Continuum Audio

Guillain-Barré syndrome is a neurologic emergency with a broad range of clinical presentations that can make diagnosis challenging. In this episode, Dr. Mamatha Pasnoor reviews the classic features of Guillain-Barré syndrome, highlights important clinical variants and diagnostic red flags, and discusses how to interpret cerebrospinal fluid findings in atypical cases. She also shares practical guidance on treatment decisions, including the management of treatment-related fluctuations and distinguishing Guillain-Barré syndrome from chronic inflammatory neuropathies.

In this episode, Aaron L. Berkowitz, MD, PhD, FAAN, speaks with Mamatha Pasnoor, MD, FAAN, author of the article "Guillain-Barré Syndrome" in the Continuum® October 2026 Peripheral Nerve and Motor Neuron Disorders issue.

Dr. Berkowitz is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a professor of neurology in the Department of Neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, in San Francisco, California.

Dr. Pasnoor is a professor of neurology, program director of the neurology residency, and associate program director of the neuromuscular fellowship at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City, Kansas.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Guillain-Barré Syndrome

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. Berkowitz: When we learned about Guillain-Barré in medical school, we learned the classic presentation of a post-infectious acute ascending paralysis with areflexia. But Guillain-Barré is a syndrome that can have a large number of clinical variants, and much of what we learn about the classic presentation and diagnostic findings also has a lot of variation in clinical practice. I'm very excited today to talk with Dr. Mamatha Pasnoor, an expert in Guillain-Barré syndrome, about some of the large spectrum of clinical findings, CSF findings, and some of the exciting updates in treatment of this condition.

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. Mamatha Pasnoor about her article on Guillain-Barré syndrome. This article appears in the October 2026 Continuum issue on peripheral nerve and motor neuron disorders. Welcome to the podcast, Dr. Pasnoor, and would you please introduce yourself to our audience?

Dr. Pasnoor: Thank you, Dr. Berkowitz. I'm Mamatha Pasnoor. I'm from Kansas University. I'm a professor of neurology here, and I am the program director for neurology residency program and also the associate program director for neuromuscular diseases and fellowship. I'm also the medical advisor for GBS/CIDP Foundation International, and that's my area of interest in research and is autoimmune neuromuscular diseases, including CIDP and neuropathies and various other neuromuscular diseases, including myasthenia gravis.

Dr. Berkowitz: Fantastic. Well, I'm very excited to talk with you today. I really enjoyed reading your article. Lots of clinical pearls, very comprehensive and detailed review. I encourage our listeners to go ahead and look up your article and read it. We won't have time to even scratch the surface of all of the topics related to Guillain-Barré that you discussed in the article, but we will talk about some highlights and some things I certainly learned reading this. So, I imagine when many of us learned about Guillain-Barré in medical school or in residency, we learned the classic illness script of a post-infectious ascending paralysis and sensory symptoms with areflexia, albuminocytologic dissociation on CSF analysis, and usually demyelinating, but sometimes axonal features on nerve conduction studies. But as you review in the article, the clinical spectrum of this disease is really quite varied. The CSF can actually be normal or can show up pleocytosis. The nerve conduction studies can be normal, and the only more specific biomarker, the ganglioside antibodies, are only really associated with some variants, and even those are not always present. And in any case, you'll be waiting a long time for the results while the patient is in front of you with their acute illness. So today, I really want to focus our interview amongst the many topics you discuss in your excellent article on the spectrum of Guillain-Barré syndrome to make sure we know when should we be considering it, what's sort of atypical but fair game, what are some red flags that should lead us away from this diagnosis. So, let's begin with the clinical presentation. Could you talk to us a little bit about the classical presentation, the typical textbook presentation, and then some of the broad range of variants that can be seen under the umbrella of what we call Guillain-Barré syndrome?

Dr. Pasnoor: Yeah, that's a very good question. I think the 1st thing is all of us should recognize GBS because it is a neurological emergency, and usually the diagnosis is clinical. You really don't need any LP or spinal tap, MRI, or any of these to diagnose. It's mainly the progressive course is important of the patients. It should be a progressive less than 4 weeks, and if it's beyond 4 weeks, we are considering other conditions. It's symmetric weakness, and absent reflexes is one of the classic finding in this. And some of the patients may present with significant autonomic features, and some of them may present with respiratory problems. So that's very important for us to recognize early, you know, treat them early. So, this is the most common presentation of the GBS is progressive limb weakness, areflexia, and symptom progression less than 4 weeks. Some patients may have distal paresthesias. We talked about it. Numbness, as you mentioned. Ascending paralysis may start in the legs and goes up into the arms. Cranial nerve involvement may be seen, autonomic dysfunction and respiratory dysfunction may be seen in some of them. On the variants, basically this is the classic form, but the GBS, we need to identify the variants. The variants are like they can be paraparetic, that is like just involves the legs and arms distally, or they can involve the face, the pharyngeal-cervical-brachial variant. We see bifacial weakness of both the face and the limbs and paresthesias, pure sensory. These are all variants that we see. And other than that, we all remember from our earlier reading is, or learning is Miller Fisher variant and the variants associated that look like Miller Fisher, and we call them as Miller Fisher syndromes, which includes the typical and incomplete forms as well as Bickerstaff encephalitis into this category of the Miller Fisher variant syndrome.

Dr. Berkowitz: Thank you. Yeah, there's such a broad spectrum of variants. On the East Coast, when we see facial palsy, I trained and spent many years on the East Coast, in the summer, we always think about Lyme disease. And some cases even of bifacial palsy, we would think of Lyme disease. And some of those cases would turn out to be variant you mentioned bifacial weakness with acroparesthesias that on the East Coast might get mistaken for Lyme facial palsy with polyradiculitis. Any other variants that you've encountered or encountered in your reading and have your eye out for that are very atypical part of the spectrum?

Dr. Pasnoor: I think the motor GBS would be another, like, you have to keep that in mind. Because when we talk about classic GBS, we are talking about motor sensory, but then there can be a purely motor variant, and they can mimic many other conditions. I mean, especially you talked about, like, when they have facial involvement, you're thinking of, like, myasthenia gravis, you know, motor neuron disease. So, you need to think of these other conditions when you have a variant like motor GBS can be a variant that you're thinking of.

Dr. Berkowitz: Yeah. So pure motor, pure sensory, pure cranial nerves, pure ocular, and then struck reading your article and other articles I've read as I've encountered atypical cases that we ultimately thought were Guillain-Barre. Sometimes the patients keep their reflexes.

Dr. Pasnoor: The hyperreflexia in some cases of, AMAN, the motor variants, you do see some, and obviously in Bickerstaff's you have to remember that too. So, there could be some variants may come in with... Although we talk about this being areflexia, there sometimes can see hyperreflexia. Very rare. I wouldn't take that. That would be actually one of our red flags to say that this may not be GBS, because I know you brought this up earlier, which is very important for people to know, is there are some red flags that you think of when the GBS, when you're trying to see if this is GBS or some other condition is, like, if they have prominent bowel, bladder dysfunction at onset. I know these patients do have, people with GBS do have autonomic symptoms, but if you have a significant bladder, bowel involvement earlier on, or if they have fever, they have altered consciousness, these are red flags you have to think about. And obviously, if it's progressing beyond the 4 weeks, you think of other conditions. And the other thing is pleocytosis. We talked about LP. Although most of the patients, most of the people with GBS may not have high CSF protein in the 1st week,

Dr. Pasnoor: but majority of them convert to having high CSF protein in the 2nd week. About 90% may show that what we discuss about albuminocytologic dissociation. But if you look at it, pleocytosis, what is the cutoff of considering a pleocytosis? That's also important, I think. Some people, even up to 50 cells per cubic millimeter, we are thinking of still GBS, you know, so less than that. But if you're having more than that, think of other conditions rather than thinking of GBS.

Dr. Berkowitz: Fantastic. Yeah, there's a lot of great pearls there that I want to discuss with you. Yeah, we talked about the very broad spectrum and that Guillain-Barre can really be in the differential diagnosis for a lot of presentations, whether motor, sensory, multiple cranial neuropathies, ataxia, some combination of these features. And you started to get into another area I want to talk to you more about, which is some of the red flags. Let's talk a little bit about clinical. You mentioned prominent bowel or bladder. Again, it would be very, very atypical to have the sphincter involvement in Guillain-Barre, right? We said you could, just in the spirit of talking about the spectrum of variance, but if there was prominent bowel or bladder and setting up otherwise ascending, quote-unquote, "paralysis sensory loss", where would that point you to as far as diagnosis and workup?

Dr. Pasnoor: I would think more of a spinal cord lesion more than anything else. So always make sure that they do not have, like, transverse myelitis or, you know, other bowel. I think a spinal cord would be my 1st inclination to look at.

Dr. Berkowitz: Yeah, that's a great point. Yeah, I remember one of my mentors telling me about a case that looked a lot like Guillain-Barre and had areflexia, and it was actually an epidural abscess. And of course, with spinal shock, there's absent reflexes. So acute spinal cord versus acute polyneuropathy can be tricky to distinguish. You also mentioned something you discuss in the article that is the rate of progression. So you mentioned Guillain-Barre is usually going to nadir around 2 to 4 weeks, and you mentioned one red flag is if the disease keeps progressing beyond 4 weeks. What sorts of things enter into your differential diagnosis for something that begins looking clinically like Guillain-Barre syndrome, maybe even has CSF findings suggestive of Guillain-

Barre, we'll talk more about CSF in a moment, but continues to progress beyond 4 weeks. What sorts of things do you think about there?

Dr. Pasnoor: Yeah, I mean, the 1st important thing is why do we even care about, like, you know, beyond 4 weeks? That's important for us because of the management varies with beyond 4 weeks in this condition. So, if you're thinking of GBS, but it looks like a demyelinating process, and if it is progressing beyond 4 weeks, then you're thinking coming into subacute form of this or even chronic, that is CIDP, that's again, the treatments vary with the CIDP versus GBS. And then also looking at treatment-related fluctuations, sometimes we see that, you know, they get better. The treatments again have worsening again. Or the other thing we are also looking at, could this be like an acute onset CIDP if they have more than 3 episodes within the 1st 8 weeks? You know, you're thinking of, again, acute onset CIDP. That's also important to be able to identify earlier on and diagnose them so that you can treat them in the right way.

Dr. Berkowitz: Perfect. We talked about bowel, bladder as a red flag in a patient otherwise presenting with symmetric, rapidly progressive sensory motor dysfunction. You mentioned the time course. In the beginning, we won't know when it's week one, week 2, week 3, but condition that continues to progress or fluctuate significantly beyond 4 weeks, start thinking more about CIDP spectrum, subacute inflammatory neuropathy type conditions. Any other clinical red flags before we talk about the CSF to alert our listeners to beyond bowel, bladder, and then the sort of progression beyond 4 weeks or fluctuation beyond 4 weeks?

Dr. Pasnoor: I think, uh, we talked, briefly about upper motor neuron signs. You know, that's definitely another red flag is if they have brisk reflexes. You know, again, there's a few variants that can have that, but if they have increased tone, brisk reflexes, like upper motor neuron signs, then you need to think of other conditions too, rather than GBS. Obviously, like central signs like, being uncoor-- or, uh, decreased level of consciousness, that would be another red flag for us.

Dr. Berkowitz: Perfect. And as you mentioned before, each of these red flags sort of has exceptions on the other side, right, that the Bickerstaff variant does have cephalopathy and can have upper motor neuron signs, but again, highly atypical, very rare syndrome, right? So, it, so it would push us away. Great. And you started to mention this a little bit earlier, but those are some important clinical red flags, and we should question the diagnosis of Guillain-Barre. What about CSF findings? You mentioned we could see up to 50 cells, but you might start to wonder if you have the right diagnosis here. You also mentioned the CSF can be normal, even though every board's question, right, it's gonna be GBS, the, there'll be albuminocytologic dissociation. Can you talk a little bit about CSF findings, what's acceptable and fair game, um, to still call it GBS, and what are things where you'd say it may still be, but we really need to look into other diagnoses, or things where you say, "No, no, no. This CSF is not compatible with a diagnosis of GBS."

Dr. Pasnoor: One is, like I mentioned earlier, if the CSF is drawn, like if we, if we get the CSF very early on, like within the first week, it can be normal. So normal does not, uh, rule out GBS in that case. That's why this, as we know, this is a supportive evidence. It's not a primary, uh, for diagnostic, for diagnosis of GBS. So, we need to make sure that with, if it is within one week, it may be normal. And if it is beyond that, usually majority of

the patients, more than 90 percent may, uh, show the albuminocytologic dissociation, which we are talking about, like cells may be normal, but the protein is high. What is high protein, again, it varies also with age, so we have to remember that, you know, again, with age it may vary. And also, someone who has diabetes can-- you're looking for a higher protein compared to the normal, um, other patients who not, who are not diabetic. And the number of cells, they-- in, in previous studies, uh, we have seen even up to 50 cells per millimeter, which is, I think is pretty high. But, uh, you know, again, if, if it's more than 50, definitely you need to think of other conditions. But if it is up to that, then you look at the clinical scenario and, uh, like o-obviously, if the patient has fever, uh, you can still think about other conditions like, uh, other infectious conditions. But if it is more than 50 cells per cubic millimeter, uh, definitely think of non-GBS conditions.

Dr. Berkowitz: Yeah. So again, like the clinical picture, right, such a broad range, and you discussed this in your article, broad range of CSF findings from normal to somewhat cellular, right? Maybe you'd see 6, 7, less than 10 cells, and you'd say the clinical picture fits. It's still dissociation, right? The protein is high, the, the cells. But gee, 20, 30, 40, 50 cells, I would be pretty uncomfortable, right?

Dr. Pasnoor: I agree with you. I think, uh, once it gets above 10, I think I get a little uncomfortable with that. I definitely wanna, like, make sure there's no other cause for that. Although we, we say it's up to 50, but, you know, I would still look for other causes if it is beyond 10.

Dr. Berkowitz: Um, for completeness in our discussion here, what are some of the other things you would be looking for when you see what looks like Guillain-Barre syndrome? It appears to be peripheral, it's rapidly progressive, and yet you're surprised on the CSF to find 45, 46, up to 50 cells. What are the things that you want to evaluate for a rule out, um, when you see that red flag of high cell count?

Dr. Pasnoor: I would definitely look for any infiltrative or infective cause. Like, if it's an elderly patient, you're looking at could this be lymphoma or some kind of infiltrative, like, malignancy or an infectious process. Like, again, there is, uh, like West Nile virus, you know, that's another thing that we think of in, patients, with the motor presentation specifically, like may see West Nile virus. So, there's infective or infla- uh, inflamm-, I would be more worried about those conditions.

Dr. Berkowitz: That's very helpful. Okay, we've spent most of our interview talking about the clinical spectrum and CSF spectrum, and those were areas you focused on in your paper with lots of pearls that I thought would be helpful for our listeners to hear more about. In our final moments here, let's talk briefly about treatment. Again, there's a lot more on treatment in your article we won't have time to get to today. I think all our listeners are familiar, right, with the, the sort of mainstay of treatment being either IVIG or plasma exchange along with intensive supportive care. Given that this is a disease, as you mentioned, that can have respiratory complications, autonomic complications, and all the complications that can come along with a neuromuscular emergency and critical illness. One question that often comes up in practice, and I was so glad to see addressed in your paper, is what to do when the patient doesn't respond to treatment. You 1st point out the important clinical pearl that something I also like to teach our

residents that when you give IVIG or plasma exchange, it's not like the patient gets better immediately, right? I think of it as you're sort of putting out the fire of inflammation, but the myelin still has to grow back. But there are some patients who even you wait a few weeks, they're really not getting better, or they seem to improve and they get worse, wha

Inflammatory and autoimmune axonal neuropathies can cause rapidly progressive weakness, sensory loss, and pain, but recognizing treatable cases can be challenging. In this episode, Dr. Qihua Fan discusses key clinical patterns, diagnostic strategies, and common mimics of inflammatory axonal neuropathies, emphasizing the importance of careful follow-up and realistic treatment goals. Learn how electrodiagnostic studies, biomarkers, pathology, and emerging imaging techniques can help guide diagnosis, monitor disease activity, and assess treatment response.

In this episode, Teshamae Monteith, MD, FAAN, speaks with Qihua Fan, MD, author of the article "Inflammatory and Autoimmune Axonal Neuropathies" in the Continuum® October 2026 Peripheral Nerve and Motor Neuron Disorders issue.

Dr. Monteith is the associate editor of Continuum® Audio and an associate professor of clinical neurology at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Miami, Florida.

Dr. Fan is a neuromuscular specialist, neuromuscular medicine fellowship director, and director of the ALS Clinic at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Inflammatory and Autoimmune Axonal 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: @headacheMD

Full episode transcript available here

Dr. Monteith: A patient presents with rapidly progressive weakness, sensory loss, and severe neuropathic pain. Is this an inflammatory neuropathy requiring urgent treatment, or a mimic that could lead to a misdiagnosis? Today, we'll discuss how to recognize inflammatory and autoimmune axonal neuropathies, navigate the diagnostic workup, and apply emerging advances in biomarkers, imaging, and treatment.

Dr. Jones: This is Dr. Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. This exclusive Continuum audio interview is available only to you, our subscribers. After listening, you can get CME by going to continpub.com/audiocme. We hope you enjoy the interview.

Dr. Monteith: This is Dr. Teshamae Monteith. Today, I'm interviewing Dr. Qihua Fan about her article on inflammatory and autoimmune axonal neuropathies. This article appears in the October 2026 Continuum issue on peripheral nerve and motor neuron disorders. Welcome to our podcast. How are you?

Dr. Fan: Good. Thank you so much for having me.

Dr. Monteith: Please introduce yourself to our audience.

Dr. Fan: My name is Qihua Fan. I'm an Assistant Professor in Neuromuscular Medicine at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia. It's nice to be here.

Dr. Monteith: And what got you interested in this field?

Dr. Fan: I was very lucky to meet a lot of brilliant thinkers along the way and a lot of really great role models. I was really blown away by how they're able to take a lot of different pieces of data. So, for example, meeting somebody in the emergency room and then doing their exam and doing their electrodiagnostics, then their pathology, and putting it all together and kind of seeing them from end-to-end care. They taught me how to think about things in a different way, and I've been hooked ever since.

Dr. Monteith: Cool. And so, what were the goals of your article?

Dr. Fan: The goals of this article was to try and pull out a couple of pearls in kind of approaching inflammatory axonal neuropathies. I think one of the trickiest things in axonal neuropathy management is we don't want to miss the treatable, reversible etiologies. But when we get it, it takes so much patience to not rush into judging whether or not we're successful, just because nerve recovery and axonal processes take such a long time. And so, we have to be used to kind of sitting there and waiting for 3 to 6 months to see if we're even on the right track. So, the biggest takeaway that I want folks to get out of this, is that stability is the goal in axonal inflammatory axonal neuropathies, and to be patient and to be creative about the modalities that we're using to see if our treatments are working.

Dr. Monteith: Why don't you help our listeners understand, as a group, how do you describe autoimmune axonal neuropathies?

Dr. Fan: So, a couple of principles in diagnosing and recognizing immune and inflammatory-mediated axonal neuropathies. One is that the tempo typically tends to be

subacute. Number two, is you need to be able to recognize the typical patterns in which they'll present. So, the most common textbook one is the mononeuritis multiplex, subacute stepwise progression. That will coalesce over time into another pattern, asymmetric axonal polyneuropathy. A third pattern is sensory ataxia or sensory neuropathy or neuronopathy. And a fourth pattern is, it's a mouthful, it's radiculoplexus or plexus syndromes. So that will be similar to your diabetic amyotrophy. And then your exam electrodiagnostics should be working together to confirm that pattern. So, once you have that pattern recognized, then you're looking for labs, electrodiagnostics, pathology, and then treatment responsiveness to help support that hypothesis every step along the way.

Dr. Monteith: Why don't you tell us a little bit about some of the areas that you're most excited about in terms of latest developments in the field?

Dr. Fan: Yeah. So, I think a lot of us are seeing the role of neurofilament light chain entering into our practice, and I think this has been a huge game changer in the area of inflammatory axonal neuropathies in particular. I'll give an example. So, if we see a new vasculitic neuropathy, right, somebody who is dropping nerves left, right, and center, and you see a very precipitous decline, you want to do everything you can to try and stabilize that. But the most satisfying short-term thing that we can achieve in the past was just stability, so that they stop losing nerves, they stop progressing in terms of their weakness, stop progressing in terms of their sensory loss, but they still have a lot of pain, and it's very challenging to manage. But with the development and commercialization of neurofilament, we're able to kind of demonstrate a normalization in a very quantifiable way to say, "Hey, look, we were burning through nerve very quickly before, and now this is a data point that can help support our treatment decision to say, yes, we're on the right track."

Dr. Monteith: Great. Maybe you can speak a little bit more about the approach to the evaluation. I read in your article that two key areas is determining the subtype and then the extent of nerve injury.

Dr. Fan: Right. So, it's a little bit of pattern recognition, and we talk about four different common presentation patterns. The classic one that we get taught is the mononeuritis multiplex subacute stepwise progression. But a lot of times, once the inflammation has been there for long enough, we've picked off enough nerves that the pattern has coalesced into a more length-dependent pattern. Typically, there's a little bit of asymmetry, and so that's the second pattern, is an asymmetric sensory motor polyneuropathy. The third type is a sensory ataxia. Somebody's coming in, their balance is way off, they can't do fine motor tasks, but there's not much other cerebellar findings, but their sensory examination is shot. And then the fourth type is an LRPN. So, this is much more like your diabetic amyotrophy phenotype is, is one example, and a lot of times that will be monophasic. So those are kind of the four patterns that can commonly present as inflammatory axonal neuropathies.

Dr. Fan: Once you think that this might be inflammatory or axonal in etiology, you want to kind of gather data points and see if it's treatment responsive. And so, when you're thinking about autoimmune or inflammatory etiologies, you want to look for biomarkers, for example, pathology to say, "Yes, there are inflammatory infiltrates that are attacking the nerve." One of the most surprising and clinically important findings that I learned about this when I was a fellow, is that you can see inflammation on pathology in

conditions that are not immune-mediated neuropathies. So, for example, even in diabetic neuropathy, you can find a dusting of perivascular inflammation on pathology, and that creates a very confusing interpretive picture because inflammation on biopsy doesn't automatically establish that this is an immune-driven problem or that immunotherapy will be helpful. So, the key takeaway is that the pathology alone is not enough. You still have to demonstrate that the disease is biologically active and that it's treatment responsive over time. So, you can confirm inflammatory neuropathy on pathology, but you need to show that you can alter the disease course, that it's treatment responsive, and you can't just go off of seeing inflammatory cells under a microscope.

Dr. Monteith: So how do you pivot away from that?

Dr. Fan: So that's why you have to build in multiple levels of confirmation. So, you have the pattern recognition to say, "Hey, I think this is, this might be an inflammatory neuropathy." Number two, I still look for the pathology for confirmation. I find it and then say, "Okay, if this is true inflammatory neuropathy, it should respond to treatment over time on exam, on biomarkers, on functional assessments, in the way that axonal neuropathy is expected to respond." So, you have to follow the exam over time, follow your biomarkers, and see if things are mapping out the way that you expect it to.

Dr. Monteith: Great. So, you gave some nice pearls in the article about ways to elicit temporal progression, and the extent of the disease. Can you talk a little bit about that so that someone who's in the ER at the bedside, we can get a bigger sense of the problem?

Dr. Fan: Sure. I think it's very helpful to kind of nail it down in two different ways. One is kind of starting from where we are and working our way backwards. So, if I'm seeing them in the emergency room, or if I'm seeing them in the clinic and they're coming in with a gait aid of some sort, right, they're coming in with a walker, they might not always have walked with a walker. So how long have you been needing to use a walker for? Were you using a cane before that? And so, that kind of gives you discrete moments in time to help build a case of, when did this walking problem start, for example. You can use the same concept for other aspects of their function. So, if they're not able to type or if they're not able to play the piano the way they used to, you know, how long has that been going on for? The limitation is that it doesn't distinguish very well between sensory deficits or motor deficits, but at least that gives you a timeline. The other thing I'll add for the exam is not only do we have to establish whether or not there's a deficit, but we also have to establish a very reproducible and reliable baseline so that as we're seeing them back in a couple of months, in a year, we have very reliable data to look back at and say, "Okay, is the exam worse? Is their nerve function worse, or are they stable, or are they even doing better and starting to recover?"

Dr. Monteith: And speaking of exam, what are some barriers to the evaluation, and what are some ways to mitigate those barriers?

Dr. Fan: I think the trickiest part, especially in neuropathies, is sensory exam is very, very difficult and very difficult to quantify. A couple of the ways that I've found to be helpful in being consistent and having a reproducible exam is trying to keep it as clear and dichotomous as possible. So, rather than asking somebody, "Does this feel as sharp on your toe as it does on your shin?" That can lead to patients not being able to describe what they're feeling very well. They're wanting to be helpful, and the way that they describe things will change over time, even if it's the same type of sensation. So, one

way that I try to keep it as simple and clear as possible is, can you feel the difference between sharp versus dull? And we'll test with their eyes closed, the pointy side of a safety pin and say, "Can you tell, tell me if this is sharp or dull?" And if they can distinguish, then at least we have that to go off of. And same thing for vibration, right? If they have paresthesias and they can't tell me the difference between vibration or no vibration at the toes, that's something that is reproducible, demonstrable over time. It doesn't give the nuance that a lot of patients would like to give you in qualitative characteristics, but at least you have something very, very clear to go back on in 6 months or a year.

Dr. Monteith: And what are some mimics that we should consider when thinking about the differential diagnosis, or what are certain conditions that could lead to a misdiagnosis?

Dr. Fan: The differentials will depend on the presenting phenotype, and so that's why it's really important to figure out which pattern are you starting off with. So, for example, if it's a mononeuritis multiplex pattern, stepwise progression picking off individual nerves, you wanna make sure it's not something hereditary, right, like HNPP. If it's a rapidly progressive asymmetric sensorimotor neuropathy, again, you wanna make sure that it's not something hereditary, or atypical hereditary, like TTR or amyloid neuropathy. If it's a sensory ataxia, you can have metabolic or toxic etiologies like B6 toxicity or platinum exposure that can progress quite rapidly. And then for your LRPN syndromes, you wanna make sure that it's not something infiltrative like a hematoma or a tumor that's causing this picture. So, it really, really depends on the initial presenting phenotype, the pattern of presentation, and then you can kind of figure out your differentials from there.

Dr. Monteith: Can you remind us what some of the hallmarks are of the electrodiagnostic testing?

Dr. Fan: Yeah. So, the things that you're looking for are asymmetry from side to side. Electrodiagnostics should confirm that there is a sensory motor or sensory polyneuropathy. The red flags that you're looking for on EMG to say that this is not just a garden variety type of neuropathy, is that there is a very significant asymmetry from side to side. So, you want to increase the yield by testing the affected limbs and the affected parts of the body, and then compare to the other side and see, is there a marked asymmetry or not? I'll take an example of vasculitic neuropathy again. So, if you catch something that was recently, very recently affected and you do the exam too soon, the Wallerian degeneration hasn't had time to manifest yet on electrodiagnostics, and so it could show up as a pseudoconduction block. If you stimulate above the lesion and the lesion below, it looks like the signal's just not traveling well through that one segment. And so, then it's important to kind of put everything into context and look at your whole clinical picture and say, "Well, could this be a pseudoconduction block? Are things evolving the way I would expect a demyelinating neuropathy to do, or is this something that might be early axonal neuropathy and come back?" If you feel like my exam's not matching up, my data points aren't matching up, my lab values aren't matching up, am I missing something? And then come back and retest again to see if it's really axonal.

Dr. Monteith: Can you speak a little bit more about your approach to follow-up? You mentioned key points like stability, but also making sure that you've identified early anything that might possibly be reversible, but then also not repeating electrodiagnostics too early.

Dr. Fan: Yeah. So, I think in terms of seeing people for follow-up, at every step of the way, it's really important to ask yourself, am I sure about the diagnosis and am I sure about the treatment? If we are, and if the disease is progressing or responding the way that we expect it to, then that's great. Then our job as a neurologist is probably threefold. So one is to make sure that we get a really good quality exam to say, is this stable, better, or worse? Number two, is to look at the immunotherapy plan and say, well, one, is this going to be monophasic or chronic? So, do they need maintenance immunotherapy? And if they are on maintenance immunotherapy, do we need to change that in any way? So, have we been able to achieve pharmacologic remission? And then number three, is symptom management. So, a lot of these patients will have pretty significant pain, significant morbidity, disabilities that still need to be treated and supported even if their disease is in pharmacologic remission. And so that's important to address.

Dr. Monteith: What clinical pearls should we be thinking about when it comes to treatment?

Dr. Fan: For treatment, we'll take the example of vasculitic neuropathy. First and foremost, you want to make sure that the inflammation is still active and that it's not burned out. If it's active inflammation, then there are two main aspects that you want to think about. One is what does it take to address the active inflammation and make that stop? Unfortunately, a lot of our options for stopping active inflammation, for example, in vasculitic neuropathy, is corticosteroids, which comes with pretty significant side effect burden and not really a great option for long-term treatment. So, the second level that you want to think about, is this a disease that will require chronic maintenance immunotherapy? Is this monophasic or is this chronic? If it's going to be chronic and there's a risk of recurrence, then you want to start the patient on some sort of maintenance immunotherapy right away so that by the time you're tapering the corticosteroids, the maintenance immunotherapy has had time to kick in and take effect and take over. When you're prescribing and managing these immunomodulation transitions, it's very important for us to know how long does it take for the treatment to kick in, how long does it take to wear off, and once we know that, then that will guide how quickly can we taper corticosteroids and how quickly can we expect a steroid-sparing therapy to be able to take its place.

Dr. Monteith: And one thing you had also mentioned is the potential use of MRI or PET imaging for targeted therapy. Can you speak a little bit about that as well?

Dr. Fan: So, the use of these technologies like MR neurography and FDG-PET, they've existed for a long time, but this is an emerging role in inflammatory neuropathies, especially in diseases where inflammation can be very patchy and can be very hard to localize. So, having a modality in which we can really visually find areas of inflammation that's attacking the nerves can be very, very helpful in evaluating the state of disease and how they're affecting the nerves.

Dr. Monteith: Well, I think that sounds like a really exciting area.

Dr. Fan: Yes, I think so.

Dr. Monteith: Thank you very much for being on our podcast. I really enjoyed this conversation. I know I learned a lot as well as many of our listeners.

Dr. Fan: Thank you so much for having me. Pleasures all mine.

Dr. Monteith: Today, I've been interviewing Dr. Qihua Fan about her article on inflammatory and autoimmune axonal neuropathies. This article appears in the October 2026 Continuum issue on peripheral nerve and motor neuron disorders. 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. We hope you've enjoyed this subscriber-exclusive interview. You can get CME by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audi

Diabetic neuropathy is more than a disorder of numbness and pain in the feet. In this episode, Dr. Vera Fridman discusses diabetic neuropathy as a complex, multisystem condition, highlighting the importance of recognizing autonomic involvement, identifying high-risk patients early, and addressing factors that influence progression. Learn practical strategies for screening, prevention, symptom management, and recognizing when symptoms may suggest an alternative diagnosis.

In this episode, Kait Nevel, MD, speaks with Vera Fridman, MD, author of the article "Diabetic Neuropathies" in the Continuum® October 2026 Peripheral Nerve and Motor Neuron Disorders issue.

Dr. Nevel is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a neurologist and neuro-oncologist at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, Indiana.

Dr. Fridman is an Associate Professor of Neurology and Neuromuscular Medicine Fellowship Director at the University of Colorado in Aurora, Colorado.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Diabetic 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: @IUneurodocmom

Full episode transcript available here

Dr. Nevel: Diabetic neuropathy affects millions of people, but in our neurology clinics, are we thinking about it too narrowly? In this clinic, Dr. Vera Fridman emphasizes that diabetic neuropathy is not simply a disease of the feet, revealing it instead as a complex neurologic syndrome with consequences that reach far beyond numbness and pain.

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. Kate Nevel. Today, I'm interviewing Dr. Vera Fridman about her article on diabetic neuropathies. This article appears in the October 2026 Continuum issue on peripheral nerve and motor neuron disorders. Vera, welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to the audience.

Dr. Fridman: Hello, it's great to be here. I'm Vera Fridman, and I'm located at the University of Colorado Medical Center. I'm a neuromuscular neurologist with focus on neuropathy clinically and in my research, and it's great to join you.

Dr. Nevel: Wonderful. Looking forward to talking to you about your article and learning more. So, I always like to start these interviews with the question, what is the most important takeaway from your article for the practicing neurologist?

Dr. Fridman: I think to me, in thinking about this article and writing it, the most important message and take-home is that we need to start thinking about diabetes-associated nerve injury as a complex disorder that's multisystemic. So rather than sort of just focusing on the peripheral nerve involvement we're used to seeing at the bedside, to really start taking that early clinical presentation of numbness or tingling as a warning sign, as a heralding sign of something that is widespread, complex, systemic, the way we might think about other multi-organ systemic disorders.

Dr. Nevel: Great. And that leads me into my next question, because you really do emphasize that throughout your article, all the different ways that this kind of more systemic diabetic nerve injury can impact a person and affect their morbidity and even their mortality. So, can you tell us a little bit more about this more widespread diabetic nerve injury beyond the kind of classic diabetic peripheral neuropathy that maybe we think of as neurologists?

Dr. Fridman: Yeah, I think the idea here is that we have nerves innervating a lot of different organs, and they are also not siloed. They're interfacing with other parts of our biology, vasculature, you know, the impact of inflammation. All of these things are converging, and they are complicated. And so clinically, when I think about diabetic neuropathy associated with systemic injury, I think about cardiac autonomic neuropathy, about gastrointestinal and urogenital neuropathies, and that these symptoms can be really diverse, and they can be nebulous. And so, in seeing someone who just says, "I have a little bit of numbness and tingling in my toes," I think the clinician has to sort of force themselves to imagine that there's all this asymptomatic disruption in the person's presentation that they have to dig for to understand better.

Dr. Nevel: What else should we be asking to kind of delve deeper to investigate or identify a more widespread diabetic nerve injury?

Dr. Fridman: When I think about what sort of trainees and early clinicians miss, like when I see histories come from people who haven't been thinking about diabetic neuropathy for a long time, it's usually the autonomic that's missing. Do you have lightheadedness? Have you noticed decreased or increased sweating? Do you get full easily with meals, what we call early satiety? Patients don't know that word. Do you have sexual dysfunction? That's an enormously important question because it can actually herald that there's more widespread neuropathy, more severe neuropathy, and that there's autonomic involvement or potentially vascular involvement. So those are the ones that I see missed. And then the others would be related to the risk of ulceration. What is your foot care approach? Have you had ulcers in the past? I think a lot of people don't realize that having had an ulcer, even if it happened some time ago and healed, is a major risk factor for recurrent ulceration. You're going to pay attention differently to that patient. And then the other question that doesn't necessarily relate to symptoms, but I think is hugely important to ask is, what are your barriers to caring for your diabetes and for yourself? What is getting in the way of those preventative measures, which are really the only really reliable preventative things we can do, right? Like, we don't have good treatments for this disease. So why can't you exercise? What are some of the reasons why you can't? Really in a non-judgmental, guilt-free way, because we know diabetes increases the barrier to these things substantially, and that patients are struggling just to get through their day. So, I think understanding those obstacles early in the therapeutic relationship is where you can make the most impact.

Dr. Nevel: Thanks for sharing that. Can you tell us a little bit more about cardiac autonomic neuropathy and why that's so important?

Dr. Fridman: Yeah, well, it's important because basically the largest driver of mortality and cardiac death in this population. And I think sometimes even with well-managed diabetes, we are sort of heartbroken to see patients who have gone on to have really terrible outcomes from cardiac autonomic involvement that we didn't necessarily know was there. The other reason it's so important is because it stays asymptomatic for a very long time. So, it's one of these sort of elephant in the room entities that if you don't ask about, you don't look for intentionally, you're just not gonna know, and the patient's not gonna know. They're gonna think they're lightheaded from their medication, which is a very reasonable postulation when someone's taking neuropathic pain medications and blood sugar is going up and down. But it may just be that there's autonomic disease underlying. The other reason it's important is because it's difficult to test for. So even if you have the awareness that you have to think about it and ask about it, it's not always clear to clinicians what they're supposed to do next if those symptoms are there or how to evaluate them. And so, I think for all those reasons, it's probably the most undetected complication, and it's hugely common, and in some cases preventable through aggressive management of disease. So, I think for all those reasons, it comes out as the one that we need to remind ourselves about.

Dr. Nevel: How do you evaluate for cardiac autonomic neuropathy in your clinic?

Dr. Fridman: That's a great question. I think I start really with the questions that will be included in this article of kind of these detailed questions about symptoms that they may not know come together as indicating autonomic disease. Then at the bedside, I do a

quick heart rate screen to see if they have resting tachycardia. Unfortunately, resting tachycardia is a late manifestation of cardiac autonomic neuropathy, so once you see it, it's probably too late. The next thing is to just perform orthostatic vital signs in the clinic and trying to get in the habit of having the patient lying and sitting and standing and taking the time. And in a busy clinic, that's actually quite a big ask. But if you can get a medical assistant trained and ready to do it on most patients, that I think is really important. If I'm concerned about it, then an EKG, which obviously wouldn't necessarily happen in the same visit, can help look for heart rate variability. And then the next layer is really talking to their primary care about a cardiology referral, because at that point, I think neurologists need help. And that's the other, I think, salient message from my thinking about this field is that this is not something that one practitioner can take on alone, and there has to be a really strong multidisciplinary network, just like we would do for our other complex disorders.

Dr. Nevel: Yeah. Do you see in the future there being more multidisciplinary engagement between neurology and cardiology for these patients if this is such a difficult to diagnose problem, but big cause of mortality in these patients?

Dr. Fridman: I think that's already happening, but maybe not enough and not in a more algorithmic way. It's happening also through our other diseases that we treat, right? So, we have the emergence of sort of modifying therapies for amyloid, and so that has led to these really close collaborations. I think most neuromuscular clinics now have cardiology that they can contact. And so really broadening that to diabetic neuropathy and creating those pathways for patients early. You have to be a little sensitive that these patients see a lot of doctors, and so, make it as easy as possible. I think that's the key, and getting everyone in one clinic is, of course, financially and sort of logistically very difficult. But having a close relationship to say, "Hey, I saw this patient and noticed this or that on, you know, at the bedside. What would you do next?" I think those relationships are really critical.

Dr. Nevel: Yeah. So, kind of moving on into your article, this is kind of a hypothetical situation, but if you could evaluate or only perform one part of your physical exam in a patient with diabetes, what would it be and why?

Dr. Fridman: Yeah, I mean, I think looking at their feet and then looking at the sensation at the distal toe, probably with pinprick and light touch, if you had to do one thing. If you have bandwidth to also check vibratory perception, that would be helpful. But I think early on, we know that those small fiber involving neuropathies are more common. And what that tells you in a patient who maybe doesn't even have diabetes, I mean, I think that's another important thing to stress. They may be glucose intolerant and just have a slightly elevated hemoglobin A1c, but we all know that if you look carefully at those patients, a lot of them will have some subtle sensory loss at the toe already. And that's really the patient you want to treat. I mean, that's when you want to intervene. And so, the guidelines currently say to screen at time of diabetes diagnosis, but that's actually probably late. And this isn't discussed in the article because we're sticking to the current day guidelines, but I'm imagining those will be revised as we understand more and more that it's the preempting of the neuropathy that we want to focus on. So, the exam findings of ankle reflexes, for example, that I think a lot of people do sort of semi-automatically in a patient looking for neuropathy, you can have preserved ankle reflexes for quite some time and have important diabetic neuropathy manifestations and cardiac autonomic neuropathy already. And then the foot exam, I think we somehow have to

convince ourselves that really small foot deformities like a hammer toe or a bunion or something that maybe in a non-diabetic patient would never be a big deal is a huge deal because that could be a lost limb. And again, it takes that extra intentionality to think about that, right? But that's when you say, "I really want you to get attention from a podiatrist." And, you know, thinking about things where we can have impact, that sensory loss or loss of protective sensation, those subtle foot deformities, that's the beginning.

Dr. Nevel: Yeah. And on that note, you know, early recognition, you emphasize is important so that we can take these preventative measures. What things can our patients do to reduce their risk of progression of their diabetic nerve injury?

Dr. Fridman: That's a really complex question, actually. So, what we say kind of formally and based on current knowledge is that they can control their diabetes, and they can control their metabolic risk factors. So, we understand more and more about the contribution of obesity, truncal obesity, metabolic syndrome, hypertriglyceridemia, right? These things that maybe weren't as much emphasized in the past because we were very glycemia-focused. So that's changing, and I think most internal medicine doctors understand that better, and as do neurologists. So, we tell them these things, right? But what we maybe forget to tell them is that in type 2 diabetes, that doesn't necessarily ensure the lack of progression of neuropathy, that they may be doing a wonderful job with their diabetic control and working really hard and still be stuck with a lot of neuropathic pain and progression in the sensory loss. And that's just, that's just a fact, right? And I think it actually is important to communicate that upfront to patients so that they don't blame themselves when things are not going well. The other study-proven research-based intervention is exercise. This is, I think, essential to discuss with every patient with diabetes at every appointment. So, as I'm asking questions, one of my questions will always be, "What do you do for exercise? How often do you exercise? What are the barriers to exercise?" We know that exercise can, in smaller studies, show reinnervation of nerve fiber density. We know that there's reductions in neuropathic pain, that people feel better. Energy is a huge problem in diabetes in general. And so, the hurdle to exercising in type 2 diabetes and type one diabetes is high. And so, our job is to facilitate that they do the minimal amount that will be helpful to them that they can tolerate and then slowly build that up. And there's a recent publication looking at physical activity in patients with diabetes that shows that it's actually just under 10 minutes a day of intense exercise that can make an impact. So, if you think about that, even for people who are having a lot of difficulty starting exercise, five to seven minutes a day is a pretty low bar, and then you work from there. So, I think that's important for us to know, right, that that actually can impact in small amounts.

Dr. Nevel: Yeah, that's really helpful, and I imagine as a patient would feel a lot more achievable for somebody maybe who hasn't been engaging in physical exercise to hear from their doctor, "I'm just asking you to try five minutes a day or something like that." 30 minutes or 20 minutes each time that has been kind of previously, I think, the metric.

Dr. Fridman: Yeah. Agreed.

Dr. Nevel: What are some red flags that should alert the clinician that diabetic peripheral neuropathy may not be the culprit of the patient's symptoms?

Dr. Fridman: Always with neuropathies, we think about are they sensory, are they motor, are they symmetric, asymmetric? The classic teaching is that it's gonna be a sensory predominant length-dependent neuropathy that you see with diabetes or other idiopathic sort of slowly progressive nerve disorders. When that is not the case, so when there is initial symptom presentation in the hands, when there is marked asymmetry, and when there's early weakness or early substantial autonomic symptoms like presyncope that comes early in disease, those are all sort of red flags for other etiologies. And because we're in an era where there are some treatable conditions that can mimic slowly progressive sensory loss, such as TTR amyloid, right, I think you have to cast a broader net with patients. Comorbidities, I mean, in patients who have other medical issues, you have to be a little bit careful. I also think there's a tendency to say, "Oh, they have diabetes, and therefore they have a diabetic neuropathy." We see this all the time. But really, if their progression has been subacute and more aggressive than we'd expect in, like, 3 months of sudden onset symptoms, that's not diabetic neuropathy. So just being careful to really ask those questions about timing, progression, symmetry, length dependency, and autonomic symptoms.

Dr. Nevel: Yeah. Well, pain is not necessarily universal for patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Obviously, as your article points out, many do experience pain. What do we know? You mentioned spontaneous remission of pain among some patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy, and how should this knowledge inform our medication management? How do you approach this in your clinic in patients who are on neuropathic medicine who have good control? At what point might you consider tapering them off their medications, or how do you go about that?

Dr. Fridman: Yeah, no, that's very important. I'm glad you're highlighting that. There's a few scenarios, and like everything with diabetes and diabetic neuropathy, it's like heterogeneous and it's different for different people. So, some people progress, their neuropathy gets worse, but their pain gets better. I think patients have this kind of perception of, their nerves are dead, like they don't feel anything, and that actually may not be inaccurate, but there's at some point that nociceptive response changes in conjunction with the progression of sensory nerve loss. The other possibility is their neuropathy improves, right? So, they exercise, they get really vigilant with their diabetes, they're really on top of it, and then they're in that lucky category of people for whom there's actual reversal. And there's a paper, a natural history five year study of diabetic neuropathy showing that a small percentage of patients legitimately improve on nerve fiber density testing and electrophysiology. So that's another possibility. How does it guide my treatment? So I hate medications. I find them onerous. I find the side effects really difficult for my patients. And they hate medications. A lot of my patients don't wanna be on these medications. So, I make it a rule to ask at every visit what they're on, what they think it's helping with, what the side effects are. I really work through each drug. Like, is it doing anything? What do you think it's doing? And you'll be surprised when you ask that question. People think they're taking medicines for completely arbitrary indications. They say, "It really helps my back pain." You had no idea you were prescribing their Neurontin, you know, for their back pain. And I'm not arguing it's a bad thing necessarily, but you wanna know. Or they'll say, "I think my n

Neuropathy can present in many ways beyond the classic pattern of numbness and tingling. In this episode, Dr. Reza Seyedsadjadi discusses a practical diagnostic approach, highlighting key clinical clues, electrodiagnostic findings, and the role of genetic testing and other specialized studies in identifying common and uncommon causes of neuropathy.

In this episode, Casey S. Albin, MD, FAAN, speaks with Reza Sadjadi, MD, author of the article "The Diagnostic Approach to Neuropathy" in the Continuum® October 2026 Peripheral Nerve and Motor Neuron Disorders issue.

Dr. Albin is a Continuum® Audio interviewer, associate editor of media engagement, and an assistant professor of neurology and neurosurgery at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

Dr. Sadjadi is an assistant professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts.

Additional Resources

Read the article: The Diagnostic Approach to Neuropathy

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: @caseyalbin

Full episode transcript available here

Dr. Albin: The patient comes into your office with numbness and tingling, and it seems like it's probably a pretty straightforward neuropathy. But what about if it's not? Or what if the EMG and nerve conduction studies suggest something else? What if the patient is giving you extra clues about other symptoms where they feel ataxic or have systemic complications as well? All of those things may be part of a neuropathic picture. And today, we are so fortunate to talk to Dr. Seyedsadjadi about just this.

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. Albin: Hi, all. This is Dr. Casey Albin. Today, I'm interviewing Dr. Reza Seyedsadjadi about his article on the diagnostic approach to neuropathy. This article appears in the October 2026 Continuum issue on peripheral nerve and motor neuron disorders. Welcome to the podcast. I'm so excited to have you here, Dr. Seyedsadjadi. Just love for you to tell us a little bit about yourself and your background and how you got interested in this topic.

Dr. Seyedsadjadi: Hi. Thank you for the kind invitation and the opportunity to contribute to the Continuum. I'm a neuromuscular neurologist. I work here at Mass General Hospital. I got interested in peripheral nerve disease throughout my early training in neurology and continued with the fellowship in neuromuscular disorders, and I've been seeing patients with mostly neuropathy, inherited and acquired neuropathies here in Mass General Hospital.

Dr. Albin: Excellent. And so, you are the perfect person to write this intro article. And so, I always like to start with the basics. The patient comes to you. What are some of the symptoms that you're listening for that help you clue in that this is probably a neuropathy, not somewhere else in the peripheral nerve system?

Dr. Seyedsadjadi: What an excellent question. And it is still difficult to 100% be sure, but overall, I like to put things in different buckets to help you have a pattern recognition with what you think that makes sense to be a neuropathy, a neuronopathy, a radiculopathy. In general, I divide things into positive and negative sensory symptoms in terms of complaints. Positive ones like hyperesthesia, paresthesia, burning, tingling sensation. Negative sensory symptoms are a little bit more tricky, loss of sensation, balance issues. When somebody comes, you have to listen to all of these symptoms in conjunction with the distribution of the symptoms, how they evolve over time, to give you a clue whether this is a neuropathy or just neuropathic symptom related to a different process that could mimic neuropathy. And sometimes it would be difficult to delineate between the two, especially if a patient is very complex, has two different processes going on. But first off, it's good to know if you have positive sensory symptoms, it is more likely that this is a peripheral process than negative sensory symptoms. And some other features that we usually overlook when we see the patient in the clinical setting, especially if it's busy, those are the autonomic complaints that we can talk more about.

Dr. Albin: Yes. And I really wanna double-click on a lot of these features that you brought up. So, I'm hearing you're thinking about not only the symptom quality, but also that pattern of distribution. What about that sort of localized pattern of distribution?

Dr. Seyedsadjadi: Yeah. So typically, the general teaching is that nerves are very long in terms of the course, and when the damage happens to the nerve, the pattern would be a length-dependent pattern, meaning the longest nerve or the tip of the longest nerve will be affected, and this will gradually affect and go more proximally in a symmetrical pattern in more common known types of neuropathy. That's not always true. Sometimes you can have a non-length dependent neuropathy. You can have like an asymmetric neuropathy. But these are all small clues that you can use to see, to help you to narrow your differential diagnosis. So, you can have like a vasculitic neuropathy, which is necessarily not a length-dependent process. It affects one side, not necessarily the other side, and the progression of it, which could be stepwise rather than gradual progression of the disease.

Dr. Albin: I love that. Thinking not only just about the typical numbness and tingling in your fingers and toes, but recognizing that while that is a very common pattern of neuropathic symptoms, that you may have a patchy distribution and that you can still put neuropathy on your differential, even if it's asymmetric and even if it's not starting at tips of the fingers and tips of the toes.

Dr. Seyedsadjadi: Exactly. Nicely summarized.

Dr. Albin: One of the points that I really took away from your article was how sensory symptoms or motor symptoms, whether there's a predominance of one or the other, that actually may have some real importance in helping you think through the underlying process. So, can you tell us a little bit more about that?

Dr. Seyedsadjadi: Exactly. And also, I don't want to confuse this with necessarily involvement of sensory nerves because you can also have positive sensory and negative sensory symptoms. But looking at the signs in terms of how patients present- If you have predominance of, like, motor weakness, you have a patient who comes with the distal upper and lower extremity weakness, but sensory symptoms more than signs, are relatively milder. Obviously, you think more about process that is more chronic, affecting motor nerves more than sensory nerves, or equally at least, you think about more hereditary cases. Whereas when you have more sensory symptoms or predominance of sensory symptoms and less of motor involvement and more recent presentation, you think about more acquired causes of neuropathy. Now, that is not universal because we know that there are acquired neuropathies that affect the motor nerves more than sensory nerves, and we have hereditary neuropathies that purely affect sensory nerves like CANVAS syndrome. But in general, it's good to have, like, a pattern recognition. Now you can more comfortably look for those outliers that would be like a framework that you can approach them by looking for subtle signs and differences that they have from them.

Dr. Albin: I think that's so true of most of what we deal with in neurology. Like, most of neurology is being able to recognize the 75% to 80% that present in the normal typical pattern. But it's learning that for every localization within neurology, there are those variants. They don't read the textbook. But I do love that how if you're thinking about more sensory symptoms and more recent onset, you're generally thinking this is

acquired versus that motor really standing out above and beyond the sensory symptoms, thinking more, "Hmm, could this be a hereditary? Should I look a little bit further into the family history?" Great point. And then I heard, especially in our first opening statement, it can be really hard to screen for autonomic symptoms, but that is really a hallmark of neuropathies because the autonomic nervous system is also composed of nerves. So, in a busy clinical environment, how do you suss this out, and what are you asking patients about?

Dr. Seyedsadjadi: It's a great question, I don't think you can never be perfect on that because as you said, in order to do the justice, you really have to go through all systems. One way is to use some of the outcome measures that autonomic symptoms you can ask the patient sort of in ahead of the time. But there are some questions that are more important, and it is difficult to get them from patients if you don't really ask them. And sometimes we shy away for different reasons from those questions. Some of these could be related to the function of the bowel and bladder, erectile dysfunction, specific questions about orthostasis, IBS-like symptoms, early satiety, and some overlap syndrome symptoms like dry eyes and dry mouth could indicate different things. These are the main categories of the questions that you ask. And when you start asking these questions, sometimes patients start adding symptoms, "Oh, I don't have this, but I also have, like, some other dysmotility issue." So, that comes up.

Dr. Albin: Absolutely, because these are symptoms that the patient may not put together as part of the same syndrome. And I think that that's why it's one of those things that, you know, they're coming to talk to you about the tingling that they have in their fingers and toes, and it may not have occurred to them that their constipation was related to this, or that if we're not asking about erectile dysfunction, that may not come up as, like, the patient putting those two together is worthwhile. Certainly, with sicca symptoms, that may give us a not only about the autonomic neuropathy, but could this be part of some other rheumatologic process?

Dr. Seyedsadjadi: Precisely.

Dr. Albin: I think any neurologist has sort of a general framework of, oh, we got to look at hemoglobin A1c. We've got to think about SPEP/UPEP in terms of a paraproteinemia. But one of the things that I think really sets master clinicians apart is the ability to see a neuropathy as part of a larger picture. And so, I think about syndromes like Holmes syndrome, or now I feel like CANVAS has become this new hot topic where everyone with a cough is now needing to be worked up for CANVAS. But how do you tease out the run-of-the-mill diabetic neuropathy from some of the zebras that do exist out there that if we're not carefully looking for, we very well may miss?

Dr. Seyedsadjadi: Yeah, and that's a very good question. What happens is the training, the pattern recognition. Everything makes sense except for something that doesn't make sense, and that raises clinical suspicion for something different. This is neuropathy, but it's not maybe just neuropathy, something else. So, you see a patient in clinic has a bread-and-butter neuropathy, has an EMG consistent with mixed axonal demyelinating neuropathy, even has diabetes, but you see something unusual about them. You see that they have finger clubbing. This is disproportionate to the degree of what you expect they would have. And then the workup ends up showing that they have POEMS, for instance. Or you see a patient, as you would nicely said, a patient has, like, an unusual cough and a neuropathy, or have a neuropathy, but the ataxia is disproportionate to the

degree of their nerve sensory neuropathy, or they have abnormal eye movements or ataxia. You think about CANVAS syndrome. So, this goes back to habit developing early on a framework and a pattern recognition, and obviously something that we are all getting more and more guilty of, listening to the patient and paying attention to details that we often miss if we rush through things.

Dr. Albin: Yeah. I think it really comes down to the fact that we are really master diagnosticians when we listen to patients, when we take a history, when we spend a little bit extra time at the bedside. Answering that, "Hmm, my spidey sense is a little bit up. This just doesn't feel completely right." To learn to listen to that intuition and just say, "Let me go back and double-check on... I didn't ask this question, but, like, maybe it's worth my time. Just go back in the room and see." All right, so let's switch gears and talk a little bit about EMG interpretation and nerve conduction studies. Because even if you don't go into neuromuscular neurology, if you're a neurologist, you are going to come across these EMGs and nerve conduction studies. So, when we're thinking about neuropathies, we're going to broadly characterize them into demyelinating and axonal. And I'd love to talk through with you how do those electrodiagnostics differ? Like, what would you see for axonal versus demyelinating? And then why does it even matter to make that distinction?

Dr. Seyedsadjadi: So, electrophysiology complements the clinical assessment of neurology. It helps in terms of, in general, knowing at a mechanism of neuropathy. So, if you know that the process is more or predominantly demyelinating, that narrows down your differential diagnosis. And by looking at the type of demyelination, is it predominantly distal? Is it predominant proximal? Is it uniform? Are there footprints of acquired demyelination, like a conduction block or a temporal dispersion to indicate that this is, like, a potentially an inflammatory process? It can help a lot with terms of narrowing down the differential diagnosis. And if it is axonal, it's, again, helpful in terms of knowing what is the pathophysiology, how it can help you differentiate between different types and severity and chronicity of the process. It is very, very helpful, but there are some pitfalls with neurophysiology, especially with regards to diagnosis of demyelination. Demyelination, in general, you are expecting to see slowing of the conduction velocity, but not every slowing means demyelination.

Dr. Albin: Yes, I saw that in one of your cases, and I thought that that was such a great pearl because as someone who's not a neuromuscular neurologist, when I hear slowed conduction, I think, "Oh, that must be demyelination." But tell me more. That is not the case.

Dr. Seyedsadjadi: Yes. And that's one of the pitfalls of diagnosis of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, CIDP, is an overdiagnosis sometimes made based on an electrophysiology which is not over-interpreted or interpreted incorrectly. So, there are two things. One is about the degree of slowing. With some axonal loss, you can get some slowing in your nerve conduction studies as well. So especially if your motor response amplitudes drop below a certain level, your velocity can slow down, too. So, you have to be careful not to over-interpret the degree of slowing as demyelination. It may still indicate that there is some myelin dysfunction or what we call informally amongst each other myelin unhappiness, but it doesn't necessarily mean the primary process is demyelinating.

Dr. Albin: To give an example for this, this could be the patient with diabetic neuropathy who has an axonal process, but may also have a little bit of unhappy myelin. Is that fair to say?

Dr. Seyedsadjadi: That's a very good example. In diabetes, you can have involvement of myelin as well. So, you can have a mixed axonal and demyelinating pattern. But as you nicely outlined, it is possible that the findings in a patient with diabetes over-interpreted as a primary demyelinating polyneuropathy, which can lead to a wrong diagnosis.

Dr. Albin: Right. So, we suspect that this is just run-of-the-mill diabetes. It is actually truly just run-of-the-mill diabetes. But if we over-interpret that slowed conduction to say, "Oh, this is demyelination," then all of a sudden, we're thinking about plasma exchange or IVIG for someone who has a diabetic neuropathy and not CIDP.

Dr. Seyedsadjadi: Correct.

Dr. Albin: Got it. So really have to be careful in interpreting these.

Dr. Seyedsadjadi: And also, I have to mention that CIDP is slightly more common in patients who have diabetes too.

Dr. Seyedsadjadi: So that's going to be the tricky part because then you have to go back to what's the clinical scenario, what's the clinical history, and how you're going to interpret these electrodiagnostic testing in this context. So, they can become a little bit tricky, but overall, this is correct. The other problem with electrophysiology is the technical aspect of it. So, the temperature, the lab that is doing it, under stimulation, overstimulation, these are the parts that have to be controlled for, and you have to have reliable data from a reliable lab to be able to make diagnosis.

Dr. Albin: This is a constant source of frustration to us in the ICU. You know, I work in critical care world, and how frustrating it is with all of our electrical interference, our patients are cold, we're not getting the best nerve conduction in EMG. It's a real challenge, you know, to make sure that we're providing reliable results when we're making these really important diagnoses.

Dr. Seyedsadjadi: Exactly. And that's why it's, like, complementary to the clinical judgment rather than replacing the clinical judgment. So, electrophysiology has to always back up what you have from your clinical impression rather than replacing it.

Dr. Albin: I think that that could be a key takeaway for just all of neurology. It comes down to your clinical intuition, your history, your physical exam. On the other side of your great history and physical exam. And so, when I read your article, those three things, the sort of MRI, nerve and skin biopsies, and then the enormous influence of genetic testing. As someone who does this day in and day out, how do you think about meaningfully using those tests?

Dr. Seyedsadjadi: If I want to start, I would say I would go to genetic testing first. Genetic testing, I think, has advanced more than anything else over the past two or three decades, and it's becoming more and more available, and it's becoming cheaper and cheaper. And if you have a genetic diagnosis, it bypasses many other tests that are

more expensive and more laborious or have side effects or complications. I have lower threshold for doing genetic testing, obviously because in the setting that I am, I do most of these inherited neuropathies and acquired neuropathies. But once you have a clinical suspicion that somebody has some sort of a hereditary neuropathy based on the clinical scenario that we just talked about or a family history, I think it can, especially, and sometimes that you cannot get electrophysiology to help you delineate between axonal or demyelinating process because the nerves are gone, for instance. Or you have, like, a very young patient or a pediatric case that it would be more challenging to arrange for electrophysiology. Genetic testing can come very early on and can help with an earlier diagnosis. Obviously, we have not yet discovered all the genes that could cause neuropathy, and roughly between 25% to 50% of people who have hereditary neuropathy, they may have inconclusive genetic testing. But if it comes back positive, it would be very helpful nailing the diagnosis and reducing th

In this episode, Lyell K. Jones Jr, MD, FAAN, speaks with Noah A. Kolb, MD, who served as the guest editor of the October 2026 Peripheral Nerve and Motor Neuron Disorders issue. They provide a preview of the issue, which publishes on October 2, 2026.

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. Kolb is a professor of neurological sciences at the Robert Larner College of Medicine at the University of Vermont in Burlington, Vermont.

Additional Resources

Read the issue: continuum.aan.com

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

Host: @LyellJ

Full episode transcript available here

Dr. Jones: The human brain is incredibly complex. That's one of the reasons we like to study it and care for patients with neurologic problems. But to translate cognition into action, we need a functioning sensorimotor and autonomic peripheral nervous system. What do we do when those peripheral systems aren't working? Today, we're speaking with Dr. Noah Kolb, guest editor of our latest issue of Continuum on peripheral nerve and motor neuron disorders.

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. Noah Kolb, who is Continuum's guest editor for our latest issue on peripheral nerve and motor neuron disorders. Dr. Kolb is a professor of neurology at the University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine in Burlington, Vermont, where he specializes in the care of patients with neuromuscular disorders, including patients with peripheral neuropathy and other immune-mediated neuromuscular diseases. Dr. Kolb, welcome. Thank you for joining us today. Why don't you introduce yourself to our listeners?

Dr. Kolb: Well, thank you very much for having me. Please call me Noah. I've been a longtime listener of Continuum, dating all the way back to when they came on CDs, so it's really a pleasure to be here. Like you said, I'm a neuromuscular doctor up in Vermont. I take care of the whole scope of neuromuscular disease, but kind of wear 3 different hats. I focus my research primarily in chemotherapy-induced neuropathy, but also do other diseases as well. Obviously, see patients clinically, and then I'm an educator as well, so I run the neurology clerkship and the acting AIs for the medical school. So, it's a fun job.

Dr. Jones: Well, thanks for sharing that little bit of history on Continuum Audio, Noah. I got to be honest with you, I don't know if I've ever seen a Continuum Audio CD. If anybody out there in the audience has a Continuum Audio CD, post a picture online and we'll like and share it. I wonder how many of those are still out there. I really appreciate you not just joining us today, Noah, but also putting together this really stellar issue, a very timely update and overview of peripheral nerve and motor neuron disorders. A lot of good topics for us to dig into today. What I'm going to do before we get into questions is ask our audience Continuum Audio's trivia question. Dr. Kolb and I were talking about this before we started recording here. So, the trivia question, just to frame it up a little bit, the transthyretin or TTR protein receives a lot of attention in neuromuscular medicine as the protein behind the most common causes of acquired and familial amyloidosis. But transthyretin is known in clinical settings by a different name and checked for an entirely different reason. So, the trivia question is, what is the other common name for transthyretin? Stick around, and we'll share the answer at the end of our interview. So, let's get right to it. Our listeners know that peripheral neuropathy is common, right? It affects 2 to 3 percent of the general population and 6 to 7 percent of patients who are older than 60. In your mind, Noah, what's the main thing you would like clinicians to know or do differently in the care of these patients?

Dr. Kolb: Yeah, that's a great question. I think it's something that we spend a lot of time teaching our residents and working with our fellows about is understanding the right workup for people presenting with neuropathy because it's very easy to overdo it with more labs and a broader workup than you need. So, when somebody presents with sort of a garden variety neuropathy that doesn't have red flags, the important things to order in terms of a workup are hemoglobin A1C, B12, and SPEP with IFE, potentially serum light chains, and some thyroid studies as well. Because those are really the most common reasons, and then to make sure that they ask the most important historical questions, like about alcohol use, et cetera. If you're going to find a cause for neuropathy, particularly if it's slowly progressive and sensory predominant, oftentimes the answer is found right in that basic workup.

Dr. Jones: Got it. And I think that's very well taken. And I think one of the questions that commonly comes up in the neuromuscular, but also in the broader neurology setting is, when you're evaluating a patient, especially an older patient who has a new onset length-dependent sensorimotor peripheral neuropathy, you've identified the neuropathy, and you're starting to consider what are those potential underlying disorders or risk factors that that neuropathy could be a warning sign of, right? So, you look for metabolic disease, B12 deficiency, paraproteinemia, et cetera. Where do you stop? In what settings do you do more expanded evaluations, genetic testing, et cetera?

Dr. Kolb: Yeah, and I think this kind of goes back a little bit to the last question where the primary focus of the workup that we do is driven by the most common causes. That's why hemoglobin A1C is so important. And so, thinking through what is likely to be the cause in the specific patient setting is kind of really critical. And again, if you don't have red flags, then the labs that we mentioned previously are probably sufficient in terms of a workup. But if there are any of the other red flags, it's really important specifically because there may be treatable causes of neuropathy or things that would affect the prognosis that'd be important to understand earlier so we can make sure we either engage the right therapies or do a broader diagnostic workup. An important part of that is understanding when to use EMG nerve conduction studies and when not to. So obviously, as a neuromuscular doc who does EMGs, I'm very fond of them. But we regularly see patients in our lab who perhaps don't need one. If somebody has a sensory predominant, slowly progressive neuropathy, particularly if you have an etiology, those patients usually don't need an EMG nerve conduction study. When it's asymmetric, when there's prominent weakness, when there's a lot of autonomic symptoms, those are the times when it can be a lot more informative and helpful to try to get an EMG nerve conduction study to see if we can get at what the underlying etiology is.

Dr. Jones: That's very helpful, Noah. Thank you. And so, let's think about a scenario that I think many of our listeners may have encountered in their practice. You're seeing a patient who has a somewhat rapidly progressive, painful neuropathy, which has some small fiber characteristics. They've got a little bit of autonomic dysfunction, and you worry about the possibility of amyloidosis. How do you approach that evaluation and treatment, and why is it important to think about that diagnosis?

Dr. Kolb: Yeah, that's great. It's important to think about that diagnosis because we now have good treatments for AL amyloid and for ATTR-based amyloid. So, because these are treatable disorders, it's really critical that you identify them. And the reality is it's not always straightforward making a diagnosis of amyloid. As you would with any other type of neuropathy, the workup is gonna begin with serum free light chains, SPEP, trying to see if there are any monoclonal gammopathies or elevation in light chains. But importantly, you need to think about what the next diagnostic steps are and understanding how likely those tests are to be abnormal in the setting of amyloid is important as well, because the easier to obtain tests don't have perfect sensitivity. So, once you've moved on kind of from the basic labs, we think about a fat aspirate or a skin biopsy to look and see if there's any evidence of amyloid. But if your clinical suspicion is high enough, it's important to move to a sural nerve biopsy and genetic testing. That's really the best way to confirm this diagnosis.

Dr. Jones: Very helpful. And obviously, that's not just academic, as it might have been at one point. This is something that we now have good disease-modifying therapies for, which leads to another question that I think our listeners may encounter in their practice. When you think about all the available gene tests in panels and other genomic tools that we have to investigate patients, when do you do a broad genetic evaluation for patients with neuropathy?

Dr. Kolb: Yeah, it's a good question. It depends partly on specifically what we're looking for. I think that as with many things in neurology, one of the reasons I got interested in it, and many people did, is we like doing detective work, and the history often lies in the examination and in our clinical history at the bedside. And for that reason, often just in getting the initial history with a patient, you start to get clues that there may be a hereditary component. Sometimes it's in the history where you're able to elicit a family history of disorder, and they may or may not know that the patient had neuropathy, but it may be that somebody walked funny later in life or somebody always complained of foot pain. Or it may simply be when a patient takes their shoes off, or in Vermont, they're wearing sandals, and you see that they have characteristic changes of a neuropathy that is much more longstanding than the patient even recognizes. That's often the case with some of these forms of hereditary neuropathy because sometimes they don't have a lot of pain. And so, you see those characteristic changes in the foot, and it cues you to the need for genetic testing. In my world where I see a lot of patients with chemotherapy-induced neuropathy, I also think about it in patients who seem to be specifically sensitive to neurotoxic agents, where they get a much worse neuropathy than you would expect with exposure to drug, and it's important to consider it in those times as well.

Dr. Jones: That's a great framing. I appreciate the way you put that. One of the great points in the issue is that patients who have sensory findings out of proportion to their sensory complaints, a lot of times it's worth thinking about a familial or genetic mechanism and then digging a little more into that family history, right?

Dr. Kolb: I agree.

Dr. Jones: Yeah. So, let's think of a different scenario. I know you do a lot of work with immune-mediated acquired neuropathies, and we're fortunate now, obviously, we have a

lot of immunotherapy tools for the treatment of patients with neuropathies like chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy. When it comes to CIDP, Noah, what's your initial approach to immunotherapy? That's one question. And another is, how do you incorporate some of the newer agents like efgartigimod? What's the role of that drug, or when do you go to rituximab or rozanolixizumab? Walk us through your approach to that.

Dr. Kolb: Yeah, so I think it depends a lot on what the clinical presentation looks like and kind of what the patient's preference is. In taking care of neuropathy patients for what's been quite a while now, you find that some patients have a differing comfort level with sort of the newer drugs like efgartigimod versus some of the therapies that have been around for years and years and are tried and true. So, we know, for instance, that plasmapheresis and IVIG work well. In certain cases, we use steroids because they can work well as well, but also have long-term toxicities that you want to be aware of. It's been really exciting to see that efgartigimod is a new therapy that's on the market, and it's been a really interesting space to be involved in, in neuromuscular medicine as some of these new disease-modifying therapies have come out. The trials for efgartigimod are really exciting, and it was very important to our field when efgartigimod became available. But there have been other trials that showed similar drugs weren't that effective, and there are many studies happening right now for complement inhibition with varying results. So, it's been sort of one of these hot topics in neuromuscular medicine, trying to see what these new therapies are and figuring out how to integrate them. I find that oftentimes with patients, we'll start with the tried and true therapies like IVIG or plasmapheresis, but don't hesitate to reach to efgartigimod, particularly if it's more convenient for the patient. I think the other important point to make, and this is addressed nicely throughout some of the manuscripts, is that there are specific instances where certain drugs are preferred. So, for instance, if you're seeing somebody with CIDP that has hard-to-treat symptoms, is not responding to the normal therapies that we use, it's important to think about whether they may have a paranodal form of CIDP, in which case we often reach for things like rituximab instead because it works better.

Dr. Jones: Outstanding. And so, I think that speaks to the importance of phenotyping, right? As we learn more about these acquired immune-mediated neuropathies, we're splitting, right? We're finding that the mechanisms are different in the tools that we have, the treatments are going to be more tailored, and more personalized to the patient. I think that's a great takeaway from the issue. So, Noah, you're in a unique position here, right? You're a world-renowned neuromuscular expert, and you have just edited a bunch of articles on neuromuscular medicine, peripheral nerve, motor neuron disorders written by experts in their respective fields. So, you have this bird's eye view of the specialty up to the minute, what's the latest. When you think about the entire issue, what would you say is the one topic that our readers or listeners could go to, to close the most important education gap in neuromuscular medicine?

Dr. Kolb: It's a great question. It's akin to asking who my favorite child is, of which is all of them, but I would say that when Amro Estino and Ben Becker submitted their manuscript on paraproteinemic neuropathies, after I read it, I wrote an email back to them just telling them how well I thought it was organized and that it really addressed an issue that constantly plagues trainees and practitioners, is how to deal with monoclonal

gammopathies and paraproteinemic neuropathies. It's a nice example of what happens when you give smart people the creative space to organize something in a way that they think makes sense. I certainly learned about the topic reading that, and I think it'd be very high yield for people reading Continuum.

Dr. Jones: Totally agree. It's a wonderful article among many great articles, and that is a persistent education gap. So, I would direct our listeners to that article as well. You know, one of the things that I think about, you're an educator, I'm a clinician educator myself, thinking about the really interesting world of neuromuscular medicine, right? I have a significant part of my practice is in neuromuscular medicine and EMG, and I enjoy that very much. What do you think about trainees who might be interested in neuromuscular medicine, and they want to focus in it or pursue it as a career? How should they approach it? What does the training landscape look like from your perspective?

Dr. Kolb: Yeah, that's a great question and an important one. So, I think that the case to be made for neuromuscular medicine is strong. I talk with the residents and my medical students about this regularly, but I think it's hard to find a place in medicine where the field is evolving more rapidly than it is in neuromuscular medicine, which makes it sometimes hard to stay up to date with everything that's happening, but it also makes it really interesting. To have new medicines coming online for us to change the paradigm for the way we've been treating patients for years and years is very exciting, and I think that those changes are only going to grow. Part of the future of neuromuscular medicine really is going to be in better genetic testing and broader genetic therapies. When you think about hereditary neuropathy as an example, there are tons of emerging therapies that are in pre-clinical trials and some starting in clinical trials. And so, the future of neuromuscular medicine is going to be constantly evolving where we can now treat disorders that we couldn't treat before. I mean, the easiest example is SMA, where previously that was a universally fatal disease for infants, right? And now we have treatments that are very effective. And there are multiple diseases where we're starting to develop therapies like this, so it's really exciting. From a training perspective, there are lots of opportunities for residents as they approach fellowship. There are tons of great neuromuscular fellowships around the program. I would include UVM in there as well, where there's really a wide variety of neuromuscular things that you can learn. And it's a wide and varied field, so people are learning ultrasound, which has been an emerging part of neuromuscular medicine, EMG, electrodiagnostics, Botox, but then also treating autoimmune disorders, hereditary disorders. So, it's really quite a broad field, and you can really sort of super sub-specialize into different areas, which allows you to really focus if that's what you want to do.

Dr. Jones: So now it's time for the answer to our Continuum Audio Trivia question. Just to remind our listeners, what is the other common name for transthyretin? We think about transthyretin a lot, as Noah mentioned, in terms of acquired and familial amyloidosis, but what is the other name for it? Dr. Kolb, do you want to give the answer to our audience?

Dr. Kolb: That would be prealbumin.

Dr. Jones: Prealbumin. Again, we talk about transthyretin all the time because of the neurologic and cardiac presentations of ATTR wild type and variant transthyretin

amyloidosis. But the protein itself, in the non-pathologic setting, in the non-amyloid setting, is a stable tetramer. Its normal function is to transport thyroxine and vitamin A throughout the body, but it also has a relatively short half-life. And on electrophoretic gels, it segregates near the albumin band, and therefore, for a long time was just called prealbumin because it was near the albumin band. And because of that short half-life, it's used as a rough or loose marker of nutritional status. So, all those times when I was a medical student and a resident ordering prealbumin to assess nutritional status, I was really checking transthyretin, and I had no idea.

Dr. Jones: All right. So, Dr. Kolb, I really want to thank you for joining us. Thank you for such an outstanding conversation about peripheral nerve and motor neuron disease in the latest issue of Cont

Sleep plays a critical role in brain development, learning, memory, and behavior throughout childhood and adolescence. In this episode, Dr. Kristin Seaborg discusses how sleep architecture changes across development, the impact of sleep disorders on attention, headaches, epilepsy, and neurodevelopmental conditions, and why neurologists should routinely assess sleep in pediatric patients. Learn practical approaches to recognizing sleep problems, including obstructive sleep apnea and insomnia, and how improving sleep can enhance neurologic and cognitive outcomes.

In this episode, Casey S. Albin, MD, FAAN, speaks with Kristin Seaborg, MD, author of the article "Sleep in the Developing Brain" in the Continuum® August 2026 Sleep Neurology issue.

Dr. Albin is a Continuum® Audio interviewer, associate editor of media engagement, and an assistant professor of neurology and neurosurgery at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

Dr. Seaborg is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Neurology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison in Madison, Wisconsin.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Sleep in the Developing Brain

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: @caseyalbin

Guest: @KristinSeaborg

Full episode transcript available here

Dr Albin: In neurology and life, we are all looking for the secret to being attentive, focused, and engaged, and we certainly want that for our children. And what if the answer to all of that was just in sleep?

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 Albin: Hello, this is Dr. Casey Albin. Today I'm interviewing Dr. Kristin Seaborg about her article on sleep in the developing brain. This article appears in the August 2026 Continuum issue on the neurology of sleep. Welcome to the podcast, Dr. Seaborg. Thank you so much for being here. I learned a lot from your article. Can you just briefly introduce yourself to the audience?

Dr Seaborg: Sure. Thank you for having me. I'm thrilled to be here. My name is Kristin Seaborg. I'm a pediatric neurologist and sleep neurologist at the University of Wisconsin Medicine. I also run the pediatric sleep neurology clinic at UW Madison.

Dr Albin: That is the perfect person to be writing this article. And every time I read an article about pediatric neurology, I am just so struck that like little tiny humans are not small adults, that they actually have a totally different neurobiology. They are in different stages of development. And this was really a topic that I was not familiar with, and probably for most of our listeners, they're not familiar with as well. And so, I thought we'd maybe just start with some of the basics. What is going on in terms of like pediatric sleep architecture, and how is that different than the adult architecture that we might be m- more familiar with?

Dr Seaborg: Sure. So, a lot of us think that sleep is the thing we do that when, when we're not doing other stuff. But actually, it's completely the opposite. During sleep, our brain is learning and consolidating memory and cleansing what's happened during the day, and that's especially important during infancy and early childhood development, and as a child gets older. If we take infants for an example, fifty percent of their sleep is in a precursor of REM sleep, which we call active sleep, which is much, much more than adults, as opposed to adults have about thirty percent of their sleep in REM sleep. And also, infants need sleep like fifteen to seventeen hours a day. Not all of that is consolidated in one continuous period. They usually sleep over the course of the day, fifteen to seventeen hours, and that sleep time decreases over the course of childhood and adolescence as well.

Dr Albin: Yeah, it's amazing that there's so much more going on. As someone who's had newborns, it feels like, oh my gosh, they're really just sleeping all day. They're not doing anything. But they're doing quite a lot, and that really is so much work for their developing brain. And then one of the things that also really struck me about the article is that as children move from infancy through adolescence, not only is the sleep architecture changing, but the time they go to sleep, the amount of sleep they need, some of the pathology that they may develop, it changes throughout these early years of their life. And so maybe when we are thinking about what patients might come to the clinic with, I assume a lot of parents are kind of concerned like, "Is my child getting enough sleep? Are they sleeping the normal amount? Are they sleeping in the timeframe that would be normal?" Walk us through just in broad strokes, like what is a normal amount of sleep as you go through that pediatric developmental phase?

Dr Seaborg: So that's not a one-sentence answer. And there's a table in the Continuum article.

Dr Albin: Love that.

Dr Seaborg: So, infants sleep like fifteen to seventeen hours, and it's chunked out over the course of the day. Usually they have one consolidated sleep period at night, but then two to three naps during the day. And as you move through early childhood, toddlers and adolescents usually need about fourteen hours of sleep around the time they're one year of age. As they get a little bit older, then they need like eleven to thirteen hours, depending on the child themselves. And then as we move toward like school age, like eight to ten hours of sleep is usually adequate, but especially younger school children need about ten hours of sleep at night. And then the interesting thing that happens in adolescence and early teenage years is that kids need just as much sleep, but they actually naturally fall asleep later because their melatonin is released later. So, it feels like they need to sleep all the time, but actually they just go to sleep later, and when school comes, it's not time or doesn't feel ready for them to wake up. So, adolescents and teens also need about eight to ten hours of sleep a night.

Dr Albin: Right. And I just was struck, you know, we think about it in this article and these issues, we've thought a lot about, I think it'll come up in other podcasts, the importance of daylight savings time and how that actually really is not good for our brains. And I feel so much for these teenagers who are really at a disadvantage because we make them get up early to participate in the world when it's not really aligned with how their natural sleep cycle is, and it feels unfair.

Dr Seaborg: It does. And there's so much to that. So, adolescents have school, and then a lot of time they have like after-school activities, whether that's sports or theater or music or whatever, but that usually happens after school. And then the reality of today's society is they come home, and at least my teenager disconnects or kind of decompresses by looking at her phone forever. And a lot of teenagers and adolescents bring their phone to bed. That exposure to light right up until the time when they want to go to sleep really can disrupt their circadian rhythm too. So they have the natural delayed circadian rhythm, and then they have these lifestyle exposures between activities after school and screens and everything else that really make sleep onset difficult. And so, waking up for school at 6:00 or 7:00 in the morning is really difficult for them.

Dr Albin: Gosh, I feel for that. And I suspect that many patients are coming into the sleep clinic with that exact sort of like my early teen, my preteen, my teenager. They're just exhausted all the time, but they won't fall asleep. They're developing insomnia. It sounds like there's a lot of behavioral changes that need to go along with that. Is that what you're seeing?

Dr Seaborg: Yeah. So, I'm also seeing an kind of a corollary, a lot of kids that come in with headaches because they're not sleeping enough, and they feel awful, or they're coming in with difficulty focusing in school or cognitive fog because they're not sleeping enough, and that they don't always know that that's the chief complaint. But often, as you start asking sleep-related questions, you figure out exactly what's going on. So, their amount they're sleeping and kind of their natural sleep cycle is affecting everything about their life.

Dr Albin: Yeah. It just-- it really struck me that, you know, one of the things that you talk about in the article is that there is, in patients who have neurodevelopmental differences and disorders, they may specifically have some sleep impairment, and they have a neurobiological reason for those sleep changes. But also, like you're saying, sometimes these inattentions or what's diagnosed as ADHD is actually just because they are not sleeping well, and they can't focus. And I imagine that's really hard to tease out. Like, is there something when you're trying to tease that out in the clinic that helps you figure out, is it the dog wagging the tail or the tail wagging the dog?

Dr Seaborg: Sure.

Dr Albin: Which is coming first? Is it, is it really a neurobiology problem where they have nerve developmental disorders and therefore sleep problems, or they have sleep problems causing the symptoms of a nerve developmental disorder?

Dr Seaborg: So, there's so many ways to answer that question. The very first part is you start at the beginning, not only asking the person's chief complaint, like, "Are you having trouble with attention?" But then also, uh, like I'll say, "Okay, what time do you go to sleep?" But not only that, "What are you doing before bedtime?" And then once they're asleep, are they snoring? Are they waking multiple times at night, you know, without trying to? And when they wake up in the morning, do they feel refreshed, or do they really still feel like they could fall asleep for a very, very long time? And then with regards to the neurodevelopmental disorders, it's fascinating. A lot of kids with neurodevelopmental disorders, whether that's ADHD or autism spectrum disorder or a genetic disorder that causes a developmental difference, often some of the pathophysiology of the actual neurodevelopmental difference also impacts the circadian rhythm and melatonin release and the brain's ability to initiate and maintain sleep. So, it's really important as a provider to be cognizant if you're seeing your patient with autism or ADHD to also ask about their sleep-related symptoms. And then eventually you'll ferret it out, but it takes a lot of sleuth work and investigation.

Dr Albin: So, what I'm hearing is actually when people come in with a chief complaint that probably is not like, "Hey, I'm having trouble sleeping," but maybe, "I can't focus" or, "I have headaches," or I have other problems that are being referred to a neurologist or pediatric neurologist, it really does behoove us to pause and take a good sleep history on all children coming in.

Dr Seaborg: Yes, and I'm gonna piggyback on that. Also, very, very important for our patients with epilepsy. There's a super high coincidence with epilepsy and sleep disorders, and there's actually been direct comparisons with children that-- typically developing children and children with epilepsy that's poorly controlled, and the amount of sleep-related complaints and sleep-related symptoms they have is astronomically higher. So, it's important as a neurologist to always have sleep kind of on our front burner, something we're paying attention to.

Dr Albin: No, it's so true. You know, I learned a lot about pediatric sleep and epilepsy through the article, and I think that obviously we wanna refer the listeners to checking out a little bit more. But there were a couple of things that were new terms to me that maybe others are not familiar with, and it does relate to like they are epilepsy, but they are more nocturnal, and they have more nocturnal epilepsies that we might need to really think and consciously consider. So, the new terms for me were SeLECTS, which I assume is actually just said as SeLECTS, but stands for... You tell me, what does it stand for?

Dr Seaborg: Self-limited epilepsy with central temporal spikes.

Dr Albin: Perfect. So okay. So, let's just start with that. Like, what is going on there? What do I need to know about it?

Dr Seaborg: So, SeLECTS was previously known as benign rolandic epilepsy 10 to 20 years ago, and then that, the term evolved to childhood epilepsy with central temporal spikes. But then it evolved again to SeLECTS, which is self-limited epilepsy with central temporal spikes. I think the primary motivation of changing the terminology, at least initially, was to acknowledge that even though this type of epilepsy occurs during childhood and it's self-limited, it is not benign always because seizures can cause some daytime dysfunction, and also there has been some association with ADHD-like symptoms or learning disability symptoms later in life. The other term you just mentioned, developmental epileptic encephalopathy with spike wave activation in sleep. That's a mouthful. That's the new terminology for what we used to call ESES or electrical status epilepticus of slow wave sleep. So, DEE-SWAS, developmental epileptic encephalopathy with spike wave activation in sleep is a broader term to encompass a bunch of epilepsy syndromes that have spike wave activation that during sleep, it is associated with developmental delay and per-perhaps developmental regression.

Dr Albin: And is that typically seen early childhood infancy? Like, I think of that as being something that you're gonna encounter really early in the life cycle. Am I correct?

Dr Seaborg: Not always. Sometimes, like school-aged children, one of the classic presentations is what it can be known as Landau-Kleffner syndrome, where you have spike wave activation during sleep in a, a school-aged child at like between the ages of six and 10, and then they have language regression, and you look at their EEG overnight and you see that they have epileptiform activity for up to 85 to 95% of the night.

Dr Albin: Wow. So, I wanna drill down on this. Since both of these things may come up, and probably are not something that the family is coming to you and saying, "Hey, I've seen these bizarre things happen in sleep," but are coming with daytime symptoms, how is it that you decide who is going to need a pediatric sleep study?

Dr Seaborg: Great question. So, if a child ever or a parent ever comes and complains or with concerns of developmental regression, and I guess I'm biased cause I'm a sleep doctor, but I would always do an EEG recording overnight if there were any concerns. And then if patients come and they just talk about rhythmic movements at night or waking up at night with some facial twitching, or the next day they're really acting tired, then I would order a sleep study. And of course, I would always ask the typical questions: Are they snoring? Are they waking up with a headache or not well refreshed? And ask a little bit more about a sleep history. But developmental regression and rhythmic movements at night definitely should be studied.

Dr Albin: And those questions about, you know, snoring at night, waking up with a headache, you're trying to get to pediatric obstructive sleep apnea. Is that right?

Dr Seaborg: Correct. Yes. Thank you for clarifying.

Dr Albin: Yeah. No, I just wanna make sure, like, because obviously that is a very common problem in the adult patient population. How frequently are you encountering that now in pediatric land?

Dr Seaborg: So actually, it's more common than you would think. So kids have, especially kids that I'm seeing in the pediatric neurology clinic, sometimes have some different facial anatomy or enlarged tonsils or enlarged adenoids, or they have a primary genetic disorder that gives them a little bit different facial anatomy, and they're at much higher risk for obstructive sleep apnea. Kids with different muscle tone, whether they have cerebral palsy or a different kind of hypotonia disorder, are at very high risk of obstructive sleep apnea. And then kids with epilepsy, for reasons that we don't fully understand, are at higher risk for obstructive sleep apnea. So, it's actually quite common in children. We see it a lot.

Dr Albin: Wow, that's fascinating. And then I wanna just in our little limited time together, there were two other sort of neurodevelopmental disorders that came up in the article and I think are at least worth previewing for the listeners. So, autism spectrum disorder, obviously a very large and a range of how patients can present, but sleep really does seem to be a manifestation. Walk us through the association there.

Dr Seaborg: Sure. So, we don't know 100%, but I can give you a few statistics. For instance, 20 to 75% of kids with autism spectrum disorder have some sort of sleep onset or sleep maintenance insomnia or some primary sleep disorder, which is astronomically high. We all know the etiology of autism is multifactorial, and there's not just one gene or one difference that leads to autism, but there are a fair amount of genetic differences that sometimes can lead to a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. We've found there's kind of coincidence of some differences in some of the circadian genes. Specifically, time and clock are two of the circadian rhythm genes that have been shown to have higher incidence of differences in kids with autism spectrum disorder. And then kids with autism spectrum disorder also sometimes have some underlying anxiety or hyperactivity in it that also compounds their difficulty falling asleep and sometimes their difficulty staying asleep at night. And so, there's multiple things that are playing in that can make sleep difficult, which in turn can affect their daytime performance and their daytime regulation. So, lots going on there.

Dr Albin: Absolutely. I mean, in reading this, I was struck by, oh gosh, there's a lot of both pharmacological and sort of behavioral therapy that has to go into like readjusting and, and setting normative patterns and expectations. It sounds like melatonin can, in some cases, be helpful here.

Dr Seaborg: Yes, melatonin. So, I know there's a lot of patients will come to me, they're like, "I don't wanna use melatonin 'cause my Facebook group told me it was terrible." There's a lot of literature and a lot of recently published literature to show the safety and efficacy in low-dose melatonin, especially in children with neurodevelopmental disorders and specifically in kids with autism spectrum disorder. Melatonin is safe and okay to use. It's important to educate your patients though. So, a little bit works, and then a patient's kind of natural reaction is, "Oh, if a little bit is good, I'm just gonna give them more." But the more melatonin you give a person, actually the less their brain produces, and it's almost like a negative feedback. So, the studies support using two to five milligrams of melatonin one to two hours prior to bedtime to kind of stimulate melatonin release and then help with sleep onset. Melatonin does not help with sleep maintenance, but for the kids that are on the kind of neurodevelopmental disability or disorder spectrum, it really can help with sleep onset.

Dr Albin: Yeah. I was really fascinated to hear that there is some more evidence for the extended-release formula. And is that something that you can just go onto Amazon and get the extended release or is that prescrip

Circadian rhythms influence far more than sleep, affecting neurologic disease expression, treatment response, and overall health. In this episode, Dr. Sabra Abbott discusses common circadian rhythm disorders, the health consequences of circadian misalignment, and practical strategies for managing jet lag, shift work, and disrupted sleep-wake schedules. Learn how circadian biology can shape neurologic outcomes and why considering the timing of behaviors, light exposure, and treatments may improve patient care.

In this episode, Katie Grouse, MD, FAAN, speaks with Sabra M. Abbott, MD, PhD, author of the article "Circadian Neurology" in the Continuum® August 2026 Sleep 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. Abbott is an Associate Professor of Neurology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, Illinois.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Circadian 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

Full episode transcript available here

Dr Grouse: Circadian rhythm disruption affects many of our patients in far-reaching aspects of their general health and has likely personally affected most neurologists at some point in their career. Today, I have the opportunity to interview Dr. Sabra Abbott, who is the author of the latest issue of Continuum on Neurology of Sleep.

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. Sabra Abbott about her article on circadian neurology. This article appears in the August 2026 Continuum issue on Neurology of Sleep. Welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to our audience.

Dr Abbott: Thanks for having me. I'm Dr. Sabra Abbott. I'm an associate professor of neurology at Northwestern, and I'm also director of our circadian medicine clinic.

Dr Grouse: It's really great to have you today. I definitely enjoyed reading your article, and not only did I learn a lot, but I feel like it's really applicable to a lot of topics that come up in clinic when I see patients. Now, I was wondering if you had to choose one key point that readers of your article would take away after reading it, what would it be?

Dr Abbott: I think the most important thing to keep in mind is that time is an important variable in every single thing that we do. And so, it can impact when your patient's disease is at its best and at its worst, and then it also can impact when it's actually most appropriate to provide medications for your patients. There can be times where they may be more impactful and times where they may actually cause more harm for your patients. So, the short answer is think about time always with your patients.

Dr Grouse: On that topic, I was really amazed to learn about the significant health risks associated with circadian misalignment, including even malignancy risks. Can you review some of these risks and why this might be the case?

Dr Abbott: So, I think the risk that we have the most data for is the risk for cancer associated with circadian misalignment, and this comes from a lot of studies that we're looking at patients who are shift workers. The data has actually come back on two separate reviews indicating that shift work could be a probable carcinogen, and we think that that probably comes down to a lot of different factors. So, when you're a shift worker, you are often working in the middle of the night. You may be getting light exposure at a time when you're normally producing melatonin, and that may be one factor that is actually putting you at increased risk for cancer.

Dr Grouse: And certainly, after reading this and hearing all of these things, I'm not surprised that many sleep specialists really dislike daylight savings time, which also is enough of a factor to potentially increase some of these health risks. Do you agree that daylight savings time is something that's contributing to poor health in our population?

Dr Abbott: So, I think it is definitely something that almost all of us want to get rid of, and I think where everybody is in agreement is that we should get rid of these shifts in the spring and the fall. I think the only benefit to those shifts that I see is it does create a time where we start having conversations about your circadian clock, so people become aware of circadian timing twice a year when we have these shifts. Outside of that, that shift back and forth seems to be very problematic. So, we do see both in the fall and the spring an increased risk for car crashes, an increased risk for heart attacks, stroke. People perform worse at work, and so I think in general, we probably should get rid of it. There's a little bit of a debate as to whether we should go to permanent standard time or permanent daylight saving time. I think most sleep and circadian scientists prefer permanent standard time. A lot of people who really like their evening activities prefer permanent daylight saving time, but I think that's also biased by the fact that daylight saving time, everybody has longer days, and I think they want longer days year-round, and you don't get that no matter which way you shift the clock in the winter.

Dr Grouse: That's really interesting. I do see that debate pop up every, I guess twice every year, and I guess there is a silver lining that at least we are all talking about it and thinking about it. I wanted to take a step back about the topic of circadian rhythm disorders in general. Could you just really quickly, like twenty-thousand-foot view, summarize what these main circadian rhythm disorders are?

Dr Abbott: So, at the moment, we primarily think of circadian rhythm disorders in the context of how they impact your sleep-wake timing. And so, at the largest level, we think of them as either intrinsic disorders, so disorders where your internal timing doesn't match up with the environment. The four key disorders there are advanced and delayed sleep wake phase disorders, so you're either earlier or later. You have non-twenty-four, where you actually generally get later and later each day, so it's like you're living on Mars. And then we have irregular, where you have multiple bouts of sleep that happen both night and day. And then the other two are the extrinsic disorders, so these are shift work disorders. So, you may have a normal functioning clock, but the external environment is forcing you to do things you wouldn't normally, or jet lag, where you again have a normal functioning clock, but then you end up having to shift multiple time zones faster than you can adapt to. Now, I think the interesting thing, and we can talk about this more if you want, is that we are moving into thinking of circadian rhythm disorders as being much more than just abnormalities of sleep-wake timing, and I think that's kind of where the future of the field goes.

Dr Grouse: Tell me more about that.

Dr Abbott: So, I think as the article gets into beyond just these kind of classically recognized disorders, we realize that circadian disruption can play a role in almost any other medical disorder that you can experience. And so, we can see circadian disruption as either a symptom or a potential cause of many other disorders. And then also in the optimal care of pretty much any patient, thinking about all of these other factors that they're experiencing on a day-to-day basis, whether it's their light exposure, whether it's the timing of their meals, whether it's the timing of their medications, all of those can play a role in their overall health and improving your ability to care for them.

Dr Grouse: Now, I did find it really fascinating. This was not something that I had really been aware of prior to reading your article about the fact that it really can make a difference about when you time particular medications for particular types of neurologic conditions just related to the circadian rhythm. And really interesting was the epilepsy connection. Can you tell me about how that affects how we should be dosing anti-seizure medication?

Dr Abbott: So, I think the epilepsy connection is an interesting one that definitely needs far more studies. So, at this point, a lot of this data is really coming from observational studies, looking at when patients have received medications and then how good their outcomes are. And in epilepsy, I think a lot of us tend to time anti-seizure medications so that patients get more of them in the evening and lower doses during the daytime. And I think a lot of this has been driven a little bit more by the fact that many of these medications are sedating, so we tend to put the more sedating medications at bedtime. But it turns out that outcomes in patients are actually better if they get higher doses at night and lower doses in the morning. Now, this is sort of theorizing at this point, but it could either be targets of these medications or your ability to uptake these medications across the blood-brain barrier may change with the time of day component. So, at this point, these are still really observational studies, but I think an area where we really need to do a lot more work.

Dr Grouse: Well, I look forward to hearing more about other ways that we'll learn how best to manage our medications for circadian rhythm function. Now, I wanted to ask, which circadian rhythm disorder do you think is the hardest to treat, and why would that be the case?

Dr Abbott: So, I'm gonna give you two answers to that. In terms of the primary circadian disorders that I see come through my clinic door, I would say cited non-24. These are patients who have normal vision, but they act as though they are living in a world without these external light time cues. And so, they, every single day, get a little bit later and a little bit later, and it's really, really hard to get them from a 25-hour schedule back onto a 24-hour schedule. The second part of my answer to that is shift work disorder, and those, I would say, are much more common patients to encounter. I think every single one of us, as we've gone through our medical training, has probably had some degree of shift work disorder, difficulty sleeping when we need to, staying awake during our shifts. But it's still really hard to figure out what we should be doing because, one, it's a multi-component system, so anything that I do to change your shift schedule has trickle-down effects to every one of your coworkers, and so we can't just tell one person, "Change what you're doing." It's also really hard to figure out what we should be doing. Should you only be working nights forever and ever and become purely nocturnal, and should we adapt everything to that, or we-- should we find some sort of compromise so that you can work the night shift but still have time to socialize and spend time with your family during the daytime? And how do we do all of that while still optimizing your health? And so, I think from a patient population, that is really a large problem we don't have a good answer to yet.

