that's the reason I started and I put the protocol. And then, we did a lot of immunological studies to understand the mechanism, electrophysiological studies to look at these agonist and antagonist muscles - and of course, we named it also. You know, in the beginning, the syndrome was described as stiff man (stiff-man syndrome), and they're all women. They are most of them, women. In fact, there is an article in a major journal, three women with stiff-man syndrome - and this was many years ago. So, stiff-person will be a more proper term. And then we're seeing a lot of patients or more women, but also we have enough men.   Dr Weathers: So, we've talked a lot about the change with this disease in public awareness. How has that changed your day-to-day life - has it (with the change in public awareness)? Are you bombarded with media requests?   Dr Dalakas: Well, it has stimulated me to write more about the disease and more articles, but also to highlight certain things that were not known before. For example, I had recently a paper on late-onset stiff-person. So, people, we see now patients who develop stiff-person at the age of seventy - they are above sixty or so, overall - and they have more severe disease. These patients also have not good tolerance to the medications we use - so, it's a more challenging group, so it is important to make the diagnosis even in patients with late-onset. These people do less well, because, first of all, they're all misdiagnosed, because if you're a little stiff at the age of sixty-five or seventy - well, you have a bad back, so you all have degenerative disc disease, so you don't think of stiff- person in that age. So, the stimulus was to identify some other issues with the stiff-person. The other is to think of new trials - and I have been working on two new trials. They're not out yet. I'm working to see how best to apply the new therapies. And also, it came up the idea of what are the best ways to assess, objectively, to assess the response, because this is an issue from the beginning. When I did controlled trials at the NIH, and we had established the so-called stiffness index to see how stiff they are measurably, but it is still subjective. It's not really objective, it's not (weakness to measure). So, we have gait analysis, we have the time to walk. So, I think establishing objective criterion to assess response to therapy, it's an important one - and so, I have been working on this how to make it more objective or as subjective as we can.   Dr Weathers: I think that's fantastic. And you actually, I think, have already answered my question - which is, what is the next breakthrough coming in the diagnosis and management of patients with stiff-person syndrome and the GAD antibody-spectrum disorders - and I think it's going to be the outcomes of these trials. Is there anything else that you're really excited about coming along in this field?   Dr Dalakas: Well, I think that the hope is, then, better immunotherapy, because the patients respond to IVIG based on the controlled study. We did one with anti-B-cell therapy - it was not statistically positive, but we had some placebo effects, because that second trial included some patients who did not have severe disease, so it was difficult to assess mild response. So, I'm interested in other similar immunotherapies, and we were approaching companies to see if they can sponsor such a trial. I think the publicity helps a lot, because if I was going to approach a company before the publicity, nobody would be interested in - there's no, you know - it's money-driven, so they will not do it. But at the NIH, I did it, because NIH had the grants there to sponsor the trials. So, I think the publicity will help us. And I know talking to companies, there are one or two companies that they have expressed a lot of interest, and, hopefully, we can do some new trials and go work on it, but I don't have any clear drug at the moment. I cannot discuss a real drug.   Dr Weathers: Of course, of course, more to come, but still very exciting. And so, still to learn more about you - again, you're so well known, obviously, for what you've done for the field of neurology. What do you like to do outside of seeing neuromuscular patients in your research career? What do you do for fun for your hobbies?   Dr Dalakas: Well, I have two hobbies. One is I'm an art collector of abstract expressionism. So, I go to a lot of auction houses, and I bid often for certain artists that I'm very interested, some French artists, some at the New York School of Modern Art. The eras of the forties and fifties of the abstract expressionism - so that's my collection and my interest in not missing auctions. And the other was I have a interest in wine collection – but, so, most of the time, I read art and I collect art.   Dr Weathers: That is a great answer. I appreciate art. I am not (fortunately) at the auction and collecting stage yet, but that I will have to learn from you. That's wonderful.   Dr Dalakas: Yeah. I'm originally from Greece, and I have also a professorship at the University of Athens, and also I go there. I also have some European artists in my collection.   Dr Weathers: That's wonderful. We have one more modern piece that we've been lucky enough to have.   Dr Dalakas: Yeah, I started with the impression impressionistic art, but I evolved into abstract.   Dr Weathers: Who is your favorite artist?   Dr Dalakas: Well, it's, you know, Rothko and Newman. So, these are very expensive artists, of course, so I can, but in that school, so these artists are not alive now, but people who are working with Rothko and Newman in the other group - so, there are four or five of them that I collect.   Dr Weathers: I feel like we need a whole separate interview just to talk about that.   Dr Dalakas: But, they are very stimulating, because the colors talk to you, and it's not like an impressionistic piece that, sort of, their flowers are nice, et cetera - so the colors talk to you differently.   Dr Weathers: They do. I love Rothko. Well, thank you, Dr Dalakas, for joining me on Continuum Audio. This has been a wonderful conversation. Again, today, I've been interviewing Dr Marinos Dalakas, whose article on stiff-person syndrome and GAD antibody-spectrum disorders 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.

Autoimmune cerebellar ataxia and other autoimmune movement disorders encompass a broad spectrum of different clinical syndromes, antibodies, and immunopathophysiologic mechanisms. Given the overlap between phenotypes and antibodies, panel testing in serum and CSF is recommended. In this episode, Gordon Smith, MD, FAAN, speaks with Bettina Balint, MD, author of the article “Autoimmune Movement Disorders,” in the Continuum August 2024 Autoimmune Neurology issue. Dr. Smith is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and professor and chair of neurology at Kenneth and Dianne Wright Distinguished Chair in Clinical and Translational Research at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia. Dr. Balint is an assistant professor for clinical research on complex movement disorders and Parkinson's diseases, a consultant neurologist, the head of the Department of Movement Disorders, and co-lead for the Centre for Movement Disorders and Functional Neurosurgery in the Department of Neurology at the University Hospital Zurich in Zurich, Switzerland. Additional Resources Read the article: Autoimmune Movement Disorders 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 Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @gordonsmithMD 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 Smith: This is Dr Gordon Smith. Today, I'm interviewing Dr Bettina Balint about her article on ataxia and other autoimmune movement disorders, which appears in the August 2024 Continuum issue on autoimmune neurology, which is a highly anticipated and exciting issue. Dr Balint, welcome to the podcast, and, perhaps, you can just introduce yourself to our audience and tell us a little bit about your practice and how you became interested in this topic.   Dr Balint: Thank you, Gordon, for having me. I am an assistant professor for clinical research in complex movement disorders and Parkinson's disease at the University of Zurich and the Head of the Movement Disorders Department at the University Hospital in Zurich. So while I'm originally German (from Heidelberg), I have now been to Switzerland since end of 2021.   Dr Smith: So, you know, how many movement disorder chiefs have a focus on autoimmune movement disorders? I found that really interesting. Most of the movement disorder folks I interact with, their primary interest is in neurodegeneration.   Dr Balint: Very good question. Even so, I never asked myself that question, really, but I think I'm the only one with this designated focus as such. Many people come from the neurology angle - most of them. Even so, movement-disorder people really welcome this field and are interested, but I think somebody who has dedicated their interest and time to it? I think I can't actually think of many other people.   Dr Smith: Yeah, I think it's really cool, and, of course, autoimmune neurology is the flavor of the day these days, right? I mean, I remember when I was at the University of Utah, we were recruiting Stacy Clardy (who I think many of our listeners will know). I remember thinking, you know, she's never going to be busy. How many of these autoimmune problems are there, really? And she was, like, deluged when she came. These are really common problems. I guess that was one question I had for you. You know, we think of these as rare disorders, and when we look at the article, you have these tables of these antibodies, and a lot of them are pretty uncommon – but, cumulatively, how common are autoimmune movement disorders?   Dr Balint: It's a very difficult question, because we don't have good epidemiological data. And if you look at series, I mean, most papers addressing this issue come actually from the ataxia field. And then, depending on where you look at, you might find varying numbers, and they might be also influenced by the fact that they come from ataxia centers with own certain biases. Even so, it's very close to my heart, but, I also still think it's overall very rare. So, in my practice, I see all sorts of movement disorders, and overall, they're still quite rare, but the point is that they are treatable and have important management implications, so you want to be sure not to miss any of them.   Dr Smith: Well, maybe we can go to that next. Part of the challenge here, of course, is there's just so many of these different syndromes and antibodies. Are there pearls that you can provide our listeners that would help them guide when they should be thinking about these disorders when they confront a patient with a particular phenotype? Like ataxia, for instance - you know, there are certain aspects of the clinical scenario that should trigger, “Wow, this might be an autoimmune problem”.   Dr Balint: So, in general, I would say there are certain scenarios where you would want to think of an autoimmune etiology in your differential. One is a very characteristic phenotype. So, speaking broadly in terms of movement disorders, stiff-person spectrum disorders have a very characteristic phenotype which you need to recognize, and then you will be able to see it when a patient enters. Important phenotypes to know which are very characteristic are faciobrachial dystonic seizures, for example, with anti-GA1 antibodies, or pseudofinalistic movements in non-REM sleep is IgLON5 antibodies, leg myoclonus is CASPR2 antibodies. I don't want to necessarily enumerate all the scenarios. The point here is there are some characteristic phenotypes where you would think of autoimmune neurology. Another scenario where you would think of autoimmune, for example, the context of late-onset paroxysmal movement disorders. So, classically, when we think of paroxysmal dyskinesia, we think of a group of genetic disorders, but if somebody develops a paroxysmal movement disorder later in life in adulthood, then you would think of autoimmune neurology, and this applies also in the context of episodic ataxias. Another red flag might be a propensity to autoimmunity. For example, somebody with type one diabetes and vitiligo coming in for cerebellar ataxia, of course, you would think of anti-GAD ataxia. And, similarly, if somebody has recently been diagnosed with a cancer and develops a rapidly disabling syndrome, of course, then you would think of a paraneoplastic autoimmune disorder. And with autoimmune syndrome, there are some symptoms which are also like tell-tale signs. So, for example, somebody with a stiff-person spectrum disorder, an ataxia with long-lasting diarrhea over months, losing weight - investigations haven't found anything, then you would think of DPPX antibodies or celiac disease. Or, if you have, like, a neuropathic pain which is otherwise not explained, then you might think of CASPR2 antibodies in somebody with a cerebellar ataxia. So, there are some features of some antibodies. (Again, I will not now list all of them which might point you to a diagnosis.) Then, of course, another scenario which is important, I think, is if you have a hemisyndrome without a structural lesion on imaging. Classically, neurologists are trained to think of a hemisyndrome - we look for a lesion on the contralateral side. But if you have, like, for example, a hemichorea without a lesion or a hemiataxia without a lesion, one should also think of an autoimmune disorder with antibodies. And then, more generally, of course, if you have changes on brain MRI or information on CSF, of course, if the clinical cause is more rapidly progressive - and last, but not least, if somebody does not really fit into our categories of the degenerative symptoms or metabolic syndromes or functionality disorders, then, of course, one should just take a step back and think, could it be something autoimmune? Having said that, if I may, I just want to say that, I mentioned that rapid disease course, and on the other hand, it's important to stress that a slowly progressive disease cause does not exclude an autoimmune etiology.   Dr Smith: So, that was a great summary. Thank you. I don't know if you're familiar with the term “Aunt Minnie” (something I learned in medical school and radiology). There are certain findings that are “Aunt Minnie”, you know what “Aunt Minnie” looks like, and if you see these particular findings, you should really think about a specific disease - and I think you gave a lot of pearls in that answer, so I appreciate that. This may seem like a bit of a random question, but it's interesting that there are some of these phenotypes that do replicate genetic phenotypes, and you used episodic ataxia, which, in a younger individual, we think of a spectrum of various genetic disorders. Is that random, or are there instances where the underlying mutation in a genetic disorder actually serves as a target for autoimmunity in a later-onset autoimmune problem? Not that the mutation causes autoimmunity, but are there shared targets - in one disease it's the mutation, and another, there's an antibody that binds to the protein, for instance?   Dr Balint: That's an excellent topic, and even though it's not addressed in the Continuum article, I actually covered this in an article in Brain from 2018, where we also discuss parallels (immunogenetic parallels) with targets seen in genetic disease or in autoimmune disease, and there are actually some examples for cerebellar ataxia, and some of the targets are, indeed, the same for the antibodies and mutation. And some targets are a little bit more difficult, because for those, the antibodies would probably not be pathogenic, but it's more like an autoimmune overall target but it's T-cell mediated. But, for example, water-gated, um, calcium channels - we have antibodies and we have mutations. Or, another example would be glycine receptor antibodies give you acquired hyperekplexia, whereas the mutations give you hereditary hyperekplexia. So, there is, indeed, a bit of an overlap between autoimmune and genetic disorders, but often, also, like, the age at onset (because that might be the next question, the age at onset), and maybe family history and associated features, should help to distinguish the two. I think more from the pathophysiological point interesting, rather than clinically too confusing.   Dr Smith: Wow, that's really cool. So, another question I have is regarding antibody panels, right? And so, I think, oftentimes (at least around here), folks confronting an unusual phenotype will send the Mayo panel - they'll send autoimmune encephalitis or a paraneoplastic panel – and, you know, I think one of the challenges I have thinking about the spectrum of phenotypes that you described, I mean, if you recognize “Aunt Minnie”, then you know where to go, but it seems to me that there's a lot of these that maybe folks don't recognize “Aunt Minnie”. What is the diagnostic utility and pearls and pitfalls of ordering these panels when you're not really certain? In other words, is there a risk of a false positive if the pretest probability is low? So, I guess that's a long question, but do you have guidance about when we should and maybe when we should not be ordering these panels? So, you know, undifferentiated ataxia that's chronically progressive - should we be sending a panel or not? Patients who are later-onset acute, maybe so. So, what's the guidance on when to order the panel?   Dr Balint: It's a tricky topic also for many people in our practice, because, of course, as you said, we don't want to miss something, but, indeed, with any test which you order with a low pretest probability and which is not quite appropriate, you might have false positives, and that might cause much additional trouble in security, or maybe unnecessary and invasive immunotherapy with adverse effects – so, it's really important to think well about antibody testing. And, generally speaking, like always in medicine, we shouldn't order random tests, and antibody panels and neuronal antibodies are not designed as a screening test, so you need to have a phenotype and a reasonable suspicion - and clinical acumen is really key, and that's why also the article is so much focused on the phenotype. It's clearly not that any movement disorder patient who enters the outpatient clinic should get a blood test for antibodies that will likely cause harm, and it has been shown that these antibodies can be falsely positive, both in other diseases but also in healthy controls, and much depends also on which tests you use (but, let's not go into too much detail over here) - so, generally speaking, I would say if you have a suspicion of an autoimmune disease clinically (I mentioned some scenarios where you would think of an autoimmune disorder). And then, ataxias are, of course, a bit tricky, because often, we don't have too many other handles there, and there's still also a significant number of acquired late-onset ataxia where we don't know what the cause is. I think in the ataxia scenario, if I don't have a good answer or explanation, I would order antibody tests a bit more freely - I mean, if you do it properly, you do the serum and the CSF, and that also increases your sensitivity but also the specificities, so I wouldn't then just do the serum, but then go for serum and CSF. In other movement disorders, it depends also a little bit on the phenotype. So, somebody with a phenotype fitting well with Parkinson's disease, I wouldn't do any testing. Somebody with clear PSP phenotype without any red flags or not-fitting features, it is very unlikely to have an antibody finding, and this has been shown also in cohorts. But, if you have something which is not fitting in the phenotypes - for example, you have somebody where you think it might be a PSP phenotype with predominantly axial Parkinsonism falls, but you notice that the oculomotor disturbance is not a vertical gaze palsy, but a horizontal gaze palsy – so, it's not really fitting phenotype as you know it. That's a scenario where would probably think of antibody testing. Then, if you do the testing theorem - and CSF, in general, is gold standard - there are some antibodies where theorem is good enough (like, for example, with aquaporin-4 antibodies), but the reason why we do serum and CSF, as I mentioned, is the increased sensitivity and specificity. And nowadays, in the antibody world, we have something similar to the genetics - we have the variant of unknown significance and in the neurology world, we coin the term “antibody of unknown significance” to also give a name to the problem that, sometimes, we get a test result and it is difficult to interpret. Another handle over there would be to try to confirm the test result in another test method. So for example, if you have a cell-based assay with an antibody finding, you would like to confirm that on immunohistochemistry - the staining pattern is in keeping with that.   Dr Smith: So, Bettina, that was a really great and comprehensive answer to the question with a lot of pearls packed into it, and I think the idea that, you know, oftentimes, it's helpful to do both serum and CSF testing is important - also looking for staining to further confirm the diagnosis. And, I think one of the things that I was struck by in your response was the example of a PSP patient who instead of vertical gaze palsy had horizontal gaze palsy as a red flag, and I think a lot of our listeners are probably familiar with the idea that maybe hyperkinetic movement disorders might be autoimmune, or certainly rapidly progressive ataxia, but at least I don't think of Parkinsonian syndromes as often. I know there are some that we need to consider. Maybe you can give us some pearls about when we should consider antibody testing in a patient who has a Parkinson syndrome?   Dr Balint: So, I will not cover now the paraneoplastic Parkinsonian syndromes (because they typically develop as rapidly that you would anyway think about it, hopefully), but go more into those conditions which might mimic degenerative disease - and one of the most interesting antibodies in this regard is IgLON5, and you will be aware that it has been discovered in 2014 in patients who shared a characteristic sleep movement disorder (non-REM parasomnia). The spectrum has broadened a lot, and one possible manifestation is that it could come into the differential of Parkinsonian syndromes - so, for example, if you have axial Parkinsonism and a gaze palsy, you are in a PSP phenotype, but the red flag would be maybe if the eye movement disorders are not really fitting with the PSP phenotype. Also, in PSP patients, we don't expect parasomnias at night. If the bed partner is, for example, complaining that the patient is moving in his sleep and doing movements, then this would be a red flag, and in this context, you would think of IgLON5. IgLON5 could also give you Parkinsonism and cerebellar ataxia, and they might have dysautonomia, and, of course, with a sleep movement disorder, you are now in the ballpark of MSA phenotypes; however, if there are additional features (like, for example, fasciculations) which you don't expect in MSA, that would be, again, the red flag. So, typically, even in those differentials, there are some red flags on handles which would point you to the diagnosis - it is not that it completely mimics the phenotype of our default degenerative disease, but, sometimes, you need to hunt a little bit for those handles.   Dr Smith: So, Bettina, that's really interesting. I wanted to ask you about IgLON5, and in particular, the sleep phenotype, but, you know, I wonder whether there's a risk of just confusing this with REM sleep behavior disorder and a chronic Parkinsonian syndrome - what's the time course of this, and any other wisdom in terms of how to differentiate it from, you know, a more common neurodegenerative problem?   Dr Balint: So, the spectrum of sleep disorders in IgLON5 is actually a bit broad. The characteristic thing is the non-REM sleep parasomnia with the finalistic fine movements, but classic REM sleep behavior disorder has also been reported in these patients. And one of the tricky things is IgLON5 is a slowly progressive disease (some patients had symptoms for a decade prior to diagnosis), so it's really an important differential of autoimmune disease - but as mentioned, the features not fitting in, and they are typically also the cardinal features. So, gaze palsies are very frequent, ptosis, bulbar symptoms, vocal cord palsy, sleep movement disorders which might not fit to the original phenotype, and breathing problems (for example) so severe that they require a tracheostoma – so, these are some red flags which would alert you to this diagnosis of anti-IgLON5 disease.   Dr Smith: I'm curious, Bettina, how do you keep up on all of this and keep it all straight? Right, there's a lot of information, and as I was reading your article, you've got these wonderful tables - and in fact, this whole issue for our listeners feels that way. I've read several of these articles now, and I'm just curious what your strategy is to stay up to date and stay organized. You have to be very organized to be an autoimmune neurologist, it seems to me.   Dr Balint: And having a little bit of OCD helps clearly, as always, in neurology. I think it is just that I started to be interested in this area for a while and I have in my head the clinical phenotype to most important associated antibodies, and as the field continues, I just add up on that panel. But, I don't want people to be discouraged - you're right, many antibodies, but I think the point is not to know each and every antibody but to know in which scenario to think of an autoimmune syndrome and then to know where to look it up.   Dr Smith: Well, I think that's a great way of ending our conversation, Bettina. I think your article does a great job of that, and one of the things I love about Continuum is these articles serve as point-of-care tools. I think our conversation will also serve as a useful framework, because I think you've talked a lot about how to organize your thinking, and, you know, pearls for when we should be thinking about these disorders which are uncommon, but you certainly don't want to miss one because the therapy can be very effective. So, Bettina, thank you so much for joining me. This has been a really great conversation.   Dr Balint: Thank you so much, Gordon. Thank you very much for your good questions.   Dr Smith: So, again, today, I've had the great pleasure of interviewing Dr Bettina Balint, whose article on ataxia and other autoimmune movement disorders appears in the most recent issue of Continuum, which is on autoimmune neurology. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues. And thanks 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.

Awareness of the specific clinical and MRI features associated with AQP4-NMOSD and MOGAD and the limitations of currently available antibody testing assays is crucial for a correct diagnosis and differentiation from MS. Growing availability of effective treatment options will lead to personalized therapies and improved outcomes. In this episode, Gordon Smith, MD, FAAN speaks with Elia Sechi, MD, author of the article “NMOSD and MOGAD,” in the Continuum August 2024 Autoimmune Neurology issue. Dr. Smith is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and professor and chair of neurology at Kenneth and Dianne Wright Distinguished Chair in Clinical and Translational Research at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia. Dr. Sechi is a neurology consultant in the neurology unit of the Department of Medical, Surgical and Experimental Sciences at the University Hospital of Sassari in Sassari, Italy. Additional Resources Read the article: NMOSD and MOGAD 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: @gordonsmithMD Guest: @EliaSechi 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 Smith: Hello. This is Dr Gordon Smith. Today, I've got the great pleasure of interviewing Dr Elia Sechi about his article on aquaporin-4 antibody-positive NMOSD and MOGAD, which appears in the August 2024 Continuum issue on autoimmune neurology. Dr Sechi, before we dig into this really exciting topic about NMOSD and MOGAD, perhaps you can tell our listeners a little bit about yourself, where you practice, how you got interested in this topic.   Dr Sechi: Hi, Dr Smith, and thank you for having me. So, my story begins here in Italy, actually - I did my med school and residency in neurology at the University Hospital of Sassari here in Sardinia. And after residency, I was lucky enough to be accepted at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota for a research fellowship - and that's where I spent the next three-and-a-half years, approximately. My fellowship was focused on autoimmune neurology, specifically demyelinating diseases of the CNS associated with antibodies – so, of course, NMOSD and MOGAD mostly, but also myelitis, MS, and autoimmune encephalitis – so, there's where I built most of my expertise in the field. And then, it was at the beginning of the pandemic (of the COVID pandemic) that I came back here to Italy to practice. And now, I work mostly as a neurohospitalist, and I also have my subspecialty outpatient service for patients with autoimmune neurological diseases.   Dr Smith: I wonder if you might just give us a minute or two about what it was like training in Mayo? I went to medical school there, and, you know, at the time, I thought that was just normal healthcare and normal training, and, you know, it was only later that I realized how amazing that was. I mean, this is where aquaporin-4 was discovered - I mean, what was that like? It must have been really cool training there with that team.   Dr Sechi: Yeah. You know, it's the temple of autoimmune neurology. It's fantastic. It's a great environment, very stimulating. You know, I think the great strength is that they see many patients with rare diseases, so, you get really confident with MRI features and clinical features with the history of the diseases, and this is important to recognize the typical features and differentiate from MS to do a good differential. And, of course, you know, the team is fantastic - superstars in the field. It's very, very stimulating. So, it's something that I definitely recommend. It was a fantastic experience.   Dr Smith: Well, you know what's great is, I don't know if you follow sports, but, you know, like, in the United States and college football, people refer to Gator Nation – right, these are all people who are fans of the Florida Gators. Or, maybe it's AC Milan nation in Italy. I don't want to get there (Roma, whatever), but there are all these people who've trained at Mayo, and, uh, what's great is it's a small world, right? So, I'm super excited to meet you and talk about this, because - I'm going to add you to my Rolodex, because when I see these patients (I'm a neuromuscular guy, but I do a fair bit of inpatient time), I'm always calling a small number of people, so I'm really pleased to meet you so I can put you on speed dial and ask you questions about these patients. I wonder if, maybe, we can begin? You know, in our preparatory discussions, I shared that I just came off our hospital service, and we had several of these patients, you know, where we were thinking about NMO or MOGAD as a cause for their problem - and I wonder if you just have any pearls or pitfalls in when we should suspect this, right? Most of us recognize bilateral optic neuritis, longitudinally extensive myelitis - we need to be thinking about these. Any pearls or pitfalls for when we should or should not be looking for these disorders?   Dr Sechi: Yeah, I think this is a great question. I think the first thing to pay attention is the phenotype. So, the clinical MRI phenotype that are typically associated with NMOSD and MOGAD, they are quite characteristic - and it's important to be aware of those phenotypes and how they differ from MS, because in my experience, one of the common misinterpretation (misconception) in clinical practice is just to test for AQP-4 and MOG antibodies in any patient with new-onset demyelinating disease of the CNS, even if it's typical MS. And, this is quite wrong, because MS is way more common in clinical practice - it's sixty, eighty times more common than NMO and MOGAD - and so, if you test all those patients without filter (indiscriminately) for antibodies, you increase the risk of false positivity exponentially, even if you have a highly specific test. So, first of all, I think it's good to select the right patients to test. As you said, patients with LTM, extensive involvement of the optic nerves on MRI, ADEM - there's also patients with cortical encephalitis phenotype (which is a rare phenotype of MOGAD), but not definitely good to test the typical MS patients. This is the first thing.   Dr Smith: Yeah, I mean, that's an issue in all of neurology, isn't it, right? I mean, it's an issue in sort of just sending, you know, the Mayo panel, the autoimmune encephalitis panels - you need to select patients carefully, but I think this attention to prior probability is something that we need to really focus on in multiple areas. So, I wonder if you might expand a little bit on assays. I do a lot of work in myasthenia and I know which labs do a really good job with, you know, acetylcholine receptor antibody testing and those that maybe do not, and there are different methodologies for testing - do you have any wisdom in terms of how to select a lab, what to look for, and how to interpret the results you see based on the particular assay that's being used?    Dr Sechi: Yeah, that's a critical point. I agree. And especially if you work in myasthenia, you're very well aware of the differences between different assays, and nowadays, most of the high-quality assays are cell-based assays (either fixed or live) - it's the same in myasthenia, and people need to pay attention to some of the less-specific assays. Let's say ELISA, for instance - testing AQP-4 and MOG antibodies with ELISA is quite dangerous, because the risk of false positivity is quite high. So, it's good to know what assays to trust most and also good to know what's the right specimen to send for antibody test. For instance, with AQP-4, we know that serum testing is recommended only, and the CSF doesn't add much, but with MOG, we know that approximately 10% of patients have an isolated positivity in the CSF, which is interesting, because it means that when you have a patient with a strong diagnostic suspicion as a phenotype that is highly suggestive for MOGAD and the serum testing is negative, you may consider testing the CSF to increase your sensitivity. So, this is very important.   Dr Smith: So, I have a question for you that may seem a little naïve, but I bet other people are thinking it - can you tell us why it is that these disorders affect optic nerve and spinal cord preferentially? And I think, for NMO, the whole area postrema thing seems awfully specific to me. What's the deal? Why are these areas preferentially affected by these antibody-mediated disorders?   Dr Sechi: This is a tough question. For NMO, we know, probably, there is higher expression of some of the isoforms. Let's say there is a higher density of AQP-4 molecules that target the most affected regions - so, of course, AQP-4 is preferentially expressed in the subependymal regions around the ventricles and in the spinal cord and optic nerves, but you may have, also, solutions along the cortical spinal tracts in case of the brain involvement. The area postrema is kind of a different explanation, because there is a sort of permeability - increased permeability - of the blood-brain barrier there. So, there are several factors in MOGAD - this is not very clear, so, this is a great topic to study in the future, I think.   Dr Smith: This is a really interesting area, and one that's really benefited by significant therapeutic development. I wonder if you might look a little bit in the future and tell us, maybe, the agent, or perhaps the target, that you're most excited about therapeutically that's coming down the road these days?   Dr Sechi: There are trials ongoing for MOGAD, which is the real need in terms of treatment, because for NMO, we already have three, four drugs that have been approved and which efficacy have been demonstrated by randomized clinical trials, and those are B-cell depleting agents, IL-6 inhibitors, and complement inhibitors. For MOGAD, this is still a gray zone, because the optimal treatment strategies remains to be defined. There are ongoing trials that are quite promising on IL-6 inhibitors and the inhibitors of the neonatal Fc receptor (which is also used in myasthenia gravis as you know). And something that seems to be quite effective - a good option for long-term treatment in these patients and relapse prevention - is also the periodic administration of IVIG (intravenous immunoglobulin), which is a nice option, for instance, in the children where you want to avoid immunosuppressants of other types. So, I think IL-6 is going to show to be very effective in the end. We'll see. We'll see.   Dr Smith: So, I wonder if I might just give you a vignette and get your thoughts about, kind of, acute management, right? I just took care of a patient who had a longitudinally extensive myelitis and she was essentially paraplegic and actually came in progressing fairly rapidly, and we, of course, started her on IV methylprednisolone, sent off the proper diagnostic testing - the question I have is, how quickly do you advance therapy and go to IVIG or plasma exchange when you're encountering these, right? It takes, you know, I think the turnaround time is, you know, often about a week to get these tests back (at least several days) - I mean, should we be going very quickly to plasma exchange in someone who has a severe phenotype? Is it okay to do three to five days of IV methylprednisolone and wait for the results to come back? What's the right approach?   Dr Sechi: I think this is a great question, actually. You know, management of the acute attacks probably is the most important thing, you know, to allow a good recovery, and I think timing of PLEX administration should be very short - so, the threshold for PLEX should be low, especially when the attack is severe, and this has to be done regardless of antibody testing results, which is typically not available before one or two weeks (at least a year in Italy), I think, in many hospitals. So, I think the risk-benefit ratio of administering PLEX is in favor of treatment in these patients, because the side effects (the potential side effects) are very rare and can be prevented. Some diseases, they can mimic NMO or MOGAD - they're very rare, and they can really worsen with PLEX. As an example, we can say spinal cord infarction can worsen, maybe, because of hypotension due to PLEX. Or some very rare infections, like one case, a bad case of intramedullary spinal cord abscess that looked really similar to an AQP-4 IgG-related LTM - and it was bad, because the patient had no fever, no signs of infection, the CSF culture was negative initially, so we ended up doing a biopsy after failure of PLEX and steroids. So, it is recommended to start within the first three to five days, preferentially, in severe cases, and this is great for the outcome of the patient, so, I do recommend PLEX as a second treatment option. And I'm not sure about IVIG acutely. There is some data on MOG, but it's still controversial - it works a lot when PLEX fails, but it can be considered after PLEX, of course. And there are some very rare patients that do not improve, even after IV methylprednisolone, PLEX, or IVIG, and so, you need to consider some rescue therapies. In those patients, it's kind of complicated, because there are some options, like IL-6 inhibitors seem to be quite effective and quite fast-acting for MOGAD attacks, and also eculizumab and complement inhibitors can be an option in patients with AQP-4 - but maybe less in patients with MOG. So, these are the possibilities (very quickly).   Dr Smith: So, you mentioned FcRn inhibitors a moment ago, and I wonder, do you see a future where - and I think you were mentioning them as maybe more chronic therapy? Correct me if I'm wrong.   Dr Sechi: Yeah, yeah.   Dr Smith: Do you foresee a role for these agents in acute management? I mean, there are some that, you know, very quickly lower immunoglobulin levels, though just looking out in the future, you think that these sort of infusion therapies that we think about chronic therapy (you mentioned, you know, complement inhibitors) are going to be useful in acute management?   Dr Sechi: Yeah, it depends. It's a good option to try. I'm not sure about the time to action. It's very dependent on that, because IL-6 inhibitors and complement inhibitors are very fast-acting (I think they can be effective already within twelve hours, 24 hours, which is good), but it's reasonable that, also, Fc inhibitors can be an alternative in the future. As far as I know, there is not much in the literature, but it's good to try in the future in case, acutely.   Dr Smith: Well, exciting times indeed. Elia, thank you so much for a great discussion. I thoroughly enjoyed this. I look forward to visiting you soon, and I want to congratulate you on a really great article that's very interesting and very clinically useful.   Dr Sechi: Well, thank you, Dr Smith. This is my pleasure, and thank you for great questions. I had a great time and hope the readers of Continuum will like the article and the nice figures we have put together. So, thank you, thank you very much.   Dr Smith: Well, again, congratulations. And for our listeners today, I've been interviewing Dr Elia Sechi, whose article on aquaporin-4 antibody-positive NMOSD and MOGAD appears in the most recent issue of Continuum, which is on autoimmune neurology. It's a very exciting issue. Please check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues of Continuum. And thanks to you all 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.

Paraneoplastic neurologic syndromes can present with manifestations at any level of the neuraxis. In patients with high clinical suspicion of a paraneoplastic neurologic syndrome, cancer screening and treatment should be undertaken, regardless of the presence of a neural antibody. In this episode, Katie Grouse, MD, FAAN, speaks with Anastasia Zekeridou, MD, PhD, author of the article “Paraneoplastic Neurologic Disorders,” in the Continuum August 2024 Autoimmune Neurology issue. Dr. Grouse is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a clinical assistant professor at the University of California San Francisco in San Francisco, California. Dr. Zekeridou a senior associate consultant in the departments of neurology, laboratory medicine, and pathology, and for the Center for Multiple Sclerosis and Autoimmune Neurology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Additional Resources Read the article: Paraneoplastic Neurologic Disorders 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 Guest: @ANASTASIA_ZEK 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, 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 Grouse: This is Dr Katie Grouse. Today, I'm interviewing Dr Anastasia Zekeridou about her article on classical paraneoplastic neurologic disorders, which is part of the August 2024 Continuum issue on autoimmune neurology. Welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to our audience.   Dr Zekeridou: Hi. Thank you, Dr Grouse. I'm always excited to talk about paraneoplastic neurological diseases. So, I'm an autoimmune neurologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, and I spend my time between the lab and seeing patients in the autoimmune neurology clinic.   Dr Grouse: Thank you so much for joining us, and we're really excited to talk about this really important topic. So, to start, I'd like to ask what, in your opinion, is the key message from this article.   Dr Zekeridou: That's a good question - there are a lot of messages, but maybe if I can distill it down. For me, one of the first things is that paraneoplastic neurological diseases can actually affect any level of the neuraxis. It can manifest with different types of presentations. If we do suspect a paraneoplastic neurological syndrome, then we need to look for the cancer, and then if we're not certain, even do an immunotherapy trial. A negative antibody does not make for an absence of a paraneoplastic neurological disease (because, often, we depend a lot on them), but you can see patients with paraneoplastic disease that do not have neural antibodies. And then, we always need to be thinking that if we have a paraneoplastic neurological disease, we actually need to be thinking of both the cancer and the immune response together - so, we need to be treating the cancer, we need to be treating the immune response – because, essentially, paraneoplastic neurological syndrome is evidence of this antitumor immune response. So, the main (if I can distill this down in one) is probably that we need to be discussing all of these patients with the treating oncologist, because they have complicated care.   Dr Grouse: Great. Thank you so much for that summary. It's very helpful. While many of our listeners are likely familiar with paraneoplastic disorders in their workup (which you've mentioned just now), the concept of neurologic autoimmunity in the context of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy has more recently become widely recognized. Can you summarize this briefly for our listeners who may be less familiar with this?   Dr Zekeridou: I think that we learn more and more about this and we see more and more patients with immune checkpoint inhibitor-related neurological immunity, so, I always think about it in a very straightforward way. So, I think the way we think about immune responses is a balance between tolerance and regulation and immune activations. And then, immune checkpoints are the molecules that help us maintain self-tolerance. So, our immune system - it's probably the best tool that we have to fight against cancer. So, essentially, when we inhibit the immune checkpoints, we actually use our own immune system to fight cancer, but taking the breaks of the immune system essentially can lead to a lot of complications that are immune-mediated. Some of them are neurological - the neurological complications are rare, especially the ones that we need to do something about (so, it's 1% to 4%, in some cases up to 14%), and they do increase when you use multiple immune checkpoint inhibitors together. The main thing for me with the neurological complications is that, sometimes, they are difficult to recognize, they can (again) affect every level of the neuraxis - like, it can be the neuromuscular or the central nervous system (even though neuromuscular complications are much more common than central nervous system complications) - and then a lot of them (the vast majority) will happen within the first three months, but they can also happen even after you stop the immune checkpoint inhibitor. But this three-month interval, it's sometimes useful when you're in a diagnostic silence - it kind of helps you make the decision more towards an immune-related adverse event affecting the nervous system. And then, I think that, practically, once we have diagnosed this patients, we still are not very certain how to treat. All of them will get steroids upfront, but some of them will be difficult to treat, so then, we have to decide on the next treatment depending on evolution. And then, I will just say that (I mentioned it previously, but) these are the patients that the coordination with other subspecialties is one of the main things that we need to do (eg, oncologists) - they often have immune-related adverse events from other systems, so, there is a lot of coordination of care. And, always, the question at the end comes up, Should we be putting these patients back to their immune checkpoint inhibitor cancer immunotherapy that might help them with the cancer? And I think that this is difficult sometimes, and it needs to be decided - most cases - in a case-by-case basis, even though there are some recommendations that I've been discussing in the Continuum article.   Dr Grose: That's great, and I encourage everyone to read more about this, because it is a very complex and fascinating topic. On the note of the immune checkpoint inhibitor neurologic dysfunction - I would imagine these are pretty rare - how common are these? And I would suspect they're getting missed a lot - is that correct?   Dr Zekeridou: I think it's a very good question. Essentially, what we say for the neurological immune-related adverse events (the ones that we need intervention) - so, they are at least of grade two. (I think that there are less than 4%, mostly, probably close to 1.5%.) There was a study where they used double immune checkpoint inhibitors (so CTLA-4 and PD-1, PD-L1) - they were up to 14%, but this was any grade (so, a little bit of tingling, a little bit of headache), while the ones that we actually need to act upon and we need to actually do something about, they are probably closer to 1.5%. So, are they being missed? I am certain that some of them never make it to the neurologist. So, the ones that we know that we are underestimating is definitely the meningitis - because I think it's more common – but, often, when the patients present, they have something else as well. So, the oncologists will put them on steroids and then they will get better - so, we don't really see them in the neurology clinic (the ones with the very mild side effects). And then, also, these patients are often very sick, and they have a lot of things going for them, so they sometimes do not make it to the diagnosis.   Dr Grouse: So then, I want to just take a step back and ask you, what's the most challenging aspect of paraneoplastic neurologic disorders in your opinion?   Dr Zekeridou: I think, for me, one of the main things, the classic paraneoplastic disorders - and when I say “classic paraneoplastic disorders”, they are the ones that we think more of with antibodies that are mostly biomarkers of the immune response, and they suggest a cytotoxic T-cell mediated disorder (so, like PCA1 [or anti-Yo] or ANNA-1 [or anti-Hu]) - these patients are very sick often, and we don't have a lot of good treatments for them. And then, even if we treat them, we actually sometimes do not manage to reverse their course - the best that we can do is stabilize. So, I think that this is part of the discussion that we have upfront with these patients - but it is quite challenging, because most of them, we will be giving them a cancer diagnosis ourselves, because we recognize the paraneoplastic neurological syndrome, and we look for the cancer, and then we'll be giving them a cancer diagnosis. And even if we treat their cancer and we treat the immune system, sometimes, then, we don't make a real improvement – like, we stabilize their disease and we sometimes get improvement, but there are cases that we do not and they continue to progress – so, that has been the most challenging aspect of this, and I think that's kind of where we really need more things coming – like, we need more treatments, we need to better understand these diseases and get more straightforward.   Dr Grouse: I agree. I think that's absolutely, uh, what we all hope for these types of disorders, and I can imagine we all can remember at least one case just like this where someone had this type of problem and just didn't respond to treatment. So, strong hopes that there will be improvement with this in the years coming. Another question I have for you is, what in your article do you think would come as the biggest surprise to our listeners?   Dr Zekeridou: I think that, because we discussed that immune checkpoint inhibitors (maybe we don't know as well), so one of the main things for me is when we first started thinking of neurological complications of immune checkpoint inhibitors, there was a lot of myasthenia gravis mentioned (patients presenting with myasthenia gravis), and then some of them antibody-positive, some of them antibody-negative. Now, with the time that has passed by, we recognize that myasthenia gravis is very rare. Like, I've seen tons of patients (probably more than that, actually) – and then, maybe I've seen one patient with de novo myasthenia gravis. We realize that the immune checkpoint inhibitor myasthenia gravis that we were thinking of are – they're mostly the immune checkpoint inhibitor myocytes cases - so, then, this is one of these myopathies that looks like no other. So, it really has a very predominant oculobulbar involvement (that's why everybody was thinking that this is myasthenia gravis), but, practically, the EMGs are negative, the patients do not respond to pyridostigmine - so, practically, these are really myopathy cases. And why is that important? Because 30% to 40% of these cases might also have a cardiomyopathy, for example, and then we're putting all these patients on pyridostigmine and medications that they do not necessarily need. So, I think one of the chains in concepts that we have in the later years is that, really (and this is one of the most common immune-related adverse events that we see in our clinic), that these patients with ICI myositis really present with the oculobulbar involvement and proximal involvement that we can see in myasthenia, but they do not have a neuromuscular junction problem.   Dr Grouse: Now, we've all struggled with identifying a primary malignancy in patients where a paraneoplastic syndrome was strongly suspected. Do you have any tips on how to make this workup as high yield as possible?   Dr Zekeridou: Yeah, I think that's a difficult question. I think it depends a little bit on your patient as well. So, if you have an antibody that makes things easier (and we can discuss about that, but), practically, for me, a patient that I have a high suspicion, that we get a CT chest, abdomen, and pelvis upfront - and often, we don't get PET scans, right, directly, because we have insurance companies maybe playing a role in what we would do. So, I would get this for a woman - she has to have a mammogram. For a man, they have to have a testicular ultrasound. That's the basics for me. And then, when we see more younger women or when we suspect an MDA, then they will need to have the ultrasound to look for the ovarian teratomas or an MRI of the abdomen - so, the PET scan for me, if I have a high suspicion, it will always be the next step. Like, we have increased diagnostic yield with PET scans, but we also need to remember, what are the tumors that you will not find on a PET scan? Teratomas are not PET-avid, and, often we say, “Oh, we found the lesion in the ovary and the PET scan was negative.” That doesn't matter. In an NMDA-receptor antibody patient, if you find the lesion in the ovary, you need to make certain it's not a teratoma, because PET scans will not necessarily pick up a teratoma - it's not an avid malignancy. So, if the patient is a smoker and I suspect small-cell lung cancer, so I would always get the PET scan. If I have a patient with a high-risk antibody like PCA1 (or anti-Yo) and I didn't really find the tumor with the CT chest, abdomen, and pelvis and the mammogram, I will always get the PET scan. Same for the patients with the smoking history. I will also say that, sometimes, we forget other malignancies. So, for example, we have neuronal intermediate filament antibodies (so, ANNA-3 antibodies), and some of them will have Merkel cell. So, depending on the patient, on the antibody, and if we didn't find anything else, I would do a skin check. If they have GI symptoms, I would look for the GI tumor as well. So, even though the basics are what I mentioned, I will adapt depending on the patient symptoms. And all of these patients should have age-appropriate cancer screening, so if they didn't have a colonoscopy, they will have to have a colonoscopy. So, this is part of the main things. And then, the question for me that always comes up is, “Who is the person that you're going to keep on repeating the screen?” And then, practically, if you have a low-risk paraneoplastic antibody that comes (let's say LGI1), we know it's a low risk, so I would actually do the cancer screening - I will look for the thymoma once, and then that would be it. But if you have a patient with a high-risk paraneoplastic antibody (let's say ANNA-1 [or anti-Hu] or anti-Yo [anti-PCA1]), these are the patients that I will keep on screening - and then I will do every four to six months for two years (that's the current recommendation), but I will probably continue yearly after. And then, we need to also remember that whenever you have a neurological relapse, that's exactly when you need to be looking for the cancer as well - so, you must be thinking that the idea is that maybe you have the immunological relapse because there is cancer somewhere. So, these are the types of things that I kind of adapt to specific patients. But I think when we're not certain, broad screening is what we need. And then, again, the PET scan - for me, it's a great test, but we need to know its limitations. So, that's the other thing that comes up a lot in the phone calls or in the patients that I see that we do a PET scan - but practically, it's not good for some of the malignancies that we're looking for.   