Dr Grouse: Sounds like it's something that you really have to customize to every single patient who walks in and their, their particular scenarios.

Dr Abbott: Absolutely.

Dr Grouse: Jet lag disorders is another circadian rhythm disorder that I think we all have had some personal experience with. Any tips or tricks on how to manage jet lag going east or west, or any resources that you recommend that can help us manage this, or we can advise to our patients?

Dr Abbott: Yeah. When we're talking about individualized, personalized treatment, I would say jet lag absolutely is way up there at the top of the list because it's not only a matter of where do you currently go to sleep and wake up in your current time zone, it is how many time zones are you going across to get to where you're going? Do you wanna keep the same schedule when you're at the new time zone? And all of these other factors in terms of how long you're gonna be there. When are you gonna come back? Does it make sense to fully adapt yourself to that new schedule? With that in mind, the general tips are if you are heading east, generally your goal is to shift everything earlier, and if you're heading west, generally the goal is to shift everything later. There are a lot of online calculators you can use where you can put in your current time zone, your destination time zone, and it will give you very specific information about when you should be getting light, when you should be avoiding light When melatonin may be helpful as another time cue that can help shift you. But again, it really depends on which direction and how many time zones and what time you're gonna arrive. I would say the practical tip that I have is whatever you do when you get to the new time zone, um, most of the time international travel involves overnight flights, so you may arrive in the morning. Resist the temptation to take a nap as soon as you arrive because that's just gonna make things harder and harder to adapt to. So, get out, be active, eat on the new time zone, try to push through that day, and then the homeostatic drive for sleep is gonna help you through that first night.

Dr Grouse: Great tip, and definitely a tip I have failed to follow in past trips and regretted greatly afterwards. There were some other really great points that you made that as an ambulatory neurologist I hadn't thought of that was really, really helpful, including when we take care of patients in the hospital, of course, we-- we're always careful about, you know, potential sort of things we can do to minimize delirium. But in fact, there's probably a lot of things we can do to minimize disruption to circadian rhythms, which we already know that if we're not careful about, can be deleterious to health. What are some things that you recommend generally for patients who are admitted regarding monitoring and treatment that we can try to do to mitigate that effect?

Dr Abbott: So, I would say the number one most important thing that you can do, and I did this every single day when I was on the wards, is when you walk into the patient's room for rounds in the morning, turn on the lights, open the curtains. We did an interesting study a few years ago because there was all of this discussion of nighttime disruption to hospital patients and a lot of concern that they were getting too much light and too much interruption to their sleep at night. But what we found out was actually the bigger problem may be that none of our patients are getting light during the daytime, and so they've just lost that amplitude of light rhythm. And so as much as you can maximize daytime and opening those curtains, turning on the lights, giving them a bunch of light during the day. And then obviously, on the opposite end, you wanna make sure that they're getting dark at nighttime. Being really thoughtful about what your patients actually need to have done while they're in the hospital. And so, do they really need to have vitals every four hours in the middle of the night? Is that gonna change their outcome, or are they just sitting there waiting for insurance to approve their rehab bed, and they're probably gonna be fine overnight without that disruption? I think those are the easy things that you can do. The slightly harder piece is there's a lot of debate about whether we really need to be doing four AM labs on all of our patients, for example. Obviously, that's disrupting everybody's sleep. It's making a phlebotomist be a shift worker. It's problematic in many respects, but at the same time, you need to collect the labs so the labs can actually be processed and you can have the results, and they can be available for rounds, and so you can discuss them so that then you can discharge the patient on time. And so, it's a whole set of moving parts that are sometimes a little hard to optimize specifically for the patient.

Dr Grouse: Certainly, worth a discussion to have, though, and all really great tips. Another question kind of on that same vein. A lot of patients ask for something to help sleep at night. Melatonin is something we often give as sort of an easy, relatively gentle treatment that can help with sleep. Do you agree that that's a good idea? Is that something that you would generally recommend?

Dr Abbott: So, I would say that melatonin on the overall risk versus benefit spectrum probably has very low side effects for your hospitalized patient. At the same time, we actually fought this battle here. On many of the hospital formularies, you have very high doses of melatonin, so it's five, ten milligrams. Now, the problem with that is it takes you long enough to metabolize that ten milligrams of melatonin that it is still gonna be in your system the next day. So, then you go to round on the patient the next day and they're groggy and they're out of it, and it may not be that they've neurologically deteriorated, it may still be that they have melatonin still in their system. So, if you are going to use that as sort of a first-line low-harm option, I would stick to one to three milligrams.

Dr Grouse: Great. One to three milligrams is something I've often heard. Is that generally optimal dose and timing for melatonin, uh, you suggest for patients, or how do you approach thinking about the dose and timing?

Dr Abbott: So, this is where it gets a little more complicated because we actually don't recommend using melatonin as a general hypnotic. It's not that great for treating insomnia in general. So, where we do more often use melatonin in circadian patients is as a phase-shifting stimuli. So, this is something that if you give melatonin at a specific time, it can either move your clock earlier or move your clock later. And that tends to be something that is a little more challenging to sort out. It's a conversation to figure out where your patient currently is from a rhythm standpoint, where you're trying to move them to. So not something I would use typically for insomnia, but more if you're trying to adjust somebody's timing.

Dr Grouse: Excellent point and great recommendations. Now, switching gears a little bit, you had mentioned and you alluded earlier that circadian rhythm disruption can be something that we find in certain neurologic diseases and conditions we all treat and may even be an early sign of some of them. What are some general conditions in neurology that we see circadian rhythm disruption?

Dr Abbott: So, I think one of the areas where it's often an early sign of a disorder is in neurodegenerative disorders. So, we often do see that that typical daily rhythm and amplitude, and what I mean by that is that sort of difference between how active you are during the daytime and how inactive you are at night. That tends to become dampened and more fragmented even before you start to see some of the other signs and symptoms of neurodegenerative disorders, so things like Alzheimer's. So, it often can be kind of an early hallmark that something else might be coming. Now, other ways that we can see circadian rhythm disruption in other neurologic disorders, I think probably the more under-recognized is in any disorder where a patient may have decreased mobility, sort of overall inactivity during the day. Maybe they have chronic pain, maybe they

Hypersomnia encompasses a group of disorders characterized by excessive daytime sleepiness that can significantly impair quality of life and neurologic function. In this episode, Dr. Margaret Kay-Stacey discusses how to recognize and evaluate hypersomnia, reviews key features of narcolepsy and idiopathic hypersomnia, and highlights the many neurologic conditions associated with excessive sleepiness. Learn practical approaches to diagnosis, treatment, and distinguishing primary hypersomnia disorders from more common causes such as insufficient sleep, sleep apnea, medications, and depression.

In this episode, Gordon Smith, MD, FAAN, speaks with Margaret Kay-Stacey, MD, author of the article "Hypersomnia" in the Continuum® August 2026 Sleep Neurology 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. Kay-Stacey is an Assistant Professor of Neurology and Ambulatory Medical Director at the University of Chicago Medical Center in Chicago, Illinois.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Hypersomnia

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 Smith: So, what do myotonic dystrophy, Parkinson's disease, and traumatic brain injury have in common? It turns out that each can cause clinically significant and meaningful hypersomnolence. And did you know that narcolepsy has the same population prevalence in the United States as myasthenia gravis, something I commonly see in clinic? If you want to learn more about hypersomnolence and how it impacts the patients you care for and what to do about it, keep listening.

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 Dr. Meg Kay-Stacey about her article on hypersomnia, which appears in the August 2026 Continuum issue on the neurology of sleep. Meg, welcome to the podcast, and maybe you can begin by just introducing yourself to our audience.

Dr Kay-Stacey: Yeah. Hi, I'm so glad to be here. So, like you said, I'm Meg Kay-Stacey. I'm a sleep neurologist at the University of Chicago. I'm also the AAN's Sleep Section vice chair.

Dr Smith: Awesome. I didn't quite know what to expect in reading your article, except it was gonna be about people who are really sleepy. I was really amazed at how common these problems are, even, we'll get into this, disorders that I think of as being super rare. So, I know our listeners are gonna really enjoy hearing from you. I wonder if you could begin by just defining hypersomnia and maybe give us a flavor for the impact this has on patients who have primary disorders of hypersomnia.

Dr Kay-Stacey: Yeah. I mean, so hypersomnia is really an excessive daytime sleepiness, so a feeling of excessive sleepiness, feeling like they can't stay awake during the day. And these patients' quality of life is quite impacted by these symptoms, and there's lots of different conditions that can cause it, but it can be quite detrimental to day-to-day living.

Dr Smith: I honestly am sleepy a lot cause I work too hard or stay up late, and sleepiness seems to be a very common symptom. How do you sort out when a patient's excessive daytime sleepiness is pathologic related to lifestyle and the extent to which it may be a sleep apnea versus one of the other disorders that we'll talk about?

Dr Kay-Stacey: Yeah. I mean, you really have to take a good history. So as neurologists, we know that, that we have to do that, but particularly a sleep history and really understand, first and foremost, how much sleep the patient is getting. Really important to understand, are they getting adequate sleep at night, right? Because chronic insufficient sleep can cause daytime sleepiness, right? And can make people appear like they might have a primary hypersomnia disorder when in fact they don't. So that's sort of first and foremost, and then it's assessing the other symptoms that they have. So, it's assessing nocturnal symptoms. You mentioned sleep apnea, so assessing for things like snoring and witnessed apneas, nocturia, and then assessing for what the quality of their sleep like. Is it refreshing? Is it not refreshing? How easy or hard is it to wake up in the morning? And then asking them again about daytime symptoms. Are you falling asleep inappropriately at work? Are, you know, you falling asleep while driving? Are you finding it hard to stay awake even after you've had a full night of sleep? To really try to differentiate what the symptoms might be from. And then it's also assessing things, sleep apnea, for example, physical exam findings. You know, are they obese? Do they have a larger neck circumference? Is the airway more crowded? And then we do have some measures, some scales, so there's the Epworth Sleepiness Scale that we'll use that assesses sleepiness, which is kind of a good way to at least initially assess how sleepy a patient might be during the day.

Dr Smith: So that's great, and we'll talk a bit about sleep apnea, I hope. But when I hear hypersomnia, I always think about narcolepsy, and I wonder if maybe we can begin there.

Dr Kay-Stacey: Yeah.

Dr Smith: I was super interested to learn how common this is. About as common as myasthenia gravis. Actually, the population prevalence number is exactly the same as myasthenia. My Monday morning clinic is mostly myasthenia. So how do we recognize narcolepsy? Cause I'm worrying that I'm missing it.

Dr Kay-Stacey: Yeah. So, narcolepsy, you know, there's two types. There's narcolepsy type 1 and narcolepsy type 2. So, narcolepsy type 1 is a little easier because you have cataplexy. But with both conditions, you're gonna see excessive daytime sleepiness. You're gonna ask about things like sleep paralysis, whether or not they're having sleep-related hallucinations, so hypnagogic or hypnopompic hallucinations. Are they having other sort of REM, intrusion phenomenon? You may also hear things like REM behavior disorder, so acting out their dreams at night, and then some degree of, you know, difficulty waking up in the morning, feeling like they need to nap. Naps are often more refreshing in patients with narcolepsy which is a feature that when we talk about idiopathic hypersomnia kind of helps to differentiate them. So, it's really just asking about sleepiness and assessing for these other symptoms that they can have associated with narcolepsy.

Dr Smith: I was also interested to learn that narcolepsy is the most common cause of REM sleep behavior disorder in young patients, which is pretty cool. But I wonder, you used a term that I've never heard of, and I'm betting some of our listeners haven't, which is REM intrusion phenomenon. Could you tell us more about that?

Dr Kay-Stacey: Yeah. So, this is the idea that in narcolepsy, your sleep states are sort of, jumbled up, would be the way of thinking of it. You have these phenomenon where REM will persist into wakefulness. So, sleep paralysis is actually a perfect example of that, right? That you wake up and you feel like you're awake, but your body is still paralyzed, you can't move. Cataplexy is similarly a REM intrusion phenomenon, as are these hallucinations that I mentioned, the sleep-related hallucinations.

Dr Smith: So what pearls do you have for recognizing cataplexy? What's the spectrum of cataplexy?

Dr Kay-Stacey: Yeah. So, I think cataplexy, it's associated with emotion, right? And we most commonly think about it being associated with laughter, right, with positive emotion, but it's key to remember that it can happen with negative emotion too, with fright, being upset or angry. And usually when you're asking patients about it, you wanna phrase it to understand, are they having episodes where they feel like they have brief loss of muscle tone? And it can be subtle. It can be a head drop, their mouth opening, a hand dropping something, and it's brief. Usually it's seconds to just a couple of minutes. These aren't prolonged episodes, and they're not losing consciousness. They're awake, they're just having that brief loss of muscle tone.

Dr Smith: So, what about orexin? I'm particularly interested in how often it's necessary to do an LP and look for CSF orexin levels. Is that a common thing in your practice, or do you rely on clinical phenomenology in a, you know, polysomnogram with multiple sleep latency testing to confirm a diagnosis of narcolepsy?

Dr Kay-Stacey: Most commonly, you're gonna still do the PSG and the MSLT, obviously, because it's less invasive than doing the lumbar puncture. There are scenarios, right, where you may consider doing the LP. I think if someone has cataplexy and you're pretty confident in that and they have a positive PSG, MSLT testing done, you know, you really don't need the lumbar puncture, right? But if you're in that gray area that for whatever reason you have a really high suspicion they have narcolepsy, but for whatever reason the PSG, MSLT either couldn't be done or it was inconclusive, then I might think about doing the lumbar puncture. The other scenario is that there are some patients who have to be on REM-suppressing medications, like antidepressants, for example. In those patients, it can confound the results. And so, if you're not able to stop those for the MSLT testing, then that would be a scenario where I might use the lumbar puncture. Insurance is another reason that, again, if you have some of that inconclusive findings on the PSG, MSLT, that doing the lumbar puncture then can help to confirm the diagnosis, but only useful for type 1 narcolepsy, not type 2.

Dr Smith: And type 2 is like type 1 but without cataplexy?

Dr Kay-Stacey: Exactly. And then you kind of can think of it as sort of on a spectrum, I would say. There's sort of narcolepsy type 1, and there's idiopathic hypersomnia, and narcolepsy type 2 kind of falls in between.

Dr Smith: Do you require the other core features of narcolepsy to make a diagnosis of type 2, like sleep paralysis, hallucinations?

Dr Kay-Stacey: Right. You do. You don't necessarily have to have all of them, but you will see similar features, though most of them are more common in, in type 1 than in type 2.

Dr Smith: So, I'm understanding you need to see, REM intrusion phenomena.

Dr Kay-Stacey: Mm-hmm. Yes.

Dr Smith: I love saying that. Makes me sound like I'm part of the sleep team. Now we're all part of the sleep team, aren't we?

Dr Kay-Stacey: Yeah.

Dr Smith: What about idiopathic hypersomnia? In reading about it and thinking about it, it sounds a lot like narcolepsy without those other features, but there, there are some differences. I wonder if you could give our listeners pearls into how to recognize that as opposed to maybe type 2 narcolepsy.

Dr Kay-Stacey: Yeah. So idiopathic hypersomnia patients are also very sleepy during the day. They're more commonly going to describe that they sleep through the night, often for long hours, and that they wake up and still feel very unrefreshed. They'll have what we call, morning sleep inertia, or some people call it, you know, sleep drunkenness, where when they wake up in the morning, they feel like they're in a haze or a fog. It's really hard to get out of bed. They're often setting multiple alarms. And this is after having a full night of sleep, ten, twelve hours of sleep, and then they just feel tired and sleepy all day. If they nap, their naps will often feel unrefreshing, and when they take naps, they're often longer naps, and then they wake up and again will maybe feel some of that sleep drunkenness or inertia, and it makes it difficult for them to wake up. And then they don't have as many of the REM intrusion phenomena, but you still can sometimes hear things like sleep paralysis or the hallucinations in patients with idiopathic hypersomnia. And so that's where it does get tricky when you're trying to differentiate from narcolepsy. Really, the difference with narcolepsy and idiopathic hypersomnia when you do testing has to do with what you see on the overnight sleep study on the polysomnogram followed by that multiple sleep latency test. In the case of all three conditions, the MSLT should show a mean sleep latency of eight minutes or less. What separates narcolepsy from idiopathic hypersomnia is that in narcolepsy, the expectation's you'll have two or more sleep onset REM periods, so you go into REM sleep very quickly. Whereas in idiopathic hypersomnia, you'll have one sleep onset REM period or less. Traditionally, you'd think of that you wouldn't have any, but you theoretically could have one on that. So, that's sort of one way that we can differentiate the two.

Dr Smith: That's really helpful, actually. Thank you. What about treatment? There are a whole bunch of different medications that you talk about in your article, including, medications that are in the pipeline, which is exciting. What's the treatment approach, maybe starting with narcolepsy?

Dr Kay-Stacey: Yeah. So, with narcolepsy, there are more FDA-approved medications and options then there are for idiopathic hypersomnia, which is, you know, one of the things I hope will change over time with things that are in the pipeline. But with narcolepsy, traditionally often start first with an alerting agent such as modafinil or armodafinil to really help with those daytime symptoms. And then there are a number of other medications that can be used. Sometimes if the armodafinil, modafinil don't work, we'll advance into stimulant medications that are amphetamine containing. At night, there's a medication called sodium oxybate that you can take for narcolepsy. The low sodium oxybate is actually also approved for idiopathic hypersomnia. But sodium oxybate, the idea is that you're taking it at night, and it's helping to reduce the disrupted sleep that occurs in patients with narcolepsy, really kind of enhances slow-wave sleep at night and makes the sleep that patients are getting better quality, which then improves both excessive daytime sleepiness during the day as well as the cataplexy. And then there are some other medications, solrimfetol and pitolisant, that are also used in narcolepsy. I don't wanna necessarily get into the nitty-gritty of all of the mechanisms of action, but definitely read the article to learn more about that.

Dr Smith: So that's really helpful. What about cataplexy? Do these medicines also help with cataplexy, or is there a different approach for that symptom?

Dr Kay-Stacey: Yeah. So, sodium oxybate definitely can be used, and the low-dose sodium oxybate can be used to help with the cataplexy. But then we'll also sometimes use medications in the antidepressant category as well. So, SSRIs, SNRIs, and tricyclic antidepressants can all also be used to help in the treatment of cataplexy.

Dr Smith: And how about idiopathic hypersomnia?

Dr Kay-Stacey: Yeah. So, for idiopathic hypersomnia, there are, you know, as I mentioned, less treatment options and not as many things FDA-approved. But, it was exciting, low-dose sodium oxybate was approved for idiopathic hypersomnia, so it's taken at night, similar to how it's used in narcolepsy, and does improve that excessive daytime sleepiness. And then we often will also use some of the other medications off-label, so modafinil, armodafinil, and the stimulant medications. But some of the other meds like the pitolisant and solrimfetol, those are not FDA-approved for the use in idiopathic hypersomnia.

Dr Smith: So, I'm curious if we know what causes these conditions, so narcolepsy type 1, type 2, and idiopathic hypersomnia. I mean, the treatments all seem very kind of neuromodulatory in some way, you know, interacting with the REM system, for instance. What's the current thought regarding mechanism, underlying cause?

Dr Kay-Stacey: So, narcolepsy type 1, it's due to the loss of orexin neurons in the hypothalamus. So that one is sort of the easiest of them that we know that those orexin-producing neurons are lost. There are thoughts that both with narcolepsy 1 and type 2, that there is autoimmune related concept and then also potentially some genetics, though it's not completely clear that it's one mechanism or another. But certainly, easiest is narcolepsy type 1 with that loss of orexin neurons. For idiopathic hypersomnia, we're not exactly sure actually what causes it. Again, some thoughts about maybe there being an autoimmune-related phenomenon for some patients, may begin for them after they've had infection, for example. And then some thoughts that perhaps GABA receptors are impacted in idiopathic hypersomnia.

Dr Smith: Great. Well, that's super helpful, and I'm definitely gonna be on the lookout for narcolepsy. But let me pivot. I wonder if we might play a little bit of a game here. There's so many other things that cause hypersomnia, other disorders and situations, and rather than kind of march through them, I wonder if I could give you a name of a particular neurologic disease or situation and have you provide our listeners just a sentence or two about one thing they should know about hypersomnia in that disorder. You up for it?

Dr Kay-Stacey: Sure.

Dr Smith: So, let's begin with my backyard, myotonic dystrophy.

Dr Kay-Stacey: Yeah. So myotonic dystrophy, we see an association actually with narcolepsy. So, certainly with patients with myotonic dystrophy, you'll see excessive daytime sleepiness, and should be screening them for narcolepsy. You should also be screening them for sleep apnea.

Dr Smith: How about Parkinson's disease?

Dr Kay-Stacey: Parkinson's disease, at least a third of those patients will describe excessive daytime sleepiness. They can also experience sleep attacks during the day, likely has to do with dopaminergic mechanisms.

Dr Smith: So, I'm gonna ask a question in the middle of our game. So, in myotonic dystrophy, it's actually true narcolepsy. So, you would want to screen for that, and then if they meet the criteria, you would treat them similar to we spoke about earlier. All right. How about traumatic brain injury?

Dr Kay-Stacey: Yeah. So traumatic brain injury, very common for patients to experience excessive daytime sleepiness. Those patients will also experience circadian dysregulation. So, when you're interacting, you know, with those patients, you definitely wanna get a good sleep history, understand is there a circadian component, or is it true excessive hypersomnia related to the brain injury?

Dr Smith: How about multiple sclerosis?

Dr Kay-Stacey: So, MS, not as common for it to be hypersomnia per se, more common to hear fatigue in these patients. I do think, again, sleep apnea is probably under-recognized in MS patients, so making sure you're screening for that. But not-- do not classically hear, you know, primary hypersomnia disorders, more so fatigue. But MS fatigue is treated similarly to some of our hypersomnia conditions, often use a modafinil or an armodafinil for that.

Dr Smith: How about medications?

Dr Kay-Stacey: So, there's a lot of medications that can cause excessive daytime sleepiness, a lot of medications that we as neurologists give, right? We're very aware that our anti-seizure medications can potentially cause excessive daytime sleepiness. The antidepressants that we use to treat various neuropathic pain con

Insomnia affects neurologic health, quality of life, and daily functioning, but effective treatments are available. In this episode, Dr. Brandon Peters-Mathews discusses a practical approach to evaluating chronic insomnia, highlights the importance of identifying contributing conditions such as sleep apnea and mood disorders, and reviews cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I), the recommended first-line treatment. Learn how addressing sleep can improve outcomes across a wide range of neurologic disorders.

In this episode, Katie Grouse, MD, FAAN, speaks with Brandon R. Peters-Mathews, MD, FAAN, FAASM, author of the article "Insomnia" in the Continuum® August 2026 Sleep 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. Peters-Mathews is the Section Head of Sleep Medicine at Virginia Mason Franciscan Health in Seattle, Washington.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Insomnia

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: @BrandonPetersMD

Full episode transcript available here

Dr Grouse: Insomnia may be one of the most common medical issues experienced by patients, yet our knowledge about how to manage it remains limited. Today, I have the opportunity to speak with one of the world's leading experts on sleep disorders, Dr. Brandon Peters-Mathews, about the latest issue of Continuum on Neurology of Sleep.

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. Brandon Peters-Mathews about his article on insomnia. This article appears in the August 2026 Continuum issue on Neurology of Sleep. Welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to our audience.

Dr Peters-Mathews: It's my pleasure to join you, and I'm happy to talk about this article. I think it's an interesting one for most folks. I am a board-certified sleep neurologist. I practice at Virginia Mason Franciscan Health in Seattle. I did my neurology training back at the University of Minnesota and my sleep training at Stanford University. I've been in practice for more than thirteen years at this point. It's hard to believe, but it's exciting to be able to speak with you today.

Dr Grouse: This is definitely an important topic for everybody. Certainly, sleep and the lack of it affects all of our patients, and I can't imagine there's a single clinical neurologist who doesn't have to answer questions and help evaluate patients with this problem, so very high-yield topic for everyone. Now, having read your article, I'm curious if you had to choose one key point that you want the readers of your article to take away after reading it, what would it be?

Dr Peters-Mathews: Emphasize for my patients that insomnia is a condition that we can work through and resolve, that if we really can understand the underlying contributing causes and resolve those issues, we can typically improve sleep. It's a process. It takes time. It takes some attention and, and sometimes even testing to figure out what's going on. But if we can dial into these root causes, we can typically help somebody to sleep much better. As part of that, we often employ a therapy called CBT-I, which we'll talk about here a little bit later. But that also helps us to identify some of these contributing factors that are leading to the poor sleep.

Dr Grouse: And I definitely want to talk more about CBT, it's such an important topic. But even before we get into that, I'd love it if you could just walk us through a hypothetical case of a patient with insomnia. I think the type of patient that I think we've all seen in our clinical practice and somebody who says, "You know, I've had poor sleep. I've had insomnia for many years. I've tried all of the things you're supposed to try. You know, I've tried sleep hygiene. I've tried this. I've tried that. I've tried medications. Nothing seems to work." Could you walk us through how you would evaluate a patient like this and start to consider what to recommend?

Dr Peters-Mathews: So, some simple information that we can gather, would be information about when they're trying to go to bed, how long it's taking them to fall asleep initially. If they wake in the night and have trouble getting back to sleep, how often they wake in the night. If they're experiencing early morning awakenings, their final wake time, and when they actually get out of bed in the morning. That gives me a sense of the structure of their sleep pattern and whether or not they might be spending an excessive amount of time in bed for their own sleep need at their current age. The other factors that we might consider are sleep disorders, and typically, I would assess for other symptoms that would point me towards sleep apnea or restless legs and occasionally other disorders of sleep. We wanna make sure we're not missing comorbid conditions that might be affecting that person. These often include mood disorders. Sleep and mood walk hand in hand, and so anxiety and depression are important to identify and treat if present. We also want to make sure someone's not suffering from chronic pain or other conditions that might be impacting their sleep. So, I take a broad approach. I ask the same questions to each patient that comes to see me. I wanna make sure I'm not missing some of these details. And then some of these folks will require testing to further understand their sleep. Others may move on to a different therapy, and long-term may require even other interventions, including medications, to fully resolve their condition.

Dr Grouse: You mentioned in your article circadian rhythm sleep disorders. How often are these really a factor in patients with chronic insomnia? And do you think that's something that we as kind of first-line clinicians should be screening for as well?

Dr Peters-Mathews: So delayed sleep phase syndrome is the most common circadian disorder, and these are folks who are night owls by nature. They often develop their sleep patterns, as teenagers, if not before, and they may fade away in the working years but come back in retirement age. I would say that's a very common condition. It may affect as many as one in ten people. The other circadian disorders are pretty uncommon, so advanced sleep phase syndrome, where somebody is sleepy early and waking too early, that may only affect one in three hundred people. There are other conditions that affect specific populations, like non-twenty-four circadian pattern affects blind people. Typically, half of blind people have that condition. There are conditions that affect the regularity of sleep, so an irregular sleep-wake pattern that might occur more in folks with maybe an advanced dementia. So, there are populations where these conditions can be fairly common, but among the general population, that night owl tendency is by far the most common.

Dr Grouse: That's really helpful. And just taking a step back, why is insomnia bad for us? So, we worry about this in our patients. We know it can make neurologic issues worse. But in general, like, what are the reasons that having poor sleep can affect our health?

Dr Peters-Mathews: Yeah, and it's not enough hours, certainly quantity, but also quality of sleep that matters. And I tell people that sleep is a pillar of health, just like nutrition and exercise. It's the other main contributor to our health and well-being. And so, it has its fingers in almost every aspect of our health. Insomnia on its own is a risk factor for other psychiatric conditions, including depression, anxiety, even disorders like bipolar and schizophrenia. Folks with insomnia are more likely to have alcohol or drug abuse issues and are at higher risk for things like chronic pain, suicide and, and social and occupational dysfunction. So, it's a disorder that has a really profound effect on how someone functions during the day, and again, may take a toll on their health over time.

Dr Grouse: That makes sense, and I would assume that there are certain populations within our neurology practices where we should really be attuned to the risk of insomnia. Are there specific populations you'd recommend really make it a habit of screening for insomnia?

Dr Peters-Mathews: I was joking with someone recently that anyone with a neurological nervous system can have issues, impacted by poor sleep. There are certain groups, so chronic headache patients are perhaps one that might warrant a further evaluation and management. Folks with multiple sclerosis or Parkinson's may have physical conditions that lead to more discomfort in sleep, fewer movements of their body in sleep, issues around nocturia that would disturb their sleep. Certainly, those with dementia, Alzheimer's disease and other dementias. Parkinson's and Lewy body dementia overlap a lot, as does multiple system atrophy. That can point us towards other conditions like REM sleep behavior disorder, but also insomnia can be an important feature of those disorders as well. And then folks with stroke often have disturbance to their sleep and may develop insomnia after experiencing a stroke. So those are specific populations where I think the yield is high to be looking for insomnia and other sleep disorders.

Dr Grouse: Yeah, that makes sense. I think a lot of us think of insomnia as almost like, make sure we're not missing this as sort of a mimic of the problem, when in fact it's probably just more part and parcel of the problem and something we need to be thinking about treating as part of their disorder. So helpful to think about it in that light, at least in my own mind. Now, I want to get a little bit back to some of the therapies you've recommended, and I think first just stopping again at sleep hygiene. Your article has a really great list, I think, of sort of like a checklist of actions that people should be taking to make sure that they are managing their sleep hygiene well. And I definitely recommend our listeners look to that. How often do you think that focusing on sleep hygiene helps when you get a patient who says, "Hey, I have got terrible sleep. You know, what do I do?"

Dr Peters-Mathews: It's pretty common for people to have access to this information through their own reading online, and most folks have worked through this by the time they've come to see me, and often a primary care provider or specialist may have given some of this guidance as well. It's pretty rare for them to not recognize something as obvious as having caffeine too late in the day by the time they're coming to my attention. The sleep hygiene generally is used as a control when we do research to look at how something like medication is working or CBT-I might be working. It's the comparative control. It's almost like the null intervention. So, it's not highly effective, and if folks are not finding it helpful, they've made those adjustments to their sleep environment or their habits, and they're continuing to have issues, there's typically more that needs to be done, and that's where CBT-I really comes in as a strong intervention for those people.

Dr Grouse: And then getting on the topic of CBT-I, so helpful. I'm really glad that your article spent a lot of time talking about it as really a truly high-yield, great intervention for insomnia. And I really felt that the question shouldn't be: When is cognitive behavior therapy for insomnia helpful? But like, when isn't it helpful? What are your thoughts about that?

Dr Peters-Mathews: Yeah. I always point out that the American College of Physicians has recommended CBT-I for adult patients as the initial treatment for chronic insomnia even before the use of a medication for nearly ten years. That recommendation came out in July of 2016. So, there are folks who may not be good candidates for it, who may be screened out because of other conditions that they have, and there certainly are folks who don't do as well with CBT-I. And adherence is important. Somebody needs to be able to follow the instructions and apply that to their lives. And certainly, there are a number of things that could interfere with that compliance. I would say untreated anxiety and pain are two things that often trip people up. It's like running a race with a broken leg. Despite their best efforts, if those are not addressed, they will continue to have issues around insomnia. And then one thing that often is unrecognized and may be missed is untreated sleep apnea. That is a common contributor to a chronic insomnia, especially in older folks, women beyond the age of menopause and men even starting in middle age, thirties and forties. We don't want to miss sleep apnea. Even insomnia that's, "I can't fall asleep at the beginning of night," that could still be sleep apnea, so that's something I really emphasize with my patients.

Dr Grouse: Really great reminder about sleep apnea for sure. Something that always is beneficial to make sure we are not missing. Oftentimes I'll bring up a CBT for insomnia, and what is that? Like, what would we actually do, and what is a high-level overview of what happens with CBT-I?

Dr Peters-Mathews: Yeah. So, I generally tell my patients that this is a six-week program. It's a structured program, almost like a boot camp for sleep, in which we are addressing underlying causes, recognizing what those are and, and working through those underlying causes. There is often tracking using a sleep log or sometimes wearable data.To guide decisions that are made in the program. It's very goal-directed, science-based therapy. We often introduce concepts around sleep drive, circadian rhythm dealing with a busy mind at night. There's concepts of mindfulness and relaxation training that are introduced. People often are able to taper or stop using sleeping pills as part of this therapy. And the nice thing is they walk away with a set of skills that they can apply the rest of their lives to sleep more normally. And so, there's good research that suggests even years after someone's completed a CBT-I course, they continue to sleep more normally. They have the tools that they need to sleep better even years beyond that education.

Dr Grouse: You know, this just sounds so great. It almost sounds like why wouldn't someone benefit from this? But of course, like I would imagine many institutions experience, I've definitely run into difficulties with access for my patients for CBT-I, and we have long wait lists. And I imagine there's many places where there just aren't even any specialists that patients can get to, to help with this. What are the resources that our listeners can take advantage of for their patients to get access to these types of therapies?

Dr Peters-Mathews: So, one thing I tried to really emphasize in the article is that there are resources that can be drawn in. I'll give you some examples. So, at our institution, we have three sleep specialists, full-time sleep specialists, who trained at Stanford to become CBT-I specialists, and so we have more resources than probably most institutions would have. We do shared medical appointment workshops so that we can manage the number of patients that we have to see. And, and unfortunately, not everybody has that opportunity. You might plug into resources in your community, and one of the resources I point to in the article is the International Directory that's managed by the University of Pennsylvania that has eight hundred and seventy-five CBT-I specialists listed with contact information, et cetera. And I think that's an amazing opportunity to access this therapy. Unfortunately, there are countries and certainly states that do not have a specialist, that there's no one in the state that provides this therapy. And then we need to extend other resources, and that could be online treatment programs that can be done independently, bibliotherapy, so accessing books that could guide people through the therapy, even accessing other apps and maybe even wearables that pair with an app that could provide some of this guidance. The Veterans Administration worked with Stanford and worked with the National Center for PTSD and developed an app called CBT-I Coach that is free and can be downloaded and, and gives, I think, good education, good guidance. So, there are resources that exist. It's somewhat finding what might work for your individual patient, how they're preferring to access this or their learning preferences. Do they want to read a book or not? And getting them into the right pathway.

Dr Grouse: And I think that gets me into a whole other Pandora's box of the fact that they're already out there in the world are tons of different apps, wearable devices, all sorts of things that promise that they can help us with sleep, some that may have more, I think, data and evidence behind them than others. Do any of these apps or wearables in your mind show promise in our patients helping our patients track and diagnose and manage their insomnia?

Dr Peters-Mathews: Yeah, there's a lot out there, and unfortunately, some of these devices actually can make sleep worse. People can develop a condition called orthosomnia or straight sleep, where they're trying to perfect their sleep and their sleep numbers, their metrics, and the wearables feeding them data that they continue to try to improve upon. And that fixation on those metrics can actually make their sleep quite a bit worse. A lot of these wearables and apps and other resources have not been well-studied. There's not research trials showing outcomes comparing to other standards of care. I would say the basic guidance of CBT-I, which many of these programs are based on, I think will be helpful to the majority of folks who are able to engage and complete that education. A lot of these are not dependent on that sort of framework or structure so that we may not actually be using the standards of CBT-I to try to improve sleep. They may be connecting you with other resources, like listen to this sleep story or this relaxation file or do some meditation, et cetera, which again, may be of some benefit, but it is not the same as a structured CBT-I experience. So, I think there are a few good resources that we highlight within the article, and I think there are probably others coming that may give individuals a more individualized, directed approach to managing their sleep issues. But it's almost like going to the App Store and there's thousands of apps. It's hard to know which one might be most based on science or the most beneficial to that individual.

Dr Grouse: Well, I really appreciate in your article that you did have a great list of apps and things along those lines to try, so I do encourage our listeners to check that out as well. Some really, really great resources there in the article in many different areas. Now, I wanted to turn the conversation to a slightly different thing, which is medications for insomnia. Now, when are medications appropriate for treating insomnia? When should we be thinking about turning to these for our patients?

Dr Peters-Mathews: So again, we would suggest that CBT-I would be first, and that failing improvement with CBT-I, that medications would be extended to a person affected by insomnia. And over-the-counter options as well as prescription medications might be used. Unfortunately, that's not

Central sleep apnea is a complex and often underrecognized sleep-related breathing disorder that differs from obstructive sleep apnea by involving reduced respiratory drive rather than upper airway obstruction. In this episode, Dr. Ran Liu reviews the underlying mechanisms of central sleep apnea, including the role of ventilatory control instability, discusses its association with neurologic conditions such as stroke, multiple sclerosis, ALS, and myasthenic disorders, and highlights key considerations for diagnosis and management. Learn how emerging technologies, personalized treatment strategies, and advances in sleep medicine are improving outcomes for patients with this heterogeneous group of disorders.

In this episode, Teshamae Monteith, MD, FAAN, speaks with Ran R. Liu, MD, FRCPC, MSc, author of the article "Central Sleep Apnea" in the Continuum® August 2026 Sleep 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. Liu is an Adjunct Clinical Assistant Professor at McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada, and an Adjunct Lecturer at the University of Toronto in Toronto, Canada.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Central Sleep Apnea

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: @SleepyNeuroDoc

Full episode transcript available here

Dr Monteith: You may be familiar with obstructive sleep apnea, but central sleep apnea is often less understood and frequently underdiagnosed. In this podcast, we break down the key clinical pearls to sharpen your diagnostic reasoning, discuss why central sleep apnea matters, and to explore some of the fascinating advances transforming the field.

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. Richard Liu about his article on central sleep apnea. This article appears in the August 2026 Continuum issue on Neurology of Sleep. Welcome to our podcast. How are you?

Dr Liu: Good. Thank you, Dr. Monteith, for having me today.

Dr Monteith: Please introduce yourself to our audience.

Dr Liu: Hello, everybody. My name is Richard Liu. I am a sleep neurologist. I am working out of Toronto at both Sunnybrook Health Science Center and MedSleep. I did my residency at Queen's for neurology and my sleep medicine fellowship at Harvard University.

Dr Monteith: Great. And what got you interested in sleep?

Dr Liu: Thank you very much for asking. For me, sleep medicine is a field where essentially everything is connected. Certainly, impaired sleep can affect many other conditions, including many neurological conditions. And even within sleep medicine, when somebody has a sleep disorder, often the entire system is connected. So as an example, if you have insomnia and fragmented sleep and periodic limb movements of sleep, certainly these conditions can impact sleep apnea. And certainly, for today's topic of central sleep apnea, this is an extremely complicated disorder where it's a very in-depth integration between neurological and respiratory physiology, among other systems as well.

Dr Monteith: So, I guess you're kind of like the cornerstone, sleep being the cornerstone of neurology. Everyone has to sleep. That's for sure. Great. So why don't we talk about what central sleep apnea is, and how prevalent is it as a collective group of disorders compared to obstructive sleep apnea?

Dr Liu: So, one way to think about central sleep apnea is that this is a heterogeneous group of etiology. But the primary concept here for central sleep apnea is that there's a reduction in respiratory drive. This is in contrast to obstructive sleep apnea, where essentially this is some form of airway obstruction in the presence of relatively intact respiratory drive. And of course, there's mixed apneas where they may contain features of both. But of course, now we know that even obstructive sleep apnea, there's a certain degree of drive dependence somewhat blurring these distinctions. The overall prevalence of central sleep apnea is about five to ten percent of all patients with sleep- disorder breathing. And certainly, it could be higher in some neurological conditions, such as things like stroke, multiple sclerosis, and multisystem atrophy.

Dr Monteith: Great. So certainly, it's out there. Why don't you tell us about the objectives of your article?

Dr Liu: Absolutely. Thank you for asking. I think the main objective of this article is really to highlight that central sleep apnea is a complex syndrome resulting from a large group of heterogeneous etiologies. And of course, again, it could be associated with many neurological conditions. And really here, I want to highlight advancements, both medicine and technology, on both the side of diagnosis of central sleep apnea, as well as the multimodal targeted treatment.

Dr Monteith: And what do you want our listeners to take away from this talk and certainly your article? What are the key essential points?

Dr Liu: Thank you very much for asking. I think that one way of looking at central sleep apnea to etiologically divide this into both hypocapnic and hypercapnic central sleep apnea. And of course, loop gain being a major driver for a hypocapnic central sleep apnea, and that one can actually think about hypocapnic central sleep apnea beyond a phenotypic spectrum with obstructive sleep apnea, with many patients having overlapping features of both obstruction and central component. On the other hand, hypercapnic central sleep apnea, often also known as hyperventilation syndrome, can span etiology from chemoreflex dysfunction to a broad range of neuroanatomical localization, such as central nervous system, peripheral nervous system, neuromuscular junction, and muscle disorders.

Dr Monteith: And what are some of the symptoms of central sleep apnea? Do any of them differ from obstructive sleep apnea?

Dr Liu: Thank you for asking, that's an excellent question. So certainly, central sleep apnea symptoms can overlap with obstructive sleep apnea symptoms. And of course, given the large range of underlying etiology, often the CSA symptoms depend on the underlying etiology. There may be less snoring compared to obstructive sleep apnea patients, especially the hypocapnic CSA patients. Of course, these patients, like OSA, may have frequent awakenings, gasping and choking their sleep, and nocturia, and so on.These patients may have daytime sleepiness, insomnia-like symptoms, or they could be asymptomatic. Interestingly, the hypocarbnic central sleep apnea patients, they're a bit more prone to have the insomnia-like symptoms, whereas the hypercarbnic central sleep apnea patients, they tend to have a bit more of the daytime sleepiness and morning headaches.

Dr Monteith: You spoke about some of the neurological disorders that might be associated with central sleep apnea, like stroke and multiple sclerosis. What about some of the more traditional risk factors associated with obstructive sleep apnea or conditions associated with it, like obesity and hypertension? Or does that just mix the picture?

Dr Liu: There is many overlap between risk factors between obstructive sleep apnea and central sleep apnea, and certainly one of the things that I highlight in this article is really that often it's not just black and white, that this could be a spectrum with overlapping disease between both conditions. So certainly, in our neurological world, stroke is the most common thing that may be associated with central sleep apnea. But overall, cardiovascular issues such as heart failure, atrial fibrillation, these things can also be associated with central sleep apnea. And again, from the neurological perspective, if we were to divide from hypocarbnic versus hypercarbnic central sleep apnea, by thinking about the hypercarbic central sleep apnea, again, this is where we're thinking about hypoventilation syndromes. You know, anything that can cause neuromuscular weakness, this is something that we should have a high alarm for, that potentially there may be a hypoventilation component. So, things like any myasthenic syndromes and ALS.

Dr Monteith: Great. Why don't we also talk about the classification? When was the last time central sleep apnea's classification was updated, and what should we know about the classification?

Dr Liu: The most recent classification for central sleep apnea is written in the International Classification of Sleep Disorders, third edition. In this edition, it's classified with six central sleep apnea syndromes. So, these are the CSA with Cheyne-Stoke breathing, CSA due to high altitude periodic breathing, primary CSA, CSA due to medication or substance, CSA due to medical disorder without Cheyne-Stoke breathing, and treatment-emergent central sleep apnea. These classifications more so describe the circumstance of when CSA occurs. A more etiological classification that we can consider would be classifying them by the underlying pathophysiology, which is dividing this from hypercarbnic central sleep apnea versus a hypocarbnic central sleep apnea. Certainly, both set of classification are discussed in this article.

Dr Monteith: Yeah. You discussed at length, the major physiological factors that our audience is just going to have to read. I don't want them to hear this too much while they're driving or on the treadmill, cause its super high level. But why don't we just start with some very basic factors that we need to know about this circuitry?

Dr Liu: Perhaps I can start with this concept of loop gain, which is the most important concept under hypocarbnic central sleep apnea. For any one of my colleagues who's listening to this, they're probably laughing right now cause they think that loop gain is my favorite word. So, loop gain is an engineering term referring to the sensitivity of a feedback loop. So, in the context of sleep medicine, this is an overly sensitive respiratory control to carbon dioxide and oxygen fluctuation. There are three components. The main one is controller gain. This is a chemosensitivity predominant to CO2. The second is plant gain, which is the lung's effectiveness for carbon dioxide excretion. And the last is what's called the mixing gain. This is circuitry delay from the time the signal travels from the pulmonary artery to the peripheral and central chemoreceptors. So conceptually, one may think, let's say something decreases your ventilation, so for example, apnea or hypopnea. With this, as you can imagine, when you stop breathing, your CO2 builds up, and this builds up according to the curve of the plant gain. And of course, this build of CO2 signal takes time to go from your lung to your chemoreceptor. That's your mixing gain. And of course, here it meets the overly sensitive chemoreceptors. This is your controller gain. As a result, this results in amplification of your ventilation to the initial respiratory disturbance. So, you have a overshoot of ventilation. All of a sudden, you're blowing out too much carbon dioxide, then you become hypocarbnic. At one point, if you blow out way too much carbon dioxide, your CO2 goes below what's called a PCO2 apneic threshold. After this, if your CO2's below, you essentially stop breathing. And of course, after that, you can imagine your CO2s are building up again. So, when this loop goes over and over, you generate what's called a chemoreflex-driven respiratory oscillation, where you create a crescendo, decrescendo-like flow pattern, which is underneath what we see in periodic breathing in central sleep apnea.

Dr Monteith: So, without going into too much detail, what is the key way to target restoration of equilibrium? Are there anatomical targets, physiologic targets that we're trying to manipulate here?

Dr Liu: Again, thank you very much for that wonderful question. There's certainly many approaches that we could do to improve the stability of the system. Certainly, there are treatments for ventilation, either CPAP or in the case of hypocarbon central sleep apnea, things like adaptive servo ventilation. There is also medications that we can certainly discuss later that can double down the entire system for loop gain. Positional therapy can help for many of these patients. For the appropriate patient, improving their arousal threshold can actually reduce arousal-induced amplification of loop gain. Many of these patients, again, if appropriate, certainly weight loss may be helpful, and these are among many things that we can potentially do to improve the ventilatory stability of these patients.

Dr Monteith: Okay, great. But let's also talk about the general overall approach to diagnosing, and much of it is by history, as you mentioned. There's also sometimes a need, as you say, to differentiate out how much is obstructive. So, what is the thinking process there when you're approaching a patient?

Dr Liu: So perhaps I can start with in terms of the diagnostic modalities that we could use for this. So, the gold standard for diagnosis of central sleep apnea is still our polysonogram. The home sleep apnea test sometimes may be harder to distinguish between obstructive and central events. In addition, on a PSG, you have EEG. This allows you to assess for sleep quality and arousals, as well as the EMGs, which can help you pick up periodic limb movements of sleep. And of course, all of these things themselves can affect the central sleep apnea and can be a potential treatment factor.

Dr Monteith: Before we get into treatment, can you just give us, like, the top five or six drugs or drug classes we need to look for so that, you know, we can discontinue or try something else for our patients that might be complicating their presentation?

Dr Liu: Certainly medications, in some cases, can help central sleep apnea, but other cases can certainly be a precipitant of central sleep apnea. So, one thing to consider would be opioid medication. They can certainly cause very complicated central sleep apnea, something called ataxic breathing, where you have irregularity to the tidal volume and the rate of breathing. Other medications such as Oxybate, baclofen, valproic acid, gabapentin, all of which can certainly contribute to central sleep apnea. And of course, in the stroke world, something that we should always think about is that Tetagelor can also contribute to central sleep apnea. And outside of this, things like muscle relaxants, anesthetic agents can also be a contributor.

Dr Monteith: Great. Now let's get into some of the treatment.

Dr Liu: I like to divide treatment into targeting a hypercarbnic central sleep apnea and a hypocarbonic central sleep apnea. For hypocarbonic central sleep apnea, the first line is CPAP treatment. But for many patients, CPAP therapy is insufficient. There's also adaptive servo ventilation, which is an advanced device designed for hypocarbonic central sleep apnea. For hypercarbic central sleep apnea, again, first line is CPAP treatment, with more advanced devices being a bilevel therapy as well as volume-assured pressure support ventilation. There are also medications that can reduce loop gain, with the most researched one being acetazolamide. We can also reduce arousal thresholds, which could be appropriate for certain patients. And for certain patients, improving arousal threshold can be helpful as, especially in hypocarbic central sleep apnea, that arousals can amplify loop gain. Weight loss can be helpful for both hyper- and hypocarbonic central sleep apnea, and we have great new medication on the market for this. Other therapy can include supplemental oxygen that can be added to PAP devices, as well as phrenic nerve stimulation, positional therapy, as well as carbon dioxide modulation.

Dr Monteith: Excellent. So, it sounds like there's a lot of opportunity to help patients. Now, what are you most excited about in terms of latest development for detection as well as for intervention?

Dr Liu: Thank you very much. I'm actually excited about many things in sleep medicine. Perhaps the thing that I'm most excited about in detection in sleep medicine would be the wearable technologies. So, these technologies may use photoplethysmography to detect peripheral artertonometry. This is where we're measuring the pulsatile arterial volume signals as a surrogate of cardiac and respiratory function. And when paired, that was often desaturation. With these technologies, we can actually detect the staging, autonomic arousals, and HI. So of course, these technologies do not have flow, and they do not have EEG. But they're very powerful technology that allows us to do multi-night testing from home. And of course, understanding both the potential limitation of these technology in the context of patients can be very useful. In terms of treatment-wise, we're learning so much about the underlying contributing drivers of different forms of central sleep apnea. So again, this is highlighted in my article that many of these patients needs multimodal targeted treatment, both between either a PAP device in addition to other things such as medication, oxygen, positional therapy, and so on.

Dr Monteith: Great. So, I mean, I think there's so much to this field. Your article is very extensive. Thank you very much for writing this. I know it may have taken a bit of time, and I appreciate you being on our podcast.

Dr Liu: Thank you very much.

Dr Monteith: Again today, I've been interviewing Dr. Richard Liu about his article on central sleep apnea. This article appears in the August 2026 Continuum issue on Neurology of Sleep. 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.

Advances in sleep technology are transforming how neurologists identify and manage obstructive sleep apnea, a condition that affects up to 70% of patients with certain neurologic disorders and can negatively impact cognitive and neurologic outcomes if left untreated. In this episode, Dr. Joyce Lee-Iannotti discusses the growing role of wearable and nearable sleep-monitoring devices, when home sleep studies are appropriate, and how emerging technologies are expanding access to diagnosis and treatment. Learn practical strategies for screening patients, interpreting sleep data, and partnering with sleep specialists to improve long-term neurologic health through better sleep.

In this episode, Casey S. Albin, MD, FAAN, speaks with Joyce K. Lee-Iannotti, MD, FAAN, FAASM, author of the article "Sleep Diagnostics and Monitoring Technology in Obstructive Sleep Apnea" in the Continuum® August 2026 Sleep Neurology issue.

Dr. Albin is a Continuum® Audio interviewer, associate editor of media engagement, and an assistant professor of neurology and neurosurgery at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

Dr. Lee-Iannotti is a Professor of Neurology at the Barrow Neurological Institute, University of Arizona College of Medicine, and Creighton School of Medicine in Phoenix, Arizona.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Sleep Diagnostics and Monitoring Technology in Obstructive Sleep Apnea

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: @caseyalbin

Guest: @jleeiannotti

Full episode transcript available here

Dr Albin: Through the neurology of sleep issue, I think we have all been convinced that we all need better sleep, both for ourselves and for our patients. And fortunately, there is an abundance of new technology that can enable us to diagnose sleep problems, and then also make sure that our patients are getting the rest that's going to give them the best chance at a good cognitive recovery, and improve their cognitive function even if they are not currently suffering from a neurologic condition. Today, I am so excited to dive deeper into this topic.

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 Albin: Hello, this is Dr. Casey Albin. Today I'm interviewing Dr. Joyce Lee-Iannotti about her article on sleep diagnostics and monitoring technology in obstructive sleep apnea. This article appears in the August 2026 Continuum issue on neurology of sleep. Welcome to the podcast, I'd love to just start by having you introduce yourself to our audience.

Dr Lee-Iannotti: Sure. Thank you so much for having me, Dr. Albin. I'm Joyce Lee-Iannotti. I'm a professor of neurology at Barrow Neurological Institute. I am boarded in general neurology, stroke, and sleep, but I spend most of my time in the sleep world, so I jokingly say that I get more sleep doing sleep than I certainly did in stroke.

Dr Albin: Absolutely. I mean, wow, what a fascinating career, and I suspect that we're actually gonna get to some of how all of those pathophysiologies might overlap in the world of sleep. But you had the really exciting task of trying to distill this exciting, rapidly evolving field of sleep diagnostics, and I suspect it's relevant to many of the patients who end up in the neurology clinic, and I suspect that it's actually pretty relevant to many of our listeners who themselves might actually be wearing sleep tracking devices. And all of us probably wonder, well, how can we use that data to improve our own cognitive function and certainly make our patient's life even better? Before we even get into some of the meat and potatoes of this, I thought it would be really helpful for us to define some terms that come up in your article, one of which is wearables. We might figure that out, but the other is nearable. Walk us through what's a wearable, what's a nearable, how are they different?

Dr Lee-Iannotti: I'm happy to do that. First of all, the article is entitled Sleep Diagnostics and Monitoring Technology, and this was a super fun article for me to write because it's very practical, and it's generalizable to everybody. So, I'm going to start with a wearable, and a wearable is really a device that is simply worn on the body. And we're all familiar with wearables like smart watches, they're rings, they're patches, they're headbands, and the most validated form of a wearable that you've probably heard about is actigraphy, which we use in the sleep clinic.

Dr Albin: Tell us a little bit more. So, what is actigraphy? I've heard the word before, but don't actually know what it means.

Dr Lee-Iannotti: Actigraphy has been a tool that we've used in the sleep clinic for a really long time. Traditionally, we used it to monitor circadian rhythm patterns in people who are night owls or morning larks. And then more currently, we actually use it to track sleep patterns in people with suspected narcolepsy. So, before they come in for a sleep study, we actually have them wear an actigraphy for about a week just to get a sense of their sleep duration and their circadian pattern.

Dr Albin: Got it. And what is it monitoring? Our movement or the patterns that we may or may not make?

Dr Lee-Iannotti: It's really based on movement. You're exactly right.

Dr Albin: Cool. Okay, so most of this is based on gold standard monitoring with actigraphy. What other things can be incorporated into these wearable devices?

Dr Lee-Iannotti: Yeah, the technology is really advanced, and every day it changes, which is super exciting. So, on top of movement, these wearables can look at temperature. They can look at even EEG, like limited EEG, heart rate variability, and a really big word that we like to use in sleep technology, which is PPG, or photoplethysmography data, and that's really looking at heart rate variability and oxygenation, saturations, and following those levels as well.

Dr Albin: Wow, so you basically can get most of the data that you might have historically needed to go to a sleep lab to get.

Dr Lee-Iannotti: Most of them. They're still a surrogate. You'll hear me emphasize in the article as well that the gold standard remains the in-lab polysomnogram, but these are good surrogate markers that patients can wear long term to look at trends and patterns.

Dr Albin: Absolutely. And we're gonna unpack a little bit about who specifically those are best for and, really what it gives you in the clinic. But before we jump into that, what's a nearable, and how is that different?

Dr Lee-Iannotti: Yeah. Nearables are really exciting too. So, these are devices that monitor sleep but don't require direct contact on the body. So, these are devices that our patients will use, but it'll be at the bedside table. They're devices that actually go underneath the mattress, or they can be in, like, the ambient environment to detect sleep patterns.

Dr Albin: Oh my gosh. How is it doing that if it's not actually something you're wearing?

Dr Lee-Iannotti: I know. It seems a little Big Brother-ish, doesn't it?

Dr Albin: Yes.

Dr Lee-Iannotti: So, they use a technology called radio frequency signals, sometimes radar, sometimes sonar, pressure sensors, even microphones, and they're picking up things like respiration, movement, snoring, and that's how they can decipher sleep patterns.

Dr Albin: Crazy. I mean, I guess the benefit of that is that it's less disruptive to the user 'cause it's not actually on them and having contact with them, and I suspect there's probably some downsides in terms of just it's a more limited data set you're getting.

Dr Lee-Iannotti: Absolutely. Yeah, you're exactly right. It's more convenient because it's not touching them, so, in theory, they're gonna sleep more comfortably. But I would like to think that the most validated forms of devices that we use to track sleep have to have some form of contact with the body, and this technology is new and probably needs a few layers of more sophistication to be as accurate as the wearables.

Dr Albin: Absolutely. I feel like we're going to have this conversation in five, maybe even less than that, years, and this data will have become like, oh, we all have something in our room that's monitoring everything. The world is crazy. All right. One of the places where your article really stood out to me is that sleep diagnostics have really taken off, particularly when we're thinking about obstructive sleep apnea. And I think we all might sort of scratch our heads and be like, "This is a neurology podcast. Why should I, as a neurologist, care about obstructive sleep apnea?" But I think you laid out a very convincing argument in the article. Walk us through why we should care about this.

Dr Lee-Iannotti: Absolutely. So, for neurologists, sleep matters, and I hope that my article translates that. Obstructive sleep apnea, which I'm gonna call OSA, is incredibly common in all of our neurologic patients, whether you see epilepsy, Parkinson's, stroke, Alzheimer's, neuromuscular, or even chronic headache patients. The prevalence of sleep apnea is as high as 70% in these patients.

Dr Albin: Wow. That's incredible. That is an incredibly high number.

Dr Lee-Iannotti: And if I can add, Dr. Albin, there's growing literature in multiple studies across the literature that show that untreated sleep apnea negatively impacts neurologic outcomes in our patients. So, it is really important to ask the question about sleep, and if the red flags pop up, to then screen for sleep apnea in particular.

Dr Albin: I think that that's a great point for us to drill down on, and obviously you're a sleep neurologist. You're very used to screening people in the clinic. But say someone comes in, and I'm gonna have you put your former stroke hat on, and say someone comes into the stroke clinic, and you're just making sure that they're optimized on their aspirin or dual antiplatelet therapy, and you're doing secondary risk modification. How would screening for OSA fit into that?

Dr Lee-Iannotti: It would be a part of that screening process to look at preventative ways to prevent strokes, whether it be primary or secondary prevention. So, we did a survey a while back, and it actually showed that 17% of stroke neurologists are screening for sleep apnea. It has quadrupled, fortunately, in the last few years due to public awareness and a lot of education that the AAN has done, in fact. So, at this point, I would say not asking about sleep apnea to a stroke patient is similar to not asking about diabetes.

Dr Albin: So, we really have to be cognizant and conscious about saying, you know, "Do you snore at night? Do you have episodes of apnea, or does someone witness you stop?" Are there things that you ask that maybe I wouldn't be aware and thinking of?

Dr Lee-Iannotti: Those are the right questions, and then very practically, very easy questionnaires to implement that literally take a minute that your nurses or medical assistants can administer to the patient, and the most commonly one that is used in stroke patients is called the STOP BANG, S-T-O-P B-A-N-G, which is a validated questionnaire to screen for symptoms.

Dr Albin: Absolutely. So okay, so this is easy to do. We should all be doing this. If you're not, now's the time. And I suspect if they screen positive, next steps, it can be hard to get into a sleep lab, and we're gonna talk about some workarounds, but I think some of our listeners may never have spent time in the actual sleep lab. So, let's say you refer a patient and you actually can get them in for a gold standard in-lab sleep study. What's gonna happen in that sleep study?

Dr Lee-Iannotti: Yeah. And I just want to preface this by saying that my article hopefully highlights that we've come a long way where we understand that there are many neurologic populations then that can undergo home ambulatory sleep studies with just as much accuracy as an in-lab polysomnogram. But with that, I wanna say an in-lab polysomnogram is actually a highly sophisticated physiologic recording overnight, typically, unless somebody is a day sleeper. So, if I could take a minute to kinda describe the data that we're monitoring throughout the night. There is a limited EEG. We concentrate on frontal, central, occipital leads to look at sleep staging. We have eye leads. We have EMG leads on the chin and the leg. We look at EKG, flow monitors, belt, and then we also do pulse oximetry, snoring mics, and even body position sensors. So, a lot is going on.

Dr Albin: This is incredible. Yeah, it truly is. I mean, this is like... I'm a neurointensivist, and so I think that you have just really outdone what I consider multimodal monitoring in your sleep study patients. I'm not even sure our neuro ICU patients accumulate that much data. All right, so tell me, they go through, and they can get this. But like you said, there's actually a lot of data that you've presented that, you know, not everyone needs to go to the in-lab sleep study. So how do you decide who actually needs to be in a sleep lab versus who can do this at home? And then how do you set them up with getting this done at home?

Dr Lee-Iannotti: Yeah. The home sleep studies are really more accessible ways for us to assess for sleep apnea in our neurologic patients, especially patients who live in very rural areas and don't have access or have very long wait times for an in-lab polysomnogram. With that being said, though, Dr. Albin, I will say that there are a subset of patients who have to go into the lab, and those are patients where you suspect a sleep disorder other than obstructive sleep apnea, so like parasomnias or central sleep apnea, patients with severe cognitive or physical debilitation, like our stroke patients who are hemiplegic and won't be able to apply the home sleep study. But for the most part, I do feel like a home sleep study is a good beginner study to screen the patient. And if there are red flags, then you can always get the in-lab afterwards.

Dr Albin: That's super helpful. And just from a pragmatic standpoint, will insurance cover the home sleep study?

Dr Lee-Iannotti: They will, yes, and it's all about documenting. So, if I could get really practical, for neurologists, it really just requires documenting snoring, for one, whether it's noted by the patient or by their bed partner, and then any form of hypersomnia, which is daytime sleepiness or even a sense of fatigue, having low energy or napping during the day.

Dr Albin: I suspect so many of our patients meet those criterias. That seems, like, wildly simple to do.

Dr Lee-Iannotti: Yes. And if you wanna be the favorite referral person to your sleep neurologist or your sleep specialist, then take another step and do that STOP-Bang. And if you record a score greater than three, that automatically gets them at least a home sleep study.

Dr Albin: It's amazing. And then when you get this data, again, this is really practical, pragmatic stuff, how do you get the report? Does it integrate in your electronic medical record? Does the patient bring it in? How do you get that data back?

Dr Lee-Iannotti: Yeah, so this is where technology is amazing, Dr. Albin. Now we have disposable devices. Sometimes they sync to the WatchPat, or the greater Wi-Fi. So we can get them all through password-protected internet forums that transmits the data, so sometimes the patients don't even have to come back to give us the data. And then we have different forms where we can actually relay the results as well, either through the electronic medical record or through systems themselves to relay those results directly to the patient.

Dr Albin: Yeah, and your article really laid out in beautiful tables, like, all the different devices that are available to patients, and it's honestly mind-blowing how many of these companies and devices exist. So, seems like the world is your oyster in terms of picking from them.

Dr Lee-Iannotti: Absolutely. I think there's... The last time I counted, there was over 20 different home sleep study devices for obstructive sleep apnea. And it's a great thing to have, but sometimes too many choices can be a little bit confusing. So that's where I do say partner with your sleep specialist close by, and they will find the right type of home sleep study device for your particular patient.

Dr Albin: Drilling down a little further, let's say your patient does get diagnosed with OSA. One of the things that really stuck out to me is that there's a whole range of now devices that are new that make this treatment easy so that we can actually prevent and treat neurological conditions by just improving patient sleep. So, walk us through a little bit about how that landscape has changed.

Dr Lee-Iannotti: Sure. And I'll start with the gold standard of treatment, which is still CPAP, which is continuous positive airway pressure. Not only can we monitor the pressure, look at adherence, change the humidification for the patient all remotely through, again, password-protected internet forums, but we can even change the pressure with patients 300-plus miles away.

Dr Albin: Wow.

Dr Lee-Iannotti: It's really cool, right? It prevents patients, especially with significant neurologic debilitation, from having to come into the office for adjustments. The other thing I wanted to mention, Dr. Albin, is for patients, a lot of patients like positive feedback on a daily basis. And a lot of these companies, if you are on CPAP, have come up with a smartphone app that you can look at how many hours you used your CPAP device. They give you a score, and they even tell you how many times you had stoppage of breathing that night.

Dr Albin: I think that this is what's really exciting about where we are in neurology and, like, neurologic care, is we have gotten so much better at getting patients their own data and allowing people to really see that data, integrate lifestyle changes, and see how it impacts them. And that positive feedback loop, I think, is a really powerful tool for our patients to say, "Look, this makes me better," or, "Oh, this makes me worse." I'm just really excited by how much data we can give directly to our patients.

Dr Lee-Iannotti: I agree. It's so empowering. You know, as a CPAP user myself, you want that positive affirmation that all of your efforts at night and cleaning your mask and your machine paid off, and everybody likes to see an A+ on their report card.

Dr Albin: I love that. Now I'm going to ask you on the flip side, I imagine, and I myself am a sleep tracker, like I have my little device and I look at, you know, the score in the morning and I kind of perseverate on like what makes it better, what makes it worse, and I can imagine that sometimes in sleep clinic, people are coming in to you and they have just pages and pages and, you know, they're flipping through all their data from the last year. And I imagine that's pretty overwhelming when you have just the insane amount of data that these devices can generate. So, from another pragmatic, practical standpoint, how are you integrating all that data when someone comes in for a sleep visit?

Dr Lee-Iannotti: I love that question. So first of all, I will say myself, and I think a lot of my sleep colleagues, we love objective data, right? Because it's something that we can see. We can see whether it matches their subject's symptoms. Sometimes it can be a lot of reassurance that, "Look, you actually got more sleep th

Obstructive sleep apnea affects approximately one in four adults and is especially common among patients with neurologic disorders, including stroke, Parkinson disease, dementia, epilepsy, and neuromuscular conditions. In this episode, Dr. Stephanie Stahl discusses why neurologists should routinely screen for OSA, highlights key symptoms and risk factors, reviews important considerations when interpreting sleep studies, and outlines current treatment options beyond CPAP. Learn how recognizing and treating sleep apnea can improve quality of life, optimize management of neurologic disease, and reduce long-term health risks.

In this episode, Aaron L. Berkowitz, MD, PhD, FAAN, speaks with Stephanie M. Stahl, MD,

FAASM, author of the article "Obstructive Sleep Apnea" in the Continuum® August 2026 Sleep Neurology issue.

Dr. Berkowitz is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a professor of neurology in the Department of Neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, in San Francisco, California.

Dr. Stahl is an Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine and Sleep Medicine Fellowship Program Director at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, Indiana, where she also serves as Sleep Laboratory Medical Director in the Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Sleep, and Occupational Medicine.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Obstructive Sleep Apnea

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 Berkowitz: Obstructive sleep apnea is very common. It can cause or contribute to common neurologic symptoms, such as headache and impaired cognition, and it's a risk factor for stroke. And yet, if you're like me, you may not know too much more about sleep apnea than that. Today, I have the pleasure of talking to sleep expert Dr. Stephanie Stahl to learn what every neurologist should know about OSA.

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. Today I'm interviewing Dr. Stephanie Stahl about her article on obstructive sleep apnea. This article appears in the 2026 Continuum issue on Neurology of Sleep. Welcome to the podcast, Dr. Stahl, and could you please introduce yourself to our audience?

Dr Stahl: Yeah. Thank you for having me. I'm a sleep medicine physician and neurologist and medical director of the Indianapolis Sleep Lab at Indiana University Health. I serve as the director of the Sleep Medicine Fellowship program. I'm faculty advisor for our very first student interest group in sleep medicine at Indiana University School of Medicine. I'm also actively involved in some national leadership roles, including the incoming chair of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine's Education Committee and co-chair of the Academy's Inter-Scorer Reliability Gold Standard Panel. So, I really appreciate this opportunity. I look forward to our discussion.

Dr Berkowitz: Me too, and we appreciate the opportunity too to get to talk to you. You have so much expertise in this area, and I certainly encourage our listeners to look at your article, which is very comprehensive and up to date, and I learned a ton from it. I didn't get much exposure to sleep neurology as a trainee, and I've always worked in academic centers where we have a sleep group and we can refer patients there. So, I have to admit, sleep may probably be the area of neurology I know the least about, and felt like I was learning something new from pretty much every line of your article, and I know our readers will too. So, your article has a lot of excellent detail for our readers on the diagnosis and treatment of this very common condition. But I'd like to keep our interview relatively high level today and focus on the essentials for the practicing general neurologist. So, to start, can you just give us a sense of what obstructive sleep apnea is, and what every neurologist should know about it?

Dr Stahl: Yeah. So obstructive sleep apnea is characterized by either partial or full obstructions in the upper airway. That may sound pretty simple, but this leads to a whole bunch of issues. It leads to oxygen desaturations, arousals from sleep, leading to sleep fragmentation. This can then lead to sympathetic nervous system activation, cerebral hypoperfusion, leading to a whole bunch of symptoms or neurologic conditions.

Dr Berkowitz: Great. And you mentioned this in your article, but just to emphasize, how common is obstructive sleep apnea in the general population?

Dr Stahl: Yeah. So, about a quarter of the general population have obstructive sleep apnea. Much more common in many neurologic conditions.

Dr Berkowitz: Yeah, so very common disorder. We are seeing patients with it quite frequently, whether that's the reason they are seeing us in neurology or not. And this leads to my next question, which is what neurologic symptoms or presenting concerns of a patient should make us think about OSA and the differential diagnosis, and what factors based on the history or the exam or the context would make you suspicious for OSA as the cause of a neurologic symptom? In other words, the patient's presenting with classic symptoms of OSA, and that's why they're seeing a neurologist or seeing a primary care doctor, but is coming for evaluation of, say, headache or other symptoms. And what symptoms would make you think of wanting to consider OSA, and then what aspects of the history or otherwise would make you want to evaluate the patient for OSA?

Dr Stahl: I think a really important takeaway is for neurologists to know that obstructive sleep apnea is very common in neurologic conditions and has that potential to worsen a lot of these conditions or their associated symptoms. And so, it should be on our radar. There are certainly some basic questions and signs and symptoms that we can ask patients about or, or take a look at on exam. And so particular symptoms include snoring. Anybody that snores loudly or frequently, that's a strong risk factor for obstructive sleep apnea. If someone's seeing them stop breathing in their sleep, if they are waking up a lot throughout the night. There are some other symptoms that we may not necessarily attribute upfront to obstructive sleep apnea, such as nocturia, nocturnal reflux, night sweats. There are some daytime symptoms, of course, too, like unrefreshing sleep, daytime sleepiness, morning headaches, an important one in neurology. And then we take a look at the patient's exam. And so, some things that neurologists might want to be thinking about are people with obesity are certainly at a risk for obstructive sleep apnea. But it's also very important to know that someone does not need to have obesity in order to have obstructive sleep apnea. We look at neck size, other morphologic characteristics, such as how much that we can see in the back of their mouth. Can we see their uvula? Does their tongue size appear large in their mouth? And then some other risk factors too, such as male gender, older age, family history, post-menopausal state in women. All that being said, though, sometimes in neurologic conditions, we don't have all of those symptoms or risk factors to be thinking about. And so, in certain neurologic conditions such as stroke where obstructive sleep apnea is very common and has the potential to increase the risk of another stroke, we may need to be thinking about testing these patients even with minimal symptoms or other risk factors.

Dr Berkowitz: That's very helpful. So, you mentioned their headache might be the presenting symptom, right, to a neurologist, and we should certainly be thinking about obstructive sleep apnea as a potential diagnosis, even the cause of the patient's headache, particularly you said patients with morning headache. I often try to think about in patients presenting with, for memory loss, or other cognitive concerns, and that may be due more to inattention from poor sleep, so asking about sleep and symptoms of sleep apnea in those contexts. Are there any other presenting neurologic symptoms not particularly related to sleep? I'm thinking of headache, memory loss, other symptoms that would make you think, "Oh, I should actually screen this patient for sleep apnea also."

Dr Stahl: Yeah, other symptoms to think about in pediatrics, hyperactivity, people that have impaired vigilance, as you alluded to, that poor attention. Sometimes people get misdiagnosed with ADHD, and it's actually just a manifestation of obstructive sleep apnea.

Dr Berkowitz: You alluded to this, Dr. Stahl, that stroke, for example, patients are at higher risk of developing sleep apnea as a result of stroke, and it's also a risk factor for stroke. What other neurologic conditions, primary neurologic diseases, put patients at a higher risk of OSA? And again, similar to the last question I asked you, what are some clues that we should evaluate for? We might be following a patient for their post-stroke care over time and not necessarily thinking about diagnosing a separate condition in them since we're following them for their stroke or their degenerative disease. What are the conditions that put patients at a higher risk of OSA as a result of the condition, and then when would you think about screening them for it?

Dr Stahl: Some particular neurologic conditions where obstructive sleep apnea are very common, in addition to stroke and, and TIA, include Parkinson disease. It can worsen a lot of the motor, cognitive symptoms, sleep disruption that we can see in Parkinson disease. Very common in all causes of dementia, but in particular Alzheimer disease and Lewy body dementia. Very common in neuromuscular conditions. We should definitely have obstructive sleep apnea and all forms of sleep-disordered breathing high on our radar. In conditions like myotonic dystrophy. Charcot-Marie-Tooth is another one where obstructive sleep apnea is very common. Myasthenia gravis, it can worsen the symptoms of that. In particular, a pearl is if somebody has morning weakness in myasthenia gravis, obstructive sleep apnea should be high on your radar. And also, as you mentioned, any forms of headaches. There are some other things too. If somebody has poor seizure control, especially nocturnal seizures, you might have obstructive sleep apnea on your radar as well.

Dr Berkowitz: So, I think you've covered essentially every category of neurologic disease, right? We have cerebrovascular, movement, neurodegenerative, neuromuscular, epilepsy, all conditions where either the disorder itself, such as stroke or the, correct me if I'm wrong, the neurodegenerative disease puts the patient at risk. Or the patient may be at risk for exacerbations of their disease, as you mentioned in myasthenia. I love that pearl. Not fatiguable at the end of the day, but if the patient with myasthenia is telling you they're feeling weaker at the beginning of the day, then think about obstructive sleep apnea and that obstructive sleep apnea worsening control of epilepsy due to poor sleep. So really a lot of bidirectional interactions with this common condition. Okay, so if we're concerned about obstructive sleep apnea, again, myself, a general neurologist speaking perhaps on behalf of other general neurologists, we see a patient with headache or reporting memory loss that we find to be impaired attention, or we see exacerbation of their underlying primary neurologic disease. As you mentioned, we think, "Oh, I've listened to this podcast. I've read Dr. Stahl's article. I should probably be thinking about OSA in this patient, and I should order a sleep study." Now, I admit when I get the sleep study back, I scroll to the bottom, I see they do have obstructive sleep apnea, I'm going to send them over to a sleep specialist. But for the general neurologist, what are some high-yield pearls and some pitfalls to be aware of when we get sleep studies for obstructive sleep apnea, and we are looking at the results?

Dr Stahl: The first thing is to understand that there are two main types of sleep studies: in-lab polysomnography and home sleep apnea test. In-lab studies are typically what we consider the more accurate type of study. Main reason for that is that we have EEG, so we can see if someone is awake versus asleep. Most home sleep apnea tests do not utilize EEG, and so when we're looking at respiratory events, apneas or hypopneas, we're looking at over the total recording time rather than the total sleep time. So, we know we're going to capture some time where a person is awake, where we don't have sleep apnea events, and that can be a big amount of time in people with insomnia, poor sleep efficiency. And as a result of that, it can lead to an underestimation of the apnea-hypopnea index. That's really important for people to understand that that means we can end up with a false negative home sleep apnea test, or it can put them in a category of lower severity than what they actually have. And so, if you get a home sleep study report back that's negative for sleep apnea and you remain concerned, you need to go on to do an in-lab study, where about twenty to fifty percent of people will go on to have a positive in-lab study. You can also get false positives with home sleep apnea tests too, and so ideally, we should only be doing home sleep apnea tests in people that are at high risk of having obstructive sleep apnea to decrease our chance of false positive study. When we get that sleep study report, what's important to take a look at? So the main number that we look at currently is the apnea-hypopnea index. The number of apneas, which are full obstructions in that upper airway, or hypopneas, partial obstructions in the upper airway where either there's an oxygen desaturation or an arousal associated with that. Less than five is considered to be normal. Anything five or more gives them a diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea, and then we stratify them based on the AHI. But it's important to take a look at more than just the apnea-hypopnea index. And while my eyes too on various reports like echocardiograms want to jump to the impression, it is important to take a look at that full report, see what their oxygen levels averaged and what they dipped down to. The arousal index, which is how many times a patient may have woken up briefly throughout the night. Take a look at the histogram, usually an image at the bottom of their report that shows what sleep fragmentation may have been like so that you can take that all in and make that decision. How important are these study findings, and is this a person that would benefit from treatment?

Dr Berkowitz: That's a fantastic overview of sleep studies and some of the highlights to look out for, even if we won't be understanding every detail as you would to know most importantly the caveats about home sleep testing having a fairly high percentage of false negative and false positive results. So being wary if our suspicion is high, and that test is normal or inconclusive to get an in-lab sleep study. And if our suspicion is low or maybe we haven't ordered the test and the patient has had it done elsewhere, and the history doesn't really match up to know that there are false positives on the home studies as well, and again, an in-lab study to settle the diagnosis. Is that right?

Dr Stahl: Yes.

Dr Berkowitz: Okay. Now, for most neurologists, probably if we diagnose OSA, we will be referring the patient to a sleep specialist like yourself for treatment. I think we're all familiar with CPAP and patients being on CPAP. Your article mentions a number of treatment modalities I admit I have not heard of before or maybe heard of in passing, acknowledging most general neurologists are not going to be prescribing or knowing with the nuance that you do as an expert how to decide which treatment a patient would most benefit from or most qualify for. So, can you just give us a broad overview, again, for the general neurologist acknowledging we might see a patient whose past medical history says OSA being treated with fill in the blank. What are the different treatment modalities, and how do you think, just so we can learn from you in broad brush strokes, about particular treatments for particular patients?

Dr Stahl: As you mentioned, most people are familiar with positive airway pressure or PAP therapy, and that does remain our most efficacious treatment. The way I explain it to patients is why PAP therapy is the most effective treatment is it's the only treatment that can take all of the tissues of that upper airway and open them up. Whereas all of our other treatments, we're going to target smaller spaces of that upper airway. So, our first option is if we can get somebody on PAP therapy, we know that that's going to be the best option for the majority. PAP therapy works by basically acting as an air splint to open up the air tissues. Know that masks are not interchangeable. There are masks that cover the nose and go over the nose and mouth and under the nose. Full face masks that cover the nose and mouth, they do typically require higher pressures, also tend to be less comfortable for a lot of patients as well. In addition to different PAP masks, there's different modalities of positive airway pressure therapy too. There are machines that auto-adjust, some that provide fixed pressure, bi-level PAP that provides a higher inspiratory pressure, lower expiratory pressure. Then outside of PAP therapy, there are, as you alluded to, a lot of options and more, continuing to come down the pipeline as well. Mandibular advancement devices or a form of oral appliances has been around for a while. This is device that somebody wears in their mouth. It's preferably customized for their teeth and titratable, meaning that they can make adjustments that pulls their mandible forward in relation to the maxilla in order to pull those tongue tissues further away from the back of the upper airway. That's ideally managed by a qualified sleep dentist or someone that specializes in oral appliance management. Other treatments include surgical options, including hypoglossal nerve stimulation, which is an implanted device that causes the tongue to protrude repetitively throughout their sleep period to hopefully open up the airspace. There's some other surgical options too that open up various places of the upper airway. There's a daytime treatment of obstructive sleep apnea, transoral neuromuscular electrical stimulation that changes the muscle fiber type of the tongue. And then there's some adjunctive treatments that can be helpful too, such as positional therapy, oral facial myofunctional therapy that helps a person breathe better through their nose and may help train the upper airway muscles.

Dr Berkowitz: Great. Well, that's a very helpful overview, and again, I refer our listeners to your article, which talks about all of those modalities in very comprehensive detail. So, Dr. Stahl, as we wrap up our conversation, you have a captive audience of neurologists and neurology trainees here. What would you like to leave us with that every neurologist should know about obstructive sleep apnea?

Dr Stahl: The most important, again, is for neurologists to know that obstructive sleep apnea is so common in your patient population, and it can have a significant negative impact on quality of life and health, including many neurologic co

In this episode, Lyell K. Jones Jr, MD, FAAN, speaks with Karin G. Johnson, MD, FAAN, who served as the guest editor of the August 2026 Sleep Neurology issue. They provide a preview of the issue, which publishes on August 3, 2026.

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. Johnson is a Professor in the Department of Neurology at the University of Massachusetts Chan School of Medicine–Baystate and the Sleep Medicine Division Chief at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Massachusetts

Additional Resources

Read the issue: continuum.aan.com

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

Host: @LyellJ

Guest: @drsleepykarin

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 Albin: All right, welcome all. For the first time ever in the history of Continuum Audio, we are coming to you live from Chicago here at the AAN annual meeting. And now over to your host, the one and only editor-in-chief, Dr. Lyell Jones.

Dr Jones: Welcome, everybody. My name is Lyell Jones, editor-in-chief of Continuum, and I'm here today with Dr. Karin Johnson, and we're interviewing Dr. Johnson for the upcoming and recently published issue of Continuum on Sleep Neurology. We have been doing Continuum Audio for a while, but we're doing something different this time. As our listeners online can tell, we are recording this for the first time ever with a live studio audience at the American Academy of Neurology annual meeting in Chicago, Illinois. So, this is a fun experience for us. I hope it's been fun so far for you, Dr. Johnson.

Dr Johnson: Great to be here.

Dr Jones: It's great to have you. So, before we get into the interview, I do wanna introduce our team here for the live recording of the podcast. You've already heard Dr. Casey Albin's voice. Dr. Casey Albin is an associate professor of neurology at Emory University. Also serves as one of our associate editors at the journal and one of our Continuum Audio interviewers. So, she's going to be working the crowd today. Let's have a round of applause for Dr. Albin. And our guest of honor today is Dr. Karin Johnson. Dr. Johnson is a professor of neurology at UMass Chan Medical School and, Baystate Medical Center in Massachusetts. She is a world-renowned expert in sleep neurology and is the guest editor for the most recent issue of Continuum on Sleep Neurology. Dr. Johnson, welcome. Why don't you introduce yourself to our audience?

Dr Johnson: You did a great introduction, but I'm a clinical sleep medicine specialist. Spend my days seeing patients, taking care of people with narcolepsy, sleep apnea, restless legs, everything that comes my way. And then I have a side interest in doing sleep medicine advocacy, especially for permanent standard time.

Dr Jones: And we may get to that. I mean, that might be part of our conversation today. So, you've now read all of the articles in this issue, and it's a really great issue. There's a lot of new developments in sleep neurology. There are some updates for clinicians, people who see patients with sleep disorders that I think are, are timely and important updates. You have this unique view because you have just read all of these articles, really good articles by expert authors. When you read through these, Dr. Johnson, what was the biggest, what was the biggest thing that surprised you?

Dr Johnson: I think the biggest surprise for me is just so many changes in, in all of these articles. I realized how easy it was for us to make a journal that is so different from a few years ago. Whether it's Dr. Stahl's obstructive sleep apnea and new ways to think about endotyping sleep apnea that is gonna have treatment implications or the new treatments that are out there like tirzepatide, the changes that we're having with restless leg treatment. I particularly wanted to have a chapter on circadian neurology that Dr. Abbott did a great job really highlighting how if we think about the timing of when we give meds, the timing of when we eat, how that really can help neurological health, brain health, overall health, as well as mental health and cognition, especially as the AAN thinks about brain health as a whole, not just treating our patients, but how we can treat the population of people by improving sleep. I like how we hit on all these different areas in this issue.

Dr Jones: And I don't know how you managed to do it. They're just a small number of articles. We cover a lot of existing territory with well-characterized diseases, with new advances. But there's a lot of new stuff in sleep, and so somehow, it's all packed in there. It's really impressive. One of the things I was gonna ask you about was an evolution, and this has been a number of years now in how we manage restless leg syndrome. When I was training, it was all about dopamine agonists, and that was your first line. And over time, the evidence has supported moving away from that, and now we have more recent guidelines that have come out, and it's really the alpha-two delta-one calcium channel antagonists. How is that transition going? Do you still see people in practice who come in on dopamine agonists? How is that going? How's the field responding to that?

Dr Johnson: That's one of my most frequent restless leg consults. So even though it's been years since I have really initiated dopamine agonists in my patient, every day we get in people often on very high doses of dopamine agonists, and their doctors have just been escalating and escalating these meds over the years, and they come in with horrible augmentation. Their symptoms are much worse than they used to be, happening earlier in the day. And so, trying to get these patients off of these meds that are addictive, the way I like to teach about it is these dopamine agonists are the Fioricets of the sleep world. We know they work great, but in the long run, the patients are gonna be worse overall. And so, it's so hard to get people off these dopamine agonists, just like it's so hard to convince a headache patient that they don't need their Fioricet and that they're gonna be better off if we can get them off of it. What I think has really changed is we have more options to use. So, the alpha-delta-like agonists like gabapentin are now considered first line, but there's a lot of patients who they just don't work well enough with or they don't tolerate. And so, what do you do in that case? It's easy when that works, but and, when that doesn't work, we are being much more aggressive these days with iron replacement, potentially even trying to push ferritin levels in refractory patients up to three hundred, and using IV iron rather than just oral iron to get over the absorption issues to get the brain levels high enough. Motor stimulators, little cuffs that kind of go around the leg and stimulate the peroneal nerve in a certain way that not only can give people immediate relief, but also some data that suggests that over time it actually lessens their restless legs. We have agents like dipyridamole that work on the adenosine system in a sort of new novel pathway at addressing restless legs. And then the opiates, often meds like methadone or Suboxone can be used in some patients. But as we're getting more of these other options, often we don't need to go to those levels because we do have more to work with.

Dr Jones: So, the key point is lots of options. We're not starting with dopamine agonists anymore. And I think the fact that you're still seeing a lot of patients who have been initiated on that probably tells us there's an education gap field that we need to work on. So, another thing that I noticed reading through the issue was, and this feels like a change over the last few years, is the availability and the tendency to use in-home sleep apnea testing as opposed to formal, traditional in-lab. And that feels like a great new option, and maybe that increases and improves availability for patients who need access to the test. But how do you work through that?

Dr Johnson: So, I love in-home testing. We've been using it for over a decade. Other parts of the country where insurances didn't sort of mandate it are now being more mandated. I think the real change happened for a lot of places over the pandemic when labs closed down. But I think it's good because it brings a lot more patients to us. They get tested, they get tested quicker. People who would say, "I would never go into a lab. Oh, I'll do a home study." So, it just does bring more people in, and it gets them to treatment that they need that can really be life-changing. But it's not for everybody. The biggest people are people that have other bad pulmonary issues. If you're on oxygen therapy, you should not be getting a home study. That really should be a group of people that come in the lab. Similarly, if you have bad COPD, you probably should be getting a full in-lab study, so we can get more monitoring. Central sleep apnea is an interesting one. It can be very hard in some cases to differentiate the centrals and obstructive nature as well on a home study. Doesn't mean you can't do a home. So, if it's a person that just can't get an in-lab study easily, maybe you start with the home. If it looks purely obstructive, and you're all set, then you got an answer, and you can move on. But if you get back a home study that looks questionably central, they're gonna need to come into that lab. So, if you already know they're high risk because they're on narcotics, cause they have congestive heart failure, it's usually worth going straight to the lab. But again, you may consider a home study based on the patient. Patients that really cannot use the equipment can also be an issue. So, if they've had a debilitating stroke and have no one to help them put on that device, or cognitively they just can't handle the device, they're gonna be someone who's gonna benefit from coming into the lab and getting the help from the techs. So, those are the big populations that you might go starting for a home. And then the other thing that confuses a lot of people, the home is only for diagnostics. It really isn't for treatment. So, I have patients that say, "Oh, like, you can just titrate my CPAP with a home study." No. So if it's a treatment decision where they're not doing well on treatment, or I need to figure out do they need CPAP or BiPAP or IVAPS or one of these more complicated treatments, those are people that are gonna need to come into the lab to get that treatment portion of the evaluation.

Dr Jones: What a great summary. That's like everything I needed to know about who do I need to bring into the lab and who do I think maybe could do an at-home study. Really great. And speaking of devices, I think all of us who see patients in the room here and our listeners out there online have experienced patients, and this feels like a very recent phenomenon to me, are coming in with their commercial at-home wearable device. And they have printouts sometimes, and they show me their phone, and they give me some numbers that I don't really know how to interpret. Reading through this issue, I learned a couple of great new words. I learned about orthosomnia, right? So, people who become so preoccupied with their sleep, it keeps them awake at night, literally, right? I mean, it's a complete paradox. I learned about nearables, so things that aren't necessarily wearables that are just in the room while the patient is sleeping that monitor proxies for sleep quality, sleep stage, and other things. And I frankly, I'm not really sure what to tell patients. So, what do you tell patients who come in with all the data? Like, or how do you tell patients to use these?

Dr Johnson: I think these devices can go both ways. So, I do kind of say the pros and cons of these devices. I think for a lot of patients, they're empowering. It's getting them to think about sleep, to wanna know how good their sleep is. Are they getting enough sleep? So, if it's used in those ways, it's gonna be very helpful. I actually had a patient last week, and they noted that they're having big desats all night and could show me essentially an overnight oximetry data rather than me having to order it, and I had days of data, which sometimes can be too much. But in this case, it's like, oh, when he was on his side that night, he looked a lot better, so I can use that to give advice to the patient about particular treatments. He actually went down to Mexico, and a doctor friend gave him oxygen therapy while he was there randomly. And we could see on the nights that he had the oxygen therapy, it did really help his central sleep apnea pattern. And so that pushed us towards saying, "Let's qualify you for that up here in the States." So, I think in some cases it can give really important data. Now, I saw a posting on social media the other day of someone saying, "Can I get advice on how to improve my REM sleep? My tracker says I have no REM sleep, and I need to do something about it." There's really not data to support needing to do something about it. And so, I do think it can get some people on these wild goose chases, trying to get to a certain percentage of sleep. And these trackers, they're good in a lot of ways, but they're not perfect. He could be getting REM sleep that the tracker on him does not show. You want to relate it to what symptoms are they having. I think they can be very good for trying something out. So, let's say someone, has their tracker telling them they get five hours of sleep, and they try this intervention, and that helps them show that they got the seven hours of sleep, or they went from no REM to REM and it goes in the right direction. It can help give them that positive feedback that something they're trying, is working. But the absolutes for any given patient, it's hard to over-- What does it mean if it says you've got a 50% score versus a 70% score? That may or may not be meaningful in any given person, but again, they can compare themselves to themselves. If they were a lower score and now they're a higher sleep score because they did something that was meaningful, and that goes along with them feeling better, that can help give them that positive feedback to do something good.

Dr Jones: So, a little bit of a mixed picture.

Dr Johnson: Yeah.

Dr Jones: Sometimes they help. Sometimes they distract. Hopefully-

Dr Johnson: And as a provider, sometimes it can be overwhelming because they're like, "Come look at my year's worth of data." And you're like, "No."

Dr Jones: Yeah.

Dr Johnson: You know, let me see one page or two pages of data and be like, "Yep, okay, I get it."

Dr Jones: Just show of hands in the audience, who in the room wears a sleep device at night, like a ring or a, some kind of sleep monitoring app? That's about half the audience.

Dr Johnson: This is why they're here.

Dr Jones: So that's really helpful, and I think it is. You want to be supported by the data. You want to be supported by evidence and high-quality biometric evidence. Another big trend, and this has been a number of years in the making, is the understanding, Dr. Johnson, of the relationship between sleep physiology and neurodegenerative disease. One of the things I love about neurology is there's still so much left to learn about the normal physiologic functioning of the brain. So glymphatics and other aspects of sleep physiology that we didn't know about a decade or two ago. When you think about how that relationship has developed, sleep physiology, maybe sleep disorders and neurodegenerative disease, how has that changed your approach to talking to patients? Do you counsel patients differently now because of what we understand better about that?

Dr Johnson: Yeah, I mean, we are still limited with our data. We have so many studies that show the associations between whether it's not enough sleep, too much sleep, or having a sleep disorder like obstructive sleep apnea, and that being a risk factor for stroke or Alzheimer's or Parkinson's. But we still sort of lack the treatment trials that necessarily say, "If you treat obstructive sleep apnea, you're gonna have less dementia," or, "You're gonna be less likely to have that stroke." So, we have a lot of physiological studies, a lot of reasons why it makes sense, but we don't have that final, nail in the coffin to say, "If you do this, you'll definitely be better." So, we know certain groups are more at risk. If you have obstructive sleep apnea and you are symptomatic, you seem to have higher cardiovascular risk. If you have a person who's had a stroke and we find a milder case of sleep apnea, and they're someone that's totally asymptomatic. They say, "I sleep fine. I feel fine." There's not great data to say, "If you treat your sleep apnea, you're gonna be less likely to have a stroke." Now, if they come in and they're sleepy and their sleep apnea is really severe, and they have more hypoxic burden, which is also more connected with a lot of these risks, I'm going to say, "I think you are in the higher risk group of sleep apnea people who it's probably gonna be more likely to help your cardiovascular risk, your dementia risk." We can counsel them, and then it's really a personal decision. Some people are like, "No way. I'm never gonna use a CPAP machine, ever." And other people are like, "You know, my mom had a stroke. My dad had Alzheimer's. I want to do every possible thing I can to make it less likely that I have this outcome that I want to avoid." And so, you're going to take that in to, you know, do you want to try this treatment or not? It's a lot easier when you have outcomes that you can follow, like, "If I try CPAP, does my blood pressure get better? Do I stop having AFib attacks?" It's a lot harder when, will I or not get Alzheimer's ten years down the road or have that stroke?

Dr Jones: It's hard to get people to do things for kind of an abstract prevention down the road, but could be important. Are there trials going on that are going to assess this data?

Dr Johnson: Yeah. We currently have a big trial getting people right away, right after their stroke, on CPAP, and not only looking at prevention, but also looking at recovery outcome. It's been running for several years. Hopefully, we'll get enough data to close out the study coming up.

Dr Jones: We'll look forward to that.

Dr Johnson: Yeah.

Dr Jones: So, I'm really excited to get to our audience here, but before we do that, I do want to ask Dr. Johnson one more question. Dr. Johnson is famous for her advocacy for sleep in general, but specifically related to Standard Time. So, let's do a little experiment here. I didn't warn Dr. Johnson about this, so we'll see how she does. She does a ton of advocacy. She's a pro. So, pretend like we're in DC, and I'm a senator, and we just got in an elevator. You're going to give me your elevator pitch on what we should do.

Dr Johnson: So, you know, sleep is one of the few essential things in life. We need to eat, we need to drink, we need to have clean air, and we need to sleep and when we improve sleep, we can improve basically every outcome, whether it's academics, whether it's productivity, whether it's our physical health, our mental health. And the problem is we structure our lives in a way that really keep people, and espe

Unruptured intracranial aneurysms and arteriovenous malformations are frequently discovered incidentally on neuroimaging, presenting complex decisions around monitoring, referral, and treatment. This episode highlights key risk factors for rupture, the role of imaging in evaluation, and practical approaches to triage and management, including when specialist intervention is warranted.

In this episode, Gordon Smith, MD, FAAN, speaks with Edgar Samaniego, MD, FAAN, authors of the article "Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms and Arteriovenous Malformations" in the Continuum® June 2026 Cerebrovascular Disease 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. Samaniego is a professor of neurology, neurosurgery, and radiology and the director of the vascular neurology fellowship at the University of Iowa in Iowa City, Iowa.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms and Arteriovenous Malformations

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: @esamaniego

Full episode transcript available here

Dr Smith: Have you ever ordered an MRI of the brain and found a coincidental unruptured aneurysm or perhaps an arteriovenous malformation? If so, are you up to speed on how to manage this common situation, how to monitor, when to refer, and how to counsel your patients? If your answers to these two questions are yes and or no, then please keep listening.

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 Dr. Edgar Samaniego about his article on unruptured intracranial aneurysms and arteriovenous malformations. This article appears in the June two thousand twenty-six Continuum issue on cerebrovascular disease. Edgar, welcome to the podcast, and maybe you can briefly introduce yourself to our listeners.

Dr Samaniego: Yeah. Thank you, Gordon. So, I'm an interventional neurologist. I'm practicing at the University of Iowa. I've been in Iowa for the last ten years. I'm originally from Ecuador. Did my residency in Wisconsin, and then I went to Stanford for neuro critical care and stroke. And then I did my neurointerventional fellowship at the Baptist Cardiac and Vascular Institute in Miami.

Dr Smith: You're a triple threat in the world of vascular and critical care, which I want to get to later. But your article's really great. I'll admit one of the first things I do when I read an article for Continuum Audio is I see how long it is. I saw yours was as long as the rest, and I was a little surprised because this sounded like a simple topic. But having read it, it's anything but simple. This is really important and complex stuff. I wonder if maybe you can orient our listeners to the importance of this. We frequently find unruptured aneurysms or vascular malformations on brain imaging that we order for something else. I mean, how common is that, and why do you think our listeners need to be particularly attentive to our conversation today?

Dr Samaniego: It's pretty frequent that we see patients with unruptured brain aneurysms. A lot of times, you know, we do imaging like CT angiograms, or magnetic, resonance angiography. Patients come to the ER with headaches, and we find an unruptured aneurysm. And you know, the question always comes, "What should we do with this aneurysm that we found?" We know that a lot of these aneurysms will not rupture, but the caveat is that when they rupture, like fifty percent of these patients may die or have bad outcomes. So, it's always a puzzling question, you know. What should we do with the aneurysm?