Dr Grouse: That's really great to point out, and I'm glad you brought up the risk level of the particular syndrome. You have a great table in your article that summarizes the risk level of some of the various syndromes - so, you know, just a reminder for everyone to check that out if you want to have more information about this and how this applies to the screening - so very helpful. What is the easiest mistake to make, and also maybe to avoid, when treating patients with paraneoplastic neurologic disorders?   Dr Zekeridou: That's a great question, actually. So, there are two things here. One is that we need to be thinking about paraneoplastic neurological syndromes, because if you don't think about them, then you don't look for them. So that's the one thing. So, patients that come with a subacute onset of neurological dysfunction - they have systemic features, or they are smokers, they have autoimmunity in the family (all those things) – like, we need to be thinking about paraneoplastic neurological syndromes. On the other side, we also see a little bit more of overdiagnosis that's coming in the later years. So, one of the things that we see a lot is that we kind of have difficulties with the interpretation of the neural antibodies - so, sometimes, we will get a neural antibody, and then it will not fit, but we will base our diagnosis on the neural antibody presence. And then, some neural antibodies are great - we don't really see false-positives - but some of them are not great and we do see false-positives. So, for me, the main thing that I would say is that we need to have a clinical suspicion - we're treating the patient and the clinical syndrome if it is compatible with a paraneoplastic neurological disorder, and then the neural antibodies are the ones that are going to help us, like, diagnose or point to a cancer - but we are really treating the patient. And then, if we give a treatment and it doesn't make sense how the patient evolves, we actually need to reassess the diagnosis, because we do have both overdiagnosis, but also we have underdiagnosed in patients that it's not suspected - so I think it's kind of the increased awareness that helps, but we also need to be going back always to the clinical manifestations of the patient.   Dr Grouse: Really great points to make, and thank you so much for that. What is the most common misconception you've encountered in treating patients with paraneoplastic disorders?   Dr Zekeridou: So, one of the things that we see a lot is that patients wait to be treated - even with high suspicion of paraneoplastic neurological syndromes - until we have the neural antibodies, and sometimes, if the neural antibodies are negative, we have patients that are not given a paraneoplastic neurological syndrome or autoimmune neurological syndrome diagnosis because of the negativity of the antibodies. So, for me, one of the main things is that the patients actually fit clinically with a paraneoplastic neurological syndrome - and there are scores that can help us, clinical manifestations that can actually help us make this diagnosis. We need to be looking for the cancer and treating them, regardless of the presence of the antibody. Some patients will not have the antibodies for weeks. The second aspect to this is that, often, we want to say, “Oh, it's a paraneoplastic neurological syndrome. They will treat the cancer and, like, that's the oncologist's job.” But, practically, I think that the neurologist will really need to be involved with this. I think the patients need treatment of the immune response and treatment of the tumor. So, I think we are part of the treatment team for these patients and it's not only the oncologists that are treating the tumor.   Dr Grouse: Where do you think the next big breakthrough in this area will be?   Dr Zekeridou: Where I hope it would be - and I'm hoping that it's actually what it is going to be – is, really, better understanding and treating the classic paraneoplastic neurological diseases, that they are T-cell mediated disorders that lead to neural cell distraction, and we don't have good treatments for these patients and we cannot get any improvement. So, there is a lot of research going on there. How can we prevent? How can we treat? But, I think that would be the next big milestone for us, because the antibody-mediated diseases - so we now have a lot of good treatments. Like NMDA-receptor encephalitis, AMPAR encephalitides - these antibody-mediated disorders, we have good treatments. The disorders that the antibodies are biomarkers  - and they are the cytotoxic diseases, the effectors of the autoimmunity - we don't. So, that's where I hope and think our breakthrough will be.   Dr Grouse: Definitely hoping to see more advancements in this area and already, I think, very quickly developing field. So, I wanted to talk a little bit more about you and what brought you to this area of neurology I think which most of us find to be a very fascinating field  that would love to hear more about what brought you to it. How did you become interested in this area of neurology?   Dr Zekeridou: I did my medical school in Greece. So, in Greece, towards the end of the sixth year, you need to decide what your specialty would be, and for the life of me, I could not decide between oncology and neurology - I was changing my mind all the time. And then, I decided that the diagnosis is more important to me in terms of a physician - that's why I went more with neurology and I was clear on my choice. So, practically, then, I went and did my residence in Switzerland, and something happened and I found myself in the outpatient autoimmune neurology multiple sclerosis clinic for a year, and it was evident to me that this is my passion. Like, the multiple sclerosis, I thought was a great disease, but it was the cases that they were not multiple sclerosis, that they were the ones that they were the most fascinating for me. So, then, I did my peripheral nerve year - so even more, it was clear for me that this is the immune system interactions, the cancer, and the neurological symptoms - that's what I wanted to do. And practically, I pursued a fellowship in Lyon in the French Reference Center for Paraneoplastic Diseases, and I was sold. There was nothing else for me. So, eventually I came here at Mayo (and then I stayed) - but it was very clear, even since the beginning - and I really found something that combined both of my passions even from medical school.   Dr Grouse: What are you most excited about in this field? And, specifically, you know, what might you impart to other trainees who are thinking about choosing this field for themselves?   Dr Zekeridou: So, I think that there are many things. So, autoimmune neurology or paraneoplastic neurological syndromes, they can affect every level of the neuraxis, so, practically, your clinician, that we see everything - we'll see central nervous system, peripheral nervous system, neuromuscular junction – so, that's actually very fascinating for me. The second part of it is that we have diseases that we can actually treat. We see differences in patients that we will intervene and we will really change their disease course. And the other thing for me is all the research that is ongoing. So, practically, the research in paraneoplastic syndromes or neurological immunity is directly translational to the patient - like, we have kind of a bed-to-bedside type of research that is going on. And basic research is important and there is a lot of advances, but you can see them directly, like, being translated in patients - so, essentially, the research is directly translational to clinic, and that makes it very exciting.   Dr Grouse: I think that your excitement about this field is very inspirational and will hopefully inspire many future trainees who are interested in this field. So, when you're not learning more about paraneoplastic syndromes and their treatment and diagnosis, what else do you like to do? Tell us something about your outside interests.   Dr Zekeridou: So, again, I come from a very diverse background and the way that I arrived in the states, but, I really like traveling. So, we would travel a lot lately. We travel more in Greece, because when you're coming from Greece and you're not living there, your summers are always there - but we try to explore different places there. And one of my main things and passions that I like is, essentially, cooking. So that relaxes me, that helps me - cooking and having friends over – so, that's my favorite thing of doing outside of work.   Dr Grouse: Well, I have to say it's hard right now to imagine anything more fun than traveling and enjoying good food and Greece. So, I think your hobby seems like one we can all get behind.   Dr Zekeridou: It's relaxing the mind.   Dr Grouse: Yes, yes. This has been a really great discussion on what I think is a very interesting area of neurology, and we really appreciate you taking the time to talk with us today.   Dr Zekeridou: Thank you so much for having me. It was great talking to you.   Dr Grouse: Again, today, I've been interviewing Dr Anastasia Zekeridou, whose article on classical paraneoplastic neurologic disorders appears in our 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 so much 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. Full transcript available at URL to come

Autoimmune neurology is a rapidly evolving subspecialty that focuses on neurologic disorders with atypical immune responses. In this episode, Aaron Berkowitz, MD, PhD FAAN, speaks with Sean J. Pittock, MD, an author of the article “Overview and Diagnostic Approach in Autoimmune Neurology,” in the Continuum August 2024 Autoimmune Neurology issue. Dr. Berkowitz is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and professor of neurology at the University of California San Francisco, Department of Neurology and a neurohospitalist, general neurologist, and a clinician educator at the San Francisco VA Medical Center and San Francisco General Hospital in San Francisco, California. Dr. Pittock is the director for the Center for Multiple Sclerosis and Autoimmune Neurology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Additional Resources Read the article: Overview and Diagnostic Approach in Autoimmune Neurology 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: @AaronLBerkowitz 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, 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 Berkowitz: This is Dr Aaron Berkowitz, and today, I'm interviewing Dr Sean Pittock about his article, “Introduction to Autoimmune Neurology and Diagnostic Approach”, which he wrote with his colleague, Dr Andrew McKeon. This article is a part of the August 2024 Continuum issue on autoimmune neurology. Welcome to the podcast, Dr Pittock. Could you introduce yourself to our audience?    Dr Pittock: Well, thank you very much, Dr Berkowitz. So, yeah, I'm a neurologist at the Mayo Clinic. I direct the neuroimmunology laboratory with Dr McKeon and Dr Mills here, and I have also been very much involved in the autoimmune neurology section at the American Academy of Neurology.    Dr Berkowitz: So, many of you probably know Dr Pittock - or if you don't know, you've certainly diagnosed diseases that he has described and written about, and so it's a real honor to get to talk to you today and pick your brain a little bit about some of these complex diseases. So, autoimmune neurology is certainly one of the most exciting subspecialties of our field. I feel like when I talk to students and they ask me to make a case for why they should consider neurology as a career, I tell them, “Of course, I have many reasons I love neurology”, but one thing I mention is that, although many other fields of medicine may have made incredible advances as far as treatments, I can't think of too many other fields outside neurology where entirely new diseases have been described since I've been in training and come out of training - and many of those have been in your field of autoimmune neurology. I can think of cases where I've heard you or one of your colleagues on a neurology podcast describing a new antibody, new disease, and a few weeks later, we see that disease and give a patient a diagnosis that had been elusive from other physicians and hospitals. It's a very exciting, gratifying area. It's also daunting, like, every time I go to the AAN and hear one of your colleagues, there's a new disease, and we realize, “Oops! Was I missing that?” or, “Am I going to see this?” And so, hoping to pick your brain a bit today about some of the key concepts and how to keep them in mind so our listeners can recognize, diagnose, and treat these conditions, even if they can't remember every single antibody in your article and all the new ones you and your colleagues will probably discover between now and when this, um, podcast is released. So, before we get into some of the important clinical aspects of these conditions, could you just lay out sort of the broad breaststrokes, the lay of the land of cell-mediated versus antibody-mediated paraneoplastic versus nonparaneoplastic cell surface versus intracellular - how can we sort of organize this area in our minds?    Dr Pittock: Yeah. It's complex, and it's really an evolving story. But the importance, really, from the perspective of the reader and the perspective of the clinician is that we're talking about disorders where we can actually do something - we can actually impact patients.  And we think about the concept of stopping and restoring in neurology now. We're talking about disorders where we have the potential to stop these inflammatory immune-mediated disorders and, potentially, by stopping early, we may be able to restore function - so, a really important new and evolving field in neurology, because you don't want to miss these conditions. Trying to get your head around the complexity of these entities is difficult, but what we've done in this chapter is, really, to try and lay the groundwork for the following chapters, but provide somewhat of a simplistic approach, but a practical approach that really, I think, can help clinicians. So, the way I think of it, a lot of autoimmune neurology really has stemmed from the discovery of antibodies that cause neurological disease, and the examples of those would be going back to myasthenia gravis (with antibodies to the acetylcholine receptor), going back to Lambert-Eaton syndrome. And then, you know, even if you go back to the older traditional paraneoplastic disorders (the Hu, the Ri, the Yo), at the end of the day, you really have two essential entities, if you want to be very simple. The first is disorders that are caused by an antibody, and the second are disorders where the antibodies you detect are not causing the disorder, but they're telling you that there's predominantly a cellular or T-cell mediated attack of the nervous system. And I think thinking about the diseases in those kind of simple terms helps us when we think about what would be the best treatment to use in these types of cases.   Dr Berkowitz: Fantastic. I think that's very helpful. And just to make sure it's clear in the minds of our listeners when we're dividing into these sort of causative antibodies versus antibodies that might be, uh (I don't know if I'm using the word properly), but, sort of epiphenomena (or they're present, but they're not causative) as you said, can you just give some examples of the ones on either side and how making this distinction helps us in practice?    Dr Pittock: Yes. So, antibodies that are causative of disease - I think, you know, the one that I've done a lot of work on is in neuromyelitis optica, where you have antibodies that are targeting a water channel that sits on an astrocyte, and so it causes NMOSD, or what we consider an autoimmune astrocytopathy. And we know that when the antibody binds to the target, many things can happen. So, when aquaporin-4 antibodies bind to aquaporin-4, they can do a lot of things. They can cause internalization, they can activate complement that results in the killing of the cell - but there can be other situations. For example, when NMDA-receptor antibodies bind to the NMDA receptor, then a variety of different things can occur different to water channel autoimmunity - where, for example, the receptor (the NMDA receptor) is downregulated off the cell surface, and that results, to some extent, in the neuropsychiatric phenomenon that we see in NMDA-receptor autoimmunity. And, obviously, when you have a situation where the antibodies are causing the disease, removal of those antibodies, or the reduction in the production of those antibodies, is going to help patients. Now, on the other side, we have antibodies that we detect in the blood or in the spinal fluid, and those antibodies are targeting proteins that are inside the cell - so those antibodies we don't consider as being pathogenic. Now, remember, there are sometimes situations where proteins that are inside the cell occasionally can be available for antibodies to bind at certain situations. So, for example, in the synapse, amphiphysin or the septins, may at times become available. And so, sometimes, there are targets or antibodies that are somewhat in between those two simplistic concepts. But when we're talking about antibodies that are targeting proteins on the inside of the cell, remember that antibodies don't just suddenly occur. There's a whole process of presentation of target antigen at the lymph node, and then both a T- and a B-cell response. The B-cell response potentially produces the antibodies but also triggers and stimulates T-cells, and those T-cells then go on to cause the disease. And those T-cells are very problematic, because those classical paraneoplastic and the newer ones we've described (and many have described) - these are associated with quite severe neurological disability, and they're very, very difficult to treat. And if you ask me, “Where is the holy grail of autoimmune neurology therapeutic research?” It's in trying to actually figure out ways of treating the predominantly T-cell mediated paraneoplastic and autoimmune neurological disorders. We're making great headway in terms of the treatments of the antibody-mediated neurological disorders.   Dr Berkowitz: That's a helpful overview. So, sticking with this framework, you mentioned as sort of the “causative antibody” category and the antibodies that are predominantly for intracellular antigens, but not believed to be causative - I want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly and we can convey it to our listeners - I believe you said in your paper, then, that the antibodies that are predominantly causative are more likely to be associated with conditions that are very treatable, as compared to the intracellular antibodies that are not thought to be causative, as you just said the disability can be irrecoverable or very hard to treat. And I believe another theme in your paper that you brought out is the antibodies that tend to be causative tend to be cell surface and tend to be less likely to be associated with underlying cancer (although not a perfect rule), and the intracellular antigens more commonly associated with cancer in those cases to look very hard for a cancer before giving up. Are those themes that I understand them from your paper properly, or anything else to add there?    Dr Pittock: Yes, I think that that's exactly the message that we were trying to get across, so that's good news that you've picked up on the themes. I think, yeah, in simple terms, remember that when a cytotoxic T-cell identifies the peptide that its T-cell receptor will target, the ultimate outcome is poor, all right? T-cells are like the marines - they don't mess around. Once they find their target, they eliminate that target, and so, it's really difficult to treat those types of diseases if you get them late. And most patients with cytotoxic T-cell mediated paraneoplastic neurological disorders, oftentimes, by the time they get to a center of excellence, the boat has left the dock in many respects - in other words, it's too late. So, you know, I will often see patients, for example, with progressive cerebellar degeneration (say, in the context of Purkinje cell autoantibody type 1 antibodies and a breast cancer), and if those patients are in a wheelchair at the time that I see them, there's very, very little that we can do. So, you really want to try and get that patient into the office, you know, when they're using a cane (or not), and then, potentially, you have the opportunity - using very aggressive immunosuppressive medications - to make a difference. And that is quite different to other scenarios, where, for example, if you have NMDA-receptor encephalitis - as many of the readers will know, this is a condition that is very treatable, and most patients do very well, because the antibodies, they're disrupting function, but they're not killing the neuron, as we see in those more aggressive, paraneoplastic cytotoxic T-cell mediated diseases.   Dr Berkowitz: Also, in terms of searching for an underlying cancer, another theme in your paper as I understood (but want to make sure I'm understanding and conveying to our listeners and hear your thoughts), that the cell surface and treatable antibody-mediated syndromes, as you mentioned (NMO, NMDA) tend to be less associated with underlying cancers (although can be), whereas the intracellular antigens, um, a much higher percentage of those patients are going to end up having underlying cancers. Is that correct, or any notable exceptions to be aware of in that framework?    Dr Pittock: Yeah, I think the major exception to the rule for the antibodies that are targeting intracellular antigens is the GAD65 antibody story. We generally don't consider the stiff person syndrome, cerebellar ataxia, or other autoimmune neurological disorders associated with very high levels of GAD65 antibodies - those are generally not paraneoplastic. And then there are always exceptions on both sides. You know, one of the benefits of understanding the implications of certain antibodies is trying to understand, you know, what is the likelihood of identifying a malignancy, which antibodies are high-risk antibodies (in other words, high-risk paraneoplastological disorders), and which are low risk in terms of cancer? And, you know, age and the demographic of the individual is often important, because we know, for example, with NMDA-receptor antibodies, the frequency of ovarian teratoma varies with the age of the patient.   Dr Berkowitz: Fantastic. And we encourage our listeners to read your articles – certainly, some very helpful tables and figures that help to elucidate some of these broad distinctions Dr Pittock is making - but just to summarize for the antibody-related part of autoimmune neurology, we have one category of cell-surface antibodies and another of intracellular antibodies. Both can cause very severe and varied neurologic presentations, but the cell surface tend to be more treatable, less likely to be associated with the underlying cancer, and the intracellular less treatable, more likely to be associated with the underlying cancer - but, as with everything in neurology and medicine, exceptions on both sides. Is that a fair aerial view of some of the details we've discussed so far, Dr Pittock?    Dr Pittock: Yeah, I think so. I mean, I also think that, you know, not only, at least, for the antibody-mediated disorders (you know, as we discussed) we have drugs that will reduce the production of those antibodies, but we're also learning a lot more about the cytokine and chemokine signatures of these disorders. For example, NMO, water-channel antibody-mediated diseases are associated with elevated levels of IL-6. We know, for example, in LGI1 encephalitis and other encephalitides, that IL-6 also is elevated at the time of that encephalitic process. And so, the potential to target IL-6 with, you know, drugs that inhibit IL-6 and the IL-6 receptor, these potentially have, you know, a role to play in the management of these types of patients - whereas in the T-cell mediated disorders, you know, no advance has been made in the treatment of those conditions, I would say, in over 50 years. So, for example, the standard of treatment is steroids and then drugs that impact the bone marrow, and so we really haven't moved forward in that respect. And that, I think, is an area that really needs drive and enthusiastic out-of-the-box thinking so that we can try to get better treatments for those patients.   Dr Berkowitz: This has been a helpful overview. I look to dive into some of the scenarios that frontline practitioners will be facing thinking about these diseases. An important point you make in your article is that autoimmune and antibody-mediated neurologic syndromes can affect any level of the neuraxis. Even just our discussion so far, you've talked about anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis, you've talked about myasthenia gravis (that's at the neuromuscular junction), you've talked about paraneoplastic cerebellar degeneration - there can be an “itis” of any of our neurologic structures and that “itis” can be antibody-mediated. So, one of the key messages you give us is, one, that these are sort of in the differential diagnosis for any presenting neurologic syndrome, and, two, sort of one of the key features of the history, really, to keep in mind (since we could be anywhere along the neuraxis) is the subacute presentation when this should really sort of be top of mind in our differential diagnosis - so, many of these patients are going to be mystery cases at the outset. And one striking element you bring out in the paper is that, sometimes, the MRI, CSF, electrophysiology studies may be normal or nonspecifically abnormal, and although it's very helpful when we can send these antibody panels out, in some cases, resources are limited or institutions have certain thresholds before you can send these out (because neurologists love to send them in). Sometimes, they are not necessarily appropriate. So, love to hear your thoughts on when we should be sending these panels. What are some clues? Um we have a subacute neurologic presentation at any level of the neuraxis, and when it's not anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis, that is sort of a clear phenotype in many cases. How you would approach a patient, maybe, where the MRI is either normal or borderline abnormal (or people are squinting at the medial temporal lobe and saying, “Maybe they're a little brighter than normal”), CSF is maybe normal or nonspecifically, um, and the protein is a little high, but no cells? What clues do you use to say, you know, “These are the patients where we should be digging deep into antibody panels and making sure these are sent and not miss this diagnosis?”    Dr Pittock: Well, thank you. That's a good question. So, I think, you know, first of all, these are complex cases. So, the patient is sitting in front of you and you're trying to figure out, first of all, Is this a hardware or a software problem? Are we definitively dealing with an encephalitis or an organic neurological entity that's immune-mediated? And, you know, the way I think of it is, for me, you see a patient, it's a twenty-five-piece jigsaw puzzle and you've got two pieces, and you're trying to say, “Well, if I step back and look at those two pieces, do I have any sense of where we're going with this patient?” So, the first thing you need to do is to collect data, both the clinical story that the patient tells you (and I think you make the good point that that subacute onset is really a big clue), but subacute onset, also fluctuating course, sometimes, can be important. The history of the patient - you know, Is the patient somebody who has a known history of autoimmune disease? Because we know that patients that have thyroid autoimmunity are more likely to have diabetes, they're more likely to have gastrointestinal motility or dysmotility, they're more likely to have a variety of different immune-mediated conditions. So, is there a family history or a personal history of autoimmunity? Is the patient at high risk for malignancy? Are there clues that this potentially could be a tumor-initiated immune process affecting the nervous system? The neurological exam also is extremely important because, again, that helps you, first of all, kind of define and get some objectivity around what you're dealing with. So, does the patient have hyperreflexia? Are there signs that there is neurological involvement? And then, really, what I think we need to do is to try and frame the predominant neurological presentation. So, what is the major issue? Because a lot of these patients will have multiple complaints, multiple symptoms, and it's very important to try and identify the major presentation. And that's important, because the neural autoantibody tests are now presentation-defined - in other words, they're built around the neurological presentation, because the old approach of just doing, apparently, a plastic evaluation is gone, because we've got to a stage where we have now so many neural antibodies, you can't test every single neural antibody. So, if you're suspecting that there may be an autoimmune neurological component, then you really need to think about what would be the most appropriate comprehensive evaluation I need to do for this patient. So, for example, if a patient comes in with a subacute-onset encephalopathy, you're probably going to want the autoimmune encephalitis evaluation, and then you have to pick whether it's going to be serum or spinal fluid - and as we outlined in the paper, there are certain antibodies that are better detected in serum versus spinal fluid. So, for example, in adults over the age of 50, LGI1 is much more accurately detected in serum than spinal fluid, and the absolute opposite is true for NMDA-receptor antibody detection. One of the most important components of the neurological evaluation is the spinal fluid, but actually looking at the white cell count - and in fact, sometimes, it's quite interesting to me that I'll often see patients referred with a diagnosis of encephalitis and autoimmune encephalitis, and yet they haven't had a spinal fluid examination. So, the presence of a white cell count, you know, greater than five is hugely helpful - it's like two pieces of that twenty-five-piece jigsaw, because that really tells you that there is something inflammatory going on. And now, in terms of imaging, you're right - some patients will have normal MRI. And if you really do think that there's evidence of - you know, for example, you do an MRI, but you're getting a good sense that there's a temporal lobe seizure occurring, MRI looks normal, the EEG shows some abnormalities in the mesial temporal area - you know, considering additional imaging modalities (like PET scan of the brain), I think, is reasonable. We know that in NMDA-receptor encephalitis cases, 30% of patients will have normal MRI but they'll often have abnormalities on the PET scans. So, I think, what we do is we try to gather data and gather information that allows us to add in pieces of that jigsaw so that, eventually, after we've done this evaluation, we can see now we have ten pieces. If we step back, we say, “Yes, now we know what this condition is”, and then we essentially plan out the therapeutic approach dependent on what we've found. In terms of identification of underlying malignancy, you know, different people have different approaches. Our approach generally has been to try to get a PET-CT scan of the body as our first go-to test, because, actually, we found that CT chest abdomen and pelvis really actually delivers the same amount of radiation - and from a cost perspective, it's about the same - and we have found that PET-CTs really do provide a higher sensitivity for cancer detection.   