Dr Smith: Well, thanks, Edgar. I mean, this is certainly something that I come across. I'm glad to hear that other people struggle with this as well. What actually is the prevalence of aneurysms in the general population? How common is this?

Dr Samaniego: It's more common than what we think, you know. The, the estimates talk about like one in every fifty people have a brain aneurysm, and about every eighteen minutes an aneurysm will rupture. In the United States, there's approximately thirty thousand ruptures per year. So, there's a significant number of, of patients affected by brain aneurysms. And, and the key thing is that affects usually younger patients who are in the most productive years of their lives. So that's why it shouldn't be ignored, and once we find an aneurysm, we have to have all the information for triaging and deciding on treatment of these aneurysms.

Dr Smith: Well, it's a great way to begin our conversation. I mean, this is not a rare problem. It's a common problem, and there's actually a really great section of the article I'll refer people to about medical malpractice and the importance of recognizing and dealing with this thoughtfully. It's an empowering section, not a scary one, but this is important for our listeners to know about. Pretty high-stakes stuff. Maybe you can orient listeners like me or maybe simple neuromuscular people. What different types of aneurysms are there?

Dr Samaniego: That's the interesting question because there's multiple types of aneurysms, and there is a whole spectrum of aneurysm. When we say aneurysm, you can be talking about a fusiform versus a saccular aneurysm. We tend to classify them based on shape, also location. But the two main classifications for brain aneurysms will be saccular, which, you know, has a sac kind of morphology shape, and then you have the fusiform aneurysms. Those are the main morphological classifications. Then on top of that, you have two other subtypes that you see quite often. The one that we see is mycotic aneurysms that is like a misnomer because it's not a fungal aneurysm. It's just an infectious aneurysm that most of the time we see on the setting of endocarditis. These behave a little bit different than the typical saccular or fusiform aneurysms. And then also you have other more rare types of aneurysms like blister aneurysms that are sometimes located in the anterior wall of the carotid artery. So, you know, within this spectrum, we have those main aneurysms. The typical aneurysms, which can be fusiform or saccular, and also the more atypical, which can be mycotic and also blister-like aneurysms.

Dr Smith: I wonder if you might comment a little bit on the relevance of the type of aneurysm, fusiform, saccular, blister, and then location on rupture risk or prognosis.You have a really great figure about anatomic classification in the article actually that I encourage everyone to check out when they hopefully read it. But what do these characteristics imply for risk?

Dr Samaniego: Yeah. This is very complex question because, you know, entails different characteristics of aneurysms such as shape, the location, morphology. So, we know that some locations, for example, the anterior communicating artery has a high risk of rupturing as opposed to patients such as the part of ophthalmic aneurysm, which are usually located at the origin of the ophthalmic artery in the internal carotid artery. So, by risk of rupturing, the highest risk is usually the anterior communicating. Then you have posterior communicating artery aneurysms, which are usually located in the internal carotid artery, but because of their proximity to the origin of the posterior communicating artery, they're called posterior communicating artery aneurysms. Then you have the posterior circulation aneurysms on top of risk of rupturing is the top of the basilar artery location. Those three are the highest risk for rupturing: ACOM, PCOM, and top of the basilar. In terms of morphology, I always tell my patients, you know, if it's like a nice-looking aneurysm that has this rounded shape is a benign morphology. If you have the aneurysm that's having these Mickey Mouse ears that has these blebs or daughter sacs, those are aneurysms that usually scare us because those are the ones that usually rupture. So that's another criteria, morphology. And then the other criteria would be size. There is this magnificent study called ISUIA, which was published several years ago, and basically what it demonstrated was that aneurysms that are seven millimeters or larger are more likely to rupture versus smaller aneurysms. So those are the three criteria that I'm looking into when talking to patients about morphology, location, size, and the, the shape or morphology of the aneurysm.

Dr Smith: So, let's say a general neurologist or comprehensive neurologist practicing in a community setting in a rural area orders a, let's just say a CT or CTA for a patient with a TIA and finds what looks like an aneurysm. What's the next step in terms of imaging? What's the best next step? I mean, there are a bunch of different imaging modalities. Do you get an MRA? Is it time-of-flight, contrasted? You know, when do you get a DSA and so forth?

Dr Samaniego: Yeah. The first thing to do is to better characterize the aneurysm. Order of more accurate imaging that we can obtain without being invasive with a diagnostic cerebral angiogram. The rest will be a magnetic resonance angiography with contrast that, you know, gives you really good detailed information about the aneurysm. Similar in terms of quality and precision will be a CT angiography. The caveat there is with CT angiography is that, you know, you use radiation, and the patient has to get iodine. And then under those two, you will have a time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography, which doesn't use any contrast, but then you lose a little bit of quality in terms of the imaging and some morphological features you might miss. So usually what we do in my practice, I don't wanna do a diagnostic cerebral angiogram, and somebody has to refer an unruptured aneurysm. I try to do CT angiogram as a baseline, see how the aneurysm looks, and then for follow-up, I usually do magnetic resonance an- angiograms with with contrast. If there is a concern that the aneurysm has some dangerous features like it's irregular in shape, it's, it's larger, it's in one of these high-risk locations, might be better just to refer the, the patient to a specialist for a diagnostic cerebral angiography.

Dr Smith: So, you know, there are these scales that you talk about in the article. There's phases in the UIATS that are used to predict rupture risk and guide decision-making. Are these scales that general neurologists or non-vascular neurologists can use to guide care? I'm thinking of like Chad-Baskin, ASBAD, which, you know, all our residents know about. Should we all be familiar with these scores?

Dr Samaniego: I think they're very helpful in the sense that it will give us some guidance. Some of the characteristics of the scale might be up- outdated. For example, like ancestry. Although it's been described more in Japanese and Finnish populations, and North American, not as much as these two other populations. We do see a lot of aneurysms in people from North America and other backgrounds. For example, one of the biggest critiques for the phases is that doesn't take into account smoking history. Smoking that we know is a risk factor. And the other critiques for phases is that, for example, if you are older than seventy years old, you will score one point, which will increase your risk of aneurysm rupturing. Having said that, we do see like tons of aneurysms on younger patients, actually the most productive years of their lives that they rupture. So, it gives you some parameters like the presence of hypertension, the size, as I said, seven or larger, previous history of subarachnoid hemorrhage, and the location of the aneurysm. But it doesn't take into account other factors like smoking or morphological features of the aneurysm.

Dr Smith: Now, you mentioned size. I'd like to maybe go back and talk about a case from your article, which I found really impactful. For our listeners, this is a sixty-four-year-old woman who had a five-millimeter ACOM aneurysm. She was imaged serially, didn't change over the time period, and then two years later ruptured with devastating consequence, right? And so that's a small aneurysm. Most aneurysms, I guess, are small aneurysms. I just wonder, when you see a patient like that, how do you handle the discussion regarding risk? And how do you decide when to refer them for an intervention?

Dr Samaniego: Yeah. It's always puzzling when we see these smaller aneurysms. And this example is a typical example of a patient that doesn't follow the rule of seven or larger aneurysm size for rupturing. We see that quite often on aneurysms located in the anterior communicating artery. Just this last week, I treated two patients with similar characteristics, with smaller aneurysms, like average size between four and five, that rupture, and both were located in the anterior communicating artery. So, we know that there is definitely a linear relationship between size and risk and rupture, but we do see a lot of patients that have smaller aneurysms, like three, four, five millimeters that rupture, and we don't really understand very well the, biology of these aneurysms. So, when we see these aneurysms, we try to maximize the characterization of the aneurysm with better imaging, try to see the morphology. And usually when an aneurysm is discovered, what we do for follow-up is a six-month follow-up with some type of imaging, CTA, MRA with contrast, and see if there's has been any change in, on the aneurysm.

Dr Smith: So, is it fair to say that a knowledgeable non-vascular neurologist can safely manage these patients, follow them over time using what they learned from reviewing your article, identify patients who have higher risk aneurysms based on the characteristics you summarize, and refer them to a tertiary center? When I get these, it's easy for me to have our vascular neurosurgeon see them or a vascular neurologist, right? But in a community where you may not have ready access to that subspecialist, is it still important to get all of these patients to a tertiary center? Are there select instances where a community-based general neurologist can follow them and then refer if there's change in size, for instance?

Dr Samaniego: Yeah. I think that everything else that we do in neurology, it's important to do some type of triage in referring some of these patients for further studying and expert opinion. I think age and size of the aneurysm, age of the patient and size of the aneurysm are huge factors. For example, if we have an older patient in their nineties and has incidentally found two-millimeter aneurysm in a low-risk location like the parathalmic, that patient probably needs to be seen locally. I don't think merits a full workup. As opposed to a younger patient with a three-millimeter aneurysm located in the ACOM. I think that type of patient probably needs to be referred to a tertiary s-stroke center for workup. I mean, most of the time what's gonna happen is that if it's a small aneurysm with benign characteristics, you know, it's gonna be seen by the specialist and they're gonna determine some type of follow-up, which can be done locally.

Dr Smith: So maybe we can pivot a little bit and talk about AVMs, if that's okay. What's your approach to a coincidentally discovered AVM, right? I mean, presumably, we need to think about symptomatic AVMs a little differently, I would think. So maybe we can start with the same scenario we've been talking about. You get an imaging study for something else, and, well, we find an AVM. What's the approach to that situation?

Dr Samaniego: Yeah. AVMs are fascinating vascular lesions because they're very complex, they're very heterogeneous. If we're talking about the morphological features with aneurysms, this, in the case of AVMs, is way more complex in terms of location size. The complexity added to AVMs is that you have a feeding artery, you have a nidus, and then you have draining veins. So, all of these can be very heterogeneous. In case of AVMs, I think those definitely need to be referred to a tertiary center because the management of AVMs is multidisciplinary, even in the tertiary centers. You know, we don't have a magic wand that will say, you know, all these AVMs need to be treated this way. Sometimes they don't even need to be treated because we know from some studies that just watching them will be good enough.

Dr Smith: You raised management of AVMs. Maybe we can go back and talk a little bit about what's the latest in management of aneurysms. You manage aneurysms from soup to nuts and as an endovascular interventional neurologist. What's the latest in management of aneurysms?

Dr Samaniego: The latest is that, which falls within management, is that we have tools that they have not really been validated a hundred percent because we're still understanding the biology of some of these aneurysms. But high-resolution MRI will help us to define if there is some enhancement of the aneurysm. There is the thought that if there is enhancement after the administration of contrast, might be more of an inflammatory process. So that can be used for management, triage, and follow-up of some of these aneurysms. In terms of endovascular treatment, it has been really a revolution of how we treat these lesions. You know, we have a lot of new devices, better catheters to access the aneurysms.There is devices that you can place inside the aneurysm sac and it'll completely shut down flow into the aneurysm. There is other special stents called flow diverters that can take the flow away from the aneurysm and bypassing the aneurysm. So, all of these things have really revolutionized how we treat them. Having said that, you know, there's always a risk with any of these procedures, and that's why we gotta be mindful when we decide to treat these patients with unruptured incidentally found aneurysm.

Dr Smith: I've got just one more question, Edgar, which I kind of led with. You've got training as a vascular neurologist, a neurointensivist, and an interventional neurologist. And you know, Ralph Sacco, as you probably know, used to like to talk about the neurologist, and part of the neurologist was interventional. I wonder what wisdom you have to trainees that are listening to us right now who might be interested in pursuing a career as a neuroendovascular neurologist. What wisdom do you have for them about how to go about doing that?

Dr Samaniego: It has been really rewarding to be part of this process and evolution of treating a stroke and aneurysms and AVMs because I remember when I was a resident at the University of Wisconsin, we only had, like, thrombolysis and only one device for, retrieving some of these clots. But now we have, like, 10 different devices. We have two different indications or two, two different thrombolytics. So, my best advice for trainees that want to pursue neuroendovascular is to get engaged early on, understand very well the biology and the thought process because it's not only a technical field. You have to have really good judgment on when to do and when not to do the procedure, and try to find mentorship. You know, there is a lot of neurointerventional neurologists out there right now. Having a good mentor will really facilitate your career choices an

The period immediately after hospital discharge is a critical yet often overlooked phase in stroke recovery, marked by both heightened vulnerability and opportunities for rapid brain repair. This episode explores the concept of transitional stroke care, emphasizing early specialist follow up, coordinated multidisciplinary support, and targeted interventions to improve outcomes and reduce complications.

In this episode, Katie Grouse, MD, FAAN, speaks with Mona N. Bahouth, MD, PhD, FAAN, author of the article "Transitional Stroke Care and the Road to Recovery" in the Continuum® June 2026 Cerebrovascular Disease 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. Bahouth is the medical director of the Brain Rescue Unit and an associate professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Transitional Stroke Care and the Road to Recovery

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: @MonaBahouth

Full episode transcript available here

Dr Grouse: A lot of attention has been paid to what happens within hours to days of a stroke, but are we missing an equally crucial time in our patient's recovery after their discharge? Today, I have the opportunity to interview Dr. Mona Bahouth about the latest issue of Continuum on cerebrovascular disease.

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. Mona Bahouth about her article on transitional stroke care and the road to recovery. This article appears in the June 2026 Continuum issue on cerebrovascular disease. Welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to our audience.

Dr Bahouth: Thank you for having me. I'm Mona Bahouth. I'm a stroke neurologist in Baltimore, Maryland, and I'm the medical director of our brain rescue unit at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. Great to be with you.

Dr Grouse: Thank you so much. This was a very interesting article. I have to confess going into it, I really didn't know a lot about transitional stroke care and the growing sort of recognition of its importance for stroke recovery and improved outcomes. Can you tell me what the key message from this article is that you really hope that readers will take away after reading it and hopefully integrate into their own patient practices?

Dr Bahouth: Yeah. I would say if there's one overarching message, it is that stroke care has come so far over the last couple of decades. We do so much wonderful life-saving work in the first couple of hours and days after stroke, but we haven't really paid as much attention to what happens once a patient leaves the hospital with this devastating acute disease. And I would just like to say that this article allows us to shine a light on providing a little bit more of a system of care, a more structured system of care that could benefit the patient for the long term, then that will benefit a large population of patients who otherwise may have complications that could cause disability longer in life.

Dr Grouse: Now, Mona, could you tell us in a nutshell, what is transitional stroke care, and why are we needing to focus more of our attention on this to improve patient recovery?

Dr Bahouth: Yeah. Over the last few years, we've really done a wonderful job of reducing the time that a patient spends in a hospital after stroke care. But in parallel, we have not really changed anything about what we do in the outpatient setting. So, a patient tells us that they come to the hospital with this acute and very scary and disabling disease. They feel that they're the center of the universe at our stroke centers, where we're hustling around them in groups and in interprofessional teams. But then on the day of discharge, they feel that they leave the hospital, and in some of our focus groups, that they kind of go home to a, a dark bedroom where they have to process all of this sort of on their own. It's quite a transition for both patients and their care partners. And here we've been very systematic about how we structure our care in the hospital for stroke patients, but once they leave the hospital, it's been a sort of free-for-all, or the Wild West, as some of my colleagues say. So transitional stroke care is really a way to extend the care that we deliver in the stroke unit to the patient's home or to their next phase of care. We know that stroke patients have 11 handoffs from beginning to end, in average, that they experience through the course of their acute stroke. And so, what we're really trying to do is extend the, the stroke unit to the patient's home or to their next phase of care so that they feel a bit more extension of that specialty care that they were receiving in the hospital. So, it's really a structure, a system.

Dr Grouse: Now, it seems that when we're thinking about the transitional care period, that it really hinges on this idea of sort of the sensitive period of stroke recovery. What is that, and why is that so important, and why do we really need to focus on that specific time?

Dr Bahouth: There are really two reasons that this is a critical period for patients. One is that we know from work in animal models as well as other sort of human early studies that the brain really has its optimal period of efficient brain repair in the first few weeks after stroke, meaning that it's recovering after this injury and figuring out how to reroute some really important brain functions. I would say it's also a critical period because the time period after stroke is a period that all the comorbid conditions that sort of conspired to cause a stroke are sometimes destabilized. And we know that sort of just putting people back on standard regimens for their hypertension, their diabetes, their heart failure doesn't always equate to sort of long-term improved outcomes at a time that the brain itself is going through changes. So, for example, we know that blood flow is critical to the brain. That's what all the hustle is about in the hyperacute period. And for the next couple of weeks after a stroke, autoregulation remains disrupted, so typical treatments of hypertension could have negative consequences for a subpopulation of patients. This management of hypertension needs to continue for a couple of days and weeks after stroke, and therefore, if a patient is discharged from the hospital, really requires a bit more specialty input. We also know that as the brain is trying to repair during the sensitive period, this high period of efficiency, we really want to inject high-intensity, high-quality activities that really improve their recovery. But in our current system in the United States, our transition to the period of rehabilitation is really quite clunky and disrupted and doesn't often happen in a seamless way. So, a true transitional stroke care program really attempts to manage the stroke itself. The comorbid conditions that conspire to cause the stroke, and the expedition of, of rehabilitation that could really jumpstart the recovery period in a more meaningful way.

Dr Grouse: Now, you mentioned hypertension as being sort of a critical factor that can affect the patients during this transitional period or this sensitive period. What are some other factors that can really play a huge part in their long-term outcomes in this really sensitive time?

Dr Bahouth: In our transitional stroke program, in our interprofessional group, we often talk about all of the changes that a patient is required to make at the time of stroke. Typically, they stay in the hospital several days. The patient and their care partner will receive a bolus of instructions about what their new healthier life should look like, and then they're sort of sent off to sort of self-manage without really accepting that that wasn't the perfect time to teach these things. So really, it's all about sort of lifestyle improvement. How do we get into a system of medication adherence when medications are a central portion of a patient's care? It is about managing the cognitive changes that happen after stroke, whether we acknowledge them in the hospital as a main deficit or something that people realize once they get back into the groove of their usual life, and the emotional consequences of stroke for both the patient and their care partner, who are both adjusting to this very scary moment that resulted in a brain injury. So, I think that the things that are focused on are both medical in terms of, you know, what are we doing with the diabetes? Is our glucose at a target range? Have we started wearing our sleep apnea paraphernalia? Are we managing our smoking cessation as much as we should? How have we done with our low-fat diet? Are we taking our medications as prescribed, or was there some cognitive blip that caused a mistake? But also sort of the emotional support that sometimes paralyze patients into sort of saying they cannot handle this transition into a new healthier way of brain recovery.

Dr Grouse: Yes, and it sounds like when patients sort of hit that wall, they almost just give up, right? There's just so many things they have to manage. They're emotionally trying to cope, and then they may eventually get to their neurologist at some point for a follow-up, and not much has happened.

Dr Bahouth: That's a really well-put statement. Like I mentioned earlier, we had several focus groups to say, "How's our stroke center doing? How is our comprehensive stroke center doing?" And we realized that we were very comprehensive while the patient was with us, but then the experience of the patient going home was really opposite of receiving comprehensive care. You know, the patient in the hospital said they felt well-supported, surrounded, quite busy all the time, but then they did go home, and this sort of set in that they've had a stroke. And many patients told us, "I just laid in bed because I couldn't quite kind of get through the thought that this has happened to me." And so, in our prior state of our comprehensive stroke system where patients weren't seen for a couple of months after their discharge, patients would tell me, "Well, I'm fine now. But those first couple of months, I sure wasn't. You know, I was laying in bed. I was crying. I wasn't taking my medicines. I had a lot of despair and fear." Care partners would say, "I wasn't sleeping myself. I was watching to see if another stroke was gonna happen every minute." So, there are a lot of elements that are going on in those first two weeks that really require a specialist to say, "This is normal. This requires more attention," and to really help people get through a lot of the changes that come with stroke and brain injury.

Dr Grouse: Now, your article gave a really great, I think, example, where you had a juxtaposition of a hypothetical patient with a stroke and two very different post-discharge courses, one where they really kind of fell into that vacuum, that post-discharge vacuum, where they didn't get support and had some very disappointing outcomes versus a patient who did have a transitional care program with a lot of support post-discharge, and a lot of obstacles were overcome and problems solved such that the patient could do a lot better. And I encourage our listeners to take a look at it. If you could design and run it, how would your ideal transitional post-stroke program be structured? Like, how would you design it so that it would optimally support these patients?

Dr Bahouth: Yeah, you know, we, um, tangle with this every day in our current transitional stroke program that we call the JSTEP program. We've had several chapters of what we think is ideal for a patient, and thank you for sort of acknowledging that, like, the way those cases were written were really to underscore that we can have a lot of influence for patients. And while they were sort of hypothetical juxtapositions of one another, these are things we literally see every single day for our stroke patients. And people say, "Oh, if only we had done this, we would've caught that, and we would've prevented such-and-so." Some of the indicators of success have been we've really reduced our readmission rates to the hospital. We have decreased our length of stay because the confidence people feel to go home because they're well supported. So there have been indicators of success. But if I could take our program even next level, I would probably include a few other things. So currently, some of the strengths of the program are that a stroke specialist sees a patient within days of their discharge from the hospital, a time where some of those questions are sort of raising for the patient. Maybe a complication is starting to pop up that we can address before it, uh, gets out of hand and requires a readmission. We can tackle some of the fears that patients are having to say, "I wonder if this is normal or not. I better just go to the hospital." So, some of that early touch point by a true stroke specialist is really critical. And that visit only happens because the seed is planted in the hospital, so there really has to be some initiation of the program at the time the patient is in the hospital to say, "This is what you can expect when you leave here. You have someone who's walking this with you. They're a stroke specialist. They're gonna know how to help you navigate." The second part of our program that is a success is our rapid connection to specialties. So, we know that stroke patients are gonna need connection to rehabilitation specialists, physiatrists, the therapists. We know they're gonna need connection to cardiology when atrial fibrillation or heart failure or something is really at an extreme.We know endocrinology might be a part of the patient's story going forward. And so, I think the second success of our program is really alliance with key stakeholders in a stroke patient's life and quick access to having the patient be connected to what it is they need in the moment that we realize that there is a situation at home. The third thing that I think has been really a success of our program is this interprofessional education that we schedule patients for at the time of their discharge, just as any other important healthcare visit. During this interprofessional education session, the patients get to meet dietician, pharmacist, nurse, therapist, where key discussions about healthy behaviors, avoidance of complications after stroke really happen in a group session where there can be a lot of interaction. You know, currently our education happens in a time where the brain is injured, the patient is not sleeping well in the hospital. We have a lot of stress and fear. It's not the perfect time for anyone to receive such important education. So, I think the third really most important thing has been this formalized interprofessional education to really bolster the education that started at the hospital. If I were to really take our program next level, and every day we're considering it, I really think we haven't done a couple of key things. One is we have not really found a way for the care partner to be supported, that the care partner is usually the brave one sitting there with a tight lip and nodding and very, you know, concerned about what's happening and taking close notes. But we really haven't done well to just manage the care partner's needs sort of independently of the patient themselves, sort of help them with the experience of going through this. I think that could benefit both the care partner and the patient by sort of bolstering their sort of emotional consequences of this. And they are really our key partner in the patient's success in the outpatient setting, getting the patient motivated, helping them get to appointments, helping them to adhere with medications. So, I think if we can focus a bit more on the care partner, that might really bolster the long-term effect for patients. And I think finally, behavior change is very complex. Sometimes we're taking a group of patients who may have never exercised and said, "You know, we really... You need to walk several minutes a day. You need to increase your aerobic capacity. We need you to stop smoking." And these are not behavior changes that can just happen with sort of a one-time visit. So, I think we really need to incorporate a lot more of exercise therapy and concepts of people who can sort of coach along the continuum for some of these behavior changes so that we can really promote wellness and a return to health. And I think one final thing that could be additive from a transitional stroke program is really a better way to truly measure recovery for stroke patients, some of those in between the line measures that we're not really getting by a three-month modified Rankin score. I think a transitional stroke care model would really allow us to both insert research and potential other therapies along this time period, but also measure the success of those in a more granular way.

Dr Grouse: Thank you so much for that, and also it was really helpful to get a good overview of, like, what the transitional care program really means, right? Like, what is the structure? What is happening with the patient? So, I think all of that's really helpful. But I can't help but think, listening to all of that, that sounds like while certainly in an ideal state, and I don't think anyone can argue with how helpful that sounds, is it always something that's practical? Can we implement things like this, especially where access is limited, resources are dwindling as far as what patients can get and what evaluations patients can get? Do you think that this is something that can actually be implemented in programs throughout the country? And what are strategies we can consider to try to improve getting some of these resources for our patients?

Dr Bahouth: I think this is such a critical topic. I think that we have, in the medical system, tried to force our healthcare practices into old models of care instead of sort of adopting new ones. And so, I think that, you know, while everyone says, "Wow, that sounds like a very resource-rich program," I would have to stop and push back and say, well, a very resource-rich situation is when a stroke patient, sometimes fifteen to twenty percent of the time, are readmitted to the hospital at a time where hospital beds are at a premium. Maybe we need to turn those dollars of savings of sort of these readmissions and extra length of stay into dollars that we put into sort of this transitional period where we help promote success. So, I think it really becomes more of a value proposition when you talk about it. But that said, of course, we have to make sure that we're a high-value, high-productivity system. So, our current transitional care program uses a telemedicine structure. We know that stroke patients cannot drive in most states after their stroke. We know that their care partners are trying to return to work and normalize. It is very difficult for patients with paralysis, cognitive changes to come back and forth to multiple appointments. In the past, we have tried to make this transitional care program an in-hospital program. I think using the technologies that we have available for telemedicine are c

Intracerebral hemorrhage carries high morbidity and mortality, but growing evidence highlights meaningful opportunities for prevention, risk reduction, and long-term recovery. This episode covers key strategies, including blood pressure management, interpretation of neuroimaging markers, and individualized decisions around antithrombotic therapy. It also emphasizes the prolonged recovery timeline and the importance of a holistic, patient-centered approach to improving outcomes.

In this episode, Casey S. Albin, MD, FAAN, speaks with Wendy C. Ziai, MD, and Vishank A. Shah, MD, coauthors of the article "Intracerebral Hemorrhage" in the Continuum® June 2026 Cerebrovascular Disease issue.

Dr. Albin is a Continuum® Audio interviewer, associate editor of media engagement, and an assistant professor of neurology and neurosurgery at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

Dr. Ziai is a professor of neurology and critical care medicine at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland.

Dr. Shah is an assistant professor of neurology and critical care medicine at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Intracerebral 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: @caseyalbin

Guest: @VishankShah3

Full episode transcript available here

Dr Albin: A patient has suffered an intracerebral hemorrhage. They're taken to the neuro ICU, and they fortunately survive. But the journey does not end there. In fact, in some ways, the journey has just begun. Join us today as we unpack holistic care for ICH patients.

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 Albin: Hello to our audience. This is Dr. Casey Albin. Today, I'm interviewing Dr. Wendy Ziai and Dr. Vishank Shah about their article on intracerebral hemorrhage. This article appears in the April 2026 Continuum issue on cerebrovascular disease. Welcome to the podcast. I am so delighted that both of you are joining. To begin, let's just do a brief introduction of who you are and, and a little bit of how you got interested in the topic.

Dr Ziai: Hi, I'm Wendy Ziai. Thank you for having me on this podcast. I am a professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins. I am a neurointensivist, and I think I got primarily interested in this topic through clinical trials that I have been a part of since my fellowship days.

Dr Shah: Hi, everyone. I'm, uh, Vishank Shah. I am also, uh, very thankful for being invited to be a part of this podcast. I'm also a neurointensivist at Hopkins and the fellowship program director here for neurocritical care, and I'm interested in recovery after ICH, and that's why I'm a part of this work.

Dr Albin: Welcome to you both. It is such a treat for me to get to interview fellow neurointensivist, particularly those who have such a wealth of experience. So, I am delighted to dive into this. All right. So, to set the stage for our audience, intracerebral hemorrhage has long been approached with pessimism. But your article really highlights that there are meaningful advantages in prevention and risk stratification and long-term recovery for these patients. Though you both are neurointensivist, this article really emphasizes primary prevention and the holistic long-term care for the survivors. And so, to begin, Dr. Shah, can you just lay out a little bit for our listeners the scope of intracerebral hemorrhage and its community impact?

Dr Shah: Yeah. So, you know, ICH is the second most common type of stroke. There are more than three million new cases of ICH globally each year, and it accounts for thirty percent of all stroke types, but it is the one that has the highest mortality, with more than forty to fifty percent of the patients dying in the first thirty days, and then continued long-term impact on both functional as well as outcomes, as well as survivorship after the early period. And it also disproportionately impacts lower socioeconomic, and then minority races like Blacks, Asians, as well as Hispanic ethnicity. And so, there's a lot of work that needs to be done to reduce the burden of this disease.

Dr Albin: Absolutely. I mean, these can really be devastating for families, and I really am appreciative of your highlighting that there's a lot of disparities, and there's a lot of work to be done to really increase equity to these patients. I think a lot of this goes into really the AAN's focus on brain health and trying to improve some of what we're doing to maintain brain health. And I really wanted to kind of drill down on this because for ICH, there's a lot that can be done upfront as we think about how do we counsel patients who may walk into the office about strategies to prevent ever becoming an intracerebral hemorrhage patient. So, Dr. Shah, can you walk us through a little bit about what neurologists in the community need to be doing to make sure that no one ends up with us in the neurointensive care unit?

Dr Shah: Yeah, sure. So, I think, you know, one of the most important risk factors is, of course, hypertension and long-standing uncontrolled hypertension. And so really recognizing the need for early onset screening with regular blood pressure monitoring at a very early age, particularly in the races that I discussed earlier. And then I think another big part, obesity, metabolic syndrome, and type two diabetes. And I think there's a lot of interesting new work that with the GLP-1 agonist, you know, in a large multicenter cohort studies showing that patients receiving these had a significantly lower reduction risk of ICH. And so, this might be a really important part that, you know, clinicians need to start increasingly recognizing and using in their practice. And then, of course, other risk factors that are common include smoking, diet high in sodium, exposure to air pollution, both indoor as well as outdoor. And so, mitigating all of these risk factors can also reduce the burden of ICH.

Dr Albin: Absolutely. And I really want to highlight that hypertension plays such an important role and that we as neurointensivist, as community neurologists, really need to be creative about ways that we can help people meet those blood pressure target and meeting people in the community where they are, making sure that they're not suffering from side effects from their medication that would prevent them from sticking with it long term. Dr. Ziai, anything else to add about what we can do in the community?

Dr Ziai: So, we really want to emphasize, even in the acute phase, that patients moving forward need to have targeted interventions to reduce blood pressure, smoking, enhance their physical activity, have a diet that is high in fruits and vegetables and low in alcohol and salt, and then promoting weight loss, of course.

Dr Albin: And Dr. Ziai, I'm gonna ask you a little bit about one of the things that maybe not all of our listeners have heard about is this APOE2, APOE4 genetic risk for intracerebral hemorrhage. What's going on there and, and should clinicians be testing for that?

Dr Ziai: That's a great question, and it is not one that we currently test people for at least acute ICH presentation. APOE2 and A4- E4 alleles, these give patients a two to three times higher risk of ICH by increasing cerebral amyloid deposition. And if you happen to have APOE2 carrier ship status, then along with other risk factors like white matter disease and vascular risk factors, these predict the onset of new microbleeds even during very short follow-up periods of about two years. And as we know, having cerebral microbleeds are associated with an increased risk of all strokes, ischemic and ICH, but they are one of many MRI markers of small vessel disease, which along with cortical superficial siderosis, does significantly increase future ICH risk. And so even in people who've never had an ICH, if they happen to have an MRI, it may be reasonable to look at the MRI and incorporate this burden of small vessel disease, and especially these hemorrhagic markers into, uh, decision-making about interventions.

Dr Albin: That's a really excellent point. And so, I think that your article did a really beautiful job of thinking holistically about the patient, incorporating clinical markers of their risk for having ICH, but also those radiographic markers. I'm just gonna ask you to summarize those again one more time because not everyone will be familiar with these. So, when you're looking at an MRI, what are the things that you're particularly clued in on that would increase the patient's risk of future ICH?

Dr Ziai: In the past, what we're looking for really is markers of cerebral amyloid angiopathy, which significantly increase a person's risk for lobar hemorrhage in particular. And so, we have a set of criteria called the Boston Criteria, and there's a new version of these, version 2.0. And these, um, incorporate a number of imaging markers that provide a very high sensitivity and specificity to diagnose CAA after an ICH. But even if someone's never had an ICH, and they evaluate that risk-benefit ratio for different cardiovascular prevention strategies. And so, the markers that we're specifically interested in are, of course, microbleeds. But not just having microbleeds, but are they lobar or are they deep? Lobar having a higher risk for lobar ICH. How many microbleeds are there? Is it greater than five, or is it just one or two? Also, cortical superficial siderosis is a marker, a hemorrhagic marker, that does portend a significant increased risk of recurrent ICH, along with having a lobar ICH. And now we have these new markers, which are the white matter hyperintensity multi spot pattern, which requires these hyperintensities on flare imaging in the subcortical area, having greater than at least ten of these multi spots, and also having enlarged perivascular spaces in the centrum semiovale, and having at least twenty of those. And finally, white matter hyperintensities, which can be measured with the physica score or just by visualizing them. We can look at white matter hyperintensities as well as being a measure of small vessel disease.

Dr Albin: Got it. And so just to summarize, we're looking for small vessel disease markers because that puts our patients at higher risk of ongoing future bleeds. And then we're also looking for markers of particularly small vessel disease that's caused by cerebral amyloid angiopathy, which again, because it's having that protein deposition, that puts the patient at risk of those leptomeningeal very small vessels, putting the patient at risk of lobar ICH. Just confirming I've summarized this all correctly.

Dr Ziai: Yes. That was perfect.

Dr Albin: Amazing. Dr. Shah, I'm gonna go back to you. Let's say we have a patient. Let's say this is a sixty-five-year-old man who comes in and they want follow-up and they're... And you're trying to think about they've had an ICH in the past, and they are also at risk for ischemic disease. Let's say they, they have hypertension, they've had a smoking history. They have some risk for ischemic events. And you're trying to think about how do you balance those. Let's say the patient needs to be on aspirin but does have some of those high-risk features on their MRI. Is there any guidance on how we think through preventing them from having a recurrent bleed if they're a high-risk patient, also preventing them from having an ischemic event, which they might be at high risk for as well?

Dr Shah: Yes. So, I think, you know, the first step is of course trying to understand what was the type of bleed. I think that has a very important role, like you mentioned. If it's a lobar hemorrhage versus a deep hemorrhage, the risk of recurrent ICH and ischemic events is very variable. So lobar hemorrhages, there's obviously a higher risk of recurrent hemorrhage events, whereas deep hemorrhage is actually at or behaves sort of like small vessel ischemic strokes and have a higher risk of recurrent arterial ischemic events. So that distinction in itself can help you gauge which patients would be safe and would benefit from these therapies. To begin, and of course, looking for some of these markers on MRI that were mentioned by Dr. Ziai for recurrence of hemorrhage risk. In terms of antiplatelet, the, there is a lot more data now to guide treatment, and we have the RESTART as well as the ESTART trial that showed that starting an, a single antiplatelet after intracerebral hemorrhage did not increase the risk of hemorrhage recurrence. They were very variable in the timing when aspirin was started, and so that remains still a question about what is the safest time point to start aspirin. For example, in the ESTART trial, they started them very early, within the first three days, whereas in the RESTART it was all the way up to two months after the hemorrhage. And so... But in general, the risk of recurrent ICH was very low with a single antiplatelet agent. And so, if it's needed for ischemic prevention, it's relatively safe broadly across all types of hemorrhages.

Dr Ziai: Yeah. I would just mention that there was also a subgroup analysis of the RESTART trial using MRI. And so, this more than likely included patients with CAA, since 40% of the hemorrhages were lobar in that study, and therefore seeing that there was no increased risk of recurrent ICH in RESTART, it is thought that putting patients back on their antiplatelet therapy is safe.

Dr Albin: That's a really huge takeaway pearl for our listeners, that regardless of whether it's a lobar bleed or a deep bleed, if there is a strong indication, you know, this is not just, oh, because someone gave them aspirin 81, but truly that there is a reason that they need to be on a single antiplatelet agent, it probably benefits them to be on that agent, and there's good data that there's not a huge increase in risk. Summarizing all of that?

Dr Ziai: Great.

Dr Albin: Now, things are gonna get a little bit tricky here, because what if the patient, what if they need to be on dual antiplatelet therapy? Or what if they need to be on anticoagulation? Dr. Ziai, I'll, I'll throw that to you. How do you tackle that patient population?

Dr Ziai: Yeah, the safety of dual antiplatelet therapy hasn't really been studied in patients who've had a prior ICH. Although, in people who've had previous strokes, putting them on dual antiplatelets doesn't seem to increase the risk of ICH, but it does increase extracranial hemorrhage. And so there may be other reasons not to put patients on dual antiplatelet agents. Patients who have cancer and also cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease, putting them on dual antiplatelet therapy does seem to increase the risk for intracranial hemorrhage. So, I think there is enough of a bias against DAPT therapy in patients who have had an ICH that we would not recommend DAPT for patients with a prior ICH.

Dr Albin: Absolutely. And, and then what about, let's say they have atrial fibrillation, and you know that they have a high CHA2DS2-VASc score, and they are at very high risk of ischemic events, but they've also had a prior intracerebral hemorrhage. Walk us through a little bit, how should we approach that patient? Dr. Ziai, I'm gonna start with you again.

Dr Ziai: Sure. So again, looking at the MRI, which all patients with ICH should have nowadays. If patients do have these hemorrhagic findings, a lobar ICH, evidence of CSS, cortical superficial siderosis, especially if it's disseminated, and also lobar microbleeds, especially if there are greater than five, if they're multiple, then anticoagulation should really be avoided in those patients.

Dr Albin: Absolutely. So, I'm really hearing that when we have a patient with ICH, it is just critically important that we understand is this a hypertensive bleed or is this a lobar bleed that is probably related to cerebral amyloid angiopathy? And getting to that distinction is going to play a major role in our deciding whether or not the patient can be on DAPT or can be on anticoagulation. And then what are some of the strategies for patients that you're referring them to if they really cannot tolerate being on anticoagulation, but they have atrial fibrillation, and they do need some sort of ischemic stroke prevention?

Dr Shah: There's still a lot of controversy, even in non-lobar hemorrhages, about resuming anticoagulation and when that would be safe. HAF trial, there was a reduction in ischemic stroke recurrence, uh, but a significantly higher increase in hemorrhage recurrences. I think that trial included both deep and lobar hemorrhages. So, we still need more data, and I think the ASPIRE trial and maybe a meta-analysis would answer that eventually. But in the meantime, if a, specifically for lobar hemorrhages, which are, uh, thought to be CAA related, if they, uh, and the patient has AFib, you know, where anticoagulation would be contraindicated, a watchman device or, you know, AFib ablation may be some of the other strategies that can be looked into for those patients specifically.

Dr Albin: Right. I think that's a really important point to emphasize, that we don't just don't give up and say, "Oh, you're not a candidate for anticoagulation," but we really reach out to our cardiovascular friends and say, "Hey, what other procedures can you offer that will minimize the risk of recurrence?" You know, we don't want them to have an ischemic event, but we also know long-term that there would be a real risk of anticoagulation. Just reminder to our listeners that there are new procedures, and our cardiology colleagues are always doing new trials and new devices, and so we should really leverage their expertise here. I am in the final minutes gonna just switch gears a little bit from talking about sort of the nitty-gritty of secondary ischemic prevention and secondary hemorrhagic stroke prevention and thinking about there has been this degree of pessimism around ICH patients, and that, you know, they have a much more severe outcome than our patients with ischemic strokes. I think that that is probably a myth that we need to do some debunking around, and I think maybe we need to reframe in terms of thinking about just the trajectory. So, Dr. Shah, walk us through a little bit about what we can expect about the recovery trajectory in ICH compared to those patients who have an ischemic stroke.

Dr Shah: Yes. From some newer data and studies, it is becoming clear that recovery after ICH is much slower than we expect. In general, for ischemic stroke, recovery is measured within the first few weeks to up to 90 days. But in ICH, we now know that patients can keep recovering all the way up to six months and even beyond. In general, from just a, a study of heart recovery that occurs after ischemic stroke, there's a steep recovery in the first seven days, and then sort of after that, patients still continue to recover, but it, it starts plateauing where up to 90 days. Whereas with ICH, there is not much recovery in the first 7 to 30 days, but after that, there is a recovery that occurs significantly between day 30 and day 180, and then some patients continue to recover all the way up to one year. The more severe the hemorrhage, the slower the recovery, but there's still some evidence to suggest that even severe hemorrhage patients can recover all the way up to one year out and

Stroke in children and younger adults differs significantly from adult stroke, with varied presentations and a broader range of underlying causes such as congenital heart disease and arteriopathies. This episode highlights key diagnostic considerations and evolving approaches to treatment in these younger populations.

In this episode, Aaron L. Berkowitz, MD, PhD, FAAN, speaks with Thalia S. Field, MD, FRCPC, MHSc, coauthor of the article "Stroke in Children and Younger Adults" in the Continuum® June 2026 Cerebrovascular Disease issue.

Dr. Berkowitz is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a professor of neurology in the Department of Neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, in San Francisco, California.

Dr. Field is a professor at the University of British Columbia and the Sauder Family Heart and Stroke Professor of Stroke Research, and a stroke neurologist at the Vancouver Stroke Program, Vancouver Coastal Health in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Stroke in Children and Younger Adults

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 Berkowitz: Most neurologists are used to evaluating and treating adults with stroke since it's one of the most common neurologic conditions. But stroke can also occur in children, in infants, and even in utero. Today, I have the privilege of interviewing Dr. Thalia Field to talk about pediatric stroke.

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. Thalia Field about her article on stroke in children and younger adults. This article appears in the June 2026 Continuum issue on cerebrovascular disease. Welcome to the podcast, Dr. Field, and could you please introduce yourself to our audience?

Dr Field: Well, thanks so much. It's a pleasure to, uh, be speaking to you. I'm a stroke neurologist, and I treat adults generally. My wonderful colleague, Thivya Selvanathan, who's a neonatal neurologist, co-wrote the chapter with me. We do, unfortunately, have to treat some children with stroke collaboratively and I do advise on those cases. My practice is about one-quarter clinical, so I treat patients with acute stroke, look after them on the wards, see patients in stroke prevention clinic, and the rest of my time is mainly research and some administrative work and teaching. I run the clinical trials program for the Vancouver Stroke Program, and I do research of my own, mainly focused on stroke in younger adults. We previously did a trial and registry on cerebral venous thrombosis, and more recently, I've been running a national study looking at brain health in adults and children with congenital heart disease.

Dr Berkowitz: Fantastic. Wow, that is a lot that you do, and we'll look forward to the results of some of those studies. So, when adults suffer a stroke, they typically present with sudden onset focal neurologic deficits, very common scenario we're consulted on. And one thing you and your colleague talk about in the article is that strokes can present differently in infants and in young children. Can you talk a little bit about the differing clinical presentations of stroke in the youngest young as compared to our usual experience treating the older adults?

Dr Field: Sure. So, you know, speaking about this as someone who doesn't see the children directly but has had the opportunity to discuss these patients with my colleagues and, like we all do, learn about it during our training, I think one of the distinctions, especially with neonates, is that it's generally not a presentation with focal neurologic deficits. Often these babies will have seizures or encephalopathy as their main presentation, and sometimes we're only finding out after the fact if they're presenting with developmental delay or early preference for handedness and hypotonia, things like that. So, in very young children, that's a distinction. And in older children, there can be sudden onset deficits and, and unfortunately, sometimes these are mistaken for other conditions that are more common in children, like seizures. But sometimes you can have a more indolent course, say, with something like a focal cerebral arteriopathy or something like that. So, it depends on the scenario, but the big difference primarily is in neonates, as far as I understand.

Dr Berkowitz: Perfect. That's very helpful. So as an adult neurologist, when I think about causes of stroke or teach sort of the categories of causes of stroke to our residents and students, when we think about the evaluation of stroke, I divide them broadly into causes related to the heart, causes related to the blood vessels, and causes related to the blood with, in the adult world, the most common things, of course, being atrial fibrillation for the heart, atherosclerosis for the blood vessels, and then risk factors for atherosclerosis in the blood, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, very rarely picking up a hypercoagulable disorder in the blood column. And reading your article, it seems that, correct me if I'm wrong, stroke in young adults, stroke in the pediatric population can basically be organized into those same broad categories, heart, blood vessels, and blood, just that there's many more conditions on the differential diagnosis that you would consider in young adults to begin with and then children and then neonates as we get into the younger and younger population. So, I'd like to talk about each of these sort of buckets of etiology in turn and ask you about some of the causes we would consider in young adults and children in each of these, and then as they come up, probably ask you more questions about how frequently we find these sorts of things, how frequently they're the cause of stroke treatment, et cetera. So, let's start with the heart. As I said, in adults, we're mostly looking for rhythm disorders, right, atrial fibrillation. Sometimes we'll pick up a patent foramen ovale or PFO or other structural abnormalities, but mostly we're thinking about atrial fibrillation. But reading your paper, I was struck by the huge variety of conditions that you might be looking for in the heart in children or infants with stroke. So, can you tell us a little more about cardiac etiologies of stroke in the young?

Dr Field: Yeah. So, I'd say unlike in older adults, where it tends more often to be a rhythm disorder, in children and adults who are younger, it's primarily a structural cause, and congenital heart disease being the most common. And it changes a little bit from younger adults shifting downwards in age to younger children in terms of the fact that often if we're seeing an adult with stroke related to congenital heart disease, it can be a paradoxical embolism from a previously undiagnosed PFO. Not in all cases, but fortunately this is improving over time. You know, generally people with diagnoses of more severe congenital heart disease are followed up from childhood and people are aware of the diagnosis, and hopefully they're being managed and watched for things like premature arrhythmias or depressed heart function or other things that can develop and require their own distinct antithrombotic management, for example. In young children, however, more severe causes of congenital heart disease tend to more frequently be associated with stroke. And in many cases, those strokes can be early on in life or associated, say, with perioperative complications or other iatrogenic-related causes in, in that way. Again, congenital heart disease can be associated with stroke at, at any point in the life course. But as adult neurologists, most frequently we're seeing very simple lesions like PFO with large shunts, and in children, it tends to be the more complex causes of congenital heart disease.

Dr Berkowitz: Got it. So, let's move on to the blood vessels. Again, in adults, we're usually thinking about atherosclerotic disease, be that of the cervical arteries or of the intracranial arteries. But in your paper, a lot of discussion about the various vasculopathies, arteriopathies that can be cause of stroke in younger adults and in children. Could you talk a little bit more about some of the vasculopathies and vascular conditions that are causes of stroke in the younger population?

Dr Field: Sure. Before I do that, I will say that especially in older younger adults, particularly over the age of thirty-five, and you know, kind of makes me shudder that that's an older younger adult. But, um, in, in any case, certainly conventional vascular risk factors are more common in this population with stroke, especially in those who don't have PFO-associated stroke. Like conventional atherosclerosis, you know, certainly is a cause of stroke in younger adults. But that being said, certainly other vascular causes and vasculopathy in particular is a much more common cause of stroke in younger adults and, and children than it is in older adults. In particular, dissection is an extremely common cause of stroke in younger adults. Generally cervical artery dissection from non-inflammatory vasculopathy, usually on, sometimes on the FMD fibromuscular dysplasia spectrum and, and sometimes, you know, provoked by minor trauma or something post-infectious that may make the vessels a little bit more susceptible. And in younger children, this inflammatory focal cerebral arteriopathy is a distinct cause that is a common cause of stroke in, in young children. There are other causes that can affect the blood vessels, you know, rarer things like vasculitis and vasculopathies that can develop in the context, say, of sickle cell anemia. But in general, as a bucket, vessels are still very important, but the pathology tends to shift.

Dr Berkowitz: Got it. And you, um, alluded to a point that I wanted to ask you about. You mentioned the sort of, there's stroke in the young, and then where do you draw the line at young? Less than sixty, less than thirty-five, and then we've also talked about strokes as young as before the age of birth. Yeah, I'm remembering, is it the Helsinki study, one of the early large series of stroke in younger individuals? I think that, was it eighteen to forty-nine in that or fifty-nine? I don't remember the exact age, but being struck reading that paper as a resident and thinking about the workup for exotic causes we do, right, and when a young patient has a stroke. And correct me if I'm wrong, the most common etiologies of stroke in that series, and I'm curious the other large series yourself have been involved with, have still been vascular risk factors and arrhythmias and things that we, even common, quote unquote, common things in the young, such as dissection or hypercoagulable states. Uh, the things that we sort of tend to think about first are actually less common. But acknowledging that that paper has folks up to the late forties when the vascular risk factors may be, um, unfortunately kicking in earlier, uh, and earlier due to dietary and lifestyle factors. So is that true, or do you have sort of an age cutoff when it's, we say stroke in the young, people sort of think, "Oh, they'd work someone up differently if they're less than sixty, and they have no vascular risk factors or few vascular risk factors." When do we start getting into the kind of younger population where atherosclerosis and cardiac arrhythmias are not number one and two?

Dr Field: I'd say first of all, you and I must have trained around the same time because I was also in my training, really struck by the results of the Helsinki study going, "Wow, I, I really didn't know how much of a role these conventional vascular risk factors still play." And I think we're seeing that information reiterated, unfortunately, like even with higher prevalences and more attributable risk in some of the newer series. There are newer European series looking at stroke in younger adults, and more recently, there's been one that we mentioned in the article from the Florida Stroke Registry. And it's true that generally the burden is in the older younger adults. But what I would say overall in terms of kind of how things guide the workup, you need to look at the patient and consider things. I mean, obviously you don't want to miss things that can be treated differently and identified by tests easily. You know, things like ruling out syphilis or antiphospholipid antibody disease in, in younger patients. You really want to make sure that that's not something that, that you'd miss because, you know, obviously your treatment is going to change. However, certainly we start with the basics for stroke workup in any patient that's coming in. At my center, CT angiography. Some centers it may be MR angiography and echocardiography. We take a careful history. We look at the blood work. We look at the vascular risk factor burden. We find out if there's kind of any worrisome personal history, family history, look at their general health context. I think that really helps to guide how far we go in a particular workup, and it also helps to direct the other investigations and types of follow-up we need to do. For example, if a patient has a fairly suspicious story for dissection, let's say they're getting over a cold, and they went to the gym, and, you know, there was a sudden movement that they did that really produced headache and neck pain, and there's an obvious cervical artery dissection. I'm not going to go too far down testing them for rare infections and doing advanced cardiac imaging unless something shows up on their initial echo, for example. But I will make an effort to do more detailed vascular imaging of the rest of their body, find out careful family history. If there's additional manifestations of a non-inflammatory vasculopathy elsewhere, say consider sending them to medical genetics, or obviously, if this is, you know, a second event, your flags raise even more. So, it really depends on the patient. If I find out that there's, you know, a family history of premature cardiac disease and things like that, you know, obviously we're gonna be keeping a close eye on their cholesterol, making sure that we're not identifying, for example, familial hypercholesterolemia, which is, you know, something that comes up not infrequently where we'll see an LDL in an untreated patient of more than five. I apologize, you're gonna have to do the conversion to American units on that. But there are things we identify and, you know, again, you don't want to fall solely on heuristics and your preconceived notion of, of the patient. You do have to consider the results of the investigations that you do order. But I think you can certainly be mindful in terms of how you direct your workup and in turn, how you direct your follow-up.

Dr Berkowitz: That's great to hear your approach. Yeah, as you said, our approach always begins with the same, coming back to these three categories, right? Doing some type of structural imaging of the heart, rhythm monitoring for the heart, and then vascular imaging of the head and neck. And then I was going to ask you, and you sort of began to answer this question. Yeah. What's next and how far do you go? I think most people think the expanded stroke workup in the young is at a minimum, a TEE if there's been no signal thus far on the original workup. I just mentioned and you spoke about, and then probably hypercoagulable testing and only sending arterial side if there's no shunt and venous and arterial side if there's a shunt. Is that your second pass approach or did I miss anything, or are there other nuances there that are helpful to discuss?

Dr Field: No, I think that's generally in keeping with what I do. I think with TEE being very important. I mean, the first pass are arterial stuff. Really, it's antiphospholipid antibodies and, and making sure there's no cancer. Like you said, only if there's a shunt do I pursue other venous hypercoagulability testing. Again, you [chuckles] kind of reiterate, go through with the history, make sure there's kind of no red flags. And sometimes, obviously, you do your best reasonable job with the first pass workup, and you will find out when someone presents with a second event that it's something very unexpected. Maybe first manifestation, someone with no obvious history and very initially normal-looking imaging, say with, with CATASL or something like Fabry's disease or something where you would consider it if there was kind of a more classical picture. But it wouldn't be something you would do kind of on your first or even second pass workup in the absence of any sort of clinical suspicion, family history, or something along those lines.

Dr Berkowitz: I'm curious just as far as rough percentage. I feel like many of these patients we see it's a patient who's young and who's had a stroke, and the initial first pass has been unremarkable, and we do our TEE, and we do our hypercoagulable workup. Again, antiphospholipid antibodies only if it's-- there's no shunt. And if there's a shunt, adding on some of the venous hypercoagulability protein C, protein S, factor five, Leiden, et cetera. A lot of the times I feel like we don't find anything. What's your sort of general gestalt? Again, as a general neurologist who does a lot of inpatient neurology, I feel like when these cases come up, it's not that common that you say, "Oh, I actually diagnosed protein S deficiency." Or every once in a while, diagnose an antiphospholipid antibody, or you'll find a PFO on TEE. You didn't find on TT. I've maybe found one fibroelastoma in many years. How often do you find something? How often is it just as an adult a cryptogenic stroke in a young adult or child?

Dr Field: So much of what we see is PFO-related, dissection-related, conventional vascular risk factor-related. We do send referrals to medical genetics. Sometimes we'll do testing for rare things like Fabry's or consider other diagnoses. But I mean, those tend to be the exceptions. About one in four to one in five young adults with stroke end up with this cryptogenic label. I like to keep them on my radar for a few reasons. I think, one, it produces tremendous anxiety for them to not have a cause of stroke identified and just to kind of have a generic approach to secondary prevention. So, I think just to kind of keep an eye on them, manage their anxieties each year, make sure there's kind of no updates in, in terms of general secondary preventionAnd sometimes just things dawn on you later or there are new conditions, say things like, you know, DADA2, this, you know, adenosine deaminase deficiency. You know, there are new diagnoses that, that come on the radar. And sometimes treatments change. You know, for example, when I was starting my early career, the evidence hadn't yet been in place for PFO closure, and then all of a sudden, the paradigm completely changed. And you want to make sure that you can get in touch with those patients to reconsider your approach at the time. So I realize that not everybody has the luxury of extended follow-up with their patients, but I think often you can kind of encourage them or their healthcare team or just, you know, patient themselves to keep in touch periodically just to make sure that there haven't been any changes in treatment paradigms or just with your own awareness of particular

Rapid advances in acute ischemic stroke care have expanded treatment windows and improved patient outcomes through thrombolysis, mechanical thrombectomy, and optimized antithrombotic strategies. This episode highlights evolving approaches to patient selection, the growing role of tenecteplase, and the importance of team-based systems of care in delivering timely, effective treatment.

In this episode, Casey S. Albin, MD, FAAN, speaks with Christopher R. Leon Guerrero, MD, author of the article "Thrombolysis, Thrombectomy, and Antithrombotic Therapy for Acute Ischemic Stroke" in the Continuum® June 2026 Cerebrovascular Disease issue.

Dr. Albin is a Continuum® Audio interviewer, associate editor of media engagement, and an assistant professor of neurology and neurosurgery at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

Dr. Leon Guerrero is an associate professor of neurology and the adult neurology residency program director at Atrium Health Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte, North Carolina, where he also serves as outpatient stroke director.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Thrombolysis, Thrombectomy, and Antithrombotic Therapy for Acute Ischemic Stroke

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: @caseyalbin

Full episode transcript available here

Dr Albin: In stroke care, every minute kills nearly two million neurons. But today, we're going to unpack all the details about the latest treatments that can give those neurons back.

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 Albin: Hello and welcome. This is Dr. Casey Albin. Today, I'm interviewing Dr. Christopher Leon-Guerrero about his article on Thrombolysis, Thrombectomy, and Antithrombotic Therapy for Acute Ischemic Stroke. This article appears in the April 2026 Continuum issue on cerebrovascular disease. Welcome to the podcast. I always like to start by just having you introduce yourself so our listeners know a little bit about you.

Dr Leon-Guerrero: Thanks for the introduction, Dr. Albin. Really glad to be here today. My name is Chris Leon-Guerrero. I'm a vascular neurologist at Atrium Health in Charlotte, North Carolina, at Carolinas Medical Center. I'm an associate professor in the Department of Neurology. I serve as our Neurology Residency Program Director, and I also wear the hat of an outpatient stroke director in our clinics.

Dr Albin: So, you are wearing a lot of hats and balancing a lot of things, and it's a really exciting time to be talking about this. For our listeners, we are recording this right after the launch of the American Heart Association, American Stroke Association just released their new guidelines on acute ischemic care. So, no better time to kind of dive into some of this. And really, when I think about acute ischemic stroke care, it's dramatically transformed in the last two to three decades. I mean, from lengthening time windows for IV thrombolysis to expanded thrombectomy eligibility, this is really, I think, some of the most exciting stuff in neurology. And your article did a fantastic job of distilling those rapid advancements and clarifying some of the evidence behind some of these new evolving treatment selections and imaging modalities, and it's exciting. So, let's just start with thrombolysis. Where are we now with IV thrombolytics and the time windows there?

Dr Leon-Guerrero: So, a lot has changed in the last decade, since that initial trial with NINDS, nearly thirty years ago. We're still giving intravenous thrombolysis in the traditional time window up to 4.5 hours, and really emphasizing we should be selecting patients for treatment early and quickly as possible. In most of those cases, a non-con head CT is sufficient to rule out bleeding and initiate treatment as quickly as possible. Where things have gotten really exciting is using advanced neuroimaging to help select patients beyond that traditional 4.5 hour window, and we're able to treat patients even up to twenty-four hours from symptom onset.

Dr Albin: Which is really exciting. It has really totally shifted the paradigm here. You know, I think most listeners are going to be pretty familiar with three to four and a half hours. Like, that's sort of our standard. What can you tell us about some of the advanced imaging we're using for that later selection period?

Dr Leon-Guerrero: It's around the principle of you want to be able to, uh, rescue significant salvageable tissue without a lot of core. So, this large profusion deficit and small core is really how you're trying to select out these patients. And two types of modalities are used. One is going to be MRI, and a lot of those imaging protocols, you know, are outlined in the WAKE UP trial and basically are looking for patients with DWI hyperintense lesions and FLAIR negative lesions to suggest that patients in an early time window that's treatable for thrombolysis. And then in the other category, we'll be using profusion imaging, whether that's CT profusion or MR profusion, to look for patients with large salvageable tissue.

Dr Albin: Yeah. And I think that this has been one of the things that, to me, has been really impactful is I think when WAKE UP came out, it was exciting. It was fun to sort of think about, "Hey, we're going to be able to use MRI." But MRI can be very challenging to get acutely, especially in community centers where they don't have the capabilities to get someone from the emergency department into an MRI rapidly enough to make thrombolysis decisions. So, to see some of that expand to CT profusion has been really exciting. How are you going about sort of counseling patients or thinking about their risk when you're using some of those, like, advanced imaging techniques?

Dr Leon-Guerrero: Yeah. I think it's similar to the conversations we've had with patients even within the traditional 4.5 hour window. The risk for intravenous thrombolysis is hemorrhage, and counseling patients on the, you know, the risk and benefits of hemorrhage and the potential clinical benefit of receiving thrombolytics is important. And then providing patients with that information to make an informed decision, so that they can make the best decision for their own care.

Dr Albin: Totally. And it's, again, time sensitive, but trying to give families enough information and enough time to sort of process those, especially when it's a little bit beyond the standard that we're so used to consenting for. The other big area that's really changed is that tenecteplase has become the star of the show. It's really gained momentum, so what should clinicians understand about this?

Dr Leon-Guerrero: Yeah. There's been an explosion of data over the last decade on tenecteplase supporting its use for clinical practice. You know, there was recent updates even from the neurology journal with a large meta-analysis with all of the data showing good clinical outcomes and perhaps even lower risk of bleeding. And so, I think you're seeing a lot of centers across the country switching from alteplase to tenecteplase. There's some practical advantages. So tenecteplase is a one-time bolus dose. And then biologically, it seems to have better fibrin specificity, longer half-life, which may ultimately make it a more attractive drug and may make it even more effective. But I think the practical aspects of tenecteplase are not to be understated. I think there's a lot of advantages for speed and efficiency and for centers to make that switch.

Dr Albin: Yeah. I remember when our health system made the pivot from alteplase to tenecteplase. Like any changes, that obviously created some adjustments with the new workflow. But, the fact that this could be given just as a one-time dose and not with the "we got to calculate the bolus, and now we got to get the infusion on board," like really simplified workflow. So, I think that's been pragmatically one of the nicest things we've done in stroke care. Really exciting.

Dr Leon-Guerrero: Yeah. And, you know, it's a doable thing. I think you have to be, very deliberate about it at whatever center you're at to make sure that all stakeholders are aware of that change. I think that's helpful to get everybody involved and have a lot of planning to avoid wrong dosing errors or inadvertently dosing as alteplase versus tenecteplase. But it's certainly doable, and I think in the long term, centers that have switched have been pretty satisfied with tenecteplase.

Dr Albin: And you know, initially when this came out, there really was sort of a debate about, is it gonna be 0.25? Was it gonna be 0.4? Where have we landed with that debate?

Dr Leon-Guerrero: So, I think we found the correct dose is 0.25 milligrams per kilogram is the recommended dose with a max out of 25 milligrams. There's some within the American Heart Association guidelines that were just published. They mentioned even tier dosing based on 10 kilograms, so intervals. So, that may be an easier way for centers to do it. But that cap out dose of 25 milligrams at 0.25 milligrams per kilogram, I think, is the sweet spot.

Dr Albin: Yeah. That's great, and I think that that has helped, you know, say, "This is what we're doing. There's not a debate that's happening anymore." And that really just got codified in the new ASA guidelines, so really exciting there. So, there is a lot of guidance for these patients, but I think one of the things that your article really tackled is the fact that there are some special populations, where we really still don't have a lot of guidance. And so, I think just to kind of distill those for the listeners, thinking about our pregnant patients, thinking about children, how are we approaching thrombolysis decisions in these special populations?

Dr Leon-Guerrero: These are always tough cases. For example, for pregnant women, they've often been excluded in the thrombolytic trials. But there's still evidence. You know, there's some inference based on the evidence we do have, and there's a lot of registry and case reports suggesting potential safe treatment for pregnant women. And I think when you're approaching those cases, again, it's gonna be patient-centered and really should be multidisciplinary. These are the types of cases you really need to lean on your maternal fetal medicine colleagues, your high-risk OBGYNs, your obstetricians to help with that decision-making. And I think, a multidisciplinary approach is the way to go for these cases. It's the same thing with the pediatric population. We had some data. There was one trial, randomized control trial, called TIPS trial that looked at using intravenous alteplase for acute ischemic stroke in patients under the age of 18. It had difficulty with enrollment. But I think most experts would argue that patients with pediatric stroke should be considered for intravenous thrombolysis if appropriate. Again, same thing. You want to make it a multidisciplinary approach, really getting your pediatric neurologists, your pediatricians involved early to make the best decision for the patient.

Dr Albin: Yeah. That's just really an important takeaway, just thinking about this as a multidisciplinary decision, because there are going to be other stakeholders to the patient's care who may have some different information than what we as neurologists are bringing to the approach. And obviously, our perspective really matters. But trying to work in everyone's unique vantage point of the patient really helps to make the most effective decision. When we talk about acute ischemic stroke care, I really don't think that you could do justice to the topic without pivoting to mechanical thrombectomy, which, you know, as we think about how the medical field as a whole, not just neurology, how the medical field has evolved. I mean, there's probably no bigger impact than mechanical thrombectomy has made in terms of reducing not just morbidity, but mortality from stroke. I mean both. So, thrombectomy has been around for a while, but just walk our listeners through what's the core that we for sure know that these are the patients that this works for?

Dr Leon-Guerrero: The types of patients we should be selecting for intervention are patients with large vessel occlusions. And those initial trials that were published in 2015 really demonstrated that this is a quite an effective treatment for patients with large vessel occlusion ischemic strokes in the anterior circulation. When that smattering of publications occurred in 2015, the general consensus, we should be treating all patients up to six hours from symptom onset if they do have a large vessel occlusion. And then, Dr. Albin, as you know, the, the windows continue to expand. So, we were using advanced neuroimaging with MR selection and perfusion selection based on DAWN and DEFUSE 3 trial protocols to select patients all the way out to the 24 window, and it's even expanded beyond that over the last few years.

Dr Albin: I think that when we think about trials that really, totally, changed the game, when we think about DAWN and DEFUSE 3, and we switched from that time-based window to more of that, like we talked about for thrombolysis, that tissue-based clock and, like, looking at what is salvageable and where can we make an impact on salvageable tissue, truly moved the needle in terms of just bringing this therapy for people who, you know, it's hard to get in within six hours. When we moved the needle to 24, it made a huge difference. But people were still coming in with a lot of ischemic damage already done, and they would have traditionally been excluded from being enrolled in thrombectomy trials. But that's changing too. So where are we there?

Dr Leon-Guerrero: Yeah. I think there were lessons learned from DEFUSE and DAWN that we were probably over-selecting. Perhaps too stringent. You know, we had number needed to treat in the range of two to three for good outcome based on those trials. And so, I think those were lessons learned to move forward, and we, and, and people started looking at large core infarctions. And in the last few years, we've seen a multitude of randomized control trials examining large core infarctions. These are patients with ASPECT scores all the way down to zeros. A lot of the trials relied on three to six as their score, but there was at least one large core study that looked at ASPECT scores down to zero to two, and all of these studies showing benefit.

Dr Albin: Yeah. And we've really moved into if there's some tissue to spare there, probably getting clot out really makes a big difference in impact. You know, it was really surprising to me as a neurointensivist looking at these trials, that the trials had such low rates of hemorrhage, and pretty low rates of dramatic cerebral edema after thrombectomy. I don't know that we've seen all of that in sort of real world applications, but again, we are still seeing some of these patients come in, that really would've been devastated having some amount of functional recovery regained, which is incredible. In terms of another patient population that I think gives a lot of people pause or stickiness, is those basilar artery occlusions, right? Another large vessel, but one that we've had a little bit harder of a time enrolling in trials and having well-selected trials. Where are we now on whether or not basilar artery occlusion should go to mechanical thrombectomy?

Dr Leon-Guerrero: So, a lot of excitement in this area, too. There's at least two studies that were published in the last five years that were showing benefit in doing thrombectomy for patients with basilar artery occlusion up to 24 hours, and these were patients with moderate to severe deficits with NIH Stroke Scale scores greater than 10. And then making sure that they don't have large core, so using a newer scoring algorithm on the CAT scan called PC ASPECT, so basically a posterior circulation ASPECT score, to kind of make sure that patients don't have large core infarctions that are being considered for thrombectomy. All of those things collectively in those two recent studies, the ATTENTION trial and the BAOCHI trial, I think is what ended up making those studies positive, is that we were selecting the right types of patients, uh, without large core, early core, and patients with moderate to severe deficits that made the difference from previous trials.

Dr Albin: Yeah. I think that that's so important. Those trials to me, and like how long it took to get those enrolled, really emphasized to me that there really was a selection bias. Like, we believed this worked, which made it hard to then do a trial. But I'm so glad to hear that we have the data now to support moving forward in a more rigorous way.

Dr Leon-Guerrero: You're absolutely right. I think that was some of the challenges with the initial trials. In fact, the authors had commented on that. There's a lot of difficulties with lack of clinical equipoise, or experts wanting to take these patients anyways out of clinical trial and treat them, and so that's always been an issue. And then, you know, we all remember basilar artery occlusion cases. They can be severe, devastating cases in our career, but the reality is they're not that common. So, if you look at large vessel occlusions, they only account for about 10%, and if you look at all stroke patients presenting to most centers, they represent about 1% of cases. So really hard clinical trials to do just because there's thankfully not a lot of patients walking around with basilar artery occlusions, but certainly makes for challenges when you're trying to conduct randomized controlled trials on this subset of patients.

Dr Albin: Absolutely. But we did it, and I think that, like, really if, if the listeners take nothing else, it's that the field of vascular neurology is really moving forward with evidence-based, doing very rigorously controlled clinical trials, which is, I think, is what makes this field so exciting. Finally, closing out, cause we could talk all day, but we don't have all day. You know, it seems to me that more and more we are just using dual antiplatelet therapy all the time. And maybe that is, uh, a little bit of a hyperbole, cause I don't think it's all the time, but let's walk through— when is there good evidence for dual antiplatelet therapy?

Dr Leon-Guerrero: Yeah. So, there's strong evidence for early initiation of dual antiplatelet therapy or DAPT in patients with minor stroke or high-risk TIAs, and it's been studied using both clopidogrel as an add-on to aspirin and ticagrelor. Both seem like they're viable options in patients. I think one of the key things is the duration of therapy. So, in these cases with minor stroke and high-risk TIAs, we really should be confining the treatment of early DAPT for 21 days. The risk profile changes, so the risk of recurrent stroke starts to decline with time, and that risk of hemorrhage complications increases with time. And so that sweet spot of 21 days, or even some centers will do 30 days for just practical purposes, you know, really is what we should be doing in most of those cases. Other instances where DAPT can be considered, is in patients with intracranial atherosclerosis that's symptomatic, extrapolating from the SAMMPRIS trial that in the, in the medical management arm alone, used dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel for up to 90 days. So,

Pregnancy and the postpartum period are critical windows of increased stroke risk, driven by physiologic changes such as hypercoagulability and blood pressure fluctuations. This episode highlights key warning signs, including headache and hypertension, along with practical guidance on evaluation, management, and risk reduction to improve outcomes for pregnant and postpartum patients.

In this episode, Kait Nevel, MD, speaks with Michelle H. Leppert, MD, author of the article "Pregnancy and Stroke Risk" in the Continuum® June 2026 Cerebrovascular Disease issue.

Dr. Nevel is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a neurologist and neuro-oncologist at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, Indiana.

Dr. Leppert is an associate professor of neurology at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Pregnancy and Stroke Risk

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: @humich

Full episode transcript available here

Dr Nevel: The time during and around pregnancy is often thought of as a very joyful time, full of hope. But for some, medical complications such as stroke can lead to devastating disability and sometimes even death. Today, we're going to learn about pregnancy and postpartum stroke, including stroke risk evaluation and best practices in management and risk reduction to help our pregnant and peripartum patients reduce stroke risk and achieve best possible outcomes.

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. Michelle Leppert about her article on pregnancy and stroke risk. This article appears in the June 2026 Continuum issue on cerebrovascular disease. Michelle, welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to the audience.

Dr Leppert: My name is Michelle Leppert. I'm a stroke neurologist, and I currently work at the Tufts Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts.

Dr Nevel: Thank you so much for being here, Michelle, and I'm looking forward to talking to you about your article. I always love starting with the question, what's the most important takeaway from your article for the practicing neurologist?

Dr Leppert: I think in this article, I'm trying to highlight that during pregnancy and especially postpartum, there's a heightened risk of stroke for women, and that's important for clinical neurologists to understand that this is a particularly vulnerable time for the population that we take care of. I think that one of the few of the things that could be informing this heightened stroke risk are the physiological changes that women undergo during pregnancy. So, that includes coagability, where there's an increased likelihood of clotting, and also the cardiovascular adaptations, including increased cardiac output and having an increased cardiac volume. And all of these mechanisms all contribute to the increased risk of strokes around pregnancy and postpartum.

Dr Nevel: Great. Thanks for that. What are some of the unique aspects of stroke types in etiology in pregnancy that we should be aware of?

Dr Leppert: When we think of strokes overall, generally the majority of our strokes are ischemic. So, for the overall population, about eighty-seven percent of strokes are ischemic, while the remainder are hemorrhagic. However, interestingly, during pregnancy, what we're seeing is about half of our strokes become hemorrhagic strokes, and now only a half of our strokes are ischemic, and this is in contrast to what we see in the overall population. One of the reasons is because pregnancy is associated with preeclampsia, and preeclampsia increases the risk of hemorrhagic stroke during pregnancy.

Dr Nevel: Can you tell us just more about headache in general in pregnancy and association of headache with secondary causes of headache and how that relates to stroke risk in this patient population? It seems like in this patient population that when somebody has a headache, we need to be very careful in our headache questions and evaluation.

Dr Leppert: Yeah. And I think the most concerning symptom that we're finding in this population is headaches, and the reason is because headaches is one of the clinical signs of having preeclampsia, which dramatically increases your risk of having a stroke, and especially a hemorrhagic stroke. So just to back up, we can talk about blood pressure for a little bit and some of the pathophysiologic changes during pregnancy. What most people may not know is that there's a dramatic vascular expansion that occurs during pregnancy. And somewhere during the second trimester, your blood pressure is actually the lowest. So, it can drop below pre-pregnancy levels and make your blood pressure appear low for the baseline. However, during the third trimester, as the baby is growing, there is increased vascular volume. The blood pressure starts to increase. We're seeing some of the highest prevalence of blood pressures, which is a sign for preeclampsia, and headaches develop during that third trimester, and particularly during the time around delivery and postpartum. And one of the most concerning signs, the most common sign of preeclampsia is having a headache. So, I think that with any patient that's presenting with a headache, especially during the third trimester or after delivery, that we really need to pay attention and take their blood pressure. That's one of the easiest clinical indicators that something could be going very wrong. Some of the other red flags clinically that we look for in headaches is that acute onset of a severe headache. That headache quality is different from what they usually have. Any woman with focal neurological symptoms associated with their headache, kind of excessive nausea and vomiting that's not characteristic for them. Not getting any relief with medications, and then lastly, checking that blood pressure is very important.

Dr Nevel: And what are the thoughts on blood pressure management in this patient population? I know that there is a little bit of difference in guidance in some of the obstetric societies on how we should manage blood pressure in this patient population. And then, is there anything beyond blood pressure management that we should be thinking about doing for this patient population to reduce their stroke risk?

Dr Leppert: I think that's a good question, and I hadn't really understood that this could be an area of controversy, cause my practice is mostly in stroke, and for most of adult population, the guidelines for blood pressure is very clear. We treat everybody over 130/80. If you're elderly, then your blood pressure limit might be a little higher. However, there's disagreement in the OBGYN guidelines from the American guidelines to the European guidelines. So, what the current American guidelines suggests is that if you have a history of chronic hypertension, then we would want your blood pressure treated during pregnancy below 140/90. However, if you don't have a history of chronic hypertension, then we allow the blood pressure to be higher and then it's an acute intervention if it's anything over 160. One of the issues with this strategy that is concerning is we had just mentioned that the pathophysiology of a pregnancy where you have the lowest blood pressure in that second trimester, and so your blood pressure may be abnormally good. [laughs] And it appears that it's better than your baseline. And so, by the OBGYN definition, any gestational blood hypertension is considered at 20 weeks and later. Sometimes these blood pressures are masked in some women who are pregnant. I think regardless of the controversy and what the practice should be, the focus is that most of the strokes are happening actually peripartum and postpartum, right? So, the woman's no longer pregnant. It is these time periods of the highest risk that we wanna make sure that the blood pressure is controlled. So, after the woman delivers the baby, we're no longer, you know, hampered by the whatever is chronic or gestational. We should be treating that blood pressure to 140/90. I think that not focusing on the controversy until the science catches up is probably what we should do. But like, really, the message here is that we should be checking women around the time of delivery and also postpartum, that we can't forget about their blood pressures postpartum, cause it actually doesn't peak until day five after they deliver the baby.

Dr Nevel: Does knowing that, that blood pressure peaks around day five, do you think that that should impact how we counsel patients in checking their blood pressure at home? Cause most women at day five are home. They're not still in the hospital.

Dr Leppert: Yeah, I think that's a really good point. One of the best interventions has been having a blood pressure at home for pregnant women. So even during their pregnancy and then postpartum, allow them to check their blood pressures, cause there's... Most of the cases, to be honest, that I've seen of preeclampsia and intracranial hemorrhage has happened postpartum. And I think what's unfortunate is that the woman is at home, they're distracted cause they have a newborn baby. They have a headache. They're just taking some Tylenol. And then if you have that blood pressure cuff readily accessible, that's a, a really easy way for them to check and notice that, hey, the blood pressure's too high, they have to go into the hospital.

Dr Nevel: Yeah, absolutely, and it's not just like a headache because you're sleep deprived and have a newborn. It's a headache that you need to pay attention to. Okay, maybe we could talk a little bit now about evaluation when we are suspicious of potential stroke. What do we need to know about imaging modalities and safety considerations of imaging in this patient population?

Dr Leppert: Yeah, that's a great question. I think when I was training, it was fairly controversial to give a pregnant woman MR contrast with gadolinium during their pregnancy. And as I was researching for this article, actually there's not definitive evidence that that is harmful for the fetus. However, in general, for the acute evaluation of patients during pregnancy, we're recommending using the CAT scan and then a CT angiogram. And then if the acute evaluation is not necessary, then an MRI. And if we need vessel imaging, you can employ an MRA time-of-flight study. That doesn't require the gadolinium contrast. However, one thing that I learned from this article that I thought was really interesting was the use of abdominal shielding. So, you're scanning someone's brain. I always thought, "Hey, doesn't it make sense to put a lead shield over the abdomen?" It turns out the lead shield actually interferes with the automatic calibration of the CT machine, so studies have found that actually increases the dose of radiation that the fetus is exposed to. So, it's much better when we're doing acute evaluations to not shield the abdomen, and really the only thing that can help reduce the radiation dose is the duration of the study. So, what we would recommend is if you want a rapid CT angiogram, rapid CT head, go ahead and obtain it. But if you don't need extra sequences, like a delayed phase of the CT angiogram, then to avoid that and reduce the exposure.

Dr Nevel: I'm so glad that you talked about that because I was shocked when I read that in your article that we shouldn't be using abdominal shielding in pregnant women. I had no clue. I thought that that was, like, something that we absolutely should do. So, I found that really interesting. Thank you for that. So, any special considerations for acute stroke intervention or management in pregnancy in the postpartum phase, especially things like thrombolysis and thrombectomy?

Dr Leppert: Yeah. So, I think that as our evidence is getting better for thrombectomy, I would be more judicious about using IV thrombolysis, especially around the time of delivery, cause there is some evidence that it can be associated with postpartum hemorrhage. Patient selection, I think, is key here. So, women who have disability associated with their stroke, and then women who aren't candidates for thrombectomies are still candidates for IV thrombolysis. But understanding that this is a little bit of an unchartered territory for us, and only using IV thrombolytics when we think that there is a big benefit to be had.

Dr Nevel: Can you talk a little bit more about RCVS and PRESS in pregnancy and some of the overlap that we see in this patient population and its relationship to preeclampsia? It seems like there's a lot of interconnections there, and I thought that that was pretty interesting in your article.

Dr Leppert: Right now, the thinking is that RCVS and PRESS are on the same spectrum of pathology, and we think that it has something to do with the autoregulation of vascular resistance in the posterior circulation of the brain. We're not sure what triggers this, but there is something about pregnancy that classically we'll see this postpartum RCVS phenomenon. It likely has to do also with blood pressure that we're seeing. So really classically we think of this, like, thunderclap headache. You see vasospasms on imaging that is transient, that are kind of the classical signs of RCVS. But I think that we're still not completely sure what triggers it, but it's a very well-described clinical phenomenon.

Dr Nevel: Great. Thank you. Could you share a little bit about migraines in pregnancy and stroke risk? [laughs] I also thought that this also a segment of your article that caught my attention because migraines are so common. What's the association of migraine, pregnancy, and stroke risk?

Dr Leppert: Yeah. So that's a very complicated association. So, we know that migraines are associated independently with strokes, and especially people with migraines with aura. However, migraines are also highly associated with PFOs, right? And during pregnancy, what we see is that there is a hypercoagulability state, and so we see lots more DVTs, we see more PEs associated with women during pregnancy. So potentially, because migraineurs also are more likely to have PFOs, they could be presenting with more cardioembolic, kind of paradoxical emboli from these thrombus. But I'm not quite sure that we know why migraines in and of itself, especially with migraines with aura, lead to strokes. And especially during pregnancy, I'm not sure because we have very little understanding about pathophysiology of pregnancy while having migraines with aura also leads to more strokes, or that risk is really just associated with PFOs. So, I think that we need to think about that a lot more. The recommendation is a baby aspirin if you have some of these risk factors for preeclampsia, any vascular risk factors, and including migraines with aura during pregnancy. And we think that baby aspirin is relatively safe, especially starting around the 12 to 16-week period.

Dr Nevel: So just to clarify, in a woman who's pregnant, who's 12 weeks or beyond in their pregnancy and who has migraine with aura, is that a patient that we should consider aspirin for them to reduce their stroke risk?

Dr Leppert: I think you can. I am not sure that there is a specific recommendation. I think that, like, a conversation with your OBGYN is, you know, a good idea. But we do recommend that baby aspirin for women, um, above 35 years old because it's considered advanced maternal age. And then we recommend baby aspirin with women with a history of hypertension, multiple gestations, diabetes, renal disease, autoimmune disease. So, I definitely think that is something to consider.

Dr Nevel: Yeah. Interesting. Okay, great. Thank you for that. When someone has a stroke and they're pregnant again, what are some strategies for secondary stroke prevention? And you mentioned some of the primary risk reduction, but are there any others that you haven't mentioned yet other than aspirin and blood pressure control for primary prevention?

Dr Leppert: Yeah, absolutely. So, I think that it's important to plan ahead. So, for women who are thinking about getting pregnant after they've had a stroke, one of the tenets of stroke neurology is trying to figure out why the first stroke happened. So, I feel like before getting pregnant, it's great to have a very thorough stroke workup so that you understand what the risk factors were and that those risk factors are controlled. One of the interventions, one of the only interventions that's, has evidence in young people with strokes is PFO closure. So, if you do have a stroke from a PFO, we recommend you get that closed prior to your pregnancy because then hopefully even given the hypercoagulability of pregnancy, there's some protection against another embolic stroke.

Dr Nevel: Another really interesting part of your article that I did not know before I read it was about the risk of cardiovascular disease long term in women who have had stroke during pregnancy. Could you talk a little bit more about that?

Dr Leppert: What we understand is that gestational diabetes and gestational hypertension sets you up for having diabetes and hypertension later on in life, and it's really developing the actual diabetes to the hypertension that increases your risk of strokes. So, what's really an important takeaway for providers is that after women develop gestational diabetes or they have gestational hypertension or they develop preeclampsia, it's very important for their primary or their neurologist to be very vigilant of these risk factors developing so that they can be modified before the women are at higher risk for strokes. And the reason why we think this happens is because pregnancy is like a stress test for your body. And so, the fact that you've developed the gestational diabetes or the gestational hypertension kind of already suggests that you're more likely and more vulnerable to developing these traditional risk factors later on.

Dr Nevel: That makes sense. Thank you for that. What do you think is a common misconception about stroke in pregnancy?

Dr Leppert: When I was earlier in my training, it kind of felt like having a stroke during pregnancy was being struck by lightning. It was really random. There was nothing you could do. It just happened to people. And I think as I learned more in my career, and especially researching for this article, I'm kind of shocked and disturbed by how much of the strokes in pregnancy we can actually prevent. Through management and monitoring of blood pressure for women. And so, I do think that it does our patients a disservice if we think that these are rogue events. But really, it might be a sign of the failure of our health system where we're not taking care of women around their delivery and postpartum and being more vigilant about their blood pressure and more vigilant about the clinical signs that they're developing.

Dr Nevel: Yeah, I really got that from your article, how important it is to monitor for blood pressure and other risk factors, and that that continues after the baby's born. Thank you so much for that, and thank you for talking with me today about your article about stroke and pregnancy. Again, today I've been interviewing Dr. Michelle Leppert about her article on pregnancy and stroke risk. This article appears in the June 2026 Continuum issue on cer

Primary stroke prevention is a critical opportunity for neurologists, with most stroke risk driven by modifiable factors such as hypertension and lifestyle behaviors. This episode highlights practical tools and strategies, including Life's Essential 8 and contemporary risk calculators, while also exploring evolving approaches to shared decision making and secondary prevention.

In this episode, Katie Grouse, MD, FAAN, speaks with Mitchell S. Elkind, MD, MS, FAAN, author of the article "Stroke Prevention" in the Continuum® June 2026 Cerebrovascular Disease 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. Elkind is the Chief Science Officer for Brain Health and Stroke at the American Heart Association in Dallas, Texas, and a professor of neurology and epidemiology at Columbia University in New York, New York.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Stroke Prevention

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: @MitchElkind

Full episode transcript available here

Dr Grouse: Neurologists have generally been more involved in secondary stroke prevention, but primary stroke prevention is increasingly recognized as an important topic of discussion for neurologists. Today, I have the opportunity to interview Dr. Mitchell Elkind, who wrote the article on stroke prevention in the newest Continuum issue on cerebrovascular disease.

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. Mitchell Elkind about his article on stroke prevention. This article appears in the June 2026 Continuum issue on cerebrovascular disease. Welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to the audience.

Dr Elkind: Thank you so much, Katie. So, my name is Mitch Elkind, and I'm the Chief Science Officer for Brain Health and Stroke at the American Heart Association and a stroke neurologist by background.

Dr Grouse: Well, I just want to start by saying that I really enjoyed reading this article. I think this is just a really wonderful article I recommend strongly. Such a high yield, an important topic for a lot of us who see patients who are interested in learning about their stroke risks or need help with, uh, stroke prevention after having a stroke. So, I wanted to start. What's changed in the last couple of years? You know, what are some big highlights that you really want to stress that are different from maybe the last time we reviewed this topic?

Dr Elkind: Sure. Well, there's been a lot of development in the field of secondary stroke prevention, for one thing. But even beyond that, I think we increasingly appreciate how important it is to control what we call the social drivers of health on the earlier side, primordial or primary prevention. And that has been a big advance, I'd say. And I would also say, I think it's really important for neurologists to understand some of those questions about primordial and primary prevention. You know, we tend to get involved with patients after they've had a stroke or maybe a TIA, some kind of event. But sometimes we find people who are following for, you know, non-stroke related conditions who have risk factors also. And we can really play an important role in identifying those risk factors and helping to prevent a first stroke or vascular event as well. So, I think it's real important for us to be doctors even before we're neurologists. So, you know, Katie, about ninety percent of stroke risk is modifiable, so we can do a great job as neurologists in preventing stroke. And one of the most important things that we can do is to identify and treat high blood pressure. And recently, actually, the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology guidelines on the management of hypertension have said that treatment of high blood pressure not only prevents stroke, but it can also help to prevent cognitive decline and dementia. And this is the first time that we've had a class of recommendation one and level of evidence A, the highest level of recommendation we give for the use of blood pressure treatment to prevent dementia. And that's largely based on the results of some large trials that have come out recently showing that you can prevent dementia with blood pressure control. So that's a really exciting link, I think, between cardiovascular risk factor control and subsequent brain health. It just illustrates the role that neurologists can play in, so many conditions outside of stroke as well.

Dr Grouse: That's a really great point, and I want to get a little more into the idea of primordial stroke prevention. Can you tell us a little bit more about what that might be?

Dr Elkind: So primordial prevention refers to addressing how we can prevent risk factors from occurring in the first place, and how can we improve the environments in which people live. You know, we know that only about twenty percent of health outcomes is dependent on what happens between the patient and their doctor in the office. About eighty percent of it is due to what happens in the environments in which we live, work, pray, and play. And so that's what we mean when we refer to the social drivers of health. What is the neighborhood like where somebody lives? Do they have access to healthy food? Do they have places where they can go to exercise? Is there air pollution in the area that may affect their health? You know, one really interesting fact that's become apparent in the last few years is that air pollution is a major risk factor for stroke. Something like a sixth of all strokes can be attributed to the quality of air. And so, what are the things we can do at the broader public policy, community level to reduce the risk of risk factors like high blood pressure and diabetes even before somebody has an event that brings them to the attention of the doctor? So that's what we're thinking about with regard to primordial prevention. It's the earliest stage in prevention.

Dr Grouse: And that's really fascinating. You know, I think an area that we haven't, as neurologists, really put a lot of our time thinking about, but clearly a very important thing. I really appreciated reading your article about how you incorporated the fact that, you know, a lot of these risk factors overlap very, very closely with all the risk factors for various types of cardiovascular events. And I would imagine that the work you've done as the Chief Clinical Science Officer for the American Heart Association has informed a lot of the way you've thought about-Trying to bring all these risks together and think a little bit more holistically about the whole thing. Could you tell us a little bit more about that and the work that you've done on the American Heart Association's Life's Essential 8 score?

Dr Elkind: Sure. I can't take credit for it. It's really work that was done by others at the Heart Association, particularly a cardiologist and epidemiologist named Don Lloyd-Jones. But many other volunteers participated. Life's Essential 8 is our approach to primary stroke prevention and cardiovascular prevention more broadly. We say Life's Essential 8 because it includes four health behaviors and four health factors that people can observe to reduce their risk of cardiovascular disease. The four factors are kind of things like know your numbers, your blood pressure, your blood sugar, your body mass index, right, which is a combination of weight and height, and your cholesterol level. So, know those numbers and keep them within the recommended ranges, and talk to your doctor if they're not. And then four lifestyle behaviors. So, one of them is to eat a healthy diet, and typically that means the Mediterranean diet. It means getting regular exercise, and we recommend 150 minutes a week of moderate to vigorous physical activity. Of course, it means abstinence from smoking or other tobacco products. And the last one, the eighth one, which I was so excited about when we added this, is sleep, recommending at least seven hours of sleep a night. So, I was really excited about this because we used to talk about Life's Simple 7, and then the last iteration of our recommendations included this recommendation for adequate sleep because of the mounting evidence of the importance of sleep to cardiovascular health. But sleep is really a brain function, right? And so, it was really the first, in a way, specific brain function that was added to our recommendations. So that's Life's Essential 8. People can read about it online at heart.org and recommend it to your patients as a simple way for people to understand the best approach to reducing their risk of cardiovascular disease, including stroke.

Dr Grouse: I checked it out myself after reading the article. It's very accessible to patients. It's a great education tool. And they can, you know, see their own score and use that in their own way to, to think about what their risks are and how they can help mitigate and then rescore themselves down the line. There's also, though, on the kind of more the clinician side, the PREVENT calculator as well. Could you tell us a little bit more about how we could use that in approaching this patient population?

Dr Elkind: Yeah. So, I think of Life's Essential 8 as being a patient-focused tool that people can use. PREVENT is really more for clinicians. Anybody can look it up online and enter your data into it. There's a risk calculator online. But the basic idea behind PREVENT and other similar risk calculators is that it's a way to estimate somebody's risk of having a cardiovascular event like stroke or a heart attack or even heart failure by entering information about your health. And we used to think, we used to use something called the ASCVD, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk calculator, or the Framingham score. Framingham Heart Score, for example, was another one. PREVENT is the latest version, and it has several advantages over those earlier types of risk predictors. For one thing, it predicts risk at younger ages as well. It goes down to age 30. It predicts risk over a longer duration of time, so over 30, 10 or 30 years. It eliminates the use of race as an item to put into the calculator and substitutes for that socioeconomic status, so it's not a race base, but a measure of social disadvantage. And it also includes kidney elements, kidney measures. It includes renal function, for example, that weren't included in prior measures, and it can also be used to predict heart failure, which was not part of the original calculators. Another major advantage of the PREVENT study is that it was based on real-world data from about three million patients, many, many more than the 50,000 or so that the earlier risk calculators were based on. So, it has a much more robust data set and therefore allows a bit more precision in the ability to predict future risk of events. And typically, primary care doctors would enter their patient's data, calculate a risk, and then based on the results of the risk calculator, they can make recommendations about what type of medications a person should take or what other strategies they could use to reduce their risk. And so that's the role that PREVENT plays, is really being focused more for the clinician than the patient.

Dr Grouse: Really great tool for us to be aware of. You earlier alluded to the fact that neurologists are in the situation where we sometimes are helping patients with this primary prevention. But you also make a case for why it's in the patient's best interest for us to be involved in, in these conversations when we can, when we have the opportunity. Can you tell us more about that?

Dr Elkind: Shared decision-making is really important because we know that people aren't going to lead the healthiest possible lives if they're not invested in their care. And so, a doctor telling somebody what to do if the patient doesn't want to do it is gonna have limited benefit.So we emphasize the importance of shared decision-making as much as possible. And I think that where this comes up a lot is actually in the situation of, for example, atrial fibrillation, where patients will often be put on a blood thinner. And many people are fearful of blood thinners. They worry about the risk of bleeding. Maybe they know a relative who's had a bleeding complication from a blood thinner, and so they may be disinclined to try it. And so, it's really important to have these discussions about the risks and the benefits of medication and engage the patient in thinking about this. And there are even tools and visual aids that people can look to to help explain some of these complicated concepts to patients. So, these are the kinds of things that reflect implementation science as a way to improve adherence. We know what works in a clinical trial setting often, but the challenge is translating that into the real world and getting our patients to use the medications that we believe scientifically have been shown to be of benefit. I've actually been surprised sometimes at conversations I've had with people, in some cases, healthcare professionals who resist going on blood thinners because of their fear of the complications. And I feel like the evidence is there. Why don't they believe me? And that's why it's really important to have the conversation. Even our peers and colleagues can sometimes question the evidence, and it's important for us to be aware of that.

Dr Grouse: Absolutely. I think that sounds very reasonable to me, and hopefully these tools will help us with making some of these decisions with our patients. Now, turning our attention a little bit to secondary prevention. So, you know, someone's already had a stroke or a TIA, sort of thinking about what we can do to optimize their risk factors for further strokes. You know, I think there has been some changes that have happened, I think, in the last few years that might be affecting some of the decisions we're making and some of the advice we're giving our patients. I wanted to talk a little bit about GLP-1 receptor agonist medications. Is the data there to support use of this either in secondary prevention or even in primary prevention in the case of stroke?

Dr Elkind: There is evidence that supports the use of GLP-1s for stroke prevention. We need more data, though. We need trials that focus only on patients with stroke, for example, there have been studies in patients with cardiovascular disease broadly that include stroke patients. But if you look at the subcategory just of stroke patients alone, the data in that subgroup alone don't always show a benefit. And so, we need more data that's focused on stroke patients alone. So, I think the data are continuing to emerge, but we need more still.

Dr Grouse: Is there any development in the thought about whether we should be putting patients on antiplatelet therapies for incidental, incidentally identified strokes? For instance, if you got an MRI for migraine or for other reasons and you found one, no history of any stroke-like symptoms. Should we be putting these patients on aspirin or any other types of therapies?

Dr Elkind: That's a really great question. And again, it's an area where there's some controversy and really, there's really no definitive data that would support using antiplatelet therapy in people with incidentally discovered infarcts or what we call, you know, whispering strokes or silent strokes. Many stroke neurologists will use antiplatelet agents. This is one of those areas where it's so important to identify the risk factors. As we were saying before, patients who have other neurological disorders like migraine or epilepsy may turn out to have cardiovascular risk factors like diabetes and high blood pressure. That's why it's so important for neurologists to be able to treat those patients or refer them to specialists who can. Patients who have incidentally discovered lesions similarly are a group where we should be looking for risk factors. So, I don't think of it only in terms of do we put them on an antiplatelet or not, but really more holistically, can we identify their other risk factors and address those? Should the patient's information be entered into a risk calculator like PREVENT, for example, so that we can come up with a more global or holistic measure of their cardiovascular risk and address that as appropriate? Because if they are at risk for stroke, they're also at risk for cardiac events, including heart attack, heart failure, sudden cardiac arrest, and so forth. So, I think of it as a, as a great kind of teachable moment or an opportunity to catch somebody and bring them into the healthcare system more broadly and address those other potential risk factors.

Dr Grouse: Speaking of, of risk factors that we often like to think about and work up when possible, in cases where it seems certainly possible the patient had an embolic stroke, but perhaps we've done a few weeks or four weeks of cardiac monitoring, have not found any evidence of atrial fibrillation. What's new and what's the current recommendations for doing further monitoring when there's high suspicion for cardioembolic stroke?

Dr Elkind: This is a really active area of investigation, and guidelines suggest that we should do some cardiac monitoring for atrial fibrillation after an unexplained stroke, but it's not clear how much we should do. Studies generally show that the longer you follow somebody on a cardiac monitor after stroke, the more likely you are to detect atrial fibrillation. It could be as high as thirty percent after a few years. And that's great. And if you detect atrial fibrillation, people usually end up being recommended for a blood thinner. But how extensively we should monitor remains unknown. And I think a lot of the investigation recently has been around the question of, are there other ways to get that information rather than waiting six months or a year for the person to develop atrial fibrillation?It's a little bit funny logically to think a person has a stroke today, a year later you discover atrial fibrillation on the monitor, and you say, "Oh, now I know what caused your stroke a year ago." Right? The temporality, the causality perhaps is off in that case. And so, wouldn't it be better if we could tell what somebody's risk of having another cardioembolic stroke is, or the likelihood that they have atrial fibrillation is at the time that you first see them for the stroke, you know, in the hospital, for example. And so, there's some really new technologies that have evolved like AI or artificial intelligence interpretation of EKGs that can give a really good indication of which people are gonna go on to develop atrial fibrillation. And so, I think we need some more trials in that area to demonstrate that we can detect the risk of AFib and treat that even before it appears on one of those delayed monitors. That's an area that I think is very exciting right now. There's also a further question with regard to how to treat these patients, which is that sometimes atrial fibrillation is a consequence of the stroke itself. So, we can think about what people call known AF, meaning atrial fibrillation that's known about before the stroke even occurs, versus AF that's detected after a stroke, or AF-DAS, peop

Social determinants of health, including housing, food access, insurance status, and structural inequities, significantly influence stroke prevention, recovery, and long term outcomes. These factors affect biological risk, treatment adherence, and disparities in care, even when traditional clinical measures are addressed. This episode highlights practical strategies for integrating screening, leveraging multidisciplinary teams, and identifying opportunities for advocacy to improve patient outcomes.

In this episode, Teshamae Monteith, MD, FAAN, speaks with Nneka L. Ifejika, MD, MPH, author of the article "Social Determinants of Health and Their Impacts on Stroke Prevention and Outcomes" in the Continuum® June 2026 Cerebrovascular Disease 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. Ifejika is an adjunct professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, Texas, and the chief scientific officer of the Division of Academics at Ochsner Health System in New Orleans, Louisiana.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Social Determinants of Health and Their Impacts on Stroke Prevention and Outcomes

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 Monteith: Two patients have the same stroke, but when they return, they have very different outcomes. We can look into some of their comorbidities, but something we don't spend enough time talking about is the social determinants of health. Stay tuned to this discussion. I promise you, you'll become a better neurologist.

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. Nneka Ifejika about her article on social determinants of health and their impacts on stroke prevention and outcomes. This article appears in the June 2026 Continuum issue on cerebrovascular disease. How are you? Welcome to our podcast.

Dr Ifejika: Thanks for having me. I'm doing great.

Dr Monteith: Great. So, can you introduce yourself to our audience?

Dr Ifejika: Sure. I'm Dr. Nneka Ifejika. I am the Chief Scientific Officer of Ochsner Health System in New Orleans, Louisiana. But I'm also a cerebrovascular rehabilitation doctor. I've been practicing for about nineteen years, and am happy and honored to be a contributor to this Continuum Neurology article. It's a really important topic.

Dr Monteith: Great. So, what got you into this field, first of all?

Dr Ifejika: Well, I was deciding between PM&R and neurology, and I was putting in both match lists. And I thought about it and I leaned toward PM&R, but stroke still had a grasp on my heart and my mind. And so, after I finished my residency, I joined the UT Houston stroke team, and I did a, thankfully did a two-year fellowship and became cross-trained in stroke as well as physical medicine rehab. So, I am a jack of both trades.

Dr Monteith: So, you got your way in a way.

Dr Ifejika: I did.

Dr Monteith: You know, we have a lot of learners that are listening, so it's always, uh, nice for them to be inspired, I think, by people's career paths. So why don't we talk about the objectives of your article?

Dr Ifejika: Sure. So, one of the most important things that we wanted to do was make sure that medical students, residents, faculty, and fellows understood the impact of social determinants of health on stroke recovery and stroke rehabilitation. It's not as simple as you have hypertension, hyperlipidemia, we're going to manage your stroke risk factors. Oh, you had an ischemic stroke. You presented in time for the window. We're going to give you endovascular therapy and then modified Rankin scale at hospital discharge in ninety days. No, no, no. The stroke survivor and their caregivers and their family have a lot more to deal with outside of what we look at during the acute stroke hospitalization and post-acute rehabilitation. Things like, can they afford the medication

that we're prescribing? Antiplatelet agents or anticoagulation can be extremely expensive. Do they have housing insecurity? Is there food insecurity? What's going on behind the scenes that we are not addressing that can directly impact the admission rate and the readmission rate after we take care of a stroke survivor?

Dr Monteith: I love the article because you took a real deep dive into social determinants of health, what they are, why they matter, and what we can do about them. And so why don't we talk a little bit about the NINDS framework for social determinants of health? I think many of us might not be familiar with the framework per se.

Dr Ifejika: So, the framework consists of multiple domains specifically that relate to social determinants of health that were published in Neurology a couple of years ago. So, I do hope that people who are hearing this recording actually read them. There are interpersonal domains, there are classic medical domains, there are indeterminate domains, and there are six total domains. And health domains are the last domain. So, things like when it comes to housing insecurity, food insecurity, that's a domain of social determinants of health. When it comes to chronic racism, when it comes to biases that patients experience, those actually impact outcomes. So, there are six separate indices that we're going to get into in detail and how we address them as clinicians, whether it be at the medical student level, resident level, faculty level, to integrate the social determinants of health in our care plans, because we could be doing a much better job. And I think it'll be really important from the interpersonal perspective when we really relate to our patients and their families that we ask these questions. For example, if we're prescribing someone to have treatment for their diabetes mellitus and ha- and, and be taking insulin, if they have housing insecurity and they're in a homeless shelter, they have to leave the homeless shelter during the day. So, what happens to the insulin that we prescribe? These are variables that we are not considering on a regular basis, but they directly relate to compliance.

Dr Monteith: Great. So that was one thing I wanted to bring up. We're very good at measuring blood pressure and trying to determine, uh, the association between stroke outcomes and things that we can measure, glucose, lipids, blood pressure. What is the evidence for social determinants of health and stroke outcome?

Dr Ifejika: The evidence is growing, and there have been many publications that have come out that are, are going to be highlighted in this article related to structural determinants of health inequities, like structural racism, as well as disparities related to ethnicity and race. There's geographical disparities. For example, a lot of patients are, are primarily concerned about rural versus urban, whether you have access to different post-acute rehabilitation, whether you have access to secondary stroke prevention because you simply don't have the transportation from a, a rural area to get to a drugstore to get things available to you. Social status. There are actually publication related to socioeconomic status and the concerns when it comes to air pollution. So particulate matter 2.5, we know that that has a direct impact on stroke outcomes and health overall, but we don't really think about it as a structural determinant of health inequity. There's several multiple layers of research that have gone on specifically that have been cited in the literature that relate directly to social determinants of health and how we can address them moving forward.

Dr Monteith: And what I found interesting in your article in that you gave at least a few examples where social factors like income, education were controlled for, and maybe in

large part it is, but even when you control for some of these very obvious social risk factors, you still have inequities.

Dr Ifejika: Absolutely. And I think it was really important to show that we had strong peer review evidence behind this, as it wasn't just something that we were creating or hypothesizing about. There have been studies that have been done over this over decades of time, showing the impacts of social determinants of health on outcomes. But the question and concern that we have is we know this growing body of literature continues to expand. What are we doing about it when it comes to education of the future generations of providers who will be caring for this population?

Dr Monteith: Before we get into how, you know, what we're going to do about that, let's just kind of put that link, cause the evidence is there. How does it drive biology?

Dr Ifejika: It's a great question. So, for example, particulate matter 2.5 in air pollution has been shown to have an existing impact on hypertension, raising your blood pressure. So that's a direct effect of a social determinant of health related to socioeconomic status because people who live in areas with higher air pollution are... They're not green spaces. They live near highways. Those are areas that unfortunately are also impacted by food deserts. Food deserts, if you're not able to get fresh fruits, vegetables, whole foods, increases your risk of developing diabetes, hyperlipidemia, also increases your sodium intake, again, increasing hypertension. These things are all connected to biological determinants. It's just that we're not asking about them necessarily within the social history when we're taking people into the hospital, but they have direct effects.

Dr Monteith: Great. Neurologists tend to be busy and, you know, we're... have all of these things that we're being asked to do and chart and click and all of that stuff. And so how can we more readily integrate screening for social determinants of health and that conversation into the work we do? We recognize it's important. We recognize it's an important risk factor. There's a lot of these determinants. So, what is a good way to do so? And I, I know that in the paper you've, you've given different roles to different team players, so I want you to talk about that too, but just kind of even a regular routine office visit. Walk us through a way we can more easily integrate that kind of conversation.

Dr Ifejika: It's an excellent question, and what I've recommended that we do in a standard office visit is utilize the time before the visit to send out screeners. So, for example, usually with an electronic medical record, you can send documents before the visit even starts, where people can check off whether they have any concerns regarding housing, food insecurity. They can check out their location of where they live, whether they live near a highway or not near a highway. It's specifically related to socioeconomic status. We can ask about insurance status, whether they have insurance, insured versus uninsured, but then also types of insurance, whether they have Medicaid insurance versus Medicare insurance. Then even drilling even further, type of Medicare insurance, Medicare Advantage versus traditional Medicare, cause all of those things actually play a role in this.

Dr Ifejika: And evaluate these things and don't take time during your office visit. Send these screeners out beforehand. Have them be assimilated by your medical staff. Make sure you're utilizing every resource that you have at your disposal to help streamline things, so by the time the person comes in for the visit, you've primed the pump. You

have this information already in your hands at your fingertips cause it was sent out in advance, and you have your medical staff already have an understanding of. If they didn't fill it out electronically, give it to them in the lobby. Make sure they have a handwritten copy in the lobby so that when they come into the office visit, you have the information at your fingertips.

Dr Monteith: Are there any particular resources that you recommend for those types of screeners?

Dr Ifejika: What I've used in the past, if you have patient-reported outcomes, so the PROMIS instruments, that's a good start. It doesn't get into the details of housing insecurity, food insecurity, but it's a good start to help prime questions and to start the conversation during your office visit. In my clinics, I do a PROMIS 27 on every patient, as well as a PHQ-9 for depression on everyone. And then I collect data longitudinally, and I can always drill down on factors that I noticed that could become a problem moving forward.

Dr Monteith: Yeah. And then also in your article, you spoke a bit about this impact from the acute presentation in the hospital to rehab.

Dr Ifejika: Yeah.

Dr Monteith: So why don't you talk about these different entry points where we can really engage our patients and try and help reduce their burden?

Dr Ifejika: Sure. So, healthcare can be quite fragmented, and the stroke patient, stroke survivor, and their family member have no grasp of that. They've had a stroke, and they may be going from the ER to the ICU to the stroke unit to the floor to the rehab unit, and we see it as multiple levels of care, multiple types of providers. They see it as one hospital. And the concern that we have is, at those branch points, things get dropped, and we have the opportunity to pick things up at those branch points. So, during the acute care hospitalization-Primarily, that's the establishment of what has happened, how we're gonna treat it, what are the variables that we can control for right now to address those determinants of health moving forward, and to specifically looking at whether they were taking medications before, whether they could afford medications before, what that looks like at hospital discharge. Is there any duplication of medications? If a person is taking Coreg and you prescribe metoprolol, but they still have the Coreg at home, should we have really prescribed the metoprolol? We're just spending money that they may have concerns when it comes to access to care and the cost of these prescriptions. So, it's the responsibility of the acute care physician to kind of look at that. Those are subtle things that we think are subtle, but they add up quickly for the family when it comes to having one group of medications that's the same class and having to buy another type. When it comes to post-acute rehabilitation, it's really an important time to screen for whether the caregiver can handle what's occurring. So specifically, if the caregiver is already burning out and the average length of stay for a stroke patient is five days and they've come to rehab for two weeks, what's gonna happen in the next two years or the next four years? So, during the post-acute rehabilitation phase, it's time to kind of look at that and drill down on those kind of questions. Also, the levels of care,

Dr Ifejika: it's really important to look at other levels of rehabilitation, so skilled nursing facilities, making sure people have access to that if they need to, if the caregiver is

burned out and they don't have the ability to go straight home. Because acute inpatient rehab, the goal of it afterwards, is to go straight home. It's not to go to another facility. So, you need to have that screener in place when it comes to whether the family can take care of this person, and whether the family can do it in an effective way to prevent them being readmitted.

Dr Monteith: Great. I also like that you spoke about kind of the team approach and different roles, both for screening and for intervention, both being very important, especially the intervention. And so why don't you give us a few examples how the team could break up the responsibility and how also for the intervention component that can be done.

Dr Ifejika: Sure. So, I broke up the team into several levels. So, the team medically is the medical student, resident, and faculty physician. However, the team also includes the support staff, so your case manager, your social worker, the therapist, physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, the pastoral services, all these members of the team. You know, sometimes as physicians, we don't read those notes. There's a lot of information in the notes from social work, care coordination, and the therapist. They get down to subtleties cause they're asking questions, for example, "What kind of equipment do you have at home? How many stairs do you have at home? What level of house do you have, one story, two story? If you live in an apartment, do you have an elevator access?" That's important for someone with hemiparesis. When it comes to medications, when it comes to insurance status, when it comes to your ability to have the mechanisms to pay for care as an outpatient, social workers are required to ask these questions cause they have to figure out resources for the patient and their family to help facilitate improved outcomes. So, they have to ask questions regarding these tasks. The concerns are, do we read what they're saying? So, it's really important to interact with them, and if it's not something that you're looking at in the chart, cause we're all so tied to our computers, find where they are in the hospital. Walk by their office and have a chat. Run your list with them, especially for people who you're concerned have vulnerabilities, and make sure that you're setting an example for your medical students with your faculty doing so. If you're looking at it from the medical student, resident, faculty perspective, medical students, listen. This is your opportunity to really contribute to the team as well as learn about social determinants of health and research in their fields. You are the boots on the ground for the medical team. You are the ones who should be priming the pump and asking these questions of the family members. We're sending you into the rooms to do a history and physical. Social determinants of health should be a part of your history and physical, and you should be taking what we're saying in this article and asking these questions and tying it into your resident. Now, the resident is the work person of the hospital. We all know this. Things run through the resident. Things run through the fellow. It's really important that they have this information in a manner that is negotiable. The list keeps getting longer, and a resident doesn't need to be overburdened. It needs to be synthesized in a manner that can help facilitate the resident being able to act as well as communicate any concerns to the faculty. And at the faculty level, we are the voices that can affect change. So, if there's any concerns when it comes to advocacy, research, making sure that people are accessing care in a way that makes sense, particularly when it comes to the ability for us to galvanize change on a national level, that's kind of our job.

Dr Monteith: Great, and so let's talk about intervention. What are things that, let's say, the neurologist can do to deal with some of these social factors?

Dr Ifejika: From the neurology perspective, I think it's really important to identify missed opportunities and making sure that we address them. For example, the conversations around the ability to have access to care related to insurance versus no insurance. There are many, many ways that neurologists are a

In this episode, Lyell K. Jones Jr, MD, FAAN, speaks with Cheryl Bushnell, MD, MHS, who served as the guest editor of the June 2026 Cerebrovascular Disease issue. They provide a preview of the issue, which publishes on June 3, 2026.

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. Bushnell is a Professor of Neurology and Director of the Center for Transformative Stroke Care at Wake Forest University School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

Additional Resources

Read the issue: continuum.aan.com

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

Host: @LyellJ

Guest: @CBushnellMD

Full episode transcript available here

Dr Jones: One of the core tenets of our field is that we learn neurology one stroke at a time. But what do we have to learn about preventing them altogether? The science of stroke prevention, acute treatment, and recovery are evolving rapidly, and it's hard to keep up. Today, we're speaking with Dr. Cheryl Bushnell, guest editor of our latest Continuum issue on Cerebrovascular Disease, to discuss these topics and much more.

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. Cheryl Bushnell, who is Continuum's guest editor for our latest issue on Cerebrovascular Disease. Dr. Bushnell is a professor of neurology and the director of the Center for Transformative Stroke Care at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, where she specializes in the care of stroke patients and their social and functional determinants of recovery and health, and is an internationally recognized expert on those topics. Dr. Bushnell, welcome. Thank you for joining us today. Why don't you introduce yourself to our listeners?

Dr Bushnell: Absolutely. Thank you for the invitation. It's really an honor to be here. So, as you mentioned, I am the director of the Center for Transformative Stroke Care at Wake Forest. It's a really fun transition for me to be involved with different care models for stroke, and I think a lot of the Continuum topics are directly relevant to some of the things that I'm doing now as an administrator and sort of a facilitator of new research. So, thanks again for having me.

Dr Jones: Yeah, and, and you have a wonderful perspective, and we're gonna pull that out today in our interview questions, and I'm looking forward to sharing that with our listeners. But before we get to the questions, we're gonna start off today's podcast with another Continuum Audio trivia question for our listeners. Anticoagulation has played a critical role in secondary ischemic stroke prevention for a long time now. While direct oral anticoagulants have taken on a greater role in the treatment of prevention of stroke, there are still some use cases for vitamin K antagonists like warfarin. The trivia question for our listeners is this: How was warfarin discovered, and how did it get its name? Stick around and we'll share the answer to that question toward the end of our interview today. So, Dr. Bushnell, let's get right to it. You alluded to your various roles, and your leadership in the field has been exemplary. The interventions for acute ischemic stroke have really exploded over the last decade or so, and they get a lot of attention and discussion, but prevention and recovery are just as important in the care of these patients. Tell us a little more about how you approached this issue, about the article topics you chose, etc.

Dr Bushnell: Well, once I was chosen to lead the guest editorship, I wanted to come up with a group of topics that were maybe a little bit different from previous issues. So, I kind of looked at the previous issues and saw, as you said, an emphasis on acute stroke, and that's really important because it has been evolving. But my thought was, how about what happens to patients after they get the intervention and they're discharged home? And because a lot of trainees may not get to see these patients ever again, or it's months before they might see them, or if they're readmitted, which is what we don't want to see, but that certainly is a lot of the exposure is in the inpatient setting. So, I thought I would kind of transport the education into the outpatient and transitional setting, as well as prevention, not only secondary, but primary prevention, with an emphasis on brain health. Some of the populations that may not get as much attention. So, sex differences, stroke in women, pregnancy, the transitions of care, and also the emphasis on holistic view of patients and their challenges, which includes the non-medical factors that drive health, otherwise known as social determinants of health.

Dr Jones: I appreciate that perspective, and obviously th-this is an area of your deep expertise, and it's great to have an issue that really digs into some of those topics a little more deeply. As an educator, I'm really glad you mentioned that about the trainee's perspective. You know, especially junior neurology trainees that are in the hospital all the time. They're seeing patients in the middle of a cerebrovascular catastrophe. But there's a long tail of recovery, right? And they'll get to see that in continuity clinic, but it's a good message to share from an evidence and, um, experiential perspective in the issue. So, appreciate that perspective. You've just read all these articles and edited them. Was there anything that you ran across that was a surprise to you?

Dr Bushnell: Well, I personally chose a lot of the authors based on my knowledge of their work. So, I wouldn't say that it was completely surprising, but I do think that I was just genuinely impressed with the quality of the writing and the synthesis of information. I just was incredibly proud of the work that these co-authors have put together. I'd say that that was-- it wasn't surprising so much as just a sense of pride that I had with the product that's coming out. But of course, there have been some new trials that had to be incorporated at the last minute, some of which were presented at the International Stroke Conference just a few weeks ago.

Dr Jones: Yeah. We try to be as up-to-date as we can, and I will completely agree with you. We have some really good writers in our field, and it's really just a pleasure when you read an article that's by an expert, and it's a joy to read. I can tell you it's one of the best parts of this job, and you get to learn a lot. I think one of the more challenging scenarios that I hear about from colleagues in recent years has been optimal management of patients with asymptomatic extracranial atherosclerosis. The pivotal trials that inform how we manage those patients were from a long time ago, decades ago, predating a lot of the more intensive medical management tools that we have today. In that scenario, Dr. Bushnell, what's the latest on that, and what should our listeners know?

Dr Bushnell: Well, obviously, the CREST 2 trial has been long awaited. It's been going on for over ten years, I believe. Of course, it's, uh, two different trials all in one, the carotid stenting and angioplasty versus intensive medical management. And of course, each of the carotid vascularization arms of the trial also had intensive medical management. And then the other trial is the carotid endarterectomy as the form of revascularization. And it interestingly did not show any benefit of carotid endarterectomy compared to intensive medical management. But of course, the somewhat surprising result was that carotid angioplasty and stenting truly was superior, although it was a small number of events in the trial overall. But that stenting plus intensive medical management was somewhat better than intensive medical management alone. And I think stenting has come a long way in terms of safety, and so I think that's been part of the evolution of the field. I do wanna say that I'm a huge fan of the intensive medical management, and I think that what the protocol does in terms of blood pressure management, cholesterol management is very much above and beyond what's done in private practice even. And the health coaching for all the other things related to diabetes and weight loss and smoking cessation and physical activity, that is what we need to be doing to actually decrease the risk of stroke, and I think that it's very effective. I can't say enough about the design of the study for that reason, that everyone gets the intensive medical management, and then you just layer on the type of revascularization on top of it. So, I wouldn't have been surprised if this was a completely negative trial overall. They just happened to have some better outcomes in the stenting arm.

Dr Jones: I recall a few years ago when the series of endovascular therapy trials for acute stroke came out, and I think there was a, a period of time where the field had to adapt to that. I wonder what you think about with the CREST 2 findings on stenting. I mean, is that gonna be a big change? Because obviously atherosclerosis is highly prevalent. Is that gonna be a big change? Is the field ready for that? How much adjustment do we have in store?

Dr Bushnell: I'm not sure it's gonna be a really big change. If you read the editorial that accompanied the trial in the New England Journal, just a few patients in either direction would have changed the outcome. I kind of look at it as an absolute difference that's relatively small. So, I'm not sure that it will have a huge impact on the field. I do think that the specialists who insert the stents may have some differences of opinion of who should be stented and who shouldn't. Because I think, you know, all of the specialists who do procedures were involved with the trial. But I would say there's a larger percentage of vascular surgeons who were involved, and so I'd say they may have a change of their practice. And neurologists may not even get involved at all.

Dr Jones: Right.

Dr Bushnell: That was one of the challenges for getting patients in the trial is that, you know, not all of us see the asymptomatic carotid stenosis, that they tend to get referred to vascular surgery. So, I think maybe in a corner of the practices of vascular surgeons is where you might see the differences.

Dr Jones: Your point about the way the trial was designed or the trials were designed, that intensive medical management is really important, and we have huge gaps in that. In our specialty, it's, you know, we have probably an opportunity in primary care even to address that. And that leads me to my next question. You know, given your perspective and your expertise, what do you think is the biggest practice gap in the care of patients with stroke or with cerebrovascular disease of any kind?

Dr Bushnell: I think by far the biggest gap is transitions of care and access to follow-up in a specialty clinic after discharge and continuous secondary prevention. We only call it secondary prevention because it happened to come after a stroke, but I really feel like we should just focus on prevention and call it that. There are a lot of people who are trying to kind of, get us away from primary versus secondary prevention. And, and Mitch Elkind is phenomenal and had a beautiful chapter weaving in prevention and brain health. So, I highly recommend that people, if they don't read any other chapters of the Continuum to read his, because I think that it's getting to your point about where the gaps are, and I think prevention is the biggest one. I think we could do so much more in models of care to ensure that there is a pathway once patients are discharged. We have no quality metrics. We have no measurement of how well people are doing after they're discharged. We have all of these fancy things and sophisticated acute treatments, but all of those are for naught if somebody goes home and they fall and they have a severe head injury or hip fracture because they weren't properly supervised or they didn't have the help that they needed at home. So, you got me on my soapbox here for a second, but that is definitely what I see as the gap.

Dr Jones: That's an important soapbox, an important gap, and obviously, if it was a simple problem, we could solve it. But it's obviously something that education is a valuable tool for that, and that's part of why we are including so much content in this issue of Continuum. So, if we put that aside as a gap that we would love to close, when you look into the near future or distant future, Dr. Bushnell, and what's the next big thing on the horizon? New interventions, new prevention tools, or something else entirely? What do you think?

Dr Bushnell: There are two things that I would mention. One is sort of the new category of anticoagulants, antithrombotics, the factor XIa inhibitors. We had an amazing presentation of the oceanic stroke trial at the International Stroke Conference, and this is probably going to be a game changer for the arsenal of antithrombotic therapies that we can offer to patients that do not have a reason for anticoagulation. So, they, they don't have atrial fibrillation, for example, or something else that requires anticoagulation. And so, the factor XI, asundexian, is the drug that they used in that trial. The safety profile is pretty amazing. There was very little bleeding complications and a great benefit in those patients with some degree of atherosclerosis, but, you know, of course, not enough to require carotid revascularization, but then also, um, small vessel disease and cryptogenic stroke. I think those are the three categories of patients, and that's a lot of the strokes that we see all benefited from this new drug. So, I think that's gonna be exciting. There, of course, it has to go through the FDA approval process, and so it might take a little bit of time before that's on the market, and we don't know how much it's gonna cost, but I think it is a, a major breakthrough. And of course, there are other similar medications in that category that are coming. And then I think the other thing is the emphasis on brain health and lifestyle factors and the things that we can do to prevent stroke and dementia because they are the same, essentially. Those are really important. And when we have someone in the hospital with a stroke or a TIA in particular, it's a great teaching opportunity for those patients to say, "Hey, here's what you can do to protect your brain." These are things that we always tell people to prevent a stroke, but just think about it as protecting your brain and keeping your brain as healthy as possible.

Dr Jones: That's a great message, and one that you get to share with patients directly. You're joining us today for this interview. You're on stroke service, so you're actively involved in caring for patients with stroke. What in your practice is the most rewarding aspect of caring for these patients? What is it that you find most rewarding?

Dr Bushnell: I've been involved in a clinical trial that has focused on managing blood pressure and also coaching and other aspects of stroke recovery. I think that has probably been the most rewarding aspect of my career. Until I was involved with this trial, I didn't necessarily do intensive blood pressure monitoring, but I'm seeing the benefits of having data from home, what those blood pressures are over a span of time. I see the immediate or intermediate effects of the blood pressure medication changes that I've made, and I see how the patients respond. So, I have to say that this is not part of usual practice, but I think it should be. And I think it's been incredible from the perspective of a neurologist who is really intensively trying to make the patients' lives better. And it's not just what I do, it's what the health coaches do as part of this intervention. And again, very similar to intensive medical management. So, I, I feel like I've been living it in a slightly different setting than in the CREST 2 trials. But there are other trials that have used the intensive medical management as approach as well. But I would say that's the most rewarding. I've seen people who've lost weight, who are physically fit, who are able to get off of blood pressure medications practically by the end of six months, and that's amazing. And then they continue doing it because they see the benefits.

Dr Jones: You've had a front row seat to a lot of that. That's really got to feel rewarding.

Dr Bushnell: It is, absolutely.

Dr Jones: You know, when you put it that way, it makes me want to go home and check my blood pressure, which I haven't done in a while. But I think that's a message to all of our listeners that we do have plenty of opportunity for risk factor optimization and following the evidence that has been generated and is being generated. Huge opportunity, not only at the population level, but I think the, um, individual patient level too. Okay, so now we're back to our Continuum Audio trivia question, and I'll repeat it for our listeners. How was warfarin discovered, and how did it get its name? Dr. Bushnell and I were talking about this earlier, so I'll just go ahead and share the answer. So, in the early 20th century in the U.S. Midwest, there were epidemics of a hemorrhagic disease in cattle, of all places, and this was eventually traced to moldy cattle feed that was made from sweet clover. And in 1940, researchers at the University of Wisconsin discovered that the anticoagulant in the sweet clover was a compound that was later synthesized for therapeutic use in 1954 as warfarin. And the name came from, uh, the support for the research. The research support came from the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, or WARF, and the end of the word came from the underlying compound, which was coumarin. So that was a little bit of trivia that I had never heard. It's not in the issue, everyone, so you're getting something extra here on the podcast. But been using the drug forever. It still has its uses, even though it's become less advantageous than some of the newer agents. But-- And of course, Dr. Bushnell already knew that when I brought it up, but I just thought that was an interesting bit of history. Well, Dr. Bushnell, thank you for joining us. Thank you for such a great conversation about the latest in cerebrovascular disease. I learned a lot today. I learned a lot in reading these wonderful articles. I hope our listeners learned a lot today as well. I'm really grateful for your hard work on the issue, which I think will come in handy for junior readers and subscribers, as well as our more experienced neurologists as well. Sometimes it's hard to keep up with a rapidly changing subspecialty of our field. So, thank you for joining us today.

Dr Bushnell: Thank you for having me. It's been my pleasure.

Dr Jones: Again, today we've been speaking with Dr. Cheryl Bushnell, guest editor of Continuum's most recent issue on cerebrovascular disease. 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

Balancing disease control with pregnancy and neonatal considerations in people with neuroinflammatory disease throughout the family planning, pregnancy, and postpartum periods is crucial. Modern treatment paradigms enable women to safely become pregnant and breastfeed alongside effective disease management. Shared decision making is an important part of this process.

In this episode, Kait Nevel, MD, speaks with Ruth Dobson, MD and Kerstin Hellwig, MD, authors of the article "Family Planning in Neuroinflammatory Disease" in the Continuum® April 2026 Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders issue.

Dr. Nevel is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a neurologist and neuro-oncologist at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, Indiana.

Dr. Dobson is a professor in the Centre for Preventive Neurology at the Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, and a consultant neurologist in the Department of Neurology at the Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, in London, United Kingdom.

Dr. Hellwig is a professor in the Department of Neurology at Katholisches Klinikum, Ruhr‑Universität Bochum, in Bochum, Germany.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Family Planning in Neuroinflammatory 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: @IUneurodocmom

Guest: @drruthdobson

Full episode transcript available here

Palliative care in multiple sclerosis spans the disease course, from early screening and support after diagnosis to symptom management and quality‑of‑life optimization in midstage disease, and end‑of‑life care in advanced MS. This episode outlines a staged approach to palliative care, highlights the roles of neurology and primary care teams, and discusses tools such as patient‑reported outcomes and symptom scales to support ongoing assessment of patients and care partners.

In this episode, Katie Grouse, MD, FAAN, speaks with Penelope Smyth, MD, FRCPC and Janis M. Miyasaki, MD, MEd, FRCPC, coauthors of the article "Palliative Care in Multiple Sclerosis" in the Continuum® April 2026 Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders 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. Smyth is the director of the Division of Neurology in the Department of Medicine at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Dr. Miyasaki is a professor in the Division of Neurology in the Department of Medicine at the University of Alberta and the zone clinical department head for Clinical Neurosciences at Alberta Health Services in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Palliative Care in Multiple Sclerosis

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 Grouse: With the new treatments for MS, people might be saying palliative care is not relevant at all. It's about giving up hope and hopelessness. But this article covers why palliative care is important for your patients and families throughout their illness trajectory.

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 Drs Penelope Smyth and Janis Miyasaki about their article on palliative care in multiple sclerosis, which appears in the April 2026 Continuum issue on multiple sclerosis. Welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourselves to our audience.

Dr Smyth: Thank you, Katie. I'm Penny Smyth. I am a neurologist at the University of Alberta, a professor in neurology, and a clinical multiple sclerosis specialist.

Dr Miyasaki: Hi, Katie. Thanks for having us. I'm Janis Miyasaki. I am a movement disorder neurologist primarily who also provides neuropalliative care at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada.

Dr Grouse: It's so great having you today to talk with us about your article. I thought this article was really a wonderful take on the topic. I learned a lot, and I'm really hoping all of our listeners will take advantage of this article and take advantage of all the learning they can get from reading about this topic. So, I wanted to start with a more general question, which is, what is the key message from this article that you're hoping your readers will take away?

Dr Smyth: In terms of key takeaways, I think it's our hope that neurologists will come away from reading this article with, really, an expanded understanding of what palliative care is and how that might be applicable to them in their care for their patients with MS along a continuum of treating people with MS, that there can be components of palliative care and strategies that can be integrated early after diagnosis in, really, anywhere along the continuum of caring for people with MS. We've called that kind of mid-stage. And then there are particular needs for people with MS and their care partners in late-stage or severe MS and end of life that might require different palliative care strategies. I think we kind of have maybe a bit of a bias sometimes in thinking of palliative care as more directed towards those that are near end-of-life. But in fact, it's a much expanded concept.

Dr Miyasaki: And I'll just add that we also discuss a palliative approach, that palliative care skills and philosophies can be used by generalists---in this case, neurologists who are providing care to people with MS---and that adopting certain skills and communication techniques can help us better address our patients' and their families' symptoms. And also to keep in mind that for most people with neurologic illness, the unit of care is not only the patient, but it's the patient and the family, however that family looks.

Dr Grouse: Now, Penny, I'm curious, how are early-stage and mid-stage multiple sclerosis palliative care strategies different from, say, a typical evaluation and counseling that a neurologist would give, say, an MS specialist or even a general neurologist?

Dr Smyth: Thank you, Katie. That's a great question, and something that actually I learned in writing this piece with Janice and from her as a neuropalliative care expert. I think in terms of early strategies around palliative care that can be helpful to the general neurologist in their office, palliative care is about holistic support for patients and their care providers spiritually, emotionally, physically. There are components of palliative care and symptom management and making sure that the patient is at the center of the care, as well as support for their care partners with their holistic approach of relief of suffering as well as offering hope. When I started this piece, I was thinking that many of us neurologists, I think, often informally utilize many of these components already when we're dealing with patients early on after diagnosis in terms of communication, counseling, and education; going through their fear of an uncertain future; spiritual well-being; and then connecting them with supports for adaptive coping strategies. And then as well in mid-stage, which is really around what we can do in symptom management and improving quality of life, with screening tools and patient-reported outcome measures. However, I have to say that there are many unmet needs for people with MS and their care partners that they identify that are clearly not being met by us neurologists in this day and age. So even though we may be incorporating some of these strategies, I don't think we're meeting the mark all the time and hitting the target, especially in our busy office practices, in various ways.

Dr Grouse: Given that, at a high level, what are some important early-stage MS palliative care concepts that we should be keeping in mind when we are counseling patients in these stages of the disease?

Dr Miyasaki: An important concept to keep in mind for neurologists dealing with early-stage MS patients is that for us, we feel successful that we have made a diagnosis. And yet for the patient, it is taking away that hope. Maybe it's not MS. Maybe I just have a numb hand and it's gonna go away. And for us to appreciate that while we make this diagnosis multiple times a week---or, for MS specialists multiple times a day---for this person, it is the first time, the first experience, and it shakes their entire foundation of who they are as a person, how they will perform all the tasks and roles that they have in society, in their professional lives, in their family structures, and in their close, intimate relationships. As physicians, we may be overwhelmed by acknowledging that. I feel that it's important for us to understand the needs that our patients have and to allow them to have their feelings. You know, feelings can feel messy and time-consuming, and yet when we fully see our patients, I feel that this is the best of medicine. And it certainly is, in terms of palliative care, the principle that we seek. We accept all of the patient, the joy and the sorrow, the anger and the frustration. We accept it all, and we try to determine what will serve this person who is suffering in front of us now.

Dr Smyth: There's another piece to this, which came up as Janice and I were writing together. We were talking about offering a prognosis to a patient as to how they would do, and this was something that I thought deeply about, because I said, we always communicate how uncertain the prognosis is and how we can't predict the future. And then she said to me, well, what about offering a roadmap to a person with MS soon after diagnosis as to how you're gonna determine how they do over the next couple of years? Which are really important years in terms of determining how patients are doing on their disease-modifying therapies, whether they're having progression or not, and things. It's a pivotal time. So, if you can offer a roadmap to a person with MS and say, look, this is when we will be following you up. This is how we will be following you with MRI and biomarkers if you have that available, and this is how we will determine how responsive you are and then how we move forward from there.

Dr Grouse: Really important concepts. And the roadmap certainly makes a lot of sense to me and something that, apart from just being useful to the patient for so many reasons to help set expectations, you know, is useful for us to better partner with the patient so they understand this is sort of how we do things and everyone's sort of expectations are met. So, I think those sound like really great goals and things to keep in mind. Now, we talked about early-stage MS palliative care concepts. How does that change as you get into the mid-stage of the disease?

Dr Smyth: Yeah. So, this is reflecting the fact that the course of MS is so different and the experience of MS is so different person to person. And so, what do we do as neurologists when we follow these people long-term over years and decades of living with their MS as their needs evolve, as their symptoms evolve, and as their disability evolves? Well, really, this is about the time of getting into, what are the symptoms that they're struggling with, what are the causes of their suffering at various points? And then how do we identify that, maybe with use of patient-reported outcome measures, screening scales, things like that. And then how do we direct symptomatic management to the specific symptoms that are causing distress to the patient? As well as trying to improve their quality of life in various ways, treating their comorbidities, making sure to check on exercise, healthy living, and that kind of thing.

Dr Grouse: Now getting into, I think, topics that we're more used to thinking about when we think about palliative care: a lot of us, I think, are really unsure of the right time to discuss advanced care directives in the course of multiple sclerosis, and I think that's not helped by the fact that many of us are just, in general, not terribly comfortable talking about those types of things in general. What is your advice to questions like this?

Dr Smyth: And this is something that, again, Janice and I had to come together on, because there is no universal accepted time for when is the right time in multiple sclerosis to discuss advanced care directives and goals of care. And in fact, when they have looked at it in the literature, different things have come out. It has come out that neurologists can be uncomfortable discussing this. There's unique challenges to people with MS in that they have a diagnosis at a young age with an uncertain trajectory of how their course of disease is going to go. And many of these things lead care providers to be somewhat hesitant as to when is the right time, as well as, there were identified barriers within patients themselves as to when the right time might be to discuss. In that, you know, some of the coping strategies might be, as identified by some of the qualitative studies that have been done on this, around the fact that they would prefer to focus on the present rather than the future. In some studies expressed an ambivalence as to when they thought the right time might be, as well as some negative experiences that they might have had from providers trying to discuss these things in their previous experience. So, I went back to looking at the European guidelines for palliative care in MS, who suggested when a person might have severe MS---which they define as walking with bilateral aids for at least twenty meters or an EDSS of six or higher---or trigger-based, when there has been a change in the patient's status, when there's been a decline in some way or progression. Now, this is a little different, actually, than what we offer other people with neurologic diseases, and I don't know if that's the right answer. And this is where I'm going to turn it over to Janice, because I think we could learn something, as neurologists who treat people with MS, from our palliative care specialists.

Dr Miyasaki: I think of advanced care planning in a very different way. I think what a lot of the patients were expressing in the studies was that being asked about advanced care planning signaled to them in some way that they have reached this point in their illness where things aren't going so great and I anticipate that you may run into complications. Whereas in our movement disorder clinic, one of our fellows did a study looking at capacity for decision-making. And even in people who scored normally on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, they had impairments in some of the domains of decision-making. And so, our philosophy in movement disorders at least---and some of our patients are quite young who have multiple system atrophy, they could be in their forties---we take the philosophy that everyone over the age of decision-making capacity, which is generally eighteen, should have some goals of care established. And how I introduce it in my clinic is, you know, for the young resident, you want the full-meal deal, because the likelihood of the resident surviving the ICU admission is very high. And then when we look at me, who… I am older, the likelihood of surviving an ICU admission is considerably lower. And so, the appropriate goals of care might be that I am willing to go to the ICU, and if things go well, then they can continue. But if things are not going well, they can have a discussion with my personal directive or power of attorney to talk about what the goals of care should be. And then the other aspect is sometimes having the conversation with family is really important because most of our families in hospital express an uncertainty. Am I doing the right thing? And they want to do the right thing for their loved ones. And most people actually say, if you ask them, I don't want to burden my family with making decisions that are going to tear at their hearts. So, then we can't actually make good informed decisions for our loved ones unless we have clear conversations. I think it does speak to our superstitious beliefs that if we talk about death, it's going to happen. But I hope the listeners will take my word for it, it really doesn't. And someone had a really good saying about the advanced directive. They're kind of like evening clothes. You should take them out every once in a while and make sure they still fit. And so, when you normalize it in this way, it helps people to just say, oh, yeah, it's once a year. Dr. Miyasaki is gonna ask me about how do I feel about those goals of care. And then it doesn't have this portent of, oh, I'm not doing well. Instead, it's just, this is what we should all be doing for our sake and for our family's sake.

Dr Smyth: Now, one thing that I have to add on to this is that it is important to try to establish advanced care directives before patients experience cognitive decline, because then that can make it a much more challenging conversation and brings nuances of challenge into the interactions, which, you know, are hard.

Dr Grouse: And Penny, I'm glad you brought that up, because I was really struck by that point too when reading this article, how easy it is to miss the subtle signs that cognitive changes are happening. I think it's just- it's a good kind of segue into that topic in general, but it is such an important link to, you know, making sure that you get those advanced directives at a time when the patient's really able to express and understand what they're talking to you about. Now, on the topic of the cognitive screenings, what's a good way to do this type of screening, and why is this type of screening so particularly important in the case of multiple sclerosis?

Dr Smyth: Yeah. Thank you, Katie. I think that it's important for our listeners to think about and recognize when we see our patients with MS because it is one of the invisible symptoms that people with MS can live with and may not be apparent on regular conversation in the office. So, it's important to deliberately ask about subjective challenges in cognition. Ask the partner about how they're doing in terms of their cognition in various ways. As well as asking them and exploring then, how are they doing in their professional roles if they're working or in their surroundings? How are they coping on a daily basis on a cognitive level in addition to a physical level? We know that cognitive issues are actually the biggest contributor for not working and are a huge driver of disability in MS in terms of functioning, even more than physical decline in many ways. So, it is important for us neurologists to keep top of mind and to think about and deliberately attend to. There are screening tests that we can do in the office. The easiest for us, which measures the verbal processing speed, is the SDMT test, which is a ninety-second test matching symbols and numbers. It's easy to do. You can train a MOA to do it before you see the patient and things like that, and it just gives you an idea as to where the patient is at. And usually they're having difficulties if they're greater than two standard deviations below the norm for their age, or if there's a significant drop of four or eight points, and that might signal to you that there might be more going on. You can explore it, and then if you do have this available, the ability to refer for neuropsychological testing if there's questions. But often we can't get it with the MoCA score, unfortunately.

Dr Grouse: Talking about all these concepts, I think they all sound great. I think a lot of us hearing this will naturally say, "Yes, these are absolutely things we should be incorporating in the care of these patients." What I wondered about was, certainly we're all very busy, it is really hard to find time for a lot of these things. We don't always have access to specialists who can help us with some of these conversations. How can we find time, and how can we work this into the care of our patients effectively and still make time for all the other things we have to talk about, and make sure that we're seeing all of our other patients and staying on time and all of those things?

Dr Miyasaki: Yes. I think that's the challenges of dealing with people who actually, over time, their care needs increase, is huge in neurology. I can't think of a single subspecialty where care actually gets easier. It's constantly getting harder. You know, having come from private practice, I completely understand my colleagues' challenges in the community. Some of the ways that other groups have managed this when they don't have government or university support in their center is actually to look at not-for-profits. There are a lot of not-for-profits that can help in terms of wayfinding for social services, explaining to the patients and the family what is available to them. And in

Advances in immunotherapies for multiple sclerosis and related disorders have increased the risk of infections and raised important questions about vaccination efficacy. This episode reviews infection risks across treatment classes, emphasizes the importance of monitoring and patient education, and discusses optimal vaccine timing to preserve protective immune responses.

In this episode, Aaron L. Berkowitz, MD, PhD, FAAN, speaks with Avindra Nath, MBBS, FAAN, coauthor of the article "Infection Risk and Vaccine Considerations in Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders" in the Continuum® April 2026 Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders issue.

Dr. Berkowitz is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a professor of neurology in the Department of Neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, in San Francisco, California.

Dr. Nath is the chief of the Section of Infections of the Nervous System at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, in Bethesda, Maryland

Additional Resources

Read the article: Infection Risk and Vaccine Considerations in Multiple Sclerosis and Related 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: @AaronLBerkowitz

Full episode transcript available here

Dr Berkowitz: Over the last decades, there has been a revolution in the treatment of multiple sclerosis, neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder, and other immune-mediated neurologic conditions with countless new, highly effective medications. However, with every new treatment comes new risks; and in the case of immunomodulatory therapy, many of those risks relate to infection. Today, I have the privilege of talking with an expert on this topic, Dr Avindra Nath, about the infectious risks of treatments for multiple sclerosis and other immune-mediated neurologic disorders.

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 Avi Nath about his article on vaccine considerations and infection risk in multiple sclerosis and related disorders, which he coauthored with Dr Amit Bar-Or. This article appears in the April 2026 Continuum issue on multiple sclerosis. Welcome to the podcast, Dr Nath, and could you please introduce yourself to our audience?

Dr Nath: Thanks very much for inviting me to this podcast. I'm absolutely delighted to have the opportunity to discuss our areas of interest and expertise related to infections and vaccinations for MS patients. My area has been studying the infections of the nervous system since the beginning of the AIDS pandemic, and over the years and decades, we've developed expertise related to various types of CNS infections. That includes ones that are developing in individuals who have immune compromise due to a variety of different reasons.

Dr Berkowitz: Fantastic. Well, glad to have the opportunity to speak with you today. When I was in medical school---and you were my attending, actually, we were just reminiscing, which we probably think was not that long ago, but is now over twenty years ago---there were just two medications for MS, right? Beta interferon and glatiramer acetate. And now we have over a dozen, and it's amazing to think of all the progress in these last two decades, as well as for related diseases like NMO. I don't think we even had the aquaporin-four biomarker, right, when I was working with you as a med student in the early 2000s.

Dr Nath: And that certainly dates me a lot.

Dr Berkowitz: Both of us.

Dr Nath: Yeah.

Dr Berkowitz: Of course, with all these new treatments, these have been amazing advances for our patients, right? But these come with new treatment-related risks to monitor for with the immunomodulatory medications for MS and related disorders. And one of those most important risks is that of infection. So, your article reviews the potential infectious complications of medications used to treat MS, NMO, etc, and also covers considerations related to thinking about vaccines in this patient population. So, as the MS treatment landscape grows, I can say as a general neurologist, keeping up with all these medications and what to screen for and what to worry about and when to vaccinate just becomes more challenging every year. And your article has so many helpful tables, some organized by medicine, some organized by- sorry, medication, some organized by infection, some by vaccines. So, this is gonna be a great resource for our providers to print out and tape up in their clinic rooms. We won't be able to get into all the depth and detail that you have in this article today, but I do want to focus on some of the key points here related to the common medications we use for MS and which infections to think about and which vaccine considerations we might need to keep in mind for these medications. But before we delve into the drugs, I just wanna ask you more broadly, you talk in the article about the challenge of patients with immune-mediated diseases who are on immunomodulatory therapy being at risk for both flares of their disease and for infections; and these infections can present somewhat atypically, right, in immunomodulated hosts, to maybe coin a term you can correct me on, because they can't mount the full inflammatory response. So how do you approach new symptoms in patients on these immunomodulatory medicines as far as distinguishing disease flare from a treatment-related infection?

Dr Nath: So, I have to say that although a lot of new treatments have come along for MS, and they've really, you know, improved the outcome tremendously and there are so many different options, it has also kept people like me relevant because they cause a lot of various types of infections, and so keeps me in business all the same. But just as you mentioned, there's so many of them, even I have difficulty keeping track of what does what. So, you do need to be able to refer back to published literature, and the tables, I hope, will be quite useful in that regard. You're absolutely right, and you can get new infections, you can get reactivation of existing infections, and you can get atypical presentations of various types of infections that you may not normally think of. So that presents multiple challenges to the treating physician. The other interesting thing about MS is, just as you mentioned, that you already have CNS lesions to begin with. Now, on top of it, you have an infection, so now how to sort out what is the existing disease and what is the infection, it can again become challenging. But one thing is for sure: all these infections are caused by an organism. So, what you really need to do is, the underlying diagnostic is to demonstrate the presence of the organism. Whether you demonstrate it depending on the infection in the spinal fluid or in the brain or, you know, some peripheral organ system, that is going to be key to making the diagnosis. So, all your clinical acumen is good, but that alone may not be sufficient.

Dr Berkowitz: Very good. So, when you see a, a patient now who has a new neurologic symptom in the context of an immune-mediated disease who's on immunomodulatory therapy, what goes through your mind? Are you thinking this disease and this drug, and sort of what are the infections, and does the syndrome match? Or are you thinking, you know, you can't always rely on the imaging to distinguish between, say, a flare of an MS and PML because white matter lesions could look similar? How do you sort of approach this scenario when it comes up?

Dr Nath: So, you're right. You have to keep an open mind so that even though you know some infections are more likely to occur with certain types of medications, that doesn't mean that others cannot occur. So, I think when you first see the patient, you should not jump to conclusions, but rather have an open mind. But yes, for example, your patient is on natalizumab, the chances of PML are going to be high. It's a very interesting drug. It does not cause immune compromise in the periphery, but what it's doing is preventing these cells from getting into the brain. So, because then it's acting at the blood-brain barrier. So that means that organisms that are already present in the brain have an opportunity to get reactivated. Turns out you don't have a lot of organisms in the brain, except JC virus seems to be one of them that does somehow, in some individuals, manage to reside out there. And so that can get reactivated. It can get reactivated in the periphery and then enter the brain, too. So, where the very specific mutations have to occur in that virus in order to take residence in the brain. That would be a suspicion that you might have, and MRI can be useful in, again, helping you think about that possibility. If you have typical lesions involving the U fibers, they're demyelinating, usually you do not have much edema around them because patient is immune compromised, but certainly within the brain in these individuals. And so, then you need to demonstrate the organism. The demonstration of the organism should be in the spinal fluid and not in the blood because in the virus, it can-- is reservoir in the kidneys and in the lymph nodes, and periodically it'll shed into the blood. Detection of the organism in the blood can be a false positive, but in the spinal fluid, it shouldn't be there unless you have an infection. Or if you cause a traumatic tap, I guess, if a patient is viremic, that's a possibility, but those are extremely rare. So at least for PML, that's the way that you would diagnose it. Now, you can develop, for example, if an individual is on fingolimod, you can get a wide variety of infections. Here it's a totally different type of mechanism of action. Here the cells are trapped within the lymph nodes, so that means now your entire periphery is immune compromised, right? So here you can get viral infections, bacterial infections, fungal infections. So here, if a patient presents with new neurological symptoms, you have to have a really open mind for all these possibilities. Now, let's say a patient was on dimethyl fumarate, and dimethyl fumarate causes neutropenia early on. So here you have to worry about an individual developing bacterial infections, so latent tuberculosis or bacterial meningitis can occur in these individuals. That's something to keep in mind. It's not that other infections cannot occur with dimethyl fumarate, you can see PML and other things too, but the chances of bacterial infections are greater. So, you got to make sure that you draw all the cultures for that purpose. Similarly, if you're on a complement inhibitor, like a C5 inhibitor or the thing that I could use in NMO, there are the chances of meningococcal meningitis. So, these patients, you need to prevaccinate them before you start these kinds of treatments and look for that possibility. When you suspect bacterial infections, particularly acute bacterial meningitis, there time is of essence. Also, in some of the acute viral infections, for example---herpes encephalitis is another one---you have to be so careful, and if you suspect any of them, even if they're with possibly atypical manifestations, you treat first and then diagnose later, and draw all your cultures, whatever you need to, and just treat them. And these infections can also cause cerebral edema, so one has to be careful about doing spinal taps in these individuals. You want some kind of neuroimaging before you do them. In the days when we didn't have neuroimaging, we used to say, "Okay, if your patient has focal neurological signs or is comatose, you don't do it." But these days, you can get imaging very quickly and very easily. All the-- Because of our stroke management, we've learned how to do them so quickly. So, I think there's little excuse not to do imaging and prevent herniation from occurring.

Dr Berkowitz: That's very helpful. So, using the information we know about the drug, and we're going to rapid-fire review some of that in a bit to know what infections the patient is susceptible to, but acknowledging that any patient can get any infection, right? Whether they're on particular medications or not. And then if you're not sure, based on the neuroimaging, which as you said, is helpful, but not always helpful in distinguishing between infections and flares or, as you said, in the case of meningitis, encephalitis, early on at least, especially in immunocompromised or immunomodulated, quote unquote, patient might not see the typical imaging. So really, when safe, getting CSF or cultures, PCRs, and other infectious studies too is really gonna be the definitive diagnostic maneuver here. Is that fair summary across the board?

Dr Nath: I think you said that absolutely right. And you summarized that correctly. And, you know, thing about infection, a lot of neurological diseases are, you know, diagnosed by clinical acumen, like your Parkinson's and Alzheimer's and others. Think about infections is caused by an organism, demonstrate the organism, right? That should be your goal. It doesn't mean that clinical acumen is not important, but here you have an opportunity to demonstrate the organism, so you should depend upon that.

Dr Berkowitz: Okay. Well, you gave us a nice segue by talking about some of the infections to worry about with some of the medications. So what I'd like to do now for the sort of second half of our interview here is to go through some of the more common medications used for MS, and if we have time, for NMO, and just sort of go kind of rapid fire here, and for each medication, if you can tell us the kind of top infectious concerns and whether when to consider them or what screening needs to take place before or during administration of the medication, and then any vaccine considerations we should be aware of. Some of these will obviously be quite short depending on the medicine. So, going back to the two medications I alluded to earlier that were the only ones in play when you and I last saw each other on the wards when I was a medical student, beta interferon, glatiramer acetate, any infections or vaccine considerations with these medications?

Dr Nath: No, I think they're probably your safest medications now as far as immunomodulatory therapies are concerned. These two, and IVIG, if you ever use them, are probably the safest, do not require any vaccine considerations, per se.

Dr Berkowitz: Perfect. Okay. So, moving on to fingolimod and others in the sphingosine-one phosphate receptor modulator family, what are the infectious considerations? Any prescreening or vaccination considerations?

Dr Nath: I think all your patients should be prescreened for antibodies to JC virus, because there is a risk for PML, and those who are positive should be closely monitored. So, it's not an absolute contraindication for using these medications, but they just require closer monitoring. With this class of drugs, PML is of consideration. Also, these varicella-zoster virus infection, yeah, with that you can develop zoster encephalitis or myelitis. It can present with motor symptoms as well, which can be atypical. You don't usually see them otherwise in immune-competent individuals. So, varicella-zoster, sometimes you can develop encephalitis, also vasculitis with varicella-zoster, so one has to be careful. So, getting the shingles vaccine can be actually very helpful to prevent these things. And then some patients can even develop herpes simplex encephalitis also, and that can be extremely atypical. So, they don't- they can involve the basal ganglia, can involve the brain stem and cerebellum. So again, your index of suspicion should be very high. Interestingly, although HSV encephalitis has been associated with NMDA receptor encephalitis, those reports of NMDA receptor encephalitis have not been published yet with NMS patients. Not sure why, maybe they just have been missed. But that doesn't seem to be a major concern. And then there are a whole host of other infections that can occur with this class of drugs, and that can include toxo; fungal infections, particularly crypto. There's a case report of histoplasmosis; hepatitis virus, particularly hepatitis C; and then the poxvirus is a good example. You can get molluscum contagiosum; warts with papillomavirus; you can get atypical mycobacteria; and even Kaposi sarcoma, which is HHV8. So, there's a huge variety of infections with the sphingosine one phosphate receptor modulators.

Dr Berkowitz: And any- aside from screening for JC virus before initiating these, any- and then continuing to monitor for JC antibody index, any other considerations as far as labs to send, monitoring before or on the drug or vaccine considerations for patients on fingolimod and the others in this category, siponimod, etcetera?

Dr Nath: Yeah, there are a lot of things to consider. All the details are really available in the chapter if you look at them. But briefly, all the things that one could potentially vaccinate patients for, all these infections I mentioned, one should do so. The timing is critical so that if you can do it before treatment, I think, before starting treatment, that is absolutely important. And you got to give them at least, you know, two to three weeks for these vaccines to take effect before starting your medication. If your patient already arrives on a medication, then you got to play this game of you know, before the next dose, give them again two to three weeks before the next dose and start vaccinating them and get all the vaccines in. Broadly, about the things to worry about the vaccines are you have live vaccines, and you've got the inactivated vaccines or the subunit vaccines. You have to be careful with live vaccines, because if your patient is immunocompromised, that virus can sometimes itself cause harm. For example, you know, yellow fever is one, and there you can develop encephalitis from it. Measles, mumps, rubella, these are all live vaccines. Now, the good thing is that a lot of us have been immunized very early in childhood, but that may not be the case any longer. And so, these things, one has to be very careful with when you're giving live vaccines, that we want to avoid them as much as possible, and individuals are gonna be immune-compromised. But all the others, meningococcus, for example, you should- the HPV vaccines, the varicella zoster vaccines, all these things, you've got to pre-vaccinate and make sure that they have an antibody response to them before starting immunocompromising therapy.

Dr Berkowitz: Perfect. Okay, moving on to some of the other orals. What infectious and/or vaccine considerations do we have with teriflunomide?

Dr Nath: Okay, yeah. Teriflunomide is a very interesting drug. It's relatively safe. There is concern about the possibility of varicella zoster infection, people have reported that, and also tuberculosis. But PML is extremely rare, if not at all, and we haven't seen herpes encephalitis quite yet.

Dr Berkowitz: Got it. How about dimethyl fumarate?

Dr Nath: Yeah. So dimethyl fumarate is... as I mentioned earlier, it's interesting because it causes this neutropenia. It's transient, but it occurs early on, and these patients can be at risk of PML, although small. They can develop varicella zoster virus infection, herpes encephalitis, and also fungal infections. For example, cryptococcal infection has been repor

There are many treatment options for people with relapsing MS. Patients should be carefully monitored to assess treatment response, and a change in treatment approach should be considered if safety concerns emerge.

In this episode, Teshamae Monteith, MD, FAAN, speaks with Ellen M. Mowry, MD, MCR, and Daniel Ontaneda, MD, PhD, coauthors of the article "Treatment of Multiple Sclerosis" in the Continuum® April 2026 Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders issue.

Dr. Monteith is the associate editor of Continuum® Audio and an associate professor of clinical neurology at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Miami, Florida.

Dr. Mowry is the director of the Multiple Sclerosis Experimental Therapeutics Program and a professor of neurology at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland.

Dr. Ontaneda is the director of research at the Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis and a professor of neurology at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Treatment of Multiple Sclerosis

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: @EllenMowryMD

Full episode transcript available here

Dr. Monteith: There are so many new treatment strategies for multiple sclerosis, which is a blessing, but it does come with the complexity of really just trying to nail down the approach. I just got finished talking to Drs Ellen Mowry and Daniel Ontaneda about their article on treatment of multiple sclerosis. We discussed relapses, weighing escalation versus early high-effective treatment and progressive disease. This is a must-listen-to podcast. I hope you enjoy it as much as I enjoyed talking to them.

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 Ds Ellen Mowry and Daniel Ontaneda about their article on treatment of multiple sclerosis, which they wrote with Dr. Darin Okuda. This article appears in the April 2026 Continuum issue on multiple sclerosis. Welcome, both of you. How are you?

Dr. Mowry: Great. And thank you so much for having us.

Dr. Monteith: Absolutely. So, why don't you both introduce yourself?

Dr. Ontaneda: All right. My name is Daniel Ontaneda. I'm a neurologist at the Cleveland Clinic. I spend the majority of my time doing research, but I still dedicate about a day a week to seeing people with MS in clinic.

Dr. Mowry: I'm Ellen Mowry. I'm also a neurologist, but practice at the Johns Hopkins University. And similar to Dan, I mostly work on research, but also have an active clinical care component, taking care of people with MS.

Dr. Monteith: Well, thank both of you for writing this article and being on our podcast. I assume you guys have probably known each other for quite a while now.

Dr. Mowry: Yes.

Dr. Ontaneda: Yes.

Dr. Monteith: What inspired you to get into multiple sclerosis research and then clinical care?

Dr. Ontaneda: I always loved neurology, and I think a lot of us who go into neurology are attracted to the complexity of the human brain and how the nervous system works. But what really hit home to me was a family member of mine who had multiple sclerosis, and he was being treated in a time where we really didn't have super effective disease-modifying medications. And so, as I went through my medical career, I always kind of kept an eye on what was happening with multiple sclerosis, and I started my training at a time where it was really flourishing in terms of the medications available, so that's what inspired me to go into MS. It's a disease that we can definitely treat, and you can change outcomes for people. So, that was it.

Dr. Monteith: Yeah, that personal experience can be very impactful.

Dr. Mowry: My journey started, actually, because I was thinking about whether I wanted to be a physician at all, and I happened to land, just after high school, a position with a neurologist who happened to mostly focus on multiple sclerosis and taking care of folks with multiple sclerosis. And by the end of the summer, I knew I wanted to go to med school and I wanted to be a neurologist and I wanted to work with people with MS. I thought I would be a clinician exclusively, but I think as time went on and I started to hear the consistent questions that people I served were asking in the clinic and realizing that those questions could be turned into research projects that could address their concerns, I moved more and more towards research.

Dr. Monteith: Great. There are a lot of really detailed information in the article, so I think that research mind is very useful, and I see that in the writing. Why don't we talk about the goal of the article?

Dr. Ontaneda: So, I think the goal of the article was to set out kind of what the large view of what treatment for multiple sclerosis looks like. And, you know, many times we divide the treatment of multiple sclerosis into these large pillars, and I think that's what we did in the article. The first was, you know, what do you do with a person who has an MS attack or relapse? The second is, what medications do we use to treat the relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis where there is a lot of acute inflammation, focal inflammatory lesions that are occurring? And then the final one is, what do you do with individuals who have a more progressive form of the disease where they're accruing disability slowly and gradually?

Dr. Monteith: And what were some of the main points?

Dr. Mowry: Dr. Okuda provided a really nice section on the treatment of acute relapses in multiple sclerosis, and it's important to understand what we talk about when we are saying "relapse". For people with MS, many symptoms can fluctuate and occur and then get better over time, and sometimes people with MS use the same term of "relapse" to describe those symptom fluctuations. As neurologists, when we're thinking about relapse, we're really trying to think about symptoms that can be attributed to new focal inflammatory events somewhere in the central nervous system. Typically, these are accompanied---if you were to get an MRI at the same time---by a new lesion or MS spot, as I like to call them, on MRI scan. And so, it's important to distinguish when somebody is talking about symptoms, whether they are true new symptoms that could be mapped to a place in the central nervous system. Because alternatively, a lot of people who've had attacks or relapses in the past can have what we call pseudo-relapses, and these are essentially recrudescence of old symptoms, typically in a similar pattern as what had occurred in the past. And these can be brought out by things like fever or infection, sometimes stress. And pseudo-relapses are not thought to be due to new development of immune system-induced injury and therefore would be less likely to respond to treatment; and in fact, treatment may be contraindicated for those events. We also talked a little bit in that article about how relapses are treated, talking about the use of high-dose steroids for true new relapses, but also kind of cautioning that those are not necessarily free of concerns, especially if you have a pseudo-relapse or there could be an infection going on. And that ultimately, the decision as to whether to treat a relapse really is a shared decision-making because it's thought that although the steroids can speed up recovery from a relapse, they may not have a major impact on ultimate recovery. And so, a lot of the shared decision-making comes in here because for a mild relapse, you might choose to forego a course of high-dose steroids.

Dr. Monteith: Daniel, any other main points?

Dr. Ontaneda: Yeah. On the side of treating relapses, I think one of the other things that probably has changed a lot, at least during the course of my training, is that in the past, whenever we had identified a relapse, as Dr. Mowry has clearly defined, we would typically treat with intravenous high-dose corticosteroids, typically with methylprednisolone. And that was kind of our go-to. We would either do it in an infusion center or we would set it up with home care. And I think one of the things that our field learned over, I would say, the last five or ten years is there's an abundance of studies that show that you can give that same dose of methylprednisolone. Rather than giving it IV, you can give it orally. No pun intended, as I tell my patients, a lot of pills to swallow because we use fifty-milligram prednisone pills, and they have to take 1,250 a day. The pharmacy always pushes back on that many pills, but really the advantage of being able to take steroids orally that way for three to five days is really, I think, one, better for people with MS because they can do it in the comfort of their own home, and two, I think also when you look at the costs associated with that treatment, it is the most cost-effective option.

Dr. Monteith: And what are some of the latest developments that you're really excited about that weren't in the article?

Dr. Mowry: A lot of the article focused on the approach to treatment of people with what we've traditionally called relapsing/remitting multiple sclerosis. So, this is the kind of MS that traditionally presents with a relapse or an attack initially, although some of that nomenclature is changing, actually. And the article focused a lot on the strategies surrounding treatment of somebody with newly diagnosed relapsing MS, and thinking about this vast number of disease-modifying therapies that are available to people with MS and their clinicians, and how to think about the strategy with respect to largely centered around the efficacy class of the medication, whether people should take an approach of using a higher-efficacy therapy---meaning a medicine that in clinical trials was more likely on average to suppress relapses as well as new lesions---or whether there's still a good argument for the case of using an escalation approach, using some of the more modest efficacy medications that also probably in general have lower risks, monitoring for response to treatment and changing if the medication isn't working. And so, there's still a lot of debate in the field, I would say, even though many people have moved towards a one-size-fits-all kind of approach. I think there's still a lot of debate in the field about the evidence underlying that. And, you know, full disclosure, Dr. Ontaneda and I are each running parallel and very complementary clinical trial programs to address this very question, the results of which should be available within the next year, year and a half.

Dr. Monteith: Well, we can't wait that long. Give me some clinical pearls to how we initiate these modifying therapies. Like, what are the pearls that we need to have in our mind?

Dr. Ontaneda: Yeah. I think when we think about starting the disease-modifying therapy in an individual who has an active form of multiple sclerosis, I think, you know, one of the cornerstones I would say of making that decision is shared decision-making. I think we tend to sit down with the patient and analyze the data that we have at hand, what we know about their multiple sclerosis, and we use several factors to inform how likely we think their disease is gonna be active or potentially might not respond to the initial treatment you give. And we look heavily at the MRI. The MRI is really a useful marker because it shows us, one, how many lesions a person might have---both, you know, where those lesions are and also kind of the amount of lesions. Lesions, certainly, that are in the spinal cord, a very large burden of diseases. A lot of active lesions, which we determine by the presence of contrast-enhancing lesions, really helps us inform on disease severity. I would say that was our number one tool that we use to decide and help us decide how we think that person's MS is gonna do over time. And then the second thing that we put into the equation also is, you know, how well do we think this person is going to tolerate our medications? All our disease-modifying medications act through suppression of the immune system, and we know that that carries some risks associated with it. Some of those risks are stuff like infections. Some of those can be simple infections that really don't have major consequences, but some of them can be quite serious, including the need for hospitalizations or prolonged antibiotic treatment courses. And so, we also look at what, you know, the underlying risk of a person has for infection. This kind of is determined by, one, A, how many infections they've had up to date, and also how much disability they had. I would say in our average patient who when we see them, they're probably typically pretty young, in their twenties, thirties, forties, they typically don't have a lot of infectious risks. And therefore, I think there's kind of a move to saying, "Well, actually their risk of infections is quite low." And we put that together with, you know, also what the preference of the patient might want. So, do they prefer to take a pill, for example? Do they prefer a medication where they receive that via infusion every six months and they don't really have to think about it? There are some people that don't like going into a hospital, and they might prefer an injection type of those medications. And so, after a complex discussion of all those factors, we take into consideration how much risk the patient wants to take as well, and we come up with a rational choice of a couple of medication options. So, I think it's challenging sometimes because we have over two dozen medications. There's the risk of you saying, "There are these twenty-four medications, you can pick one." And I think our job as neurologists is to kind of pare those down, talk about, in a person like yourself, these are the two or three medications that I would recommend using. Why don't you review them? And then we bring them back, and we kind of make a final decision with, one of the key factors that I think is important to remind people is that you're gonna start this medication, and we are gonna monitor to make sure it's working. We're gonna monitor to make sure you're tolerating it well. And although it's an important, the first decision you make, I think one key theme that we tell people is, we can revise our strategy whenever we like. We just have to think about it and do it in a way that we think is gonna make sure that their MS is under the best control. And then we think about the ultimate goal of treatment, which, in multiple sclerosis, is the absence of any attacks and also the absence of any new lesions on MRI. And that's where whether you are offering more of the high-effective medications or more moderate- or low-efficacy medications, that's where there's a little bit of controversy still in our field, and that's what our trials are trying to answer.

Dr. Monteith: Excellent. So now we've selected a particular option- and I love those points with shared decision-making, using the MRI to guide and then kind of risk tolerance related to infection. But now a patient's still having relapses, and I know the goal is zero, but, you know, there's some margin. What are the pearls to advance to more high-efficacy therapies?

Dr. Mowry: Yeah, that's a great question. Dr. Ontaneda in the article actually talked about the literature surrounding monitoring for breakthrough disease and when to say this much is too much, and there's actually not a definite right answer. It's clear that more active disease early in the course is probably more of concern than, say, developing, you know, a new spot in your fifties or something to that effect. So, different people have different thresholds. I know at our center, we tend to be pretty on top of making changes for breakthrough disease. So, what we typically do is reimage people about six months after they start a medication to establish a new baseline. And sometimes, because of delays in starting or because the medications take a while to kick in, there might be a new spot or two. So, if that's the case, I really only get concerned if the spots are also taking up the dye or enhancing to indicate they're really quite recent, and I think, "Ugh, that's not something I'd like to see six months after starting a medication." And so that otherwise is sort of the reference scan, moving forward, to evaluate the medication, and I have a very low threshold for changing, particularly if somebody is on a moderate-efficacy therapy. To me, I think, well, our goal of trying the moderate efficacy therapy is essentially to see if we could get away with a medicine that is probably, on average, safer and that will still work for your MS. But if the answer is no, I personally don't like to stick around too much on them. One caveat I would say is that if somebody develops what appears to be a new lesion or spot on higher-efficacy therapy, before presuming that that new area of activity is a definite new MS event, I always like to rethink carefully, did I get the diagnosis correct? Or could this be an early infection such as, you know, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy in people on natalizumab in particular? Because I see breakthrough activity so rarely in people on higher-efficacy therapies that I just like to rethink my diagnosis and the differential prior to making switches to, typically, another higher-efficacy therapy in that case. But that, again, is a little bit of shared decision-making. It's sometimes contextual. If a person is using a self-administered medication and they have a little breakthrough, sometimes you can solicit some history, saying, "Oh, I actually kind of stopped taking it for a few weeks because something was going on, and I really want to retry." And that's very reasonable as well. Dan, do you have any other thoughts?

Dr. Ontaneda: No, I think I agree. That's really close to how I practice myself as well, and the majority of people at my center. I think that we are learning that when you start a treatment, many times---depending on how deeply you look---you can find evidence of ongoing disease, and that's something that we struggle with. It's almost like we have tools to treat inflammation in terms of new MS lesions and new relapses. And so, when those are present, it's pretty clear that you probably have to switch medication. I think a slightly trickier issue is when, for example, you have a person who might be stable. They don't have an attack. But you notice that they're worsening, and they tell you they're worsening. I think our ability and tools for that is a little bit harder, and we recognize that that can actually happen fairly early in the disease. And that's why we're trying to rethink this mantra that we've had for many years, where we kind of divide MS up into relapsing and progressive, and we see people develop progressive MS 10 to 15 years after they've had a relapsing form of the disease. So, I think that's just a reality of clinical practice. And we don't have as many tools to treat that gradual worsening, which is kind of what the rest of our article spent some time talking about.

Dr. Monteith: You've also written about the clinical trial long-term extension studies. And what are the few points that you take away from the emergence of these types of publications over t

Although rare, recognizing NMOSD is crucial for improving patient outcomes through correct diagnostic and treatment approaches. Reports of atypical forms and increasing knowledge of clinical, imaging, and laboratory-specific features are fundamental for the accurate recognition of this condition. Research on targeted therapies and biomarkers measuring and predicting disease activity will improve NMOSD management.

In this episode, Gordon Smith, MD, FAAN, speaks with Sara Mariotto, MD, PhD, coauthor of the article "Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorder" in the Continuum® April 2026 Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders 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. Mariotto is a neurologist in the Neurology Unit in the Department of Neurosciences, Biomedicine, and Movement Sciences at the University of Verona in Verona, Italy.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorder

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 Smith: Neurology is an increasingly therapeutic specialty, and across many of our subspecialty areas, lots of new drugs are being approved. Are you interested in learning more about a historically disabling disorder for which we now have a spectrum of new therapies that, if used appropriately and promptly in the right clinical situation, promise to dramatically improve patient outcomes? If so, keep listening. My name's Dr Gordon Smith. Today I'll be talking with Dr Sara Mariotto about her article on neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder or NMOSD, which she wrote with Dr Romain Marignier. This article appears in the April 2026 Continuum issue on multiple sclerosis.

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 Dr Sara Mariotto about her article on neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder or NMOSD, which she wrote with Dr Romain Marignier. This article appears in the April 2026 Continuum issue on multiple sclerosis. Sara, welcome to the podcast, and maybe you can start by introducing yourself to our audience.

Dr Mariotto: Yes. Thanks, Gordon. I'm Sara Mariotto. I'm a neurologist, and I work at the Neurology Unit, University of Verona, where I do both clinical diagnosis and research into neuroimmunology---so, in particular, autoimmune encephalitis, NMOSD, and MOGAD.

Dr Smith: Well, this is a super exciting area. Whenever I hear about NMOSD, I think of one specific patient I had, and I always think of her when I come across something like your article, which is really fantastic. So, before we dive into the details, I wonder if maybe you can just explain to our listeners who aren't up to speed on what NMOSD is, what the disorder is, and maybe why it's so important that all of our listeners learn how to recognize it quickly and get people started on therapy.

Dr Mariotto: Yes, sure. So, neuromyelitis optica is an inflammatory autoimmune CNS disorder usually associated with aquaporin-4 antibodies, although there are a few cases, around 10%, who can be antibody-negative. And I think it's very much important to have in mind this disease and recognize it because it can be severe, as you pointed out; can present with very severe optic neuritis, myelitis, the brain stem, or area postrema syndrome. So, it can be really severe, affect quite young people around 40 years of age---although it can affect also the pediatric population and elderly people---and, importantly, it can be treated. It's very much important to treat this patient in the acute stage very quickly with steroids or plasma exchange in addition, and then to start a chronic treatment. So, we have treatment for this condition. So, it's very much important to, to recognize it quickly and treat the patient properly.

Dr Smith: So, I wonder if we can talk a little bit about the diagnostic criteria and boundaries of NMOSD, right? So, someone who comes in with bilateral op- severe long segment optic neuritis or long segment myelitis, we think about it. But what are the boundaries? Should we be looking for this, for instance, in someone who comes in with a unilateral optic neuritis or looks like typical multiple sclerosis? Is it important to get aquaporin-4 antibodies in those patients? What do the diagnostic criteria say about this?

Dr Mariotto: So, I wouldn't test aquaporin-4 antibodies in all patients with demyelinating conditions because although aquaporin-4 antibody assay is very specific, as for all assay and all antibody testing---also for MOG antibodies, for example---some false positive results can come out. So, I would suggest to test aquaporin-4 antibodies not in typical MS cases but in those who could be suggestive for not being MS, so in all those cases with atypical optic neuritis and myelitis or other syndromes. For those cases, it's important to test aquaporin-4 antibodies, but I wouldn't test them in all typical, classical MS cases. As I said, it's quite specific, the assay, so it's uncommon to have false positive results, but it can be.

Dr Smith: Serum, CSF, both?

Dr Mariotto: So, for aquaporin-4 antibodies, they're usually present in serum. They can be positive also in the CSF. And there are a few reports of isolated CSF positivity. But if we analyze larger samples volume, then it becomes clear that isolated CSF positivity is so, so rare that it's not recommended to test them in the CSF when serum is negative. So, for aquaporin-4 antibodies, the recommended matrix of testing is serum, which is different for MOG, which is not the topic of our article but is important to mention because MOG antibodies should be tested in serum and CSF. But aquaporin-4, I would recommend to test serum.

Dr Smith: What are the boundaries between MOGAD and NMOSD? And you talked about the differential testing of antibodies, which I was going to ask about. But when should we think of NMOSD relative to MOG?

Dr Mariotto: Yeah. There are aspects which are the one mentioned in the criteria, highly suggestive for NMOSD. But the clinical spectrum can be similar to that of MOGAD. Usually, although there are some clinical aspect---like, for example cortical encephalitis or ADEM, which is more typical for MOGAD, or others like area postrema syndrome, which are more typical of NMOSD. The spectrum can be similar among the two conditions, so that's why in our clinical experience, usually they ask both aquaporin-4 and MOG antibodies in patients. It's- for experts, it can be easy to differentiate the two conditions, but for nonexperts can not be so easy.

Dr Smith: Can you define area postrema syndrome? I think not all of our listeners see that every day.

Dr Mariotto: Yeah, sure. This is a syndrome which is highly suggestive of NMOSD. That's why I mention it. And it's characterized by nausea, vomiting, hiccups are known as the syndrome. And it is very, very suggestive because of the expression of aquaporin-4 in that area of NMOSD. That's why I strongly recommend for all patients who comes out to have this syndrome to test for aquaporin-4 antibodies. MOGAD is hardly ever positive for that, so I think that whenever you see a patient with that syndrome, you should think about NMOSD.

Dr Smith: I'm just curious, aquaporin-4 is a water channel, which is kind of an interesting concept. Our conversation, I really want to make sure we give clinically important information to folks, but it's so curious to me at least, how does this actually result in a inflammatory demyelinating syndrome? For a simple neuromuscular guy, what's the immunopathogenesis of this?

Dr Mariotto: Yeah, the immunopathogenesis is quite complicated, as in all CNS disorders. And of course, aquaporin-4 antibodies are the main focus, but they are not the only one. As you said, aquaporin-4 antibodies have a target, this water channel, which is at the basis of the disease, and they are produced by the interplay between T cells, B cells, and plasma cells. But then also eosinophils, macrophages, cytokines, and chemokines are involved, enter the CNS, and then another important component is complement, which is highly activated in this disease. At the end, we have astrocyte damage because astrocytes are the main target of the disease, but also axon and myelin are involved. So, it's a quite complex pathogenesis based on the antibodies, but not only on that.

Dr Smith: And this will become important when we start talking about treatment. There seems to be a recurring theme of long segment demyelination, right? Optic neuritis is typically a large percentage of the length of the optic nerve, and obviously the myelitis se- more than three segments. Do you see other long segment areas of CNS demyelination, corpus callosum or things like that? Any ideas why that is, if that's true?

Dr Mariotto: Of note, this is quite interesting because usually when we have NMOSD, we have a longitudinal involvement, especially of the optic nerve and spinal cord, while brain lesions are quite different. Like, we usually do not have the typical Dawsen fingers-like lesions that we have in MS, for example, or the classical periventricular or subcortical extensive lesions that we can see and we have in mind when we think about MS. In some cases with NMOSD, the brain is completely negative, so we do not see anything. And Dawsen lesion's quite suggestive of NMOSD. So, you're right. I mean, this is related partially to the expression of aquaporin-4, and that's why we have this typical involvement also for area postrema, for example, and maybe also our other examples of clinical aspect that we can see in these conditions. But it's basically linked with the expression of aquaporin-4, which is the main target of the disease. And that's why usually the brain doesn't show so much involvement as we can see in MS, for example.

Dr Smith: I was actually really interested in some of the unusual manifestations or phenotypes, and I don't want to get into arcadia, really, but which of these should our listeners be familiar with that would really suggest that they should be thinking about NMOSD beyond the area postrema and other features that we've already talked about that are part of the core criteria?

Dr Mariotto: Yeah. I mean, I think that the encephalic syndromes or also ADEM, which is most typical of MOGAD but can be observed also in NMOSD or PRES, for example, are syndromes that can be considered in patients with NMOSD. There are the typical ones, which are the ones showed in the criteria, but whenever we have a brainstem involvement or, like, these encephalic syndromes or also PRES, we should think about NMOSD also.

Dr Smith: Another area I was interested in are red flags. In your article, you talk about red flags that might suggest an alternative diagnosis, right? And then this presumably is particularly important in seronegative patients, which 10% is not a reasonably high number, I suppose. What are red flags we should be thinking about for some other diagnosis?

Dr Mariotto: Yeah. I would here mention two very important red flags. The first one is a very hyperacute onset. Usually these conditions, these inflammatory conditions have a subacute onset, so whenever you have a very, very acute onset, you should think about something else. This can occur sometimes also in NMOSD, but hardly ever occur. Like, a very acute myelitis, the first thing we should think about is a vascular origin, for example, with a lot of pain and not about NMOSD, although sometimes the differential diagnosis is not so easy. The second thing is a progression independently of relapses, which hardly ever occur in NMOSD. Usually in NMOSD, we have the onset, and then we have a relapsing disease course. That's why we have to treat patients always and not to stop treatment. But we do not have progression in the meanwhile, while we can have, for example, this in MS. Same thing is for MOGAD. So, these are two things that I think is very much important to keep in mind.

Dr Smith: I want to pivot to talk about treatment because that's been super exciting. But rumor has it there are new diagnostic criteria coming for NMOSD in the next year. I bet you know a bit about those. Can you give our listeners any indication about kind of where the puck is going on this? Not so much what the criteria are specifically, but what sort of diagnostic challenges are the new criteria going to help us with once they come out?

Dr Mariotto: Yeah. So basically, we are working on that, so you will read them in the next future. This is the good point of the conversation on the new criteria. And we work a lot on the definition, on the new definition and nomenclature of NMOSD; on the definition of seronegative NMOSD, which is also quite tricky; and then on the assay we should use to test aquaporin-4 antibodies, and also on potentially new syndromes which should be included into the main feature of the disease. But hopefully you will read about this very soon.

Dr Smith: Looking forward to it. And Continuum Audio listeners, you heard it here first, so thank you. Let's pivot to treatment. This has been super exciting, and I wonder if the way to approach this is to start with acute management and then sort of chronic management. Would that make sense?

Dr Mariotto: Sure.

Dr Smith: Let's say I go on service on Friday, and I have a patient who comes in with positive aquaporin-4 and bilateral optic neuritis. What's the acute approach to managing that patient?

Dr Mariotto: So, the first approach is to administer intravenous steroids, but I would not wait to escalate to plasma exchange. There is quite good evidence that we should treat the patient with additional plasma exchange very quickly, and every day of delay of plasma exchange can cause increased disability. So, we should treat patients with steroids first, and then if we are not satisfied by the recovery, soon start with a plasma exchange. There is also some evidence, although less, for IVIG, but it's important to try to treat them very quickly, even if it's Friday, you know, there is the weekend and so on. But I think it's very much important to start with steroids after excluding other infectious causes or so on, and then to start quickly with plasma exchange. The main problem could be that we do not have the results of the antibody yet.

Dr Smith: Right. So, let me ask that question. You know, let's say my patient comes in on Friday, and clinical syndrome that really looks like NMOSD, and we're waiting for the aquaporin-4. There are many places where it's hard to get plasma exchange over weekends. And so, in that setting, are you better off doing the steroids over the weekend then PLEX on Monday, or should we just give IVIG because maybe it's as good as PLEX? What's your advice there? I'm trying to get ready for Friday because I know one's coming in.

Dr Mariotto: That's true, that's true. Usually they come on Friday or Saturday. I think it's acceptable to have three days of steroids and see how the patient improves, and then after three days to start with plasma exchange. Actually, we have a very good improvement if we start between three and five days after onset. So, I think waiting for three days is acceptable just because we can see if the steroids work properly or not, and then we can quickly start to plasma exchange. But I would not wait, like, 10 days, you know, before starting with a plasma exchange, and I would not wait for antibody results.

Dr Smith: Got it. Super helpful. And I'm actually not joking around, I learned recently that I have a reputation among our residents for having lots of optic neuritis when I'm on service, which I think is sort of karmic justice for being a peripheral nerve expert. But let me ask another question. So, let's say we do that, and the patient gets three or five days of pulse methylprednisolone and five courses of PLEX, and they're not doing well. Do you then just move right along into another agent B cell depletion therapy? I mean, what's your next step in escalation in the acute setting?

Dr Mariotto: I would for sure start to, as you said, with steroids, plasma exchange, and in case IVIG, and then quickly move to chronic treatment. And for patients who are not recovering well, I would think of something which has a quick effect so we can really start treating patients very quickly. There are different options. And all over the world, there are different rules for using immunosuppression in NMOSD. Like in Italy, for example, it's different from US or other countries, Germany, for example. There are different approved treatments and different rules of using them before or after rituximab, for example. We all know that there are treatments approved for NMOSD all over the world. But in some countries, like for example in Italy, we should use rituximab first, and then if it doesn't work, escalate to the approved treatment. I know in the US it's different. But anyway, for a patient who does not improve quickly, I would start with something which has a quick effect on the disease.

Dr Smith: And then rituximab versus inebilizumab, you know, CD20, CD19, what's your advice there? Is one preferable to the other, you know, if we have options to do either?

Dr Mariotto: Yeah. So, between rituximab and inebilizumab, we know that the target, well, is different, but is anyway B cells, so CD19 and CD20. With CD19, we can affect both plasma blast, plasma cells, and B cells. That's why the target is broader. And of note, this is an approved drug, while rituximab is, in most countries, used as off-label treatment.

Dr Smith: So inebilizumab would probably be preferable if we're able to do that.

Dr Mariotto: Unfortunately, there are not so many studies comparing rituximab with the approved drug, which is, of course, a pity, but that's the case. While we have clinical trials for all the approved drugs, and although the trials were designed differently, as we mentioned in the Continuum paper, we can argue something of the comparison between the approved drugs. But it is not so clear the comparison between rituximab and the new drugs, which is also something that we should work on.

Dr Smith: And then for chronic suppressive management, what other options are there?

Dr Mariotto: So, in addition to B cells, target can be interleukin-6, as we know with tocilizumab or satralizumab, and then complement with eculizumab. These drugs are both based on the pathogenesis of the disease. That's why we also discuss it in the paper, which shows a clear involvement of complement, and among cytokines of interleukin-6. So, targeting these made clear that could improve the disease quite well, and that's why they designed some clinical trials on these drugs, which are now approved, as we said, for NMOSD.

Dr Smith: Wow, so many options, and a lot of questions, but limited time. Let me just ask a couple of more. I see a lot of myasthenia patients, and there's a lot of variability, as you know, in patients with myasthenia, the extent to which complement is an important mechanism versus other, you know, important mechanisms. To what extent is response to a complement inhibitor kind of uniform across NMOSD? Or there's s

Familiarity with the clinical, MRI, CSF, and serologic features of MOGAD can help neurologists recognize this condition in clinical practice. Awareness of the utility and pitfalls of the MOG antibody test is critical. The current therapeutic approach is guided by retrospective studies and the application of immunotherapies used in other autoimmune neurologic disorders.

In this episode, Gordon Smith, MD, FAAN, speaks with Eoin P. Flanagan, MBBCh, coauthor of the article "Myelin Oligodendrocyte Glycoprotein Antibody–Associated Disease" in the Continuum® April 2026 Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders 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. Flanagan is a professor of neurology and the division chair of the Division of Multiple Sclerosis and Autoimmune Neurology in the Department of Neurology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Myelin Oligodendrocyte Glycoprotein Antibody–Associated 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: @GordonSmithMD

Full episode transcript available here

Dr Smith: So, what neurological disorder can cause bilateral optic neuritis, transverse myelitis, ADEM, or can mimic acute flaccid myelitis, intracranial hypertension, viral encephalitis, or cause seizures? Sounds like the great imitator, perhaps. If you want to know and learn more about this syndrome and how you can treat it---and it is very treatable---keep listening. My name is Gordon Smith, and today I have the great opportunity to talk with Dr Eoin Flanagan from the Mayo Clinic on his article on myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody associated disease, or MOGAD, which is in the April 2026 issue of Continuum on Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders.

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 Dr Eoin Flanagan about his article on myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein associated disease, or MOGAD, which appears in the April 2026 Continuum issue on multiple sclerosis and related disorders. Eoin, welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to our audience.

Dr Flanagan: Yeah, thanks so much. I'm Eoin Flanagan. I'm a neurologist at the Mayo Clinic. I'm originally from Ireland. I work in the neuroimmunology lab at the Mayo Clinic, and work and see patients with MS, MOG, and autoimmune disorders here in Rochester, Minnesota.

Dr Smith: Your article is super interesting, I think, and this has been a really rapidly evolving area over the last, you know, many years. We have many more antibodies, and MOG is something that's been around for a while, but we've certainly learned a lot more about it. This is a topic that I think will be familiar to most of our listeners, but I wonder if maybe you can just begin by laying the foundation. Like, what is MOG? What's its typical presentation?

Dr Flanagan: So, MOG is a protein on the surface of the oligodendrocyte or its CNS myelin, and it was always of interest as a potential antibody target, and initially it was investigated in multiple sclerosis. But subsequently, we recognized that the antibodies to MOG have a specific syndrome, of which about a quarter of patients are pediatric and then the remainder are adults. And they can present with a variety of syndromes, probably most commonly optic neuritis, but also acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, or ADEM. Transverse myelitis can also occur, and then some other unusual brain and brainstem cerebellar syndromes can also occur.

Dr Smith: I was really impressed in the very broad phenotypic spectrum of MOG. We'll talk more about that, of course. But I wonder if maybe you can tell us when we should be ordering MOG antibody? Given this broad variability, does anyone who has a CNS demyelinating disease need a MOG assay, only specific phenotypes? What guidance do you have for our listeners?

Dr Flanagan: Yeah. It's a great question. So, I think you have to be a little bit careful because the MOG antibody test is a little bit sticky. So sometimes we can see some low-positive false positives. So, we don't wanna order it in every single patient with classical MS. So, I suppose we'll start with who not to order it in. I think it's also a very optic nerve- and optic neuritis-central disease, so I think you really need to be considering this in a patient with optic neuritis who does not have lesions in the brain suggestive of multiple sclerosis. And then we think about some of the features: if the lesion, the enhancement along the optic nerve is long, if it's bilateral, if there's a lot of optic disc edema accompanying that, we tend to think about MOG antibodies. And then children with demyelinating disease, MOG is over-represented in that cohort, so it accounts for about a third of those. So, if you have a child with CNS demyelinating disease, particularly if they're under twelve, with ADEM presentations or other presentations, you probably want to be ordering the MOG antibody test. And then a longitudinally extensive transverse myelitis in adults, certain types of cerebral phenotypes that we can get into, you would want to consider ordering MOG antibodies too.

Dr Smith: Now, you point out in the article that it's really important that laboratories use the cell-based assay for MOG as opposed to an ELISA, for instance. Is this something folks need to be very attentive to, or are all of the commercial laboratories now using a cell-based assay?

Dr Flanagan: Yeah. I think all of the commercial labs are using cell-based assays, so we don't really get into much of an issue. There are some differences between serum and CSF, so really, serum is the optimal sample to order. There is also some differences between the live cell-based assay and the fixed cell-based assay, where the live cell-based assay may have some advantages in terms of sensitivity. And then CSF is kind of still under evaluation about its role in the condition. So in general, it's a serum test. And then we have to remember that the antibody tends to be highest at the onset, and then it goes down over time. So, if you delay your testing or you're testing a patient long after the condition, it can go negative, for example. So it tends to be highest both around the relapses and particularly at the onset of the condition.

Dr Smith: You mentioned earlier that the test is sticky, which I take to mean that there is some risk for low-titer false positives. How do you navigate that situation? When should we be suspicious about a false positive?

Dr Flanagan: Yeah. I think there's some very useful features that can help you. You know, the main differential diagnosis is going to be multiple sclerosis, particularly in the US, in regions of the northern US where MS is particularly common. So, you really wanna be making sure that if you get a positive result, low positive, that it's not multiple sclerosis. And some of the best discriminating features are CSF oligoclonal bands. They're about 85% in MS and about 15% in MOG, so an easy number to remember, 85 and 15. And then the lesions in MOG, the brain lesions, tend to disappear over time. So, if you have the advantage of that follow-up MRI a year down the line, about 70% of lesions in MOGAD will resolve, while in MS, as we know, the term means multiple scars, so the MS lesions tend to persist over time. So, they are two quite useful features that can help discriminate.

Dr Smith: And how about specific phenotypes or areas of involvement or imaging abnormalities that suggest MOG? One of the things I found really interesting in your article is there are a host of different syndromes that I think had largely been previously described, many of them, that became clear later that these were really tied to MOG antibodies. Presumably, that's helpful in interpreting the antibody assay in that patients who have, perhaps, a borderline low titer, for instance, but have a very typical phenotype are more likely to have MOG than those who have a more clearly MS-type phenotype.

Dr Flanagan: Yeah, absolutely right. Yes. So, there's certain phenotypes that we don't tend to see with MS. The acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, or ADEM, is one that's particularly common in children. And about half of people that have ADEM will be positive for the MOG antibody. So that's a syndrome you need to look out for, which would be often in children, encephalopathy, and they would have multifocal white matter lesions, sometimes involving the gray matter. A second syndrome that was an interesting discovery from a Japanese group was this unilateral cerebral cortical encephalitis, where patients can have this swelling and T2 hyperintensity, often just on one side of the brain. And it's in the cortex, and some of those patients won't have any white matter lesions. And in that situation, it's important to order the MOG antibody, and that seems to be a specific phenotype of MOGAD. But sometimes people don't think about it because the white matter is not involved. So, if you see these patients, they often present with seizures, sometimes they even have fever accompanied by it. And if you see those patients and see this radiological feature, then you really want to consider ordering the MOG antibody too.

Dr Smith: Yeah, I found that really interesting. And I- actually, my next question is perhaps a good follow-up on that, is, what are the diagnostic pitfalls? You give a lot of examples of situations and I think some cases where it's easy to get tripped up and misdiagnose someone who has MOG with another fairly common neurological problem.

Dr Flanagan: Yeah, I think some of the things that can help you when you're determining if the MOG is a true positive or false positive is the level of the antibodies. The super high titers, if it's a clear positive or very strong positive, the likelihood is that that is much more likely to be MOGAD than those low positives just above the cutoff. So that can be useful to help you discriminate from false positives. Those lesions, again, if all the lesions persist over time, that's going to be more suggestive of multiple sclerosis. Other diagnostic pitfalls, I suppose, if it's a syndrome that's not really associated with MOG, like peripheral neuropathy or other syndromes where we'll see some case reports, but usually I would be very cautious about those kind of presentations. So usually, having the antibody at a high level, and then also if they've had other symptoms suggestive of MOGAD, like if a patient has had recurrent optic neuritis and then they have an unusual brain syndrome, or they start out with an unusual brain syndrome and then have recurrent optic neuritis. You know, there are situations that make it more likely if they're having other typical phenotypes of the MOGAD where we can kind of expand the spectrum, but we have to be careful.

Dr Smith: I was really curious about the dynamic imaging findings. And you point this out both in terms of the resolution of imaging findings, but also in that patients who have an acute MOG syndrome often have very rapid evolution of the imaging abnormalities. I'm just curious, you know, why is that, and what do you make of it? Does it have a mechanistic implication, do you think?

Dr Flanagan: I don't think we know for sure. I think there's probably a lot more happening than we see on MRIs sometimes. What sometimes can happen in about 10% of patients is the initial MRI can be normal. We don't tend to see that with multiple sclerosis or NMOSD. Then what we see is it evolving over time. So, at that time, if you do a CSF, you'll often see inflammation, but we don't see the lesions. Now, that might be because the MRI is not very good at picking up cortical involvement. That can be difficult to see in MRI. Or there could be other factors. It could be a functional effect on the MOG but without frank demyelination yet, for example. Or there could be edema that you- myelin edema that you can't see as a lesion yet on MRI. But we do see that if you repeat the MRI, sometimes it'll change a lot. So, you may go from one or two lesions on the first MRI to twenty lesions on the second MRI a week later. So, it does tend to change a lot. And then over time, those lesions also resolve. So, what I say is if it's a very suspicious situation---like a child comes in with new-onset encephalitis, has inflammatory CSF---you might wanna consider repeating that MRI down the line and seeing if it's changing. And then over time, you know, a repeat MRI a year after the onset when there's brain or spinal cord lesions can be very helpful just to make sure you're on the right track, because lots of those lesions will then disappear, and that's a very clear discriminator from multiple sclerosis.

Dr Smith: Yeah, thanks. I mean, I was wondering the same thing about whether that particular feature might imply, you know, a functional abnormality as opposed to more of a structural abnormality. So probably a lot more to learn as we move forward. There are now consensus diagnostic criteria that were published a couple of years ago. I think you've already touched on kind of the general approach, but do you want to speak to those? I found your summary pretty helpful.

Dr Flanagan: Yeah, I think that those criteria are quite useful. They have three main parts to them. The first part is having a characteristic clinical syndrome. So, we talked about ADEM, we talked about cerebral cortical encephalitis, transverse myelitis that's often longitudinally extensive, and optic neuritis being the main syndromes, but sometimes other brainstem or cerebellar involvement can be seen. And then the second part is having a positive MOG antibody. And then there's some caveats there. So, if you have a high positive, then you don't really need any additional supportive criteria. On the other hand, if you're low positive, to get at those sticky antibodies that make sure it's not a false positive, you need some additional supportive clinical or MRI criteria. Or if you're only positive in CSF, you need that additional criteria. You also need to be negative for the aquaporin-4 antibody, because they can overlap clinically. And some of those supportive criteria are things that we talked about a little bit earlier, longer lesions within the optic nerve, bilateral involvement, involvement of the nerve sheath or optic disc edema. This is a situation, MOG antibody disease, where your fundoscope is useful and looking in the back of the eye and seeing swelling, because we don't tend to see that quite as often. It's less common in multiple sclerosis, but we often see prominent edema in MOGAD. And then in the spinal cord, the lesions tend to be central in the cord. Sometimes they form this H sign where it's restricted to the gray matter, and they tend to be longer, sometimes involving the conus. Patients will often have neurogenic bowel or bladder. And then in the brain, deep gray involvement, those large lesions along the cortex with swelling are some of the typical features. And then the final step is exclusion of another diagnosis. Just like with any test that we do in neurology, our final step is going to be to put that into context. So that's just a normal thing that we will always do when we get a group of test results back that we don't know what it means. We have to put it into context. So, make sure it's not multiple sclerosis, everything else does not look like multiple sclerosis, and then you can be on your way to make a diagnosis.