Dr Berkowitz: Perfect. A lot of very helpful clinical pearls there. So, in closing, Dr Pittock, I've learned a lot from you today. I'm sure our listeners will as well. What does the future hold in this field? What's coming down the pipeline? What are we going to be learning from you and your colleagues that are going to help us take care of patients with these diseases going forward?    Dr Pittock: Well, thank you, Dr Berkowitz, for that question. I think the future is very bright and very exciting, and, hopefully, some of the more junior members will be enthused by this Continuum series, and, hopefully, we'll go into this area. So, let's talk about the future. The future, I think, is going to be of great interest. Firstly, there's going to be continued discovery of novel biomarkers, and the reasons for that is because of the technical and technological advances we've seen. So, for example, there have been many, many antibodies discovered by us and others that have been discovered on the basis of, for example, phage technology. In fact, the Kelch 11 biomarker discovery in collaboration with UCSF and our group was done on the basis of Joe DeRisi and Michael Wilson's phage approach. And we're actually using that now at Mayo Clinic, and we've discovered about three or four new antibodies just in the last couple of years using this technology (and that here is led by John Mills and Div Dubey). And then, we're also going to see, I think, the evolution of protoarrays much more in biomarker discovery, so, we'll have more antibodies, and again, I think, generally, those antibodies will fall into the two categories we kind of described - so, you know, in terms of the approach to those conditions, maybe not so much change. I do think, though, that the introduction and the utility of comprehensive cytokine and chemokine analysis in the future will assist us in making diagnoses of seronegative encephalitis, but also potentially will direct therapy. So, for example, cytokine A is elevated - maybe that would be a potential target for therapy that's available for these patients with rare and potentially very disabling disorders. Then, when we look at the cytotoxic T-cell mediated disorders, I think the major areas of advance are going to be in better understanding the immunophenotype of cytotoxic T-cell mediated diseases, and then the potential development of tolerization strategies using the specific targets, those specific epitope targets that are involved in paraneoplastic and nonparaneoplastic diseases, and seeing if we can vaccinate patients, but move that immune response into more of a tolerogenic immune response rather than a cytotoxic killing response. And then I think, lastly, we're going to see a dramatic revolution in CAR-T therapeutic approaches to these types of disorders moving forward - and not just, you know, CAR-T therapies that are targeting, you know, CD19 or CD20, but CAR-Ts that are actually personalized and developed so that they can target the specific B- and T-cells in an individual patient and actually do a very fine removal of that autoimmune pathologic process that I think would have significant benefit for patients not only in stopping progression, but also in significantly reducing the potential of side effects - so, a much more targeted approach. So, that's where I think the next ten years is going to be. I think it's very exciting. It's going to require the collaboration of neurologists with, you know, immunologists, hematologists, you know, across the board. So, a very exciting future, I think, for this field.    Dr Berkowitz: Exciting, indeed. And we have learned so much from you and your colleagues at the Mayo Clinic about these conditions, and I definitely encourage our listeners to read your article on this phenomenal issue that really gives us a modern, up-to-date overview of this field and what's coming down the pipeline. So, a real honor to get to speak with you, pick your brain about some of the clinical elements, pitfalls and challenges, and also hear about some of the exciting signs. Thank you so much, Dr Pittock, for joining me today on Continuum Audio.   Dr Pittock: Thank you very much.    Dr Berkowitz: Again, today, I've been interviewing Dr Sean Pittock, whose article with Dr Andrew McKeon on an introduction to autoimmune neurology and diagnostic approach 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 so much 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 this episode, Lyell K. Jones Jr, MD, FAAN, speaks with Eoin P. Flanagan, MBBCh, FAAN who served as the guest editor of the Continuum® August 2024 Autoimmune Neurology issue. They provide a preview of the issue, which publishes on August 1, 2024. Dr. Jones is the editor-in-chief of Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology® and is a professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Dr. Flanagan is a professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Additional Resources Continuum website: ContinuumJournal.com Subscribe to Continuum: shop.lww.com/Continuum More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @LyellJ Guest: @EoinFlanagan14 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, 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 have access to exclusive audio content not featured on the podcast. If you're not already a subscriber, we encourage you to become one. For more information, please visit the link in the show notes.    Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology. Today, I'm interviewing Dr Eoin Flanagan, who recently served as Continuum's guest editor for our latest issue on autoimmune neurology. Dr Flanagan is a neurologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, where he's a professor of neurology. Eoin, why don't you introduce yourself to our listeners?   Dr Flanagan: Yeah, it's a great pleasure to be here today. I'm a neurologist. I'm originally from Ireland – I did my medical school training over there, and then came over to the Mayo Clinic to train in neurology and in neuroimmunology. And delighted to be able to edit this exciting issue of autoimmune neurology of Continuum. I think, um, it's a really fascinating area that's moving very quickly, and I'm hoping that we can educate listeners to be able to feel comfortable when they come to see these patients and to realize how much of a growing specialty it is and how we're getting treatments, and we can really help these patients.     Dr Jones: Yeah, it's a pretty exciting area. And, so, not only are you the Guest Editor for our latest issue of Continuum, this is the first-ever Continuum issue dedicated to autoimmune neurology, so I want to thank you for taking it on. This is something that our readers have been asking for for many years. I hope the topic wasn't too daunting.   Dr Flanagan: No, absolutely, it's a pleasure to be able to do it, and it's just great when you read all the articles to kind of feel where the field is going and how much of  a benefit we can now make for our patients. So, that's been a real joy to do.   Dr Jones: Well, congratulations, and it's a magnificent issue. You have a lot to be proud of putting this group of authors together. So, for a few of our issues now, we've had the opportunity on the Continuum Audio podcast to interview the Guest Editor, which is really fun for me. I have to confess it's really a joy to talk to someone who is up to the minute not only in their narrow area of expertise at the article level, but, really, across the entire breadth of the subspecialty. And so, you've had an opportunity to delve into all relevant topics in autoimmune neurology. When you look at the issue as a whole, or the field as a whole, what do you think the biggest debate or controversy in the world of autoimmune neurology is right now?     Dr Flanagan: Yeah, I think there's some changes happening. You know, initially, people used to recognize a disease called Hashimoto's encephalitis, where patients would have a presentation of encephalitis in the setting of thyroid antibodies. And what we're now realizing is that many of these patients actually have antibodies to neural-specific targets, because we know that the antibodies that target the thyroid don't really impact the brain. And what we're now realizing is that there's many antibodies out there that bind to different receptors in the brain (the NMDA receptor, for example, AMPA receptor), so we're really trying to refine the field towards these different antibody-associated disorders - and each different disorder may behave very differently. A patient with NMDA receptor encephalitis, for example, may be in the ICU, in hospital, may take them six, nine months to recover. On the other hand, a patient with LGI1-antibody encephalitis may get five days of steroids and be almost back to normal within a few weeks. So, it's a really broad spectrum. And, I think, what we're now learning is that each antibody has a role in helping define the disease, guide your treatment, guide your search for cancer - but, also, they behave differently - so these neural-specific antibodies are really important, while the older antibodies (like the thyroid antibodies) may just be a bystander and something that's happening in the background in a patient who's more prone to autoimmune disease.   Dr Jones: Very helpful, and I think that resonates with our listeners who have taken care of patients with autoimmune neurologic disorders, and it really is, I think, a great prototype in our specialty, maybe (for lack of a better word) of how observations start at the bedside, and then discoveries are made at the bench, and those benefits are brought back to patients. You know, there's been a recognition of autoimmunity in neurology for a long time, right - responsiveness to immunosuppression, even before the biomarkers were discovered - tell us a little story about how that works for our listeners.    Dr Flanagan: Yeah, so, I think one of the first steps is defining a clinical syndrome. So what you'll find is that some of these syndromes (for example, neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder, where they have longitudinally extensive lesions within a spinal cord) provoked people to be interested that these looked different to MS, and then that went to the lab, and the aquaporin-4 antibodies were discovered - or, more recently, MOG antibodies were discovered. The aquaporin-4 antibody-associated neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder is a good prototype, because that went to the laboratory. Initially, they saw complement deposition on the pathology of these patients, they saw antibody deposition - the antibody was then discovered to aquaporin-4. And then, many labs around the world went to their own labs and they tried to delve in to determine what the pathogenesis was, and they found that complement was important in cell killing, that interleukin-6 elevation was important, and that complement appeared to be important. So, then, what they did was they tried to find treatments that would target those pathways. So, and now, we have treatments that are successful for this disease that can target complement, target interleukin-6, and target B cells (be it CD19 or CD20). So, we now have many different treatments, and this disease used to be very severe (so, had a 33% mortality at five years), and now these patients can live a long life with these treatments. So, I think that gives you an example of how you can follow the immunology of the disease and use targeted treatments to help our patients, and I think we can use that as a good prototype for many of   the other antibodies, because every year we discover two to three new antibodies, and each disease is a bit different in its mechanism. So, there are now clinical trials in NMDA receptor encephalitis starting up. There's clinical trials in MOG antibody-associated disease. And I think we're going to see that as we move forward, that these treatment trials will come and we'll be able to help our patients better with proven treatments that we know work, rather than a history of we would just use five days of steroids and then we didn't know exactly what to do in the long term - and we could manage some of the relapse as well, but we couldn't really take care of the disease in the background - so, I think the NMO is a good model for moving forward, and the pharmaceutical companies are supporting moving forward with different trials for the disease.   Dr Jones: So, a key message there is understanding the biology so we can be a little more targeted and less indiscriminate in the immunomodulation we're going to use. And we have parallels to that in the neuromuscular world, right, like using B-cell depletion for MuSK-associated neuromuscular junction disorders, as opposed to the trial-and-error approach, right? That's got to be a little more patient-centric and you get to a therapeutic response faster, right?   Dr Flanagan: I think so. Yeah, and I think, in the future, that might be something where, you know, a different patient, if they had elevated cytokines that pointed more to an IL-6 elevation, then maybe, in that patient, you would target IL-6, while the next patient with the same disease has more prominent complement activation, maybe you would target complement, or another patient has more prominent B-cell markers elevated, that you would target B cells. So, I think, we're really moving towards a more individualized treatment in some of these disorders. So, it's a very exciting time, but we've only really made that breakthrough in one of the antibodies, and we have probably sixty, seventy antibody-mediated disorders now. So, it's going to get complicated, but it's also going to be, really, an exciting time for our patients, and I think an exciting time for neurology trainees and people who see patients in practice that we can now make diagnoses and guide their treatment that, previously, you know, these patients were told they might have presumed infectious encephalitis or we didn't know the exact cause.   Dr Jones: So targeted not only to the diagnosis, but to the individual.   Dr Flanagan: Yeah.   Dr Jones: So, that's a level of complexity that I think is going to blow a lot of our minds, right? And it's exciting, but I think it also is a little daunting, right?   Dr Flanagan: Absolutely. Yeah. Yeah, it's going to be complicated, and these are rare diseases, so they're difficult to do clinical trials in. But I think we can be guided, and our experience tells us that if you follow the mechanisms, that you can find targeted treatments. Now, you can also find targeted treatments in MS - you know, it took us a longer time to find successful high-efficacy treatments, but now we're doing much better with many high-efficacy treatments available. But, I think in these autoantibody-mediated diseases, really looking at the mechanisms and trying to figure out that and then targeting the treatment in that direction makes the most sense and is the most likely to be successful.   Dr Jones: So, one of the purposes of Continuum is to educate our readers and our listeners, and because neurology is so broad, because it is evolving so quickly,   it's really hard to stay current. And so, again, that's part of the purpose of the journal. I think one of the challenging areas is autoimmune neurology, because it changes fast, and it's complicated, and the treatments are high stakes and complicated to administer - so, I think this is an important topic. I know from my own experience in clinical practice, one of the challenging scenarios is you see   a patient who may have an autoimmune neurological disorder, you obtain some serum or CSF markers of neurologic autoimmunity, right? And of the ten antibodies you check, one of them comes back, and it's a low titer-positive antibody. I know that's something that you get a lot of questions about. How do you approach that?     Dr Flanagan: Yeah, I think, you know, we're all neurologists, and, you know, it's immediately back to the history, the examination, and the investigations, and what do they support - so, are you really dealing with an antibody-mediated disorder? And I think, from a neuroimmunology laboratory standpoint, we're always trying to get better tests, remove those less-specific tests (so, move away from the thyroid peroxidase antibodies) and really hone in on the exact targets and their mechanisms. So, I suppose, when you find a low-positive result, it's really important to go back to that clinical. And, I think, you know, that is job security for neurologists, right? Because you really have to interpret these in context. And, I think when you're seeing autoimmune cases, you need to have a good, broad understanding of differential diagnosis, because there are many different disorders that can present in a similar way, and you don't want to get distracted by that low-positive antibody and then put a patient on long-term immunosuppression that has many different risks. So, there is a potential for misdiagnosis, and I think that's an emerging area that we're recognizing that we always have to put the antibodies into clinical context. And, you know, there are more and more studies coming out that will help guide you, and I think the issue in Continuum will help guide you in terms of your understanding of, you know, what does a positive antibody mean? And it'll give a little bit on the methodology of how the antibodies are tested and how that can help you – or, sometimes, be it the titer may be very high that can help you. So, different aspects of the antibody test results can also help guide you in the likelihood of that being kind of a true positive versus a false positive. But I think always back to the history, exam, and the investigations, too.   Dr Jones: You're being very gracious there, and I'm glad you bring it up that it's really not just about the laboratory performance of the test, right? It's about the pretest probability of the clinical syndrome if it doesn't clinically resemble an autoimmune neurological disorder. So, I'm not going to pretend to be an expert in Bayesian statistics, but I think we should recognize that if we obtain any test when there's a low likelihood of the syndrome or the diagnosis being present, we're more likely to have false positives than in other scenarios or other settings. So, I think that is a charge to the clinician, where if we are obtaining these tests, we do really need to think about the likelihood of there being a clinical autoimmune neurology syndrome, right?   Dr Flanagan: That's exactly right. You know, one of the teachings that I sometimes give to the trainees is that, you know, if you have a ninety-year-old patient with mild cognitive impairment who comes into the emergency department with some worsened altered mental status, you know, you want to check for a urinary tract infection, you want to check a chest x-ray - you don't want to test neural antibodies upfront. So, you always have to consider the setting and avoid overtesting, because like any test, they're not perfect, and you can run into trouble if you order it too frequently - so, that's another thing that we try to educate people. And then if you do order the test, we like to educate people on, you know, what the positive test results mean, and is there any potential for false positives like we talked about?   Dr Jones: And I think, keeping in mind - obviously, there are exceptions - but the subacute onset of multifocal neurological disorder is really suggestive of autoimmunity. It doesn't mean that it can't happen in other contexts. And it has been exciting not only on the diagnostic side, but on the therapeutic side. There are so many exciting new treatments. What do you think is on the horizon beyond what we've seen in the last few years with small- and large-molecule therapies for these disorders?     Dr Flanagan: Yeah, I think there's new things. You know, people are always looking at different approaches. So, for example, there's a lot of interest in tolerance, and is there a way you could tolerize yourself out of some of these autoimmune conditions? There's a lot of work on CAR-T treatments, looking particularly in the field of lupus and other systemic autoimmune diseases, and I suspect that they will also be applied to autoimmune neurologic conditions. And then the other thing to mention is that we're seeing the more frequent use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with lots of different types of cancers, including neuroendocrine tumor. So I think, in the future, everybody's going to have to learn about autoimmune neurology, because we're going to be seeing these patients more often, because there's going to be more neurologic immune-related adverse effects related to those immune checkpoint inhibitor treatments – so, I think we're going to continue to see autoimmune neurologic disorders pop up. And, you know, the immune checkpoint inhibitors are almost real-world laboratory experiments, because you're ramping up the immune system, and you can trigger many different types of autoimmune conditions. We're actually learning a lot from these patients that can help us in the way we diagnose and the way we treat these patients in the future, but I will say that, sometimes, they can cause a challenge, because some of these patients have difficult-to-control cancer - you need to up their immune system, but then they get autoimmune complications. We try and dampen down the immune system, and then we need to kind of ramp it back up to treat the cancer. And we've had some challenges where managing such cases can be difficult with that balance of cancer-directed immunotherapy versus immune-related adverse events, and, sometimes, that can pose a challenge for autoimmune neurologists when we see these patients.   Dr Jones: So, those are challenges, and I imagine it's a challenging and often rewarding field. What is the most rewarding thing about caring for patients with autoimmune neurological disorders?     Dr Flanagan: I think it's a few things. You know, one is that it's a multidisciplinary area,   so many of these patients will have different subspecialties of neurology involved. So, we'll get to work with our colleagues, and we may work with our oncology colleagues, we work with our ophthalmologist, and we work with our physical medicine and rehab team – so, it's a real team approach to help the patient. So, that's one aspect that's very enjoyable, because everybody needs to work together. And then, you know, these are treatable conditions. So we can have patients who are in the intensive care unit - you know, quadriplegic, in a coma - and then we treat them, we see them back, and they can be back close to normal. So, particularly, with some of these antibodies that target the cell-surface receptors (like NMDA receptor encephalitis, MOG antibodies), these patients can really go from being really, really sick in the ICU to coming back to normal – so, that's very satisfying, and much of that is related to the improvements we have in treatments, and then we can manage them in the long term with some of these newer treatments that are coming along for these diseases. So, I think it's a very exciting area and exciting time for our patients with these disorders, and we're getting more and more clinical trials, so we're hoping that we'll have more and more treatments available into the future.   Dr Jones: I think that has to be part of why the interest in autoimmune neurology has grown so much. I know as an educator - I hear this a lot from trainees - you know, the level of interest in MS and autoimmune neurology has really only grown over time. It must be because of better understanding of the pathobiology of disease, better treatment options, and something that our listeners may not know. Not only is Dr Flanagan an expert in autoimmune neurology - he's very well trained, he did fellowship in MS and autoimmune neurology, and behavioral neurology, right?   Dr Flanagan: That's correct. Yeah. Yeah.   Dr Jones: And, you know, it's going to sound like I'm trying to flatter Eoin here, but I'm really not (this is going to lead to a question). Eoin is, you know, very well recognized for his work in autoimmune neurology and discovery in this area. Uh, he happens to be one of the best doctors I know. And Eoin, you've won the Teacher of the Year Award several times. So, for our listeners who are looking into their careers and trying to manage multiple areas of interest, how do you do it? You do so many different things so well.   Dr Flanagan: Well, you know, I'm lucky to have had the opportunity to work here at the Mayo Clinic and in the neuroimmunology lab. So, we have a lot of resources, and it's an exciting area, you know? We need to bring up the next generation of leaders, so we need to be enthusiastic about these conditions, and we really can do a lot for these patients. So I think when I cover on the hospital service - you work with the residents or work with the fellows and clinic - you know, these cases (when they come around) are really enjoyable to see you can get an answer, we can figure out what type of treatment to do, and we can really help these patients. So, I think that makes it a very exciting area and an easy area to teach residents and to convey some of the excitement that's happening in the field. So, it's just a great honor to be able to work with trainees to kind of let them know the field. And, you know, there's more and more fellowship opportunities in different centers in neuroimmunology, and I think more residents are becoming interested in the field of autoimmune neurology because of so much happening. But, in saying that, with these challenges, it's very hard to keep up with all these antibodies - I find it hard. There's 70 different antibodies - it's hard to know every single thing about every single one. So, we need to continue to educate, to try and simplify, to try and help our younger people be able to manage these patients, because no matter who it is in neurology, you're going to encounter these patients - if you cover the hospital, if you see regular patients in clinic, if you do consult service, you'll come across these patients - and we're going to see them more and more with immune checkpoint inhibitors and other treatments coming along. So, I think it's an exciting area, and it's an important area for everyone to be aware of. So, it's just a great pleasure to be able to be involved in the field and see such enthusiasm in junior people.   Dr Jones: So, in addition to doing all those things well, you're also very humble. So, that's a great answer, and I think it is important - even though these are collectively rare - the opportunity to treat these patients and have wonderful outcomes is great, and I think the ability to recognize and feel comfortable. And, hopefully, Continuum has a place in that. I think your issue, Dr Flanagan, is a stellar issue and, uh, will be a benchmark for a generation of neurologists and how to approach these disorders. So, I want to thank you for being our Guest Editor for that topic and joining us today for such a thorough and fascinating discussion on autoimmune neurology.   Dr Flanagan: Thanks so much. And thank you to the Continuum team for highlighting autoimmune neurology. It's an exciting field, and I think, really, there is a great group of authors that cover neuroimmunology comprehensively, and I think, hopefully, people will enjoy the edition.   Dr Jones: Again, we've been speaking with Dr Eoin Flanagan, Guest Editor for Continuum's most recent issue on autoimmune neurology. Please check it out. 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, 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. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

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.

In this episode, Gordon Smith, MD, FAAN speaks with Casey S.W. Albin, MD, author of the article “Neuromuscular Emergencies,” in the Continuum® June 2024 Neurocritical Care issue. Dr. Smith is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and professor and chair of neurology at Kenneth and Dianne Wright Distinguished Chair in Clinical and Translational Research at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia. Dr. Albin is an assistant professor of neurology and neurosurgery in the departments of neurology and neurosurgery, division of neurocritical care at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia. Additional Resources Read the article: Neuromuscular Emergencies 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: @gordonsmithMD Guest: @caseyalbin 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 Smith: Hi. This is Dr Gordon Smith. I'm super excited today to be able to have the opportunity to talk to Dr Casey Albin, who will introduce herself in a second. She's well known to Continuum Nation as the Associate Editor for Media Engagement for Continuum. She's also a Neurointensivist at Emory University and wrote a really outstanding article for the neurocritical care issue of Continuum on neuromuscular emergencies. Casey, thanks for joining us. Tell us about yourself. Dr Albin: Sure. Thank you so much, Dr Smith. So, yes, I'm Casey Albin. I am a Neurointensivist. I practice at Emory. We have a really busy and diverse care that we provide at the Emory neuro ICUs. Just at the Clifton campus, there's over forty beds. So, although neuromuscular emergencies certainly do not make up the bread and butter of our practice - I mean, like many intensivists, I spend most of my time primarily caring for patients with cerebrovascular disease - this is a really interesting and just kind of a fun group of patients to take care of because of the ability we have to improve their outcomes and that some of these patients really do get better. And that's a really exciting thing to bear witness to. Dr Smith: I love finding neurointensivists that are interested in neuromuscular medicine because I share your interest in these patients and the fact that there's a lot that we can do for them. You know, how did you get interested in neurocritical care, Casey? Dr Albin: You know, I was always interested in critical care. It was really actually the neurology part that I came late to the party. I was actually, like, gearing up to apply into emergency medicine and was doing my emergency medicine sub-I (like, that was the route I was going to take), and during that sub-I, I just kept encountering patients with neurologic emergencies - so, you know, leptomeningeal carcinomatosis and obstructive hydrocephalus, and then a patient with stroke - and I realized I was just gravitating towards the neuroemergencies more so than just any general emergencies. And I had really enjoyed my neurology rotation. I did not foresee that as the path I was going to take, but after kind of spending some time and taking care of so many neurologic emergencies from the lens of an emergency department, sort of realized, like, "You know, I should go back and do a neurology sub-I.” And so, kind of, actually, late in the game is when I did that rotation and, like, dramatically changed my whole life trajectory. So, I have known since sort of that fourth year of medical school that I really wanted to focus on neurocritical care and neurologic emergencies, and I love the blend of critical care medicine and the procedural aspect of my job while doing it with the most interesting of all the organ systems. So, it's really a great blend of medicine. Dr Smith: Did you ever think about neuromuscular medicine? Dr Albin: Uh, no. Dr Smith: I had to ask. I had to ask. Dr Albin: No, I mean, I do really love neuromuscular emergencies, but I've known for forever that like, really wanted to be in an acute care setting. Dr Smith: You know, I think it's such a great story, Casey, and I know you're an educator, too, right? And, um, we hear this from learners all the time about how they come to neurology relatively late in medical school, and it's been really great to see the trajectory in terms of fellowship determination dates and giving our students opportunities to make their choice, you know, later during their medical school career. And I wonder whether your journey is an example of what we're seeing now (which is more and more students going into neurology because we're giving them the free space to do that), and then also in terms of fellowship decisions as well (which was what I was alluding to earlier)? Dr Albin: Yeah, absolutely. I think having more exposure to neurology and getting a chance to be in that clinical environment - you know, when you are doing the “brain and behaviors” (or whatever your medical school calls the neurology curriculum) - it is so hard and it's so dense, and I think that that's really overwhelming for students. And then you get into the clinical aspect of neurology, and sure, you have to know neurolocalization - and that is fundamentally important to everything we do - but the clinical application is just so beautiful and so much fun and it's so challenging, but in a good way. So, I totally agree. I think that more students need more exposure. Dr Smith: Well, I mean, that's a perfect segue to something I wanted to talk to you about, which is you brought up the beauty of neurology - which is, I think, you know, neurologic formulation, really – and we talk a lot about the elegance of the neurologic examination. But one of the things I really liked about your article was its old-school formulation – you talk about the importance of history, examination, localization, pattern recognition – I wonder if, maybe, you could give us some pearls from that approach and how you think about acute neuromuscular problems and the ICU? Dr Albin: Absolutely. I really do think that this is the cornerstone of making a good diagnosis, right? I will tell you what's really challenging about some of these patients when they are admitted to the ICU is that we are often faced with sort of a confounded exam. The patient may have been rapidly deteriorating, and they may not be able to provide a good history. They may be intubated by the time that we meet them. And so not only are they not able to provide a history themselves, but their exam may be confounded by the fact that they're on a little bit of sedation, or they were aspirating and now they have a little bit of pneumonia. I mean, it can be really challenging to get a good neurologic exam in these patients. But I do think the history and the physical are really where the money is in terms of being able to send the appropriate test. And so, when I think about these patients who get admitted to the neuro ICU, the first thing that we have to have is someone who can provide a really good collateral history, because so much of what we're trying to determine is, "Is this the first presentation, and this is a de novo (new) neuromuscular problem?” or “Had the patient actually had sort of a subacute or chronic (even) decline and they've been undiagnosed for something that was maybe a little bit more indolent, but (you know, they had an abrupt decline because, you know, they got pneumonia, or they have bloodstream infection, or whatever it was allowing them to sort of compensate) they have no longer been able to compensate?”. And so, I really do think that that's key. And when I am hearing the story the first time, that's really one of the focuses of my history – is, "Was this truly a new problem?”. And then, when we think about, you know, "Where do we localize this within the nervous system?”, it's actually quite challenging because, you know, patients with acute spinal cord pathology may also not present with the upper motor neuron findings that are classic for spinal cord pathology. And so I think, again, it's a little bit recognizing that you can be confounded and we have to keep a broad differential, but I am sort of examining for whether or not there's proximal versus distal (like, the gradient of where they're weakest), is there symmetry or asymmetry, and then, are there other, sort of, features that go along with helping us localize to something to the nerves (such as sensory symptoms or autonomic symptoms)? So when I think about, you know, where we're putting this, you can put anything in sort of the anterior horn cells or to the nerves themselves, to the neuromuscular junction, and then to the muscles. And teasing that out, I put in some figures and tables within the article to help kind of help the reader think about what are features of my patient's exam, my patient's history, that might help me to put it into one of those four categories. Dr Smith: Yeah, I was actually going to comment on the figures in your article, Casey. They're really fantastic, and I encourage all of our listeners to check it out. There's, you know, figures showing muscle group involvement and different diseases and different muscle disorders and different forms of Guillain-Barré syndrome - it's a really beautiful way of visualizing things. I wonder if we could go back, though, because I wanted to delve down a little bit in this concept of patients who have chronic neuromuscular diseases presenting into the ICU. I mean, this happens surprisingly frequently with ALS patients or, like, myotonic dystrophy. I've seen this a number of times where folks are, just, they're not diagnosed and they're kind of slowly progressing and they tipped over the edge. Can you tell us more about how you recognize this? You talked a little bit about collateral history - other words of wisdom there? Dr Albin: I would say this is one of the hardest things that we encounter in critical care medicine, because quite frequently - and I see this more with ALS than myotonic dystrophies - but, I would say, like, I don't know, once every six months, we have a patient who's undiagnosed ALS present. And I think it can be extremely difficult to tease this out because there's something that's tipped them over the edge. And as an intensivist, you were always focused on resuscitating the patient and saving them from that life-threatening thing that pushed them over the edge, and then trying to tease out, “Well, were they hypercarbic and did they have respiratory failure because, you know, they've got a little bit of COPD, and is that what's going on here?” or, "Have they been declining and has there been sort of this increase in inability to ventilate actually because of diaphragmatic weakness and because of neuromuscular weakness?” Again, the collateral history is really important. One of the things that I think we are challenged by is how difficult - and I'm sure you can comment on this, as someone who is a neuromuscular guy - is how difficult it is to get a good EMG and nerve conduction study in the ICU in patients who may have been there for a little bit, you know? I think about this, sort of, the electrical interference, the fact that the patient's body temperature has fluctuated, the fact that they are, usually, by this time, like, they're a little volume overloaded – they're puffy. You know, it can be very frustrating. I think, actually, you probably would know more about, like, what it's like to do that exam on our ICU patients. Dr Smith: Sometimes, it's really challenging, I agree. And it's the whole list of things that you raised - and I think it goes back to the first question, really. You put a premium on old-school formulation, pattern recognition, localization, and taking a good history - you know, thinking of that ALS patient, right? I mean, one of the challenges, of course, that you have to deal with in that situation is prognostication and decisions regarding intubation, right? And that's very different from (I'll give another scenario that sometimes we run into, which is the other extreme) a patient with myasthenia gravis who, maybe we expect to be able to get off a ventilator very quickly, but sometimes they're reluctant to be ventilated because of their age or advanced directives and whatnot. I wonder if you could talk a little bit about how you approach counseling patients regarding prognosis related to their underlying neuromuscular disease and the need for intubation in a period of mechanical ventilation? Dr Albin: Just like you said, it really ranges from what the underlying diagnosis is. So, one of the things that, you know, like you said, myasthenia - these patients, when they're coming in in crisis, we know that there is a good chance that they're going to respond pretty quickly to immunotherapy. I mean, I think we've all seen these patients get plasma exchange, and within a day or two, they are so much stronger (they're lifting their head off the bed, they're clearing their secretions), and every now and then, we're able to temporize those patients with just noninvasive ventilation. You know, when we're having a discussion about that with the patient and with the care team, we really have to look at the amount of secretions and how well they're clearing them, because, again, we certainly don't want them to aspirate - that really sets people back. But, you know, I think, often in those cases, we can kind of use shared decision-making of, you know, “Can we help you get through this with noninvasive?” or, you know, "Looking at you, would you be all right with a short term of intubation?” Knowing that, usually, these patients stabilize not all the time, but quite frequently, with plasma exchange, which we use preferentially. The middle of that is, then, Guillain-Barré - those patients, because of the neuropathy features (the fact that it's going to take their nerves quite some time to heal, you know) - when those patients need to be intubated, a good 70% or more are going to require longer-term ventilation. And, so, again, it's working with a family, it's working with a patient to let them know, "We suspect that you're going to need to be on the ventilator for a long time. And we suspect, actually, you would probably benefit from early tracheostomy”. And there was a really nice guidance that was just presented in the Journal of Neurocritical Care about prognosticating in patients with specifically Guillain-Barré (so that's helpful). And then, we get to the, really, very difficult (I would say the most difficult thing that we deal with in neuromuscular emergencies) - is the patient who we think might have ALS (we are not positive), and then we are faced with this diagnosis of, “Would you like to be intubated, knowing that we very likely will never extubate you?” - and that, I think, is a very difficult conversation, especially given that there is a lot of uncertainty often in the diagnosis. I would say, even more frequently, what happens is they have been intubated at an outside hospital and then transferred to us for failure to wean from the ventilator and, "Can you work it up and say whether or not this is ALS?” – and that, I think, is one of the most difficult conundrums that we face in the ICU. Dr Smith: Yeah. I mean, that's often very, very difficult. And even when the patient wants to be intubated and ultimately receive a tracheostomy, getting them out of the hospital can sometimes be a real challenge. There's so much I want to talk to you about, and, you know, you talked about prognostication - really great discussion about tools to prognosticate in GBS, both strengths of things like EGRIS and the modified EGOS, and so forth – but, I wonder (given that I'm told time is limited for us) if you could talk a little bit about bedside guidance in terms of assessing when patients need to be intubated? You provide really great definitions of different respiratory parameters and the 20/30/40 rule that I'll refer listeners to, but I wonder if you could share, what's your favorite, kind of, bedside test - or couple of bedside tests - that we can use to assess the need for ventilatory support? And this could be particularly helpful in patients who have, let's say, bifacial weakness and can't get a good seal. So, what do you recommend? Is it breath count? Is it cough? Something else? Dr Albin: I think for me, anecdotally (and I really looked for is there any evidence to support this), but for me, anecdotally - and knowing that there is not really good evidence to support this - whether or not the patient could lift their head off the bed, to me, is a very good marker of their diaphragmatic strength. You know, if they've got good neck flexion, I feel a lot better about it. The single breath count test is another thing that I kind of went down a rabbit hole of, like, "Where did this come from?” because I think, you know, it was one of the first things I was taught in residency - like, “Oh, patient with neuromuscular weakness, have them take a deep breath and count for as many breaths as they can.” We have probably all done that bedside test. It's really important to recognize that the initial literature about it was done in myasthenia patients who were in clinic (so, these were not patients who are, like, abruptly going to need intubation), and it does correlate fairly well with their forced vital capacity (meaning how much they're able to exhale on bedside perimetry), but it is not perfect. And I put that nice graph in the article, and you can see, there's a lot of patients who are able to count quite high but actually have a very low FVC, and patients who count only to ten but have a very good FVC. So, I do like the test and I continue to use it, but I, you know, put an asterisk by it. It's also really important - and I would encourage any sort of neurology trainees, or trainees in any specialty - if you're taking care of these patients, watch the respiratory therapist come and do these at the bedside with them. You'll get a much greater sense of (a) what they're doing, but (b) how well the patient tried. And it is really, I mean, we have to interpret this number in the context of, "Did they give a really good effort?” So, I'll often go to the bedside with the RT and be the one coaching the patient - saying, like, you know, “Try again”, “Practice taking this”, “Do the best you can”, “Go, go, go! Go, go, go!” (you know, like, really coaching the patient) - and you would be surprised at how much better that makes their number. And when you're really appropriately counseling them, that we actually get numbers that are much better predicting what they're doing. Then, you also have a gestalt just from being at the bedside of what they looked like during this. Dr Smith: Yeah. I used to work with a neuromuscular nurse who was truly outstanding who was the loudest and most successful vital capacity coach ever. But, you know, she'd be doing it in one room, and you'd be in the next room with a patient. They'd be like, “What are they doing next door?” She was shouting and exhorting the patient to go harder and breathe better. So, it was always, “Wow, that sounds exciting over there”. All right, this is all in a prelude. What I really want to ask you, Casey, is, you know, whenever we do Continuum Audio interviews, we, like, look up people, and it's not hard to look you up because you're everywhere on the Internet. And come to find out, you're a fully credential neuro Twitter star - and that's the term I saw, a star. So, what's it like being a Twitter star? I guess it's an X star. I don't even know what we call it anymore. Dr Albin: I guess it's that. I don't know. I don't know, either. It's so funny, um, that that has become so much of my, like, academic work. I got on Twitter, or X (whatever it is) during the pandemic because, really, my interest is in, you know, innovatives and medical education, and I really had been trained to do simulation. So, I really wanted to develop simulation curriculum. I love doing sims with our medical students to our fellows. So, I was, like, developing this whole curriculum, and then the pandemic came along, and the sim lab at Emory was like, “Mm, yeah, we're not going to let people go in the sim lab. Like, that's not exposure that we want (people in a room together)”. So one of our fellows at the time was doing a lot on Twitter and he was like, "You would love this. You have cases that you want to teach about. You should really get on board”. And I, sort of, reluctantly agreed and have found the NeuroTwitter community to be, like, just a fantastic exchange of, you know, cases, wisdom, new studies - I mean, it's the way that I keep up with what is being published in the many fields that are adjacent to neurocritical care. So, it's very funny that that has ended up being sort of something that is a really big part of my academic time. But now that we're talking about it, I will give a plug for any of the listeners who are not on X. Dr Jones and I post cases, usually twice a week, that come directly from the Continuum articles or from our files (because, you know, sometimes we can spin them a little bit), but it's an amazing, sort of case-based, way to do some, like, microteaching from all of the beautiful Continuum articles, all the cases - and because there are free articles released from the issue, you know we'll link directly to those. So, for any of the listeners who have not, kind of, joined X for all the reasons that many people cite of not joining, I would say that there's so much learning that happens - but Dr Jones and I are people to follow because of our involvement with Continuum and the great cases that we're able to showcase on that platform. Dr Smith: I think that's a great point. And, you know, there are certainly organizations that are questioning their engagement with X, and I'm on a board of an organization that's talked about not actually participating, and I brought up this point that I think the NeuroTwitter (NeuroX) community is really amazing. You'll have to give me some tips, though, I'm at, like, 498 followers or something like that. Do you know how many followers you have? I looked it up yesterday. I've got it for you if you don't know. Dr Albin: I don't know recently. Dr Smith: Yeah, 18,200 as of yesterday. That's amazing! Dr Albin: Yeah, it's worldwide. We're spreading knowledge of Continuum across the globe. It's fantastic. Dr Smith: That's crazy. Yeah, that's great work. It's really great to see the academic, kind of, productivity that comes of that. And I agree with you - Continuum has a really great presence there, and it's a great example of why you're the Associate Editor for Media Engagement. I think we're going to have to, I guess, gamify would be the right thing? Maybe we should, uh, see what the Las Vegas book is on the number of followers between you and Lyell Jones, I think. Dr Albin: Totally. Dr Smith: Yeah. Hey, Casey, this has been awesome. I've been so excited to talk to you - and I could keep talking to you for hours about your NeuroTwitter stardom – but in particular, neuromuscular weakness. I really encourage all of our listeners to check out the article. It's really, really, really, great - really enjoyed it. I learned a lot, and it reminded me a lot of things that I had forgotten. So thank you for the great article, and thanks for a really fun discussion. Dr Albin: Thank you, Dr Smith. It was truly a pleasure.   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 article. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Neurologic infections become emergencies when they lead to a rapid decline in a patient's function; however, neurologic infections are often challenging to recognize. In this episode, Aaron Berkowitz, MD, PhD, FAAN, speaks with Alexandra S. Reynolds, MD, author of the article “Neuroinfectious Emergencies,” in the Continuum® June 2024 Neurocritical Care issue. Dr. Berkowitz is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and professor of neurology at the University of California San Francisco, Department of Neurology and a neurohospitalist, general neurologist, and a clinician educator at the San Francisco VA Medical Center and San Francisco General Hospital in San Francisco, California. Dr. Reynolds is an associate professor in the departments of neurosurgery and neurology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Health System in New York, New York. Additional Resources Read the article: Neuroinfectious Emergencies 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: @AaronLBerkowitz 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 Berkowitz: This is Dr Aaron Berkowitz, and today, I'm interviewing Dr Alexandra Reynolds about her article on neuroinfectious emergencies, which is part of the June 2024 Continuum issue on neurocritical care. Welcome to the podcast, Dr Reynolds. Um, would you mind, please, introducing yourself to our audience?   Dr Reynolds: Sure. Thank you for the invitation. I'm Alex Reynolds, and I am a neurointensivist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City.   Dr Berkowitz: Fantastic. Thanks for joining us. Dr Reynolds has written a really comprehensive article with lots of clinical pearls for the evaluation of patients with neurologic infections. So, to start off, when should we consider a neurologic infection as the cause of a patient's neurologic symptoms?   Dr Reynolds: That is a, really, much more complicated question than I think you recognize. I feel like a lot of it has to do with the risk factors of the patient. So, certainly, you know, a lot of times, we think about a patient who comes in with fever and altered mental status, and that's sort of the patient we're thinking about as having an intracranial infection – but, I do think there are a lot of risk factors that, sort of, may push us in that direction even if the patient doesn't have a fever or even if the patient doesn't seem like meningitis (for example). So, you know, a lot of patients nowadays are immunosuppressed, either because of infections or because of the therapies that we're using as immunosuppressants (so, autoimmune diseases, transplants, bone marrow patients). And then, I think, any patient who has had an intracranial procedure or a spinal procedure, we sort of just have to have in the back of our mind that surgical procedures come, by definition, with risk of infection (and so, that's always something to think about). And then, certainly, anything in terms of endemic risk factors (so a patient who has come from a country that has an endemic infection), we need to just be a little bit more broad about what we're thinking about in that patient population.   Dr Berkowitz: That's very helpful. You mentioned something I wanted to pick up on. We always think fever, of course we're going to be thinking about a neurologic infection, but some types of neurologic infections and in some patient populations, it's possible to have an infection of the nervous system with no fever, sometimes even no white count. What other clues should be considered, or when would you think about pursuing infection even in patients who don't have a fever or an elevated white count?   Dr Reynolds: So, certainly, in patients who have imaging that's a little abnormal. I think, oftentimes, the patients that I've seen with sort of indolent infections have a subdural collection that just doesn't look quite right or doesn't make sense with the clinical history (you know, you can have P. acnes infections that go on for months that people really don't necessarily notice) - so any imaging, oftentimes on MRI, you'll see, sort of, diffusion restriction where you don't really expect to see it. So, those sorts of patients might be ones where if the story is just not really fitting, you might want to think about infection. So, I think it's also important to remember that patients who have procedures elsewhere in the body can sort of seed themselves, and either by direct spread or by hematogenous spread, those infections can kind of seed the CNS - so, patients with valve procedures in the heart, patients who have intraabdominal procedures, there really is no reason that those infections can't travel to the CNS as well. And so, I was sort of always taught, you know, if the story doesn't make sense, then you have to consider infection, even if the patient doesn't have a white count or fever. So, I think just having, sort of, that suspicion in the back of your mind that if you can't really make sense of the story, then consider an infection.   Dr Berkowitz: Yeah. So, obviously, fever, white count, those would clue us in that a patient with new neurologic symptoms (signs) may have an infection as a cause. But, as you said, they may not be present in patients who have had any type of neurosurgical procedure (or you've just taught us even non-neurosurgical procedures elsewhere in the body) that could have led to bacteremia. And then, you mentioned earlier, also patients who are immunocompromised may develop a neurologic infection without fever or white count, and our threshold is certainly lower to pursue that possibility in that population as well. Other points on that before we move on?   Dr Reynolds: I had an attending that told me if you're thinking about a lumbar puncture, you better just do it – so, I think those are wise words to sort of live by. If you're thinking about an infection, you better just work it up.   Dr Berkowitz: Yeah. I think that's right. I heard something similar that if you're standing around on rounds debating whether the patient should get a lumbar puncture, probably, if you've talked about it that much, you should probably do it. I think we've heard the same things in different places. Along those lines of who needs a lumbar puncture, many patients with systemic infections can develop a headache, even if it's just from systemic infection (you don't necessarily have meningitis and cephalitis), and many patients, particularly older patients, develop confusion in the course of systemic infections, like pneumonia and urinary tract infections. And as neurologists, we are often consulted on these patients because they are confused, they are febrile, they may have an elevated white count, and people start to wonder, Could this patient have meningitis? Could this patient have encephalitis? In many cases, at least in my experience (I'm curious to hear your experience), it turns out that these patients have a systemic infection and the confusion and/or headache are related to that systemic infection, not a primary neurologic infection - but based on that topic we just discussed about, if you've talked about lumbar puncture enough, probably best to do it. How do you think about these patients who are, for example, admitted to a medical service for fever and confusion, may or may not have had a systemic source identified, but the suspicion is there? How do you think about which of those patients need a lumbar puncture, or what clues you into thinking to have a higher concern for meningitis, encephalitis, abscess, other neurologic infections in this context?   