Dr Smith: Definitely encourage listeners to read your article. I guess I say that with every time I- or with everyone I talk to for Continuum Audio, but the images are really fantastic and the cases are fantastic. So, everything you've described is well-illustrated, including really nice schematic sort of diagrams that help differentiate NMO from MOG and MS. So, if you like MRI scans and good imaging frameworks, then this is the article for you.

Dr Flanagan: I think that's true, and the other thing is that the imaging is quite helpful because it takes a while for that antibody to come back. We're lucky at Mayo Clinic, if you work here, it, it comes back faster for you. But for many places, that time of sending it in, so a lot of times you don't know right away. So, looking at scrutinizing that MRI can be very helpful to guide you on your way and to know what you're dealing with and how to approach both the acute treatment and plans to have potentially a steroid taper after the acute treatment and those kind of things that can help guide you in that regard.

Dr Smith: Yeah. So, let's talk about treatment. You know, what's your approach to treating a patient who has an acute demyelinating syndrome related to MOG?

Dr Flanagan: So similar to other things, MOG is very steroid responsive. So, we use high-dose IV methylprednisolone in adults. That would be one gram IV for five days. And then we also will sometimes use oral steroids, twelve hundred and fifty milligrams. That's a bit of a hassle because it's twenty-five fifty-milligram tablets, it doesn't come in a larger tablet version. But it's very helpful to patients because they can get started on it right away. You don't have to set up an infusion center. So, we have used those oral steroids often in people who don't have access to an infusion center, are not in the hospital. And particularly as it's often optic neuritis, some of those patients are seen in the outpatient setting, so we can get in with treatment quickly. In patients where it's more severe, it doesn't recover quickly with steroids, then we would consider escalating to plasma exchange as our second-line treatment, and there's some retrospective data that suggests that plasma exchange can be useful. That's gonna be particularly for those people who don't have that quick response to steroids, or maybe more severe phenotypes like that brain involvement with ADEM or cerebral cortical encephalitis, where those patients might be in the hospital and quite unwell. I will say, we might get on to this, that sometimes MOG can be very, very severe and even fulminant, where there can be increased intracranial pressure, and these patients can be in the ICU, and it can be life-threatening. And so, it's really important to treat those patients aggressively, and some patients have even required hemicraniectomy or additional treatment. Sometimes IL-6 blocking medications have been used in that situation. So, monitoring and treating increased intracranial pressure in those rare patients, probably 2 or 3% that have the very severe attack, is important.

Dr Smith: I think one of the things I found interesting, and then I'd love to get your feedback on this, is that most patients with MOG seem to have a very readily treatable disorder that's monophasic, right? You treat them with steroids, and they do well. On the other extreme, there are these patients that have a much more malignant presentation, and there are some that sound like they benefit from prophylactic or some chronic therapy. What's your approach, right? In MS, we do serial scans to monitor, and obviously, our patients are on, you know, chronic disease-modifying therapy. How do

Adult‑onset leukodystrophies, though rare, can closely mimic MS on both clinical presentation and neuroimaging, posing a significant diagnostic challenge. This episode highlights key clinical and radiologic red flags that can help distinguish these disorders from MS, preventing misdiagnosis and avoiding inappropriate treatment while enabling timely genetic counseling and targeted therapies.

In this episode, Teshamae Monteith, MD, FAAN, speaks with Roberta La Piana, MD, PhD, coauthor of the article "Adult-Onset Leukodystrophies Mimicking Multiple Sclerosis" in the Continuum® April 2026 Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders issue.

Dr. Monteith is the associate editor of Continuum® Audio and an associate professor of clinical neurology at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Miami, Florida.

Dr. La Piana is an associate professor in the Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery at the Montreal Neurological Institute, McGill University, and an associate member of the Department of Diagnostic Radiology at McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Adult-Onset Leukodystrophies Mimicking Multiple Sclerosis

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 Monteith: You just saw a patient in clinic. And you're clear, the diagnosis is multiple sclerosis. Not everything fits, but it kind of looks like multiple sclerosis. You see the patient back years later. There're some treatment issues, the patient's not responding to treatment, and things look different. Have you thought about a genetic inherited problem like leukodystrophy or a genetic white matter disorder? Listen to this podcast. We're going to help you figure it out.

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 Roberta La Piana about her article on adult-onset leukodystrophies mimicking multiple sclerosis, which she wrote with Dr Gabrielle Macaron. This article appears in the April 2026 Continuum issue on multiple sclerosis. Welcome to our podcast.

Dr La Piana: Thank you. Thank you for having me.

Dr Monteith: Absolutely. Why don't we start off with you introducing yourself?

Dr La Piana: So, my name is Roberta La Piana. I'm a pediatric neurologist. I trained in Italy, I did my medical school, I did my residency in pediatric neurology there. And then I moved here to Montreal, to the Montreal Neurological Institute, to do a PhD in neuroscience. And that's where I specialized in adult-onset genetic white matter diseases. And after my PhD, I was recruited as an assistant professor here. So, that's where I got into this field.

Dr Monteith: This big field, highly specialized; lots of disorders, but highly specialized. And what got you into this? Neuroscience is huge. So, was it a mentor, or…?

Dr La Piana: No, actually, it was because of my background, because I trained as a pediatric neurologist and I loved the genetic white matter disorders in the pediatric population. So, when I came to the Montreal Neurological Institute, initially it was mainly to have a better expertise in imaging. And being at an adult neurology institute, I started seeing patients with adult genetic white matter diseases, and I was immediately fascinated by how different they were from their pediatric counterparts. Because in pediatric genetic white matter diseases, pediatric leukodystrophies look very diffuse, look very confluentous, so it's difficult to mistake them. But in adults, in the adult forms, I was initially driven by how often they can be misdiagnosed as multiple sclerosis or as other acquired white matter disorders. So that's why I got really interested in in this field.

Dr Monteith: You're, like, literally the perfect person for this discussion.

Dr La Piana: I'm not sure- *laughs*

Dr Monteith: Why don't we start off with what your objectives were when writing this article?

Dr La Piana: With writing this article, the goal is what I have been, actually, doing for the past ten years or so. So, really try to get more attention into the field because of the high rate of potential misdiagnosis of patients. So, that's exactly the reason why I really would like to raise the interest of neurologists for these disorders, because they are not considered enough in the differential diagnosis of patients, of adult patients presenting with white matter disorders. They are considered rare---which are, they are rare, definitely. But collectively, while each single form is rare, collectively they are not as rare. So- and thus, the risk of misdiagnosis and the potential impact of misdiagnosis on them with, you know, you can imagine giving patients inappropriate treatment or missing the possibility of a prenatal genetic diagnosis is so high that I really would like people to keep these disorders in the differential.

Dr Monteith: And it sounds like more than ever, this is really important because some of the newer developments in the field.

Dr La Piana: Yes. Specifically, we have now tools that will allow to diagnose these patients quite quickly. All the genetic techniques that are available nowadays can really, with one single shot, we can now sequence hundreds of genes so we can have a quicker diagnosis. And this thing was impossible up until ten years ago. So that's definitely the first huge improvement that makes these disorders now easily diagnosed.

Dr Monteith: Yeah. So why don't we talk a little bit about how common is this misdiagnosis for these rare subtypes?

Dr La Piana: Yeah, the misdiagnosis, it depends on the cohorts. Generally speaking, I would say that the rate of that misdiagnosis for these forms is up to 25% or even more in some other cohorts. And it really depends on the forms. Like, there are clearly some forms, especially those that present with multifocal white matter diseases, that present with nonspecific clinical presentations like migraines, image---and especially for female patients, and for which migraine is so common, having multifocal with other abnormalities is so common, the rate of diagnosis increases even further. So, these are all things that we need to keep in mind. I know these are rare, but still, we need to always have them on the back of our minds.

Dr Monteith: Are there any particular disorders that are more often misdiagnosed? And you spoke about progressive forms of multiple sclerosis being a common kind of misdiagnosis.

Dr La Piana: Yeah. So, there are definitely forms that are more commonly misdiagnosed. And these are those that, as I probably repeated already too many times, is the word multifocal, which is key. So, all those genetic white matter disorders that present with multifocal white matter abnormalities are not initially considered as genetic. So, I'm thinking about all of the leukovasculopathies, so, the small vessel diseases which are genetic in origin. For example, CADASIL; for example, the disorders related to collagen-4; so, the COL4 A1 or A2-related disorders. Those are clearly more commonly misdiagnosed initially. Another big group, unfortunately, is the CSF1R-related disorders. I know I'm saying a lot of gene names, but due to the fact that they start with multifocal abnormalities and they start with quite nonspecific, slowly progressive symptoms, the rate of misdiagnosis is definitely higher.

Dr Monteith: And can you discuss some of the clinical challenges when seeing patients that might lead to this misdiagnosis?

Dr La Piana: There are multiple clinical challenges. One is definitely the presence of nonspecific or initially mild clinical symptoms that sometimes don't raise initially the red flag of something, degenerative or progressive or genetic. One category that I would mention are psychiatric disturbances, especially in the form of depression, anxiety, or apathy. This is quite common in patients with some forms of genetic white matter disorders, and they are initially misdirected to psychiatrists and taken care in that domain. But it's only when some even mild neurological symptoms like a gait disturbance or hyperreflexia, or we had patients with, like, a urinary incontinence. It's only at that time, but maybe years have passed meanwhile, that these patients are finally referred to the neurologist

Dr Monteith: You spoke about some of these clinical symptoms. Can you give us some other clinical red flags?

Dr La Piana: Well, some other clinical red flags can be, for example, the extraneurological involvement. So, we have patients where- and there's a reason immediately to some specific disorders. For example, infertility. The presence of infertility in a female patient with white matter disorders should immediately form the consideration of the specific genetic white matter diseases that are associated with these forms. And this is not something that neurologists tend to ask about in the collection of the clinical history. And this is something that can make the difference and can accelerate the diagnosis.

Dr Monteith: What are some other things? I mean, I know we can think about treatment, lack of a common treatment response, maybe, to steroids. You gave a great example of optic neuritis, for example. Give us some other things that we should say, hey, this doesn't fit the picture. Red flag.

Dr La Piana: In this case, I think we want to talk more about the specific misdiagnosis of MS. Because these patients are often misdiagnosed with MS, but they might sometimes be misdiagnosed with other forms of acquired white matter diseases. When we consider MS, definitely the presence of being treatment resistant: so, patients that are not responsive to the common MS-targeting treatment should be always a red flag. The evolution as well. So, for example, the presence of a more slowly progressive course is another red flag. The presence of optic neuritis. Sometimes it's tricky because it's not common in the genetic white matter disorders, it's used as a criterion to orient correctly towards a multiple sclerosis. But we need to keep in mind that there are forms, genetic forms, especially the mitochondrial forms, that can present with optic neuritis and are really at the overlap with the multiple sclerosis spectrum. Then, if we want to move forward beyond the clinical side and go into the laboratory, of course a negative lumbar puncture with no oligoclonal bands should be a major red flag.

Dr Monteith: What about some of the radiographic features?

Dr La Piana: So, the radiographic features is something we are really working on in the field, especially with the new criteria used in MS. So, for example the paramagnetic rim lesions or the central vein sign, they are considered the specific forms. But it's true- and don't have an answer for that. I want to be clear, but it's true that they haven't been assessed yet extensively in patients with genetic white matter disorders. Anecdotally, I can say, because I have already reported this at conferences, that we have seen patients with genetic white matter conditions reaching a threshold for a central vein sign that can be considered diagnostic for MS. And we have seen that in some patients. Again, no study has been carried out extensively to date, but I think we should consider that with a grain of salt. But yeah, the paramagnetic rim in lesions is probably more accurate to distinguish between genetic and acquired white matter disorders.

Dr Monteith: And what about some of the genetic white matter disorders that mimic MS? You spoke about things like CADASIL; what are other things that we should keep in the back of our mind? And you have great charts, to our listeners, and they're going to have to review those charts, because they're excellent. I think maybe they need to find a way to make that a little bookmark you walk around with on the ward. But what are some other conditions that kind of commonly mischaracterized?

Dr La Piana: Two of the main groups are the one that you mentioned. So, leukovasculopathy is- so, CADASIL, is definitely one of the most common misdiagnoses of MS. And the presence, as we said, of some clinical features like migraine, especially when it's complicated migraine with visual aura, we all know that. But especially in the context of a positive family history for either a psychiatry condition or migraine as well, or strokes, these are all factors that should prompt the consideration of these disorders in the differential of a patient with white matter disorders. Another category are definitely mitochondrial disorders, which I think are more neglected than others because we don't think about mitochondrial disorders when we see white matter disease; we tend to consider that mitochondrial disorders are a problem of the gray matter, but they are not. There are white matter diseases that have definitely mitochondrial. And the third category are probably microgliocytes, which are represented by the CSF1R-related disorder. And this is also something that is clearly quite prevalent, relatively prevalent, in the field of genetic white matter disorders misdiagnosed as MS.

Dr Monteith: Yeah. Why don't we go through some of the, kind of, key history, you know, some of the key questions you would ask in the history to try and differentiate? You mentioned kind of subtle symptoms, longstanding progressive symptoms. I know things that we look at like relapsing/remitting and some trigger factors can actually be associated with some of these genetic disorders. So how do you approach a patient? What are some of the key questions? You talked about family history and you talked about medical history, but why don't you kind of give us a nice way to kind of hone in on to the patient?

Dr La Piana: There are a couple of questions that we usually ask. I should make a disclaimer, though, that I work very closely with the MS clinics, so we are ready to receive patients that are prescreened. So, these are already patients that people working on acquired white matter disorders feel like they are atypical, so they want our opinion. But usually, there are two groups of questions that we always ask. One is about the family history. And by saying family history, I really dig into the family history. I don't just want to know whether there are family members with neurological disorders. I ask specifically about migraine. I ask specifically about infertility issues. I ask specifically about psychiatric issues. These three things are always on the top of my mind when asking about family history. The other thing is a family history for neurodevelopmental disorder, because you know that some people might not remember that some genetic white matter diseases can present at different ages. So, in the same family, there might be cases with a pediatric-onset leukodystrophy, and that can manifest at a later age in other family members. So, this is something that we always explore. In terms of the clinical history, one question that I recommend always to ask is really about more subtle symptoms. So, for example, many of our patients present with progressive balance problems or progressive mobility issues that have been going on for a while. So, we always ask how they were when they were in their teenage years, for instance. And it's frequent that they say, actually, I was a bit clumsy. Actually, I was not the first being picked in school at phys-ed sports. And these are all interesting aspects. Maybe they are totally incidental, and sometimes they suggest that there was probably something going on for a long time. The other thing is the presence, for example, of learning difficulties. Again, these are things that are subtle but testify that there was probably a process that was more longstanding.

Dr Monteith: You talked about things like rim lesions. Are there other types of sequences that might be useful to better characterize demyelinating diseases that are genetic in origin? I assume higher levels of MRI might be better at differentiating.

Dr La Piana: Yeah. So, in the clinical setting, there are a couple of sequences that are very useful. One is the diffusion, because as opposed to multiple sclerosis, the presence of persistently restricted areas of diffusion can point immediately towards some genetic white matter diseases. One is CSF1R-related disorders. But there are also some other, more rare tremor and ataxia syndrome that present with persistent areas of restricted diffusion as well as others. The presence of calcification. So, adding an SWI, susceptibility weighted imaging, to check not just for calcifications that can immediately orient towards some disorders, but can also identify areas of microhemorrhages that, if we are going back to the leukovasculopathies, to the genetic leukovasculopathies, can tell us that we are on the right track for excluding those type of diseases. Basically, these are the two that are available in every scanner without even going into fancy, more advanced techniques.

Dr Monteith: I was going to ask you that question, how often should we think about this next-generation sequencing when you're kind of on the fence, allowing for some negative results to come back in the abundance of caution?

Dr La Piana: The problem with the panel, of course, is that you run a panel and you don't know what's coming back. So, then having to deal with variants of unknown significance in genes, then you have to deal with them, and then you have to deal with results that maybe are not as black or white as you would expect initially. So, I'll answer to your question when to do that, our recommendation would be to do that every time you are presented with a patient that presents those atypical features that we summarized in the paper, and that basically raise multiple red flags for an atypical white matter disease that is not multiple sclerosis. And then what to do when you have results? I still believe that having access, of course, to genetic counselors, to neurogeneticists, is critical, but also having access and being in contact with the network of people working on this. Because we are a network; we put the website address on the paper of the white matter rounds because this is an international network that we built over the years, and we connect monthly, on a monthly basis, with meetings to discuss exactly this type of patient. So, we are all learning together, and it's very frequent that people ask us to present cases at the white matter rounds because they have a presented with unusual or atypical genetic findings and they want the opinion of experts.

Dr Monteith: Great. Well, I'm really glad that resource is available. And I'm also really glad that you wrote that article with your colleague. Thank you so much.

Dr La Piana: Thank you so much, Tesha.

Dr Monteith: Today I have been interviewing Dr Roberta La Piana about her article on adult-onset leukodystrophies mimicking multiple sclerosis, which she wrote with Dr Gabrielle Macaron. This article appears in the April 2026 Continuum issue on multiple sclerosis. 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 informatio

Novel MRI biomarkers, including cortical lesions, the central vein sign, and paramagnetic rim lesions, are highly specific for MS and can aid diagnosis in select clinical scenarios, particularly early in the disease course or in atypical presentations. When used with appropriate MRI sequences, these markers can improve diagnostic sensitivity while helping prevent misdiagnosis.

In this episode, Casey Albin, MD, speaks with Jiwon Oh, MD, PhD, FRCPC, FAAN, author of the article "Diagnostic Neuroimaging Biomarkers for Multiple Sclerosis" in the Continuum® April 2026 Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders issue.

Dr. Albin is a Continuum® Audio interviewer, associate editor of media engagement, and an assistant professor of neurology and neurosurgery at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

Dr. Oh is the medical director of the Barlo Multiple Sclerosis Program at St. Michael's Hospital and an associate professor at the University of Toronto in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Diagnostic Neuroimaging Biomarkers for Multiple Sclerosis

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: @caseyalbin

Full episode transcript available here

Dr Albin: Spend any time in a neurology conference, and you are certain to hear about the new central vein sign, which, as I learn, is not actually all that new. But have you heard about cortical lesions or these paramagnetic rim lesions? Because today I have the privilege of talking to Dr Jiwon Oh about her article, and we're going to unpack all these new biomarkers in MS.

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 Albin: Hello, this is Dr Casey Albin. Today I'm interviewing Dr Jiwon Oh about her article on diagnostic neuroimaging biomarkers for Multiple Sclerosis, which appears in the April 2026 Continuum issue on multiple sclerosis. Welcome to the podcast. Thank you so much for being here. I'd love to start by having you introduce yourself to our listeners.

Dr Oh: Thanks, Casey. Hi, everybody. My name is Jiwon Oh and I'm a neurologist, mainly an MS specialist at Saint Michael's Hospital at the University of Toronto, and I'm the medical director of our MS program.

Dr Albin: And you have written a really fantastic article that dives deep into some of the nitty gritty about these new diagnostic biomarkers that we find on the MRI that we're getting for our patients with multiple sclerosis. And I think we are going to get into a lot of that nitty gritty. How do we look for them? How do they improve our diagnostic specificity? This is really come a long way in shaping the advances for multiple sclerosis. And I'd kind of like to just start with the big picture. Like why do we need these more specific biomarkers?

Dr Oh: This set of diagnostic criteria in MS, it's actually a huge change in the field, and particularly for people like me who are really interested in developing new MRI measures, we're really, really excited because it's actually the first time since MRI was officially incorporated into the MS Diagnostic criteria, which was way back in 2001. It's the first time that we've actually been able to get newer, more advanced imaging measures beyond just simply detecting, new T2 lesions in the MS diagnostic criteria. So, it's a big moment in the field, and many of us are really excited about it in terms of why we need some of these newer, more specific imaging measures. Well, you know, diagnostic criteria always evolve over time for any disease state, and MS is one that we've recognized over the years. By the time someone actually presents with typical clinical symptoms and has diagnosed, whatever has been happening from a patho-biological standpoint has been happening probably for almost 5 to 10 years before that individual actually presents. And so, because of this recognition in the field and the fact that we're recognizing how important it is to first diagnose MS and then treat MS earlier and earlier, because we know that early treatment helps prevent more clinical outcomes. Diagnostic criteria over time have become much more permissive, meaning that we're doing everything that we can to try to facilitate a diagnosis of MS when we know that someone biologically has MS. But the problem with making diagnostic criteria more permissive, and it's obviously a good thing because you want to capture as many people with MS as early on as possible. The problem with making it permissive is there is this terrible risk of misdiagnosis. As clinicians, we all think we never make mistakes. But it turns out when you actually do studies, you do. And even at MS specialty centers, when studies have been done, 10% to 20% of people with MS are misdiagnosed. So, this is exactly why we need in diagnostic criteria that really help to facilitate a diagnosis. We need things that help us prevent misdiagnosis as well. And these are these specific imaging measures that have now been incorporated into the diagnostic criteria in many settings that will help to facilitate a diagnosis. But the really big perk is if you use them, you can help to prevent misdiagnosis as well.

Dr Albin: Yeah, that really shone through in your article that this was such a big step in towards being more specific about who were diagnosing. Also capturing more people, right? Trying to get those people that we, we don't want to miss because of all the things you say, you know, that allows them to accumulate more disability, have worse outcomes. Early diagnosis is so important. But I really did take away from your article just how critical these are and sharping our diagnostic acumen. And so just to jump right in, and you describe these three new biomarkers, these cortical lesions the central vein sign and paramagnetic rim lesions. And so just to kick things off let's start with cortical lesions I sort of conceptualize multiple sclerosis a disease of white matter. So, what's going on here?

Dr Oh: Yes. MS classically has always been described as a white matter disease. But it turns out when you look at brain and spinal cord tissue, as well as when you use kind of better sequences to actually look for lesions in the gray matter, it actually turns out there's a ton of lesions in the gray matter as well. And in fact, what's interesting is that regardless of whether it's the cortex or the deep gray matter, it's lesions within these areas that seem to have the highest relevance for clinical disability in MS. So, all this to say, of course, MS is a lesion that does affect white matter, but it also affects gray matter a lot. And maybe pathology within the gray matter is even more relevant to clinical disability. So, this is why we're really interested in being able to develop methods using MRI to more accurately visualize the gray matter, particularly the cortex, as well as deep gray matter structures like the thalamus. I should add the caveat that cortical lesions were actually included in the 2017 diagnostic criteria revisions, but they were included together with juxtacortical lesions, which are a typical area that MS lesions form. And so, this imaging measure, despite the fact that it is relatively novel and we consider it advanced, it hasn't been used that much only because it's not that easy to detect lesions within the cortex. And reasons for this include that you usually need higher field magnet platforms. And so, the typical clinical MRI scanners that are available kind of widely, regardless of whether you're at an academic center or a community center, are 1.5 Tesla magnets. And cortical lesions are actually really difficult to detect on those typical scanners. But when you get to like, say, three Tesla or seven Tesla, they're a lot easier to detect. But obviously that's a big hindrance to widespread use. And then you actually need very specialized sequences to adequately visualize cortical lesions. And these are not sequences that are usually collected for clinical purposes. So, it kind of requires convincing your radiologists that you need this additional sequence. And then it actually takes a lot of time and training to be able to adequately, accurately detect cortical lesions. So, despite the fact that it's actually very useful when you do have the appropriate MRI sequences and scanners to detect cortical lesions, even though they were incorporated into the 2017 criteria outside of specialty centers, they're not actually widely used. But when you do have the appropriate sequences, cortical lesions are actually pretty specific for MS. So, very helpful for a diagnosis in certain settings. But there's all these practical limitations that have really limited its widespread use.

Dr Albin: That is a beautiful summary. So, it sounds like once we kind of get up to speed in terms of like the protocols for this, having the magnet strength for this, this will be really a game changer in terms of increasing the specificity and also maybe finding things that impact patient's clinical presentation and therefore quite meaningful. But it sounds like for most of us, this is probably not something that they're going to be adopting right away. Is that a fair assessment?

Dr Oh: Yes. And you know, they were included in the last diagnostic criteria revisions. And it really hasn't changed things very much, only because of these difficulties with, you know, requiring higher field magnet strengths and these specialized sequences and then needing training to kind of figure out how you can adequately detect cortical lesions.

Dr Albin: Totally. So, the other thing we've heard a lot about, and I have to say, I was in the AAN fall conference not too long ago, and this came up quite a bit, was the central vein sign and the fascination with that, because it tells us a lot about the MS pathophysiology and again, increasing that specificity. And it seems like maybe this is one that we can more easily adopt in clinical practice. So, tell our listeners about what that is, how they detect it. How many do you need to find?

Dr Oh: Sure. And so, this is one of the imaging measures I'm really excited about. So, the central vein sign heard about it recently. And probably in the last ten years particularly in the MS field we're talking about it all the time. But just wanted to emphasize that the central vein sign is not something that is new. Even back in the 1800s, when Charcot described MS lesions in these ancient textbooks, he actually very clearly described that MS lesions form around the central vein. And that makes sense, because we know that these waves of peripherally mediated inflammation somehow get through the blood-brain barrier and cause this cascade of events leading to inflammation in the brain and spinal cord, which is what MS is. But we know that B cells in T cells require veins to get into the central nervous system. And so, it's no surprise, really, that MS lesions form around veins. And so, this is something that's been known pathologically. But the reason we're so excited about it now is because we actually have good enough iron-sensitive MRI sequences that allow us to see a central vein when it is present within a white matter lesion. As a neurologist, we know that there's probably hundreds and hundreds of different things that can cause white matter lesions in the brain. But when you use an appropriate iron-sensitive sequence and you see that many of them, if not most of them, actually have visible central veins, that tells you that this person very likely has MS. And so that's why we're so excited about it, because there have been many studies done in the last ten years. In fact, so much evidence generated in the last ten years that there have been I think it's now four systematic reviews and meta analyzes. Looking at the diagnostic properties of the central vein sign. And, you know, it turns out that when you look at people with MS, most of them have a pretty high proportion of white matter lesions that have visible central veins. And there's a lot of questions about, you know, how to best use the central vein sign. But when 40% or more of the white matter lesions that you see have visible central veins, then the likelihood of a diagnosis of MS is very high. So, this is why we're so excited about it in the MS field because it's a really useful diagnostic tool. You know, again when you have appropriate ion sensitive sequences, if you see someone with white matter lesions and you see that 40% or more of them have visible central veins, this tells you that this person very likely has MS.

Dr Albin: So, Dr Oh, I hear you say, you know, 40% of the lesions. Does that mean the neuro radiologist needs to look at every single lesion and then count how many have the central veins, or is there an easier way to do this?

Dr Oh: Great question. Casey, there is definitely an easier way because our neuro radiologists would not be our friends anymore if we made them look at every white matter lesion and make sure that 40% of them had the central vein sign. So, because it's so time-consuming to use that 40% threshold, there's an easier criterion that has actually made it into the diagnostic criteria. And it's called Select Six. And what this means is when you have more than ten lesions, as long as you show that six of them have a visible central vein, you just have to count six with the central vein. Then you're done. So that means you're Select Six positive or central veins nine positive. However, if you have ten or fewer lesions, as long as you show that more than 50% of them show a visible central vein, then you are select six positive, and then you're done. So, as you can see, it's a much simpler criterion to apply, and it seems to perform almost as well as that 40% threshold, which is why that is the criterion that's made it into the new diagnostic criteria.

Dr Albin: Perfect. I love that we definitely do not want to make enemies with our neuro radiology colleagues, but yet they do so much for us. So perfect. I'm glad that we can, make their jobs a little easier without losing any specificity there, or just losing a touch of specificity there. All right. If I am working with a, you know, in a center that maybe doesn't do this all the time, am I just getting a run of the mill SWI sequence? Do I need to ask my radiologist for a special sequence? Or is this just, you know, you can get it from the typical array of what our patients are getting.

Dr Oh: You know, SWI is a widely available commercial sequence that's iron-sensitive, the ones that are typically commercially available, they can detect central veins, but there actually are little tweaks that you can do to make it a little more optimal. With the recent diagnostic criteria publication, which was, led by Xavier Montalban and recently published in Lancet Neurology. There's actually a companion MRI paper that was led by Frederick Barkov and Danny Wright. And the reason I'm specifically citing those papers is in that companion MRI paper, there's a table that has kind of optimal sequence parameters that you can use even with a conventional SWI sequence, to try to best detect the central vein sign. And then there's a wide range of different iron-sensitive sequences, and SWI is one of them, but the one that seems to have emerged as most sensitive to detect the central vein sign is something called the 3D T2*-EPI sequence. But the bottom line is there's a whole bunch of different iron-sensitive sequences that you can use, little tweaks that you can do to make them optimal, to be able to visualize central veins when they're present within white matter lesions.

Dr Albin: Incredible. So like partner with your neuro radiologist, there is a great sounds like a field guide almost to this. So, it makes it easy to pick up in your standard of care so that you can make sure that you are detecting them at the optimal level to see that more specific diagnostic biomarker.

Dr Oh: Yes. And you know, in contrast to what we were talking about with cortical lesions, you can actually detect central veins when you use these iron-sensitive sequences at any field magnet. So even at 1.5 Tesla, particularly when you use contrast, which is often given with the diagnostic scan anyway, you can very easily detect a central vein. So that's a huge benefit because it allows for widespread use. As long as you work with your radiologist to get the right iron-sensitive sequences in.

Dr Albin: Yeah, that's incredible. I mean, I think that it really will be practice-changing. And then the last one that I think was honestly new to me, I feel like I had heard a lot about the central vein sign, but the whole new to me term was this paramagnetic rim lesion. So, what does that tell us about the underlying biology of MS? And are there any other things that might also have this finding that we should sort of be aware of? And how specific is it?

Dr Oh: You know, the central vein sign is kind of the main, really new imaging measure that's made it into every part of the MS diagnostic criteria. And then together with that paramagnetic rim lesions or we call them PRL or pearls for short, they've made it as well, but in a much more limited way only because there's not as much evidence that has accumulated over time to support the diagnostic utility of pearls. But first of all, what are pearls? So, people in the MS field are really excited about pearls, because we know that they capture a subset of what we call chronic active lesions. So, MS lesions will form acutely and over time, some of them will become inactive. And then some of them are chronic active lesions, meaning that they have this rim of activated microglia around them. Over time, they continue to slowly expand. And it's almost like this slow burn. And the reason why we focus a lot on chronic active lesions is because we know that they're a driver of progressive disease biology and MS, meaning that in people who have progressive MS or who have pretty severe disability, global disability or cognitive disability, we know that they have a high burden of pearls. And so that's why there's so much excitement in MS about being able to image chronic active lesions. It's because we're always looking for an imaging measure that allows us to accurately predict progression or to, measure progression over time. So that's why there's so much excitement in MS about pearls. But as kind of an added bonus, it turns out pearls are also really specific for MS. And so, when you use the same iron-sensitive sequences, by the way, that's used to detect the central vein sign when you use appropriate iron‑sensitive sequence. And if you see that someone has a pearl, the likelihood of a diagnosis of MS is very high. The one exception to that is Susac syndrome, where pearls have been observed. But other than that, with many other white matter diseases like neuro rheumatology disease, NMOSD, MOGAD, you really don't see pearls. And so, this is why it's made it into the new diagnostic criteria. In contrast to the central vein sign, though, not everybody with MS has a pearl, so the sensitivity isn't as high. However, it's really, really specific in the range of, you know, 90 to 95%. So, this is why it's been added as, an imaging measure in certain settings. It can help facilitate a diagnosis. But the real utility, again, is when you use it, it helps you to prevent misdiagnosis.

Dr Albin: It's fantastic. And hearing you talk

In this episode, Lyell K. Jones Jr, MD, FAAN, speaks with Andrew J. Solomon, MD, FAAN, who served as the guest editor of the April 2026 Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders issue. They provide a preview of the issue, which publishes on April 2, 2026.

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. Solomon is the Division Chief of Multiple Sclerosis and a Professor in the Larner College of Medicine at the University of Vermont in Burlington, Vermont.

Additional Resources

Read the issue: continuum.aan.com

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

Host: @LyellJ

Full episode transcript available here

Dr Jones: It's been more than 150 years since Jean-Martin Charcot first described the disease that we now know as multiple sclerosis. Since then, the tools we have to diagnose and treat this disorder have expanded enormously. So why are the diagnostic criteria for MS. still evolving? Today we're speaking with Dr Andrew Solomon, guest editor of our latest issue of Continuum on MS and related disorders. To learn more about this question and much more.

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 Andrew Solomon, who is Continuums guest editor for our latest issue of Continuum on multiple sclerosis and related disorders. Dr Solomon is a professor of neurological sciences at the University of Vermont, where he also serves as the division chief of multiple sclerosis. Dr Solomon is an internationally recognized authority on MS, particularly on the diagnostic approach to this complex disorder. Dr Solomon, welcome. Thank you for joining us today. Why don't you introduce yourself to our listeners?

Dr Solomon: Hi, everyone. This is Andy Solomon. It's a pleasure to be here with you. And I feel honored to have helped this collaborative effort that created this important tool for trainees and clinicians in practice, the Continuum issue on multiple sclerosis and related disorders.

Dr Jones: Obviously, we're grateful that you've taken us on. A lot has happened in the world of MS and other neuroinflammatory disorders in the last few years, so lots to update. But as we've done over the last few podcasts, I'm going to start off the interview today, Dr Solomon, with a trivia question. And then we'll come back at the end of the podcast and give the answer. So, the trivia question is this. There are now more than 20 drugs approved by the FDA for the treatment of MS. What was the first disease-modifying therapy approved for MS? And when was it approved? So, don't answer because I know you know the answer. But we'll come back to it at the end of the interview. And our listeners can think about that question. So, let's get right to it. As many of our listeners know, the diagnostic criteria for MS. were recently revised. And you were involved with that revision. So, you're the perfect person to ask what were the major changes in the 2024 McDonald criteria, and why did we need to update them in the first place?

Dr Solomon: I'm very excited about the 2024 McDonald criteria, and it was an honor to be part of that process that resulted in that manuscript. When we revise the diagnostic criteria for MS usually it's driven by accumulating data that suggests some changes or revisions might help us diagnose patients either earlier or with more accuracy. And that's certainly the case with this criteria. There was accumulating data that suggested some particular changes were important. You know, there's a lot of expert opinion involved as well. You know, there's many experts who are involved in the collaborative decisions that go into these revisions. And some of the changes in our field also pushed some of the revisions to where maybe there's not as much evidence, but where we felt it would improve care for patients with MS. This criteria, I would argue, is probably one of the most substantial revisions in over 20 years. There's multiple changes that are potentially impactful for the diagnosis of MS. Some very important changes involve the incorporation of new paraclinical tools that we can use to assess the visual pathway, as well as, imaging tools that provide high specificity for MS that we can use to substitute or dissemination in time, for instance, as well as other tools that may allow us to diagnose patients earlier than we would have in prior criteria. There's also some opportunities with the new criteria to potentially provide access in regions where some tools are more available than others. For instance, the incorporation of Kappa Free Light Chains as a substitute for oligoclonal bands may open up opportunities in regions where expertise for oligoclonal band testing are not available. That's a very qualitative test, whereas Kappa Free Light Chain index is more quantitative, less expensive and may allow CSF testing to be performed to aid the diagnosis of MS in some regions where it wasn't available previously. This criteria provides multiple pathways to the diagnosis of MS, many more than we've had in prior criteria. So, it's important to emphasize that while there's all these new tools and changes that have been incorporated, not every pathway needs to be available where you practice. What it incorporates as flexibility. It is a bit more complex looking at all of these different possibilities, but the point is this flexibility allows clinicians or providers to diagnose MS early with high accuracy based on the tools they have available.

Dr Jones: I think it will be a learning curve, right? I think any time we make a change in how clinicians get accustomed to approaching a diagnosis of a disorder, it will take some time for folks to incorporate it. And I see what you mean about the complexity, but I think that's a really great point, that emphasizing the different pathways to the diagnosis is really a strength of the revision, right?

Dr Solomon: I agree, I think, you know, in other disorders, particularly if you think about rheumatologic disorders, systemic rheumatologic disorders or inflammatory disorders, where over time we've not had very highly specific and sensitive biomarkers. And we've incorporated a variety of clinical and prior clinical findings, testing, laboratory testing and biopsy and other things to confirm a diagnosis. These approaches to these disorders are sort of a checklist. And I think that clinicians became familiar with that approach and were able to make diagnoses accurately this way. And I think of the new criteria in a similar way. It's not quite amenable to a checklist, but the pathways are sort of simplified with multiple options. Hopefully, using the figures, clinicians can look at the paper and see what tools they have available to help them confirm a diagnosis of MS. I think it's really important to emphasize that the diagnostic criteria for MS still does not discriminate MS from other disorders. Everyone who's listening here, you do, the clinicians do. So, to enter the diagnostic criteria and these pathways, we first have to feel confident that the patient has a clinical presentation and an MRI presentation or MRI findings that are highly suggestive of MS. That aspect of the criteria hasn't changed since, the Schumacher criteria in the 1960s. This concept of no better explanation. So, we still need to know what's typical for MS. And we need to know what signs or symptoms or findings are that might suggest another disorder, because the criteria are really only validated and tested in patients who have these presentations to start with that are typical for MS. A major change in this particular criteria is that we can now diagnose patients who are asymptomatic. Previously just called radiological isolated syndrome. Not every patient with an MRI finding concerning for MS and now being diagnosed with MS. There's other features that, must be present, but even more than before, knowing what the typical appearance of MRI lesions suggestive of MS, it is even more critical now than it was before, because in those patients who have either no symptoms or a nonspecific presentation, if we have an MRI that's highly convincing for MS and some other prior clinical findings, we can make the diagnosis. But we first need to know with some confidence what that MRI should look like.

Dr Jones: So, there is a little circularity when we do these diagnostic criteria. I think our listeners who see patients will be reassured that the clinician is still in the loop. We haven't been automated out of the process yet.

Dr Solomon: We need a highly sensitive and specific biomarker or a set of biomarkers for MS. We're getting closer with some of these advanced imaging findings like central vein sign and paramagnetic rim lesions. But not every patient can be diagnosed with those. And they're not required for the diagnostic criteria. In lieu of a highly sensitive and specific test. Our clinical acumen, for what we find a neurologic exam. And what we see on imaging in particular, is quite critical for ensuring that the criteria perform as well as we hope they will.

Dr Jones: So, you've had the opportunity, the vantage point, to review all of these articles covering a wide variety of topics, MS, other neuroinflammatory disorders like aquaporin‑4–positive neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD), myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody-associated disease, MOGAD. Anything that surprised you in these articles as you were reading through them?

Dr Solomon: I think maybe for listeners, what may be surprising to some of them is that despite guidelines surrounding the use of some of our disease modifying therapies in pregnancy and breastfeeding that are published by regulatory authorities in the United States or Europe or other places, we are making other decisions for patients based on the data we have, the best data we have. Thinking about family planning is really important for us with patients who are newly diagnosed with MS, as well as through the course of their disease. This is a conversation we should be having shortly after diagnosis, because there are strategies we can take to minimize the risk of exposure of DMT around conception and to make plans for how we're going to think about DMT surrounding breastfeeding, to ensure the health of mom and the baby, and reduce risks as much as we can with the knowledge we have. I think in medicine it's quite common for us to use medications off label, right? I mean, so medications are often FDA approved for one indication. And in neurology, for instance, we find a lot of medications after their approval were quite effective for migraine prophylaxis for instance. Right? And so, it's not unusual for us to prescribe medications beyond the label. And I'm not suggesting that we necessarily ignore the advice of our regulatory authorities. But sometimes the data is accumulating really fast around some of these therapies after they're approved. Sometimes we can look towards experts and how we can navigate pregnancy and breastfeeding in MS.

Dr Jones: I think that's a great point about the importance of family planning and having to use judgment. I do want to highlight to our listeners and our subscribers a fantastic article in the issue on family planning and MS and other neuroinflammatory disorders. This was written by Dr Ruth Dobson and Dr Kersten Hellwig, and I think it covers a lot of that gray area where we have to use our clinical judgment to manage these diseases in the absence of a regulatory approval. And I think, again, that's an important gap that the issue fills. And really, that's just a wonderfully written article that I think is a must-read. So, we cover lots of topics in this issue. And one of them is again a relatively newly characterized disorder, MOGAD. What's the latest in the world of MOGAD, what should our listeners be aware of?

Dr Solomon: I agree, I think we're in an exciting time in CNS inflammatory disease. And this is a recently described disorder. You know, and the diagnostic criteria now is only a few years old. So, I think importantly, readers should be aware of the diagnostic criteria. This is something that, really will help us distinguish this disorder from NO spectrum disorder and MS. There's a key overlap between the MS diagnostic criteria and MOGAD. Two decades ago we saw a pediatric MS included somewhat atypical presentations like bilateral optic neuritis or acute disseminated encephalomyelitis. And we had caveats in our approaches to pediatric presentations of presumed MS, suggesting that there could be something very different than adult MS. Subsequently, we've realized that pediatric MS presents quite similarly to adult MS in terms of its clinical syndromes and MRI appearance, and many of those pediatric patients who had initially been diagnosed with MS and MOGAD. MOGAD is actually probably more common demyelinating syndrome in patients who are under 12 years old. So, the MS diagnostic criteria requires testing for MOG-IgG with a good assay, a cell-based assay, any patient being evaluated under the age of 12 or with a demyelinating syndrome to avoid misdiagnosis.

Dr Jones: Thanks for that. Obviously, MOGAD is one of several disorders that have been more recently characterized and, something that our readers need to be familiar with, and there's plenty of updates within the issue on that and other topics. Okay. So now back to our Continuum audio trivia question. And just to remind our listeners, there are now more than 20 drugs approved by the FDA for the treatment of MS. What was the first disease-modifying therapy approved for MS? And when was it approved? Dr Solomon, do you want to take the honors and answer the question?

Dr Solomon: Sure. It was way back in 1993. You had to get on a wait list, I believe, initially to get on it. There was some sort of lottery, and it was Betaseron.

Dr Jones: Betaseron in 1993, was the first disease-modifying therapy approved by the FDA for the treatment of MS. It just shows how much water under the bridge we've had since then. 1993 was also the first year of the Jurassic Park series of movies. It was the biggest movie of the year, the song of the year in 1993 was "I Will Always Love You" by Whitney Houston. It was also the year you can tell that I look back into 1993 to see what else happened. It was also the first year the World Wide Web became publicly available, which is it kind of puts brackets on the era or the epoch of MS disease modifying therapy. And finally, the Super Bowl champs that year were the Dallas Cowboys, who unfortunately, have not had much luck in Super Bowls since the 1990s. Maybe they will have more opportunities like we've seen with MS therapeutics. So, Dr Solomon, I want to thank you for joining us today. I want to thank you for such a wonderful discussion of the latest in MS. I think the updated diagnostic criteria are really going to be critical for our listeners to understand and incorporate into their practice. Really grateful for your leadership of the issue, putting together a really stellar group of experts for all of our articles and grateful for your time today. Thank you for joining us.

Dr Solomon: Thanks so much for having me. Thank all the other listeners out there for joining us as well. I'm really excited about this issue of Continuum.

Dr Jones: Again, we've been speaking with Dr Andrew Solomon, guest editor of Continuums most recent issue on multiple sclerosis and related disorders. 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. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Neurologic complications of substance use may be the first symptoms that lead patients with substance use disorders to seek care. Neurologists have a key role in identifying patients with substance use disorders and connecting them to treatment.

In this episode, Lyell K. Jones Jr, MD, FAAN, speaks with Adeline L. Goss, MD, author of the article "Neurologic Complications of Drug and Alcohol Use" in the Continuum® February 2026 Neurology of Systemic Disease 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. Goss is a neurohospitalist and associate chief of neurology for Highland Hospital in Oakland, California.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Neurologic Complications of Drug and Alcohol Use

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: A big part of neurology is solving mysteries. Patients can show up with all kinds of mysterious symptoms. Sometimes the diagnosis comes from within, some internal disruption of neurophysiology. But sometimes the problem is a complication of drug or alcohol use. Today we have the pleasure of speaking with Dr Adeline Goss, who recently authored an article for Continuum on this exact problem, a topic all neurologists need to be familiar with.

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 Adeline Goss, who recently authored an article on the neurologic complications of drug and alcohol use for our latest issue of Continuum on the neurology of systemic disease. Dr Goss is a neurohospitalist and the associate chief of neurology at Highland Hospital in Oakland, California. She's also an accomplished writer, broadcaster and podcaster. Dr Goss, welcome, and thank you for joining us today. Why don't you introduce yourself to our listeners?

Dr Goss: Great to speak with you, Dr Jones. Yes, I'm Adeline. I also go by Addie Goss.

Dr Jones: So, before we get into the discussion, we're going to start off today with something fairly new to the podcast, the Continuum Audio trivia question. So, we all know that alcohol and other substances have many potential complications in that use of these substances fluctuates over time. But this one stood out to me from your article, Dr Goss, just for the sheer size of the change. So, for our listeners, here's the question. Accidental exposures to what substance increased a whopping 1,375% between 2017 and 2021? I'll read that again. Accidental exposures to what substance increased 1,375% between 2017 and 2021? So, stick around to the end of our interview for the answer. And let's get right to it, Dr Goss. If you had a single most important message to our listeners from your article, what would it be?

Dr Goss: Well, I mean, many of us went into neurology because of the way that neurologic illnesses can be life-changing for patients. And I work as a neurohospitalist at a public hospital in Oakland, California. Many of my patients are admitted for neurologic conditions related to substance use. And when I see my patients later in the discharge clinic, many tell me that the last day that they used meth or the last day they used cocaine, the last day they smoked, was the day they had their stroke or whatever they came into the hospital for. I think the most important message is that hospitalization for a neurologic condition related to substance use can interrupt use patterns, can motivate change. And therefore, as neurologists, we really have an opportunity to connect to our patients and connect our patients to substance use treatment and make a dramatic difference in people's lives in this regard.

Dr Jones: I think that's a fantastic point. I enjoyed a point you made in your article---and I can't remember exactly how you phrased it, I won't say it as well---that you think of the syndromes through which alcohol and drug exposures can present. Those syndromes almost always could end up of other primary neurologic disorders. So, put a different way, when a patient presents with a neurologic problem, most of the time an exposure could be on the differential. And so, we really do have a responsibility as neurologists to be familiar with these.

Dr Goss: To be familiar with these and to know how to connect patients to resources to try to get treatment.

Dr Jones: Totally agree. And you touched on the public health aspect of this. It's really hard to talk about drug or alcohol use without acknowledging the public health impact particularly of opioids, which has been a crisis for most of this century. Right? And I think most of our listeners will be familiar with the rapid rise in opioid-related deaths. But there might be a glimmer of optimism there. Is what I've seen true, that opioid-related deaths may have plateaued?

Dr Goss: So, yes, it's true that opioid-related deaths, overdose deaths in general, have begun to decline, actually, since 2023. And that's in part because overdose deaths really surged early on in the Covid-19 pandemic, in the setting of all of the social disruption, reduced access to services, and social isolation that occurred with the pandemic. But there were really multiple factors there. So, as you mentioned, there was this really rapid rise in illicitly manufactured fentanyl. Fentanyl became a major driver in overdose deaths starting in the mid-2010s. And by the late 2010s, it overtook heroin and prescription opioids as drivers of overdose deaths. And then this just collided with the pandemic in 2020, causing skyrocketing deaths. So, as we know as neurologists, fentanyl is more potent, it's shorter-acting, and it's also cheaper than heroin. It can cost as little as 50 cents or a dollar a pill. Thankfully, as services have rebooted and also as naloxone has become more widely distributed, there has begun to be a decline in opioid overdose-related deaths. So, we're relying on provisional data from the CDC for the most recent years, but that shows about a 24% decline in annual overdose deaths, comparing late 2023 to late 2024. And that's real. That comes out to 70 lives saved per day. Unfortunately, deaths still remain above prepandemic levels, and we're still talking about 87,000 drug overdoses per year. So, I would agree, a glimmer of hope. But we're still seeing overdose as the leading cause of death among young Americans aged 18 to 44. And there's a very long way to go.

Dr Jones: 23% is a big number, and that is certainly exciting to think about, but we're still above that long-term secular trend. So, hopefully whatever is happening to bring that down, hopefully it continues. And we talk a lot about- appropriately, we talk a lot about opioid exposures and some of the neurologic presentations of opioid use and toxicity, but alcohol use disorder is the most common substance use disorder, correct? I learned that from your article. And it has been for some time, and it has well-known acute and chronic toxicities. But I think many of us have been taught something of a myth in the acute treatment of patients who may have thiamin deficiency or Wernicke's encephalopathy. Can you tell us a little more about that?

Dr Goss: Yeah, sure. So, boy, what is my favorite vitamin? As a neurologist, I think thiamin is my favorite vitamin. Thiamin is a cofactor in- for several enzymes that are involved in glucose catabolism. And it's necessary to synthesize myelin and several neurotransmitters. And as we know, alcohol use disorder leads to reduced nutritional intake and impaired digestion and absorption of nutrients. And this can lead to deficiencies in water-soluble B vitamins, including thiamin, as well as trace elements. The thing about thiamin is that thiamin deficiency often appears first, because the body's stores of thiamin deplete in about 4 to 6 weeks. You know, we're traditionally taught if a patient presents with symptoms concerning for Wernicke's encephalopathy, that if they're also hypoglycemic or just in general, we have to get glucose into them first, because we don't want to tax these thiamin-dependent glucose catabolism pathways. But really, there's no reported case of a single glucose bolus precipitating some dramatic symptomatic thiamin deficiency. It's thought that harm would come potentially from prolonged carbohydrate administration without thiamin. And so, if a patient in front of you is both thiamin deficient and hypoglycemic, you just treat both. You treat both emergently. But it doesn't really matter in what order you do so.

Dr Jones: That's good to know that doing the right thing for the patient can involve using either of those in whatever order. And I agree with you, I don't think I've ever hurt anybody by giving them thiamin. It's an easy one to miss and an important one to remember in the right context. And speaking of, and I think a lot about in your article, Dr Goss, I can see a neurologist seeing a patient in the emergency department or in the hospital or even in the clinic thinking about the wonderful points in your article. But we know that when alcohol or substance use enters our mind on the differential, the next impulse is to test for it. And we also know there are pitfalls of drug screening, doing urine drug screens, etc. How do you approach testing when you think about a potential drug-related complication in their differential?

Dr Goss: So, like most people, I would start with a urine drug screen for any patient who's presenting with a possible toxidrome or some substance-related neurological presentation. These urine drug screens, they're rapid, they're inexpensive, they're immunoassays for traditional drugs and their metabolites. So, usually amphetamines, cocaine, opiates, plus/minus cannabis. But I think the first thing to note is that they miss entire categories of drugs, and not just drugs that are not in that list. They miss synthetic opioids, including fentanyl. One group is keeping track of this number. So, I have an update for mid-2025. And that's that 30% of U.S. ED overdose encounters as of mid-2025 included fentanyl testing. Only 30% for patients who are presenting with an overdose syndrome.

Dr Jones: And that's for one of the most widely used synthetic opioids. So that's really a striking number.

Dr Goss: Yeah, one of the most widely used and one with the greatest rate of complications. So, states can make a difference here. In 2022, California passed a law requiring fentanyl testing on hospital urine drug screens and several states have followed. And so that number is rising, the rate of testing for fentanyl. But that's just a really key thing to know, that that one is often missed. Other just important pitfalls, the timing of the urine drug screen matters because for most substances, it only picks up the drug within 24 to 72 hours after the last use. With amphetamines and cocaine going out a couple more days after that, especially in patients who use repeatedly. And then also, notably, there's a risk of false positives. This is especially true with amphetamine use, and beta blockers are one of the drugs that can lead to false positives on an amphetamine test, on a urine drug screen. So, I'll share that I've had several patients who have presented with intracerebral hemorrhage and who tested positive on the emergency department's urine drug screen and who adamantly stated that they do not use amphetamines, they've never used amphetamines, and they didn't ingest anything that could have contained amphetamines. And when we did serum confirmatory testing, in fact, their amphetamine testing was negative, and all those patients had received esmelol or the labetalol in the ED to treat their blood pressure related to their ICH. So false positives can occur with, you know, other medications like decongestants and certain antidepressants. But beta blockers are a key one to know. And then finally, there are just a number of things outside of that short list of substances that I mentioned, including a huge range of novel psychoactive substances that would not be tested for on a standard urine drug screen. And for those, you'd require serum testing, or at some large academic centers or specialty toxicology labs, you can actually do liquid chromatography high-resolution mass spectrometry, with- which is basically unbiased testing for any substance that's present in the patient sample. So, I guess, you know, you asked about my approach. Start with the urine drug screen, but there's no substitute for good history-taking and close examination of your patient's general examination, not just their neurologic presentation. And if patients are presenting with a toxidrome that I would expect would show up on a urine drug screen but it's negative, there are other confirmatory tests that can be sent, although they're often send-out labs and come back in a very delayed fashion.

Dr Jones: So, in other words, it's complicated, which usually means it's humbling. And if I'm understanding it correctly, there's the risk of the false positive on the urine drug screen. And then there's the risk of the false negative if we think we're screening for something that might not even be on that initial screen. So, that's a wonderful reminder that these are clinical diagnoses and we have to keep our clinician hats on while we're thinking about how to establish these diagnoses or exclude them. So, back to opioids, Dr Gross. There are some really peculiar neurologic syndromes associated with opioid overdose. Tell us a little about those.

Dr Goss: Well, I mean, some of these were described first with heroin. So, we can start with the one that almost anybody has heard of, heroin-associated spongiform leukoencephalopathy, which we know is associated with a practice known as "chasing the dragon," which is inhaling vapors of heroin heated on foil. But we know now that this syndrome can occur with other opioids, including fentanyl. The clinical features are, you know, apathy, cerebellar signs, quadriparesis, parkinsonism, myoclonus, and some patients progress to coma or even death. But on MRI you're seeing, you know, these confluence symmetric white matter diffusion restriction and T2 hyperintensities in the cerebellar white matter and the posterior limb of the internal capsule that spare the subcortical U-fibers. So, you know, I think this is kind of the classic example of something that's symmetric, that has a very obvious and interesting MRI pattern. But as time is passing, we're seeing more and more similar types of syndromes of leukoencephalopathies, but with different clinical presentations and MRI characteristics. So, another of these is CHANTER syndrome. This is an opioid overdose-related presentation where people have stupor and coma. And on the MRI there, you see bilateral symmetric diffusion restriction in the cerebellar cortex, in the hippocampi, in the basal ganglia. And it spares the cerebral cortex. And notably in these cases, patients can progress to cerebellar edema, to obstructive hydrocephalus. And some require suboccipital craniotomy. I had a week recently at Highland Hospital, where I work, where we had two of these cases in the same week, in just a community hospital. And there's a similar syndrome in children known as POUNCE syndrome with profound cerebellar edema, and many patients require posterior decompression. So that's another different distribution of findings with a different outcome. Fortunately, there's a milder sort of phenotype of opioid-associated amnestic syndrome, is what it's been described, where there's primarily DWI changes in the hippocampi and the globus pallidus. So, patients primarily present with an amnestic syndrome, mostly anterograde amnesia. Seeing these in practice, I'm not sure that patients always fall into one bucket or another. But in general, you'll see some degree of symmetric diffusion restriction or symmetric white matter changes that clearly point to a toxic presentation, a toxic syndrome, as opposed to pure anoxia, for example. And it's important to know that because from a prognostic standpoint, anoxic brain injury, which can occur after cardiac arrest and after opioid overdose, can look different than some of these syndromes. Finally, heroin has been associated with myelopathy, but also that's been reported on with fentanyl. So, I think some of these conditions got their reputation from heroin. But as fentanyl has proliferated---and prior to that as prescription opioid, you know, misuse had proliferated---we're seeing similar syndromes with all of the opiates.

Dr Jones: And I think it's a good case in point that you can have multifocal disease and it be a manifestation of an intoxication, and I think that's a really good reminder that we have to have many of these syndromes in our differential, we have to be aware of them, otherwise we might miss them or attribute them to another mechanism. Dr Goss, our last issue of Continuum that was dedicated to the neurology of systemic disease came out in 2023, and here we are in 2026 publishing our latest issue, including your article and this podcast. Since 2023, have there been any emerging patterns or novel agents of abuse or misuse out there?

Dr Goss: The short answer is yes, and I would say the reason is just the supply is moving at more and more rapid speed. The relationship between the internet and drug supply has really informed what's out there at any given moment. So, the turnover in the market can change in weeks, not in years. And there's all of this distribution through social media and encrypted apps. And then manufacturers are kind of continuously tweaking chemical structures to evade law enforcement. In the process of researching this article, I came across some, I mean, really wild examples. To be clear, these are not- not all these are common substances, but I think the general phenomenon should be known that people can walk into a vape shop or walk into a gas station or meander around online and buy some really weird stuff. So, in 2024, there was this nationwide recall of a product called Diamond Shrooms that was sold online and in smoke and vape shops, and this was billed as, like, a hemp and mushroom mixture. But it led to multiple- I mean, over 100 cases of seizures and agitation and depressed consciousness and a few possible deaths. And when the contents were analyzed, they included psilocybin analogs and pregabalin. I mean, some weird stuff. And so, those have been pulled. But people are constantly inventing and marketing these different substances. I think another example… we all know about nitrous oxide and its association with B12 myopathy. But the use of nitrous oxide has really changed. Companies are selling large canisters online and in vape shops, and they're flavored, like, in blue raspberry flavor. And unfortunately, there's been a rise of nitrous among youth. So, we're seeing not just increased cases of myelopathy, but also a 2025 study in JAMA found a spike in deaths attributed to actual nitrous oxide overdose. And so nitrous, I think, had not been that commonly used a few years ago, but has become more common in the last couple of years.

A final one I'll just mention is ketamine. So, ketamine has certainly appeared in reviews of neurological syndromes related to substance use for a lon

Neurologic care during pregnancy and menopause requires careful attention to the dynamic interplay between hormonal transitions, evolving evidence on diagnostic and treatment safety, and the lifelong risks associated with neurologic complications of pregnancy.

In this episode, Katie Grouse, MD, FAAN, speaks with Sara C. LaHue, MD, author of the article "Neurologic Complications of Pregnancy and Menopause" in the Continuum® February 2026 Neurology of Systemic Disease 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. LaHue is an assistant professor of neurology for the Weill Institute for Neurosciences in the Department of Neurology at the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine in San Francisco, California

Additional Resources

Read the article: Neurologic Complications of Pregnancy and Menopause

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 Grouse: Despite the high prevalence of neurologic conditions in women, critical gaps remain in training, research, and clinical guidelines on sex and gender specific considerations across the lifespan. Today, I have the opportunity to speak with an expert on neurologic complications of pregnancy and menopause and coauthor of the and women's neurology curriculum core competencies, Dr Sara LaHue about the latest issue of Continuum on neurology of systemic disease.

Dr Jones: This is Dr 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 Sara LaHue about her article, Neurologic Complications of Pregnancy and Menopause, which appears in the February 2026 Continuum issue on Neurology of Systemic Disease. Welcome to the podcast and please tell us more about yourself.

Dr LaHue: Well, thanks so much for having me. I'm really excited to talk about this topic. So, I'm Sara LaHue. I'm a neurologist at UCSF, assistant professor of neurology, and a neurohospitalist. So much of my role is taking care of people who are coming into the hospital with urgent and emergent neurologic conditions. And so that's very much a framing that I come to this chapter with.

Dr Grouse: I just want to start by congratulating you on your article, which is such a phenomenal compendium of important neurologic issues related to pregnancy and menopause, which I think I really needed and a lot of us really need and was missing, I think, in all of the literature out there. This article will be such an important clinical resource. I know for me, and I'm sure for many of our listeners, this may be a difficult question to answer because of how comprehensive the article is. But what do you hope will be the main takeaway for those who read your article?

Dr LaHue: So, I really hope that listeners walk away with understanding that pregnancy and menopause are not contraindications to providing excellent neurologic care. I think too often we default to withholding treatment, pseudo-assumed risk, rather than actual evidence of harm. And so, I think that the key message here is that protecting maternal health is protecting fetal health, and that under-treating neurologic conditions during pregnancy can harm both mother and baby.

Dr Grouse: You did say specifically in your article that I thought it was so important that presumption of harm from medications during pregnancy, due to lack of evidence rather than evidence of harm, was something that we really had to be aware of, of that bias. And how do you recommend neurologists listening to this podcast approach situations where diagnostic or management strategies become less certain due to safety considerations in pregnancy?

Dr LaHue: Yeah, that's such an important question. I really frame it as a risk-benefit calculation with a patient, and I'm very transparent about what we know and what we don't know. And I emphasize that untreated disease may also impact fetal health. I use resources like LactMed and pregnancy registries that can help provide some of the more latest data. And then when evidence is limited, I document our discussion thoroughly, and I'll often involve maternal-fetal medicine colleagues for their multidisciplinary input. So, the goal is really to have an informed, shared decision-making process rather than a reflexive avoidance of all treatments.

Dr Grouse: I think that's really important to reiterate, and I think something that we're all I think working on as we try to manage these difficult situations and conditions. Now, I want to switch gears a little bit and ask. Your article was so comprehensive and so helpful, but what isn't in the article that you wanted to put in?

Dr LaHue: There was a fair amount that I ended up having to take out. So, this is a question that's near and dear to my heart. So, I would have liked to include more on the neurodevelopmental outcomes for children who are exposed to various neurologic medications in utero. And I also wanted to discuss more about transgender and non-binary individuals who are experiencing pregnancy and menopause, as they're often underrepresented in research. They've faced unique challenges accessing care.

Dr Grouse: Now, I was really struck by one statistic in your article, specifically that intimate partner violence is a leading cause of head injury during pregnancy, and that actually homicide is a leading cause of death during pregnancy in the postpartum period in the US, which was absolutely a surprising statistic to me. What does this mean for our listeners caring for pregnant patients with concussions and head injuries? What should we be doing differently?

Dr LaHue: This is also something that really struck me when I first encountered it. I think that the statistics should really fundamentally change how we approach head injuries in pregnant patients. I think we need to screen everyone routinely and privately for violence in the home and in the relationships, and to document injuries very carefully. But we also need to be prepared if someone does screen positive. And so, it's important to be familiar with what's available in terms of resources within your community, where you work, and also to remember that that strangulation in particular is something that can cause dissection and stroke. And so, to maintain a high index of suspicion for any kind of vascular injury in these cases. So not just thinking about head injury itself, but also thinking about complications of strangulation as well.

Dr Grouse: Really a great reminder of the role that we can play in our own careers and our own clinical settings when we see cases like this. So, I really appreciate that this point was made, and I hope this will change people's practice. Now switching gears to stroke in pregnancy. Could you walk us through your evaluation and management of a patient who comes in with acute stroke in the peripartum period?

Dr LaHue: This is such an important topic, and I think the first thing I'd like to emphasize is that time is brain. Whether or not you're pregnant. It's important to get whatever imaging modality is going to be fastest. Get the CT or get the MRI as soon as you can. Don't delay for fetal concerns. The radiation risk is minimal compared to missing a treatable, disabling stroke. In terms of treatment, thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy should be considered just as in a non-pregnant person, when the benefits outweigh the risks. And so, I think the key is involving obstetrics early for shared decision making, and being very transparent with what treatment options are available for the individual, and to not let pregnancy alone stop you from offering standard stroke therapies.

Dr Grouse: Definitely a helpful resource, and I think the resources that you put in specifically around the considerations and differentials in these various populations. Postpartum, while still pregnant during the period of period, I think is all just so helpful and a great review. So, I encourage our listeners to check that out. Now switching over to the topic of menopause. I have to say, I really appreciated your coverage of neurologic issues related to the perimenopause period. What do you think is the biggest debate or controversy in this area?

Dr LaHue: I think this has to be our understanding of the use of menopausal hormone therapy. The pendulum, when using menopausal hormone therapy, has really swung dramatically. So, we went from routine use to predominantly avoidance. After the Women's Health Initiative was published in 2002, and now we're finding that we're starting to come more to a middle ground. I think there's still great debate when it comes around timing of initiation, formulation of the different therapies, a route of administration and also the dosing, as well as just including how to individualize therapy for individuals with neurologic conditions.

Dr Grouse: Well, going into that a little further, I know I get a lot of questions about the use of hormone therapy as it relates to stroke risk and particularly in higher risk patients such as patients who've had prior strokes, dissections, a history of migraine with aura. And I find it hard to get the answers in the literature that's out there. How are you counseling these patients?

Dr LaHue: So, I think this is where discussions around the route of administration and dosing become especially important. And this is where there's emerging literature that I think is helping to guide some of these discussions. So, for higher risk patients, I discuss how low dose transdermal formulations which can bypass hepatic metabolism and reduce clotting risk. These are medications that can appear safer in those higher risk individuals. I think the key is really individualizing the risk-benefit discussion with the patient. For a woman with severe vasomotor symptoms that are affecting sleep and cognition, who had a remote stroke. I think this is a person for whom low dose transdermal patch might be a reasonable option. All of these factors end up being considerations for that shared decision-making.

Dr Grouse: Now your article covers another topic that I often get questions about, and that's specifically regarding safety of vaginal delivery for patients with neurologic conditions that are sensitive to increased intracranial pressure. Could you summarize your advice for these types of questions when they come up?

Dr LaHue: So broadly speaking, most neurologic conditions don't require C-section delivery. And this is a procedure that, just globally speaking, as has been increasing dramatically. And so, I think that's the key message that really, most neurologic conditions don't require a C-section as a main indication. And really, the indication should be based on obstetric considerations. For most conditions, like controlled idiopathic intracranial hypertension, a vaginal delivery is fine. But for patients with mass effect or obstruction at the foramen magnum, a C-section with general anesthesia, it's probably going to be safer. The transient increase in intracerebral pressure that can come with pushing. It hasn't really been shown to harm patients who have stable, treated neurologic conditions.

Dr Grouse: I really appreciated the advice that you given in the article, which was that if generally you feel like this would be a patient who would be safe to get a lumbar puncture, you have a little less concern about vaginal delivery versus those that you feel would not be safe to get a lumbar puncture, that you'd be more leaning towards a C-section.

Dr LaHue: Yeah, that's exactly right.

Dr Grouse: Now, why do you think we have so many gaps in our understanding of how pregnancy and menopause affect neurologic conditions?

Dr LaHue: So, I think it really comes down to a perfect storm of factors. So, in 1977, the USFDA came down with the recommendation, stating that it was best to exclude all women of reproductive potential from both phase one and phase two studies. And this recommendation wasn't reversed until 1993. And there are also concerns around liability and also the fact that pregnancy is a temporary state is something that may falsely minimize the potential for delays. The potential for harms that come with delays in treatment. And I think that the fact of menopause is also historically been dismissed, despite this is something that is affecting half of the population. I think we need systemic change. We need to mandate inclusion in research. We need funding for dedicated studies. We also need to recognize women's health as a core competency and not just a special interest.

Dr Grouse: That all sounds like a great roadmap for improving our knowledge. And I really hope we get there. But hearing you talk about it really does give me hope that we can improve how we are understanding and treating these conditions. Now, your article included a really helpful overview of headaches in pregnancy, and that's certainly something I think many of our listeners are very familiar with. We do have a lot of questions around that, and I think there's a lot of areas where we don't really always know what the best thing to do is. I think that your article really gave a lot of great information and a really great framework to think about. It would be wonderful to hear you walk through your approach to evaluation of a patient who was pregnant with a new onset headache.

Dr LaHue: You'll see in this chapter that I introduce a mnemonic that's spelled out pericardium as a framework for thinking about headache and pregnancy. And here are the you specifically points to an unusual headache, referring to a new or atypical presentation of headache for the patient. I think this is an important place to start, because one of the initial considerations should be this is a new headache, or is this an old headache? If this is a patient who already has a preexisting diagnosis of migraine or some other primary headache disorder, then it's certainly possible that the headache that they're experiencing during pregnancy is also a continuation of their primary headache disorder. But certainly, our role is to make sure that we're not missing a scary complication, a secondary headache that could be dangerous to the patient. And so, then this is where I also think about, well, where are they in the course of their pregnancy. Is this person currently pregnant or are we in the postpartum period? When someone is after 20 weeks gestation, one of the first things to consider is going to be preeclampsia. And so, it's important in those individuals to check blood pressure, check urine to rule out preeclampsia, as this is always going to be top of mind after 20 weeks.

I think it's also important to emphasize that preeclampsia is not just a condition that can occur when someone is pregnant. This is also something that can occur postpartum. One needs to be vigilant for looking out for this complication during both time periods. And then I think for new headaches, I really want to focus on what the timing is and any other red flags. For example, if it's a thunderclap headache and onset, then I might be worried about something like RCBS or cerebral venous sinus thrombosis. If the headache itself is orthostatic and patient may have had an epidural, then I might think about a post-dural puncture headache, which is a, unfortunately very common complication and reason for headache in the postpartum period. I think the key is that most dangerous headaches often will occur late in the third trimester or early postpartum. And I think it's also important to remember that if you need imaging to make the diagnosis, and you should get it. The risks of missing something serious far outweigh concerns that one might have around imaging. And when possible, it's certainly preferred to get an MRI if that's available.

Dr Grouse: I really did appreciate articles, overview of the various imaging modalities out there and the overview of risk versus benefits and times where they may or may not be needed. So, yet another very useful piece of information that I think that our listeners will appreciate in your article. Now, I'm curious how did you get interested in this area of neurology?

Dr LaHue: So, it really was my interest in both reproductive health and neurology that led me to go to medical school in the first place. I knew early on at the beginning of medical school that I was interested in neurology, but I also was very drawn to obstetrics, and I recognized in medical school and then further on as, as a resident, just how vast the knowledge gaps were. When I was counseling my own patients and I found this to be just a very frequent source of frustration as both a clinician and a researcher, I very much feel an obligation to try to help fill these gaps. And I've also just been very encouraged by an outstanding community of other neurologists that I've been able to meet in this space. It's been a just a wonderful collaborative network that we've been able to grow, both within United States and even more globally, when it comes to other neurologists who are interested in this topic. And I'm just very excited to see the direction that this field is going in.

Dr Grouse: Well, we can't wait to learn more as this field develops and more is understood about the right way to approach these types of diagnostics and treatments. So, thank you for all your work in this space. And it's been absolutely fascinating reading your article and talking with you today.

Dr LaHue: Well, thank you so much for having me, and I'm just so thrilled that these important topics are going to be part of this issue of Continuum.

Dr Grouse: Again, today, I've been interviewing Dr Sara LaHue about her article and Neurologic Complications of Pregnancy and Menopause, which appears in the February 2026 Continuum issue on Neurology of systemic disease. 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 AA and members. You can get to me for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Nearly one in five patients in intensive care units (ICUs) requires neurologic consultation. The neurologic complications of critical illness can be unique to its underlying processes and can persist as independent disease states even after resolution of the inciting critical illness.

In this episode, Casey Albin, MD, speaks with Shivani Ghoshal, MD, author of the article "Neurologic Complications of Critical Illness" in the Continuum® February 2026 Neurology of Systemic Disease issue.

Dr. Albin is a Continuum® Audio interviewer, associate editor of media engagement, and an assistant professor of neurology and neurosurgery at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

Dr. Ghoshal is an assistant professor of neurology for the Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York, New York.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Neurologic Complications of Critical Illness

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: @caseyalbin

Guest: @ghoshal_shivani

Full episode transcript available here

Dr Albin: The ICU can be such an intimidating place. There's unresponsive patients, there's beeping equipment and a seemingly endless way in which the nervous system can be compromised. But fortunately, today I have the opportunity to speak with Dr Shivani Ghoshal about her paper, Neurologic Complications of Critical Illness, which is going to help us demystify the approach to these patients and provide some clinical pearls that you can take to your next consult in the ICU.

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 Albin: Hello, this is Dr Kasey Albin. Today I'm interviewing Dr Shivani Ghoshal about her article on neurologic complications of critical illness, which appears in the February 2026 Continuum issue on neurology of systemic disease. Welcome to the podcast, Dr Ghoshal. It's really such a treat for me to get to interview you, someone who I know and have worked with in the past. But for those who do not know you, please give us a little background about what brought you to this topic and what you do in your clinical life.

Dr Ghoshal: Thank you so much. It's a thrill to be interviewed by someone that I know well and get to work with. Outside of writing this article for Continuum, I am a neurointensivist. I'm an assistant professor of neurology at Columbia University and the program director for the Neurocritical Care Fellowship between Columbia Cornell and New York Presbyterian. So, a lot of what I do in my day-to-day is thinking about acute brain injury along with the neurology of systemic disease and how, really, the two interplay with each other, of how neurologic complications can arise from systemic illness and the other way around.

Dr Albin: Yeah, you are the absolute perfect person to kind of walk us through the complexity of the brain and body connection.

Dr Ghoshal: I don't know if I can deal with that kind of praise, but thank you.

Dr Albin: And you've really written a powerhouse article on just the myriad of complications that really arise in the ICU, and you've broken it down into what I think is a very thoughtful way of sort of bucketing these complications. So, tell us a little bit about the approach you took here.

Dr Ghoshal: I love this article because neurologic complications are just so common in so many types of acute critical illness. And I think we have to think for each organ system, how does this affect the brain, and then how does the brain then interplay, let's say, in kidney failure, in hepatic failure, in sepsis, right? Which is so common that I think we don't even think a lot about, like, what are types of septic encephalopathy for all the antibiotics we give; like, what are the implications of this? I really enjoy taking each system and thinking about, how does it specifically affect neurologic complications?

Dr Albin: Yeah. And then there was a really nice breakdown in terms of some of the procedures that will happen within the ICU in general. You know, the things that are happening to the patients at the bedside also put them at risk for neurologic complications. Then there are those neurologic changes that are happening because of some of the underlying problem that brought those patients to the ICU. And then the unfortunate number of problems that arise because the patient has been in the ICU for such a long period of time.

Dr Ghoshal: You know- and I think that that first part you mentioned, just about procedures in the neuro-ICU, right? Or in the ICU in general. I think that we don't think about that on a day-to-day level, right? Just like arterial lines are one of the most associated with any kind of peripheral nerve injury, especially axillary arterial lines. I learned quite a bit, even going through this article and then looking at other sources. So, thank you also for pointing that part out.

Dr Albin: Yeah. When I was thinking about how do we distill all of what was covered through this article, I actually really thought it would be sort of most interesting to have you model sort of your approach to these patient complications and how you approach the complexity of an ICU patient. And so, if it's okay with you, we'll just walk through a couple cases.

Dr Ghoshal: Oh my gosh, let's do it.

Dr Albin: All right. So, these are all, of course, composite cases. You know, there is no patient violation here. Let's say that this is a 64-year-old patient and they're admitted with influenza, and they develop ARDS. And they're in the MICU. And this patient, they were pretty sick on arrival and they were intubated for three days. But now the patient's been extubated, and the MICU team calls you because today she's having trouble swallowing and her voice, you know, the family says that this is not what she normally sounds like. And the team is really quite worried that she's had a stroke. And so they are calling for a neurology consult because they want to know what they should do. So, walk us through your approach to that patient.

Dr Ghoshal: Well, I think the primary team being concerned for a stroke is definitely reasonable, but I think, taking a bigger step back, what I would first want to think about, is this neurologic or non-neurologic? Neurology, you know, there's a parcel of things we can go through, but even just a non-neurologic, like, is this just primary injury to the vocal cords, right? I think about the cough were there, the ET tube, it wasn't overinflated which caused direct damage, right? And then after that, then I would think a little bit more about my approach for what is going on neurologically. Thinking about either, is this a brain process or is this a- more of like a spinal cord cervical cord injury process or more cranial nerve issue?

Dr Albin: Yeah. How would you approach the exam in that patient?

Dr Ghoshal: Yeah. You know, I- and just to, again, take a step back, right? To remember that when we do intubate someone, the physical maneuvers that we have are a chin lift and regular endoscopy, right? They have, like, significant movement for the cervical spine. So, I might want to know even before I examine the patient, right, or their history, right, do they have anything like, do they have known cervical stenosis? Do they have any, like, cervical spine pathology? Was it a difficult intubation? Right? So, these are the kind of the things I'd want to know even from the history, along with whatever vascular risk factors they may have. And then, to your question about the actual exam. Yes, you know, I may look for, like, crossed findings, right? If we're thinking about, let's say, a medullary lesion, etc. I think all listening to this podcast know about MRI testing there. But beyond what I would be looking for, let's say, in a medullary stroke, I'd also want to be looking at just, like, water paresis, right? I might want to be interested in, let's say, signs of neurogenic shock. You know, you mentioned they're in septic shock, ARDS. I might want to actually take a look to see, like, was this all septic, right? Or what are their other shock types present.

Dr Albin: So, what I hear you're saying is you're evaluating A, first of all, answering the consulting question, you know, is there a real risk for some sort of cerebrovascular phenomenon, but then actually going to the bedside to examine the patient, to say, does that make sense? Do we see hemibody involvement here? And it's a good thing that you're approaching it that way. Because actually, when you go to the bedside, she does have some difficulty speaking. And reading the notes, this was actually quite a difficult intubation. From just the cranial nerve, you know, where she has maybe some dysphonia and dysphagia. But you also, on exam, then find that she's got some pretty symmetric distal weakness in her arms bilaterally. And so, when you find that, what are some of the imaging that you're going to think through to try to pin down exactly what's going on here?

Dr Ghoshal: I love these cases because it's not so straightforward. Now, let's say if she has, like, an upper extremity weakness and lower cranial nerve deficits, you know, things I'd be looking for, like any injury to, like, hypoglossal nerve, vagus nerve. The vagus nerve is going to be hard to tell, right? Recurrent laryngeal nerve, you know, the lingual nerve. I might be thinking more about stretch injury, which we think of as tapia syndrome, right? So, just a textbook answer. The hypoglossal recurrent laryngeal nerve injury. And what we're going to be looking for is dysphonia, dysphagia, and unilateral tongue paralysis. Could be a bilateral as well. But I guess, then, the next question after I'm going through my physical exam findings is thinking about my imaging choice.

Dr Albin: So, for this patient, given that she's got this bilateral upper extremity, maybe some tepia syndrome where there may have been some stretch injury to some of those hypoglossal nerves. She may have also just had some trauma to the vocal cords. Like, as you said, these procedures can really put patients at risk for just mechanical injury to some of those structures. But knowing that upper extremity weakness, what kind of imaging, then, do you look at for the court?

Dr Ghoshal: I think it's not unreasonable to do an MRI brain, right; with that, it then cuts through the brain stem. And then doing an MRI of the cervical spine. I guess the point that you mentioned at the very beginning, that this is three days after she was intubated… you do run the risk beyond 72 hours of, let's say, a primary injury. Let's say if she had, you know, God forbid, an injury to the cervical spine, those hyperintensities, especially when associated with ligamentous injury, they can pseudonormalize beyond that time. I would say yes, absolutely. MRI of the brain, cervical spine, then cuts through the brain stem. But I would worry that if too much time elapses, you may miss some of those injuries that you would otherwise find.

Dr Albin: Yeah. I think those are some really important take-home pearls, and when we're thinking about the cord injury that could occur through the intubation process, that we really do need to be aware of student normalization of the T2 hyperintensities after that 72 hours. And so, I think that's a really important pearl for us to take home. So, kind of summarizing this case here, there was probably a multitude of things going on, which highlights to me the complexity of ICU patients. Less likely in this case, and they did not find a stroke. But that is, of course, something that we must keep on the differential for any critical care, critically injured, critically ill patient. But tapia syndrome where you have some stretch injury to the hypoglossal nerve and the recurrent laryngeal nerve, which can put people at risk for dysphasia or dystonia after intubation. And then that hyperextension injury that can happen for patients who are intubated, because people, especially for difficult intubations, are really having to manipulate the neck. And for an elderly patient who may have some cervical stenosis, that hyperextension can actually result in a central cord syndrome, which is what they discovered with the C-spine MRI in this case. So, cognizant of all of the cervical injuries that might accompany the procedure of intubation.

Dr Ghoshal: And you know what I would say, right. Because I think that our population is overall aging. I think with that, we're going to end up with, like, more cervical spine pathology for these patients that are ongoing intubation, just as you, you know, very astutely pointed out. Right? Trying to have at least, like, manual inline stabilization, right, or even like, considering fiber optic intubation in some of these patients is probably going to be a safer way to go to avoid these kind of injuries.

Dr Albin: Yeah, I think that that's so true and really emphasizes the importance of communication between the neurology team and the critical care team.

Dr Ghoshal: Totally.

Dr Albin: Neurology is probably not the person intubating the patient. Right? But it's really important for any of these consults to have a good appreciation and that robust communication with the critical care team about what has been going on systemically for this patient, even opening that intubation note and saying, was this an easy intubation? Was it a difficult intubation? I think sometimes we forget that key skill of just communicating across the teams to have a holistic picture of what's been happening in MICU.

Dr Ghoshal: Yeah, I totally agree. It's kind of why my first part of this case you mentioned is just like asking the team, like, what happened during the intubation, right?

Dr Albin: It's a really important takeaway. All right. We're going to shift gears from procedural complications, reminding our listeners there is a fantastic summary of all of the things that can happen to ICU patients, just because we're doing things to them, putting needles in places where needles aren't usually, such as for arterial lines, for central lines, intubating patients; all of these have complications that can affect neurologic function downstream. But let's shift gears and let's talk now about a 72-year-old man. And he's admitted to the ICU with pyelonephritis and bacteremia. He's got nephrolithiasis. And the team calls you because he, like many patients in the ICU, has some, quote, "shaking events." And he's altered, and they want to know what to do.

Dr Ghoshal: So, there's a lot to unpack there. Sepsis is so common, right? When you're saying this patient is altered, sepsis-associated encephalopathy occurs in 70% of patients. So, like, in sepsis or septic shock. And we know that, you know, they say it affects mortality, long-term cognitive outcomes. But because, I think, it's so common, we don't really take the time to think about what is going on in sepsis in the brain.

Dr Albin: The brain is an end organ perfusion. And the end organs are what we're sort of monitoring in sepsis, and the brain is such a key marker of that.

Dr Ghoshal: Absolutely. I think there are a lot of things that happen with sepsis in the brain. But if I were going to pick like 1 or 2 points that I really wanted to hone in on, it's thinking about that blood brain barrier disruption that happens in sepsis. And so, what that does when you disrupt the blood brain barrier is that you end up with this inflammatory milieu, for lack of a better term, that, like, comes into the brain. You have, like, a disordered sort of microglial activation, cytokine release. You know, all of these things are creating more oxidative stress, neuronal damage. And the other hand of this, right, along with that blood brain barrier disruption, is disordered cerebral auto regulation.

Dr Albin: And I think that those two things are probably underappreciated. The complications and why, maybe, they lead to this downstream difficulty in recovering and then probably are also setting the patient up to be at risk of downstream delirium that is so frequent in the ICU.

Dr Ghoshal: I couldn't agree more. And, you know, for this patient's case, right, where you're saying, like, they're altered, they're shaking, I bring up this idea of cerebral autoregulation. Right? Just because for normal patients---or normal people, rather, right?---normal cerebral autoregulation allows us to have, like, stable brain perfusion through whatever range of pressures we have. A lot of these patients are septic; whether they are hypertensive or not, they have significant changes in cerebral vasoconstriction, vasodilation, right? And this can create anything from, let's say, like, neuronal excitotoxicity, metabolic alterations. Right? Just in that setting of cerebral inflammation. So, these patients, yes, are at a very high risk of encephalopathy. And then from these changes, right, from blood brain barrier disruption, whether that's from a cerebral autoregulation or just from that inflammatory milieu, they're at a super high risk of stroke and seizure.

Dr Albin: Yeah. So, they… in calling you to the bedside, someone comes to meet you and they say, we sent a bunch of labs off and we just got one back, and it's his ammonia, and his ammonia is 92. So, do you think that's what's going on here? This is so common. Right? Hyperammonemia. Give us sort of your approach to kind of triaging, is the hyperammonemia really a problem or is it just some sort of bystander?

Dr Ghoshal: Oh, you know, ammonia is such a slippery lab, right? That… well, it's very hard not to have a strong opinion on it one way or the other. And so, I think what I would say is that ammonia can be elevated for, like, a parcel of reasons. Right? Like if someone has tonic colonic movements, you can have ammonia. That's just, like, part of like enteral metabolism, muscle breakdown, whatever it may be. And ammonia can go up for a lot of reasons. And it's true also that ammonia can contribute encephalopathy. And there are a few mechanisms that can go through in a little bit. I would first want to know… a part of understanding, I guess, any lab is understanding in this context of, like, what was the ammonia before? Right? What is their baseline ammonia? Is this a significant rise? Like, how much of a rise should you care about?

Dr Albin: Yeah, absolutely. So, you look back and they live sort of at the upper range of normal with 60 being their sort of baseline.

Dr Ghoshal: Yeah. You know, I don't know that I would be so concerned about this particular ammonia level. I may trend it. But, you know, just to talk a little bit about ammonia and why we care about encephalopathy, right? So, the reason why it's so concerning, I guess I should say, in any kind of acute illness is that ammonia will cross the blood brain barrier. And then it's converted into ammonium ions, and it will go into astrocytes and, like, they can increase interstellar osmolarity. Right? So, these cells swell. Right? And because water is drawn into the astrocytes, they cannot interfere with actual functioning of the astrocytes. Also worsen cerebral auto regulation and cause, I guess, sort of an excitotoxic environment. Right? So, ammonia can be concerning, I think when you send in a lab, right? I think it's important to remember that there's no direct relationship between ammonia level and encephalopathy severity.

Dr Albin: Right. I think that's a really key point to drive home

Neurologic complications of hematologic disorders are frequently encountered in clinical practice and can involve both the central and peripheral nervous systems. Early recognition and appropriate management in collaboration with a hematologist are essential to reduce morbidity and mortality.

In this episode, Kait Nevel, MD, speaks with Lauren Patrick, MD, and Mark Terrelonge, MD, MPH, authors of the article "Neurologic Complications of Hematologic Disorders" in the Continuum® February 2026 Neurology of Systemic Disease issue.

Dr. Nevel is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a neurologist and neuro-oncologist at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, Indiana.

Dr. Patrick is an assistant professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, in San Francisco, California.

Dr. Terrelonge is an associate professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, in San Francisco, California.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Neurologic Complications of Hematologic 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: @IUneurodocmom

Full episode transcript available here

Dr Nevel: Thick blood, thin blood. These are terms often used by patients and caregivers to describe some of the hematologic disorders that can lead to neurological diseases such as stroke. So, when should we consider a hematologic disorder as a potential cause for neurological conditions, such as stroke or neuropathy. Today I have the opportunity to interview Drs Lauren Patrick and Mark Terrelonge to learn more about neurologic complications of hematologic disorders in their recent article in Continuum.

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 Kate Nevel. Today I'm interviewing Drs Lauren Patrick and Mark Terrelonge about their article on neurologic complications of hematologic disorders. This article appears in the February 2026 Continuum issue on neurology of systemic disease. Welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to the audience.

Dr Patrick: Thank you for having us. We're both thrilled to be here. I'm Lauren Patrick, a vascular neurologist and assistant professor at the University of California, San Francisco, and program director for the Vascular Neurology Fellowship here.

Dr Terrelonge: And I'm Mark Terrelonge, I'm an associate professor of neurology and neuromuscular medicine here at UCSF and one of the associate program directors for the adult neurology residency. Nice to meet you.

Dr Nevel: Nice to meet you both. Really looking forward to getting into your article and learning more. So, to kind of kick us off, I always like to ask what do you think is the most important takeaway from your article for the practicing neurologist? And maybe since there are two of you and I suspect you covered slightly different aspects of this article, maybe you could give us two most important takeaways.

Dr Patrick: Sure. I think the biggest takeaway is to keep hematologic disorders on the differential when evaluating patients with neurologic symptoms. Conditions like sickle cell disease, myeloproliferative neoplasms, or plasma cell dyscrasias and paraproteinemia can cause strokes or peripheral neuropathies, and many have specific and targetable treatments. The early recognition and collaboration with our hematology colleagues can truly change patient outcomes, whether that's by initiating cytoreductive therapy, managing thrombocytopenia, or optimizing antithrombotic therapy.

Dr Nevel: Great. So, this is a really big and diverse topic. As always, I'm going to urge our listeners to read the article because there is a lot of really good stuff in your article that we just don't have time to get into during this interview today. But you cover a lot of different hematological disorders and how they can cause neurological complications. One of the major neurological complications of hematological disorders is cerebral vascular events. So, I'm hoping, Warren, that you can walk us through a little bit. When should we consider workup of potential hematologic disorder as a cause when we see a patient with ischemic stroke, because certainly not all patients with ischemic stroke should be getting a broad hematological disorder work up. So how can we kind of identify early on that there might be something else at play?

Dr Patrick: Absolutely, great question. So, in many cases, the underlying hematologic disorder is already known, such as sickle cell disease or polycythemia vera. But sometimes stroke is the initial presentation or manifestation of the disease. So red flags can include young age, recurrent cryptogenic strokes or thrombosis, and unusual locations like the cerebral venous system. Laboratory clues such as unexplained erythrocytosis, thrombocytosis, thrombocytopenia, or hemolytic anemia should raise suspicion for an occult hematologic disorder. In the setting of acute illness, immune-mediated or heparin-induced thrombocytopenia or thrombotic microangiopathies should be suspected in patients that have hemorrhagic and or thrombotic complications, particularly when relevant lab disturbances are present. Acquired thrombophilia such as anti-phospholipid antibody syndrome should be considered in young patients with autoimmune disease, prior venous or arterial thrombotic complications, or pregnancy morbidity. Now, these are rare causes overall, but they're important to catch because the management can differ dramatically from our typical stroke care.

Dr Nevel: Great. And what are some of the most common inherited or acquired thrombophilias and when should we be sending these labs?

Dr Patrick: The hematologic causes really account for small minority of arterial strokes approximately one to two percent, but among those, sickle cell disease, anti-phospholipid antibody syndrome and the myeloproliferative neoplasms are the most common. Timing of testing is key. So, the genetic thrombophilia panels can be drawn at presentation, but lab values such as protein C, protein S, and antithrombin levels may be falsely low during acute thrombosis, so they're often repeated weeks later. Similarly, for anti-phospholipid antibody testing that should be done at presentation and when positive, confirmed at twelve weeks, since transient positivity can occur with affections or acute events. So, in patients that are already anticoagulated for anti-phospholipid antibody syndrome, testing becomes particularly tricky, especially with lupus anticoagulant assays. Some results need to be interpreted carefully or repeated when feasible. The main message is to collaborate early with our hematology colleagues to guide the timing and interpretation of these studies.

Dr Nevel: Yeah, wonderful. Thank you. I'll ask some similar questions about neuropathy. So when should we consider an underlying hematologic disorder as being the cause for someone's neuropathy?

Dr Terrelonge: So, luckily for a neurologist, then serum protein electrophoresis or an SPEP is already a part of the first pass evaluation for even the most common neuropathies we see, technically already considered every time we do an evaluation. However, we do know that most neuropathies progress very slowly and don't really lead to significant limitations in patient activities of daily living. And for those, the initial workup step, you may not need to do any additional search for any hematologic diseases after that first step. Within patients who start to have more unusual features with their neuropathy, including a rapid progression, early proximal weakness, significant and extremely painful neuropathies, significant ataxia, or new tremor or anything that's kind of outside of the garden variety neuropathy, then you should start to think about a hematologic cause. Additionally, if a patient already has a known hematologic malignancy or process before their neuropathy, there should be some form of assessment to see through exam or electrodiagnostically if the two are correlated. I do have to add one caveat, though, and that's just because someone has a hematologic malignancy or a paraprotein seen in their blood, their neuropathy and the neurologic syndrome don't necessarily have to be causally related. So, we have to do some additional testing to determine if the patient's presentation of the paraprotein are actually linked.

Dr Nevel: Can you walk us through a little bit how we determine if they're associated or just coincidental?

Dr Terrelonge: Yeah. So, for some of the proteins, there's a specific phenotype that will come with the specific protein. For example, an anti MAG proteinopathies or MAG standing for a myelin associated glycoprotein, it usually leads to a distal sensor and motor polyneuropathy where the most distal portions of nerves are affected. So, in that case, people might notice that they have numbness and weakness in their toes and their fingers, and it doesn't follow that typical length dependent pattern. So, in that case, if you have the anti mag neuropathy and the electrodiagnostic signature of an anti mag neuropathy along with the symptoms, you're more likely to think that the two are related then if not.

Dr Nevel: Great. Thank you. And I was hoping you could speak a little bit more about amyloidosis just because I think that that's one that can be really tricky to diagnose. And I see patients, you know, have sometimes more drawn out evaluations or see multiple providers before a diagnosis is reached. So, can you speak a little bit more to how we diagnose amyloidosis in relationship to neuropathy or other neurological conditions and when we should push for more invasive testing like a nerve biopsy?

Dr Terrelonge: So, amyloidosis certainly is a tricky diagnosis. I've been tricked by it and I think most of my neuromuscular colleagues have probably been tricked by it at least once. It's a hard diagnosis to make is it usually requires a pretty high index of suspicion, and also requires a tissue diagnosis to cinch. There're some patients who will come in with a prior history of amyloidosis and they're a little bit easier to figure out if the neuropathy is related. Maybe it's started in their heart or their kidney first and then you can just see if the type of amyloid they have usually deposits in nerve, and that may be enough. But if there's any diagnostic uncertainty, you could go forward with tissue biopsy. But it's patients in which the neuropathy is the first symptom that amyloidosis can be especially tricky to diagnose. It's a primarily light chain disease. So, if you do only an SPEP as a part of your initial neuropathy evaluation, you could miss it. But usually, the patients will have either a severely painful neuropathy, early autonomic dysfunction, or really prominent bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. So, if they have any of those, usually we'll add in an amyloid workup as a part of that of the rest of the workup, which would include both light chain evaluations to see if there's any increase in Lambda or Kappa light chains and then also biopsy. Biopsy can be of the skin or fat pad first, which have reasonable sensitivity for picking up disease, but they're not necessarily a hundred percent. So if the suspicion remains high in those cases, a nerve biopsy should be considered. And the reason why this is important is that the chemotherapeutic agents that we have now can actually help arrest a lot of these diseases and stop further organ involvement. So, if you think about it, it is important to keep pushing and looking until you find it.

Dr Nevel: Thank you so much for that. And a follow up question to that, once patients are started on appropriate therapy, the diagnosis is made, chemotherapy is started, what's the typical clinical course that you see in terms of their neuropathy? Do you ever see improvement or is it arrest of worsening?

Dr Terrelonge: Usually for amyloid, there is an arrest of disease, but in some patients, they could have some improvement, not necessarily a dramatic improvement, but some patients could see some reversal of symptoms. That may not necessarily be because nerves injured nerves are regrowing, but because of reorganization of nerves to muscle, they could have some strength increases or at least less pain.

Dr Nevel: Yeah, thank you. So, when should we involve a hematologist in aiding in the evaluation of patients we suspect may have an underlying hematological disorder? You guys really outlined very nicely in your article some of the laboratory workup or other workup like you just talked about with amyloidosis. But at what point in that workup should we reach out to our hematology colleagues?

Dr Patrick: I would say almost always. So, these disorders are inherently multi-system and benefit from early co-management. In acute sickle cell stroke, for example, hematology helps direct emergent exchange transfusion. For myeloproliferative disorders they guide cyto reduction and long term antithrombotic strategy. And for antibody mediated or plasma cell disorders, hematology determines disease specific therapies. So, neurology may help with identifying the presentation, but the definitive management is almost always shared with our hematology colleagues.

Dr Nevel: And as you both have mentioned that a lot of times in these cases, their hematologic disorder may be already known before they present with their neurological symptoms. So, I imagine obviously in those cases that a hematologist hopefully is already heavily involved in their care. What do you think is the most difficult aspect of identifying and diagnosing patients with neurologic illness as having an underlying hematological disorder?

Dr Patrick: The hardest part is maintaining a high index of suspicion, especially since hematologic causes account for a very small minority of arterial strokes. Most strokes are from traditional vascular risk factors like you mentioned, or cardio embolism, so it's easy to stop diagnostic evaluation after standard studies have been performed. An example of a challenging case is a patient that's young, they've had recurrent cryptogenic stroke, and they could have antiphospholipid antibody syndrome, but it can be easy to miss if their antibody titers are borderline or if they're already anticoagulated, which would complicate retesting. So, it's about balancing the urge to over-test with recognizing the few cases where identifying A hematologic cause truly changes that management.

Dr Terrelonge: And then on the neuropathy side, probably the hardest part is deciding what's causal and what's coincidence. Monoclonal gammopathy of unknown significance, or MGUS, is really common in older adults, so not every M-spike on an SPEP explains a neuropathy. And even sometimes there's times when the neurologic picture will develop a little bit faster than the hematologic one. So, it's hard to put the two together.

Dr Nevel: Yeah. What's the most rewarding aspect of taking care of patients with complications from their hematologic disorders?

Dr Patrick: It's deeply rewarding when a targeted diagnosis leads to a tangible improvement in that patient's care. For example, identifying A cryptogenic stroke is being due to myeloproliferative neoplasm or an inherited thrombophilia allows us to move from empiric treatment to possible disease specific strategy. It's really gratifying to give patients that clarity, to give them a diagnosis and in some cases prevent future events.

Dr Terrelonge: Agreed. And even on the neuropathy side, almost all of the neuropathies that are hematologically related are treatable. So, it's so satisfying whenever you have a patient with say an anti-MAG neuropathy or Waldenström can start the patient on therapy, and you can see someone who's been having a progressive decline to stability and in those cases sometimes even significant recovery.

Dr Nevel: Yeah, absolutely. Very rewarding when you can identify the problem and make it better. That's what it's all about. So, what are the future areas of research in this area? What do we still need to learn?

Dr Patrick: There's still a lot to learn. I think we need better data on the safety of acute reperfusion therapy and antithrombotic agents, particularly in patients that are at dual risk for bleeding and thrombosis. Other examples, secondary prevention strategies and anti-phospholipid antibody syndrome. What's the best target INR? Do you add aspirin to warfarin or not? All of that is often left up to expert opinion. What's the best management for adults with sickle cell stroke? There are many open questions there. A lot of the protocols that we have in place for sickle cell patients that are adults as derived from pediatric literature and there's vast potential in terms of disease modifying therapies, especially in the fields of sickle cell disease and amyloidosis. And we'll need to reassess how those treatments may change neurologic outcomes.

Dr Terrelonge: I think on the neuropathy side that having some form of new biomarkers to help us clearly know of the neuropathy and that hematologic illness are associated would be very helpful. On the treatment side, a lot of this is really being driven by the hematology space, but new therapies that treat hematologic plasma cell disorders, including some of the new BTK inhibitor, may be incorporated relatively soon into the algorithm for how we treat many of our patients. I'm excited to see what's to come from this.

Dr Nevel: Wonderful. Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge with us today. I know I've certainly learned a lot by reading your article and through our discussion today. Highly encourage our listeners to read your wonderful article, which is a very thorough review of hematologic disorders and neurological complications. Again, today I've been interviewing Dr Lauren Patrick and Dr Mark Terrelonge on their article Neurologic Complications of Hematologic Disorders, which appears in the February 2026 Continuum issue on Neurology of Systemic Disease. Please be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues. And as always, thank you so much to our listeners for joining today, and thank you so much to Lauren and Mark.

Dr Terrelonge: Yeah, thank you so much for having us.

Dr Patrick: Thank you so much for having us and for highlighting this topic. We hope the issue encourages clinicians to think broadly about hematologic causes of neurologic disease and to continue collaborating closely with our hematology colleagues. It's a complex but very fascinating intersection for both of our fields.

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.

Neurologic complications of endocrine disorders are diverse and may arise before systemic manifestations. Early recognition is essential because neurologic symptoms may represent the presentation of an undiagnosed underlying endocrine disorder, and because many neurologic complications of endocrine disorders are reversible with timely treatment.

In this episode, Gordon Smith, MD, FAAN, speaks with Rafid Mustafa, MD, author of the article "Neurologic Complications of Endocrine Disorders" in the Continuum® February 2026 Neurology of Systemic Disease 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. Mustafa is an assistant professor of neurology for the Department of Neurology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Neurologic Complications of Endocrine 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: @gordonsmithMD

Guest: @RafidMustafa

Full episode transcript available here

Dr Smith: So what group of disorders causes cognitive changes, weakness, fatigue, neuropathy, and seizures? Kind of sounds like all of neurology in one, doesn't it? It turns out that disorders of the endocrine system can cause all of these neurological problems and others. And kind of reminds me of William Osler, who famously said at the end of the 19th century that "he or she who knows syphilis knows medicine." Syphilis was the great imitator of his time. I wonder if in our time, the great imitator is actually endocrine disorders because it can cause all of these different problems. Today I have the great opportunity to talk with Dr Rafid Mustafa from Mayo Clinic about the neurological complications of endocrine disorders, which is a really terrific article in the February 2026 issue of Continuum.

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 Dr Rafid Mustafa about his article on neurological complications of endocrine disorders, which appears in the February 2026 Continuum issue on neurology of systemic disease. Rafid, welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to our listeners.

Dr Mustafa: Well, thank you for having me, Dr Smith. Like you had mentioned, I'm Dr Rafid Mustafa. I'm a neurohospitalist at the Mayo Clinic and I had the pleasure of writing this issue with Dr Aaron Berkowitz, and it's been such a fun ride to be a part of Continuum for this issue.

Dr Smith: Yeah, it's a really exciting issue. And I have to say, I was really excited to have the opportunity to talk to you. Even though my research is in diabetes and I'm looking forward to talking about that---not my research, but about diabetes---I think the area of endocrine and neurological complications of endocrine disorders is confusing to us. And I guess maybe you could begin by just this concept that most of us check a few endocrine labs on just about everything. But how do you bring order to this when there's a group of disorders that all cause just about every domain of neurological problem, be it weakness, neuropathy, cognitive changes, and so forth?

Dr Mustafa: Yeah, I think it's super interesting. I think that's why, you know, this issue on systemic diseases is fun. I had a mentor one time telling me that your interim year in residency is important so you can learn about all these organ systems that are there to keep the brain alive. And so, I think neurologic complications of systemic disease are fun. You know, like you said, the endocrine system, whenever it goes awry, you can get all sorts of neurologic complications. Putting order to it can be challenging. I think it's important to know what the different parts of the endocrine system do, the different glands and how they're connected, and what to look out for when you encounter neurologic problems, because sometimes those neurologic manifestations can be the very earliest sign of something wrong with different parts of the endocrine system.

Dr Smith: You knew exactly where I was heading without having to tip my cards. I mean, that's exactly where I wanted to begin, because I think of this as an intimidating topic, but in reading your article, you outlined kind of the glandular structure or anatomy of the endocrine system and sort of the logic of its function. And actually, it's not as complicated as I was thinking going in. You did a good job of framing. And I wonder if maybe you can begin by just reminding our listeners the basic anatomy and functional logic that they'll need to keep in mind.

Dr Mustafa: Yeah, absolutely. The system itself is this network of different glands and hormones that work to influence each other, just like our, you know, our nervous system is all interconnected as well, too. But this is more ensuring homeostasis in various ways. So, you have the hypothalamus all the way at top that secretes things, usually just to stimulate the pituitary, which often ends up being the controller of the endocrine system. And then there are these various other organs that have different jobs or things to do. So, there's, you know, the thyroid, parathyroid, adrenal glands; you have your pancreas, there's gonads. And all of these different things have different roles to keep us healthy and regulated. to function appropriately, you know, whether that's just generalized metabolic things from the thyroid gland or more flight or fight responses from the adrenal gland, even, you know, renin, aldosterone, etc, etc, from the adrenal. And then you know, the pancreas, diabetes, all sorts of things there. Gonads are important for sexual health. It's kind of cool how it's all regulated together and there's these feedback loops and- ah, we'll have fun talking about it.

Dr Smith: Just listening to you, it kind of feels almost like the endocrine system is part of the nervous system, isn't it? I mean- and there are these sort of relationships between the two that I know we'll get into. We think of insulin sensitivity, for instance, and, you know, patients with diabetes. I mean, there's neuronal insulin resistance as well. So, they're very, very interconnected systems.

Dr Mustafa: Absolutely. You're absolutely right.

Dr Smith: I wonder if you can talk about this idea of feedback loops. This is something that we all learned in medical school, but probably worth reminding ourselves of as we begin the conversation.

Dr Mustafa: Yeah, one part of the endocrine system is important for secreting a hormone that will influence another part of the endocrine system. And that new end target will have some kind of function, and then it all loops together. So, for example, the hypothalamus, it secrets out thyrotropin-releasing hormone and that stimulates the anterior pituitary gland to secrete thyroid-stimulating hormone, and then that hormone acts on the thyroid gland itself to produce the final-acting thyroid hormones themselves, like T3 and T4. Now, if any of these are thrown off, then it throws off other parts of the system. So, for example, maybe you're hyperthyroid and you have too much T3 and T4 coming from the thyroid gland. That may signal the hypothalamus and pituitary to reduce levels of thyrotropin-releasing hormone and thyroid-stimulating hormone to in turn affect the thyroid gland and help reduce production of those end-target thyroid hormone. Or vice versa, it just depends on the condition. You can see this at all aspects of the system at various accesses. So, it's kind of this complicated neural network in a way, but just from endocrine purposes, glands and hormones.

Dr Smith: I wonder if we can start talking about the pituitary gland. Your article has all kinds of really cool information. One pearl that I wasn't really aware of is that 10% of adults have a pituitary microadenoma. It's pretty amazing. You point out that most of these aren't clinically significant, but they clearly come up on, kind of, an evaluation now and again. I mean, how should our listeners sort through how to approach these situations, right? Most of them aren't clinically significant, but some of them are. What does a neurologist need to know about this?

Dr Mustafa: Yeah, To me, it's like anything else in our field. You scan enough people, you're going to find incidental things. You scan a spine, you're probably going to find a disc herniation. The question is, how clinically relevant is that and how is that affecting your patient? What are the things you need to be worried about and how do you work through it? As you mentioned, yeah, 10% of the population has a pituitary microadenoma. Those are the small ones. Most of them are clinically insignificant. So, if you find it, you know, usually it's not something to worry about too much. You might repeat serial imaging just to make sure it's not growing. But if they're not having neurologic symptoms because of mass effect or physiologic symptoms because of hormonal effect, then most of the time it's just an incidental finding and you just have to work really hard to reassure your patient. Now sometimes, there can be mass effect as the tumor itself grows, as benign tumor, or there can be hormonal effects. And then you might start thinking about how you're going to intervene.

Dr Smith: Let's talk about macroadenomas and mass effect. You spend some time, and I actually have a really good example of pituitary apoplexy as well as the relationship between macroadenomas and other headache syndromes. So maybe you can talk about the relationship between macroadenomas and headache?

Dr Mustafa: Yeah. So, you know, when pituitary adenomas become large, usually over 10 millimeters or so, we call it a macroadenoma. And the neurologic symptoms that come to play are usually because of mass effect. I think many of us are trained to recognize visual defects like a, you know, bitemporal hemianopia from compression of the optic chiasm. That's one of the classic things. But even just the mass effect alone in that area can cause symptoms like headache. Many of this will be, you know, migrainous in nature. Sometimes you can get a typical trigeminal-type phenomenon, just given everything that's in the region. And with something like pituitary apoplexy that you alluded to, I mean, that usually comes on very quickly. It can be a thunderclap headache. So, not all thunderclap headaches are subarachnoid hemorrhage from aneurysms. You have to think about other things on the differential, and that includes pituitary apoplexy.

Dr Smith: Yeah, I mean, I think one of the things I found interesting was the fact that headaches can be associated with pituitary macronoma that are migranous or even look like a trigeminal autonomic cephalgia. I mean, is that something that commonly influences your management of either the headache or the macroadenoma? I mean, if you have a patient with a macroadenoma, do you treat the headache syndrome any differently, or are you particularly attentive for pituitary findings in someone that you're scanning because of headache?

Dr Mustafa: Yeah. From my perspective, if I know there's a pituitary macroadenoma and they have these associated headaches, my practice is in general to treat the headache symptomatically, focusing on the phenotype, whether it's migrainous or more, you know, like an attack, a trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia. Now if it starts with they had an atypical headache like a trigeminal autonomic cephalgia, maybe I'm doing the imaging as a result of that to explore why they may be having this from a structural perspective. And if indeed it is because of a pituitary macroadenoma, we'll probably be monitoring the characteristics of the adenoma on a serial basis to see how it transforms over time. And if it's enlarging, you know, those symptoms might be a reason to consider intervention from a surgical resection standpoint.

Dr Smith: So, I wonder if we should pivot and talk a little bit about how neurologists encounter patients who have symptoms related to endocrine disorders. And presumably the clues come with the impact of the distal endocrine gland, for instance, either over- or underproduction of the thyroid hormone. Is that the right way of thinking of it? And then, you know, having identified that, you'll start to look whether it's a primary glandular problem or upstream in the pituitary.

Dr Mustafa: Absolutely. That's in general my approach. You know, often these patients are coming to the neurologist with specific symptomatology, and being familiar with how that's related to the endocrine system is what's important. So, I try to organize this article kind of by parts of the endocrine system and how that's related to neurologic manifestations. But really, it's about being familiar. So, if the patient presents in a comatose status and it's not a clear-cut structural reason, neurologically, as to why they're comatose, you might be exploring metabolic reasons for their coma. You may find disturbances in thyroid hormone levels, and that can influence you to work your way back up the axis---just like you mentioned, Gordon---to see where the problem is coming from that influences the thyroid problem.

Dr Smith: So, you know, maybe we can use that as a good hook to hang our coat on, right? So we have a patient in the unit, comatose, not clear why. Are there specific pearls or indicators that would trigger you to really think about, is this a thyroid problem? Is it adrenal or whatnot? I mean, you give some great examples of, like, myxedema coma, which is very interesting. But what's the clue that we should be going down this pathway? Or, you know, on the other extreme, do you just look for thyroid abnormalities in everyone with a coma that you're having a hard time figuring out?

Dr Mustafa: Great question. I am slightly more of a traditionalist in my approach to neurologic disease that, instead of shotgunning every single possible test, I try to localize in any way I can. And what's cool about these disorders of the endocrine system is that there's so much on your examination that can help clue you in. And it's not just the neurologic exam, it's the systemic exam as well, too. So, important to keep an eye out for those things. Since we're on the topic of thyroid, patients with mixed edema coma, you know, they may have neurologic signs like myoedema, etc, but they may also have systemic signs like hair loss, changes in weight, changes in temperature regulation, that you can pick up on history as well, too. And it's putting all that together to localize to not just part of the nervous system now, but part of the body that helps you with your testing. And that's how I tend to approach things.

Dr Smith: So, so many questions I have for you. I wonder, can we talk a little bit about Hashimoto's encephalopathy?

Dr Mustafa: Oh, yes, absolutely.

Dr Smith: What's the deal there? That's something I've always found a little bit challenging. So, when should we think about it? There are lots of people out there with elevated thyroperoxase antibodies. How do you make the connection between serology and clinical phenotype and management?

Dr Mustafa: Yeah, it's a great point of contention among groups, this diagnosis of Hashimoto encephalopathy. There are those that believe in this is a distinct autoimmune, essentially encephalitis entity associated with abnormal thyroid antibodies. And then there are those that believe that patients have this encephalopathy, but it's just incidental that we find these abnormalities in thyroid testing. What I'll tell you is there's been some really nice studies looking at Hashimoto's or what's to be Hashimoto's encephalopathy, and most patients that present with what is thought to be that actually have normal thyroid function studies. The other thing is finding abnormal antithyroid antibodies is also pretty prevalent in the general population. So, I think in my approach to thinking about Hashimoto's encephalopathy, you've just got to take everything with a grain of salt. You got to recognize that some things are just very prevalent, and you have to keep your clinical suspicion high for what you normally would see and consider other things on the differential. My personal thought is that there probably is some unique antibody-driven disease process that represents what we think of as Hashimoto's encephalopathy, but we just haven't fully classified what that antibody may be quite yet. And then there's probably some overlap, because in general a lot of these thyroid diseases themselves are reflective of underlying autoimmunity. So, there's probably something going on, but I don't think it's a direct effect of something like, you know, thyroid peroxidase antibodies.

Dr Smith: Maybe we should pivot and spend a little time talking about the most common endocrine disorder that we encounter in neurologic practice, which is diabetes. And as I mentioned earlier, it's a topic near and dear to my heart. What's the latest that our listeners should know about regarding peripheral nervous system complications of diabetes? We're all familiar with distal symmetric polyneuropathy. Or are there other new updates or pearls that we should be thinking about?

Dr Mustafa: Absolutely. So, the complications on the nervous system extend far beyond just your distal symmetric polyneuropathy is probably the most common thing we see, but you can get all sorts of unique manifestations. In fact, I recently just took care of a patient that had many of these. You can get a single thoracic radiculopathy. You can have what we see often at Mayo Clinic here, a diabetic lamosacral radicule plexus neuropathy where patients have profound, initially, usually pain in their lower limbs, and then this spreading of profound weakness in their lower limbs. That can be a huge complication of association with rapid control of glycemic status. And especially this day and age where we have newer medications that are very effective at controlling diabetes, we're seeing this more and more. I wrote this article before some recent publications that come out highlighting the association with GLP-1 agonists. But with these types of medication, rapid glycemic control can result in, you know, associated DLRPN quite frequently.

Dr Smith: Yeah, it's interesting. I think we think of the, kind of the neuro-ophthalmological manifestations or risks of GLP-1 agonists, but the relationship too, of treatment-induced neuropathy and diabetes. And I'm curious of your experience. My sense is that if you aren't attuned to these sort of problems, you often miss them. And you certainly see people that come close to having surgical interventions or, you know, end up going off in the wrong direction with these acute neuropathies that I think are probably a little more common than we often give them credit for.

Dr Mustafa: Absolutely. Yeah. I think, you know, learning about these things and being familiar is very important. It's important to keep a good broad differential because there can be mimickers, whether it's infectious things or malignant things like lymphoma, but I wanted to highlight in this article how common something like diabetic radiculoplexus, Lumbosacral radiculoplexus neuropathy can be. I mean, in fact, we see this more than things like Guillain-Barré syndrome, CIDP, etc. And so, I think practicin

Many serious medical illnesses are associated with some degree of serum electrolyte abnormality, renal impairment, or both. The neurologist must determine if the patient's neurologic symptoms are related to the renal and electrolyte disturbances or whether a concurrent primary neurologic process is at play.

In this episode, Casey Albin, MD, speaks with Eelco F. M. Wijdicks, MD, PhD, FAAN, FACP, FNCS, author of the article "Neurologic Manifestations of Renal and Electrolyte Disorders" in the Continuum® February 2026 Neurology of Systemic Disease issue.

Dr. Albin is a Continuum® Audio interviewer, associate editor of media engagement, and an assistant professor of neurology and neurosurgery at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

Dr. Wijdicks is a professor of neurology and attending neurointensivist for the Neurosciences Intensive Care Unit at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Neurologic Manifestations of Renal and Electrolyte 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: @caseyalbin

Guest: @EWijdicks

Full episode transcript available here

In this episode, Lyell K. Jones Jr, MD, FAAN, speaks with Aaron L. Berkowitz, MD, PhD, FAAN, who served as the guest editor of the February 2026 Neurology of Systemic Disease issue. They provide a preview of the issue, which publishes on February 2, 2026.

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. Berkowitz is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a professor of neurology in the Department of Neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, in San Francisco, California.

Additional Resources

Read the issue: continuum.aan.com

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

Host: @LyellJ

Guest: @AaronLBerkowitz

Full episode transcript available here

Dr Jones: The human nervous system is so complex. You can spend your whole career studying it and still have plenty to learn. But the human brain does not exist in isolation. It's intricately connected with and reliant on other bodily systems. When those systems go awry, sometimes the first sign is in the nervous system. Today we will speak with Dr Aaron Berkowitz, an expert on the neurology of systemic disease, and learn a little about how these disorders can present and what we can do about it.

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 Aaron Berkowitz, who is Continuum's guest editor for our latest issue of Continuum on the neurology of systemic disease. Dr Berkowitz is a professor of clinical neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, and he has an active practice as a neurohospitalist and in outpatient general neurology---and, importantly, as a clinician educator. In addition to numerous teaching awards, Dr Berkowitz has published several books and also serves on our editorial board for Continuum. Dr Berkowitz, welcome. Thank you for joining us. Why don't you introduce yourself to our listeners?

Dr Berkowitz: Thanks, Lyell. As you mentioned, I'm a general neurologist and neurohospitalist here in San Francisco, California at UCSF and very involved in resident education as well. And I was honored, flattered and a little bit frightened when I received the invitation to guest edit this massive issue on the neurology of systemic disease. But I've learned a ton, and it's been great to work with you and the incredible authors we recruited to write for us. And I'm excited to have the issue out in the world.

Dr Jones: Yeah, me too. And you and I have talked about it before: you're one of a very small group of people who have guest edited multiple issues on different topics, right?

Dr Berkowitz: That's right. I did the neuroinfectious disease issue in… was it 2020? 2021? Something like that.

Dr Jones: Yeah. So, congratulations, more people have walked on the moon than done what you've done. And I'm looking forward to chatting, Aaron, and really grateful for your work putting together a fantastic issue. I think our listeners will appreciate that the nervous system does not function in isolation. It's important to understand the neurologic manifestations of diseases that originate within the brain, spinal cord, nerves, muscles, etc., but also the manifestations of diseases that begin in other systems and, you know, may masquerade as a primary neurologic disorder. So, it's obviously an important topic for neurologists, since many of these patients are receiving care in another setting, perhaps from another specialist. I almost think of this issue of Continuum as a handbook for the consultant neurologist, inpatient or outpatient. I don't know. Do you think that's a fair characterization of the topic?

Dr Berkowitz: Absolutely. I completely agree with you. I think, yeah, many of us go into neurology interested in our primary diseases, whether it's stroke or Parkinson's or neuropathy or particular interest in neurologic symptoms, whether they're cognitive, motor, sensory, visual. And we quickly learn in residency, right? As you said, a lot of what we see is neurologic manifestations of primary diseases. So, I don't know how similar this is to other training programs. But it seemed like, if I'm remembering correctly, my first year of residency was mostly on primary neurology services, general stroke, ICU. And we moved into the consultant role more in the PGY-3 year the next year. And I remember explaining to students rotating with us on the consult services, this is actually much more complex in a way, because the patient has some type of symptom in a much broader and much more complicated context of multiple things going on. And I call it "neurology in the wild." There's, like, neurology of, this patient's had a stroke and we know they have a stroke and we're trying to figure out why and treat it. That's all interesting. But our question here, is there a stroke needle buried in this haystack of all of these medical or surgical complications? And learning what I call neurology of X, which is really what this issue is; as you said, that there's a neurology of everything. There's a neurology of cardiac disease. There's a neurology of the peripartum. There's a neurology of rheumatologic disease. There's every new treatment that comes out in oncology has a neurology we learn, right? There's a neurology of everything.

Dr Jones: There's a lot of axes, right? There's the heart-brain axis and the kidney-brain axis. And… I think we cover everything except the spleen-brain axis, which maybe that's a thing, maybe not. I'll probably hear from all the spleen fans out there. So, I want to do a little bit of an experiment. We're going to do something new today on the podcast. Before we get into the questions, we're going to start with a Continuum Audio trivia question. So, this will be a first time ever. Dr Berkowitz, we all know that chronic hyperglycemia, or diabetes, can lead to many neurologic and systemic complications and that optimal glucose control is our goal. For our listeners, here's the question: what neurologic complication can occur from correcting hyperglycemia too quickly? What neurologic complication can occur from correcting hyperglycemia too quickly? Stick around to the end of our interview for the answer. So, Aaron, let's get right to it. You had a chance to review all the articles in this issue on the neurology of systemic disease. What do you think in all of those is the most exciting recent development for patients who fit into this category?

Dr Berkowitz: Yeah, that's a great question. I think we talked about when we were putting this issue together, right, a lot of the Continuum subspecialty topics; there should have been updates on particular disease diagnostics, treatments, new phenotypes. Whereas here probably a lot less has changed in primary heart disease, primary cancer. As I'd like to say to our students trying to excite them about neurology, most specialties have new treatments, but I can name a large number of new diseases, right, that have been discovered since we've been out of training. So, a lot of the primary medicine stays the same, and the neurologic complications stay the same. But probably the thing that many readers will want to keep handy and will probably be much in need of update again in three years are the neurologic complications of all the new cancer treatments. So, if we think back to I finished training just over ten years ago when a lot of the fill-in-the-blank-umabs were coming out, CAR T therapy, and we were starting to see a lot of neurology, I remember, related to these and telling the oncologists and they said, oh, you just wait. We are seeing at the conferences that there's a lot of neurology to these. And I feel like that is always a moving target. And I think we are seeing a lot of those and it's hard to keep up with which treatments can cause which complications, which syndromes and which severities require holding the treatment when you can rechallenge longer-term complications of CAR T cell therapies now that we've learned more about the acute complications. So, Amy Pruitt from Penn has written us a fantastic article for this issue that covers a lot of the updates there. And I learned a lot from that. I feel like that's the one that just like every time the carnioplastic diseases are reviewed in Continuum, it seems like the table is another page longer from your colleagues there in Rochester teaching us about new antibodies. And I feel like, for this issue, that's one of the areas that felt like there was a lot of very new content to keep up with since last time.

Dr Jones: That's good news, right? It's good that we have new immunotherapies for cancer, but it does lead to neurologic catastrophes sometimes, and it is a moving target, really rapid. So, you mentioned that just over ten years ago you finished your training and now we see a lot more of these complex immunotherapy-related neurologic complications. What about in the other direction? Are there any things that you see less commonly now in your practice than you might have seen ten years ago right when you were finishing training?

Dr Berkowitz: I would say no, I think. I think we're seeing a lot of new stuff, and we're still seeing a high volume of the classic consults we tend to get, whether that's altered mental status in a patient who's systemically ill; weakness or difficulty reading from the ventilator in a patient who's critically ill; patient has endocarditis and has a stroke hemorrhage or mycotic aneurysm, what do we do? Yeah, one of the parts that was really fun and educational editing this issue is, I really wanted to ask the experts the questions I find that are really troubling and challenging and make sure we could understand their perspective on things like the endocarditis consult, which I always feel like each time there's some twist that even though the question is what do we do about this stroke and/or hemorrhage and/or aneurysm and is surgery safe? It seems like each time I always feel like I'm reinventing the wheel, trying to really sort out how to think about this. And we have a great article from Alvin Doss at Beth Israel and Steve Feskey from Boston Medical Center. It covers a lot of cardiology, as you know, in that article about a great section on endocarditis where every time it came back for review, I would say, but what about this? This comes up. What about this? Can you explain how you think about this for our readers? I don't know. I'd be curious to hear your perspective. It sounds like we agree on what has become more common. I don't think anything in neurology seems to become less…

Dr Jones: Well, no, I guess we haven't really solved anything, I guess we haven't cured any problem. But that's okay, right? I mean, it's building on an established foundation of experience and history in our field. And you know, we mentioned earlier that in many ways this issue is kind of like a neurology consultant's handbook. We did something a little different with it in that sense. In addition to you serving as the guest editor, you have authored an article in the issue. It touches on something that we've talked about a couple of times, and I'd be interested to hear you talk through it with our listeners a little bit on how to approach the neurologic consultation. Tell us a little more about that and your article and how you approached it.

Dr Berkowitz: Oh, yeah, thanks. Well, thanks first of all for inviting me to think about a sort of introductory article to this issue. And I was trying to think about what to write about because, as you've said and we've been talking about, no one could know every neurologic complication of every medical disease, treatment, surgery, hospital context. Probably many of us don't even know all the muscle diseases, right, within neurology. So how could we know all this stuff? And we need some type of manual from our colleagues that can explain, okay, I know this patient has inflammatory bowel disease and they've had a stroke. Is that- are these related? Are these unrelated? And I thought the articles kind of answer all of these questions. What would I say beyond this patient has disease X and is on drug Y? Well, look up in this issue disease X and see what the neurology can be, common and rare and how often it's associated, how often it's the presenting feature, how often it means the treatment is failing, etc. I thought, I'm not sure there's much to say there. That's about a paragraph. And I thought, well, let's think even more broadly about neurologic consultation. And as you know, I like to think about diagnostic reasoning and clinical reasoning. And we talk a lot about framing bias right? And I think that is very common in consultative neurology because we'll be told in the consult or in the page or E-consult or whatever it is, this is a blank-year-old blank with a history of blank on treatment blank. And right away your mind is starting to say, oh, well, the patient just had heart disease, or, the patient is nine months pregnant, or, the patient is on an immune checkpoint inhibitor. And whether you want to do it or not, your mind is associating the patient's neurology with that. And it's- even if we know we're framing or anchoring, it's hard to kind of pull away from that. And most of the time, common things being common, a patient with cancer develops new neurology, It's probably the cancer, the treatment, or sometimes a paraneoplastic syndrome. But I've definitely found if you do a lot of inpatient neurology and a lot of consults that you're seeing so much and you have no choice but to apply these heuristics, because you're seeing a lot of volume quickly and the patients are in the hospital or they're being closely followed and outpatient setting by another specialist. You presume if you didn't get it quite right the first time, it's going to come back to you. And there's a little bit of difficulty figuring out, this is a case, actually, of all the altered mental status in acutely ill patients I got today, this is the one I should dig deeper in that I think this could turn out to be a stroke or encephalitis as opposed to delirium. I felt like that I really haven't approached that except knowing that it's easy to fall into traps. And so, I started to think about framing bias. You know, we talked about if we become aware of our biases, right, we're better at not falling prey to them. But it's subconscious. So, we might be applying it without even realizing, or even saying, I might be framing this case the wrong way, you can go right on framing it the wrong way. So, I want to kind of get a little more granular on what types of framing biases actually are relevant, specifically, to the console setting. And so, I tried to come up with a few more specific examples and try to think about ways that we could at least have a quick, if our knee-jerk is to associate primary disease X that the patient has or primary treatment X with neurologic symptom Y, what's at least a quick counter-knee jerk to say, what if it could be something else? So, for example, one of them I call "low signal-to-noise ratio bias." Altered mental status in the acutely ill hospitalized patient. What would you say, Lyell? 99 out of 100- 99.9 out of 100, it's not a primary neurologic disease. Is that fair to say?

Dr Jones: Very high, yep. I agree.

Dr Berkowitz: Yeah. But could it be a stroke? Could it be non-convulsive status epilepticus, meningitis encephalitis? So, how do we sort of counteract low signal-to-noise ratio bias, acknowledging it exists, acknowledging most of the time there is a low signal-to-noise, that it's not going to be neurology---to just for example, use the time course. This is pretty acute. Have I convinced myself this is not a stroke or a seizure or an acute neurologic infection? And if I'm not sure at the bedside, should I err on the side of more testing? Or the "curbside bias," as I call when your colleague just sends you a text message on your phone, No need to even open the chart, Dr Jones. Patient had a cerebellar stroke. Incidental. They're here for something else. Aspirin, right? Just like a super tentorial stroke. And you might reply thumbs up. And then imagine you open the CT scan and it's a huge cerebellar stroke with fourth ventricular compression- and patient can hide a lot of stroke back there, might just have a little ataxia. You were curbsided and that framed you to think, oh, they asked me, is aspirin okay for a cerebellar stroke and I said yes, without realizing actually the question should have been posed is, how do you manage a huge stroke with mass effect in the posterior fossa? So, these types of biases, I come up with five of them, I won't go through all of them. I'm in the article to sort of acknowledge for the reader, most of the time it's going to be what you look up in this issue, but how to think about the times where it might not be and how to be more precise about what framing is and different types of framing that occur specifically in the consultant arena.

Dr Jones: And I think the longer we practice, the more of those low-frequency exceptions that you see. And, you know, and then it sticks in our mind and sometimes the bias swings the other way; people, you know, think primarily about the low frequency. And so, it's tricky. And what I really enjoyed about that article, we started talking about this probably more than a year ago, and more than a year ago, I would say relatively few clinicians were using a now widely popular large language model for clinical decision-making; we won't name the model. And now I think most clinicians are using it almost every day, right? And I think it puts a premium on how to think and how to engage with the patient, and less about the facts and the lists that a lot of conventional medical education really is derived from. So, I really appreciate that article. We can pat ourselves in the back. We had some foresight to put it in the issue, and I think it's a great addition to it.

Dr Berkowitz: Thank you.

Dr Jones: So, the list of potential topics when we think about the neurologic manifestations of systemic disease, we tend to break it down by organ systems, right? But the amount of things that could end up in the issue is almost infinite. Is there anything that, when you were putting this issue together---either in terms of the topics or editing the articles---is there anything that you wanted to include, but we just didn't have room?

Dr Berkowitz: I certainly won't say we covered everything, but I will say we were able to recruit a fantastic team of authors. And as you and I also talked about at the beginning, although you could say, we're doing the movement disorders issue, let's find all the top movement disorders folks who are expert specialists in this field, there's not really a neurohematologist or a neurogastroenterologist out here. So, you and I put our heads together to think of phenomenal general neurologists in most cases, some subspecialists who know a lot about this but were also excited to read a lot more about it and assemble the existing knowledge by the practicing neurologist for the practicing neurologist. And I think with that approach and letting folks have kind of, you know, I asked some specific questions. These are topics I hope you'll cover. These are vexing questions in this area.

Prompt recognition of direct and indirect neurologic complications of systemic cancers and their evolving treatments is essential. Neurologists should be familiar with common and rare neurologic toxicities of conventional chemotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and CAR T-cell therapy.

In this episode, Teshamae Monteith, MD, FAAN, speaks with Amy A. Pruitt, MD, FAAN, author of the article "Neurologic Complications of Cancer and Its Treatment" in the Continuum® February 2026 Neurology of Systemic Disease 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. Pruitt is the William N. Kelley Professor of Neurology, Vice Chair for Education, and Division Chief in the Department of General Neurology for the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Neurologic Complications of Cancer and Its Treatment

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 Monteith: As neurologists, we have a critical role in diagnosing neurologic complications of cancer from metastatic disease, seizures to neuropathies. Increasingly, the rapid development of novel treatments themselves, like immunotherapies, Car-T cells, and targeted drugs are causing new neurologic side effects, which we need to recognize, manage and anticipate as therapeutic developments evolve.

Dr Jones: This is Dr 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: Hi, this is Dr Teshamae Monteith. Today I'm interviewing Dr Amy Pruitt about her article on neurologic complications of cancer and its treatment, which appears in the February 2026 issue on neurology of systemic disease. Welcome to our podcast. How are you?

Dr Pruitt: Thanks for having me.

Dr Monteith: Absolutely. Why don't you introduce yourself?

Dr Pruitt: As you said, my name is Dr Amy Pruitt. I'm a professor of neurology at the University of Pennsylvania, where I am also the clerkship director and have been for a long time. I'm the division chief of general neurology and the vice chair for education in my department.

Dr Monteith: You have a lot of hats.

Dr Pruitt: I do.

Dr Monteith: Okay. So, before we dive into all this great work that you did in the article, why don't you just let us know just a little bit about what led you to this career path?

Dr Pruitt: Sure. So, I've always been interested in the intersection between internal medicine and neurology; in fact had I've not been a neurologist. I probably would have been either an oncologist or infectious disease specialist. And that leads to doing neuro oncology and seeing a fair amount of CNS infections. I see both inpatients and outpatients and really enjoy my neuro hospitalist time because, honestly, as all of you who do consults on inpatient services know, there is an incredibly changing landscape of consequences of cancer therapies. And if you haven't been on service for a while, you probably don't even know the name, is much less the adverse effects of these medicines.

Dr Monteith: Okay, so you were just like me to write this article.

Dr Pruitt: Well, I think where it is directed, I think, as I said, that people who are seeing a lot of inpatients and who may not know it's a new consequences of cytotoxic or immunotherapies or T cell therapies and the different appearances and really prognoses, which have changed dramatically in the last few years in the field of systemic cancer.

Dr Monteith: Any other essential points of your article?

Dr Pruitt: So, I think there are certain areas where neurologists are going to intersect with oncologic patients even before oncologists do so, what tumors might present synchronously in the brain and the rest of the body. And those would include things like small cell and non-small cell lung cancer and melanoma, to a lesser extent, women who are surviving much longer now with good therapies for various versions of breast cancers, have one of the solid tumors most likely to present at first relapse in the brain, either in the brain metastases category or in the leptomeninges. So, these are the areas where I think it most likely that our neurologists are going to intersect with oncology. And then there is the burgeoning, thankfully, realm of long-term survivors who have had cancer therapies in young adult lives, sometimes in childhood. And we need to be abreast of the ever-changing spectrum of complications that will plague these people all their lives. And we can do a great deal to improve the quality of survival in these patients.

Dr Monteith: And of course, there has been a lot of great development in cancer research, which has led to novel therapeutics. So, can you tell us about a few of these therapeutics and their complications that neurologists need to know about?

Dr Pruitt: Sure. Well, as I said, some of the cancers you're most likely to encounter are lung cancer and melanoma. And here the prognosis has changed dramatically. A few years ago, someone with metastatic melanoma might have had a couple months prognosis. And now we're talking honestly about long term survivors, complete responses in lung cancer and melanoma, and really good responses in the breast cancer realm as well. So, these are dramatic changes. And these are ways neurologists need to know what the actual nuanced and much more variable prognosis is among patients with brain metastases. In order to give the patients good advice and also to give the radiation oncologist and the oncologist, the medical oncologist, good advice. So, for example, just in the realm of brain metastases, a stage change has been that people with asymptomatic metastases for, let's say, non-small cell lung cancer or melanoma might have systemic therapy rather than local therapy, local therapy being gamma knife radiation or less likely, whole brain radiation therapy, but really systemic therapy with responses and the brands that are nearly as good as those in the rest of the body. And sustained, durable responses. The article goes into great detail about what's available in the way of therapies for these cancers, like breast, HER2-positive breast cancer, like EGFR‑positive lung cancer and melanoma of various types. It's really quite amazing actually, to have anybody quote a seven-year survival of little over 40% in people who presented with non-symptomatic melanoma metastases. Unheard of, really. So, I think if you're still practicing, quote unquote old school neuro-oncology, you need to get up to date because you're giving patients and their caregivers good advice that will lead them to the very important therapies. You mentioned some of the immunotherapies. If we have time, I'm happy to go into those because those are really important for neurologic consultants in the hospital.

Dr Monteith: Yeah. Let's talk about immune checkpoint inhibitors. What do we need to know about them and their complications?

Dr Pruitt: So, they have a novel set of central nervous system and peripheral nervous system complications. These include both acute and subacute presentations. They can arise after the very first dose and usually do so within the first several doses. Importantly, even though the patient may be quite sick, about three quarters will recover entirely. However, the most common ones are actually the peripheral nervous system, and they have the highest morbidity and mortality rate. So, a very unfortunate combination of myasthenia, myocarditis and skeletal myositis has a high mortality rate and is very hard to treat in a group of people who have received these immune checkpoint inhibitors in the central nervous system, there can be cerebellitis, encephalitis. These again can be acute or subacute presentations. And the big discussion with the attending oncologist is, can we continue these therapies after we've withdrawn them, and for instance, treated them with steroids? Because you can imagine that if you knock down the immune system with steroids, you might make the patient temporarily better. But in so doing, you're negating the important consequences of the mechanisms of immune checkpoint inhibitors.

So, I would say probably in a given week on the inpatient service, I'll see five or so. So nearly a daily event when I see some major complication of immune checkpoint inhibitors. And again, I've already mentioned the histology in which those have been useful, but they're not indicated for a variety of other malignancies as well. And the Car-T cell therapies are a whole different set of side effects. And some of your listeners may know about cytokine release syndrome, which is nearly universal right after the infusion of the car T cells. But a few days later is where we come into action with the immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome. Or ICANS can say that I'll refer to it as ICANS since then. These include focal neurologic symptoms and the form of what's often a conduction sort of aphasia, a predictable deterioration, and handwriting along with confusion. As far as the radiology of that syndrome, that's really pretty odd. It can range from a dramatic cerebellitis, just a dramatic basal ganglia syndrome, a dramatic and enhancing leptomeningeal syndrome to an absolutely normal MRI scan. And the important thing for our consultant consultants to remember is that the patient can look really, really ill, and you can turn to the team and say, you know what, there's a very good chance that it's going to get all better. So, supporting people through what are very good diagnostic and therapeutic algorithms that exist in the literature and are quoted in the Continuum chapter to help know when you should be giving steroids, when you should be giving tocilizumab, etc. these are tried and true therapies now, and the Car-T world has improved not only the prognosis of patients. And I remember seeing some of the very first Car-T patients, and we really didn't know what to do to help them, how to turn off the cascade of this immunologic reaction. Now we know how to do that. And it's important to stay up to date on those algorithms because you can make a big difference for these patients.

Dr Monteith: Yeah. So, this is great. We're going to dive back into the diagnostics, which is really related to my follow up question. I think you gave a really great pearl. And it's always can we keep going? Do we stop? So, I want to like dive into that question. And I assume that there are categories. Yes. You can, somewhere in between, and absolutely not. And so, tell me a little bit more about that thinking.

Dr Pruitt: Well that's a very nuanced question. And so, the answer that some oncologists will give you as well, they've had such a dramatic response. So maybe we don't need it anymore. It's never the neurologist's decision. It's always the joint decision with the oncologist. So, for instance, with a Merkel cell cancer patient develops a severe anti‑AChR syndrome on an immune checkpoint inhibitor. And we tell the oncologist maybe you shouldn't go back and do that again. And the person says, never mind, he'll be fine. He's already had the response that we want, but that's a difficult question to answer because, for instance, in a slightly different subset, let's look at multiple myeloma patients. And I spent a fair amount of time on multiple myeloma in the article because it affects the nervous system in so many ways. And we have so many different therapies for these patients, one of which is a Car T-cell. And this is a B-cell maturation antigen, Car-T. It's different from the ones that we know for lymphoma and leukemia. And it has a different set of neurologic problems, which unfortunately do preclude going back to taking a Car-T cell therapy again. And just to make a long story short, this particular complication makes the patient look Parkinsonian.

The consult you're probably going to get from the medical services is patients weak. Well, the patient is not exactly weak. He is Parkinsonian. He has a extrapyramidal rigidity, sometimes a tremor a negative cat scan and a B-cell maturation antigen syndrome occurs not at the sort of 5 to 7 day mark about ICANS that we just discussed, but rather a month or so out and a month or so out. It's not when you're expecting to see Car-T cell therapies. So, patients end up getting worked up extensively for, let's say, some sort of infection, when in fact, what we should be looking at is a newly described complication of Car-T cell therapy. So, the part of my article on multiple myeloma is one that's really important because as you know, it's such a common hematologic problem among older people. And many of these people may have direct complications of multiple myeloma, such as direct tumor infiltration of nerves. POEMS syndrome. So, it's really a wealth of neurological issues for us to contend with for these people.

Dr Monteith: Yeah. And I know you've really done a great job of adding lots of wonderful charts, including understanding the time course of some of these complications, when to anticipate, because I think some of it is about when to anticipate some of these complications.

Dr Pruitt: Well, exactly. Yes. Given the time constraints, I've made a lot of tables because there was a lot of information. And those, I think, are the kinds of things that a consultant should know: what should I be thinking about at this point in time? And that sort of leads us to what are the later complications of these things. And those include many medical things, from failure due to neoplasia, morbidity, radiation, chemotherapy agents, the long-term and medium-term consequences of these things for people. Are going to come back to our office as well. Immunocompromised patients, such as the ones and heavily treated patients that I just mentioned, may lack a robust inflammatory response. And they can have infections really at any time out. Some are predictable, as in our leukemia patients who have had hematopoietic cell transplant. So, we kind of know when to expect viral infections, nosocomial infections, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, many other things down the road. But in this era of COVID, we know that these patients are more susceptible to the dire effects of COVID, and they may not mount a good vaccination response. We have seen types of neurologic complications of all sorts of infections, including babesiosis this year, and persistent enteric viral meningitis. So, the patient can present a very atypical fashion. And the neurologic consultant has to keep a really open mind about the broad differential of what might be happening.

Dr Monteith: And you do have a section under imaging and metastatic disease. Are there any like new sequences or a way to kind of tease out complexities?

Dr Pruitt: So, there is marked variability in the radiographic appearance of brain metastases. And I must confess that I made a very large collage of all the different representative types of things. And I think that's important for neurologic consultants to recognize that some metastases don't enhance. They don't all look like ring-enhancing lesions. Some can be much more diffuse, particularly if the patient has received something like a VEGF inhibitor like bevacizumab therapy can look exceedingly different. They can involve the dura, which should be treated differently. There can be simultaneous leptomeningeal and disease. So as far as I know, sequences perhaps not so much. Although if one is thinking about the differential between radiation-related injury and someone who's already been treated versus tumor recurrence, then we have some pretty good microscopic data, some susceptibility weighted images, other ways of getting whether this is really radiation related change or tumor recurrence, a major problem obviously.

What we also know about radiation is kind of a theme of the article is use it as infrequently as possible, because we just talked about some of the other therapies that we have. We may need to give local therapy for symptomatic patients, but we give as little as possible, and we try never to give whole brain radiation therapy. I'll go on record as saying that it's certainly necessary. Sometimes people have diffuse lymphoma, this disease that's recurred, they have multiple metastases in a sort of miliary fashion may be necessary, but if you can use gamma knife radiation, if you cause any use form of focal radiation, new in the leptomeningeal world is proton therapy for spinal metastases. So quick sparing techniques. And this is something that should always be considered when you're consulting on someone in a place in which you have the option of proton therapy. So, I would say that distinguishing between radiation necrosis and recurrent tumor and the use of protons are the big news in the radiation therapy world. And don't give whole brain radiation therapy if you can avoid it.

Dr Monteith: Yeah. I'm getting a flashback from residency because, you know, that always happens. And the radiologist saying, you know, we need more information when you put in those orders. And so, I think with this whole era of new chemotherapeutic agents and how they could present on imaging and give the radiologists as much information, including the type of chemotherapeutic agent used.

Dr Pruitt: Yeah, I think particularly in the transplant world. So, the leukemia lymphoma patients who have received one of the calcineurin inhibitors, like tacrolimus or cyclosporine, that induces a whole set of complications, some of which are visible radiographically. There's a delayed leukoencephalopathy. There can be stroke. There can be SMART syndrome, stroke like migraine after radiation therapy. And perhaps many of our listeners have been confronted with someone who has a prolonged focal deficit, say, a hemianopia and maybe a hemisensory deficit with or without a subsequent headache. It goes on for days to hours. It looks peculiar on the MRI scan because it's not then a vascular distribution. There's sort of diffuse gyral swelling, flattening of the EEG on that side, the patients getting steroids and valproate and anticoagulation and angiography and all. It doesn't need any of that. The syndrome of stroke, like migraine after radiation therapy, needs to be recognized. And best thing to do is don't just do something. Stand there. You should wait until it goes away. And so, I think that's we are seeing this increasingly, that we first reported this in young adults who had been treated years ago for medulloblastoma. So, it was posterior fossa tumors primarily. But this has now been broadened, as you know, to include supratentorial tumors of many types and adults at various times out from their radiation therapy from a few months to many years.

Dr Monteith: I should ask you in writing this article, clearly you have a wealth of knowledge, but in kind of just putting this together, what surprised you?

Dr Pruitt: I think what surprised me is the increasing range of complications and that virtually anything needs to be thought of central nervous system or peripheral nervous system. With some of these newer therapies. There is a chart in there about the conventional cytotoxic therapies, and we're all familiar with things like methotrexate and that sort of thing. But what surprised me really is the inc

Clinicians and patients are in a state of prognostic uncertainty when they are unsure about the future course of an illness. By embracing uncertainty while cultivating prognostic awareness, neurologists can serve the critical role of supporting patients and families through the living and dying process.

In this episode, Casey Albin, MD, speaks with Robert G. Holloway, MD, MPH, FAAN, author of the article "Managing Prognostic Uncertainty in Neurologic Disease" in the Continuum® December 2025 Neuropalliative Care issue.

Dr. Albin is a Continuum® Audio interviewer, associate editor of media engagement, and an assistant professor of neurology and neurosurgery at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

Dr. Holloway is the Edward and Alma Vollertsen Rykenboer Chair and a professor of neurology in the department of neurology at the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry in Rochester, New York.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Managing Prognostic Uncertainty in Neurologic 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: @caseyalbin

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 Albin: Hello, this is Dr Casey Albin. Today I'm interviewing Dr Bob Holloway about his article on managing prognostic uncertainty in neurologic disease, which appears in the December 2025 Continuum issue on neuropalliative care. Welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to our audience.

Dr Holloway: Hi, Casey, and thank you. Again, my name is Bob Holloway. I'm a clinician and neurologist up in Rochester, New York, and I've been doing both neurology and palliative care for many years.

Dr Albin: Well, that's fantastic. And I really wanted to emphasize how much I really enjoyed reading this article. I know that we're going to get into some of the pearls that you offer, but I really want to tell the listeners, like, this is a great one to read because not only does it have sort of a philosophical take, but you also really provide some pragmatic tips of how we can help our patients manage this prognostic uncertainty. But maybe just tell us a little bit, what is prognostic uncertainty?

Dr Holloway: Yes, thank you. Well, I think everyone has a sense of what prognostic uncertainty is. And it's just the uncertain futures that we as clinicians and our patients face. And I would just say that a way to summarize it is just, how do we manage the "not yet" of neurologic illness?

Dr Albin: I love that. In neurologic illness, there is so much "not yet" and there are so many unknowns. And what I thought was really helpful about your article is you kind of give us three buckets in which we can think about the different types of uncertainty our patients are facing. What are those?

Dr Holloway: This is, I think, an area that really is of interest to me, thinking about how to organize the prognostic "not yet" or that landscape. And one way I've tried to simplify it is to think about it as data-centered. And that's the world that we mostly live in as neurologists. That's the probability distributions. We also have kind of system-level uncertainties, and that's the uncertainties that our health system affords for our patients. And then we have, also, the patient-centered uncertainties and the uncertainties that those two prior categories cause for our patients. And that's a big uncertainty that we often don't address.

Dr Albin: In reading the article, I was really struck by, we spend a lot of time thinking about data uncertainty. Can we get population-based research? Can we sort of look at prognostication scoring? I live in the ICU, and so we think a lot about these, like, scoring metrics and putting patients into buckets and helping us derive their care based on where their severity index is. And I'm sure that is true in many of the divisions of neurology. But what I did not really appreciate---and I thought you did a really fantastic job of kind of drawing our attention to---is there's a lot of system-centered uncertainty. Can you give us a little bit of examples, like, what is system-based uncertainty?

Dr Holloway: I think system-level uncertainties just encompass the practical information gaps that may arise during our healthcare encounter. And a lot of, I think, the uncertainty that our patients face and families, they actually describe it as they feel captive by the uncertainty. And it's just the unknowns, not just what affords from the actual information about the disease and its prognosis in the future, but actually the level of the system, like, who's going to take care of them? How do you manage arranging for nurses to come into the home or all those practical-level uncertainties that the system provides that sometimes we don't do a good job of road-mapping for patients.

Dr Albin: Absolutely. Because I feel like we have a little bit of a gap in that often as physicians. Like, the family asks, what will hospice at home look like? Well, you know, that's a question for case management. I think they'll come in and they'll tell you. But it strikes me that that's a real gap of my being able to walk patients through. Will they get home health care? Will they have transportation set up? Will there be a nurse who comes in to check? How often are they available? What's the cost going to be? All of these practical aspects of dealing with an illness that are beyond sort of our scope of knowledge, but probably have a huge practical impact to the patient.

Dr Holloway: Without question, every encounter patients wonder about, that kind of future wish landscape that we- all our future-oriented desires and hopes. And so much of that is the practical aspects of our health system, which is often fragmented, kind of unknown, uncertain. And that's a huge source of uncertainty for our patients and families. And then that leads to many other uncertainties that we need to address.

Dr Albin: Absolutely. I think another one that we, again, maybe don't spend quite as much time thinking about is this patient-level uncertainty. What's going on there?

Dr Holloway: Yeah. So, I think patient-level uncertainty is that uncertainty that they experience when confronted with the two other types of uncertainty: the actual data-centered uncertainty and the system-level uncertainty. And that's that, kind of, very huge kind of uncertainty about what it means for them and their family and their future futures. And that's a source of huge stress and anxiety, and often frankly bordering on dread and fear for our patients and families. That actually gets into very levels of uncertainty that I would call maybe over even in the existential realm. Patient-level uncertainty in the actual existential questions or the fear and the dread or the kind of just unnerving aspect of it is actually even more important to patients than the scientific or data-centered uncertainty that we focus most of our attention on.

Dr Albin: Yeah, I think this is, to me, was getting towards that, like, what does the patient care about and how are they coping with what is in many times a really dramatic shift in their life expectancy or morbidity expectations and this sort of radical renegotiation about what it means to have a neurologic illness? And how does that shift their thinking about who they are and their priorities in the world? Is that right?

Dr Holloway: One thousand percent, and in fact, I will say---and I think is one of the main take home messages is that, you know, managing prognostic certainty is not an end in itself. It really is to help patients and families adaptively cope to their new and often harsh new reality, that we could help them adapt to their new normal. I think that is one of our main tasks as neurologists in our care teams is to help patients find and ultimately maybe achieve existential or spiritual or well-being even in their new health states. You know, that you certainly often see in the intensive care unit, but we often always see in the outpatient realm as well, and all our other diseases.

Dr Albin: I think that's really hard to do. I think those conversations are incredibly difficult and trying to navigate where patients want to be, what would bring meaning, what would bring value. I think many of us struggle to have these pretty real and intense conversations with families about what really is important. And one of the things I really liked about this article is you kind of walk us through some steps that we as clinicians can take to get a little bit more comfortable. Maybe just walk us through, what are some of the things that you have found most helpful in trying to get families and patients to open up about what brings them meaning? How are they navigating this new, really uncertain time in their life?

Dr Holloway: Yeah, so I do kind of have a ten-point recommendations of how to help cultivate a more integrated awareness of an uncertain future. I mean, I think the most important thing is actually just recognizing that embracing uncertainty as an amazingly remarkable cognitive tool. I mean, let's face it, uncertainty, when it happens with neurologic illness and disease, is often fearful. It's scary. It kind of changes our world. But on the flip side of it, it's a remarkable cognitive tool that actually can help us find new ways and new paths and new creativity. And I think we can use that kind of opposites to help our patients find new meaning in very difficult situations. So, thinking about uncertainty, kind of being courageous, leaning into it and recognizing that it does create anxieties and fear, but it also can kind of help create new solutions and new ideas to help people navigate.

Dr Albin: I was hoping that maybe you could give us an example of, like, how would you do that? If a patient comes in and they're dealing with, you know, a new diagnosis and they're navigating this new uncertainty, what are some of the things that you ask to help them reframe that, to kind of take some of the good about that uncertainty? How do you navigate that?

Dr Holloway: One of the other recommendations is actually just resetting the timeline and expectations for these conversations. That it shouldn't be expected that patients should accept their harsh new reality immediately, that it takes time in a trusted environment. And that there's this, like, oscillating nature of hopes and fears and dread, and you've just got to work with them over time. And with time, and once you understand who the patient and family are and understand where they find meaning and where they find, actually, joy in their life, or what actually brings them meaning, you can start recasting their futures into credible narratives in their kind of future landscape in ways that I think can help them enter into their new realities within the, you know, framework of disease management that you can offer them within your healthcare team or your healthcare system or wherever you are in the world and the available resources that you have to offer patients and families.

Dr Albin: So, this sounds like a lot to me like active listening and really trying to get to know what is important to the family, what is important to the patient. And I guess probably just creating that space even in that busy clinical environment. Do I have that right?

Dr Holloway: You can absolutely do that, right. You know, and honestly, active listening, we are challenged in our busy healthcare system to do this, but I think with the right listening skills and the appropriate ways of paying attention, you can definitely illuminate these possible, kind of future-oriented worlds for patients and help them navigate those new terrains with them. Frankly, I think that's a real new space for us in neurology. We don't think about and train how to create credible narratives for patients and families. We do it on the fly, but I think there's so much more work to do. How do you actually keep, you know, that best-case, worst-case, most likely credible narratives for patients that can help them adapt to their new realities and support them on their new journeys?

Dr Albin: I love that best-case, worst-case, most likely case. I find that framework really helpful. But you talk in your article, it's not just about using that best case or worst case or most likely, but it's actually building some forecasting into that and having some real data to kind of support what you're saying. And there's a lot of growth towards actually becoming good as a medical forecaster. Can you describe a little bit, what did you mean by that?

Dr Holloway: You're absolutely right. I think, actually, one of the skillsets of becoming and managing prognostic uncertainty is actually becoming a skilled medical forecaster. And it's a really tall order. So, we've got to be both good medical forecasters as well as helping patients adaptively cope to their new reality. But the good medical forecasting is actually now going more quantitative in thinking about the data that's available to help think about the important outcomes for patients and families and then predicting what their probabilities are so you can shape those futures around. So, yes, we do have to have an open mindset. We do have to actually look at the data that's available and actually think about, what are those long-term probabilities and outcomes? And we can be honest about those and even communicate them with families. But it's a really good skill set to have.

Dr Albin: Yeah. This to me was a little bit about, how do you bring in the data knowledge that we try to get over time as we develop our expertise? You're developing not just a reliance on population-based data, but in my experience, I have seen this. And that sort of ability to kind of look at the patient in front of you, think about the big picture, but also a little bit about their unique medical comorbidities or prior life experiences. So, some of that database knowledge, and then bringing in and getting to know what is important to the patient. And so, sort of marrying that data-centric/patient-centric mindset.

Dr Holloway: I love it. I guess the other way of saying that, too, is we need to think with precision, but communicate in narratives. And it's okay to gently put more precise estimates on our probability predictions with patients and families, what we think is the most likely case, best and worst case. Because patients and families want us to be more precise. We often shy away from it, but- so, it's okay to think in precisions, but we've got to put those in narratives in the most likely, best-, and worst-case scenarios. And don't be afraid if you think in terms of ninety percents, ten percents, fifty percents; most patients and families don't mind that. And what they're telling us is they actually want to hear that, if you are comfortable talking in those terms.

Dr Albin: Yeah, absolutely. And giving a sense of the humility to say, like, this is my best guess based on medical data and my experience, I would say, but again, none of us have a crystal ball. And I do think families, as long as you're sort of couching your expectations into the sort of imperfect, but I'm doing my best, really appreciate that.

Dr Holloway: They totally do all the time. Just say, I simply don't know for certain, but these are my best estimates. That's a good way of just phrasing that.

Dr Albin: Yeah. So powerful. I don't know for certain. And then I wanted to just kind of close out, because there's this one term that you use that I thought was so interesting. And I wanted you to kind of tell our listeners a little bit about what you mean here, which is that, when you're actively open-minded, you're using this, quote, "dragonfly eyes." What do you mean by that?

Dr Holloway: So, the dragonfly eyes, as you know, they can look at three sixty around them and they just, they move in all directions. Being actively open minded, I guess the biggest example I would say is, I don't like the term prognostic discordance, which means that there's a difference of subjective estimates of prognosis between patients and families. Being openly minded is actually embracing the potential information that the family has about prognosis and incorporating that into your estimates. So, I wouldn't say it's discordances, per se; I think being really actively open-minded is taking that all in and utilizing that as, you know what, they know more than you do about the patient and their loved ones, and they may have insights that can inform your best estimates of prognosis. So, the true dragonfly prognosticator actually is one who embraces and doesn't consider it discord, but considers it kind of new, useful information that I just need to weigh in so I can help the family in my best professional way in terms of developing a prognosis, whatever the condition may be.

Dr Albin: I can imagine this is just so challenging and something that takes a long time to sort of perfect all of this. I think you say right below that, you need a growth mindset to do this because it is hard, and it's going to take an active participation and an active desire to get better at these conversations with our families.

Dr Holloway: One thousand percent. You are so right that it takes time, effort, and not feeling like you're being challenged, but that actually you are including them in your entire body of knowledge, that you're just- it's part of all you're collecting. And even, I was on service last week, and I talked to residents and students about that very issue. It's like take their prognosis. And someone who came in, we thought CJB, very sad, tragic case, but we were thinking about what the future may look like and how do we actually work with the family who had very what we thought was unrealistic expectations. I said, well, no, this is not discordance. This is just useful information that we can take understand where they're coming from and incorporate that into the ways we want to build relationships, build trust, and over time we'll get to a point where we hopefully can work with them and have them have that fully integrated awareness of their future.

Dr Albin: Yeah, that's beautiful. It really is this ongoing negotiation that really requires so much listening, understanding, and then obviously information and expertise about the data that we're presenting and the likelihood outcome, recognizing that there's a lot of uncertainty in all of this. Which, you know, again, this is kind of a 360 talk. At every level there is uncertainty, and that's what makes it so hard.

Dr Holloway: Yeah, you're absolutely right. And actually, even in the article I kind of used the term radical uncertainty as that, no matter how resolvable all this uncertainty is, there will always still remain that radical element of our existence which we have to actually incorporate and be prepared for. And actually, not only of ourselves, but actually for patients and families and helping manage that. Using narratives and credible narratives and kind of ranges of possibilities is the best way to do that in a personalized way.

Dr Albin: Well, this has been a fantastic conversation, and I know that we are running a bit short on time. So, as we wrap up and you think about this topic, are there any key take-home messages that you hope our listeners will walk away with?

Dr Holloway: I think one main emphasis is that despite all the succe

Pediatric neuropalliative medicine is an emerging area of subspecialty practice that emphasizes the human experience elements of serious neurologic illness. Child neurologists care daily for patients who can benefit from the communication strategies and management practices central to pediatric neuropalliative medicine, whether at the primary or subspecialty level.

In this episode, Gordon Smith, MD, FAAN, speaks with Lauren Treat, MD, author of the article "Neuropalliative Medicine in Pediatric Neurology" in the Continuum® December 2025 Neuropalliative Care 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. Treat is an associate professor in the divisions of child neurology and palliative medicine at the University of Colorado School of Medicine in Aurora, Colorado.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Neuropalliative Medicine in Pediatric 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: @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 Gordon Smith. Today I've got the great pleasure of interviewing my good friend Dr Lauren Treat about her article on neuropalliative medicine in pediatric neurology practice. This article appears in the December 2025 Continuum issue on neuropalliative care. Lauren, welcome to the Continuum podcast, and maybe you can introduce yourself to our listeners.

Dr Treat: Such a delight to be here, Gordon. Thank you. I am a pediatric neurologist and palliative medicine doctor at the University of Colorado, Children's Hospital Colorado, and I am practicing in both areas. I do general child neurology, and I also run a pediatric neuropalliative medicine clinic. So, I'm happy to be here to talk about it.

Dr Smith: And, truth in advertising, I tried very hard to get Dr Treat to move to VC to work with me. And I haven't given up yet. I'm looking forward to the conversation. And Lauren, I wonder- one, I'm really excited about this issue, by the way. This is the second podcast I've done. And I'd like to ask the same question I asked of David Oliver, who's amazing. What a great article and conversation we had. And that question is, can you define palliative care? I think a lot of people think of it as, like, end-of-life care or things like that. And is the definition a little different in the pediatric space than it is in the adult space?

Dr Treat: Such a great place to start, Gordon. I absolutely think that there are nuances that are very important in pediatrics. And we especially acknowledge in pediatrics that there is a very longitudinal component of this. And even moreso, I think, then in adult neuropalliative medicine, in pediatrics, we are seeing people=even prenatally or early in their first hours and days of life, and walking with them on a journey that might last days or weeks, but might last years or decades. And so, there is this sense that we are going to come alongside them and be part of the ups and the downs. So yes, neuropalliative medicine is a kind of medicine that is a very natural partner to where neurology is in its current field. We're doing a lot of exciting things with modifying diseases, diagnosing things early, and we have a very high reliance on the things that we can measure in medicine. And not all things can be measured that are worthwhile about one's quality of life. A family very poignantly told me very recently, making sure someone stays alive is different from making sure they have a life. And that's what neuropalliative medicine is about.

Dr Smith: Well, great summary, and I definitely want to follow up on several aspects of that, but there's one point I was really curious about as I've been thinking about this, you know, these are really exciting times and neurology in general and in child neurology in particular. And we've got all of these exciting new therapies. And as you know, I'm a neuromuscular person, so it's hard not to think back on SMA and not be super excited. And so, I wonder about the impact of these positive developments on the practice of neuropalliative care in kids. You know, I'm just thinking, you know, you mentioned it's a journey with ups and downs. And I wonder, the complexity of that must be really interesting. And I bet your job looks different now than it did seven or eight years ago.

Dr Treat: That's absolutely true. I will self-reference here one of the figures in the paper. Figure 2 in my section is about those trajectories, about how these journeys can have lots of ups and downs and whether this person had a normal health status to begin with or whether they started out life with a lot of challenges. Those ups and downs inherently involve a lot of uncertainty. And that's where palliative medicine shines. Not because we have the answer---everyone would love for us to have the answer---but because we consider ourselves uncertainty specialists in the way that we have to figure out what do we know, what can we ground ourselves in, and how can we continue to move forward even if we don't have all the answers? That is a particular aspect of neurology that is incredibly challenging for families and clinicians, and it can't stand as a barrier to moving forward and trying to figure out what's best for this child, what's best for this family. What do we know to be true about them as people, and how can we integrate that with all of the quantitative measures that we know and love in neurology?

Dr Smith: So, I love the comment about prognostication, and this really ties into positive uncertainty or negative undercertainty in terms of therapeutic development. I wonder if you can talk a little bit about your approach to prognostication, particularly in a highly fluid situation. And are there pearls and pitfalls that our listeners should consider when they're discussing prognosis for children, particularly maybe young children who have severe neurological problems?

Dr Treat: It's such a pivotal issue, a central issue, to child neurology practice. Again, because we are often meeting people very, very early on in their journey---earlier than we ever have before, sometimes, because of this opportunity to have a diagnosis, you know, prenatally or genetically or whatever else it is---sometimes we are seeing the very early signs of something as compared to previously where we wouldn't have a diagnosis until something was in its more kind of full-blown state. This idea of having a spectrum and giving people the range of possible outcomes is absolutely still what we need to do. However, we need to add on another skill on top of that in helping people anchor into what feels like the most likely situation and what the milestones are going to be in the near future, about how we're going to walk this journey and what we'll be on the lookout for that will help us branch into those different areas of the map down the road.

Dr Smith: So, I wonder if we can go back to the framework you mentioned, two answers ago, I think? You and the article, you know, provide four different types of situations kind of based on temporal progression. I wonder if maybe the best way of approaching is to give an example and how that impacts your thoughts of how you manage a particular situation.

Dr Treat: Absolutely. So, this figure in particular is helpful in multiple ways. One is to just give a visual of what these disease trajectories are doing, because we're doing that when and we take a history from a patient. But actually, to put it into an external visual for yourself, for your team, but also perhaps for the family can be really powerful. It helps you contextualize the episode of care in which you're meeting the family right now. And it also helps, sometimes, provide some sense of alignment or point out some discrepancies about how you're viewing that child's health and quality of life as compared to how the family might be viewing it. And so, if you say, you know, it sounds like during those five years before we met, you were up here, and now we find ourselves down here, and we're kind of in the middle of the range of where I've seen this person's health status be. Do I have that right? Families feel really seen when you do that and when you can get it accurately. And it also invites a dialogue between the two parties to be able to say, well, maybe I would adjust this. I think we had good health or good quality of life in this season. But you're right, it's getting harder. It's kind of that "show, don't tell" approach of bringing together all the facts to put together the relative position of where we are now in the context of everything they've been through.

Dr Smith: You know, I wonder if you could talk a little bit more about the differences between palliative care and adult patients and in children?

Dr Treat: Absolutely. One of the key features in pediatrics is this kind of overriding sense of an out-of-order event in the family's life. Children are not supposed to have illness. Children are not supposed to have disability. Children are not supposed to die before their parents. And that layer of tragedy is incredibly heavy and pervasive. It's not every encounter that you have in child neurology, but it does kind of permeate some of the conversations that neurologists have with their patients, especially patients who have serious neurological disease. So that could be things like epileptic encephalopathies, birth injuries, other traumatic brain injuries down the line. In the paper, I'd go through many different categories of the types of conditions that are eligible for pediatric neuropalliative medicine, that kind of support. When we think about that layer of tragedy in the relation to where we're meeting these families, they deserve extra support, not just to think about the medicines and the treatments, but also, what can we hope for? How can we give this child the best possible life in whatever circumstance that they're in? How can we show up in whatever medical decision-making circumstances present themselves to us and feel like we've done right by this child? It's a complex task, and pediatric neural palliative medicine is evolving to be able to be in those spaces with families in a very meaningful way.

Dr Smith: So, of course, one of the differences is the, you know, very important role of parents in the situation, right? Obviously, parents are involved in adult palliative care issues and family is very important. But I wonder if you can talk about specific considerations given the parent-child relationship?

Dr Treat: So, pediatric neuropalliative medicine really helps facilitate discussions not just about, again, those things that we have data on, but also about what is meaningful and foundational for those families. What's possible at home, what's possible in the community. In pediatrics, parents are making decisions on behalf of their child, often as a dyad, and I don't think this gets enough attention. We know from adult literature that making decisions on behalf of someone else is different from making decisions on behalf of oneself. We call this proxy decision-making. And proxies are more likely to be conservative on behalf of someone else than they are on behalf of themselves, and they're also more likely to overestimate the tolerability of a medical intervention. So, they might say, I wouldn't want this, or, I wouldn't accept this risk on behalf of myself, or, I don't think I'd want to have to persevere through something, but on behalf of this other person, I think they can do it or I will help them through it or something else like this, or, I can't accept the risk on behalf of them. So that's not good or bad. That's just different about making a decision on behalf of oneself as compared to making a decision on behalf of someone else. When there's two people trying to be proxies on behalf of a third person, on behalf of a child, that's a really, really complex task, and it deserves support. And so, pediatric neural palliative medicine can function, then, as this neutral space, as this kind of almost coaching opportunity alongside the other medical doctors to give parents an opportunity when their minds are calm---not in the heat of the moment---to talk about how they see their child, how they've shown up themselves, what they've seen go well, what they've struggled with. And how,, then we can feel prepared for future decision making times, future high-stress encounters, about what will be important to ground them in those moments, even though we can't predict fully what those circumstances might be.

Dr Smith: It sounds, you know, from talking to you and having read the article, that these sorts of issues evolve over time, right? And you have commented on this already from your very first answer. And you do describe a framework for how parents think---their mental model, I guess---of, you know, a child with a serious illness. And this sounds like appreciation of that's really important in providing care. Maybe you can talk us through that topic?

Dr Treat: I refer to this concept of prognostic awareness in all of the conversations that we have with families. So, what I mean by prognostic awareness is the degree of insight that an individual has about what's currently happening with their child and what may happen in the future regarding the disease and/or the complications. And when we meet people early on in their journey, often their prognostic awareness, that sense of insight about what's going on, can be limited because it requires lived experience to build. Oftentimes time is a factor in that, we gain more lived experience over time, but it's not just time that goes into building that. It's often having a child who has a complication. Sometimes it's experiencing a hospitalization. That transfer from a cognitive understanding of what's going on, from a lived experience about what's going on, really amplifies that prognostic awareness, and it changes season by season in terms of what that family is going through and what they're willing to tolerate.

Dr Smith: You introduced a new term for me, which is hyper-capableism. Can you talk about that? I found that really interesting and, you know, it reminds me a lot of the epiphanies that we've had about coma and coma prognosis. So, what's hyper-capableism?

Dr Treat: Yes. In neurology, we have to be very aware of our views on ableism, on understanding how we prognosticate in relation to what we value about our abilities. And hyper-capableism refers to someone who feels very competent both cognitively and from a motor standpoint and fosters that sense of value around those two aspects to a high degree. I'm referencing that in the article with regard to medicine, because medicine, the rigors of training, the rigors of practice, require that someone has mental and motor fortitude. That neurology practice and medical practice in general can breed this attitude around the value of skills in both of those areas. And we have to be careful in order to give our patients and families the best care, to not overly project our values and our sense of what's good and bad in the world regarding ableism. Impairments can look different in different social contexts. And when the social context doesn't support an impairment, that's where people struggle. That's where people have stigma. And I think there's a lot of work that we can do in society at large to help improve accommodations for impairment so that we have less ableism in society.

Dr Smith: Another term that I found really interesting kind of going back to parents is the "good parent identity." Maybe you can talk about that?

Dr Treat: Good parent identity, good parent narrative, is something that is inherent to the journey when you're trying to take care of and make decisions on behalf of a child. And whether you're in a medical context or outside of a medical context, all parents have this either explicit or implicit sense of themselves about what it means to do right by their child. This comes up very poignantly in complex medical conditions because there are so many narratives about what parents ought to do on behalf of their child, and some of those roles can be in tension with one another. It's a whole lot of verbs that often fall under that identity. It's about being able to love and support and take good care of and make good decisions on behalf of someone. But it's also about protecting them from harm and treating their pain and being able to respond to them and know their cues and know these details about them. And you can't, sometimes, do multiple of those things at once. You can't give them as much safety and health as possible and also protect them from pain and suffering when they have a serious illness, when they need care in the hospital that might require a treatment that might be invasive or burdensome to them. And so, trying to be a good parent in the face of not being able to fulfill all those different verbs or ideas about what a good parent might do is a big task. And it can help to make it an explicit part of the conversation about what that family feels like their good parent roles might be in a particular situation.

Dr Smith: I want to shift a little bit, Lauren, that's a really great answer. And just, you know, listening to you, your language and your tongue is incredibly positive, which is exciting. But, you know, you have talked about up and downs, and I wanted you to comment on a quote. I actually wrote it down, I'm going to read it to you, because you mentioned this early on in your article: "the heavy emotional and psychological impacts of bearing witness to suffering as a child neurologist." I think all of us, no matter how excited we are about all the therapeutic development, see patients who are suffering. And it's hard when it's a child and you're seeing a family. I wonder if you could talk a little bit about that comment and how you balance that. You're clearly- you're energized in your career, but you do have to bear witness to suffering.

Dr Treat: You're right. Child neurologists do incredible work, it's an incredible, exciting field, and there are a lot of challenges that we see people face. And we see it impacts their lives in really intense ways over the course of time. We bear witness to marriages that fall apart. We bear witness to families that lose jobs or have to transition big pieces of their identity in order to care for their children. And that impacts us. And we hold the collective weight of the things that we are trying to improve but sometimes feel less efficacious than we hoped that we could around some of these aspects of people's lives. And so, pediatric neuropalliative medicine is also about supporting colleagues and being able to talk to colleagues about how the care of the patients and the really real effort that we exert on their behalf and the caring that we have in our hearts for them, how that matters. Even if the outcome doesn't change, it's something that matters for our work and for our connections with these families. It's really important.

Dr Smith: I wonder, maybe we can end by learning a little bit about your journey? And maybe this is your opportunity to- I know we have students and residents

Patients with Parkinson disease and other movement disorders have significant palliative care needs that are poorly met under traditional models of care. Clinical trials demonstrate that specialist palliative care can improve many patient and family outcomes.

In this episode, Aaron Berkowitz, MD, PhD, FAAN, speaks with Benzi M. Kluger, MD, MS, FAAN, author of the article "Neuropalliative Care in Movement Disorders" in the Continuum® December 2025 Neuropalliative Care 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 in San Francisco, California.

Dr. Kluger is the Julius, Helen, and Robert Fine Distinguished Professor of Neurology in the Departments of Neurology and Medicine (Palliative Care) at the University of Rochester in Rochester, New York.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Neuropalliative Care in 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 American Academy of Neurology: aan.com

Social Media

facebook.com/continuumcme

@ContinuumAAN

Host: @AaronLBerkowitz

Guest: @BenziKluger

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 Benzi Kluger about his article on neuropalliative care in Parkinson disease and related movement disorders, which is found in the December 2025 Continuum issue on neuropalliative care. Welcome to the podcast, Dr Kluger, and could you please introduce yourself to our audience?

Dr Kluger: I'm Benzi Kluger. I'm a professor of neurology and palliative medicine at the University of Rochester. I'm the chief of our neuropalliative care service, I'm the director of our Palliative Care Research Center, and I'm also the founding president of the International Neuropalliative Care Society.

Dr Berkowitz: Wow, that is a large number of hats that you wear in a very important area of palliative care. So, your article is a fantastic article that covers a lot of concepts in palliative care that I myself was not familiar with and really applies them in a very nuanced way to patients with Parkinson's disease and related disorders. So, I'm looking forward to learning from you today to discuss some of the concepts you talk about in the article and how you apply them in your daily practice of palliative care in this particular patient population. So, one of the key points in your article is that we're often so focused on treating the motor symptoms of Parkinson's disease and other degenerative movement disorders that we are often at risk of underdiagnosing and undertreating the nonmotor symptoms, which in some cases, as you mentioned in the article, are more disabling to the patient than the motor symptoms that we tend to focus on. So, from a palliative care perspective, what are some of the nonmotor symptoms that you find tend to be underdiagnosed and undertreated in this patient population?

Dr Kluger: The literature suggests---and we've replicated it, actually, Lisa Schulman published a paper twenty-five years ago and the data is almost exactly the same when it comes to things like depression, pain, fatigue, constipation, sleep---that you miss it about 50% of the time. And there's a number of reasons for that. One is that these are subjects that people don't always like to talk about. People don't like talking about depression. People don't like talking about poop and constipation. And I think there are things that neither the patient or the caregiver nor the physician are necessarily comfortable with. And they're also sometimes confusing of, which doctor should I talk to this about? Should I talk to my primary care doctor, should I talk to my neurologist? And so I think the key here is really having a checklist and being proactive about it. In the article, I suggest a template or previsit questionnaire that you can use, but I think it's just about being automatic about it. And it just takes the burden off of the patient and the family to bring them up and letting them know that this is a safe space and this is the right space to talk about these symptoms.

Dr Berkowitz: That's very helpful to know. So, having some type of checklist or template just so we go all through them and, as you said, it sort of destigmatizes, just, this is the list of things, and I'm going to just ask about all of them. So we check in on those particular symptoms, whether they're present or not. Are there any particular symptoms that jump out to you as ones that tend to be missed---either because we don't ask about them or patients are less comfortable mentioning them---that in your practice, when you've elicited them, have allowed for particular intervention that's really improved the quality of life for patients in this group?

Dr Kluger: Yeah, I'll mention a few that I think come up and are very pertinent. One is mood. And, to use depression---but we could also use anxiety as an example---again, these are topics that people don't always want to talk about. And I think it's important---we may get to this a little bit more later---is being careful to distinguish between depression and grief, sadness, normal worry, frustration. A lot of times the way I'll ask that when I'm talking to a patient is, you know, I hear you're using the word depressed. I want to make sure. does this feel to you like normal sadness given that you have an illness that sucks, or does this really feel like it's above and beyond that and you feel like you'd need a little extra help to get your emotions under control?

The second one, which is kind of related, is other behavioral symptoms, including PD psychosis and hallucinations. And there, I think, the thing is that people are quite frankly afraid that they're losing their mind or going insane. So, I think that's another critical one. And then one that, you know, it's kind of a low-hanging fruit but people don't want to talk about, is constipation. And when we did our large randomized control trial of palliative care, our single biggest effect size was actually that we did a better job of treating constipation than usual care. And I think the only trick there is that we asked about it.

Dr Berkowitz: I see. So, do you then as part of your routine practice and seeing these patients with Parkinson's disease in particular, you have a particular checklist you go through during the appointment or, as you mentioned, you- one could do it before the appointment. But you tend to go through this in the visit, and is there any palliative care wisdom you have for us, those who are not trained in palliative care, to making sure we really elicit these symptoms in an effective way and how much they're bothering the patient?

Dr Kluger: Two things that I've seen work---and we've done a lot of implementation studies. One is that, if it works for your practice, having patients fill out a questionnaire or survey in advance. And I think one of the highest-yield things there too is for blank lines to allow patients to write in what their top three problems are. And I've found when we've used it, and I think other people have found, that it's a huge time saver. People hand them the form, they look to see what's at checked a yes or what's checked as high, and then that becomes the agenda for the visit. The other thing that I think works equally well is just having a template, and at this point its just kind of, like, hard-wired into my neurons that, you know, no matter what we talked about in the HPI, I'll always ask about sleep and mood and bowel and bladder and pain to make sure that I don't miss those things.

Dr Berkowitz: You mentioned in your article that palliative care needs in patients with Parkinson's disease really differ over the course of the illness and may be different at the time the initial diagnosis is given versus as the disease progresses versus the latest, most advanced stages of the disease. Can you talk a little bit more about how your approach to these patients changes over time from a palliative care perspective?

Dr Kluger: Yes. And I'll also add, I think some of this is going to be more relevant to our listeners than to me. I'm now almost entirely in a neuropalliative care clinic, but for early-stage illness, it's really primary palliative care. And just to reinforce, this is palliative care that's provided by neurologists and primary care doctors, not specialist palliative care. I think that mindset's particularly important around the time of diagnosis. One of the things that, for me, was most eye-opening when we were doing qualitative interviews and studies was how devastating the diagnosis of Parkinson's disease was for patients and their families. And that was not something that I really anticipated. I think, like a lot of people and a lot of movement disorder doctors, I kind of thought of Parkinson's disease as a relatively good-news diagnosis. And that was often the way I pitched it, and we talked about Sinemet and DBS and exercise and all these things, but I have a relativity bias. And that bias is, I know that Parkinson's is better than PSP or MSA or brain cancer. But for the individual getting that diagnosis, that's it's not good news because their relativity bias is, I didn't have Parkinson's before and now I do. And for the rest of my life I'm going to have Parkinson's. And for the rest of my life, there may be things that I can do today that I won't be able to do tomorrow or next week. And so that was… yeah. And I think it really changed my practice and was pretty eye-opening for me.

In the article, I mentioned the SPIKES (S-P-I-K-E-S) protocol for talking about serious conversations or talking about bad news. But I think one of the keys there for the time of diagnosis is asking people about their perceptions of Parkinson's. And part of that's also asking them what they know and what they're worried about. And you may be surprised that when you ask somebody about Parkinson's, you know, sometimes they may say it was good news. It's been three years, I've been trying to find an answer, and I feel like I've been being blown off. And sometimes you might say, this is the thing I feared the most. My uncle died of Parkinson's in a nursing home. And I also find that more often than not, even in end-of-life, that a lot of times the serious illness conversations I have, the facts that I have to present people, are better than their fears. And that's true at the time of diagnosis. But I think if we don't go into it and we don't ask people what they're feeling and what their perceptions are, then we miss this opportunity to support them. So that's the early stage. And in midstage, I think the, you know, the real keys there are to catch nonmotor symptoms early, to catch things like pain and depression and constipation before they become really bad or even lead to a hospital stay. And also starting to plant the seed and maybe doing some advanced care planning so that we are- people feel more prepared for the end stages of Parkinson's. And I think there, too, people ask about the future; when we tell them everyone's different or you don't have to worry about that now, that doesn't help an individual very much. So, oftentimes in the middle stages of the illness, people do want to know, am I going to go to a nursing home? How much longer is this going to be? You don't need a crystal ball, but if you can give people the best case, the worst case, the most likely case, that can be very helpful for life planning.

And then as we're getting to more advanced and endstage, the lens that I'm looking at people with really is, should we begin talking about hospice? And we know again, from data that as a system---not just neurologists, but as a system---we're missing this all the time. And that if you have Parkinson's disease, you're about 50% chance of dying in a hospital, which is not where people want to die. And so, when I see people with more advanced disease, I'm asking questions about weight loss, and are they sleeping more during the day, and is there an acceleration in their decline of function? So, not just asking about where they are, but what's the rate of decline so that I can give people months of hospice as opposed to either them dying in a hospital or just scrambling for hospice in the last few days of their life.

Dr Berkowitz: Another important palliative care concept you discussed in this article that was new to me is the concept of total pain, where you talk about aspects of pain beyond the physical and emotional pain we often think of when we hear the word pain. Can you talk a little bit about this concept of total pain, and then in particular how you apply it specifically when caring for patients with Parkinson's disease and related disorders?

Dr Kluger: Yeah, absolutely. In the article there's a figure, and this is a- one of the foundational concepts of palliative care is this idea of total pain. Which is that the pain of a serious illness, whether that be cancer or Parkinson's, is not simply physical. There's also emotional components. And that also goes beyond the psychiatric. So, that includes grief and worry and frustration, and it also includes loneliness. And I think with Parkinson's disease, actually, one of one of the quotes that really sticks with me from some of our qualitative interviews was a woman who talked about her Parkinson's as a "flamboyant illness" because her tremor and her dyskinesias were always coming out at inopportune times. And it wasn't something I thought about, but there's this cosmetic aspect of having a movement disorder. There's also a cosmetic aspect of drooling or of using a walker. And so, there is a social stigma associated with Parkinson's, and people also lose a lot of social capital. Part of that is that often times neighbors and friends and family don't feel comfortable being around that person anymore. They don't know what to say. And so, sometimes coaching or connecting them with a chaplain or a counselor can be helpful in maintaining those social networks. There's a social pain. There's a spiritual and existential pain.

And when I ask people a question, I ask almost everybody, is, what's the toughest part of this for you? A lot of times things fall into that bucket. And it's my loss of independence. I'm no longer able to do the things that bring me joy. I feel guilty that I'm going to be a burden to my family. My relationships are changing. So those are things that are essentially spiritual and existential. And then the last bucket, there are logistical things. And this can be lost driving and how do I get around, the cost of doctor visits, spending time with doctors, co-pays for medications; in the case of Parkinson's disease, the logistics of taking medication every two to three hours. So those all contribute to the total pain or the multiple dimensions of suffering. And that is something that I think about---in fact, in our assessment and plan, one of the things I like to mark out is sources of suffering. And that could be from any of those parts of the pie chart.

Dr Berkowitz: And how do you approach this at the bedside? So, there are different concepts here. Obviously, physical pain, everyone is familiar with probably the concept of emotional pain. But as you get out in these concentric circles into sort of spiritual, existential pain, how do you sort of start these discussions with patients to elicit some of these aspects of their suffering?

Dr Kluger: You know, the most common question I ask is, what's the toughest part of this for you? And very often that's going to lead into these existential and spiritual issues. I'll also ask people at the start of visits is, just tell me overall, big picture, how's your quality of life? Sometimes the answer is pretty good. Sometimes it sucks. Sometimes it's I have none. I know we're going to talk a little bit about joy later. But I'll also often times follow that up with, what do you enjoy or look forward to? And sometimes I get a response to that, and sometimes I get there's nothing in my life right now. But foundationally, I feel like those are all, you know, definitely spiritual and existential issues. And I'll ask people, too, where do you find meaning? What are your sources of support?

I know for different physicians, people have different comfort with this, but I do find it helpful also to ask people, are you spiritual or religious? Because that can sometimes open up a window to other means of coping. An example of that---I mean, not everybody is going to have access to a chaplain. Some people will. But oftentimes one of the things that I do is encourage people to reconnect with their spiritual community. And so, I've had some very heartwarming winds where somebody would say, you know what, I haven't been to church for a while. And people at churches or synagogues or mosques are often looking for opportunities to help. And so that I think is another, I think, really important message. But I think one of the- my favorite parts of my job is kind of opening up these bridges and opening up these connections. And helping people to recognize, I would kind of put it under a larger practice of grace, is that asking for help can be a gift to another person. And if you're strong enough to ask for help, you're giving, you know, sometimes a really tremendous gift to another individual. If somebody has a strong community that they're connected with, doesn't have to be religious. it could be that they were a high school sports coach, it could be that they were involved in a book club, it could be that they were DJ or ran a restaurant or who knows what. Those all can provide opportunities for bringing people together and bringing together community. And again, thinking about the total pain of having a neurologic illness like Parkinson's, that loss of community, that loss of connection, is one of the things that's most painful.

Dr Berkowitz: So, when people think about palliative care, they tend to think about pain and suffering and a lot of the topics we've been talking about. But you also talk about joy in your article, and you alluded to it a moment ago, working with your patients to find what brings them joy, opportunities for joy. As I was reading this, I was trying to imagine sitting across from a patient who has maybe just received the diagnosis of Parkinson's or is in a stage of the disease where, as you mentioned, they might be quite depressed, whether that's capital-D depression or sadness related to their loss of independence and other aspect. Sitting across from a patient who is suffering so much and has come maybe to a palliative care doctor such as yourself to alleviate suffering and have pain and other symptoms addressed, how do you begin a conversation about joy in that context and have the patient feel comfortable to open up? And how do you then use that conversation to help them improve their quality of life?

Dr Kluger: Yeah, that's a great question. And it's one that actually comes up every time I talk about joy because it can be daunting. And there certainly are situations where I don't bring it up. You know, if we are deep into a session about grief or we're talking about kind of an unexpected bad turn of events, there's times where it would be insensitive to try to push, you know, an agenda of joy or something like that. And yet I would say that particularly residents and students who work with me, you kno

Dementia is often a highly burdensome disease process for patients, their caregivers and families, and the community at large. Palliating symptoms and providing guidance surrounding advance care planning and prognostication are integral components of the management plan.

In this episode, Katie Grouse, MD, FAAN, speaks with Neal Weisbrod, MD, an author of the article "Neuropalliative Care in Dementia" in the Continuum® December 2025 Neuropalliative Care 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. Weisbrod is a neurologist at Hartford Healthcare with the Ayer Neuroscience Institute in Mystic, Conneticut.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Neuropalliative Care 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

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 Neal Weisbrod about his article on neuropalliative care in dementia, which appears in the December 2025 Continuum issue on neuropalliative care. Welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to our audience.

Dr Weisbrod: Thank you. I'm really excited to be here. I'm Neal Weisbrod. I'm a neurologist and palliative care physician currently working at Hartford Healthcare in Mystic, Connecticut.

Dr Grouse: To start, I'd like to ask why you think it's important that neurologists read your article?

Dr Weisbrod: The primary reason I think it's really important to read the article is because these are just really common problems that neurologists run into in clinical practice. So, Alzheimer disease and many other dementias are extremely common, and managing the burdensome symptoms and the complex discussions that we have to have with the patients and their families as they go through the course of dementia is something that is very common in clinical practice. And so my hope is that by reading this article, clinicians will pick up a few tools, a few new ideas for how to make these conversations easier and for how to help these patients get through the disease with a little bit less suffering.

Dr Grouse: I learned a lot from reading your article, and I really encourage our listeners to check it out. But I was curious what you feel that you discussing your article would come as the biggest surprise to our listeners?

Dr Weisbrod: So, I think that the most surprising thing a lot of people will see reading this article is the section on prognosis. A lot of times it seems families are counseled, when they're talking about the prognosis of Alzheimer disease, that it could be ten years or longer. But really, the data show that for many patients, the median prognosis is closer to three to eight years. And that is a little bit longer for Alzheimer disease than many other types of dementia, but also gets significantly shorter as patients get older. So, we're looking at a closer to three-year median prognosis for patients who are over eighty-five, whereas patients in their sixties are probably closer to the eight or nine-year median prognosis. And so I think that piece will hopefully help people give a little bit more accurate counseling about prognosis.

Dr Grouse: I'm glad you brought that up because I was wondering, why is it so important that we are careful to make sure that we're giving prognostic information for our patients and maybe even updating it as their clinical status changes?

Dr Weisbrod: I think first of all, it's a really common thing that patients and families are thinking about and worried about. They don't necessarily always seem to ask as much as they want to know. I think there's a lot of fear around that conversation, even though it's really important. And then there's also often tension between the family and caregivers tend to want to know more than patients do. I think that it really helps people plan for the future as well as possible to know what their future might be. And we have a lot of limitations in predicting the future, but using the best information we can, laying out what we think the likely range is, allows people to make a lot more clear plans for their future.

Dr Grouse: I'd imagine it's also pretty helpful for hospice referrals, too, having that data.

Dr Weisbrod: Yeah, definitely. And there's a lot of angst about when to refer patients who have dementia to hospice. The most important thing I think about when I'm making a hospice referral is that I don't have to be right. And I think it takes a lot of that concern off to just say, all I'm doing is making a connection, getting someone who's potentially interested in the hospice, who has a really advanced serious illness connected to a hospice agency. And then they can go through the full evaluation with the hospice and the hospice medical director and determine whether they're eligible. So, I think there are really helpful thresholds to think about that would be a good trigger. Like a patient who we think has advanced dementia, who has a hospitalization for pneumonia or a fracture of the hip or some other really serious acute medical condition, I think is a really good trigger to start to think about hospice. But most importantly, it's just the connection, and I tell the patients that upfront. I tell them that you're going to have a conversation and we'll decide whether you're a good fit, and if not, the hospice will usually just check in with you over time and decide when is the right time in the future.

Dr Grouse: That's really helpful. And I think just a really great reminder to our listeners about thinking about hospice sooner or at certain critical points in their patient care rather than waiting, maybe, before it's gone on too long and may be of less use later on. I was wondering, in your own clinical practice, what do you think is the most challenging aspect of providing care to patients with dementia?

Dr Weisbrod: I think this one's easy. I would say managing the time has to be the most difficult part. I think that taking care of patients who have dementia is time-consuming. There's a lot of different priorities that we have to manage the time around. How much time are we going to spend doing cognitive testing? How much time are we going to spend doing counseling? How much time are we going to spend making up a treatment plan and discussing medications? How much time are we going to spend on advanced care planning? And the way I try to combat that is really just trying to think about what I'm going to prioritize in a certain visit and not try to accomplish everything. I'll tell patients and their families, the next time you come in, we're going to have a conversation focusing on advanced care planning. Or, the next time you come in, we're going to sit down and try to talk through all the questions you have about what the future might hold. That way I in that visit, I don't feel like, oh, I have to do updated cognitive testing and I have to review all the next steps in medication, and that allows me to take it in more bite-sized chunks.

Dr Grouse: You made some of the great points, and specifically you mentioned advanced care planning. Your article makes a really strong case for the importance of advanced care planning, yet you definitely acknowledge the many barriers to initiating discussions that clinicians face. In your patients with dementia, can you walk us through how you integrate discussions about advanced care planning with your patients and their families?

Dr Weisbrod: Yeah, I think this is still something that is evolving in my practice, and I don't think there's any perfect way of doing it. I think there's a lot of right ways of doing it, and as long as we're thinking about it a lot and bringing it up periodically, that's probably the best. What I try to do, though, is after I discuss what I think is the most likely diagnosis with patients and their families, I try to have a fairly close follow-up visit after that. Allow them to digest that information, to often do a little bit of their own research, to talk about it as a family. And then when they come in for that next appointment, I try to at least lay some groundwork about advanced care planning, asking them what they've completed already, and then based on what they've already done to that point, talking to them about what I think the next step would be. If they have done nothing, usually it's just, hey, I really think you should start to think about who would be making decisions for you if you lose the ability to make your own decisions and counsel them about power of attorney paperwork and establishing a healthcare surrogate. When it's patients who have already done some of that initial prep, I think that it's really important to keep in mind it's a longitudinal discussion and you can take it in small pieces over time. Often that helps because you can really establish that rapport and that trust. And then I like to just keep checking in whenever there's major changes in the patient's health or condition, like admission to the hospital or transfer to an assisted living facility or memory care clinic. Those are good times to remember, hey, I really need to revisit this conversation.

Dr Grouse: It's probably good to also mention another really important point from your article, which was that impairment of decision-making in patients with dementia can actually start significantly even in the phase of mild cognitive impairment. Yet these patients will need to make many medical decisions with their neurologist as they go through this journey. How can we make sure our patients have capacity and make decisions appropriately regarding their care?

Dr Weisbrod: Yeah, I think that's a definite challenge of taking care of patients with cognitive disorders of any type, including those with stroke and multiple sclerosis, that have some cognitive impairment. In my opinion, the most important way to help manage that is to make sure when we are making important decisions about the future that we're having a deep exploration of the values and the reasoning behind that. And definitely teach back is the most helpful way that I use to explore those values and the logic behind patients' decisions. So, I think we have to have a really low threshold to move on to a formal evaluation of capacity; if there's any inconsistency between what the patient's saying now and what their families say they've said in the past, or if they're having struggled to come up with a really clear logic behind their decision, then I think we have to have a low threshold to move on to a formal evaluation of capacity. So, I think having the family involved, having other people who know the patient really well, usually helps identify some of those periods where it seems like the patient's not making the decision that really reflects their true wishes.

Dr Grouse: Now I wanted to switch gears a little bit and get into the management of neuropsychiatric symptoms, which you spend a lot of time on and I think a lot of neurologists find very challenging. What are some nonpharmacologic approaches that can help patients with significant neuropsychiatric symptoms?

Dr Weisbrod: I really like the DICE paradigm for coming up with nonpharmacologic approaches. The DICE paradigm is an acronym. The D is Describe, I is Investigate, C is Create, and E is Evaluate. The idea is that we're exploring what's happening behind the symptoms, we're creating a plan to intervene, and then we're evaluating the outcome of that plan and creating a sort of feedback loop there. But ultimately, I think, when we're creating a solution, thinking about how we can change the environment is the most important thing. We have very limited ability to change the way that someone who has severe cognitive dysfunction reacts to their environment, but we can often change the environment to not produce that reaction in the first place. One example is with wandering behaviors. Trying to change the environment where you put locks that don't have deadbolts that you can use on the inside of the house, you have to have a key on the inside of the house, and then the family can put that key somewhere safe where the patient is not likely to find it and be able to unlock the door and wander out unsafely. I also think it's really important to acknowledge that as doctors, we are maybe not the best people to always have the answer when it comes to changing a patient's environment. And so, I think we really need to rely on the wisdom of support groups and other people who are going through the challenge of dementia. Our interdisciplinary care teams like social workers and nurses who have experience in managing dementia, and really try to plug the caregivers into as many of these avenues as possible so that they can learn from all of that community of wealth and not always rely on the doctor to have the answer.

Dr Grouse: Switching gears to pharmacologic management, which is a lot of what we do for patients as neurologists. Thinking about agitation, pharmacologic management of agitation can be very challenging. And reading your article, it reminds me how disheartening it is to reflect and how modest the effect of the available options are, along with the many potential risks of their use, When nonpharmacologic interventions fail, what should neurologists recommend for their patients with agitation?