Dr Reynolds: It's such a good question, because I think, especially as we get older, you know, even things like nuchal rigidity might be hard to assess in a patient who's sort of started to fuse their spine - so, I think it can be really challenging. I think, you know, always go back to basics. Is there any new laterality that doesn't really make sense? Is there a sort of disconnect between imaging and how the patient looks? And it can be so confounded, because these are patients who are also on antibiotics (which themselves can be neurotoxic), and so, it can be really hard to sort of parse that out. But, I do think that there are some less invasive things you can try to do first to sort of help risk stratify your patient. So, you know, certainly, getting a CAT scan and just making sure that everything looks as you would expect it to look - there's no, sort of, hydro out of proportion to what you might expect. I've definitely seen patients who have meningitis that we caught because they have just a little bit of pus in the ventricles that was interpreted as intraventricular hemorrhage. And you sort of just have to sit there and think, like, Does that make sense, or is it an infection? EEG can be helpful, too, if it's lateralizing. You know, I think we don't think as much about HSV in the hospital. But, certainly, if you have something lateralizing on your EEG that just doesn't make sense, I think that could sort of push you in that direction as well. But, again, I think in most cases, unless the patient's very thrombocytopenic or coagulopathic, the risk of an LP sort of doesn't really outweigh the benefit of feeling confident that you haven't missed something, because I think, you know, one of the big points of this article is that if you catch these CNS infections early, people can actually do really well, and, really, most of the morbidity and mortality is from missing the infection - so we've been trying to move away from LP-ing everybody on admission, but I do think that you should be tapping some people that are not infected, because then you're probably catching everyone who is.   Dr Berkowitz: It's great to hear your approach, and I think that aligns with my thinking as well. I do want to ask as a follow-up to that question (I've asked this of internists I work with and other neurologists) - I totally agree with everything you said in the sense that, you know, we are consulted by our internists, we presume that they haven't found a reason that the patient is febrile and confused from a systemic standpoint, and that's why we're being consulted. There are, obviously, many patients who are febrile and confused in the hospital where neurology has not been called because there's other obvious reasons, as you have mentioned. However, as you said, if the patient has some immunocompromise, maybe there's some features that are suggestive in the history or nuchal rigidity - as you said, harder in older patients - but there's something there that you sort of think, maybe we should just do a lumbar puncture just to make sure we sort of settle this because we keep thinking about it. The question is, in your experience, when you've gotten a lumbar puncture more as a rule-out, or you think, I think this is the patient's pneumonia and they're confused because they're delirious in the hospital (sort of toxic metabolic encephalopathy), have you ever been surprised? Talking to an internist colleague, I've said, I feel like I haven't actually seen that much bacterial meningitis in the U.S., fortunately, thanks to vaccination. And, usually, the patient is coming in with a pretty profound syndrome of meningitis or encephalitis. But, as far as patients in the hospital with a fever, where you're thinking, "This is kind of a rule-out, so just make sure, even though I don't think I'm going to find meningitis in a patient who is immunocompetent”, have you ever been surprised and found meningitis encephalitis when you didn't expect to find it? Or, what's been your experience when you, as you said, tap these patients because you'd rather get a few normal ones in there to make sure you never missed the abnormal?   Dr Reynolds: I would say the few times that I've been surprised were not with fully immunocompetent patients. You know, someone with a splenectomy who otherwise looks immunocompetent, someone with pretty advanced cancer - those are examples where you wouldn't necessarily have thought about it as being immunocompromised, but they are. Certainly, I think patients with advanced cancer can, really - they're much higher risk than I used to think about. The more I've taken care of them, the more I've realized how sensitive they are to infections and how quickly that can spread, even if they're not actively getting chemotherapy. But, I would say in general, for the truly immunocompetent patient, I would say I haven't really diagnosed anything super exciting.   Dr Berkowitz: Yeah, that's good to hear. I love to, on these Continuum Audio interviews, poll experts in other institutions who trained other places and, you know, learn from different patient populations if your experience resonates with mine and others I've spoken to. Yeah, that sounds similar to my experience as well, yeah, if the patient is immunocompromised - and as you said, we maybe need to broaden that from being truly profoundly immunocompromised by congenital immunodeficiency or HIV or immunomodulatory therapy to have a slightly broader perspective on what could constitute immunocompromise - and, of course, we'd have an extremely low threshold to perform a lumbar puncture in such patients, as you said. You reminded me of a case I was trying to remember the details (which I don't) – it was a patient, actually, with a temporal lobe glioblastoma that had been resected and had some recurrence and was worsening, and it looked like it was tumor recurrence/progression. And I don't - wasn't my patient, I just sort of heard about it - but I don't know which attending or resident or fellow decided that the patient should get a lumbar puncture, and the patient actually developed HSV encephalitis of the temporal lobe, where the glioblastoma was.   Dr Reynolds: Wow.   Dr Berkowitz: Patients with cancer, especially with all the new immunotherapies - and even without them, as you said - this is a state in which people may be vulnerable to infections and ones you might not immediately think of. So, those are some great pearls. Speaking of pearls, you have a really fantastic section in your article on neurologic complications of CNS infections. In other words, you've already diagnosed the meningitis, encephalitis, abscess, or otherwise, and all the other neurologic complications that can occur in the course of this illness. So, it'd be great to talk with you a little bit about that here. So, if a patient is diagnosed with infectious meningitis or encephalitis (we've made that diagnosis by the clinical picture, the lumbar puncture findings, and/or the neuroimaging), we're following them along, we think we have them on appropriate therapy, (antimicrobial therapy), and their neurologic status worsens - what's the differential diagnosis for this worsening? What are some things we can think about? How do we look for them on exam? How do we work them up?   Dr Reynolds: Yeah. It's funny, because, you know, the topic of this is neuroinfectious emergencies, and when I first heard about it, I was like, “Every neuroinfection is an emergency”, and I think part of the reason I felt that way is because as a neuro ICU physician, I see the complications a lot more. You know, I think, from a meningitis and encephalitis standpoint, certainly cerebral edema (whether it be focal or global) is sort of your biggest concern. If you've used your adjunctive steroid therapy at the beginning before you've started antibiotics, you know the idea is that might help – and, certainly, it should help with potential hearing loss as a result of meningitis - but I would say cerebral edema or development of abscesses because of delayed antibiotic initiation is certainly a concern. If a patient's getting lethargic, hydrocephalus can often be a concern - and that may be obstructive hydrocephalus or communicating hydrocephalus – either way, that is a situation where, really, the patient may need, depending on the etiology of the hydrocephalus, either another lumbar puncture (for example, in the case of cryptococcal meningitis) or an external ventricular drain placement (which would bring them to the ICU in cases where there is an obstructive component). So, I do think hydrocephalus is hard to diagnose. My go-to is to sort of check tone in the legs every day, because a lot of times, patients with developing hydro will start to have really high tone in their legs - so, that's sort of my go-to physical exam finding, although, obviously, hydrocephalus can present as just sort of generalized lethargy or even, you know, worsening nausea and vomiting, for example. And then, I think, you know, if someone starts to be localizing on exam, I think that can be concerning not only for abscess, but potentially for ischemic stroke related to a vasculopathy, for example, or hemorrhage in the context of mycotic aneurysm formation, for example - and, so, I do think there is a role, if a patient starts to become lateralizing, for emergent imaging. And generally, we should be able to see most of the stuff on just a plain CAT scan to start. You know, certainly, localizing stuff can also be as a result of seizures, but I think that that's sort of a diagnosis of exclusion, and rapidly imaging a patient with new focal signs is probably the way to go before putting them on EEG.   Dr Berkowitz: Very helpful pearls. So, um, shifting gears a little bit, right before we began our conversation, you were telling me you had done some work in Malawi, and you were reflecting on some of the differences in epidemiology of neuroinfectious disease and resources available to diagnose neuroinfectious disease. So, I'm sure it would be very interesting for our listeners to hear a little bit about the perspective you bring to the diagnosis and treatment of patients with neurologic infections from your experience in Malawi.   Dr Reynolds: Yeah. So, I was lucky enough as a trainee to be able to go to Malawi for a few weeks with my neuroinfectious disease attending, and I think that it's pretty striking (the difference that we see in lower income countries, compared to the U.S.). I think a lot of the disease processes that we sort of take for granted as being easily treatable are not necessarily easily treatable, not only because of lack of access to medications and antibiotics, but also because of sort of a stigma that might be associated with the workup. So, for example, a lot of people were very hesitant to consent to lumbar puncture, because they had seen that their friends and family members who had gotten lumbar punctures ultimately died, and it didn't seem necessarily clear that the reason that they had died was from the primary infection itself. So, I think that really being attuned to disparities not only abroad, but even - you know, working in New York City, I can say that there are definitely disparities in terms of access to care and health equity, and, certainly, the timing of your presentation almost necessarily will change the outcome, and people who are presenting to the hospital later because of infections that were sort of ignored or because of lack of access to healthcare, those patients, really, by definition, end up doing worse - and so, I think that that is really a big thing to think about in our resource-rich areas, think about these infections.   Dr Berkowitz: Well, thank you for sharing those valuable and important perspectives both from Malawi and from your work in New York City.   Dr Reynolds: Thank you.   Dr Berkowitz: Well, thank you so much, Dr Reynolds, for joining me today on Continuum Audio. I've enjoyed our discussion and learned a lot from it. Again, today, we've been interviewing Dr Alexandra Reynolds, whose article on neuroinfectious emergencies 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 all of 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.

Despite validated models, predicting outcomes after traumatic brain injury remains challenging, requiring prognostic humility and a model of shared decision making with surrogate decision makers to establish care goals. In this episode, Lyell Jones, MD, FAAN, speaks with Jamie E. Podell, MD, an author of the article “Traumatic Brain Injury and Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury,” in the Continuum June 2024 Neurocritical Care issue. Dr. Jones is the editor-in-chief of Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology® and is a professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Dr. Podell is an assistant professor in the department of neurology, program in trauma at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland. Additional Resources Read the article: Traumatic Brain Injury and Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury 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 Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @LyellJ Guest: @jepodell 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 Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology. Today, I'm interviewing Dr Jamie Podell, who has recently authored an article on traumatic brain injury and traumatic spinal cord injury in the latest issue of Continuum on neurocritical care. Dr Podell, welcome. Thank you for joining us today. Why don't you introduce yourself to our audience and tell us a little bit about yourself?   Dr Podell: Thanks, Dr Jones. It's great to be here. As you mentioned, I'm Dr Podell. I'm neurocritical care faculty at University of Maryland Shock Trauma. I have a primary interest in traumatic brain injury, both from a research and clinical perspective. I previously have more of a cognitive neuroscience background, but I think it kind of ties into how I think about TBI and outcomes from traumatic brain injury. But what I really like doing is managing acutely ill patients in the ICU, and I think TBI really affords those kinds of interventions, and it's a really rewarding kind of setting to take care of patients. Dr Jones: Yeah, and I really can't wait to talk to you about your article here, which is fantastic. For our listeners who might be new to Continuum, Continuum is a journal dedicated to helping clinicians deliver the best possible neurologic care to their patients, just like Dr Podell was talking about. We do that with high quality and current clinical reviews, and Dr Podell's article - it's a massive topic - traumatic brain injury and traumatic spinal cord injury. And, you know, as we start off here, Dr Podell, we have the attention now of a massive audience of neurologists. If you had one most important practice change that you would like to see in the care of these patients who have trauma, what would that practice change be? And, I think, maybe, we'll give you two answers, because you cover TBI and you cover spinal cord injury. What would be the most important practice changes you'd like to see?   Dr Podell: So, this isn't that specific, but I think it's really important. I think we need more neurologists, and specifically neurointensivists, managing these patients. I think there's a lot of variability across institutions and how acute severe TBI and spinal cord injury patients are managed. They're often in surgical ICUs, and neurology may be involved in consultation but not in the day-to-day management. But I think what we're seeing is that, you know, there's a lot of multisystem organ dysfunction that happens in these patients, and that has a really strong interplay with neurologic recovery and brain function. And I think, you know, neurointensivists are very well equipped to think about the whole body and how we can kind of manipulate and really aggressively support the body to help heal the brain with special attention to, kind of, the nuance of any individual patient's brain injury. Because TBI is extremely heterogeneous and there's not just a cookie-cutter script for how these patients can be managed, I think, you know, people like neurologists, neurointensivists who have a lot of attention to the nuance - that's really helpful in their management.   Dr Jones: I'm so glad you said that, and not just because I'm a neurologist who's a fan of neurologists, but I do think there are some corners of neuroscience care where neurologists could be a little more present - and trauma definitely seems like one of those, doesn't it?   Dr Podell: Yeah, I think it's tough, because some patients with severe TBI and spinal cord injury can have a lot of multisystemic trauma with, you know, pulmonary contusions, intraabdominal pathology - you need to go to the OR for their other injuries, and so I think it really makes sense to have kind of a collaborative multidisciplinary approach to these patients, but I think neurologists should play a very big role in that approach, however that's done (there are lots of different ways that it's done). But I think having a primary neurology-trained neurointensivist – I know I'm biased, but I think that's where I'd like to see the field moving.   Dr Jones: And, obviously, neurocritical care is an intuitive place for neurological trauma care to start, and even with the sequelae of downstream things, I think neurologists could be more engaged. I wonder if neurology hasn't historically been as involved because it's sort of gravitated to surgical specialists. And I think part of it is, you know, trauma is not usually a diagnostic mystery, right? The neurologist can't pretend to be Sherlock Holmes and try to figure out what's going on when it was pretty clear what the event was, right?   Dr Podell: Right. Yeah, I agree with both of those points. I think, for one, I think postacute care is also a big area where neurologists can be involved more - and patients kind of fall through the cracks. A lot of times, these patients will just follow up with a neurosurgeon and get a repeat head CT and it'll look stable. We started implementing post-TBI neural recovery clinics, which I think other places are starting to do as well, and I think that's kind of a good model for getting neurologists involved - but also, rehab specialists are involved in that. But in terms of, yeah, the diagnostic mysteries and stuff, I think there still can be some, though, with TBI. Yes, obviously, the initial primary insult is obvious, but the secondary pathology that can happen in patients is really nuanced, and it is so variable, and, sometimes, it does take that detective eye to see, “Oh, this patient has one cerebrovascular injury, their risk of stroke to this territory? How are we going to manage it? and thinking about all the kind of sources of secondary decline that are possible. I think it takes that neurology detective sometimes to think about, too.   Dr Jones: Yeah. We never stop pretending to be detectives, right?   Dr Podell: Yeah.   Dr Jones: And on a related note, you know, in your article, you mentioned some of the novel serum and electrophysiologic and imaging biomarkers that are being used to care for these patients. How are you using those in your practice, Dr Podell?   Dr Podell: That's a good question. I think, unfortunately, as with a lot of clinical care, the clinical care does kind of lag behind the research and what we know what we can learn about these patients and their outcomes through retrospective studies. So, to be completely honest, you know, even the serum studies that I mentioned in the article (like GFAP, UCH-L1) - those kind of things, that's not clinically available at our institution. We don't use those. I think a lot of the imaging biomarkers that we see, some of them are coming from more advanced imaging – like, we're talking about FMRI - that requires a lot of post processing (so, again, we're not necessarily using that clinically). But what I would say is that we use imaging to kind of try to predict what complications patients might be at risk of and to try to predict their clinical course. And I think it comes down to trying to break down the heterogeneity of these patients and to try to kind of lump them into different bins of, “What's this patient at risk for?”, “What's their trajectory going to be like?”, “When can I start peeling back how aggressive I am with this patient?”. And, so far, I don't think any of the markers that we have are really clear black-white prescriptive indicators of what to do (I don't think we're quite there yet). So, again, I think we just kind of use all of the data in combination to come up with a management plan for these patients. I think some of the markers, (like some of the electrophysiologic markers), looking at EEG for things like background can provide prognostic information, especially in patients who are comatose that you're wondering about if they're going to wake up (so a lot of this can inform family discussions). But, you know, we used to think that grade three diffuse axonal injury on MRI portended a very poor prognosis (and in the past, some surgeons and ICUs might use that to limit care in patients), but more and more, we're finding that even that is quite nuanced and we're detecting more and more diffuse axonal injury on images in patients who then wake up, or have already woken up and they have the MRI later, and you're like, “Hmm, they had DAI. It's a good thing you didn't get the MRI early and decide not to move forward with aggressive care”. But, I think, in a patient who's comatose and you don't have a good explanation, sometimes, looking for those additional biomarkers to explain what kind of injury pathology you have can just provide more information for families.   Dr Jones: Yeah, and that's a great point that comes up in a lot of our articles and interviews (that the biomarkers really do have to be in a clinical context). So, if I understand you correctly, really, no individual biomarker that has emerged as a precise predictor or prognosticator for outcomes - but you do talk a lot about recent advances in the care of these patients. What would you want to point out to our listeners that's come up recently in the care of trauma?   Dr Podell: Yeah. I think the evidence basis for severe TBI is limited because, again, there's so much heterogeneity and different things going on with different patients, but some of the evidence that has come out more recently involves, kind of, indications for surgical procedures and the timing of those procedures. Some of that is still kind of expert consensus-based. But, for example, doing a secondary decompression for elevated ICP with the DECRA and RESCUEicp trials. We do have better high-quality evidence that doing a secondary decompression for more refractory, elevated ICP can improve both mortality and functional outcomes in patients, so that has kind of become more standard of care. Additionally, I think timing for spinal cord injury, neurosurgical procedures - that's been a topic that's been studied in more evidence-based to perform earlier decompressive surgeries. And then, I think, you know, more and more is emerging just about the pathophysiology of secondary injury - and some of those things haven't necessarily translated to what to do about it - but we've learned about things like cortical spreading depolarizations being associated with worse outcomes in traumatic brain injury, and we've also identified that ketamine or memantine can both actually stop those cortical spreading depolarizations. But the overall impact of managing them is still unknown, and the way that we detect those, it requires an invasive electrocorticography monitor which not all centers have. So, I think, one of the important things as we move forward in TBI care is, as we get this better mechanistic understanding of some of the pathophysiology that's happening in these TBI patients, figuring out a way to be able to translate that across all clinical settings where you can actually do the monitoring invasively - that's also an issue we see. Even intracranial pressure monitoring is pretty standard of care, but not all centers do that, and we have to be able to apply practice recommendations to centers where there isn't necessarily access to the same things that we have at large academic trauma centers.    Dr Jones: Got it. Obviously, there's a lot of research in this area, a lot of clinical research, and I'm glad you mentioned the secondary injury - things that are happening at the tissue level are important for us to think about. As the care of patients with trauma has evolved (and I'm thinking now of patients with spinal cord injury), we still see patients who receive high-dose corticosteroids in the setting of acute spinal cord injury - and obviously, that's something that's evolved. Can you tell our listeners a little bit more about what they should be doing when they're seeing a patient with a traumatic spinal cord injury?   Dr Podell: Yes. So, the steroids story for spinal cord injury is kind of interesting. There were a series of trials called the NASCIS trials that looked at corticosteroids and spinal cord injury, and they were initially interpreted that high-dose steroids had a beneficial effect on spinal cord injury recovery - but then, kind of in relooking at the data and recognizing that these were kind of unplanned subgroup analyses that showed benefit, and then looking at kind of pooled reanalysis and meta-analysis of all the data out there, it was determined that there actually was no clear benefit from steroids and that there was a clear incidence of more complications from high-dose steroids. So, in general, corticosteroids are not recommended for spinal cord injury. Same for traumatic brain injury, too (even though some people will still give steroids for that) - there was a CRASH study that looked at corticosteroids in TBI and found worse outcomes in TBI (so there actually is high-level evidence not to use steroids in that case). That's not to say that there's not an inflammatory process that's going on that could be causing secondary injury - I think that's still, really, you know, an area of active research is to try to figure out what is the balance between potential adaptive mechanisms of inflammation that are happening versus more maladaptive sources of secondary injury from inflammation and how and when do we target that inflammation to improve outcomes. So, there's still, I think, more to come on that.   Dr Jones: And, you know, we are guided by evidence, obviously, but also, we learn from our experience as clinicians. You work in the neurocritical care unit. You take care of all patients with critical neurologic problems. When it comes to TBI and spinal cord injury, what kind of management tips or tricks have you learned that would be good for our audience to hear?   Dr Podell: I think the way that I would sum it up is that you should be very aggressive - supportive care early on, and then thoughtfully pull back and let the brain and spinal cord heal itself. And, you know, the patients come in with TBI (for example) very sympathetically aroused. They do need sedation, they need blood pressure support, they need mechanical ventilation - they need help kind of maintaining homeostasis. And other autonomic effects with spinal cord injury happen, too - you get neurogenic shock (you need very aggressive management of blood pressure, volume assessments), you know, in both cases in trauma patients, managing things like coagulopathy - but, you know, over time, usually, these things start to, kind of, heal themselves to some degree. And then, kind of thoughtfully figuring out when you can peel back on the different measures that you're doing to support them through their acute injuries. Different protocols have been developed, and the Brain Trauma Foundation has developed evidence-based guidelines that have improved (just having a protocol, we know, improves) trauma outcomes overall at centers - but I think those protocols are just guidelines, and you really have to pay attention to the individual patient in front of you. For TBI, for example, our guideline will say to aggressively manage fever within the first seven days with surface cooling. But in a patient that, for example, developed kind of a stroke or progressive cerebral edema even on day five (or something) you're looking at them, and on day seven, they're still having a lot of swelling in their brain, I'm not going to peel off the temperature management. So, there is nuance - you can't just kind follow a rule book in these patients.   Dr Jones: Got it. And I think that point about aggressive support early is a good takeaway for any listeners who might be engaged in the care of these patients. You know, I imagine working in that setting and taking care of patients who are in the midst of a devastating injury - I imagine that can be pretty challenging, but I imagine it could be pretty rewarding as well. What drew you to this particular area of interest, Dr Podell, and what do you find most exciting about it?   Dr Podell: A lot kind of converged for me in this area. I went into neurology thinking I would be a cognitive neurologist. I had more of a neuroimaging background and an interest in neural network pathology that certainly happens to patients with TBI (and patients with TBI often will have neuropsychiatric and neurocognitive problems after injury). But then, during residency, I found myself. My personality clicked in the ICU, and I just liked managing sick patients - I liked the pace of it, I also really liked it. It's kind of a team sport in the ICU with multiple people involved - the bedside nurses, respiratory therapists, neurosurgeons, trauma surgeons - all working together to figure out the best management plan for these patients, so you don't feel alone in managing them. And not all outcomes are good, obviously, but you can see people get better even during their course of their ICU stay - and that's really, really rewarding. And I think what we're seeing even in the literature following patients out longer and longer, the recovery trajectory for TBI is different than what we see in other neurologic injuries (like stroke, where the longer you go - up to ten, twenty years, even - people are still improving). I think the idea that you can keep hope alive for a lot of these patients and try to combat any kind of nihilism - obviously, there's a time and place for that after a really devastating injury, but I've seen a lot of patients who are really, really sick, needing therapeutic hypothermia, barbiturate coma, decompression, still then recovering and being able to come back into the ICU and talk to us.   Dr Jones: We might have some junior listeners who are thinking about behavioral neurology or neurocritical care, and it's probably - I don't know if it's reassuring, or maybe concerning, to them to know that they might swing completely to the other end of the spectrum of acuity, which is kind of what you did.   Dr Podell: Yeah, and what I'm trying to do now is, I'm very interested in autonomic dysfunction that happens in these patients. It's related a lot to multisystem organ dysfunction and, I think, may contribute to secondary injury, too, with changes in cerebral perfusion, especially in patients who have storming or even just the early autonomic dysregulation that happens early on. I think it's induced by neural network dysfunction from the brain injury, kind of similar to the way that there are other phenotypes that would be induced by neural network dysfunction (like coma).  So, we're trying to look at MRIs of acute TBI patients and trying to identify what structural imaging pathology then gives rise to these different kinds of clinical phenotypes - trying to bring it back to this neuroscience focus.   Dr Jones: Well, that gives us and our listeners something to look forward to, Dr Podell. And again, I just want to thank you for joining us, and thank you for such a great discussion on the care of patients with TBI, and spinal cord disorders and thank you for such a wonderful article.   Dr Podell: Thank you very much. It is my pleasure.   Dr Jones: Again, we've been speaking with Dr Jamie Podell, author of an article on traumatic brain injury and traumatic spinal cord injury in Continuum's latest issue on neurocritical care. Please check it out. 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 article. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.  

The critical care management of spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) is similar to that of other acute brain injuries, with the addition of detecting and treating delayed cerebral ischemia. Recent trials are influencing practice and providing guidance for standardizing management. In this episode, Kait Nevel, MD speaks with Soojin Park, MD, FAHA, FNCS, author of the article “Emergent Management of Spontaneous Subarachnoid Hemorrhage,” in the Continuum June 2024 Neurocritical Care issue. Dr. Nevel is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a neurologist and neuro-oncologist at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, Indiana. Dr. Park is an associate professor of neurology (in biomedical informatics) at Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University in New York, New York and medical director of critical care data science and artificial intelligence at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital in New York, New York. Additional Resources Read the article: Emergent Management of Spontaneous Subarachnoid Hemorrhage 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: @IUneurodocmom Guest: @soojin_soojin Full episode 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 tuned after the episode to hear how you can get CME for listening.   Dr Nevel: This is Dr Kait Nevel. Today, I'm interviewing Dr Soojin Park about her article on emergent management of spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage, which is part of the June 2024 Continuum issue on neurocritical care. Welcome to the podcast. It's so great to be talking to you today.   Dr Park: Thank you so much, Kait. Nice to be here.   Dr Nevel: Before we get started, could you introduce yourself for the audience?   Dr Park: Sure. So, I am an Associate Professor of Neurology - also in Biomedical Informatics - at Columbia University here in New York City. I trained in vascular neurology and neurocritical care.   Dr Nevel: Great. And so, I always like to ask at the beginning of these interviews, you know, if we could take away one thing from your article — and this is specifically (I'll direct this) towards the neurologists out there that are covering inpatient consults and ER consults — and so, for our clinical neurologists listening out there, what is the most important thing that you think that they should take away from your article?   Dr Park: So, I guess the most important thing for the general neurologists out there is that it may have been a while since they were aware of some updates that have occurred. There are some recent trials that are influencing practice and will potentially influence practice in the next few years that readers should really know about, and it provides a little bit stronger guidance to drive more standardized management. There have been two recent guidelines published this year. But there remain several gray areas for management where you need to be a bit more nuanced, and so I'm hoping the article gives the readers a framework to deliver more expert care.   Dr Nevel: Yeah, and I really, of course, always urge the listeners to go back and read the article and reference the article, because I do think that you do that really nicely and are clear when there are things where there's more higher-level, evidence-based reasons for things and where there's, kind of, just more expertise and guidelines on certain things. So, could you tell the listeners a little bit more about yourself, what interests you about subarachnoid hemorrhage specifically, and how you approach that interest and clinical background in writing this article?   Dr Park: So, I mentioned that I trained in both vascular neurology and neurocritical care back when many people used to do that. As a result, I've trained or practiced in four different academic medical centers who have specialized neurointensive care units. And the patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage tend to have a substantial ICU length of stay, and the neurointensive care that we provide can have a very large impact on patient outcome. And what I saw, though (practicing across four different centers), was that the management of patients with subarach can be quite variable across institutions and across patients within institutions, and it's reflective of a couple of things. One, there's, like, complexity in detecting ischemia, even when your patient is a captive audience in their ICU room. Second, there's many clinical mimics that occur (the patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage, they have a risk for), such as hydrocephalus, seizure, and things like delirium. And then, finally, there's limitations in the technology that we even have available in terms of monitoring these patients. But, for me, it was this complexity and the variability of management that kind of posed an opportunity, and it really sparked my curiosity early on and has sustained me. So, I'm particularly interested in the role that, kind of, the complex analysis of existing monitoring technologies can play to improve outcome for patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage, and that's where the marriage of both being a neurointensive care physician and a biomedical informatics person comes in.   Dr Nevel: Yeah. That's really interesting, and I could see that, because I always felt, even during my training, that some of the management and, you know, what diagnostics were even ordered to follow patients throughout the ICU was expertise based and seemed to vary without a lot of really solid, again, high-level studies, guiding what was done. So how do you marry the bioinformatics with your interest in SAH?   Dr Park: Right. So, I have two grants on - basically, I guess you would say AI, but really data science - on how we can manage patients with bleeds, specifically ICH and subarachnoid hemorrhage and hydrocephalus. So, we use data that comes from the monitors and we process that in a multimodal fashion and apply signal processing and machine learning and we build predictive analytic tools. So, I'm very interested in this pipeline of developing clinical decision support (information that we don't really have), and we're trying to glean from all the data and turn it into information that clinicians might use. The problem in subarachnoid hemorrhage patients is that a lot of what we're looking for is subclinical - so, it's not quite obvious, either because you can't possibly be in the room to be constantly monitoring for it (and, currently, the best monitor is the human, is examination), but, specifically in patients who have disordered consciousness, even the examination can be somewhat limited, and that's where we rely upon some of our neuromonitors. So, my interest has come in taking those multimodal monitors - but even nonneurologic monitors (stuff about your physiology, like your heart rate and blood pressure, et cetera) - and able to find signals that might tell us that a patient is getting into a dangerous zone. So, that's what my research portfolio has been 100% about - it's about subarachnoid hemorrhage patients and trying to optimize management, both for prevention and intervening in a timely fashion.   Dr Nevel: Wow. That's really interesting and would be so wonderful, it sounds like, for this patient population, if, you know, something was able to be identified that you could easily monitor to kind of predict or catch things early. So, kind of segueing from that, what do you think are the most — and you outline these nicely in your article, and I'm going to reference the listeners to, I believe it's the first table (table 5-1) - but what are, just like in general, the most important initial steps a clinician should take when managing somebody with an aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage?   Dr Park: So, I think it's sort of along the timeline. So, at the time of presentation of a patient with subarachnoid hemorrhage, the focus you should have should be really on differentiating the etiology of the subarachnoid hemorrhage. At the same time, if the patient has any coagulopathies, you should manage that coagulopathy reversal, blood pressure management, and then detection and management and treatment of hydrocephalus. That's first and foremost. But then there is a longer timeline of neurocritical care management, and that's really centered on prevention, detection, and treatment of delayed cerebral ischemia, and that can occur anytime from onset of subarachnoid hemorrhage to two to three weeks out. And then that period of neurocritical care is made challenging because you have early brain injury (which is the period of seventy-two hours after onset), cerebral edema, and then, like we talked about, disordered consciousness. This kind of knowing how to augment your management strategies with monitoring or imaging is really key.   Dr Nevel: Yeah. And you, you know, spend some time in your article really going through delayed cerebral ischemia really nicely. And I would love to hear your take on what is the most challenging aspects of delayed cerebral ischemia in both, you know, diagnosis and management - and you alluded to it a little bit earlier, I think, with some of your research, but I would love to hear you talk about that.   Dr Park: Yeah. And actually, this is probably one of - if there was a controversial area in this topic, it would be about this - because there does not seem to be one best way to operationalize how you either survey for, or monitor for, delayed cerebral ischemia. There has been, historically, a merging of these definitions of vasospasm and delayed cerebral ischemia, which are not the same thing.  And so, if you were to draw a Venn diagram, not all patients who have cerebral vasospasm end up having symptomatic or delayed cerebral ischemia, and not all patients who have delayed cerebral ischemia have any discernable vasospasm - and, so, to use the terms interchangeably leads to a little bit of confusion. I mentioned the clinical mimics - you know, the causes of which are myriad (could be delirium, or hydrocephalus, or early brain injury) - and so that also poses another challenge. And, so, what I always say is that delayed cerebral ischemia, sometimes - when you're thinking about it in the context of subarachnoid hemorrhage - is sometimes a retrospective diagnosis. And it really kind of came from a really earnest attempt to standardize what the community is talking about, so that we can better understand how to define (if you understand how to define it better, then you can tailor treatments, study treatments, you're talking about the same disease) - but we're still not there, and I think that's where a lot of the controversy or confusion comes from. My personal approach is really to focus on the symptomatology, so, if a patient has vasospasm - whether that is, you know, screened for with a transcranial Doppler (if your institution does use transcranial Dopplers, it might be a nice screening tool) - but the fact of the matter is that not all patients can get a transcranial Doppler every single day. You know, most of the institutions that I have worked in offer that technology Monday through Friday and not on holidays, not on weekends, and so you can't fully rely upon something like that. The advantage of it is that it has pretty high sensitivity but it does have a lower specificity (so it overcalls vasospasms), so to treat just based on a TCD would probably be erroneous. Not all people agree, but I think that's the majority of the sentiment - is that you should then be triggered to go look for confirmation with some neuroimaging and really potentially wait for symptoms so that it might be a trigger to optimize the patient in terms of volume and blood pressure, but not necessarily to treat. So, yeah, operationalizing that workflow of how do you trigger, you know, confirmatory neuroimaging, what type of neuroimaging you should then choose? This is where the variability exists. But, in general, I focus on symptomatology. The extra challenge comes in the patients who have disordered consciousness. And so, at an institution like mine, we do rely upon invasive neuromonitoring, and that's now called for in the guidelines as well.   Dr Nevel: And I imagine these are high-intensity situations where also I would suspect decisions, you know, need to be made quickly on some of these things that you're talking about, too.   Dr Park: That's right.   Dr Nevel: What do you think is a misconception - or maybe (I hate to call it a mistake, but for lack of a better term) like an easy mistake that one can make - when treating patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage?   Dr Park: Hmm, an easy mistake. I guess, you know, time is brain, so it's an opportunity to miss ischemia - or actually attribute everything to ischemia and ignore the possibility for things like seizure (so nonconvulsive seizures), a resurgence of more of a delayed hydrocephalus - and so, I think it's important as you're managing a patient not to get kind of pigeonholed into looking for one particular thing (only looking for delayed cerebral ischemia), but being really vigilant that there could be lots of different reasons for a neurological change of a patient. And so, timely monitoring - kind of figuring out the etiology of a change in neurological status - is really important. And then, also, on the flip side of that, is we're really good at being aggressive in both inducing hypertension or managing a patient (trying to prevent ischemia), we're not that great about starting to pull back - and so I think being vigilant about opportunities to reassess your patient's risk for ongoing ischemia and deciding when that period of risk is over and starting to peel back on therapies, because these patients are also at risk for the down sides of inducing hypertension, which is PRES - and we have seen that in patients, and, you know, the phenotype of that will look very much like ischemia.   Dr Nevel: Yeah, it's complicated because you're taking care of patients with often impaired consciousness who have a lot of symptoms that could represent many different diagnoses that you would treat very differently, so I could see that that might be easy to do to kind of fall into the mindset of thinking that it's definitely one thing without fully evaluating for everything. So, caring for patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage obviously can be really, you know, challenging from the medical perspective, but also from the perspective of, you know, communication with families, and families asking questions about prognosis and things like that (and you mentioned this in your article about prognostication a little bit) - and can you talk a little bit about our ability to prognosticate long-term outcomes for patients who are in that acute phase (maybe even early first, you know, couple of days or a week) with a subarachnoid hemorrhage?   Dr Park: I think one of the most rewarding aspects of caring for patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage is that these patients can look, really, very sick in the beginning, and they're quite complex to manage, but you can see some very impressive recovery. And from a neurointensivist perspective, seeing that recovery in kind of a rapid timeline is rare - and we get to see that in subarach patients. We see patients who just have refractory recurrent vasospasm and delayed cerebral ischemia getting all of the tools thrown at them and you're really kind of, you know, concerned that there seems to be no end - but there is this peak of that injury, and then after that window of secondary brain injury risk kind of resolves, the patient can very much recover (so seeing patients who look the sickest be able to leave and go home). I think there is a hidden cost to subarachnoid hemorrhage where, maybe on our gross measures of outcome, patients look great, but there are this hidden cost of social psychological outcome that is unmeasured the way that we are currently measuring it. And I think our field is getting better at adopting some of the ability to measure those kind of hidden costs, and we're able to see that, even a year out, patients are really not back to where they were before (even though on the scales we currently have, they do look great, right, in terms of motor function, and things like that) - so, I think as clinicians, we have to be sensitive to that. So, when we talk to families, we have to remain hopeful that they are going to have a remarkable potential recovery but prepare families that they really should be on the lookout for any opportunity to rehabilitate in all aspects of function.   Dr Nevel: Yeah. And you mentioned in your article that as we're moving into the future  - and even currently - that there is some focus on gathering more patient-reported outcomes for people who are, you know, out of the ICU back in their normal lives after subarachnoid hemorrhage (which speaks to this that you're talking about, that even if their motor function is normal, they may not be back to their normal lives). So, what is something you think that's really important that we've learned in the past ten years - I'll give it ten years, you can go back further, make that time frame shorter if you want, but about the past ten years - about subarachnoid hemorrhage's impact on patient care, and then what do you think we're going to learn in the next ten years that will impact the way we care for these patients?   Dr Park: So, you know, subarach - in terms of the literature that is forming, that has formed - like I said, the guidelines had not been updated for over a decade, and we're fortunate to have not just one, but two sets of guidelines from two professional societies that were published right next to each other this past year in 2023 - but the field is fast moving, so even after the publication of those guidelines, there was one of the first randomized controlled trials in the field to be published maybe a month or two after that (that was the early lumbar drain trial). So, the key areas that I think where the literature has really helped strengthen our practice in terms of bringing standardization is in the antifibrinolytics. And so, in that space, recently, there was a very nicely performed randomized controlled trial for early administration of antifibrinolytics. It's a practice that, even when I was training, was sort of based on old literature back when we used to treat subarachnoid patients very differently - so we were really kind of extrapolating from that literature into our practice, and we were all sort of just giving it uniformly to patients early on with the good intention to try to prevent rebleeding, (which we understood, prior to aneurysm securement, was a high source of morbidity/mortality). So, in trying to reduce that risk of rebleeding (which happens very early) as much as we could, we were giving it. But the length of treatment (you know, who should we give that medication to) was really kind of uncertain - and this recent randomized controlled trial really gave a definitive answer to this, which is that it probably makes no difference. It should be seen with a caveat, though, that the trial (like any trial) was a very specific population. So, it could probably be said that for patients who are secured very early, there's no role for antifibrinolytic therapy, but, potentially, for patients who may be in a lower-middle-income environment or lower-income environment or for whatever reason can't reach aneurysm securement within that seventy two-hour period - you could consider, you know, greater than twenty-four hours you should consider the use of antifibrinolytics - but largely has brought an end to uniform administration of antifibrinolytics. This is where that expert nuanced care comes to, right?   Dr Nevel: Mm-hmm.   Dr Park: Another area is, really, kind of something as basic as blood pressure management. I think we were taught very early on that we should be very rigorous, bring that blood pressure down - and so, I think, across all types of stroke now, we're realizing there is a little bit of nuance, right? You have to think about your patient, about prior existing renal failure, about prior existing chronic hypertension that's poorly controlled - and in subarachnoid hemorrhage, the additional impact of that early brain injury. If you have cerebral edema, you should be considering, do we really want to control our blood pressure that low? Because we might be inducing secondary brain injury from our presumed protective intervention. So, these types of things are being revisited - so, the language around that in the new guidelines is a little bit softer, and it does sort of refer more to, “let's consider the whole patient”.   Dr Nevel: Yeah, rather than making a blanket statement that doesn't apply to maybe everybody.   Dr Park: Yeah. And you also asked about future.   Dr Nevel: Yeah. Where do you think things are heading in the future? What's exciting in research, and if you had a crystal ball, what do you think we're going to figure out in the next ten years that's going to impact care?   Dr Park: Well, fortunately, for patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage and for people like me who are treating patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage, there's a lot going on. So, I mentioned lumbar drainage because there was a very nice trial that was published - I think we'll see in the next few years how much of that diffusion of innovation travels across the country in the world about the usage of this. There are some who point to prior studies that may have conflicting results and so want to wait and see it be validated. Others are pretty convinced, you know, by the quality of the study that was done and are trying to incorporate it into their protocols now. I think we're going to see more usage and more study of things like intravenous milrinone, early stellate ganglion blockade, intraventricular nicardipine, and even maybe optimized goals for cerebral perfusion or blood pressure - and this is for looking at a myriad of outcomes, including the prevention and treatment of vasospasm and ischemia, improving outcomes, and preventing infarction. There's also a lot to come about early brain injury (and I kind of talked about that). It's like a seventy-two-hour period window after subarachnoid hemorrhage, and it comprises processes like microcirculatory dysfunction, blood-brain barrier breakdown, and things like oxidative cascades, et cetera. While currently, there doesn't exist any practice besides, like, the nuance and expert determination of blood pressure goals prior to aneurysm securement, I think this will be an area that hopefully will become a target for intervention, because it has an independent and influential impact on poor outcomes for subarachnoid hemorrhage patients. So, watch the space.   Dr Nevel: Yes, absolutely. Looking forward to seeing what comes. Well, thank you so much for talking to me, Dr Park, and joining me on Continuum Audio.   Dr Park: It was my pleasure.   Dr Nevel: Again, today, I've been interviewing Dr Soojin Park, whose article on emergent management of spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage appears in the most recent issue of Continuum in 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 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 - and 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.