Dr Weisbrod: Yeah, I definitely agree. It's every time I go back and look at this literature and look at what's new, it is a bit disheartening. But even in the face of all that, I really feel like SSRIs are my first-line therapy for most of these patients. I always try to ask myself what might be causing the patient discomfort that they are then manifesting as agitation because they don't have a better way of expressing themselves. Often, I feel like that's anxiety or depression or some other psychological symptom that we might be able to address with an SSRI. So, I tend to use sertraline and escitalopram, start those early and as long as patients are tolerating it, give it a really good trial. Outside of that, escalating to other pharmacologic approaches, even though there's such controversy in the data about antipsychotics and even though there are very real risks, sometimes I think we essentially do need a chemical sedative. And I think that it's important to have a very frank conversation upfront with the caregivers and the medical decision maker for that patient. Make sure we are counseling them on the risk, the increased risk of mortality, and also to make it a time-limited trial. So, I think that saying we're going to try this medication (if the patient's decision maker agrees, obviously) for a month or two months or three months. But I definitely wouldn't want them to just have an open-ended plan where they're going to stay on it indefinitely. It should have some end point where we say, hey, is this working or not? And if it's working, then we'd make a decision, is the improvement in quality of life worth the risks? And if we're not seeing that improvement, then we definitely need to stop it.

Dr Grouse: That seems very reasonable. And then thinking more towards some of the other types of symptoms that can be really challenging, I was really surprised to see how often uncontrolled pain is a significant contributor in patients with dementia. And certainly, both uncontrolled pain and poor sleep can worsen cognitive function and neuropsychiatric symptoms in general. But of course, there's ongoing concerns about side effects of these therapies and how they can also potentially worsen things. How should we be approaching management of pain and insomnia or poor sleep in these patients?

Dr Weisbrod: I think the key is just to start with really low burden treatments and escalate carefully and start with low doses of higher risk medications. So, when I think the low burden treatments for pain, scheduling acetaminophen, 1000 milligrams every eight hours, seems like a trivial thing to do, maybe? But it's actually surprising how much scheduled acetaminophen can take the edge off of pain and might be able to avoid some of these flare-ups of neuropsychiatric symptoms, may be able to really improve that pain a little bit. I do think it really has to be scheduled, though. Trying to rely on patients who have significant cognitive dysfunction to use a PRN medication is going to lead to a lot of problems and undertreatment. And then on the sleep disorder side, I think starting with low-dose Trazodone and gradually increasing the dose of Trazodone as a really safe way of initially approaching the insomnia. And then only when it's a more refractory case do I reach for the high-risk medications. Like for pain, we're talking about opiates. I think there's a lot of very reasonable concern about using opioids in patients who have cognitive dysfunction. But if there is a really good reason to think that they have severe pain, like they have a past pain disorder, I think that just like with antipsychotics, there are definitely real risks to these medications. But at the end of the day, if we are improving someone's quality of life dramatically and the patient's medical decision maker is willing to take on those risks, then we're really doing the patients a favor.

Dr Grouse: Now, another issue that you mentioned in your article, which I see a lot and often struggle with myself, is how and when to deprescribe certain types of medications such as cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine. Any tips or tricks to how to approach this?

Dr Weisbrod: My approach to this has also evolved a bit over the years. The new data that cholinesterase inhibitors may have a mortality benefit in patients with Alzheimer disease has changed my thinking a little bit. But there are still lots of situations where it's just too burdensome or patients seem to be having side effects. And so, I think about deprescribing. The most important thing in my mind is really thorough counseling before deprescribing with the patient's family and medical decision maker. I think that letting them know that we might actually be holding things more stable with the medication than we realize, there could be a flare-up, that we can resume the medication if that flare-up happens but we don't always guarantee getting back to the same point. I think having that conversation ahead of time will ward off some of the worst issues that you have afterwards. And then I think doing a taper of cholinesterase inhibitors over two weeks to a month is probably the most prudent because of some of the data about withdrawal and exacerbation of neuropsychiatric symptoms or cognitive worsening. Memantine, I think the data is a lot more shaky on withdrawal. And so, I think it's less important to gradually taper memantine. But I think that once again, just having the conversation upfront and letting the family know these are the things we have to look out for and these are the risks is going to be the most important.

Dr Grouse: That's really helpful and a great strategy to take advantage of. Another, I think, really difficult topic that I wanted to ask you about was the discussion around nutrition and whether or not to consider putting in some type of a permanent tube for tube feeds. How do you approach that conversation? Certainly

Careful assessment and individualized care, provided by a skilled multidisciplinary care team, are emphasized in the holistic approach to neuropalliative care, which considers physical, psychological, social, spiritual, and existential aspects for people with neuromuscular diseases.

In this episode, Gordon Smith, MD, FAAN, speaks with David J. Oliver, PhD, FRCP, FRCGP, FEAN, author of the article "Neuropalliative Care in Neuromuscular Disorders" in the Continuum® December 2025 Neuropalliative Care 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. Oliver is an honorary professor of Tizard Centre at the University of Kent in Canterbury, United Kingdom.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Neuropalliative Care in Neuromuscular 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: @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: Hello, this is Dr Gordon Smith. Today I've got the great pleasure of interviewing Dr David Oliver about his article on neuropalliative care and neuromuscular disorders, which appears in the December 2025 Continuum issue on neuropalliative care. David, welcome to the Continuum podcast, and please introduce yourself to our audience.

Dr Oliver: Thank you. It's a pleasure and a privilege to be here. I'm a retired consultant in palliative medicine in the UK. I worked at the Wisdom Hospice in Rochester for over thirty years, and I'm also an honorary professor at the University of Kent in Canterbury in the UK. I've had a long interest in palliative care in neurological diseases. Hopefully we can talk about a bit later.

Dr Smith: I really look forward to learning a little bit more about your path and experiences. But I wonder if, before we get into the meat of neuropalliative care with a focus on neuromuscular, if maybe you can kind of set the stage by just defining palliative care. I mean, my experience is that people think of this in different ways, and a lot of folks think- hear palliative care, and they immediately go to end-of-life care or comfort care. So, what- how should we think about maybe the discipline of palliative care or neuropalliative care?

Dr Oliver: I see palliative care as very much responding to people's needs, whether that's physical needs, psychological needs, social or spiritual or existential. So, it can be much earlier in the disease progression. And I think particularly for neurological diseases, early involvement may be very important.

Dr Smith: That was actually going to be my first substantive question, really, was when to begin the conversation and what does that look like and how does it evolve over time. You have a really great figure in the article that kind of emphasizes the various stages within a patient's journey that, you know, palliative care can become involved. But I wonder if you could use ALS as a good example and describe what that looks like from when a patient is first diagnosed with ALS through their course?

Dr Oliver: I think particularly in ALS at the beginning, soon after diagnosis, someone may have a lot of distress and a lot of questions that they need answering. This is a disease they've not had any contact with before. And they don't understand what's going on, they don't understand the disease. So, there may be a great need to have the opportunity to talk about the disease, what may happen, what is happening, how it's going to affect them and their family. As think time goes on, there may be later they develop swallowing problems, and that will need to be talking about a feeding tube and gastrostomy. And again, there may be a lot of issues for the person and their family. As they deteriorate, they may have respiratory problems and need to have discussion about ventilatory support, either by PAP, noninvasive ventilation, or even tracheostomy. And again, I think that's a big issue that needs wide discussion. And then it may be at the final few months of the disease, where they are deteriorating, that they may have increased needs, and their families may have those needs after the death. And I think often families bereaved from someone with a neurological disease such as ALS need a great deal of support, having many mixed emotions. There may be a feeling of relief that they're not involved in that caring, but then a feeling of guilt that they shouldn't be having those feelings. So, I think that can happen over a period of… what with ALS it may be two, three, four years, but it may be similar changes over time with any patient with a neurological disease. It may be ten or fifteen years with Parkinson's or five to ten years with a progressive supranuclear palsy, but there'll be this similar need to look at palliative care during their disease progression.

Dr Smith: So, I'm curious at the time of diagnosis of ALS, how far out in the future do you provide information? So a specific question would be, do you talk about end-of-life management? In my experience, ALS patients are sometimes interested in knowing about that. Or do you really focus on what's in front of you in the next three to six months, for instance?

Dr Oliver: I think it's both. Obviously, we need to talk about the next three to six months, but often giving patients the opportunity to talk about what's going to happen in the future, what may happen at the end of life, I think is important. And I think a disease like ALS, if they look it up on the Internet, they may have a lot of very distressing entries there. There's a lot about how distressing dying with ALS is. And actually confront those and discuss those issues early is really important.

Dr Smith: So of course, the other thing that comes up immediately with an ALS diagnosis---or, for that matter, with any other neurodegenerative problem---is prognosis. Do you have guidance and how our listeners who are giving a diagnosis of ALS or similar disorder should approach the prognostication discussion?

Dr Oliver: It's often very difficult. Certainly in the UK, people may have- be a year into their disease from their first symptoms before they're diagnosed, and I've seen figures, that's similar across the world. So, people may be actually quite way through their disease progression, but I do think we have to remember that the figures show that at five years, 25% of people are still alive, and 5 to 10% are still alive at ten years. We mustn't say you are going to die in the next two or three years, because that may not be so. And I think to have the vagueness but also the opportunity to talk, that we are talking of a deterioration over time and we don't know how that will be for you. I always stress how individual I think ALS is for patients.

Dr Smith: One of the other concepts that is familiar with anyone who does ALS and clearly comes through in your article---which is really outstanding, by the way. So, thank you and congratulations for that---is the importance of multidisciplinary teams. Can you talk a little bit about how neuropalliative care sits within a multidisciplinary care model?

Dr Oliver: I think the care should be multidisciplinary. Certainly in the UK, we recommended multidisciplinary team care for ALS in particular, from the time of diagnosis. And I think palliative care should be part of that multidisciplinary team. It may be a member of the team who has that palliative care experience or someone with specialist experience. Because I think the important thing is that everyone caring for someone with ALS or other neuromuscular diseases should be providing palliative care to some extent: listening to people, discussing their goals, managing their symptoms. And a specialist may only be needed if those are more complicated or particularly difficult. So, I think it is that the team needs to work together to support people and their families. So, looking at the physical aspects where the physiotherapist or occupational therapist may be very important, the psychologicals are a counsellor or psychologist. The social aspects, most of our patients are part of wider families, and we need to be looking at supporting their carers and within their family as well as the person. And so that may involve social work and other professionals. And the spiritual, the why me, their fears about the future, may involve a spiritual counsellor or a chaplain or, if appropriate, a religious leader appropriate to that- for that person. So, I think it is that wider care provided by the team.

Dr Smith: I'm just reflecting on, again, your earlier answers about the Continuum of neuropalliative care. Knowing your patient is super valuable here. So, having come to know someone through their disease course must pay dividends as you get to some of these harder questions that come up later during the disease progression.

Dr Oliver: I think that's the very important use of palliative care from early on in the diagnosis. It's much easier to talk about, perhaps, the existential fears of someone while they can still talk openly. To do that through a communication aid can be very difficult. To talk about someone's fear of death through a communication aid is really very, very difficult. The multidisciplinary team, I think, works well if all the members are talking together. So that perhaps the speech therapist has been to see someone and has noticed their breathing is more difficult, comes back and talks to the doctor and the physiotherapist. The social worker notices the speech is more difficult and comes back and speaks to the speech therapist. So, I think that sort of team where people are working very closely together can really optimize the care. And as you said, knowing the person, and for them to know you and to trust you, I think that's important. Those first times that people meet is so important in establishing trust. And if you only meet people when they're very disabled and perhaps not able to communicate very easily, that's really difficult.

Dr Smith: I think you're reading my mind, actually, because I was really interested in talking about communication. And you mentioned a few times in your article about voice banking, which is likely to be a new concept for many of our listeners. And I would imagine the spectrum of tools that are becoming available for augmented communication for patients who have ALS or other disorders that impair speech must be impressive. I wonder if you could give us an update on what the state of the art is in terms of approaching communication.

Dr Oliver: Well, I think we all remember Stephen Hawking, the professor from Cambridge, who had a very robotic voice which wasn't his. Now people may have their own voice on a communication aid. I think the use of whether it's a mobile phone or iPad, other computer systems, can actually turn what someone types into their own voice. And voice banking is much easier than it used to be. Only a few years ago, someone would have to read for an hour or two hours so the computer could pick up all the different aspects of their voice. Now it's a few minutes. And it has been even- I've known that people have taken their answer phone off a telephone and used that to produce a voice that is very, very near to the person. So that when someone does type out, the voice that comes out will be very similar to their own. I remember one video of someone who'd done this and they called their dog, and the dog just jumped into the air when he suddenly heard his master's voice for the first time in several months. So, I think it's very dramatic and very helpful for the person, who no longer feels a robot, but also for their family that can recognize their father, their husband, their wife's speech again.

Dr Smith: Very humanizing, isn't it?

Dr Oliver: There is a stigma of having the robotic voice. And if we can remove that stigma and someone can feel more normal, that would be our aim.

Dr Smith: As you've alluded to, and for the large majority---really all of our ALS patients, barring something unexpected---we end up in preparing for death and preparing for end of life. I wonder what advice you have in that process, managing fear of death and working with our patients as they approach the end of their journey.

Dr Oliver: I think the most important thing is listening and trying to find what their particular concerns are. And as I said earlier, they may have understood from what they've read in books or the Internet that the death from ALS is very distressing. However, I think we can say there are several studies now from various countries where people have looked at what happens at the end of life for people with ALS. Choking to death, being very distressed, are very, very rare if the symptoms are managed effectively beforehand, preparations are made so that perhaps medication can be given quickly if someone does develop some distress so that it doesn't become a distressing crisis. So, I think we can say that distress at the end of life with ALS is unusual, and probably no different to any other disease group. It's important to make sure that people realize that with good symptom control, with good palliative care, there is a very small risk of choking or of great distress at the end of life.

Dr Smith: Now, I would imagine many patients have multiple different types of fear of death; one, process, what's the pain and experience going to be like? But there's also being dead, you know, fear of the end of life. And then this gets into comments you made earlier about spirituality and psychology. How do you- what's your experience in handling that? Because that's a harder problem, it seems, to really provide concrete advice about.

Dr Oliver: Yeah. And so, I think it's always important to know when someone says they're frightened of the future, to check whether it is the dying process or after death. I've got no answer for what's going to happen afterwards, but I can listen to what someone may have in their past, their concerns, their experience. You know, is their experience of someone dying their memories of someone screaming in pain in an upstairs bedroom while they were a child? Was their grandfather died? Trying to find out what particular things may be really a problem to them and that we can try and address. But others, we can't answer what's going to happen after death. If someone is particularly wanting to look at that, I think that may be involving a spiritual advisor or their local spiritual/religious leader. But often I think it's just listening and understanding where they are.

Dr Smith: So, you brought up bereavement earlier and you discussed it in the article. In my experience is that oftentimes the families are very, very impacted by the journey of ALS. And while ALS patients are remarkably resilient, it's a huge burden on family, loved ones, and their community. Can you talk a bit about the role of palliative care in the bereavement process, maybe preparing for bereavement and then after the loss of their loved one?

Dr Oliver: Throughout the disease progression, we need to be supporting the carers as much as we are the patient. They are very much involved. As you said, the burden of care may be quite profound and very difficult for them. So, it's listening, supporting them, finding out what their particular concerns are. Are they frightened about what's going to happen at the end of life as well? Are they concerned of how they're going to cope or how the person's going to cope? And then after the death, it's allowing them to talk about what's happened and how they are feeling now, cause I think having had that enormous input in care, then suddenly everything stops. And also, the support systems they've had for perhaps months of the carers coming in, the doctor, the nurse, the physiotherapist, everyone coming in, they all stop coming. So, their whole social system suddenly stops and becomes much reduced. And I'm afraid certainly in the UK if someone is bereaved, they may not have the contact with their friends and family because they're afraid to come and see them. So, they may become quite isolated and reduced in what they can do. So, I think it's allowing them to discuss what has happened. And I think that's as important sometimes for members of the multidisciplinary team, because we as doctors, nurses and the wider team will also have some aspects of bereavement as we face not seeing that person who we've looked after for many years and perhaps in quite an intensive way. So, we need to be looking at how we support ourselves. And I think that's another important role of the multidisciplinary team. I always remember in our team, sometimes I would say, I find this person really difficult to cope with. And the rest of the people around the team would go have a sigh of relief because they felt the same, but they didn't like to say. And once we could talk about it, we could support each other and work out what we could do to help us help the patient in the most effective way.

Dr Smith: Well, David, I think that's a great point to end on. I think you've done a really great job of capturing why someone would want to be a palliative care specialist or be involved in palliative care, because one of the themes throughout this conversation is the very significant personal and care impact that you have on patients and families. So, I really appreciate your sharing your wisdom. I really encourage all of our listeners to check out the article, it's really outstanding. I wonder if maybe you might just briefly tell us a little bit about how you got into this space? It's obviously one for which you have a great deal of passion and wisdom. How did you end up where you are?

Dr Oliver: I became interested in palliative care as a medical student, and actually I trained as a family doctor, but I went to Saint Christopher's Hospice following that. I had actually had contact with them while I was a medical student, so I worked Saint Christopher's Hospice in South London when Dame Cecily Saunders was still working there. And at that time Christopher's had sixty-two beds, and at least eight of those beds were reserved for people with ALS or other neurological diseases. And I became very involved in one or two patients and their care. And Dame Sicily Saunders asked me to write something on ALS for their bookshelf that they had on the education area. So, I wrote, I think, four drafts. I went from sort of C minus to just about passable on the fourth draft. And that became my big interest in particularly ALS, and as time went on, in other neurological diseases. When I went to the Wisdom Hospice as a consultant, I was very keen to carry on looking after people with ALS, and we involved ourselves with other neurological patients. That's how I got started. Having that interest, listening to patients, documenting what we did became important as a way of showing how palliative care could have a big role in neurological disease. And over the years, I've been pressing again and again for the early involvement of palliative care in neurological diseases. And I think that is so important so that there can be a proper holistic assessment of people, that they can build up the trust in their carers and in the multidisciplinary team so

Severe acute brain injury presents acute and longitudinal challenges. Addressing total pain involves managing physical symptoms and providing emotional, social, and spiritual support to enhance quality of life for patients and their families.

In this episode, Kait Nevel, MD, speaks with Claire J. Creutzfeldt, MD, author of the article "Neuropalliative Care in Severe Acute Brain Injury and Stroke" in the Continuum® December 2025 Neuropalliative 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. Liewluck is a professor in the department of neurology at the University of Washington in Seattle, Washington.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Neuropalliative Care in Severe Acute Brain Injury and Stroke With Dr. Claire Creutzfeldt

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: @cj_creutzfeldt

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 Claire Creutzfeldt about her article on neuropalliative care in severe acute brain injury and stroke, which appears in the December 2025 Continuum issue on neuropalliative care. Claire, welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to the audience.

Dr Creutzfeldt: Thanks, thanks for having me. Yeah, I'm an associate professor of neurology at the University of Washington. I'm a stroke neurologist and palliative care researcher and really have focused my career on how we can best integrate palliative care principles into the care of patients with severe stroke and other neurocritical illness.

Dr Nevel: Wonderful. Well, I'm looking forward to talking to you today about your excellent article that I really enjoyed reading. To get us started, can you tell us what you feel is the most important takeaway from your article for the practicing neurologist?

Dr Creutzfeldt: Yeah. You know, I think one is always a little biased by what one is working on currently. And I think what I'm most excited about or feel more strongly about is this idea that stroke and severe acute brain injury are not an event, but really a chronic illness that people are left with usually for the rest of their lives, that change their life radically. And I think that education, research funding, also the clinical setting, current healthcare models aren't set up for that. And this idea that severe acute brain injury, you know, should be viewed as a lifelong condition that requires support across all ranges of goals of care. So curative, restorative, palliative and end-of-life care.

Dr Nevel: Yeah, I love that part of your article, how you really highlighted that concept. And I think obviously that's something that we see in neurology and learn, especially as we transition out of our residency stages. But I think especially for the trainees listening, can sometimes be hospital inpatient-heavy, if you will, that kind of you can lose sight of that, that these acute strokes, severe acute brain injury, it turns into a chronic illness or condition that patients are dealing with lifelong.

Dr Creutzfeldt: Often what we do in a very acute setting is like, is really cool and sexy and like, we can cure people from their stroke if they come, you know, at the right time with the right kind of stroke to the right hospital. And often the symptoms that people come in with much later on are harder to treat and address, partly because the focus in education, clinical and research just hasn't been as much on that time.

Dr Nevel: Yeah, absolutely. So, can you talk to us about this concept of total pain? What does it mean, and how do we incorporate this concept into the way that we view our approach, our patient care?

Dr Creutzfeldt: Total pain is a very old word, but it's sort of coming back into fashion in the palliative care world because it really describes all those sources of suffering or sources of distress, like, beyond what we sort of really think of as sort of the physical symptoms in recovery of stroke. As many of you know, palliative care often thinks in this multidimensional way of the physical distress, physical pain, but also psychological, emotional, social and spiritual, existential. And both- we sort of created sort of a figure that incorporates all of them and also includes both patients and their family members. They share some of these sources of distress, but they also have distinct ones that need to be addressed. And at the core of that total pain is what we need to provide, is sort of optimal communication and goals-of-care prognosis.

Dr Nevel: Yeah, I'm thinking about all of those aspects and not just focusing on one. How does the disease trajectory of severe acute brain injury and stroke play a role in the palliative care approach? And how should we kind of going back to that original point of this idea of severe acute brain injury being an acute event and then oftentimes turning into kind of a chronic condition? How does that play a role in how we address palliative care with our patients, or kind of the stages of palliative care with our patients?

Dr Creutzfeldt: Yeah, I think several things, especially for neurologists, is the more traditional palliative care illnesses, like cancer or congestive heart failure, illnesses where people are diagnosed when they're still functioning at a relatively high level and tend to have time to consider their prognosis and their goals of care in the end of life wishes and to meet with palliative care and to consider their personhood. Who am I? What's most important for me? And stroke, people with stroke, they not only present at their worst, they meet us at their worst, at a time when the patient themselves usually can't speak for themselves, when their personhood has been stripped from them. And then as providers, we, you know, we often really just get that one opportunity to get the conversation right and to guide people towards, you know, what we would call optimal and goal-concordant care.

So, the challenges are many. I do think that the burden of these early conversations is on neurologists and really requires the neurologists to show compassion, to learn communication skills, think really hard about how you want to communicate prognosis and goals of care early on, because it's going to color people's experiences and decisions longitudinally. You asked about, sort of, this trajectory. And I do think it's important to think about, you know, what really happens even after the thrombectomy or even after we discharge people, especially from the ICU. Because for us, often after sort of day five or six, you know, we're sort of done. We're thinking about secondary stroke prevention. And, you know, how do I get the patient to rehab or out of the hospital? For the patients and families, this is when it really all just starts. You know, this is when they- when they're first memories are usually, you know, they hardly remember that acute setting. And so, when they are medically stable, we're done with the acute blood pressure treatment where we've removed the Foley, we've made a decision about nutrition. For us that tends to be a time where we let go a little; for patients and families that tends to actually be the time when they have to think about how am I going to live with this and what are the next several months or years going to look like? And so being there for them is important.

Dr Nevel: That's such a, I think, important point, that when we have our plan in place, we know medically what the plan is for that patient and we're starting to step back, think about rehab or discharge. That's when oftentimes more quote-unquote "reality" steps in for patients and families about what their future is going to look like.

Dr Creutzfeldt: And medical stability is not even close to neurological stability. And so, they are still in the middle of real prognostic uncertainty, and often waxing and waning symptoms or new symptoms coming up for them. Like pain, you know, post thalamic pain syndrome, just as an example, tends to be something that doesn't develop until later.

Dr Nevel: Right, right. Absolutely. And since you touched on this concept of prognostic uncertainty, and, you know, that's something that's so challenging in severe acute brain injury, especially the early days when you talk about this, you know, that things tend to become a little bit more certain as more time passes. But these are really hard conversations because a lot of times feel like big decisions that need to be made early on, you know?

Dr Creutzfeldt: Huge!

Dr Nevel: Sometimes things like trach and PEG and things like that. How do you approach that conversation? I know you talk about that a little bit in your article. You touch on that, some of the, kind of, strategies or concepts that we use in palliative care to approach this prognostic uncertainty with patients.

Dr Creutzfeldt: Yeah, I think the challenge is to balance this acknowledging uncertainty with still being able to guide the families and allow them to trust you. So, there are a few things that I have said in the past, and I have taught in the past, and I don't use anymore. They include sentences like I don't have a crystal ball, for example. Nobody was asking you for one. The other one that I want us to avoid, I think, is the sentence we are terrible at prognosticating. Because what I have seen is that that sentence carries on for families. And families at nine months are still saying, well, you guys are terrible at prognosticating. That's what you told me. First of all, it's all relative, and relative to non-neural providers---even at this time using Google and AI, we're actually quite good at prognosticating. It's just that a wide range early on. So that's how I would change that sentence is, early on after stroke, the range of possible outcomes is still very wide. And so, you've communicated uncertainty without saying I have no idea what I'm doing, which is not true. That is in order to help families be able to trust you and also to trust the person who comes after you, because we all know that a week or two after admission, we do know a lot more. And if we told them on day one that we're terrible at prognosticating, it's hard to sort of build that trust again later.

You also asked about, you know, communication strategies. And I think it's this range of possible outcomes that I think is a good guideline for us to work on. And that range, sort of like a confidence interval, is still very wide early on. And as we collect more information over time, both about the clinical scenario that is evolving in front of us and about the patient who we are learning more about over time, this confidence interval becomes smaller. And that's where this idea of the best case/worst case scenario sort of conversation, for example, comes from: that range of possible outcomes.

Dr Nevel: So, what to you is most challenging about palliative care for patients with severe acute brain injury and stroke?

Dr Creutzfeldt: I think the biggest challenge in stroke care is balancing restorative and curative care with palliative and end-of-life. And that is especially early on when sort of everything is possible, when patients and families want to hear the good news and, I think, are also quite willing to hear the bad news, and probably should. So, I think that that communication is hard when, you know, really we want to provide goal-concordant care. We want to make sure that people get that care that is most important to them and can meet the outcomes that are most important to them.

Dr Nevel: Yeah, agree. What is most rewarding?

Dr Creutzfeldt: I think these patients and families have enormous needs and are extremely grateful if they can find someone that they can trust and who can guide them and who will stick with them. And when I say someone, I think that can be a team. That always depends on how we communicate. In the ideal world, it would be the same person following someone over time, the patient and the family over time. But in our current healthcare system, we're usually moving on from one place to another and being able to communicate with the people that come after you. Telling the family that you're a team and supporting them through that, I think, is really important.

Dr Nevel: Yeah. And like you touched upon, patients and families, I think oftentimes they're looking for, you mentioned, you know, the sharing and communication and they're looking for information.

Dr Creutzfeldt: You know, what's really rewarding is working with a team. And health care has really excelled at that. And I think we have a lot done from them is that it's not always the MD that family needs. And we have a lot of people at our side, and I think we need more of them. Chaplains, social workers; psychologists, actually, I think; and nurses or- in an ideal world, would really work together to support these multidisciplinary, multidimensional symptoms.

Dr Nevel: Yeah. I think it benefits both the patient and the care team, too.

Dr Creutzfeldt: Absolutely!

Dr Nevel: It's helpful to be part of a team. You know, there's camaraderie in that and, like, a shared goal, and I think the thought is rewarding, too.

Dr Creutzfeldt: If we really try and think about severe stroke as a chronic illness or severe acute brain injury as a chronic illness not unlike cancer, then if you think about the systems that have been built for cancer where an entire team of providers follows the patient and their family member over time, I think we need that, too.

Dr Nevel: Yeah, I agree. That point, every member of the team has overlapping things, but has a slightly individual role to a degree too, which is also helpful to the patient and the family. You talked about this a little bit in your article, and I want to hear more from you about what we know about healthcare disparities in this area of medicine and in providing palliative care for patients with severe acute brain injury and stroke.

Dr Creutzfeldt: Yeah, I think actually a lot of the huge decisions that we make, especially early on, are highly variable. And can identify people by various things, whether it's their race or ethnicity or sex or age, or even where they live in the United States. But decisions tend to be made differently. And so, just as an example, we know that I think people who identify as black, for sure, are less likely to receive the acute, often life-saving interventions like TNK or thrombectomy and more likely to undergo longer-term, life-prolonging treatment like PEG and trach. That seems true, after adjusting for clinical severity and things like that. And so disparities like that may be based on cultural preferences or well-informed decisions, and then we can support them. But of course, unfortunately there's a clear idea when we see, often, unexplained variability that a lot is due to uninformed decisions and poor communication and possibly racism in certain parts. And that is, of course, something that has to be addressed.

Dr Nevel: Yeah, absolutely. What are future areas of research in this area? I know you do a lot of research in this area and I'd love to hear about some of it and what you think is exciting or kind of new and going to change the way we think about things, perhaps.

Dr Creutzfeldt: I think every aspect of stroke continues to be exciting and just, you know, our focus of today and my research is on palliative care. I mean, obviously, the things we can do in rehab these days have to be embraced, and the acute stuff. But I think this longitudinal support, an ideally longitudinal multidisciplinary support for patients and families, requires more research. I think it will help us with prognosis. It will help us with communicating things early on and learning more about sort of multidimensional symptoms of these patients over time. That requires more research. And then, how can we change the healthcare system---in a sustainable way, obviously---to maximize quality of life for the survivors and their families?

Dr Nevel: Going back to that total pain again, making sure that we're incorporating that longitudinally.

Dr Creutzfeldt: I think there are currently 94 million people worldwide living with the aftermath of a stroke. I joined a stroke survivor support group recently. People are supporting each other that have that had their stroke, like, 14 years ago and are still in that just to show that this is not one and done. People are still struggling with symptoms afterwards and want support.

Dr Nevel: Before we close out, is there anything else that you'd like to add?

Dr Creutzfeldt: Your questions have all been great, and I think one observation is that we've talked a lot about, sort of, new ideas of the need for longitudinal care for patients after severe stroke. There's still a ton for all of us to do to optimize the care we provide in the very acute setting, to optimize the way we communicate in the very acute setting. To make sure we are, for example, providing the same message as our team members and providing truly compassionate goal-concordant care from the time they hit the emergency room throughout. Including time-limited trials, for example.

Dr Nevel: Well, thank you so much for chatting with me today about your article on this really important topic. Again, today I've been interviewing Dr Claire Creutzfeldt about her article on neuropalliative care in severe acute brain injury and stroke, which appears in the December 2025 Continuum issue on neuropalliative care. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues. And as always, to our listeners, please check out the article. It's great, highly recommend. And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. And thank you so much, Claire, for sharing your expertise with us today.

Dr Creutzfeldt: Thanks 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 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.

In the hospital setting, neurologists may be responsible for managing common end-of-life symptoms. Comprehensive end-of-life care integrates knowledge of the biomedical aspects of disease with patients' values and preferences for care; psychosocial, cultural, and spiritual needs; and support for patients and their families.

In this episode, Teshamae Monteith, MD, FAAN, speaks with Claudia Z. Chou, MD, author of the article "End-of-Life Care and Hospice" in the Continuum® December 2025 Neuropalliative 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. Chou is an assistant professor of neurology and a consultant in the Division of Community Internal Medicine, Geriatrics and Palliative Care at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

Additional Resources

Read the article: End-of-Life Care and Hospice

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 Claudia Chou about her article on end-of-life care and hospice, which is found in the December 2025 Continuum issue on neuropalliative care. Welcome to our podcast. How are you?

Dr Chou: I'm doing well. Thank you for having me. This is really exciting to be here.

Dr Monteith: Absolutely. So, why don't you introduce yourself to our audience?

Dr Chou: Sure. My name is Claudia Chou. I am a full time hospice and palliative medicine physician at Mayo Clinic in Rochester. I'm trained in neurology, movement disorders, and hospice and palliative medicine. I'm also passionate about education, and I'm the program director for the Hospice and Palliative Medicine fellowship here.

Dr Monteith: Cool. So just learning about your training, I kind of have an idea of how you got into this work, but why don't you tell me what inspired you to get into this area?

Dr Chou: It was chance, actually. And really just good luck, being in the right place at the right time. I was in my residency and felt like I was missing something in my training. I was seeing these patients who were suffering strokes and had acute decline in functional status. We were seeing patients with new diagnosis of glioblastoma and knowing what that future looked like for them. And while I went into neurology because of a love of neuroscience, localizing the lesion, all of those things that we all love about neurology, I still felt like I didn't have the skill set to serve patients where they perhaps needed me the most in those difficult times where they were dealing with serious illness and functional decline. And so, the serendipitous thing was that I saw a grand rounds presentation by someone who works in neurology and palliative care for people with Parkinson's disease. And truly, it's not an exaggeration to say that by the end of that lecture, I said, I need to do palliative care, I need to rotate in this, I need to learn more. I think this is what I've been missing. And I had plans to practice both movement disorders neurology and palliative care, but I finished training in 2020… and that was not a long time ago. We can think of all the things that were going on, all the different global forces that were influencing our day-to-day decisions. And the way things worked out, staying in palliative care was really what my family and I needed.

Dr Monteith: Wow, so that's really interesting. Must have been a great lecturer.

Dr Chou: Yes, like one of the best.

Dr Monteith: So why don't you tell me about the objectives of your article?

Dr Chou: The objectives may be to fill in some of the gaps in knowledge that may be present for the general neurologist. We learn so much in neurology training, so much about how to diagnose and treat diseases, and I think I would argue that this really is part and parcel of all we should be doing. We are the experts in these diseases, and just because we're shifting to end-of-life or transitioning to a different type of care doesn't mean that we back out of someone's care entirely or transition over to a hospice or palliative care expert. It is part of our job to be there and guide patients and their care partners through this next phase. You know, I'm not saying we all need to be hospice and palliative care experts, but we need to be able to take those first steps with patients and their care partners. And so, I think objectives are really to focus in on, what are those core pieces of knowledge for end-of-life care and understanding hospice so we can take those first steps with patients and their care partners?

Dr Monteith: So, why don't you give us some of those essential points in your article?

Dr Chou: Yeah. In one section of the article, I talk about common symptoms that someone might experience at the end of life and how we might manage those. These days, a lot of hospitals have order sets that talk us through those symptoms. We can check things off of a drop-down menu. And yet I think there's a little bit more nuance to that. There may be situations in which we would choose one medication over another. There may be medications that we've never really thought of in terms of symptom management before. Something that I learned in my hospice and palliative medicine fellowship was that haloperidol can be helpful for nausea. I know that's usually not one of our go-tos in neurology for any number of reasons. So, I think that extra knowledge can take us pretty far when we're managing end of life symptoms, particularly in the hospital setting. And then I think the other component is the hospice component. A lot of us may have not had experience talking about hospice, talking about what hospice can provide, and again, knowing how to take those first steps with patients. We may be referring to social work or palliative medicine to start those conversations. But again, I think this is something that's definitely learnable and something that should be part of our skill set in neurology.

Dr Monteith: Great. And so, when you speak about symptom management and being more comfortable with the tools that we have, how can we be more efficient and more effective at that?

Dr Chou: Think about what the common symptoms are at end of life. We may know this kind of intuitively, but what we commonly see are things like pain, nausea, dyspnea, anxiety, delirium or agitation. And so, I think having a little bit of a checklist in mind can be helpful. You know, how can I systematically think through a differential, almost, for why my patient might be uncomfortable? Why they might be restless? Have I thought through these different symptoms? Can I try a medication from my tool kit? See if that works, and if it does, we can continue on. If not, what's the next thing that I can pivot to? So, I think these are common skills for a little bit of a differential diagnosis, if you will, and how to work through these problems just with the end-of-life lens on it.

Dr Monteith: So, are there any, like, validated tools or checklists that are freely available?

Dr Chou: I don't think there's been anything particularly validated for end-of-life care in neurologic disease. And so, a lot of our treatments and our approaches are empiric, but I don't think there's been anything validated, per se.

Dr Monteith: Great. So, why don't we talk a little bit about the approach to discussions on hospice? We all, as you kind of alluded to, want to be effective neurologists, care for our patients, but we sometimes deal with very debilitating diseases. And so, when we think that or suspect that our patient is kind of terminally ill, how do we approach that to our patients? Of course, our patients come from different backgrounds, different experiences. So, what is your approach?

Dr Chou: So, when we talk about hospice and when a patient may be appropriate for hospice, we have to acknowledge that we think that they may be in the last six months of their disease. We as the neurologist are the experts in their disease and the best ones to weigh in on that prognosis. The patient and their care partners then have to accept that the type of care that hospice provides is what makes sense for them. Hospice focuses on comfort and treating a patient's comfort as the primary goal. Hospice is not as interested in treating cancer, say, to prolong life. Hospice is not as interested in life-prolonging measures and treatments that are not focused at comfort and quality of life. And so, when we have that alignment between our understanding of a patient's disease and their prognosis and the patient care partner's goal is to focus on comfort and quality of life above all else, that's when we have a patient who might be appropriate for hospice and ready to hear more about what that actually entails.

Dr Monteith: And what are some, maybe, myths that neurologist healthcare professionals may have about hospice that you really want us to kind of have some clarity on?

Dr Chou: That's a great question. What we often tell patients is that hospice's goal is to help patients live as well as possible in the time that they have left. Again, our primary objective is not life prolongation, but quality of life. Hospice's goal is also not to speed up or slow down the natural dying process. Sometimes we do get questions about that: can't you make this go faster or we're ready for the end. But really, we are there to help patients along the natural journey that their body is taking them on. And I think hospice care can actually be complex. In the inpatient setting, in particular in neurology, we may be seeing patients who have suffered large strokes and have perhaps only days to a few weeks of life left. But in the outpatient setting and in the home hospice setting, patients can be on hospice for many months, and so they will have new care needs, new urinary tract infections, sometimes new rashes, the need to change their insulin regimens around to avoid extremes of hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia. So, there is a lot of complexity in that care and a lot that can be wrapped up under that quality-of-life and comfort umbrella.

Dr Monteith: And to get someone to hospice requires a bit of prognostication, right? Six months of prediction in terms of a terminal illness. I know there's some nuances to that. So how can you make us feel more comfortable about making the recommendations for hospice?

Dr Chou: I think this is a big challenge in the field. We're normally guided by Medicare guidelines that say when a patient might be hospice-appropriate. And so, for a neurologic disease, this really only encompasses four conditions: ALS, stroke, coma, and Alzheimer's dementia. And we can think of all the other diseases that are not encompassed in those four. And so, I think we say that we paint the picture of what it means to have a prognosis of six months or less. So, from the neurologic side, that can be, what do you know about this disease and what end-stage might look like? What is the pattern of the patient's functional decline? What are they needing more help with? Are there other factors at play such as heart failure or COPD that may in and of themselves not be a qualifying diagnosis for hospice, but when it's taken together in the whole clinical picture, you have a patient who's very ill and one that you're worried may die in the next six months or less?

Dr Monteith: Then you also had some nice charts on kind of disease-specific guidelines. Can you take us a little bit through that?

Dr Chou: The article does contain tables about specific criteria that may qualify someone for hospice with these neurologic conditions. And they are pretty dense. I know they're a checklist of a lot of different things. And so, how we practice is by trying to refer patients to hospice based on those guidelines as much as possible and then using our own clinical judgment as well, what we have seen through taking care of patients through the years. So, again, really going back to that decline. What is making you feel uncomfortable about this patient's prognosis? What is making you feel like, gosh, this patient could be well supported by hospice, and they could have six months or less? So, all of that should go into your decision as well. And all of that should go into your discussion with the patient and their care partners.

Dr Monteith: Yeah. And reading your article, what stood out was all the services that patients can receive under hospice. So, I think sometimes people think, okay, this is terminal illness, let's get to hospice for whatever reasons, but not necessarily all the lists and lists and lists of benefits of hospice. So, I don't know that everyone's aware of all those benefits. So, can you talk to us a little bit about that?

Dr Chou: Yeah, I like that you brought that up because that's also something that I often say to patients and their care partners when we're talking about hospice. When the time is right for a patient to enroll in hospice, they should not feel like they're giving anything up. There should be no more clinical trial that they're hoping to chase down, and so they should just feel like they're gaining all of those good supports: care that comes to their home, a team that knows them well, someone that's available twenty-four hours a day by phone and can actually even come into the home setting if needed to help with symptom management. Hospice comes as well with the psychosocial supports for just coping with what dying looks like. We know that's not easy to be thinking about dying for oneself, or for a family member or care partner to be losing their loved one. So, all of those supports are built into hospice. I did want to make a distinction, too, that hospice does not provide custodial care, which I explain to patients as care of the body, those daily needs for bathing, dressing, eating, etc. Sometimes patients are interested in hospice because they're needing more help at home, and I have to tell them that unfortunately, our healthcare system is not built for that. And if that's the sole reason that someone is interested in hospice, we have to think about a different approach, because that is not part of the hospice benefit.

Dr Monteith: Thank you for that. And then I learned about concurrent care. So why don't you tell us a little bit about that? That's a little bit of a nuance, right?

Dr Chou: Yeah, that is a little bit of a nuance. And so, typically when patients are enrolling in hospice, they are transitioning from care the way that it's normally conducted in our healthcare system. So, outpatient visits to all of the specialists and to their primary care providers, the chance to go to the ER or the ICU for higher levels of care. And yet there are a subset of patients who can still have all of those cares alongside hospice care. That really applies to two specific populations: veterans who are receiving care through the Veterans Administration, and then younger patients, so twenty six years old and less, can receive that care through, essentially, a pediatric carve out.

Dr Monteith: Great. Well, I mean, you gave so much information in your article, so our listeners are going to have to read it. I don't want you to spill everything, but if you can just kind of give me a sense what you want a neurologist to take away from your article, I think that would be helpful.

Dr Chou: I think what I want neurologist to take away is that, again, this is something that is part of what we do as neurologists. This is part of our skill set, and this is part of what it means to take good care of patients. I think what we do in this transition period from kind of usual cares, diagnosis, full treatment to end of life, really can have impact on patients and their care partners. It's not uncommon for me to hear from family members who have had another loved one go through hospice about how that experience was positive or negative. And so, we can think about the influence for years to come, even, because of how well we can handle these transitions. That really can be more than the patient in front of us in their journey. That is really important, but it can also have wide-reaching implications beyond that.

Dr Monteith: Excellent. And I know we were talking earlier a little bit about your excitement with the field and where it's going. So why don't you share some of that excitement?

Dr Chou: Yeah. And so, I think there is a lot still to come in the field of neuropalliative care, particularly from an evidence base. I know we talked a lot about the soft skills, about presence and communication, but we are clinicians at heart, and we need to practice from an evidence base. I know that's been harder in palliative care, but we have some international work groups that really are trying to come together, see what our approaches look like, see where standardization may need to happen or where our differences are actually our strength. I think there can be a lot of variability in what palliative care looks like. So, my hope is that evidence base is coming through these collaborations. I know it's hard to have a conversation these days without talking about artificial intelligence, but that is certainly a hope. When you look at morbidity, when you look at patients with these complicated disease courses, what is pointing you in the direction of, again, a prognosis of six months or less or a patient who may do better with this disease versus not?

And so, I think there's a lot to come from the artificial intelligence and big data realm. For the trainees listening out there, there is no better time to be excited about neuropalliative care and to be thinking about neuropalliative care. I said that I stumbled upon this field, and hopefully someone is inspired as well by listening to these podcasts and reading Continuum to know what this field is really about. And so, it's been exponential growth since I joined this field. We have medical students now who want to come into neuropalliative care as a profession. We have clinicians who are directors of neuropalliative care at their institutions. We have an international neuropalliative care society and neuropalliative care at AAN. And I think we are moving closer to that dream for all of us, which is that patients living with serious neurologic illness can be supported throughout that journey. High-quality, evidence-based palliative care. We're not there yet, but I think it is a possibility that we reach that in my lifetime.

Dr Monteith: Well, excellent. I look forward to maybe another revision of this article with some of that work incorporated. And it's been wonderful to talk to you and to reflect on how better to approach patients that are towards the end of life and to help them with that decision-making process. Thank you so much.

Dr Chou: Yeah, thank you for having me. And we're very excited about this issue.

Dr Monteith: Today. I've been interviewing Dr Claudia Chou about her article on end-of-life care and hospice, which is found in the December 2025 Continuum issue on neuropalliative 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 e

Neurologists are privileged to act as guides for patients as they navigate the complex course of serious neurologic illnesses. Because of the impact on quality of life, personhood, and prognosis, neurologists must be able to conduct serious-illness conversations to improve rapport, reduce patient anxiety and depression, and increase the likelihood that treatment choices agree with patient goals and values.

In this episode, Teshamae Monteith, MD, FAAN speaks with Jessica M. Besbris, MD, author of the article "The Approach to Serious-Illness Conversations" in the Continuum® December 2025 Neuropalliative 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. Besbris is an assistant professor of neurology and internal medicine and the Director of Neuropalliative Care at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, California.

Additional Resources

Read the article: The Approach to Serious-Illness Conversations

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: @JessBesbris

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: Hi, this is Dr Teshamae Monteith. Today I'm interviewing Dr Jessica Besbris about her article on the approach to serious illness conversation, which is found in the December 2025 Continuum issue on neuropalliative care. How are you?

Dr Besbris: I'm doing great. Thank you so much for having me here today.

Dr Monteith: Well, thank you for being on our podcast.

Dr Besbris: My pleasure.

Dr Monteith: Why don't we start off with you introducing yourself?

Dr Besbris: Sure. So, my name is Jessica Besbris. I am a neurologist with fellowship training in palliative care, and I am currently at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, where I am the director of our neuropalliative care program.

Dr Monteith: Excellent. So, how did you get involved in that?

Dr Besbris: Like, I think, many neurologists, I always knew I wanted to be a neurologist---or, I should say, from the moment I decided to be a doctor I knew that that was the type of doctor I wanted to be, a neurologist. So, I went into medical school with the aim of becoming a neurologist. And very quickly, when I started my clinical years, I was exposed to patients who were living with very serious illnesses. And I found myself really drawn to opportunities to help, opportunities to make people feel better, opportunities to improve quality of life in situations that on the face of it seemed really challenging, where maybe it seemed like our usual treatments were not necessarily the answer or were not the only answer. And so, I pretty quickly recognized that taking care of patients with serious illness was going to be a big part of my life as a neurologist and that palliative care was the way I wanted to help these patients and families.

Dr Monteith: And you mentioned you're leading the group. So, how many colleagues do you have in the program?

Dr Besbris: We have a very large palliative care group, but within neuropalliative care, it's myself and one other physician, a nurse practitioner, and a social worker.

Dr Monteith: Okay, well, I know you guys are busy.

Dr Besbris: Yes, we are very happy to be busy.

Dr Monteith: Yes. So, let's talk about the objectives of your article.

Dr Besbris: Sure. So, the goal of this article is to impress upon neurologists that it really is all of our jobs as neurologists to be having these conversations with our patients who are affected with serious illness. And then, in most areas of neurology, these conversations will come up. Whether it's giving a life changing diagnosis, or talking about treatment choices, or treatment not going the way that we had hoped, or even sometimes progression of disease or end-of-life care. These topics will come up for most of us in neurology, and really, we're hoping that this article not only makes the case that neurologists can and should be having these conversations, but that there are skills that we can teach in this article and with other resources to improve the skill level and sense of confidence that neurologists have when they enter into these conversations.

Dr Monteith: Great. I read that there are some developments in the field, on organizational levels, about really making these skills part of standard of care in terms of education. So, can you speak to that?

Dr Besbris: Yes. So, there have been a couple of really landmark papers and changes in the educational landscape that I think have really brought neuropalliative care in general, and serious illness conversation in particular, to the forefront. So, there were the position statements released by the American Academy of Neurology in 1996 and 2022, both of which really said, hey, all neurologists should be doing this and receive training on how to have these conversations and provide this care. And the ACGME, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, also requires neurology residency programs to learn how to communicate with patients and families, assess goals, and talk about end-of-life care. So, there's a real structural imperative now for neurologists to learn early on how to have serious illness conversations with their patients.

Dr Monteith: Great. If there's anything for our listeners to get out of this conversation, what are the essential points?

Dr Besbris: If you only take away one or two things from this conversation, I hope that they're that this is an awesome responsibility to be in a moment with a patient going through something challenging, to meet them in that moment with thoughtful, honest, empathic conversations about who they are and what's important to them. And that, just like any other procedure, these are skills that can be taught so that you can feel really confident and comfortable being in these moments.

Dr Monteith: Excellent. Wow. Okay, I feel your energy and your empathy already. And so, why don't we just talk about skills? What is the best way to deliver tough news? I read this wonderful chart on SPIKES protocol.

Dr Besbris: Yeah, the SPIKES protocol is one really well-known way to deliver serious news. And what's nice about SPIKES is it gives a mnemonic. And as neurology learners, we all love a good mnemonic to help you really center yourself when you're entering into these conversations so that you have a structured format to follow, just like with any procedure. So, the SPIKES protocol stands for Setting: so, making sure you have the right environment; Perception, or assessing what your patient or surrogate decision maker knows already so that you know where to begin; receiving an Invitation to deliver serious news. And then K stands for Knowledge, delivering in a clear and concise way the information that you want to make sure the family or patient walk away with. E for exploring Emotion; and S for really Summarizing what's been discussed and Strategizing on next steps. I think that having these kinds of conversations, it's just like being expert in anything. When you first start learning, it's helpful to have a set of very concrete steps you can follow. And you might even think through the mnemonic as you get ready to walk into that room. And as you become more expert, the flow becomes more natural. And maybe what you do before walking in to prepare is just honing what is that headline? What is that concise statement that I'm really going to give? And the rest may start to feel more natural and less protocolized.

Dr Monteith: And there are a few other mnemonics. There's the NURSE mnemonic, which I like. You know, there's a balance between saying things and sounding kind of… you know, sometimes they're like, well, how could you understand what I'm going through? Have you been through something like this? And people shy away, and they're afraid to kind of be a part of these conversations. So how do we approach that with this, a NURSE mnemonic in a way that's kind of sincere?

Dr Besbris: Absolutely. So, the NURSE mnemonic, unlike SPIKES, is not a step-by-step protocol. So, NURSE is a mnemonic, but you don't go through each letter and sort of give a naming statement and then an understanding statement and then a respecting statement and so on. Nurse is really a toolkit of different types of statements that we can give in response to emotions so that when you find yourself in a situation where a patient or family member is tearful, is scared, is angry, is expressing feelings, you have some phrases ready that feel authentic to you and that you feel are going to meet the moment and allow you to empathically respond to those emotions. Because until we do that, we really can't move further in this conversation with our patients and families feeling heard and respected. So, that NURSE mnemonic, those Naming, Understanding, Respecting, Supporting and Exploring statements, are really examples of statements that we can use to meet that moment with empathy and understanding and without implying that we have walked in their shoes. We want to avoid being presumptuous and really focus on just being present and empathic.

Dr Monteith: So, let's just kind of run through, I think it's really important. Let's run through some of these examples. Maybe if someone's crying hysterically, how would we respond to that?

Dr Besbris: So, this is an opportunity for Naming. And I made this one, I think, in the chart, a little bit obvious, meaning that we recognize when someone is crying that they are feeling probably very sad. This is an opportunity for us to name and thus normalize that emotion. I just think something as simple as, I think anyone would be really sad hearing this. These responses are not intended to fix this emotion. I'm not trying to get someone to stop crying or to, you know, necessarily not feel sad. It's really just to say, yeah, it's normal that you're feeling sad. It's okay. I'm here with you while you're feeling sad. And I'm going to be with you no matter what you're bringing to the table.

Dr Monteith: Yeah. Let's go through just a couple of others. I mean, these are really good.

Dr Besbris: Sure. Maybe Respecting.

Dr Monteith: Yeah. So, my Dad is a fighter. Only God, not doctors, can know the future.

Dr Besbris: Yeah. So, I love giving these examples with our learners because these statements, things like my Dad is a fighter or God will bring me a miracle or you don't know the answer. Only God knows what's going to happen, I think that they give a lot of doctors a feeling of confrontation, a feeling of anxiety. And I think there are a few reasons for that. And I think one of the main ones is that they're statements that imply that we as doctors are not all-powerful and it's our patients or families sort of looking for a different locus of control, whether it's internal fortitude or a higher power. They're looking to something other than us, and maybe that makes us feel a little bit uncomfortable. And I think that sometimes physicians think that these statements imply that someone doesn't even understand what's going on. But maybe they're coming to this from a place of denial. And I would argue that when someone comes to you with a statement like my dad is a fighter or, you know, I'm looking to God to bring me a miracle or to show me the future. I think that what they're really saying is, wow, I'm really hearing that things are serious, so much so that I'm reaching for these other resources to give me strength and hope. I don't think anyone asks for a miracle if they think that a miracle is not needed, if the problem is easy to fix. And so, rather than come to these types of statements from a confrontational place of I'm the doctor and I know best, I think this is a great opportunity to show some respect and give some respecting statements. Your dad is a fighter. I don't think he could have come this far without being a fighter. Or, you know, I am so grateful that you have your faith to lean on during times like these to give you strength. These are also nice opportunities for exploring statements. For example, I'm so grateful to learn more about your dad. Can you tell me what it is that he has been fighting for all of this time?

Dr Monteith: I love that. It's like a follow-up, and also validating.

Dr Besbris: Yeah, it's validating. And it allows us to learn a little bit more about this person and to learn, well, is he fighting for a life that we can still achieve with our interventions to lead into the next part of a conversation? Or, is God is going to bring me a miracle? Well, tell me what a miracle looks like for you. I can't tell you how many times I thought someone was going to tell me that a miracle would be cure. And sometimes that is what comes up. But other times I hear, a miracle would be, you know, my loved one surviving long enough for the rest of the family to gather. And, you know, that is certainly something we can work towards together.

Dr Monteith: So, why don't we talk a little bit about approach to goals of care discussions? They are tough, and let's just put it into perspective to the critical care team. It's time, the person's been in the ICU, the family wants everything thrown at medically. And it's to the point that the assessment is that would be medical futility.

Dr Besbris: Lots to unpack there.

Dr Monteith: I wanted to make it hard for you.

Dr Besbris: No, no, this is good! I mean, this is something- I work in a, you know, almost one thousand-bed hospital with a massive critical care building. And so, these are not unusual circumstances at all. First of all, I would just say that goals of care conversations are not only about end-of-life care. And I make that point a few different times in the article because I think when people imagine goals of care, and one of the reasons that I think clinicians may sometimes shy away from goals of care discussions, is that they think they have to be sad, they have to be scary, they have to be about death and dying. And I would argue that, really, goals of care discussions are about understanding who a person is, how they live their life, what's most important to them. Most of these conversations should be about living. How are we going to together achieve a quality of life that is meaningful for you and treatments that are going to fit your needs and your preferences? But there is a little slice of that pie in the pie chart of goals of care discussions that is in the arena of end-of-life care. For example, ICU care with, really, the highest levels of intensity of care, and having to talk about whether that still is meeting the moment from the perspective of goals as well as the perspective of efficacy.

So, from the goals standpoint, I approach these conversations just like any other goals of care conversation. Usually at this point, we're speaking to family members and not our patients because in a neurocritical care unit, if someone is that sick, they probably are incapacitated. And so, it's a moment to really sit down with family and say, please tell me about the human being lying in that bed. They can't introduce themselves. What would they tell me about themselves if they could speak right now? What kinds of things were important to them in the course of their treatment? What kind of a life did they want to live or do they want to live? So that then we can reflect on, well, can our treatment achieve that? And this process is called shared decision making. This is really where we take in data from the family, who are experts in the patient, and then our own expertise in the illness and what our treatments can achieve, and then bring all of that information together to make a recommendation that aligns with what we believe is right for a particular patient.

So, in the example that you gave, the extreme circumstance where someone is receiving maximal intensive care and we're starting to reach the point of futility, I think that we need to first really understand, well, what does futility mean for this particular patient? Is it that we as healthcare providers would not value living in the state this person is in? Or is it that the treatments truly cannot physiologically keep them alive or meet their stated goals? If it's the first one, that I wouldn't want to be on machines unconscious, you know, at the end of my life, well, I have to set that aside. It's really about what this patient wants. and if the family is telling you they valued every breath, every moment, and if we have care that can achieve that, we should continue to offer and recommend that care.

And as healthcare providers, it is so important that we do explain when treatments are not going to be able to physiologically meet a patient's needs or achieve their goals. And that's where we can say, I'm going to continue to do everything I can, for example, to, you know, keep your loved one here for these meaningful moments. And we are at a point where performing CPR would no longer be able to restart his heart. And I just wanted to let you know that that's not something that we're going to do because I have an obligation not to provide painful medical treatments that will not work. So, my approach to futility is really different than my approach to shared decision-making because in the context of objective futility, it's not about necessarily- it's not about decision-making, it's not about shared decision-making as much as it is explaining why something is simply not going to work. Does that make sense?

Dr Monteith: Absolutely. And what I love in your article is that, you know, you go beyond the skills, but also potential communication challenges---for example, patients' neurologic status, their ability to understand complex communication, or even cultural differences. So, can you speak about that briefly?

Dr Besbris: Absolutely. In the world of neurological serious illness, it is incredibly common for our patients to face challenges in communication. That might be because they are aphasic, because they have a motor speech deficit, it might be because they're intubated, it might be because their capacity is diminished or absent. And so, there are a lot of challenges to keeping patients in these conversations. And in the article, I summarize what those challenges can look like and some strategies that we can use to continue to engage our patients in these conversations to the greatest extent possible and also turn to their surrogate decision makers where the patients themselves are no longer able to participate or participate fully. In terms of cultural considerations, I mean, there could be an entire article or an entire Continuum just on cultural considerations in neurology and in serious illness communication.

And so, the key points that I really tried to focus on were exploring from a place of cultural humility what the beliefs and practices of a particular patient and family are in their cultural context, to ask questions to help you understand how those cultural differences may impact the way you approach these conversations. And being sensitive to folks with limited English proficiency, to ensure that we are using medical interpreters whenever possible.

Dr Monteith: Excellent. Well, there's so much in the article. There's already so much that we just discussed, but our listeners are going to have to go to

In this episode, Lyell K. Jones Jr, MD, FAAN, speaks with Maisha T. Robinson, MD, MSHPM, FAAN, FAAHPM, who served as the guest editor of the December 2025 Neuropalliative Care issue. They provide a preview of the issue, which publishes on December 2, 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. Robinson is the Chair of the Division of Palliative Medicine and an assistant professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida.

Additional Resources

Read the issue: continuum.aan.com

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

Host: @LyellJ

Guest: @neuropalldoc

Full episode transcript available here

Dr Jones: Most of us who see patients with chronic progressive neurologic disease are aware of the value of palliative care. The focus on symptom management and quality of life is a key aspect of helping these patients. But how many of us are comfortable starting the conversation about palliative care or care at the end of life? Today we have the opportunity to speak with a leading expert on neuropalliative care, Dr Maisha Robinson, about how we can better integrate neuropalliative care into our practices.

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 Maisha Robinson, who is Continuum's Guest Editor for our latest issue of Continuum on neuropalliative care, and our first-ever issue fully dedicated to this topic. Dr Robinson is an assistant professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic in Florida, where she is Chair of the Division of Palliative Medicine, and she also serves on the AAN Board of Directors as Chair of the Member Engagement Committee. Dr Robinson, welcome. Thank you for joining us today. Why don't you introduce yourself to our listeners?

Dr Robinson: Well, Dr Jones, thank you for having me. Really a pleasure to be here. I'm Maisha Robinson at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida. I spent my time as a neurohospitalist, a general palliative care physician, and a neuropalliative care physician.

Dr Jones: So, this is a topic that at Continuum, we have heard about from subscribers for a long time requesting a fully dedicated issue to palliative care. And we've titled this neuropalliative Care. So, we want to respond to our subscribers and bring them content that they're interested in. I also think that palliative medicine is a big education gap in our specialty of neurology and something that we have room to improve on. So, let's start with the basics, Dr Robinson. Palliative medicine has been around for a long time, but this concept of "neuropalliative care" feels relatively new. What is neuropalliative care?

Dr Robinson: That's a great question. Generally, what I would say is palliative care, first of all, is really just a specialty that focuses on trying to improve quality of life for people that have a serious or advanced medical condition. And neuropalliative care is really palliative care for people with neurologic conditions. And you'll see a number of neurologists doing neuropalliative care, but also there are internists as well, and people from other specialties, who focus on patients with neurologic disease and really trying to improve their quality of life.

Dr Jones: Got it. And so, it's really the principles of palliative medicine in a specialty-specific context, which I think is important for us given the prevalence of chronic disease in our specialty. And I was obviously reading through these articles in this issue, and in the really wonderful articles, there are some themes that came up multiple times in various different articles. And one of them was obviously the importance of communication with patients and families. I think, and I'm speaking a little bit from personal experience here, many physicians feel uncomfortable bringing up the discussion of palliative care. And I'm sure that is something that reflects on your practice, too. How often do you have a patient who shows up to clinic and they ask you, why am I here?

Dr Robinson: It happens all the time, because colleagues who are referring patients are nervous to tell them that they're sending them to palliative care. But we try to tell people it's really just to normalize it, to say that the palliative care team is going to see you, they're going to help with some symptoms, they're going to help you think about big picture, and they're going to be sort of an added layer of support to your team. And I think if people approach it from that standpoint, then patients and family members will say, that sounds great, I need a little extra support.

Dr Jones: So, I think most neurologists have a threshold at which they would feel more comfortable having specialty support, having a palliative medicine specialist to help them in symptom management with the patient. For the palliative care that they provide themselves---and we want our subscribers to read this issue and feel more comfortable with delivering some palliative care on their own---how would you encourage them to begin that conversation? How should they initiate that conversation with a patient about working more toward palliative management of symptoms?

Dr Robinson: So, one of the things we recommend is really introducing an approach to palliative care very early in the disease process. So, discussions about big picture and goals of care, discussions about who might help make medical decisions if the person can't make them for themselves. Those kinds of things can be discussed very early on. And in fact, that's palliative care. And then they can talk to patients more about the fact that as the disease progresses, there may be an additional team that can help walk along alongside the neurologist in helping you prepare for what's to come. You know, I think it's very important for patients and family members who feel like you're not abandoning them, but you're adding additional resources. And so, I like the way that we often will suggest to people to say partner or collaborate or bring in extra resources with the palliative care team. I think patients and family members will respond to that.

Dr Jones: Yeah. So, by talking about it early, you kind of, at least, help to avoid that problem of the patient perceiving the introduction of palliative care as the quote-unquote "giving-up problem." Is that right?

Dr Robinson: Correct. Because we also don't want to see people who are just being referred to us for end-of-life care. Palliative care is about much more than that. But if patients will Google palliative care, they may see hospice come up. And so, introducing the concept early and discussing some palliative topics early will allow the patient and family members to think that, okay, this isn't because I'm at the end of life. This is just because my clinician wants to make sure that I have all the bases covered.

Dr Jones: This was also mentioned in several of the articles, the studies that have shown how frequently palliative care is initiated very near the end of life, which is usually, I think, perceived as a missed opportunity, right? To not wait so long to take advantage of what palliative care has to offer.

Dr Robinson: That's correct. And the benefit of palliative care is that oftentimes we work alongside an interdisciplinary team, a team that could be quite helpful to patients and their support systems throughout the course of the disease. So, we have chaplains, we have nurses, we often have other clinicians, advanced practice providers as well, who work with us. We have spiritual advisors as well. And the patients and family members could benefit from some of those resources throughout the course of the disease. Who they might need to meet with may vary depending on what the disease is and how they're doing. But there's definitely some benefit to having a longitudinal relationship with the palliative care team and not just seeking them out at the end of life.

Dr Jones: So- that's very helpful. So, it'll obviously vary according to an individual provider's level of comfort, right, where they're comfortable providing certain palliative management care versus when they need to have some assistance from a specialist. Are there types of care or are there certain thresholds that you say, wow, this patient really should go see a specialist in palliative medicine or neuropalliative care?

Dr Robinson: So, I think that if there are, for instance, refractory symptoms, where the neurologist has been working with a patient for a while trying to manage certain symptoms and they're having some challenges, that person may benefit from being referred to palliative care. If patients are being hospitalized multiple times and frequently, that may suggest that a good serious-illness conversation may be necessary. If there are concerns about long-term artificial nutrition, hydration, or functional and cognitive decline, then some of those patients have benefited from palliative care. Not only the patient, but also the caregiver, because our team really focuses on trying to make sure that we're walking through the course of disease with these patients to ensure that all of the needs are managed both for the patient and the family member.

Dr Jones: Got it. And that's very helpful. And I know that we talk about a lot of these decisions happening in an ideal environment when there's good access to the neurologist and good access to a palliative medicine specialist or even a neuropalliative medicine expert. In your general sense, I- and maybe we'll talk a little bit here in a minute or two about the growing interest in neuropalliative care. But in terms of access, in terms of availability of really, truly neuropalliative expertise, what is your sense of how widely available that is in the US?

Dr Robinson: There's a shortfall of palliative care clinicians in the United States. Everybody who needs a palliative care clinician won't have access to one. And I think your point about the primary palliative care is so important. That's really what we encourage all clinicians, neurologists, neurosurgeons, even, physiatrists, the neurology care team members need to be comfortable with at least initiating some of these conversations. Because, to your point, not everyone's going to have access to a palliative care physician. But by reading issues such as this one, attending some courses---for instance at the American Academy of Neurology meetings---, doing some online trainings, those types of things can be helpful to bring any neurology clinician up to speed who certainly may not have access to a palliative care physician.

Dr Jones: So, I know---and this is in part from my own conversations with patients in my own practice---there are a number of fears that patients have when they have a chronic disease, something that's progressive or something that we don't have a curative treatment for. But I think one of, if not the most common fear among patients is pain, and pain that can't be managed adequately during the course of chronic illness or at the end of life. One of the interesting concepts that I saw mentioned in a few of the articles in this issue is this concept of total pain. So, not just the somatic pain that I think we tend to think of as clinicians and patients tend to think of as patients, but a more holistic definition of pain. Walk us through that and how that relates to palliative medicine.

Dr Robinson: So, Dame Cicely Saunders, the modern-day founder of palliative medicine, really described this biopsychosocial model for pain. And so, you're right, it's not just physical pain, but it's psychological pain, it's spiritual pain. And oftentimes when we are taking care of patients with neurologic disease, they may have some physical pain, but a lot of them are thinking about, for instance, the things that they will miss, which may cause some internal discomfort. Things that they're grieving, the life they thought they were going to have, the person that they used to be, the life they used to have, and what they anticipated their life as being. And some of that can cause people to have not only the spiritual discomfort, but also some psychological discomfort as well. And so, when we're thinking about how to provide rehensive care to these patients, we have to be thinking about all of these aspects.

Dr Jones: It's really helpful. And I guess the more you can identify those, the more you can either help yourself or find the right expert to help the patient. I thought that was an interesting expansion of, of my view of how to think about pain. And another observation that came up in several of the articles was a lack of high-quality clinical trial evidence to inform a lot of the interventions in neuropalliative care. Some of them are common-sense, some of them are based on clinical experience or expert advice. In your own practice, if there was one key knowledge gap to close---in other words, if there was one pivotal trial that we could do to answer one question in helping patients with chronic neurologic disease---what would you say is the main gap?

Dr Robinson: I think the real gap is, who needs palliative care and when? That seems very simple. We have tried things such as automatic triggers for palliative care, for instance, in patients with ALS, or we've said that maybe all glioblastoma patients should see palliative care. But is that true? Are we utilizing the resources in the best possible way that we can? We're not sure. And so, you'll see these practices doing things all a little bit different because we don't have a best practice and it's not really standardized about when people should see palliative care, or why, for instance, they should see palliative care, or who should see palliative care. And I think if we could help drill that down, we can provide some better guidance to our colleagues about when and why and who should see palliative care.

Dr Jones: It's a really kind of a fundamental, foundational, who needs the service to begin with or who needs to care. Okay, that's- that is a big gap. So, one of the interesting concepts that I read- and it was in Benzi Kluger's article on neuropalliative care for patients who have movement disorders. I think it's a concept that is interesting, really, maybe in the management of patients with a lot of different chronic, progressive neurologic diseases. And it's this idea of stealing victories or bringing joy to patients. In other words, not just managing or trying to minimize some of the negative aspects or symptoms of disease, but looking for opportunities to bring something positive to their experience or improving their quality of life. Tell us a little more about that, because I think that's something patients would appreciate, but I think neurologists would appreciate that, too.

Dr Robinson: Dr Kluger loves to talk about sustaining and finding joy in patients who have really serious or advanced neurologic conditions. He likes to talk about stealing victories, which can relate to the fact that patients and their loved ones can find even some benefit despite having a serious or advanced neurologic condition. Neurologists and neurology clinicians also can steal victories in their patients when they notice, for instance, that they've gained a new skill, and they've lost a skill that they used to love because of the advancing disease. And this is just an opportunity for not only the patients and family members, but also the care providers to recognize that in the midst of decline, there are positive things to be found.

Dr Jones: I think it gives patients a sense of maybe reclaimed autonomy when they can say, well, there's maybe nothing I can do to cure this disease in the conventional sense, but I can maybe go on this trip with my family, which has been something I've always wanted to do. Or, I can do these things, so I can attend certain events that I want to. And I think that autonomy and independence aspect of that, I think that I think that was really meaningful and something that I'm going to bring back to my own practice in my care of patients who have ALS, for example. When you think about neuropalliative care---and you've been a leader in this area, Dr Robinson---what do you think the biggest change in neuropalliative care has been over the last few years?

Dr Robinson: I think there's a growing cohort of people who are recognizing that there is some benefit in having dedicated specialists who focus on palliative care for patients with neurologic disease. When I said I was going to do neuropalliative care, somebody asked me, why would a neurologist be interested in palliative care? Over the last decade and a half, we've seen that shift. And not only are our colleagues recognizing the benefit, but also patients and caregivers are. Some are even asking for palliative care. I think people are recognizing that not only having their primary neurologist or neurology clinician taking care of them, they have this extra layer of support, and this extra team really focused on quality-of-life issues can be beneficial.

Dr Jones: So, one of the things that I think you and I have both seen, Dr Robinson, is a growing interest among neurology trainees in palliative medicine. And maybe that's anecdotal, but in my own practice, I've seen more and more trainees express an interest in this. For neurology residents who are interested in this as a component of or maybe a focus of their career, what would you recommend to them? How should they go about this?

Dr Robinson: Yes, it used to be that every neurology resident interested in palliative care would call me or email me or send me a message, but now there are so many that I can't keep up. We're excited about the growing number of people interested in neuropalliative care. What I would say to those people is that you can really try to hone your skills by, for instance, doing a rotation with the palliative care team at your hospital, if there is one. If there isn't one, you might even ask to spend some time with the local hospice agency, which may be helpful to you. If you're attending some of the national meetings---for instance, the American Academy of Neurology meeting---you may want to go to a course and learn a little bit about palliative care. There are a couple that are offered every year. There is an education opportunity for education in palliative and end-of-life care as well. And so, there are a number of resources that you can find in addition to this issue of Continuum as well.

Dr Jones: I find it gratifying that trainees ask about this. And I'm sorry, I think I've probably sent a bunch of trainees your way for advice about this, and you've been incredibly generous with your time and expertise. So, I find it very gratifying that our neurology trainees are interested in this area, because it's an important area of medicine. It's also probably a challenging practice just from the cognitive load and the emotional load of caring for patients who are moving through a progressive illness. What is your thinking about how to have a sustainable career in palliative medicine? What is your approach to that? Is it for everyone?

Dr Robinson: Yeah, the issue with palliative care is that we do see some very challenging situations, and frankly some very sad situations. But I actua

Dystrophinopathies are heritable muscle disorders caused by pathogenic variants in the DMD gene, leading to progressive muscle breakdown, proximal weakness, cardiomyopathy, and respiratory failure. Diagnosis and management are evolving areas of neuromuscular neurology.

In this episode, Kait Nevel, MD, speaks with Divya Jayaraman, MD, PhD, an author of the article "Dystrophinopathies" in the Continuum® October 2025 Muscle and Neuromuscular Junction Disorders issue.

Dr. Nevel is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a neurologist and neuro-oncologist at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, Indiana.

Dr. Jayaraman is an assistant professor of neurology and pediatrics in the division of child neurology at the Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York, New York.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Dystrophinopathies

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. 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 Kate Nevel. Today I'm interviewing Dr Divya Jayaraman about her article on dystrophinopathies, which she wrote with Dr Partha Ghosh. This article appears in the October 2025 Continuum issue on muscle and neuromuscular junction disorders. Divya, welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to the audience.

Dr Jayaraman: Thank you so much, Dr Nevel. My name is Divya, and I am an assistant professor of Neurology and Pediatrics at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, and also an attending physician in the Pediatric Neuromuscular program there. In that capacity, I see patients with pediatric neuromuscular disorders and also some general pediatric neurology patients and also do research, primarily clinical research and clinical trials on pediatric neuromuscular disorders.

Dr Nevel: Wonderful. Thank you for sharing that background with us. To set us on the same page for our discussion, before we get into some more details of the article, perhaps, could you start with some definitions? What comprises the dystrophinopathies? What are some of the core features?

Dr Jayaraman: So, the dystrophinopathies, I like that term because it is a smaller subset from the muscular dystrophies. The dystrophinopathies are a spectrum of clinical phenotypes that are all associated with mutations in the DMD gene on chromosome X. So, that includes DMD---or, Duchenne muscular dystrophy---, Becker muscular dystrophy, intermediate muscular dystrophy (which falls in between the two), dilated cardiomyopathy, asymptomatic hyperCKemia, and manifesting female carriers. In terms of the core features of these conditions, so, there's some variability, weakness being prominent in Duchenne and also Becker. The asymptomatic hyperCKemia, on the other hand, may have minimal symptoms and might be found incidentally by just having a high CK on their labs. They all will have some degree of elevated CK. The dilated cardiomyopathy patients, and also the Becker patients to a lesser degree, will have cardiac involvement out of proportion to skeletal muscle involvement, and then the manifesting carriers likewise can have elevated CK and prominent cardiac involvement as well as some milder weakness.

Dr Nevel: Now that we have some definitions, for the practicing neurologists out there, what do you think is the most important takeaway from your article about the dystrophinopathies?

Dr Jayaraman: I like this question because it suggests that there's something that, really, any neurologist could do to help us pick up these patients sooner. And the big takeaway I want everyone to get from this is to check the CK, or creatine kinase, level. It's a simple, cheap, easy test that anyone can order, and it really helps us a lot in terms of setting the patient on the diagnostic odyssey. And in terms of whom you should be thinking about checking a CK in, obviously patients who present with some of the classic clinical features of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. This would include young boys who have toe walking, as they're presenting, sign; or motor delayed, delayed walking. They may have calf hypertrophy, which is what we say nowadays. You might have seen calf pseudohypertrophy in your neurology textbooks, but we just say calf hypertrophy now. Or patients can often have a Gowers sign or Gowers maneuver, which is named after a person called Gowers who described this phenomenon where the child will basically turn over and use their hands on the floor to stand up, usually with a wide-based gait, and then they'll sort of march their hands up their legs. That's the sort of classic Gowers maneuver. There are modified versions of that as well.

So, if anyone presents with this classic presentation, for sure the best first step is to check a CK. But I would also think about checking a CK for some atypical cases. For example, any boy with any kind of motor or speech delay for whom you might not necessarily be thinking about a muscle disorder, it's always good practice to check a CK. Even a boy with autism for whom you may not get a good clinical exam. This patient might present to a general pediatric neurology clinic. I always check a CK in those patients, and you'll pick up a lot of cases that way. For the adult folks in particular, the adult neurologist, a female patient could show up in your clinic with asymptomatic hyperCKemia. And I think it's an important differential to think about for them because this could have implications not just for their own cardiac risks, but also for their family planning.

Dr Nevel: So, tell us a little bit more about the timing of diagnosis. Biggest takeaway: check a CK if this is anywhere on your radar, even if somewhat of an atypical case. Why is it so important to get kiddos started on that diagnostic odyssey, as you called it, early?

Dr Jayaraman: This is especially important for kids because if they especially get a Duchenne muscular dystrophy diagnosis, you might be making them eligible for treatments that we've had for some time, and also treatments that were not available earlier that hinge on making that diagnosis. So, for example, people may be skeptical about steroids, but there's population data to suggest that initiation and implementation of steroids could delay the onset of loss of ambulation as much as three years. So, you don't want to deprive patients of the chance to get that. And then all the newer emerging therapies---which we'll be talking about later, I'm sure---require a Duchenne muscular dystrophy diagnosis. So, that's why it's so important to check a CK, have this on your radar, and then get them to a good specialist.

Dr Nevel: I know that you alluded already, or shared a few of the kind of exam paroles or findings among patients with dystrophinopathy. But could you share with us a little bit more how you approach these patients in the clinic who are presenting with muscle weakness, perhaps? And how do you approach this or think about this in terms of ways to potentially differentiate between a dystrophinopathy versus another cause of motor weakness or delay?

Dr Jayaraman: It's helpful to think through the neuraxis and what kinds of disorders can present along that neuraxis. A major differential that I'm always thinking about when I'm seeing a child with proximal weakness is spinal muscular atrophy, which is a genetic anterior horn cell disorder that can also present in this age group. And some of the key differences there would be things like reflexes. So, you should have dropped reflexes in spinal muscular atrophy. In DMD, surprisingly, they might have preserved Achilles reflexes even if their patellar reflexes are lost. It may only be much later that they go on to lose their Achilles reflex. So, if you can get an Achilles reflex, that's quite reassuring, and if you cannot, then you need to be thinking about spinal muscular atrophy. They can both have low muscle tone and can present quite similarly, including with proximal weakness, and can even have neck flexion weakness. So, this is an important distinction to make. The reason for that is, obviously there are treatments for both conditions, but for spinal muscular atrophy, timing is very, very important. Time is motor neurons, so the sooner you make that diagnosis the better.

Other considerations would be the congenital muscular dystrophies. So, for those that they tend to present a lot younger, like in infancy or very early on, and they can have much, much higher CKS in that age range than a comparable Duchenne or Becker muscular dystrophy patient. They can also have other involvement of the central nervous system that you wouldn't see in the dystrophinopathies, for example. My mnemonic for the congenital muscular dystrophies is muscle-eye-brain disease, which is one of the subtypes. So, you think about muscle involvement, eye involvement, and brain involvement. So, they need an ophthalmology valve. They can have brain malformations, which you typically don't see in the dystrophinopathies. I think those are some of the major considerations that I have. Obviously, it's always good to think about the rest of the neuraxis as well. Like, could this be a central nervous system process? Do they have upper motor neuron signs? But that's just using all of your exam tools as a neurologist.

Dr Nevel: Yeah, absolutely. So, let's say you have a patient in clinic and you suspect they may have a dystrophinopathy. What is your next diagnostic step after your exam? Maybe you have an elevated CK and you've met with the patient. What comes next?

Dr Jayaraman: Great question. So, after the CK, my next step is to go to genetics. And this is a bit of a change in practice over time. In the past we would go from the CK to the muscle biopsy before genetic testing was standard. And I think now, especially in kids, we want to try and spare them invasive procedures where possible. So, genetic testing would be the next step. There are a few no-charge, sponsored testing programs for the dystrophinopathies and also for some of the differential diagnosis that I mentioned. And I think we'll be including links to websites for all of these in the final version of the published article. So, those are a good starting point for a genetic workup. It's really important to know that, you know, deletions and duplications are a very common type of mutation in the DMD gene. And so, if you just do a very broad testing, like whole exome, you might miss some of those duplications and deletions. And it's important to include both checking for duplications and deletions, and also making sure that the DMD gene is sequenced. So always look at whatever genetic test you're ordering and making sure that it's actually going to do what you want it to do.

After genetics, I think that the sort of natural question is, what if things are not clear after the genetics for some reason? We still use biopsy in this day and age, but we save it for those cases where it's not entirely clear or maybe the phenotype is a little bit discordant from the genotype. So, for mutations that disrupt the reading frame, those tend to cause Duchenne muscular dystrophy, whereas mutations that preserve the reading frame tend to cause Becker muscular dystrophy. There are some important exceptions to this, which is where muscle biopsy can be especially helpful in sorting it out.

So, for example, there are some early mutations early in the DMD gene where, basically, they find an alternate start codon or an initiation codon to continue with transcription and translation. So, you end up forming a largely functional, somewhat truncated protein that gives you more of a milder Becker phenotype. On the other hand, you can have some non-frameshift or inframe mutations that preserve the reading frame, but because they disrupt a very key domain in the protein that's really crucial for its function, you can actually end up with a much more severe Duchennelike phenotype. So, for these sorts of cases, you might know a priori you're dealing with them, but might just be a child who is who you think has DMD has a mutation that's showed up on testing. There isn't enough in the literature to point you one way or another, but they look maybe a little milder than you would expect. That would be a good kid to do a biopsy in because there are treatment decisions that hinge on this. There are treatments that are only for Duchenne that someone with a milder phenotype would not be eligible for.

Dr Nevel: So, that kind of stepwise approach, but maybe not all kids need a muscle biopsy is what I'm hearing from you. If it's a mutation that's been well-described in the literature to be fitting with Duchenne, for example.

Dr Jayaraman: Absolutely.

Dr Nevel: So, after you confirm the diagnosis through genetic testing---and let's say, you know, whether or not you do a muscle biopsy or not, after you know the diagnosis is a dystrophinopathy---how do you counsel the families and your patients? What are the most important points to relay to families, especially in that initial phase where the diagnosis is being made?

Dr Jayaraman: This is a lot of what we do in pediatric neurology in general, right? So, I actually picked up this approach from the pediatric hematology oncology specialists at Boston Children's. They had this concept of a day-zero conversation, which is the day that you disclose the life-changing diagnosis or potentially, at some point, terminal diagnosis to a family. And some of the key components of that are a not beating around the bush, telling them what the diagnosis is, and then letting them have whatever emotional response they're going to have in the moment. And you may not get much further than that, but honestly, you want them to take away, this is what my child has. I did not do anything to cause this, nor could I have done anything to prevent this. Because often for these genetic conditions, there's a lot of guilt, a lot of parental guilt. So, you want to try and assuage that as much as possible. And then to know that they're not going to be alone on this journey; that, you know, they don't have to have it all figured out right then, but we can always come back and answer any questions they have. There's going to be a whole team of specialists. We're going to help the family and the kid manage this condition. Those are sort of my big takeaways that I want them to get.

Dr Nevel: Right. And that segues into my next question, which is, who is part of that team? I know that these teams that help take care of people with dystrophinopathies and other muscle disorders can be very large teams that span multiple specialists. Can you talk a little bit more about that for this group of patients?

Dr Jayaraman: Of course. So, the neuromuscular neurologist, really, our role is in coordinating the diagnosis, the initiation of any disease-specific treatments, and coordinating care with a whole group of specialists. So, we're sort of at the center of that, but everyone else is equally important. So, the other specialists include physical therapists; occupational therapists; rehab doctors or physiatrists; orthotists who help with all of the many braces and other devices that they might need, wheelchairs; pulmonology, of course, for managing the respiratory manifestations of this. It becomes increasingly important over time, and they are involved early on to help monitor for impending respiratory problems. Cardiac manifestations, this is huge and something that you should be thinking about even for your female carriers, the mother of the patient you're seeing in the clinic, or your patient who comes to adult clinic with asymptomatic hyperCKemia. if you end up making a diagnosis of DMD carrier for those patients, or if you make a Becker diagnosis, the cardiac surveillance is even more important because the cardiac involvement can be out of proportion to the skeletal muscle weakness. And of course, extremely important for the Duchenne patients as well.

Endocrinologists are hugely important because in the course of treating patients with steroids, we end up giving them a lot of iatrogenic endocrinologic complications. Like they might have delayed puberty, they might have loss of growth, of height; and of course metabolic syndrome. So, endocrinology is hugely important. They're also important in managing things like fracture prevention, osteoporosis, prescribing bisphosphonates if necessary. Nutrition and GI are also important, not just later on when they might need assistance to take in nutrition, whether that's through tube feeds, but also earlier on when we're trying to manage the weight. Orthopedics, of course, for the various orthopedic complications that patients develop. And then finally, a word must be said for social work and behavioral and mental health specialists, because a lot of this patient population has a lot of mental health challenges as well.

Dr Nevel: After you give the diagnosis, you've counseled the patient and families and you've had those kind of initial phase discussions, the day-zero discussion, when you start getting into discussions or thoughts about management, disease-specific medication. But what are the main categories of the treatment options, and maybe how do you kind of approach deciding between treatment options for your patients?

Dr Jayaraman: So, there are two broad categories that I like to think about. So, one is the oral corticosteroids and oral histone deacetylase, or HDAC inhibitors, which share the common characteristic that they are non-mutation specific. And within corticosteroids, patients now have a choice between just Prednisone or Prednisolone, or Deflazacort or Vermilion. The oral HDAC inhibitors are newly FDA-approved as a nonsteroidal therapy in addition to corticosteroids in DMD patients above six years of age. I would say we're in the early phase of adoption of this in clinical practice. And then the other big category of treatment options would be the genetic therapies as a broad bucket, and this would include gene therapy or gene replacement therapy, of which the most famous is the microdystrophin gene therapy that was FDA-approved first on an accelerated approval basis for ages four to eight, and then a full approval in that age group as well as an accelerated approval for all comers, essentially, with DMD. This is obviously controversial. Different centers approach this a bit differently. I think our practice at our site has been to focus on the ambulatory population, just thinking about risk versus benefit, because the risks are not insignificant. So really this is something that should be done by experienced sites that have the bandwidth and the wherewithal to counsel patients through all of this and to manage complications as they arise with regular monitoring.

And then another class that falls within this broader category would be the Exon-skipping therapies. So as the name suggests, they are oligonucleotides that cause an Exon to be skipped. The idea is, if there is a mutation in a particular Exon that causes a frame shift, and there's an adjacent Exon that you can force skipping of, then the resulting protein, when you splice the two ends together, will actually allow restoration of the reading frame. I think the picture I want to paint is that there's a wide range of options that we present to families, not all of which everyone will be eligible for

Myotonic dystrophies (DM), in addition to muscle weakness and myotonia, are associated with broad and variable multiorgan involvement. Neurologists need to recognize DM to ensure prompt diagnosis, effective symptom management, and prevention of life-threatening events.

In this episode, Casey Albin, MD, speaks with Paloma Gonzalez Perez, MD, PhD, author of the article "Myotonic Dystrophy" in the Continuum® October 2025 Muscle and Neuromuscular Junction Disorders issue.

Dr. Albin is a Continuum® Audio interviewer, associate editor of media engagement, and an assistant professor of neurology and neurosurgery at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

Dr. Gonzalez Perez is an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Myotonic Dystrophy

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: @caseyalbin

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 Albin: Hello everyone, this is Dr Casey Albin. Today I'm interviewing Dr Paloma Gonzalez-Perez about her article on myotonic dystrophy, which appears in the October 2025 Continuum issue on muscle and neuromuscular junction disorders. Welcome to the podcast, Dr Gonzalez-Perez. I'd love for you to introduce yourself to our listeners.

Dr Gonzalez-Perez: Thank you very much for the invitation. My name is Paloma Gonzalez-Perez. I'm a neuromuscular neurologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston since 2018. And I'm originally from Spain. I did residency there and also here in Iowa City. And then I did the neuromuscular fellowship here at Mass General Brigham, and then I stayed here as a faculty. So, my focus is myopathies, and more specifically muscular dystrophies, and more particularly myotonic dystrophy, which is what we are going to talk today.

Dr Albin: Wonderful. And this is a really fantastic tour de force article about myotonic dystrophy. And in reading your article, it really did stand out to me that these myotonic dystrophies are probably under-recognized. And so, I was hoping that, just to start, you could tell us a little bit about, what is a myotonic dystrophy, and how should we sort of situate that within the larger context of all muscular dystrophies?

Dr Gonzalez-Perez: Yes, so muscular dystrophies, we have many of them, right? And mostly affecting the skeletal muscle. And basically, the definition of muscular dystrophy is a genetic or inherited muscle disease that causes a progressive muscle weakness. And also, in the muscle biopsies of patients with muscular dystrophies, we see some fractures that are characteristic of this category of muscle diseases, such as, for example, the nuclei of the muscle fibers are in the center---that's what we call internal nuclei---or maybe fat infiltration or increased connective tissue or a variability in the size of the muscle fibers. So, now in the last few years, the genetic testing is more accessible to us. So, we don't need muscle biopsies all the time to diagnose patients with muscular dystrophy. So many times, we go directly to genetic testing. And this is basically the category of muscular dystrophies.

Myotonic dystrophy is very fascinating muscular dystrophy in the sense that many times not only affect the skeletal muscle, but other organs can be affected. And it is true that other muscular dystrophies can affect other organs such as, for example, the brain and the heart, which is something that we always have in mind as a clinician to make sure this muscular dystrophy affect the heart or affect the brain, because it is important for patient care. But myotonic dystrophy actually can affect any organ in the body. I think it is one of these muscular dystrophies in which there is a multisystem involvement of the body. So, the immune, immunological system can be affected and the endocrine system can be affected, the GI system can be affected. In addition to, obviously, to the brain, to the heart, to the skeletal muscle. And sometimes that is why it is under-recognized because of course, if there is a very severe phenotype, maybe the patient comes very easily to a neurologist who is very familiar with myotonic dystrophy. But if the phenotype is a little bit milder, and maybe it doesn't affect much the skeletal muscle. So, these patients probably are in the care of other specialists, such as, for example cardiology or GI doctors, and obviously these specialists are not really aware of this muscular dystrophy. So, I think it is a complex disease because it is very variable in phenotype, can affect many organs and can be also mild.

Dr Albin: That is fantastic. That is just a wonderful overview of, really, muscular dystrophy. One of the things I was really curious about: the name includes myotonia. Is myotonia, like, always present, or is that a little bit misleading?

Dr Gonzalez-Perez: Yeah. I would say that it is a little bit misleading---maybe not too much in myotonic dystrophy type one, because it is true that in adults with myotonic dystrophy type one, many times they have the myotonia, but not many times they complain about the myotonia. This is the thing. So, it is a diagnostic clue that we have at bedside when we ask the patient, for example, to squeeze the hands and then release and we see the myotonia there. And then, obviously, this can actually give you the diagnosis at bedside, but the patients usually don't come to the clinic complaining of this myotonia, which is delaying the relaxation of the muscles. Sometimes they don't- they are not bothered by that. They don't need treatment for that. But it is a very important clue at bedside. I have to say, adults, myotonic dystrophy type one, because the congenital myotonic dystrophy type one you don't see myotonia, clinical myotonia. These babies, right, are born with severe muscle weakness and we don't see myotonia. And then myotonic dystrophy type two, many patients don't have clinical myotonia. And then, you know, the absence of myotonia, the absence of this delay in the muscle relaxation doesn't rule out a myotonic dystrophy, and especially doesn't rule out a myotonic dystrophy type two.

Dr Albin: Fantastic. So probably is going to be a feature of the adult-onset type one. May or may not be present in type two. And then the congenital forum where children are presenting as infants, they're not going to tell you that, oh, I have delayed relaxation. That's not going to be part of that.

Dr Gonzalez-Perez: Exactly.

Dr Albin: This is one of those things that I think, unless you're in neuromuscular clinic, you might not think to ask people about. Maybe the patient isn't actually saying, oh, I have this delayed reaction. How do you get them to give you that history? Like, what are the questions that you ask?

Dr Gonzalez-Perez: Sometimes I will say, do your hands get locked? You know, this could be the first question that they noticed something there, and then they can give you maybe the clue. But actually, it's the exam more than the question. I will say it's more do the exam and, you know, intentionally test for myotonia. And you test for spontaneous myotonia and percussion myotonia. So spontaneous myotonia, we tell the patient to squeeze the hands very strongly and then open the hands quickly. And then if they cannot open the hands quickly, this is a delay in muscle relaxation. We call it grip myotonia, spontaneous grip myotonia. Or sometimes close your eyes very, very, very strongly and then open the eyes quickly. And if they have this delay in the eye opening, we call it eyelid myotonia. This eye is spontaneous myotonia, you don't touch the patient and you don't use your hammer yet. And then if we don't find anything, we go to the hammer. We use our reflex hammer, and then we try to test for percussion myotonia. And sometimes we with the reflect hammer, we tap the thinner eminence of the hand, and we can see that you tap, there is a contraction, and then the thumb goes up and then takes a while to go down again. It is a delay in the relaxation of the thinner eminence muscles. Or sometimes in the posterior aspect of the forearm, if we tap the extensor digitorum communis muscle. Again, so, there is a contraction of that muscle, the fingers go up and then take a while to go down. It is also a perfusion myotonia of the extensor digitorum communis muscle. Sometimes people do it even in the tongue. I don't do that because could be very painful. But you can, you know, use a tongue depressor and put it in the tongue, and you tap the tongue depressor and sometimes there is contraction of the tongue, which can be very painful. I don't do it. So- but this is the perfusion myotonia, that can give you also a clue.

Dr Albin: That's fantastic. I think this is one of the most memorable things that I saw in pediatric neurology. I remember very distinctly a kid coming in, and then us also examining the mother and having that delayed relaxation. And just one of those really great neurologic exams, those little findings to tuck away to really make a diagnosis, recognizing that not all patients with muscular dystrophy or myotonic dystrophy will have that finding. But so beautiful. And I think that's a really great explanation. And I will also direct our listeners, if you are a Continuum subscriber, she has some really wonderful videos in her article from the EMG sounds of this, which is another layer of being able to appreciate the physical exam finding. One of the things that I was really struck by, and that you've already mentioned, is that there is this really incredible spectrum of disease. That some of the myotonic dystrophy patients may barely have any skeletal involvement, and the ones with congenital myotonic dystrophy may have significant mortality even within the first year of life. Given how many subtypes of this disease there are in that varied presentation, let's just walk through sort of starting with congenital myotonic dystrophy. What are some of the clues to that diagnosis?

Dr Gonzalez-Perez: Yes. So, you know, these babies with congenital myotonic dystrophy, actually when they are born, the phenotype is what we call a floppy baby. Floppy baby syndrome right? So, they are very weak. There is generalized weakness, including the swallowing muscles and the respiratory muscles. So sometimes, you know, these patients, these babies have to be intubated---to have a feeling tube, right---to survive. So, that's why the mortality can be so high during the first year of life, because obviously swallowing and breathing is affected because the muscle, those muscles, are also affected. So, one of the clues, actually- you know, sometimes these patients may have, like, a tented mouth, which could be a sign of congenital myotonic dystrophy. The differential diagnosis for a floppy baby syndrome is very broad and can be caused by central nervous system problems or peripheral nervous system problems. So, it's very broad, but maybe the tented mouth can be a clue to suspect the congenital myotonic dystrophy type one. And I will say that also, examine the mom. Because sometimes the mom is not diagnosed with myotonic dystrophy, and as simple as going into the mom who is an adult and can have already the myotonia that we talked about before and maybe, you know, try to do, like, a grip myotonia, eyelid myotonia, or use your reflex hammer and tap a few muscles, and then can give you the diagnosis of potential congenital myotonic dystrophy in the baby. And I have to say that there is no newborn screening for myotonic dystrophy type one yet. Maybe in the future it's going to be, but not at this time. So, I'm pretty sure that pediatricians probably rule out other things before unless there is distinctive mouth or unless the mom is affected.

Dr Albin: Great pearls about how to take it to the bedside and try to look for that hereditary nature of this. Let's move up a little bit in sort of the childhood and adolescent onset. What are some of the clues that you're seeing for those children who come to presentation a bit later in life, but still probably more likely to be seen in pediatric clinic?

Dr Gonzalez-Perez: Yes. So, the childhood and adolescent onset in myotonic dystrophy type one, it is interesting because the skeletal muscle may not be the organ that is more affected or the organ that impacts the life of the patient and the family of the patient. So, it's- the phenotype is predominantly focused on behavioral and intellectual disabilities. They may develop at some point myotonia, and they may develop also muscle weakness. But for the most part they are ambulatory. They eat by themselves, they breathe okay, and there is not too much problem with the skeletal muscle, but mostly with behavioral problems such as, for example, ADHD or intellectual disability. So, they may need some help in school and things like that. So, it is more, I will say, a central nervous system phenotype at this age.

Dr Albin: Yeah, I love that that this is- to me, this was part of the complexity of this was that, while we call it myotonic dystrophy, the muscle part of this disease really may not be the main issue for the patients and their families. And that we're actually looking for something that involves the central nervous system, endocrine system, GI system. And knowing that maybe the muscle is not the main problem here, why is it so important that these patients actually get the correct diagnosis?

Dr Gonzalez-Perez: Exactly. So, it is very important. And I always think about the heart. You know, the heart can be affected in the sense like the rhythm of the heart can be abnormal. And sometimes, you know, the patient doesn't have symptoms. But it's important to detect this because, you know, an abnormal rhythm in the heart can cause sudden death. So that's why it's so important. The diagnosis of this muscular dystrophy at this time, and of course in the future when we have a treatment, right, will be very important also to have the diagnosis, the earlier is the better, because probably the treatment is going to be more effective in the earlier stages than in the later stages. But I will say that right now making sure that the heart is in a good shape and the patient has a cardiologist on board if they have myotonic dystrophy. And also, you know, there are consensus-based care recommendations for myotonic dystrophy type one for the pediatric population and the adult population, and also for myotonic dystrophy type two for the adult population, that are published. And I also included in the chapter because they are very important to look for things that maybe the patient it doesn't complain about, but it's important to look for them in the case that we can prevent some future complications.