In neurocritical care, the initial evaluation is often fast paced, and assessment and management go hand in hand. History, clinical examination, and workup should be obtained while considering therapeutic implications and the need for lifesaving interventions. In this episode, Aaron Berkowitz, MD, PhD FAAN, speaks with Sarah Wahlster, MD, an author of the article “The Neurocritical Care Examination and Workup,” in the Continuum June 2024 Neurocritical Care issue. Dr. Berkowitz is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and professor of neurology at the University of California San Francisco, Department of Neurology and a neurohospitalist, general neurologist, and a clinician educator at the San Francisco VA Medical Center and San Francisco General Hospital in San Francisco, California. Dr. Wahlster is an associate professor of neurology in the departments of neurology, neurological surgery, and anesthesiology and pain medicine at Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington in Seattle, Washington. Additional Resources Read the article: The Neurocritical Care Examination and Workup 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: @AaronLBerkowitz Guest: @SWahlster Full Episode Transcript Sarah Wahlster, MD   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 clicking on 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 Berkowitz: This is Dr Aaron Berkowitz, and today I'm interviewing Dr Sarah Wahlster about her article on examination and workup of the neurocritical care patient, which is part of the June 2024 Continuum issue on neurocritical care. Welcome to the podcast, Dr Wahlster. Can you please introduce yourself to the audience? Dr Wahlster: Thank you very much, Aaron. I'm Sarah Wahlster. I'm a neurologist and neurontensivist at Harborview Medical Center at the University of Washington. Dr Berkowitz: Well, Sarah and I know each other for many, many years. Sarah was my senior resident at Mass General and Brigham and Women's Hospital. Actually, Sarah was at my interview dinner for that program, and I remember meeting her and thinking, “If such brilliant, kind, talented people are in this program, I should try to see if I can find my way here so I can learn from them.” So, I learned a lot from Sarah as a resident, I learned a lot from this article, and excited for all of us to learn from Sarah, today, talking about this important topic. So, to start off, let's take a common scenario that we see often. We're called to the emergency room because a patient is found down, unresponsive, and neurology is called to see the patient. So, what's running through your mind? And then, walk us through your approach as you're getting to the bedside and as you're at the bedside. Dr Wahlster: Yeah, absolutely. This was a fun topic to write about because I think this initial kind of mystery of a patient and the initial approach is something that is one of the puzzles in neurology. And I think, especially if you're thinking about an emergency, the tricky part is that the evaluation and management go hand in hand. The thinking I've adapted as a neurointensivist is really thinking about “column A” (what is likely?) and “column B” (what are must-not-miss things?). It's actually something I learned from Steve Greenberg, who was a mutual mentor of us - but he always talked me through that. There's always things at the back of your head that you just want to rule out. I do think you evaluate the patient having in mind, “What are time-sensitive, critical interventions that this patient might need?” And so, I think that is usually my approach. Those things are usually anything with elevated intracranial pressure: Is the patient at risk of herniating imminently and would need a neurosurgical intervention, such as an EVD or decompression? Is there a neurovascular emergency, such as an acute ischemic stroke, a large-vessel occlusion, a subarachnoid hemorrhage that needs emergent intervention? And then other things you think about are seizures, convulsive/nonconvulsive status, CNS infection, spinal cord compression. But I think, just thinking about these pathologies somewhere and then really approaching the patient by just, very quickly, trying to gather as much possible information through a combination of exam and history. Dr Berkowitz: Great. So, you're thinking about all these not-to-miss diagnoses that would be life-threatening for the patient and you're getting to the bedside. So, how do you approach the exam? Often, this is a different scenario than usual, where the patient's not going to be able to give us a history or maybe necessarily even participate in the exam, and yet, as you said, the stakes are high to determine if there are neurologic conditions playing into this patient's status. So, how do you approach a patient at the bedside? Dr Wahlster: So, I think first step in an ICU setting (especially if the patient has a breathing tube) is you think about any confounders (especially sedation or metabolic confounders) - you want to remove as soon as possible, if able. I think as you do the exam, you try to kind of incorporate snippets of the history and really try to see - you know, localize the problem. And also kind of see, you know, what is the time course of the deterioration, what is the time course of the presentation. And that is something I actually learned from you. I know you've always had this framework of “what is it, where is it?” But I think in terms of just a clinical exam, I would look at localizing signs. I think, in the absence of being able to do the full head-to-toe neuro exam and interact with the patient, you really try to look at the brainstem findings. I always look at the eyes right away and look at, I think, just things like, you know, the gaze (how is it aligned? is there deviation? is there a skew? what do the pupils look like? [pupillary reactivity]). I think that's usually often a first step - that I just look at the patient's eyes. I think other objective findings, such as brainstem reflexes and motor responses, are also helpful. And then you just look whether there's any kind of focality in terms of - you know, is there any difference in size? But I think those are kind of the imminent things I look at quickly. Dr Berkowitz: Fantastic. Most of the time, this evaluation is happening kind of en route to the CT scanner or maybe a CT has already happened. So, let's say you're seeing a patient who's found down, the CT has either happened or you asked for it to happen somewhat quickly after you've done your exam, and let's say it's not particularly revealing early on. What are the sort things on your exam that would then push you to think about an MRI, a lumbar puncture, an EEG? You and I both spend time in large community hospitals, right, where “found down” is one of the most common chief concerns. In many cases, there isn't something to see on the CT or something obvious in the initial labs, and the question always comes up, “Who gets an MRI? Who gets an LP? Who gets an EEG?” - and I'm not sure I have a great framework for this. Obviously, you see focality on your exam, you know you need to look further. But, any factors in the history or exam that, even with a normal CT, raise your suspicion that you need to go further? Dr Wahlster: It's always a challenge, especially at a community hospital, because some of these patients come in at 1 AM where the EEG is not imminently available. But I think - let's say the CT scan is absolutely normal and doesn't give me a cause, but as an acute concerning deterioration, I think both EEG and LP would cross my mind. MRI I kind of see a little bit as a second-day test. I think there's very rare situation where an acute MRI would inform my imminent management. It's very informative, right, because you can see very small-vessel strokes. We had this patient that actually had this really bad vasculitis and we were able to see the small strokes everywhere on the MRI the day later, or sometimes helps you visualize acute brainstem pathology. But I think, even that - if you rule out a large-vessel occlusion on your CTA, there's brainstem pathology that is not imminently visible on the CT - it's nothing you need to go after. So, I do think the CT is a critical part of that initial eval, and whereas I always admire the neurological subspecialties, such as movements, where you just – like, your exam is everything. I think, to determine these acute time-sensitive interventions, the CT is key. And also, seeing a normal CT makes me a little less worried. You always look at these “four H” (they're big hypodensity, hyperdensity, any shift; is there hydrocephalus or herniation). I think if I don't have an explanation, my mind would imminently jump to seizure or CNS infection, or sometimes both. And I think then I would really kind of - to guide those decisions and whether I want to call in the EEG tech at 2 AM - I would, you know, again, look at the history and exam, see if there's any gaze deviation, tongue biting, incontinence - anything leading up towards seizure. I think, though, even if I didn't have any of those, those would strengthen my suspicion. If I really, absolutely don't have an explanation and the patient off sedation is just absolutely altered, I would still advocate for an EEG and maybe, in the meantime, do a small treatment trial. And I think with CNS infection - obviously, there are patients that are high risk for it - I would try to go back and get history about prodromes and, you know, look at things like the white count, fevers, and all of that. But again, I think if there's such a profound alteration in neurologic exam, there's nothing in the CT, and there's no other explanation, I would tend to do these things up front because, again, you don't want to miss them. Dr Berkowitz: Yeah, perfect. So many pearls in there, but one I just want to highlight because I'm not sure I've heard the mnemonic - can you tell us the four Hs again of sort of neurologic emergencies on CT? Dr Wahlster: Yeah. So, it's funny; for ages - I'm actually not sure where that's coming from, and I learned it from one of my fellows, one of our neurocritical care fellows - he's a fantastic teacher and he would teach our EM and anesthesia residents about it and his approach to CT. But yeah, the four H - he was always kind of like, “Look at the CT. Do you see any acute hypodensities, any hyperdensities?” And hypodensities would be involving infarct or edema; hyperdensities would be, most likely, hemorrhage (sometimes calcification or other things). Then, “Do you see hydrocephalus?” (because that needs an intervention). And, “Look at the midline structures and the ventricles.” And then, “Do you see any signs of herniation?” And he would go through the different types of herniation. But I thought that's a very good framework for looking at the “noncon” and just identifying critical pathology that needs some intervention. Dr Berkowitz: Yeah – so, hypodensity, hyperdensity, herniation, hydrocephalus. That's a good one – the four Hs; fantastic. Okay. So, a point that comes up a few times in your article - which I thought was very helpful to walk through and I'd love to pick your brain about a little bit – is, which patients need to be intubated for a neurologic indication? So, often we do consultations in medical, surgical ICUs; patients are intubated for medical respiratory reasons, but sometimes patients are intubated for neurologic reasons. So, can you walk us through your thinking on how to decide who needs to be intubated for the concern of depressed level of consciousness? Dr. Wahlster: It's an excellent question, and I think I would bet there's a lot of variation in practice and difference in opinion. There was actually the 2020 ESICM guidelines kind of commented on it, and those are great guidelines in terms of just intubation, mechanical ventilation of patients, and just acknowledging how there is a lack of really strong evidence. I would say the typical mantra (“GCS 8, intubate”) has been proposed in the trauma literature. And at some point, I actually dug into this to look behind the evidence, and there's actually not as much evidence as it's been put forth in guidelines and that kind of surprised me - that was just recently. I was like, “Actually, let me look this up.” I would say I didn't find a ton of strong evidence for it. I would say, as neurologist – you know, I'm amazed because GCS, I think is a - in some ways, a good tool to track things because it's so widely used across the board. But I would say, as neurologists, we all know that it sometimes doesn't account for some sort of nuances; you know, if a patient is aphasic, if a patient has an eyelid-opening apraxia - it can always be a little confounded. I'm amazed that GCS is still so widely used, to be frank. But I would say there is some literature - some school of thought - that maybe just blindly going by that mantra could be harmful or could not be ideal. I would say – I mean, I look at the two kind of functional things: oxygenation and ventilation. I think, in a neuro patient, you always think about airway protection or the decreased level of consciousness being a major issue (What is truly airway protection? Probably a mix of things). Then there's the issue of respiratory centers and respiratory drive - I think those are two issues you think about. But ultimately, if it leads to insufficient oxygenation - hypoxia early on is bad and that's been shown in several neurologic acute brain injuries. I think you also want to think about ventilation, especially if the mental status is poor to the point that the PCO2 elevates, that could also augment an ICP or exacerbate an ICP crisis. Or sometimes, I think there's just dysregulation of ventilation and there's hyperventilation to the point that the PCO2 is so low that I worry about cerebral vasoconstriction. So, I worry about these markers. I think, the oxygenation, I usually just kind of initially track on the sats. Sometimes, if the patient is profoundly altered, I do look at an arterial blood gas. And then there are things like breathing sounds (stridor, stertor [the work of breathing]). And I think something that also makes me have a lower threshold to intubate is if I'm worried and I want to scan, and I'm worried that the patient can't tolerate it - I want an imminent scan to just see why the patient is altered, or seizing, or presenting a certain way. Dr Berkowitz: All great pearls for how to think through this. Yeah - it's hard to think of hard and fast rules, and you can get to eight on the GCS in many different ways, as you said, some of which may not involve the respiratory mechanics at all. So, that's a helpful way of thinking about it that involves both the mental state, kind of the tracheal apparatus and how it's being managed by the neurologic system, and also the oxygen and carbon dioxide (sort of, respiratory parameters) – so, linking all those together; that's very helpful. And, related question – so, that's sort of for that patient with central nervous system pathology, who we're thinking about whether they need to be intubated for a primary neurologic indication. What about from the acute neuromuscular perspective (so, patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome or myasthenic crisis); how do you think about when to intubate those patients? Dr Wahlster: Yeah, absolutely - I think that's a really important one. And I think especially in a patient that is rapidly progressing, you always kind of think about that, and you want them in a supervised setting, either the ER or the ICU. I mean, there's some scores - I think there's the EGRIS score; there's some kind of models that predict it. I would say, the factors within that model, and based on my experience, often the pace of progression of reflex motor syndrome. I often see things like, kind of, changes in voice. You know, myasthenia, you look at things like head extension, flexion - those are the kind of factors. I would say there's this “20/30/40 rule” about various measures of, like, NIF and vital capacities, which is great. I would say in practice, I sometimes see that sometimes the participation in how the NIF is obtained is a little bit funky, so I wouldn't always blindly go by these numbers but sometimes it's helpful to track them. If you get a reliable kind of sixty and suddenly it drops to twenty, that makes me very concerned. But I would say, in general, it's really a little bit the work of breathing - looking at how the patient looks like. There's also (at some point) ABG abnormalities, but we always say, once those happen, you're kind of later in the game, so you should really - I think anyone that is in respiratory distress, you should think about it and have a low threshold to do it, and, at a minimum, monitor very closely. Dr Berkowitz: Yeah, we have those numbers, but so often, our patients who are weak, from a neuromuscular perspective, often have facial and other bulbar weakness and can't make a seal on the device that is used to check these numbers, and it can look very concerning when the patient may not, or can be a little bit difficult to interpret. So, I appreciate you giving us sort of the protocol and then the pearls of the caveats of how to interpret them and going sort of back to basics. So, just looking at the patient at the bedside and how hard they are working to breathe, or how difficult it is for them to clear their secretions from bulbar weakness. Moving on to another topic, you have a really wonderful section in your article on detecting clinical deterioration in patients in the neuro ICU. Many patients in the neuro ICU - for example, due to head trauma or large ischemic stroke or intracerebral hemorrhage, subarachnoid hemorrhage, or status epilepticus - they can't communicate with us to tell us something is getting worse, and they can't (in many cases) participate in the examination. They may be intubated, as you said, sedated or maybe even not sedated, and there's not necessarily much to follow on the exam to begin with if the GCS is very low. So, I'd love to hear your thoughts and your pearls, as someone who rounds in the neuro-ICU almost every day. What are you looking for at the bedside to try to detect sort of covert deterioration, if you will, in patients who already have major neurologic deficits, major neurologic injury or disease that we're aware of? I'm trying to see if there is some type of difference at the bedside that would lead you to be concerned for some underlying change and go back to the scanner or repeat EEG, LP, et cetera. Dr Wahlster: Yeah. I think that's an excellent question because that's a lot of what we do in the neuro ICU, right? And when you read your Clans, your residency, like, “Ah, QNR neuro checks, [IG1]  ” right? We often do that in many patients. But I think in the right patient, it can really be life or death a matter, and it is the exam that really then drives a whole cascade of changes in management and detects the need for lifesaving procedure. I would say it depends very much on the process and what you anticipate, right? If you have, for example, someone with a large ischemic stroke, large MCA stroke, especially, right, then there's sometimes conversations about doing a surgical procedure before they herniate. But let's say, kind of watch them and are worried that they will, you do worry about uncal herniation, and you pay attention to the pupil, because often, if the inferior division is infarcted, you know, you can see that kind of temporal tickling the uncus already. And so, I think those are patients that I torture with those NPi checks and checking the pupil very vigilantly. I would say, if it's a cerebellar stroke, for example, right, then you think about, you know, hydrocephalus. And often patients with cerebellar stroke - you know, the beauty of it is that if you detect it early, those patients can do so well, but they can die, and will die if they develop hydrocephalus start swelling. But I think, often something I always like to teach trainees is looking at the eye movements in upgaze and downgaze because, often, as the aqueduct, the third ventricle gets compressed and there's pressure on the colliculi – you kind of see vertical gaze get worse. But I would say I think it's always good to know what the process is and then what deterioration would look like. For example, in subarachnoid hemorrhage, where you talk about vasospasm - it's funny - I think a really good, experienced nurse is actually the best tool in this, but they will sometimes come to you and say, “I see this flavor,” and it's actually a constellation of symptoms, especially in the anterior ACA (ACom) aneurysms. You sometimes see patients suddenly, like, making funky jokes or saying really weird things. And then you see that in combination with, sometimes, a sodium drop, a little bit of subfebrile temperature; blood pressure shoot up sometimes, and that is a way the brain is sometimes regulating. But it's often a constellation of things, and I think it depends a little on the process that you're worried about. Dr Berkowitz: Yeah, that's very helpful. You just gave us some pearls for detecting deterioration related to vasospasm and subarachnoid hemorrhage; some pearls for detecting malignant edema in an MCA stroke or fourth ventricular compression in a large cerebellar stroke. Patients I find often very challenging to get a sense of what's going on and often get scanned over and over and back on EEG, not necessarily find something: patients with large intracerebral hemorrhage (particularly, in my experience, if the thalamus is involved) just can fluctuate a lot, and it's not clear to me actually what the fluctuation is. But you're looking for whether they're developing hydrocephalus from third ventricular compression with a thalamic hemorrhage (probably shouldn't be seizing from the thalamus, but if it's a large hemorrhage and cortical networks are disrupted and it's beyond sort of the subcortical gray matter, or has the hemorrhage expanded or ruptured it into the ventricular system?) And yet, you scan these patients over and over, sometimes, and just see it's the same thalamic hemorrhage and there's some, probably, just fluctuation level of arousal from the thalamic lesion. How do you, as someone who sees a lot of these patients, decide which patients with intracerebral hemorrhage - what are you looking for as far as deterioration? How do you decide who to keep scanning when you're seeing the same fluctuations? I find it so challenging - I'm curious to hear your perspective. Dr Wahlster: Yeah, no - that is a very tricky one. I mean, unfortunately, in patients with deeper hemorrhages or deeper lesions - you know, thalamic or then affecting brainstem - I think those are the ones that ultimately don't have good, consistent airway protection and do end up needing a trach, just because there's so much fluctuation. But I agree - it's so tricky, and I don't think I can give a perfect answer. I would say, a little bit I lean on the imaging. And for example - let's say there's a thalamic hemorrhage. We recently actually had a patient - I was on service last week - we had a thalamic hemorrhage with a fair amount of edema on it that was also kind of pressing on the aqueduct and didn't have a lot of IVH, right? But it was, like, from the outside pushing on it and where we ended up getting more scans. And I have to say, that patient actually just did fine and actually got the drain out and didn't need a shunt or anything, and actually never drained. We put an EVD and actually drained very little. So, I think we're still bad at gauging those. But I think, in general, my index of suspicion or threshold to scan would be lower if there was something, like, you know, a lot of IVH associated, if, you know, just kind of push on the aqueduct. It's very hard to say, I think. Sometimes, as you get to know your patients, you can get a little bit of a flavor of what is within normal fluctuation. I think it's probably true for every patient, right? - that there's always some fluctuation within the realm of like, “that's what he does,” and then there's something more profound. Yeah, sorry - I wish I could give a better answer, but I would say it's very tricky and requires experience and, ideally, you really taking the time to examine the patient yourself (ideally, several times). Sometimes, we see the patient - we get really worried. Or the typical thing we see the ICU is that the neurosurgeons walk around at 5 AM and say, like, “She's altered, she's different, she's changed.” And then the nurse will tell you at 8 AM, like, “No, they woke up and they ate their breakfast.” So, I think really working with your nurse and examining the patient yourself and just getting a flavor for what the realm of fluctuation is. Dr Berkowitz: Yeah - that's helpful to hear how challenging it is, even for a neurocritical care expert. I'm often taking care of these patients when they come out of the ICU and I'm thinking, “Am I scanning these patients too much?” Because I just don't sort of see the initial stage, and then, you know, you realize, “If I'm concerned and this is not fitting, then I should get a CT scan,” and sometimes you can't sort it out of the bedside. So, far from apologizing for your answer, it's reassuring, right, that sometimes you really can't tell at the bedside, as much as we value our exam. And the stakes are quite high if this patient's developed intraventricular hemorrhage or hydrocephalus, and these would change the management. Sometimes you have these patients the first few days in the ICU (for us, when they come out of the ICU) are getting scanned more often than you would like to. But then you get a sense of, “Oh, yeah - these times of day, they're hard to arouse,” or, “They're hard to arouse, but they are arousable this way,” and then, “When they are aroused, this is what they can do, and that's kind of what we saw yesterday.” And yet, as you said, if anyone on the team (the resident, the nurse, the student, our neurosurgery colleague) says, “I don't think this is how they were yesterday,” then, very low threshold to just go back and get a CT and make sure we're not missing something. Dr. Wahlster: Exactly. Yeah. I would say the other thing is also certain time intervals, right? If I'm seeing a patient that may be in vasospasm kind of around the days seven to ten, for the first fourteen day, I would be a little bit more nervous. Or with swelling - acute ischemic stroke says that could peak swelling, when knowing which [IG2]  , I would just be more anxious or have a lower threshold to scan. Yeah. Dr Berkowitz: Yeah - very helpful. Well, thank you so much for joining me today on Continuum Audio. Dr Wahlster: Thank you very much, Aaron. Dr Berkowitz: Again, today we've been interviewing Dr Sarah Wahlster, whose article, “Examination and Workup of the Neurocritical Care Patient” 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 so much 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 practice. And 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.