Dr Albin: Absolutely. I really love that. This is a systemic disease that has multiple manifestations, and while the skeletal muscle involvement may or may not be causing problems, we really do have to get the right diagnosis, particularly as it impacts the heart and preventing fatal cardiac arrhythmias. Up to this point, we've mostly been talking about type one myotonic dystrophy. What sets type two apart?

Dr Gonzalez-Perez: Yes. So, type two is, I think, even more under-recognized, probably because the phenotype is even more variable than type one and can be much milder in some sense. We are not aware of, you know, like, there are some pediatric cases that have been reported, but for the most part it's an adult muscular dystrophy, type two. So, we diagnose these muscular dystrophies usually in the forties, fifties. The thing is, like, sometimes patients actually may only have muscle pain. And not even muscle weakness. And so… and actually some of these patients may receive a diagnosis of fibromyalgia, for example, just because of the muscle pain. And it is more difficult to obtain myotonia on exam, actually. I think there is a delay in diagnosis in this population, and also the multisystem involvement, which is present but maybe even more variable than that in type one. And we have less patients, so we understand less the phenotype of these patients. But for the most part it is, I think, more under-recognized in the type one.

Dr Albin: Fascinating. So again, could have pretty mild skeletal involvement and may just have cramps and muscle pain. So, you have to be really sort of mindful of keeping this on the differential for people with multiple areas of pain in the muscles. When is this suspected? Are you usually sending genetic tests to confirm? How do we get to the diagnosis?

Dr Gonzalez-Perez: In the history, in the past medical history, you have probably- sometimes you have the clue. For example, a patient with muscle pain, imagine like for example a forty-eight-year-old male with muscle pain comes to the clinic, and then he tells you that he had cataract surgery at the age of twenty. And then you see a CK that is a little bit more elevated than usual. And then at that time I will go for genetic testing right away, for my myotonic dystrophy type two. Because of the muscle pain is so characteristic of myotonic dystrophy type two, and the multiorgan involvement sometimes includes a very early cataracts, the same as in type one. But the muscle pain is much more typical for type two than for type one. So, that's why I will go, in this specific scenario to type two.

If I still think that my alternative dystrophic type two is a possibility, although I'm not totally convinced if it is or not, I usually go for EMG. I mean, if you don't see myotonia at the side, maybe with the EMG and the needle in the muscle, you can see this electrical myotonia that I have some videos in the chapter to see if there is this motorcycle sound of the electrical discharges from the muscle that are consistent with- they can be seen in myotonic dystrophy type two. They are not as specific, but can be seen in myotonic dystrophy type two. So if I have a patient with muscle pain and then I see this electrical myotonia on EMG, so then I will go then next to a genetic testing for myotonic dystrophy type two. Sometimes if there are some family history, it gives you also clues about the possibility of myotonic dystrophy in general, but also myotonic dystrophy type two. Myotonic dystrophy type two, usually the muscle weakness, when it is present, it's more proximal. While in myotonic dystrophy type one it's more distal. So, this also, you know, helps you to differentiate. But specifically in this myotonic dystrophy area, I think the past medical history helps you a lot and the family history helps you too. If you see an autosomal dominant inheritance of muscle or other organ problems, you suspect this type of muscular dystrophy. And I have low threshold to test for this if it is possible because, as we mentioned before, knowing what the patient has helps a lot in their care.

Dr Albin: Absolutely. I love that. Spoken like a true neurologist, using the history, the physical, thinking about the family history, using EMG as an extension of our physical to really find and clinch that diagnosis, and then using genetic tests as a confirmation to get to the right answer. I love the mention of early-onset cataract. Are there any other things that pop into your mind or when you're reading the chart and you look at the medical history that, like cataracts, stand out to you as, this really clues me into my

Genetic variants that underlie skeletal muscle channelopathies and rhabdomyolysis can also cause persistent and progressive muscle weakness. The availability and expanded use of genetic testing allows for the identification of new genes causing periodic paralysis and rhabdomyolysis.

In this episode, Teshamae Monteith, MD, FAAN speaks with Hani Kushlaf, MD, MS, FAAN, author of the article "Muscle Channelopathies and Rhabdomyolysis" in the Continuum® October 2025 Muscle and Neuromuscular Junction Disorders issue.

Dr. Monteith is the associate editor of Continuum® Audio and an associate professor of clinical neurology at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Miami, Florida.

Dr. Kushlaf is a professor of neurology and pathology as well as the director of the Neuromuscular Division, director of Neuromuscular Research, and director of the Neuromuscular Medicine Fellowship in the Department of Neurology and Rehabilitation Medicine and the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Muscle Channelopathies and Rhabdomyolysis

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: @HaniKushlaf

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 Hani Kushlaf about his article on muscle channelopathies and rhabdomyolysis, which appears in the October 2025 Continuum issue on muscle and neuromuscular junction disorders. Hi, Hani. How are you?

Dr Kushlaf: Good. How are you doing? Thank you for having me.

Dr Monteith: Well, thank you for coming on our podcast. So why don't you introduce yourself?

Dr Kushlaf: So, I'm Hani Kushlaf. I'm a professor of Neurology and Pathology in the Department of Neurology and Rehabilitation Medicine at the University of Cincinnati in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Dr Monteith: And what got you interested in muscle disorders?

Dr Kushlaf: So, this is a long story. At first in residency, I was interested in epilepsy, but the moment I started doing a rotation in neuromuscular, I became enamored with neuromuscular disorders. I remember seeing the first patient in the rotation who had myofibrillar myopathy, and I found out that there is very little known about muscle disease at the time. So, I became very interested and I immediately changed direction as I started doing nerve conduction studies and EMGs and having that procedure base, I just decided that I want to pursue neuromuscular disorders.

Dr Monteith: Well, that doesn't sound like a long story. It sounds like love at first sight.

Dr Kushlaf: Yes, I think part of it is not very far from neuromuscular disorders and that it does have some electrophysiology involved. But muscle disease and nerve disorders, they need that detailed neurologic examination, which I love in terms of doing the localization exercise.

Dr Monteith: Great. So why don't we talk about the objectives of your article?

Dr Kushlaf: This article was written to review muscle channelopathies that include myotonic disorders and periodic paralysis, and also rhabdomyolysis, with emphasis on genetic causes of rhabdomyolysis more than acquired causes.

Dr Monteith: So, why was this update so important?

Dr Kushlaf: I think this area of muscle disorders hasn't seen a lot of progress in recent years, but there are interesting findings that we're learning that spark, hopefully, more research into the area, because we do have significant gaps that are related to understanding pathophysiology of some of these disorders. For example, in patients with periodic paralysis, it's clearly known now that these patients over time develop muscle weakness, and the muscle weakness is unrelated to how many episodes of weakness they have---basically, the episodic paralysis part of the disease. So, this is an important finding that I think we need to look more into it and understand that these disorders actually progress, even though that they may not have episodes of paralysis. In addition, there are genetic therapies that have been introduced into most of neuromuscular medicine at this time, including muscle disorders, while this specific part of muscle diseases has not had that luxury yet. And I'm hoping over time that there will be an introduction of gene therapies for these diseases.

Dr Monteith: Great. So, it sounds like there's some clinical advances, then, as well as genetic advances. Now, you also spoke about rhabdomyolysis and that there's newer ways of thinking about that from perhaps when I was in residency. So why don't you update me on these newer approaches?

Dr Kushlaf: The rhabdomyolysis… first, the definition of it is changing. We used to use a cut off, a CK of about a thousand, to call it rhabdomyolysis. And very recently it's clear that that level of CK is not sufficient to call it rhabdomyolysis. So, now the level went up in terms of exertion of rhabdomyolysis, up to ten thousand, has to be more than ten thousand. And in patients who haven't had exercise, the level is up to five thousand. So, it's no longer actually one thousand. And that refinement in the definition is important because there are some patients who exercise all the time and they may exercise at an athletic level and they have very high CK's. And those patients should not be labeled as having rhabdomyolysis. Basically, they are doing strenuous physiologic exercise. In addition, not only the definition of rhabdomyolysis is changing, it is our approach to which disorders to consider first and how we should work up patients with rhabdomyolysis. So, acquired rhabdomyolysis remains the most important etiology to be ruled out first. So, I always tell my fellows and residents that, think about acquired rhabdomyolysis first before you think about the genetic disorder. After you rule out the fact that it is not a toxic or metabolic or medication-induced rhabdomyolysis, then think about a genetic etiology. But when you get that consultation from the hospital that the patient has rhabdomyolysis and we want you to figure it out, always look at the medication list and make sure that there isn't anything on it that causes, actually, a rhabdomyolysis. And in many instances, you find out that it's actually a toxic or metabolic etiology for the rhabdomyolysis.

And as part of this article, there's also an acronym that's now being used to identify those patients who would benefit from genetic testing. The acronym is called RHABDO. It's as is the word, RHABDO. R refers to Recurrent exertion of rhabdomyolysis. So, it's not just one episode. And the H refers to HyperCKemia, and the hyperCKemia should persist more than eight weeks after the episodes of rhabdomyolysis. And if it is exertional, then the person has not done an unaccustomed exercise. So, they have changed the way that they do exercise and now they are exercising for two hours instead of one hour or they have introduced a new way of exercise into their exercise regimen. Then that should not be considered. It's not considered necessary to test these patients for a genetic cause. Also, the muscle enzyme typically, in genetic causes of rhabdomyolysis, goes more than fifty times above the upper limit of normal, which is more than a thousand. So that has to be taken into account. And then for the D it's Drugs and medications. This has to be ruled out before you say yes, we need to find the genetic cause of rhabdomyolysis. And then the O, it's basically family history. If you find that there is other family members who are affected or they have a high CK, then of course that would point you toward doing genetic testing.

Dr Monteith: Great. So, it sounds like there's some advances there in how we approach these patients. In what way is this practice changing? You mentioned, you know, really important to rule out these potentially reversible causes first.

Dr Kushlaf: Yeah. So, once you identify the theology, it becomes easier to manage the patient. So, if it is a statin-induced rhabdomyolysis, you know that you want to stop the statin and you are not going to have this problem again. So, that's quite important. The statins, of course, will have to not be reintroduced in the future for that specific patient who developed statin-induced rhabdomyolysis. But for the genetic causes of rhabdomyolysis, if you go down the path of genetic rhabdomyolysis, of course we have no cures for these disorders. We may have treatments. One of the conditions that I have alluded to as one of the case presentations in the article is a patient who has riboflavin responsive multiple acid CoA dehydrogenase deficiency, and I wanted to highlight this disorder because it's a disorder not to be missed. It does have a treatment, which is riboflavin, and that comes from the name riboflavin-responsive. So that's why I put there in the article as part of the manuscript. However, some of these disorders, once you find the genetic etiology, there may be a way of preventing it in the future generation. Family planning, reproductive medicine technologies, can help in this instance and prevent this disease from occurring in the future generations.

Dr Monteith: So, why don't we move on to episodic skeletal disorders? What is your general approach for these types of diseases?

Dr Kushlaf: Muscle channelopathies, skeletal muscle channelopathies, are ultra-rare disorders. And part of the issue is not giving them a high index of suspicion in the diagnostic process. So, these patients typically come to us in clinics with very vague symptoms, and they may have lived with these symptoms for a very long time. So, they may have muscle pain, they may have fatigue, they may have muscle stiffness. Even though in most instances they do not tell you that they have muscle stiffness, they will tell you that when I wake up in the morning, I feel like I walk like a robot. My legs feel rigid, something like that. The word stiffness is not usually in the vocabulary of patients. When they come to see you and you examine them and you find out that the muscle strength is normal, you may not think much about the myotonic disorder. And that's where the issue is. You always have to keep these disorders in your differential diagnosis. So, you elicit for myotonia and for paramyotonia on examination, look at the muscle size, see if there is any muscle hypertrophy that happens in fluoride channelopathies, and that will typically guide you toward the diagnosis.

And also ask about whether their symptoms get worse in a cold environment. So, sometimes they tell you they don't like winter because during winter everything is not doing well. They may report that they even feel like they cannot move their face because of facial stiffness in wintertime, especially in states where it snows outside and patients will be walking outside. So, these are things, typically, that give you clues about the diagnosis. But in patients who are affected minimally with the disease, sometimes you do not catch them, really, till they come to the EMG lab because of another reason. If they develop a neck pain and someone thinks that they may have a cervical radiculopathy and they want to do an EMG on them, or if they develop carpal tunnel symptoms, they send them to the EMG lab for carpal tunnel. And the moment we see them in the EMG lab, we start doing the needle examination and we find out that there is myotonic discharges in every muscle that we stick with the needle. And we're like, well, this person must have a myotonic disorder. And you ask them more about their symptoms. They may have symptoms, but they will tell you that they have ignored them for too long because it's something that they live with throughout their lives since childhood. They thought this is what is normal for them and this is what normal people might have. They may have aches and pains here and there and that is normal. So, these are clues, typically, for the diagnosis. Once you find the myotonia, your next bet to identify the exact genetic abnormalities to do genetic testing. And nowadays I think the field has benefited from the availability of free genetic testing so we can find out which channel is affected and then move on toward freezing that disorder.

Dr Monteith: So, you spoke about nondystrophic myotonia. What are some bedside tips to try and really get at the diagnosis?

Dr Kushlaf: So as I said, first is, look at the muscle build of the patient. So, these disorders, chloride channelopathies---so, the autosomal dominant and autosomal recessive chloride channelopathies---can cause muscle hypertrophy. So, these patients can have an athletic appearance even though when you ask them, do you exercise? I don't exercise at all. Do you lift weights? I don't lift weights at all. And they look like bodybuilders, so that's something to think about. Also eliciting the myotonia and typically we elicit the myotonia by using, of course, the reflex hammer. You can either tap on the phenol eminence and notice the myotonia in the thumb as it moves inward and stays in that position for some time. Depending on the severity of the myotonia, you can tap on the extensor digitorum in the forearm and notice the middle finger as it gets up and gets stuck for some time before it goes down. You can also ask patients to squeeze your fingers and then release quickly. Squeeze forcefully, of course, and find out how long does it take them to release their fingers, and that way you can identify the myotonia.

Also, you may need to repeat the elicitation of myotonia several times because it can be not myotonia but paramyotonia, which is the opposite of myotonia. It's basically worsening of the myotonia as you keep doing the eliciting activity. So, the more they squeeze your fingers, the more difficult it is for them to improve. While the warm up phenomenon, which is the opposite of paradoxical myotonia, is, for them, as they repeat squeezing, they are able to do it better and better. They would be able to release more quickly with each attempt. In some patients, you can also ask them to close their eyes if they have facial myotonia, to close their eyes forcefully and see how quickly does it take for them to open their eyes. You may see that they do not open their eyes quickly. Or if you repeat in patients with paramyotonia, if you ask them to close and open, close and open, close and open, there will come a point where they really cannot open their eyes anymore, and that tells you there is paramyotonia. Of course, if you find paramyotonia, then you know that this is a sodium channel abnormality, that the genetic testing would just confirm that.

Dr Monteith: And what about for periodic paralysis? Is there anything new in the field?

Dr Kushlaf: Periodic paralysis… if I can say one thing about periodic paralysis, it's to talk about Andersen Tawil syndrome. It's an ultra-rare disorder also, but the episodes of paralysis that happens in patients with Andersen Tawil syndrome, they occur either with hypokalemia, so it can be hypokalemic---like, exactly hypokalemic periodic paralysis---or with hyperkalemia. So, it's hyperkalemic periodic paralysis. It doesn't really matter whether it's hyperkalemic or hypokalemic. These patients they typically have dysmorphic features. And the most common dysmorphic feature, and I chose a picture for the article, is a patient who has a small mandible. That is the most common dysmorphic feature. There are other dysmorphic features which include short stature, hypertelorism---which is the distance between eyes, the eyes become widened. Also, scoliosis and low-set ears. So, the ears are lower than the level of the eyes. So, these are dysmorphic features one can look for, but they do not exist in every patient with Andersen Tawil syndrome.

The problem with Andersen Tawil syndrome is that these patients, as opposed to hyperkalemic and hypokalemic periodic paralysis, they have cardiac involvement. And the cardiac involvement can be deadly. So, it's very important that these patients are identified quickly. And anyone who has episodic weakness should have an EKG and should have halter monitoring to recognize if there are any arrhythmias or EKG abnormalities. So, one can identify anything that needs to be corrected from the cardiac standpoint. I think that is the most important point about periodic paralysis. Overall, these disorders… I mean, they are disabling and they can have huge effect on patient's life in terms of productivity and employment. And the diagnosis can be very difficult, especially that we do not know all the genes that are associated with periodic paralysis. Right now, the genetic testing that's available to us includes five genes that are associated with periodic paralysis. But I think we need to know more. There's a proportion of patients who do not have an identifiable abnormality at this time. So, I think as time goes on, we'll recognize more causes for periodic paralysis.

Dr Monteith: I'm just reading your really great article, and it sounds like there's a lot of variability in presentation from I'm not feeling that well or I'm not feeling my best for mild disease, and then very severe disease where the whole body can be weak without alteration in consciousness.

Dr Kushlaf: That's correct. So, my patients tell me that you never know when you're going to develop episodes of weakness. And sometimes they can recognize the precipitant, sometimes they cannot. Stress, sometimes, is a precipitant. At times, they really cannot tell what happened. And the weakness can be affecting one limb or more than one limb. It can be isolated to an arm or isolated to one leg. And that is the issue with the diagnosis, is that for those who do not suspect periodic paralysis, they are labeled as a functional neurologic disorder and they do not get the care that they need. I'm hoping that this article will shed a light on how to think about these disorders and how to diagnose them because treating them can have a significant impact on patient's life.

Dr Monteith: How useful are these laboratory tests?

Dr Kushlaf: So, in any patients where I suspect periodic paralysis, I would always do thyroid function testing to rule out hyperthyroidism because it can cause episodes of paralysis similar to hyperkalemic and hypokalemic paralysis. And I also do EKG and halter monitoring to make sure that I'm not missing the cardiac manifestations of Andersen Tawil syndrome. On top of that, then I would do genetic testing. And the genetic testing, as I said, at this time includes five genes. So, we will recognize any genetic abnormality that comes on that genetic testing. And if it is negative and I still have a high suspicion for the disease, I will do a long exercise test. The long exercise testing is, we record from a muscle in the hand---it's called the productive digit minimi---and stimulate the unknown nerve. We record, typically, baseline responses and then exercise the muscle for five minutes and keep recording after five minutes of exercise for up to forty minutes after. We're looking for a change in the amplitude of the motor response that typically happens over time.

Dr Monteith: Great. Well, thank you so much for being on our podcast.

Dr Kushlaf: I appreciate it. Thank you very much.

Dr Monteith: Again, today I've been interviewing Dr Hani Kushlaf, whose

Inflammatory myopathies are a large group of disorders associated with an inflammatory response targeting skeletal muscle. Treatment hinges on the use of evolving immunotherapies and diagnostic tools to quickly identify inflammatory myopathy, initiate appropriate therapy, and exclude underlying malignancy or infection of other organs.

In this episode, Katie Grouse, MD, FAAN speaks with Anthony A. Amato, MD, an author of the article "Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathies" in the Continuum® October 2025 Muscle and Neuromuscular Junction Disorders 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. Amato is the Brigham and Women's Hospital Distinguished Chair in Neurology and the director of neuromuscular research at Mass General Brigham, and is a professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathies

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. 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 Anthony Amato about his article on idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, which he wrote with Dr Kian Salajegheh. This article appears in the October 2025 Continuum issue on muscle and neuromuscular junction disorders. Welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to our audience.

Dr Amato: Thank you. And I am Tony Amato. I'm in Boston at Mass General Brigham.

Dr Grouse: It is a distinct pleasure to have you here with us today, and I'm really excited to talk with you about your article. I thought it was a fantastic overview of the subject. And I'd like to start by asking what you hope will be the key takeaway for those who are reading this article.

Dr Amato: I think it's kind of basic: how to make a diagnosis, describe about the inflammatory myopathy as approach to, again, diagnosis, and then a little bit on pathogenesis, which… and kind of leading to the treatments, and hopefully we'll have more treatments based on the distinct pathogenesis in the future.

Dr Grouse: Can you give a brief overview of the categories of inflammatory myopathies you reviewed in your article?

Dr Amato: So, I mean, the major inflammatory myopathies, radiopathic inflammatory myopathies, are dermatomyositis, antisynthetase syndrome, immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy, inclusion body myositis, and polymyositis. Now, that's been a big change, as you know. I mean it used to be, you know, we all started off it was dermato or poly. But I've kind of made a name for myself- a bad name for myself in the early 2000s saying, I'm not sure there's much of a thing called polymyositis. I think it's a hodgepodge and it's not distinct. And that's come to be, now most of those cases are- now we find out having antisynthetase syndrome or necrotizing myositis or IBM.

Dr Grouse: Could you walk us through your diagnostic approach with a patient in your clinic presenting with symptoms that are suspicious for inflammatory myopathy?

Dr Amato: So, you want to really make sure that they have inflammatory myopathy as opposed to some other kind of myopathy, a muscular dystrophy, for example. Taking family history first is going to be important, clueing in are they really weak or what they're complaining of is fatigue or muscle pain? Are they feel weak but what they really are complaining of is stiffness and rigidity from parkinsonism, or they have a sensory ataxia so they can't modulate? I want to know about other organ system involvement. Do they have a rash? Do they have joint swelling and pain that you might see with arthritis? Do they have shortness of breath that you might see with interstitial lung disease or ventilatory muscle weakness? Or do they have a cardiomyopathy? What kind of weakness do they have? Is it proximal weakness in the arms or legs? Getting out of a chair, climbing stairs. Do they have problems lifting their arms over their head---so, proximal weakness---or do they have more problems with grip, finger flexion, holding a pen, tripping? Do they have swallowing problems? Do they have ocular problems? So that's the big history on the exam. Again, I'm looking for pattern of involvement. So, on my exam, is there atrophy or weakness in muscles---you know, fasciculations---which would take it out of the motor? Is it mainly proximal? Is it distal? Again, is there ocular bulbar involvement? Is it symmetric, particularly in, like, the IBM? Most of the other inflammatory myopathies are going to be mainly and proximal and mainly symmetric. IBM is different, and that the- at least in the hands it's more distal, and it's finger flexors. So, you're looking at flexing the tips of the fingers, you're looking at the forearms, best looked at in a semipronated position to see if it's atrophied. And that leads you to an IBM if you see that. So that's the main things on exam.

Dr Grouse: That's a really helpful overview. I was wondering, in earlier training days, the convention was you- once you've suspected myopathy, you get your CK, you get your EMG, then that may give you the information you need for your diagnosis. It seems that things have been turned a little on their head. We're often skipping those things to go straight to the antibody testing. When should we be going for the myositis-specific antibodies before considering other things like EMG or muscle biopsy?

Dr Amato: I would always get a CK first. You know, in somebody who's weak. You know, the EMG, I don't need an EMG if the CK is two or three thousand. I mean, EMG is- localize it to, is it muscle, nerve, neuromuscular junction. If it's very elevated CK, it really doesn't help me there. Sometimes if I have myotonic discharges or something that might make me think of a myotonic dystrophy or something else like that. But you can see that with the inflammatory myopathy. So, if I'm pretty sure of a myositis, I don't always do an EMG, or- unless I really need it to help guide what muscle biopsies I do. if I'm suspicious then on my exam and I see the CK---or they come to me already with the CK, which often happens, and it's very elevated---that's when I'll do the myositis-specific antibody panels if I'm really thinking that. And the important thing to know from that is, you have antibodies for dermatomyositis and antisynthetase that are on the panel that are available, and even signal recognition particle, which is a necrotizing myositis. But what's not on the panel is HMGCR antibodies, which is important because that's 70% of the necrotizing myocidites are HMGCR, and then the IBM antibody and T5-C1A is not on that. So, you need to order those separately. If somebody doesn't know, they order a myositis-specific antibody and think that it's all-inclusive, but it doesn't have IBM or the HMGCR antibody. And the other test that I sometimes will do is a skeletal-muscle MRI to help in the evaluation. Sometimes, not all the time, but I'm not sure it's a dystrophy, is it a myositis when I see a lot of STIR signal, which is edema. And you can still see STIR signal in a dystrophy and toxic. But sometimes I'll do it depending on whether I need a biopsy or not.

Dr Grouse: What is the benefit of an open biopsy versus a needle biopsy, and when should we be considering using one over the other?

Dr Amato: So, it really is not our decision. It's the pass lab. So, it's the technicians and the pathologists who read the biopsies need to be able to process a needle biopsy, which might be much smaller. Needle biopsies show to be fairly accurate in a lot of the hereditary disorders where you might just look for central nuclear core, and they might be- so, mainly in kids, but in the inflammatory myopathies, it's really patchy. So, if I'm thinking of an inflammatory, I like an open biopsy. I think it's hit and miss. And so, I like open biopsies for the adults that I'm thinking of inflammatory.

Dr Grouse: Do you have any other tips or tricks in the diagnosis of inflammatory myopathies that you could share with our listeners?

Dr Amato: I would say first, in terms of what muscle to biopsy, you're not doing them yourself, but you're referring to a surgeon. You have to tell them what to do with the biopsy. And you want to pick a muscle that's about an MRC grade 4 because if it's a normal muscle, the muscle strength, the biopsy, is likely to be normal. If it's less than a 4, you might just have end-stage muscle. And saying you can't tell end-stage muscle from a bad myositis, from a dystrophy, from a severe end-stage neurogenic. If I don't have a muscle that I would typically biopsy that's an MRC grade 4---for example, somebody with an early weakness and they're only weak, say, in their in their hip girdle. So hip flexors, abductors, extensors, and we're usually not biopsying the iliopsoas or the gluteal muscles. Then what do you pick? That's when I like to do an EMG on one side of the body and look at proximal and distal muscles and select one that's irritable, you know, some fibs and positive sharp waves that I might biopsy. And then maybe consider doing a skeletal muscle MRI to go from muscle that's abnormal, that has a lot of edema in it, to increase the yield.

Dr Grouse: That's really helpful. And then, I think, jumping from that, what are pitfalls that you've seen neurologists fall into in this diagnosis or other challenging aspects of the diagnosis that you could review with us?

Dr Amato: Some of the things that we see are hard to pick up. It might be hard to pick up a rim vacuole. They're very rare, too. And so, you might miss it, particularly if you don't see a lot. Sometimes, like looking at the dermato and that's the, on the exam question, perifascicular atrophy, but that's a late stage, usually. And so, if you're really attuned and you're a good clinician, you make that diagnosis really quick. You do a biopsy, you might not see that paraphysical atrophy. So, they don't know that in a necrotizing myopathy, the pathologists often think of what they see in a toxic myopathy or a metabolic where there's a lot of necrotic fibers. But in most of the autoimmune necrotizing, it's not. It's actually what you see is more regenerating fibers, a few necrotic fibers. It's because it's usually been smoldering along for a while, and so you have many more regenerating fibers than ones that are actively, and that can fool a lot of people. So, that's a pitfall from that end of things. Some of these myositis specific antibodies aren't specific and at a low titer, particularly if you have more than one antibody being positive, that would be a red flag that it could be false. That's another pitfall. I think a lot of people don't, when they're examining people, really look at the finger flexors and stuff. And again, if I have somebody over the age of fifty, the most common muscle disease is IBM. Number two is IBM, number three is IBM. If you don't- and you have to think about that, and you need to examine the distal finger flexors because it doesn't get better with immunotherapy. You don't want to put people at the risk of immunotherapy when they're not going to get better. I talked a lot about the biopsies, and biopsy, biopsy, biopsy. But you know, sometimes you can make the diagnosis without a biopsy. So, if somebody's like a classic dermato rash and they have a dermato antibody, do they need a biopsy? No. If they have, you know, CKs of ten thousand proximal weakness, they're on a statin and they have HMGCR antibody, do they need us have a biopsy to confirm? Probably not.

Dr Grouse: Those are some really great pearls that you've shared with us, and I think will be very helpful to many of our listeners. Now, you mentioned earlier about the diminishing category of polymyositis as other types of myosidites have been discovered and better described. Do you think that is the most controversial aspect of this field currently, or are there other controversial areas or areas of ongoing debate that exist?

Dr Amato: It was very controversial twenty years ago, or maybe ten years ago. So, the rheumatology guidelines, they're the ones that are often saying, oh yeah, we were right. Polymyositis, it's just hodgepodge, and it's ever-shrinking. So that's not so controversial anymore. I mean, the controversies that we have, what's the pathogenesis of dermato? It's still a little debated, some- the old theory was that it was a complement-mediated microangiopathy and the damage was caused by ischemia. That's probably not the case. It looks more and more like it's a type 1 interferonopathy, and that's toxic to the vessels in the muscle. There's still a little bit of a debate about that or, you know, you have complement might be on it, but how much that might be damaging, or it's just a secondary phenomenon. I think in the antisynthetase things, I think there's some interesting things also with that these antibodies. We used to think of that they're just diagnostic biomarkers. But there's some recent studies suggesting that these antibodies which are directed against intracellular targets, which is interesting and applies to other autoimmune diseases and that are in the brain too. And we would think that, oh, if it's a intracellular target, it it's secondary. But there's suggestion now that- again, it did demonstrate that the antibodies actually get into muscle fibers. And they bind to these targets. So maybe they're just not epiphenomenon, but they might be binding to a target and causing pathology. And that's what there's some preliminary studies that are impressed, I will say, that have antibodies, anti-HMGCR, that actually go into the cell and they inhibit the enzyme. And that might be causing the pathology. And so that's interesting. And then IBM is a big field. Is this a primary autoimmune disease that has these other kinds of degenerative features like REM vacuoles, or is it a primary degenerative that has secondary inflammation, or is it a combination of both? So, that's probably the biggest controversy these days. It is probably with IBM. What the heck is causing it?

Dr Grouse: Sounds like a lot that we still have to understand about these diseases. This does lead me to wonder, though, have some of these new discoveries and ideas led to or will lead to any new breakthroughs, either in diagnostics or in therapeutics?

Dr Amato: So, certainly in therapeutics. So, the discovery of dermato being an interferonopathy, probably a beta-interferonopathy, has led to development of monoclonal antibodies that target interferon, and there's trials underway. And in phase 2 studies, I can tell you from talking to colleagues that participate just melted away the rash of dermato. So, I think that's going to be a very, very good drug in the future for dermato. There's others, like JAK. JAK inhibitors work on that interferon pathway too. So, I think we'll be going towards, like, less broad-spectrum steroids, IVIG, to going, let's go to the target. Certainly, in dermato, I mean, IBM, we don't know. There is an inflammatory cell that we see in IBM that has a receptor, KCRRN receptor, and there's a monoclonal antibody that targets that in IBM, and that's a phase 3 trial right now. Hopefully that study should be ending in December, and so early next year we'll have results about that. The fact that these antibodies might be pathogenic of themselves is other ways to get rid of the antibodies. So, getting rid of plasma cells and B cells, and FCRN receptors which have been approved or antagonists that are approved for myasthenia. Now CIDP might work in some of the inflammatory myopathies where we think the antibodies might be pathogenic. So, FCRN receptor antagonist and they're in trial now as well. And there's CAR-T therapies to knock out the antibody-producing lymphocytes and plasma cell. So, I think we're going to move into the field of individualized therapies as we find the distinct pathogenesis of these disorders.

Dr Grouse: That's really exciting to hear and I can't wait to see what's coming down the pipeline as more of these discoveries are made and the clinical trials advance. It has been such a pleasure. I've learned so much. So much is packed into the article. So again, I can't stress enough, please take the time to check out this article. I think you'll learn a lot, and it'll really help you fine-tune your diagnostic pathway in relation to myopathies.

Dr Amato: Oh, my pleasure. Thank you. Anybody has questions, please feel free to send me an email.

Dr Grouse: We may just take you up on that. Again, today I've been interviewing Dr Anthony Amato about his article on idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, which he wrote with Dr Kian Salajegheh. This article appears in the October 2025 Continuum issue on muscle and neuromuscular junction disorders. 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.

Inclusion body myositis (IBM), the most common myopathy in adults, is a disease of aging characterized by slowly progressive weakness. Diagnosis of IBM requires the integration of historical, clinical, and laboratory data, while management consists of a multidisciplinary approach to address comorbidities and potential complications.

In this episode, Aaron Berkowitz, MD, PhD, FAAN speaks with Elie Naddaf, MD, author of the article "Inclusion Body Myositis" in the Continuum® October 2025 Muscle and Neuromuscular Junction Disorders 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 in San Francisco, California.

Dr. Naddaf is an associate professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine in Rochester, Minnesota.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Inclusion Body Myositis

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: @ElieNaddaf3

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 Elie Naddaf about his article on inclusion body myositis, which appears in the October 2025 Continuum issue on muscle and neuromuscular junction disorders. Welcome to the podcast, Dr Naddaf, and would you please introduce yourself to our audience?

Dr Naddaf: Thank you for having me. I am Elie Naddaf, a neuromuscular neurologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, and one of my main focus research-wise is about inclusion body myositis.

Dr Berkowitz: Fantastic. Well, this is a great article on inclusion body myositis, or IBM, as we may refer to it today. It has a lot of clinically practical tips for examining patients at the bedside and a lot of important updates for us on how to diagnose this condition. So, I encourage our listeners to check out the article, and I look forward to discussing some of the key aspects here and learning from your expertise. First, tell us about the classic presentation of IBM, when the disease is pretty easy to recognize at the bedside based on the history and exam.

Dr Naddaf: Luckily, IBM is one of those diseases that has a very particular pattern of weakness that makes it easier to diagnose. However, in real life it can be very challenging for several reasons, which we will cover in this podcast and in the article. However, a typical presentation of IBM is that of an older patient, more likely to be a male---twice more likely to be a male---,presenting with slowly progressive weakness over a couple years or so. And the weakness predominantly affects the deep finger flexors in the hand. So, they most commonly present with hand grip weakness, or the quadriceps muscle presenting with some lower limb weakness. However, some patients can present with one or the other, not necessarily with both at the same time. It is usually a painless disease,, and because of the lingering course, patients tend to present within two to three years from their symptom onset. So, with that, on examination, if the patient is presenting with the hand weakness, they would demonstrate weakness in the deep finger flexors, which are the muscles that we use to flex the distal intralaryngeal joints. This weakness is often asymmetric and can be in only one hand; and also, even within the same hand, you can have a variable severity from one finger to the other. And that's one reason, although it sounds a classic phenotype, if you can imagine a patient just presenting with hand weakness, a lot of other things come to mind, whether it's a compressive neuropathy or whether it's a radiculopathy or motor neuron disease.

Similarly, in the leg, the quadriceps is a big and strong muscle. So, it's often that patients' symptoms originally or in the beginning get dismissed because the physician did not demonstrate any weakness on manual motor testing. Because it's a strong muscle, it needs to lose a certain amount of strength to be able to demonstrate that weakness by just pushing against the patient trying to extend their knee from about a 90 degree or so. That's why another way in those cases would be to examine them more functionally whether they're kneeling or squatting. It is usually a pure motor disease, although patients can commonly have a peripheral neuropathy. But typically, on exam, you mainly see muscle weakness.

Dr Berkowitz: Perfect. So, if we see a patient who's an older man with progressive painless weakness of the finger flexors, quadriceps, this is sort of the classic presentation where we would consider IBM. But you mentioned in your article that some patients can present somewhat atypically when we might not immediately think of this diagnosis. What are some of the atypical presentations we should be aware of that should lead us to think about IBM as a possible etiology for the patient's pattern of weakness?

Dr Naddaf: So, IBM indeed can present in any muscle group. That's why about 14% of patients may have the weakness onset beyond the finger flexors or knee extensions. And there are very particular phenotypes that stand out. Especially the most common in that scenario would be patients presenting with pure difficulty swallowing, isolated dysphasia that can sometimes precede the limb weakness by several years, and that's especially common in females. Other phenotypes including just a proximal weakness, like a limb-girdle weakness; an axial weakness, for example, head drop or camptocormia or a foot drop. And because it's an asymmetric disease, you can see the challenge there---if someone just presenting with a foot drop on one side, that it could be challenging to just think of IBM. So, those are the main phenotype. One particular phenotype that is super interesting is, patients present with severe facial weakness as if they have severe bilateral Bell's palsy. And that's the, usually, the most common first misdiagnosis. And all these patients reported so far in the literature are only females. This has not been reported in any male patients. So yes, the finger flexor quadriceps weakness is the most common typical presentation. However, IBM can present, technically, in any other muscle in the body.

Dr Berkowitz: Great. Well that's very helpful information that especially comes from experts like you who see a lot of these patients and are able to make these diagnoses of these rare phenotypes. Whereas many of us general neurologists, like myself, might think of IBM only with finger flexor weakness and quadriceps weakness, perhaps with some foot drop dysphagia associated. Sounds like this is a diagnosis to consider in atypical presentations or atypical presentations of myopathy that aren't fitting other phenotypes or aren't yielding diagnostic results for other phenotypes. And you have in your article a very helpful table that goes through some of the common sites of weakness in IBM and the differential diagnosis for myopathies and other conditions to consider in patients who have the classic and less typical presenting features. So, let's say that we see a patient with clinical features suggestive of IBM. How do we go about confirming the diagnosis? What are the main diagnostic tests we would use to try to make a firm diagnosis here?

Dr Naddaf: So, the gold standard so far for diagnosis for inclusion body myositis, as it is an acquired disease, has been a muscle biopsy. So, muscle biopsy is the probably most important tool in the diagnostic approach to IBM. Even in patients with a classical phenotype, that all like in any other test, it depends on your pretest probability and how sure you are the patient has IBM. But even with the classic phenotype, it is characteristic of IBM, but not pathognomic of IBM. Because if we see a high number of patients with similar phenotypes, we will run into a lot of other disorder that present similarly. And some patients---especially for instance, with myotonic dystrophies, specially type two---may be very difficult to distinguish from IBM, especially those that present in adulthood that they don't have the classic picture of a myotonic dystrophy patient you would think of. And some of them may not even have percussion myotonia. Because of that, the biopsy is very important to confirm your diagnosis in that regard. And on the biopsy, you want to see evidence of inflammation, basically, and the mesial inflammation, without going into a lot of details, to set it apart from those genetic ones. But in IBM it's not a pure inflammatory disease.

There are other features on the biopsy that are very particular to IBM, two main other things we need to find. One is that of the accumulation of autophagic vacuole and protein aggregates and that of mitochondrial dysfunction. So, the other test for patients, presenting with weakness---again that depends on your clinical suspicion---would be first to establish that the underlying process is a myopathy; and hence, the EMG. And also, that's particularly important in patient with symptoms in one limb to differentiate it from compressive neuropathies or from a motor neuron disorder or other. So, the EMG tells you it's a myopathy with fibrillation potential, helps you also choose a muscle for biopsy. So as far as blood tests, the main blood test is that of the cytosolic nucleosidase 1A, or people call them IBM antibody. That's present in about half of the patients with IBM, 50%. Specificity originally reported to be high in the 90s, but in real-life practice with commercial lab it's probably lower in the 70s. There is a growing interest in the use of muscle imaging as well and IBM is one of those diseases similar to the clinical phenotype that has some distinctive pattern on imaging on MRI. But again, like the clinical phenotype, it is helpful, it is characteristic. It's not diagnostic on its own. Other blood tests in IBM include creatine kinase level. As long as you're not seeing creatine kinase in the 10,000 or 20,000, that would be very unusual in IBM and other routine blood tests that are discussed in the article.

Dr Berkowitz: Right. That's a very helpful overview of the testing we would consider when we're trying to make this diagnosis that can include, as you mentioned, EMG, muscle MRI, and this five-prime cytosolic nucleosidase 1A antibody. As you said, many of these have variable sensitivity and specificity. We can diagnose a myopathy generally, or muscle inflammation more specifically, using EMG and muscle MRI respectively. It's interesting to hear that that antibody, I know there was a lot of excitement about that originally. Sounds like less sensitive and less specific than one would have hoped. In your article, you discussed sort of how to use some of these tools to try to meet the diagnostic criteria that were updated in 2024 for diagnosing IBM. And correct me if I'm wrong, this is my first time reading about these. I want to make sure I understand that essentially, you always require a biopsy for definitive diagnosis of this disease. Is that right?

Dr Naddaf: That's correct. That's because of the issues that you raised with the antibody and because, even with people with the classic phenotype, you still could have other diseases that can mimic IBM that are associated with different complications, comorbidity profiles. For instance, myotonic dystrophy requires very close monitoring of cardiac rhythm, which is usually not affected in IBM. Hence, there is still the need for a biopsy, as we don't have a better test so far. The antibody has its own challenging, but I still find it very helpful in certain situations, and that's also reflected in the new criteria. It's definitely not a standalone diagnostic test. I don't think you can just draw the antibody, if it's positive, tell the patient they have IBM.

To me, it's helpful in two ways, at least in my practice. One way is, it makes me think of IBM in situations where I was not considering IBM. In the end IBM is the most common disease in adulthood, so it's not a bad habit to just check the antibodies in any unusual case. Or where inconclusive case, it's just me saying, huh, that could be IBM that I missed. Then I go and try to confirm it. The other scenario that it helps me, there are a lot of cases that remain inconclusive. For instance, you just saw inflammation on biopsy, you have some pattern on MRI. You just need another piece of information to further make the case for the diagnosis. And that's where I find the antibodies helpful. And that's reflected in the new criteria.

Dr Berkowitz: I see. So, if you- Yeah, so just to pick up on the antibody here, since I'm sure people be interested in when or whether to send this. You sort of use this in atypical cases where you know it's a myopathy or not. You haven't yet made a diagnosis. And you think, well, if I send this and it's positive, that's not 100% specific, but going to tip me a little more towards thinking this could be an atypical IBM case. But if it's negative, it doesn't sort of tell you either way, since you said it's only about 50% sensitive, right? Am I understanding correctly how you use the antibody?

Dr Naddaf: Yes, this is correct. So basically, you don't have to check it if you think it is IBM; that also depends on your style of practice. To me, I think at some stage, with all the progress we're seeing in research in systems biology, so far there's no indication that the antibody predicts severity, and I don't think it does. But there could be at some time down the road that there are different underlying pathways or disease mechanisms that are associated with people that have the antibodies. So, it's more like for the future, it's good to know if the patient is positive or not.

Dr Berkowitz: Okay. So, if biopsy is really necessary to make this diagnosis, if you see a classic presentation with an older man, as we've said before, with slowly progressive painless finger flexor weakness and quadriceps weakness, do we even need EMG or muscle MRI or this antibody or do you just go straight to biopsy in those cases when the clinical phenotype looks relatively certain? Do you still think one or more of those tests are helpful in the classic presentation? Or are those EMG, muscle MRI, and the antibody ones used more when you think, this looks sort of like IBM but it's either it's maybe early and it's not sort of fully kind of developed into the classic phenotype or it's very asymmetric, which you can see in IBM, or whether it's sort of has more atypical features or only one of the classic features? How do you use EMG muscle MRI in the antibodies when you know you're going to need biopsy ultimately, if this is the diagnosis you have in mind?

Dr Naddaf: That's a great question. And all of the above would be correct depending on the setting you practice in. If I were practicing in a community where I have the privilege to do things step by step, I might approach it a little bit differently. Being at the referral center with many patients coming with a one-stop shop and they need to do everything possible rather than returning, that's also another different practice scenario. But in general, you want the EMG if you're not sure it's a myopathy, especially that these patients are asymmetric and sometimes the findings are in a single limb. So, you would want the EMG when you're not sure it's a myopathy, or also you need a little bit more information on what muscle to biopsy, you could use the EMG. If those questions have already been answered, you don't have to do the EMG. Now regarding the biopsy, if it is the classic phenotype and you think it's going to be a bingo with the biopsy, you might not need to do any antibody or MRI or any further testing. Now with one caveat that the biopsy might not give you the full picture or all the features, then you could go back and do the rest. And that's actually all integrated in the new criteria.

So, in the new 2024 revised European Neuromuscular Center diagnostic criteria for IBM, the main differences are the following: now you can use additional test measures to support the diagnosis in addition to the biopsy. So that will probably reduce the need to have a repeated muscle biopsy. Two, you could have an atypical form and still have the diagnosis. You don't have to wait until your finger flexor or knee extensors are involved. And that's very important also, because criteria generally are made for clinical trials where you want to know for sure who you are treating. But at the same time, you don't want to wait till advanced stages of the disease where treatments might not work. Diagnostic criteria are not made to be used in clinical practice, but at the same time they offer a good framework, a good suggestion for people to use in their clinical practice. And just always remember to tailor it to your particular patients that you're seeing. In those criteria, basically, we go by scenario depending on your level of suspicion. There is no possible probable. You either make the diagnosis or you don't make it. And as you said, if you have a classic phenotype patient with deep finger flexor weakness in the upper limb and knee extends her weakness in the lower limb, your pretest probability is very high, and the chances that you're wrong are low. They're not zero, they're low. That's why I was just showing in the mesial inflammation on the biopsy, which would rule out your genetic mimicor. You're pretty confident of the diagnosis.

And the other scenarios, then let's say you have only one limb, then you need a little bit more support. And you have an atypical form where the differential is very wide. You want to provide more supportive criteria, and the supportive criteria could be other features in the biopsy, whether it's the CCO negative fibers or derma vacuoles, or you could use MRI and antibodies if they're available to you. In many countries, these are still not available, but if they're available, that's good. You could use them as supportive criteria. That was the logic behind those revised criteria that are discussed by scenario in detail in the article.

Dr Berkowitz: Fantastic. That's very helpful. Yeah, as you mentioned this- the criteria reviewed in the article, you have a very helpful figure there with all the branch points of how to get to the diagnosis, but very helpful to hear how you think about combining these tests in practice in different scenarios to get to the final diagnosis. So, IBM is considered an inflammatory myopathy, right? Like dermatomyositis and antisynthetase syndrome and immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy. And yet it gets its own separate article each time we do a Continuum issue on muscle disorders, right? Because it's unique in that it doesn't respond to any immune- immunomodulatory or immunosuppressive therapy like these other inflammatory myopathies. So why do you think, or why is it thought by experts in the field like yourself, that this is an inflammatory myopathy but it, at least from a treatment perspective, appears to behave so differently from the other inflammatory myopathies and doesn't respond to immunomodulatory therapy---or at least we haven't found the right key in the right block of immunomodulatory therapy to treat this disease?

Dr Naddaf: That's a great question, and it's an area that I'm particularly interested in from a research standpoint. So, all these entities we

Limb-girdle muscular dystrophies (LGMDs) encompass a group of genetically heterogeneous skeletal muscle disorders. There has been an explosion of newly identified LGMD subtypes in the past decade, and results from preclinical studies and early-stage clinical trials of genetic therapies are promising for future disease-specific treatments.

In this episode, Gordon Smith, MD, FAAN, speaks with Teerin Liewluck, MD, FAAN, FANA, author of the article "Limb-Girdle Muscular Dystrophies" in the Continuum® October 2025 Muscle and Neuromuscular Junction Disorders 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. Liewluck is a professor of neurology at the Division of Neuromuscular Medicine and Muscle Pathology Laboratory at Mayo Clinic College of Medicine in Rochester, Minnesota.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Limb-Girdle Muscular Dystrophies

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: @TLiewluck

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 with Continuum Audio. Today I'm interviewing Dr Teerin Liewluck, a good friend of mine at the Mayo Clinic, about his article on the limb girdle muscular dystrophies. This article appears in the October 2025 Continuum issue on muscle and neuromuscular junction disorders, a topic that is near and dear to my heart. Teerin, welcome to the podcast, and maybe you can introduce yourself to our listeners.

Dr Liewluck: Thank you very much, Gordon, and I want to say hi to all the Continuum fans. So, I'm Dr Teerin Liewluck, I'm the professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. So, my practice focus on all aspects of muscle diseases, both acquired and genetic myopathies. Glad to be here.

Dr Smith: I just had the great pleasure of seeing you at a seminar in Houston where you talked about this topic. And so, I'm really primed for this conversation, which I'm very excited about. I find this topic a little hard, and I'm hoping I can learn more from you. And I wonder if, as we get started, recognizing many of our listeners are not in practices focused purely on muscle disease, maybe you can provide some context about why this is important for folks doing general neurology or even general neuromuscular medicine? Why do they need to know about this?

Dr Liewluck: Yes, certainly. So, I would say limb girdle muscular dystrophy probably the most complex category of subgroup of muscle diseases because, by itself, it includes thirty-four different subtypes, and the number's still expanding. So, each subtype is very rare. But if you group together, it really have significant number of patients, and these patients present with proximal weakness, very high CK, and these are common patients that can show up in the neurology clinic. So, I think it's very important even for general neurologists to pick up what subtle clues that may lead to the diagnosis because if we are able to provide correct diagnosis for the patients, that's very important for patient management.

Dr Smith: So, I wonder if maybe we can talk a little bit about the phenotype, Terran. I mean, your article does a great job of going over the great diversity. And you know, I think many of us here, you know, limb girdle muscular dystrophy and we think of limb girdle weakness, but the phenotypic spectrum is bananas, right? Rhabdomyolysis, limb girdle distal myopathy. I mean, when should our listeners suspect LGMD?

Dr Liewluck: Yes, I think by the definition to all the LGMD patients will have limb girdle of proximal weakness and very high CK. So, these are common phenotypes among thirty-four different subtypes. But if it did take into details, they have some subtle differences. In the article, what I try to simplify all these different subtypes that we can categorize at least half of them into three main group that each group the underlying defect sharing among those subtypes and also translate into similar muscles and extra muscular manifestations. You will learn that some of the limb girdle muscular dystrophy may present with rhabdomyolysis. And we typically think of this as metabolic myopathies. But if you have a rhabdomyolysis patient, the CK remain elevated even after the acute episode, that's the key that we need to think this could be LGMD. That's for an example.

Dr Smith: So, I wonder if maybe we can start there. I was going to go in a different direction, but this is a good transition. It's easy to see the opportunity to get confused between LGMD or, in that case, a metabolic myopathy or other acquired myopathies. And I think particularly adult neurologists are more accustomed to seeing acquired muscle disease. Are there particular clues that, or pearls that adult neurologists seeing patients with muscle disease can use to recognize when they should be thinking about LGMD given the diverse phenotype?

Dr Liewluck: Yes. What I always tell the patient is that there are more than a hundred different types of muscle diseases, but we can easily divide into groups: acquired and genetic or hereditary. So, the acquired disease is when you encounter the patients who present with acute or subacute cause of the weakness, relatively rapidly progressive. But on the opposite, if you encounter the patient who present with a much more slowly progressive cause of weakness over several months or years, you may need to think about genetic disease of the muscle with also including limb-girdle muscular dystrophy. The detailed exam to be able to distinguish between each type of muscular dystrophy. For example, if proximal weakness, certainly limb girdle muscular dystrophy. If a patient has facial weakness, scapular winking, so you would think about facial scapular hematoma dystrophy. So, the slowly progressive cause of weakness, proximal pattern of weakness, CK elevation, should be the point when you think about LGMD.

Dr Smith: So, I have a question about diagnostic evaluation. I had a meeting with one of my colleagues, Qihua Fan, who's a great peripheral nerve expert, who also does neuromuscular pathology. And we were talking about how the pathology field has changed so much over the last ten years, and we're doing obviously fewer muscle biopsies. Our way of diagnosing them has changed a lot with the evolution of genetic testing. What's your diagnostic approach? Do you go right to genetic testing? Do you do targeted testing based on phenotype? What words of wisdom do you have there?

Dr Liewluck: Yes, so, I mean, being a muscle pathologist myself, it is fair to say that the utility of muscle biopsies when you encounter a patient with suspects that limb girdle muscular dystrophy have reduced over the year. For example, we used to have like fifteen, seventeen hundred muscle biopsies a year; now we do only thirteen hundred biopsies a year. Yes, as you pointed out, the first step in my practice if I suspect LGMD is to go with genetic testing. And I would prefer the last gene panel that not only include the LGMD, but also include all other genetic muscle disease as well as the conjunctive myopic syndrome, because the phenotype can be somehow difficult to distinguish in certain patients.

Dr Smith: So, do you ever get a muscle biopsy, Teerin? I mean you obviously do; only thirteen hundred. Holy cow, that's a lot. So, let me reframe my question. When do you get a muscle biopsy in these patients?

Dr Liewluck: Muscle biopsy still is present in LGMD patients, it's just we don't use it at the first-tier diagnostic test anymore. So, we typically do it in selected cases after the genetic testing in those that came back inconclusive. As you know, you may run into the variant of unknown significance. You may use the muscle biopsy to see, is there any histopathology or abnormal protein Western blot that may further support the heterogenicity of the VUS. So, we still do it, but it typically comes after genetic testing and only in the selected cases that have inconclusive results or negative genetic testing.

Dr Smith: I'd like to ask a question regarding serologic testing for autoantibodies. I refer to a really great case in your article. There are several of them, but this is a patient, a FKRP patient, who was originally thought to have dermatomyositis based on a low-titer ME2 antibody. You guys figured out the correct diagnosis. We send a lot of antibody panels out. Wonder if you have any wisdom, pearls, pitfalls, for how to interpret antibody tests in patients with chronic myopathies? We send a lot of them. And that's the sort of population where we need to be thinking about limb-girdle muscular dystrophies. It's a great case for those, which I hope is everyone who read your article in detail. What do you have to say about that?

Dr Liewluck: Yes, so myositis antibodies, we already revolutionized a few of muscle diseases. I recall when I finished my fellowship thirteen years ago, so we don't really have much muscle myositis antibodies to check. But now the panel is expanded. But again, the antibodies alone cannot lead to diagnosis. You need to go back to your clinical. You need to make sure the clinical antibodies findings are matched. For example, if the key that- if the myocytes specific antibodies present only at the low positive title, it's more often to be false positive. So, you need to look carefully back in the patient, the group of phenotypes, and when in doubt we need to do muscle biopsies. Now on the opposite end, the other group of the antibody is the one for necrotizing autoimmune myopathy; or, the other name, immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy. This is the new group that we have learned only just recently that some patients may present as a typical presentation. I mean, when even thinking about the whole testing autoimmune myopathy, we think about those that present with some acute rapidly progressive weakness, maybe has history of sudden exposures. But we have some patients that present with very slowly progressive weakness like muscular dystrophies. So now in my practice, if I encounter a patient I suspect LGMD, in addition to doing genetic testing for LGMD, I also test for necrotizing doing with myopathy antibodies at the same time. And we typically get antibody back within what, a week or two, but projected testing would take a few months.

Dr Smith: Yeah. And I guess maybe you could talk a little bit about pitfalls and interpretation of genetic tests, right? I think you have another case in your article, and I've certainly seen this, where a patient is misdiagnosed as having a genetic myopathy, LGMD, based on, let's say, just a misinterpretation of the genetic testing, right? So, I think we need to think of it on both sides. And I like the fact that the clinical aspects of diagnosis really are first and foremost most important. But maybe you can talk about wisdom in terms of interpretation of the genetic panel?

Dr Liewluck:Yes. So genetic testing, I think, is a complex issue, particularly for interpretation. And if you're not familiar with this, it's probably best to have your colleagues in genetics that help looking at this together. So, I think the common scenario we encounter is that in those dystrophies that are autosomal recessive, so we expect that the patient needs to have two abnormal copies of the genes to cause the disease. And if patients have only one abnormal copy, they are just a carrier. And commonly we see patients refer to us as much as dystrophy is by having only one abnormal copy. If they are a carrier, they should not have the weakness from that gene abnormality. So, this would be the principle that we really need to adhere. And if you run into those cases, then maybe you need to broaden your differential diagnosis.

Dr Smith: I want to go back to the clinical phenomenology, and I've got a admission to make to you, Teerin. And I find it really hard to keep track of these disorders at, you know, thirty-four and climbing a lot of overlap, and it's hard to remember them. And I'm glad that I'm now going to have a Continuum article I can go to and look at the really great tables to sort things out. I'm curious whether you have all these top of mind? Do you have to look at the table too? And how should people who are seeing these patients organize their thoughts about it? I mean, is it important that you memorize all thirty-four plus disorders? How can you group them? What's your overall approach to that?

Dr Liewluck: I need to admit that I've not memorize all twenty-four different subtypes, but I think what I triy to do even in my real-life practice is group it all together if you can. For example, I think that the biggest group of these LGMD is what we call alpha-dystroglycanopathies. So, this include already ten different subtypes of recessive LGMD. So alpha-dystroglycan is the core of the dystrophin-associated glycoprotein complex. And it's heavy glycosylated protein. So, the effect in ten different genes can affect the glycosylation or the process of adding sugar chain to this alpha-dystroglycan. And they have similar features in terms of the phenotype. They present with proximal weakness, calf pseudohypertrophy, very high CK, some may have recurrent rhabdomyolysis, and cardiac and rhythmic involvement are very common. This is one major group. Now the second group is the limb-girdle muscular dystrophy due to defective membrane repair, which includes two subtypes is the different and on dopamine five. The common feature in this group is that the weakness can be asymmetric and despite proximal weakness, they can have calf atrophy. On muscle biopsy sometimes you can see a myeloid on the muscle tissues. And the third group is the sarcoglycanopathy, which includes four different subtypes, and the presentation can look like we share. For the rest, sometimes go back to the table.

Dr Smith: Thank you for that. And it prompts another question that I always wonder about. Do you have any theories about why such variability in the muscle groups that are involved? I mean, you just brought up dystroglycanopathy, for instance, as something that can cause a very distal predominant myopathy; others do not. Do we at this point now have an understanding given the better genetics that we have on this and work going on in therapeutic development, which I want to get to in a minute, that provides any insight why certain muscle groups are more affected?

Dr Liewluck: Very good question, Gordon. And I would say the first question that led me interested in muscle disease---and this happened probably back in 2000 when I just finished medical school---is why, why, why? Why does muscle disease tend to affect proximal muscles? I thought by now, twenty-five years later, we'd have the answer. I don't. I think this, you don't know clearly why muscle diseases, some affect proximal, some affect distal. But the hypothesis is, and probably my personal hypothesis is, that maybe certain proteins may express more in certain muscles and that may affect different phenotypes. But, I mean, dysferlin has very good examples that can confuse us because some patients present with distal weakness, some patients present with proximal weakness, that's by the same gene defect. And in this patient, when we look at the MRI in detail, actually the patterns of fatty replacements in muscle are the same. Even patient who present clinically as a proximal or distal weakness, the imaging studies show the same finding. Bottom line, we don't know.

Dr Smith: Yeah, who knew it could be so complex? Teerin, you brought up a really great point that I wanted to ask about, which is muscle MRI scan, right? We're now seeing studies that are doing very broad MR imaging. Do you use some muscle MRI very frequently in your clinical evaluation of these patients? And if so, how?

Dr Liewluck: Maybe I don't use it as much as I could, but the most common scenario I use in this setting is when I have the genetic testing come back with the VUS. So, we look at each VUS, each gene in detail. And if anything is suspicious, what I do typically go back to the literature to see if that gene defect in particular has any common pattern of muscle involvement on the MRI. And if there is, I use MRI as one of the two to try to see if I can escalate the pathogenicity of that VUS.

Dr Smith: And a VUS is a "Variant of Unknown Significance," for our listeners. I'm proud that I remember that as a geneticist. These are exciting times in neurology in general, but particularly in an inherited muscle disease. And we're seeing a lot of therapeutic development, a lot going on in Duchenne now. What's the latest in terms of disease-modifying therapeutics and gene therapies in LGMD?

Dr Liewluck: Yes. So, there are several precritical and early-phase critical trials for gene therapy for the common lymphoma of muscular dystrophies. For example, the sarcoglycanopathies, and they also have some biochemical therapy that arepossible for the LGMD to FKRP. But there are many things that I expect probably will come into the picture broader or later phase of critical tryouts, and hopefully we have something to offer for the patients similar to patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

Dr Smith: What haven't we talked about, I mean, holy cow? There's so much in your article. What's one thing we haven't talked about that our listeners need to hear?

Dr Liewluck: Good questions. So, I think we covered all, but often we get patients with proximal weakness and high CK, and they all got labeled as having limb-girdlemuscular dystrophy. What I want to stress is that proximal weakness and high CK is a common feature for muscle diseases, so they need to think broad, need to think about all possibilities. Particularly don't want to miss something treatable. Chronic, slowly progressive cause, as I mentioned earlier, we think more about muscle dystrophy, but at the cranial range, we know that rare patients with necrotic autonomyopathy and present with limb good of weakness at a slowly progressive cost. So, make sure you think about these two when suspecting that LGMD patient diabetic testing has come back inconclusive.

Dr Smith: Well, that's very helpful. And fortunately, there's several other articles in this issue of Continuum that help people think through this issue more broadly. Teerin, you certainly don't disappoint. I enjoyed listening to you about a month ago, and I enjoyed reading your article a great deal and enjoy talking to you even more. Thank you very much.

Dr Liewluck: Thank you very much, Gordon.

Dr Smith: Again, today I've been interviewing Dr Teerin Liewluck about his article on limb-girdle muscular dystrophy, which appears in the October 2025 Continuum issue on muscle and neuromuscular junction disorders. Please be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes for this and other issues. And thanks 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 comple

Facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy (FSHD) is one of the most common forms of muscular dystrophy, affecting individuals across the lifespan with variable severity. Advances in genetic understanding and therapeutic development have led to an era of promising disease-modifying strategies.

In this episode, Katie Grouse, MD FAAN, speaks with Renatta N. Knox, MD, PhD, author of the article "Facioscapulohumeral Muscular Dystrophy" in the Continuum® October 2025 Muscle and Neuromuscular Junction Disorders 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. Knox is an assistant professor of neurology in the Division of Pediatric Neurology and Neuromuscular Section at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Facioscapulohumeral Muscular Dystrophy

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. 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 Renatta Knox about her article on fascioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy, which appears in the October 2025 Continuum issue on muscle and neuromuscular junction disorders. Welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to our audience.

Dr Knox: Hi Katie, thank you so much for the invitation for the audio interview. I'm looking forward to our conversation. As she mentioned, my name is Renata Knox. It's a pleasure to be here today.

Dr Grouse: I'd like to start by asking, what is the key message that you hope your readers will take from your article?

Dr Knox: I would say two things. The first is an appreciation and understanding of the unique genetic mechanism that leads to FSHD. And the second is the really exciting therapy landscape that we find ourselves in. So, we're hopeful that there will actually be disease-modifying therapies for FSHD soon.

Dr Grouse: We're really looking forward to learning more about that. Now, before we get to that piece, could you just remind us of the clinical manifestations and features that are specific to FSHD?

Dr Knox: So, one of the most unique things about FSHD that we see clinically is the pattern of weakness. So, one of the first features is that it's asymmetric. And then there are certain muscle groups that typically are affected, and that's partly where the name comes from. So, we see effects in the face, the limbs, the trunk; and so, those are some of the unique features that we see clinically.

Dr Grouse: I'd love it if you could walk us through how you approach diagnosing a patient who presents with proximal weakness where FSHD is in your differential.

Dr Knox: Yeah, it's a really great question. So, I would say it depends. So, I actually focus on FSHD in my clinical practice. So, many times patients are referred to me because there's a very high suspicion or there's a known family history of FSHD. So, that's one category of cases. I would say the other category of case is where it's, as you said, maybe more proximal weakness more broadly. Someone that's before me who has a known family history, they really have some of the characteristic physical features---which I'm pretty attuned to, as this is, you know, part of my subspecialty---I'll actually go directly to FSHD genetic testing. And that is one of the unique features of this disease, that the next-generation sequencing panels that are typically used for some of our other muscle diseases, FSHD is not captured on those. So, we actually have to send targeted testing for FSHD to diagnose it. So, that is one category where, again, I have a very high suspicion either based on their clinical presentation and/or a known family history, then I will actually go directly to FSHD-targeted genetic testing. In the second case, where it is one of the conditions that I'm considering among others, I will do more broad testing. So, I will get a CK level to see if there's evidence of muscle breakdown. I'll likely also do one of the next-generation sequencing panels that we have access to, which will allow us to identify, potentially, one to two hundred potential muscle diseases. And then again, if FSHD is higher on my differential in that second group of patients, then I will also send targeted FSHD-specific testing.

Dr Grouse: That's really helpful. And I'm wondering if you have any thoughts about common pitfalls that you've seen when providers are trying to work this up?

Dr Knox: I don't know if I would say pitfalls. I think I would acknowledge that it's challenging. My subspecialty training in neuromuscular medicine and also gene therapy. And so FSHD is pretty high on my radar. But I would say in neurology in general---and then, you know, the general medical population---,it really isn't something that many people are seeing. So, I would say what patients will communicate to us sometimes is some frustration that maybe it took time to make the diagnosis, but I just have a deep understanding that it's not something that is on many people's radars. And I think, again, it's tricky because it's not picked up on these next-generation sequencing panels, which many of us can send pretty easily. It will be missed. And I will say the biggest pitfall is, again, if you're not thinking about it and you don't send that testing, you actually- it's very difficult to diagnose it.

Dr Grouse: Thank you so much for highlighting that. I think there are many people who are not aware that those different panels really aren't picking that up and that they have to test specifically. So, I think that's a great thing for all of us to keep in mind. Are there any tips or tricks to the diagnosis, other than the genetic issues that you mentioned, that sometimes can really bring this diagnosis to the forefront?

Dr Knox: I think things that really tip me off to having a higher suspicion for FSHD is facial weakness that we can detect on our exam. Scapular winging---again, there's a small subset of disorders which can impact that. Someone who's presenting with foot drop, you know, with facial weakness, I think definitely about FSHD more. Also, clinically, kind of the presentation or things that they're beginning to have difficulty with is a tip-off. So, if someone is an athlete, like, they're a volleyball player or basketball player and they say, oh, I'm having difficulties, you know, with movements that require them to elevate their arm, which can be a sign of the shoulder weakness that we classically see. Or someone who says, oh, I'm having a harder time shampooing my hair or combing my hair. So those can be tip-offs again, which are basically referencing the type of weakness that they have. Another feature of FSHD which isn't necessarily as broadly appreciated is that pain and fatigue are very common. So, if someone is coming in and saying, actually, I also have a significant amount of fatigue as well or a lot of pain, that's something that can tip me off to it. Hearing loss is something that we can also see in up to 20% of patients with FSHD. So, if they are having those symptoms or saying they're ringing in their ears, these are some things that will make me begin to think about it more.

Dr Grouse: Oh, really helpful. I also found it really fascinating reading some of the very FSHD-specific clinical signs, some interesting- some diagrams and pictures as well, that are very specific to the pattern of weakness that develops in FSHD. So, I encourage our listeners to check that out. But are there any highlights from those little clinical pearls that you'd like to point out?

Dr Knox: I think the poly-hill sign---so, these are these literal hills that we can see in the shoulders of patients with FSHD---is pretty classic. Popeye arms, which is this older term that we still use that has to do with which muscle groups are preserved versus those that have atrophy. So that's a common feature. And then I would say, really, the asymmetry is something that is a unique feature in FSHD. And again, we did our best to provide good representative images. So again, as you mentioned, Katie, I would really encourage people to look at those images and then think about cases that they may have seen and how similar they are so they can begin to recognize those signs as well.

Dr Grouse: Now going back to the genetic topic, the complex genetic underpinnings of FSHD are really well-explained in your article; and again, worth taking a look at to remind ourselves of everything that's of that pathology. Now, I was wondering though, if you could give us a brief overview of how we should approach genetic testing in a suspected case of FSHD? You mentioned some specific panels, but it does sound like there's some more complexity to it as well.

Dr Knox: Yes, and I'll just kind of briefly explain that complexity. Part of the thing that we're detecting in the genetic testing is the repeat number. And so, we're actually looking for a contraction in a repeat number. So, not an expansion, which were typical for some of the diseases that we think about, the trinucleotide repeat disorders. And this is why it's not captured in the next-generation sequencing panels, because they do not currently have the ability to do that. And so, again, what the type of testing that I do really depends on my suspicion. So again, if my suspicion is very high for FSHD---they have a family history, they have the classic features---then I will actually go directly to an FSHD-specific testing, which is available from various sources. If, again, it's among different things that I'm thinking about, I will get a CK lab. I typically will also send a next-generation sequencing panel specific for muscle diseases, perhaps muscular dystrophy; again, depending on what I'm thinking about. And then I will also send in a specific FSHD genetic test as well. People are beginning to use whole-genome sequencing, which is capturing some of our true nucleotide repeat disorders and becoming more comprehensive. So, my hope is that as that becomes more standard of care---like, whole-exome sequencing can be gotten pretty routinely now---that it may be easier for us to make some of these diagnoses.

Dr Grouse: Well, that's really helpful, and thanks for that overview. Now another thing that you mentioned that I thought was really interesting in your article was that patients with, you know, history of FSHD, perhaps in the family, who are pregnant and want to screen for this disease would not be able to use sort of the more common screening tests like cell-free DNA testing and may have to go to other means to do that. What is generally their route to this type of testing?

Dr Knox: Yeah, great question, and really important question for family planning purposes, and it definitely comes up in clinical practice. And so again, because of the unique genetics of FSHD, you actually have to do invasive genetic testing currently to be able to test it. And so that's, you know, amnio or chorio, and then send it to a lab that can perform, again, FSHD-specific testing on the samples that are presented. And there are obviously labs that are capable of doing that and centers that are capable of doing that, but it is not picked up on the cell-free DNA panels that are being very routinely used. You or your provider has to be thinking about it to send that specific testing, similar to our patients that come into clinic and have not yet been diagnosed.

Dr Grouse: Once you have the diagnosis, what are our options for therapy? I think it sounds like at this current time, it looks to be mostly supportive. What are some of the supportive care options we should keep in mind?

Dr Knox: Yes, so that is definitely accurate. Care today is supportive, but again, we're very excited about the clinical trial and therapy landscape for FSHD. So, I work very closely with my physical therapy colleagues that are in clinic with me. So, we work very closely with physical and occupational therapists to help with supportive measures, adaptive measures, doing assessments, helping our patients to be able to move and exercise safely and effectively. As I mentioned, pain is very common in FSHD and so we can treat that with medications. The most common medication that we use to treat for pain in FSHD are NSAIDs. And then other than that it's really, you know, supportive measures. Do they need to see other subspecialists? There are some surgical options. Those are used very rarely to help with some of the scapular weakness, but typically it's physical therapy, occupational therapy, supportive devices. We treat the pain as we're able to, and then we work with other subspecialists to screen, monitor and support our patients to the best of our ability.

Dr Grouse: Well, without further ado, I'd love to hear more about what's coming down the pipeline in clinical trials. What can we look forward to seeing, hopefully, in future years to treat these patients?

Dr Knox: Yes. And so, this is actually what got me interested in the neuromuscle space in general is that, because we now for many years have known the genetic cause of many of these disorders as well as some of the underlying mechanisms, we can actually use advances in therapeutics to do what we call targeted therapies. So, rather than treating symptoms or indirect methods or doing kind of broad drug screens---which, again, still do take place and still do have their place---we actually can target mechanisms directly. And so, we know that the underlying biology of FSHD is due to this protein called DUX4 being expressed when it should not be. So, it's what we call a toxic gain of function. And so, the targeted way to address this is to suppress DUX4 expression. And so, kind of broadly speaking, what we're really excited about are a couple of products that are currently in clinical trials right now that actually caused DUX4 suppression to be suppressed. And again, these are targeted pathways. And so, again, the hope is that by doing that, we can hopefully slow the progression of the disease, potentially stop progression of the disease, and potentially reverse. Again, we don't know if that might be possible, but that is one of the hopes.

Dr Grouse: Well, that's really exciting, and I know we're all looking forward to more coming down the pipeline soon, and hopefully more things that can really offer some exciting treatments for our patients with this condition. Now, a little more deep-dive into our patients who are diagnosed. You've reviewed some of the treatments currently available and hopefully may someday soon be available. Are there other things that we should be keeping in mind in this population? For instance, screenings that we should be doing for other extramuscular manifestations that we need to be thinking about?

Dr Knox: I will answer that question two ways. I think something that's very important to acknowledge is the impact that these diagnoses and these conditions have on our patient practically, psychologically. One of the other unique features of FSHD is, it's autosomal-dominant. So, if it is in a family, you can have many family members who are affected, but the variability is very high. And so, you can have in the same family someone who is wheelchair-dependent, and someone else in the family with the same underlying genetics who has no signs or symptoms or is very mildly affected. And that is something that is definitely challenging for our families and patients to navigate if they're very different than their family members with the same condition. And just navigating the world with a condition that, you know, can be physically debilitating and cause changes to what they're able to do or not able to do, progression is something that's very difficult to handle. So, I think that's one set of things. And we try our best, you know, with my team and my other colleagues in the space, to support our families and patients in the best way that we can.

Secondly, there is very important screening that needs to be done for this condition. So, one of the things- and the current guidelines which are actually being updated, the last update was in 2015 is all patients that undergo pulmonary function testing or PFTs. And so that's something we do at baseline and we do at least annually in my practice. Young kids who are presenting very early or patients with certain genetics that we know are more predisposed to extra muscular manifestations, we recommend screening for hearing, which is one of the manifestations, and ophthalmologic exam to look for retinovascular changes, which is one of the manifestations as well. Those are the more common ones that are typically done. There's also some evidence in pediatric patients with very severe manifestations that there may be some cognitive impacts, learning impacts. And so, that is something we're also thinking about screening and supporting our patients in that way. And again, we typically work with these patients in a multidisciplinary team depending on what manifestations and the degrees to which they're impacted by the disorder.

Dr Grouse: Thank you so much for that answer. I think a lot of us forget sometimes when we get really focused on what can we do now, that we forget to kind of stop and reflect on sort of the more holistic approach. How is this affecting the patient? How is this affecting the patient's family dynamic, and what other ways are they going through life with this condition that we need to be thinking about? So, I appreciate you bringing that up. I wanted to ask, sort of based on what you're talking about and what you mentioned already, you happened to mention that what initially drew you that to this work was your interest in some of the really exciting breakthroughs in the field. Well, was there anything else that drew you to, specifically, congenital neuromuscular diseases, and FSHD in particular?

Dr Knox: I'm a physician scientist by training, and so I would describe myself also as a molecular biologist. So, I love getting into the nitty gritties of disease mechanisms, what genes are doing in bodies, how they function. And so, as I mentioned earlier, in the neuromuscle space, we've known for many years the genetic cause of many of these disorders and have done great, you know, mechanistic work to kind of define why we see the disease. And then now we're at this intersection of that knowledge marrying with these really novel therapeutic approaches, gene therapy approaches, being able to intersect and then in very creative ways actually target diseases very directly. And so, I would say it really is the combination of those two things. FSHD has a really fascinating unique biology, which again, we encourage everyone to read about more in the article. That really drew me to it. I'm very interested in gene regulation, transcription. This is one of the underlying mechanisms that is gone awry in the disorder, and then that being married to advances in therapeutics. So, you could wed those two pieces of information and actually meaningfully impact patient 's lives.

And again, that's the real privilege and honor to witness is how these therapies can transform lives. And I saw it happened with this one case for this one disorder when I was a resident where there was no treatment. Young children, unfortunately, would not survive the dise

While genetic testing has replaced muscle biopsy in the diagnosis of many genetic myopathies, clinical assessment and the integration of clinical and laboratory findings remain key elements for the diagnosis and treatment of muscle diseases.

In this episode, Casey Albin, MD, speaks with Margherita Milone, MD, PhD, FAAN, FANA, author of the article "A Pattern Recognition Approach to Myopathy" in the Continuum® October 2025 Muscle and Neuromuscular Junction Disorders issue.

Dr. Albin is a Continuum® Audio interviewer, associate editor of media engagement, and an assistant professor of neurology and neurosurgery at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

Dr. Milone is a professor of neurology and the director of the Muscle Pathology Laboratory at Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science in Rochester, Minnesota.

Additional Resources

Read the article: A Pattern Recognition Approach to Myopathy

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: @caseyalbin

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 Albin: Hello, this is Dr Casey Albin. Today I'm interviewing Dr Margherita Milone on her article on a pattern recognition approach to myopathy, which appears in the October 2025 Continuum issue on muscle and neuromuscular junction disorders. Welcome to the podcast, Dr Milone. Thank you so much for joining us. I'll start off by having you introduce yourself to our listeners.

Dr Milone: Hello Casey, thank you so much for this interview and for bringing the attention to the article on muscle diseases. So, I'm Margherita Milone. I'm one of the neuromuscular neurologists at Mayo Clinic in Rochester. I have been interested in muscle disorders since I was a neurology resident many years ago. Muscle diseases are the focus of my clinical practice and research interest.

Dr Albin: Wonderful. Thank you so much. When I think about myopathies, I generally tend to think of three large buckets: the genetic myopathy, the inflammatory myopathies, and then the necrotizing myopathies. Is that a reasonable approach to conceptualizing these myopathies?

Dr Milone: Yeah, the ideology of the myopathies can be quite broad. And yes, we have a large group of genetic muscle diseases, which are the most common. And then we have immune-mediated muscle diseases, which include inflammatory myopathies as well as some form of necrotizing myopathies. Then we have some metabolic myopathies, which could be acquired or could be genetic. And then there are muscle diseases that are due to toxins as well as to infection.

Dr Albin: Wow. So, lots of different etiologies. And that really struck me about your article, is that these can present in really heterogeneous ways, and some of them don't really read the rule book. So, we have to have a really high level of suspicion, for someone who's coming in with weakness, to remember to think about a myopathy. One of the things that I like to do is try to take us through a little bit of a case to sort of walk us through how you would approach if someone comes in. So, let's say you get, you know, a forty-year-old woman, and she's presenting with several months of progressive weakness. And she says that even recently she's noted just a little bit of difficulty swallowing. It feels to her like things are getting stuck. What are some of the things when you are approaching the history that would help you tease this to a myopathy instead of so many other things that can cause a patient to be weak?

Dr Milone: Yes. So, as you mentioned, people who have a muscle disease have the muscle weakness often, but the muscle weakness is not just specific for a muscle disease. Because you can have a mass weakness in somebody who has a neurogenic paralysis. The problem with diagnosis of muscle diseases is that patients with these disorders have a limited number of symptom and sign that does not match the large heterogeneity of the etiology. So, in someone who has weakness, that weakness could represent a muscle disease, could represent an anterior horn cell disease, could represent a defect of neuromuscular junction. The clinical history of weakness is not sufficient by itself to make you think about a muscle disease. You have to keep that in the differential diagnosis. But your examination will help in corroborating your suspicion of a muscle disease. Let's say if you have a patient, the patient that you described, with six months' history of progressive weakness, dysphagia, and that patient has normal reflexes, and the patient has no clinical evidence for muscle fatigability and no sensory loss, then the probability that that patient has a myopathy increases.

Dr Albin: Ah, that's really helpful. I'm hearing a lot of it is actually the lack of other findings. In some ways it's asking, you know, have you experienced numbness and tingling? And if not, that's sort of eliminating that this might not be a neuropathy problem. And then again, that fatigability- obviously fatigability is not specific to a neuromuscular junction, but knowing that is a hallmark of myasthenia, the most common of neuromuscular disorders. Getting that off the table helps you say, okay, well, it's not a neuromuscular junction problem, perhaps. Now we have to think more about, is this a muscle problem itself? Are there any patterns that the patients describe? I have difficulty getting up from a chair, or I have difficulty brushing my hair. When I think of myopathies, I historically have thought of, sort of, more proximal weakness. Is that always true, or not so much?

Dr Milone: Yeah. So, there are muscle diseases that involve predominantly proximal weakness. For example, the patient you mentioned earlier could have, for example, an autoimmune muscle disease, a necrotizing autoimmune myopathy; could have, perhaps, dermatomyositis if there are skin changes. But a patient with muscle disease can also present with a different pattern of weakness. So, myopathies can lead to this weakness, and foot drop myopathies can cause- can manifest with the weakness of the calf muscles. So, you may have a patient presenting to the clinic who has no the inability to stand on tiptoes, or you may have a patient who has just facial weakness, who has noted the difficulty sealing their lips on the glasses when they drink and experiencing some drooling in that setting, plus some hand weakness. So, the muscle involved in muscle diseases can vary depending on the underlying cause of the muscle disease.

Dr Albin: That's really helpful. So, it really is really keeping an open mind and looking for some supporting features, whether it's bulbar involvement, extraocular eye muscle involvement; looking, you know, is it proximal, is it distal? And then remembering that any of those patterns can also be a muscle problem, even if sometimes we think of distal being more neuropathy and proximal myopathy. Really, there's a host of ranges for this. I really took that away from your article. This is, unfortunately, not just a neat way to box these. We really have to have that broad differential. Let me ask another question about your history. How often do you find that patients complain of, sort of, muscular cramping or muscle pain? And does that help you in terms of deciding what type of myopathy they may have?

Dr Milone: Many patients with muscle disease have muscle pain. The muscle pain could signal a presence of inflammation in skeletal muscle, could be the result of overuse from a muscle that is not functioning normally. People who have myotonia experience muscle stiffness and muscle pain. Patients who have a metabolic myopathy usually have exercise-induced muscle pain. But, as we know, muscle pain is also very nonspecific, so we have to try to find out from the patient in what setting the pain specifically occurs.

Dr Albin: That's really helpful. So, it's asking a little bit more details about the type of cramping that they have, the type of pain they may be experiencing, to help you refine that differential. Similarly, one of the things that I historically have always associated with myopathies is an elevation in the CK, or the creatinine kinase. How sensitive and specific is that, and how do you as the expert sort of take into account, you know, what their CK may be?

Dr Milone: So, this is a very good point. And the elevation of creatine kinase can provide a clue that the patient has a muscle disease, but it is nonspecific for muscle disease because we know that elevation of creatine kinase can occur in the setting of a neurogenic process. For example, we can see elevation of the creatine kinase in patients who have ALS or in patients who have spinal muscular atrophy. And in these patients---for example, those with spinal muscular atrophy---the CK elevation can be also of significantly elevated up to a couple of thousand. Conversely, we can have muscle diseases where the CK elevation does not occur. Examples of these are some genetic muscle disease, but also some acquired muscle diseases. If we think of, for example, cases where inflammation in the muscle occurs in between muscle fibers, more in the interstitium of the muscle, that disease may not lead to significant elevation of the CK.

Dr Albin: That's super helpful. So, I'm hearing you say CK may be helpful, but it's neither completely sensitive nor completely specific when we're thinking about myopathic disorders.

Dr Milone: You are correct.

Dr Albin: Great. So, coming back to our patients, you know, she says that she has this dysphasia. How do bulbar involvement or extraocular eye movement involvement, how do those help narrow your differential? And what sort of disorders are you thinking of for patients who may have that bulbar or extraocular muscle involvement?

Dr Milone: Regarding dysphagia, that can occur in the setting of acquired myopathies relatively frequent; for example, in inclusion body myositis or in other forms of inflammatory myopathy. Your patient, I believe, was in their forties, so it's a little bit too young for inclusion body myositis. Involvement of the extraocular muscles is usually much more common in genetic muscle diseases and much less frequent in hereditary muscle disease. So, if there is involvement of the extraocular muscles, and if there is a dysphagia, and if there is a proximal weakness, you may think about oculopharyngeal muscular dystrophy, for example. But obviously, in a patient who has only six months of history, we have to pay attention of the degree of weakness the patient has developed since the symptom onset. Because if the degree of weakness is mild, yes, it could still be a genetic or could be an acquired disease. But if we have a patient who, in six months, from being normal became unable to climb stairs, then we worry much more about an acquired muscle disease.

Dr Albin: That's really helpful. So, the time force of this is really important. And when you're trying to think about, do I put this in sort of a hereditary form of muscle disease, thinking more of an indolent core, something that's going to be slowly progressive versus one of those inflammatory or necrotizing pathologies, that's going to be a much more quick onset, rapidly progressive, Do I have that right?

Dr Milone: In general, the statement is correct. They tend, acquired muscle disease, to have a faster course compared to a muscular dystrophy. But there are exceptions. There have been patients with immune mediated necrotizing myopathy who have been misdiagnosed as having limb-girdle muscular dystrophy just because the disease has been very slowly progressive, and vice versa. There may be some genetic muscle diseases that can present in a relatively fast way. And one of these is a lipid storage myopathy, where some patients may develop subacutely weakness, dysphagia, and even respiratory difficulties.

Dr Albin: Again, I'm hearing you say that we really have to have an open mind that myopathies can present in a whole bunch of different ways with a bunch of different phenotypes. And so, keeping that in mind, once you suspect someone has a myopathy, looking at the testing from the EMG perspective and then maybe laboratory testing, how do you use that information to guide your work up?

Dr Milone: The EMG has a crucial role in the diagnosis of muscle diseases. Because, as we said earlier, weakness could be the result of muscle disease or other form of neuromuscular disease. If the EMG study will show evidence of muscle disease supporting your diagnostic hypothesis, now you have to decide, is this an acquired muscle disease or is this a genetic muscle disease? If you think that, based on clinical history of, perhaps, subacute pores, it is more likely that the patient has an acquired muscle disease, then I would request a muscle biopsy. The muscle biopsy will look for structural abnormalities that could help in narrowing down the type of muscle disease that the patient has.

Dr Albin: That's really helpful. When we're sending people to get muscle biopsies, are there any tips that you would give the listeners in terms of what site to biopsy or what site, maybe, not to biopsy?

Dr Milone: This is a very important point. A muscle biopsy has the highest diagnostic yield if it's done in a muscle that is weak. And because muscle diseases can result in proximal or distal weakness, if your patient has distal weakness, you should really biopsy a distal muscle. However, we do not wish to biopsy a muscle that is too weak, because otherwise the biopsy sample will result just in fibrous and fatty connected tissue. So, we want to biopsy a muscle that has mild to moderate weakness.

Dr Albin: Great. So, a little Goldilocks phenomenon: has to be some weak, but not too weak. You got to get just the right feature there. I love that. That's a really good pearl for our listeners to take. What about on the flip side? Let's say you don't think it's an acquired a muscular disease. How are you handling testing in that situation?

Dr Milone: If you think the patient has a genetic muscle disease, you pay a lot of attention to the distribution of the weakness. Ask yourself, what is the best pattern that represent the patient's weakness? So, if I have a patient who has facial weakness, dysphagia, muscle cramping, and then on examination represent myotonia, then at that point we can go straight to a genetic test for myotonic dystrophy type one.

Dr Albin: That's super helpful.

Dr Milone: So, you request directly that generic test and wait for the result. If positive, you will have proof that your diagnostic hypothesis was correct.

Dr Albin: You're using the genetic testing to confirm your hypothesis, not just sending a whole panel of them. You're really informing that testing based on the patient's pattern of weakness and the exam findings, and sometimes even the EMG findings as well. Is that correct?

Dr Milone: You are correct, and ideally, yes. And this is true for certain muscle diseases. In addition to myotonic dystrophy type one, for example, if you have a patient who has fascial scapulohumeral muscular weakness, you can directly request a test for FSHD. So, the characterization of the clinical phenotype is crucial before selecting the genetic test for diagnosis.

Dr Albin: Wonderful.

Dr Milone: However, this is not always possible, because you may have a patient who has just a limb-girdle weakness, and the limb-girdle weakness can be limb-girdle muscular dystrophy. But we know that there are many, many types of limb-girdle muscular dystrophies. Therefore, the phenotype is not sufficient to request specific genetic tests for one specific form of a limb-girdle muscular dystrophy. And in those cases, more complex next-generation sequencing panels have a higher chance of providing the answer.

Dr Albin: Got it, that makes sense. So, sometimes we're using a specific genetic test; sometimes, it is unfortunate that we just cannot narrow down to one disease that we might be looking for, and we may need a panel in that situation.

Dr Milone: You are correct.

Dr Albin: Fantastic. Well, as we wrap up, is there anything on the horizon for muscular disorders that you're really excited about?

Dr Milone: Yes, there are a lot of exciting studies ongoing for gene therapy, gene editing. So, these studies are very promising for the treatment of genetic muscle disease, and I'm sure there will be therapists that will improve the patient's quality of life and the disease outcome.

Dr Albin: It's really exciting. Well, thank you again. Today I've been interviewing Dr Margarita Malone on her article on a pattern recognition approach to myopathy, which appears in the October 2025 Continuum issue on muscle and neuromuscular junction disorders. 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, Dr Milone.

Dr Milone: Thank you, Casey. Very nice chatting with you about this.

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.

Functional movement disorders are a common clinical concern for neurologists. The principle of "rule-in" diagnosis, which involves demonstrating the difference between voluntary and automatic movement, can be carried through to explanation, triage, and evidence-based multidisciplinary rehabilitation therapy.

In this episode, Gordon Smith, MD, FAAN speaks Jon Stone, PhD, MB, ChB, FRCP, an author of the article "Multidisciplinary Treatment for Functional Movement Disorder" in the Continuum® August 2025 Movement Disorders 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. Stone is a consultant neurologist and honorary professor of neurology at the Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences at the University of Edinburgh in Edinburgh, United Kingdom.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Multidisciplinary Treatment for Functional Movement Disorder

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

Host: @gordonsmithMD

Guest: @jonstoneneuro

Full episode transcript available here

Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. This exclusive Continuum Audio interview is available only to you, our subscribers. We hope you enjoy it. Thank you for listening.

Dr Smith: Hello, this is Dr Gordon Smith. Today I've got the great pleasure of interviewing Dr Johnstone about his article on the multidisciplinary treatment for functional neurologic disorder, which he wrote with Dr Alan Carson. This article will appear in the August 2025 Continuum issue on movement disorders. I will say, Jon, that as a Continuum Audio interviewer, I usually take the interviews that come my way, and I'm happy about it. I learn something every time. They're all a lot of fun. But there have been two instances where I go out and actively seek to interview someone, and you are one of them. So, I'm super excited that they allowed me to talk with you today. For those of our listeners who understand or are familiar with FND, Dr Stone is a true luminary and a leader in this, both in clinical care and research. He's also a true humanist. And I have a bit of a bias here, but he was the first awardee of the Ted Burns Humanism in Neurology award, which is a real honor and reflective of your great work. So welcome to the podcast, Jon. Maybe you can introduce yourself to our audience.

Dr Stone: Well, thank you so much, Gordon. It was such a pleasure to get that award, the Ted Burns Award, because Ted was such a great character. I think the spirit of his podcasts is seen in the spirit of these podcasts as well. So, I'm a neurologist in Edinburgh in Scotland. I'm from England originally. I'm very much a general neurologist still. I still work full-time. I do general neurology, acute neurology, and I do two FND clinics a week. I have a research group with Alan Carson, who you mentioned; a very clinical research group, and we've been doing that for about 25 years.

Dr Smith: I really want to hear more about your clinical approach and how you run the clinic, but I wonder if it would be helpful for you to maybe provide a definition. What's the definition of a functional movement disorder? I mean, I think all of us see these patients, but it's actually nice to have a definition.

Dr Stone: You know, that's one of the hardest things to do in any paper on FND. And I'm involved with the FND society, and we're trying to get together a definition. It's very hard to get an overarching definition. But from a movement disorder point of view, I think you're looking at a disorder where there is an impairment of voluntary movement, where you can demonstrate that there is an automatic movement, which is normal in the same movement. I mean, that's a very clumsy way of saying it. Ultimately, it's a disorder that's defined by the clinical features it has; a bit like saying, what is migraine? You know? Or, what is MS? You know, it's very hard to actually say that in a sentence. I think these are disorders of brain function at a very broad level, and particularly with FND disorders, of a sort of higher control of voluntary movement, I would say.

Dr Smith: There's so many pearls in this article and others that you've written. One that I really like is that this isn't a diagnosis of exclusion, that this is an affirmative diagnosis that have clear diagnostic signs. And I wonder if you can talk a little bit about the diagnostic process, arriving at an FND diagnosis for a patient.

Dr Stone: I think this is probably the most important sort of "switch-around" in the last fifteen, twenty years since I've been involved. It's not new information. You know, all of these diagnostic signs were well known in the 19th century; and in fact, many of them were described then as well. But they were kind of lost knowledge, so that by the time we got to the late nineties, this area---which was called conversion disorder then---it was written down. This is a diagnosis of exclusion that you make when you've ruled everything out. But in fact, we have lots of rule in signs, which I hope most listeners are familiar with. So, if you've got someone with a functional tremor, you would do a tremor entrainment test where you do rhythmic movements of your thumb and forefinger, ask the patient to copy them. It's very important that they copy you rather than make their own movements. And see if their tremor stops briefly, or perhaps entrains to the same rhythm that you're making, or perhaps they just can't make the movement. That might be one example. There's many examples for limb weakness and dystonia. There's a whole lot of stuff to learn there, basically, clinical skills.

Dr Smith: You make a really interesting point early on in your article about the importance of the neurological assessment as part of the treatment of the patient. I wonder if you could talk to our listeners about that.

Dr Stone: So, I think, you know, there's a perception that- certainly, there was a perception that that the neurologist is there to make a diagnosis. When I was training, the neurologist was there to tell the patient that they didn't have the kind of neurological problem and to go somewhere else. But in fact, that treatment process, when it goes well, I think begins from the moment you greet the patient in the waiting room, shake their hand, look at them. Things like asking the patient about all their symptoms, being the first doctor who's ever been interested in their, you know, horrendous exhaustion or their dizziness. You know, questions that many patients are aware that doctors often aren't very interested in. These are therapeutic opportunities, you know, as well as just taking the history that enable the patient to feel relaxed. They start thinking, oh, this person's actually interested in me. They're more likely to listen to what you've got to say if they get that feeling off you.

So, I'd spend a lot of time going through physical symptoms. I go through time asking the patient what they do, and the patients will often tell you what they don't do. They say, I used to do this, I used to go running. Okay, you need to know that, but what do they actually do? Because that's such valuable information for their treatment plan. You know, they list a whole lot of TV shows that they really enjoy, they're probably not depressed. So that's kind of useful information. I also spend a lot of time talking to them about what they think is wrong. Be careful, that they can annoy patients, you know. Well, I've come to you because you're going to tell me what's wrong. But what sort of ideas had you had about what was wrong? I need to know so that I can deal with those ideas that you've had. Is there a particular reason that you're in my clinic today? Were you sent here? Was it your idea? Are there particular treatments that you think would really help you? These all set the scene for what's going to come later in terms of your explanation. And, more importantly, your triaging of the patient. Is this somebody where it's the right time to be embarking on treatment, which is a question we don't always ask yourself, I think.

Dr Smith: That's a really great point and kind of segues to my next question, which is- you talked a little bit about this, right? Generally speaking, we have come up with this is a likely diagnosis earlier, midway through the encounter. And you talked a little bit about how to frame the encounter, knowing what's coming up. And then what's coming up is sharing with the patient our opinion. In your article, you point out this should be no different than telling someone they have Parkinson's disease, for instance. What pearls do you have and what pitfalls do you have in how to give the diagnosis? And, you know, a lot of us really weren't trained to do this. What's the right way, and what are the most common land mines that folks step on when they're trying to share this information with patients?

Dr Stone: I've been thinking about this for a long time, and I've come to the conclusion that all we need to do with this disorder is stop being weird. What goes wrong? The main pitfall is that people think, oh God, this is FND, this is something a bit weird. It's in a different box to all of the other things and I have to do something weird. And people end up blurting out things like, well, your scan was normal or, you haven't got epilepsy or, you haven't got Parkinson's disease. That's not what you normally do. It's weird. What you normally do is you take a deep breath and you say, I'm sorry to tell you've got Parkinson's disease or, you have this type of dystonia. That's what you normally say. If you follow the normal- what goes wrong is that people don't follow the normal rules. The patient picks up on this. What's going on here? This doctor's telling me what I don't have and then they're starting to talk about some reason why I've got this, like stress, even though I don't- haven't been told what it is yet. You do the normal rules, give it a name, a name that you're comfortable with, preferably as specific as possible: functional tremor, functional dystonia. And then do what you normally do, which is explain to the patient why you think it's this. So, if someone's got Parkinson's, you say, I think you've got Parkinson's because I noticed that you're walking very slowly and you've got a tremor. And these are typical features of Parkinson. And so, you're talking about the features. This is where I think it's the most useful thing that you can do. And the thing that I do when it goes really well and it's gone badly somewhere else, the thing I probably do best, what was most useful, is showing the patient their signs. I don't know if you do that, Gordon, but it's maybe not something that we're used to doing.

Dr Smith: Wait, maybe you can talk more about that, and maybe, perhaps, give an example? Talk about how that impacts treatment. I was really impressed about the approach to physical therapy, and treatment of patients really leverages the physical examination findings that we're all well-trained to look for. So maybe explore that a little bit.

Dr Stone: Yeah, I think absolutely it does. And I think we've been evolving these thoughts over the last ten or fifteen years. But I started, you know, maybe about twenty years ago, started to show people their tremor entrainment tests. Or their Hoover sign, for example; if you don't know Hoover sign, weakness of hip extension, that comes back to normal when the person's flexing their normal leg, their normal hip. These are sort of diagnostic tricks that we had. Ahen I started writing articles about FND, various senior neurologists said to me, are you sure you should write this stuff down? Patients will find out. I wrote an article with Marc Edwards called "Trick or Treat in Neurology" about fifteen years ago to say that actually, although they're they might seem like tricks, there really are treats for patients because you're bringing the diagnosis into the clinic room. It's not about the normal scan. You can have FND and MS. It's not about the normal scan. It's about what you're seeing in front of you. If you show that patient, yes, you can't move your leg. The more you try, the worse it gets. I can see that. But look, lift up your other leg. Let me show you. Can you see now how strong your leg is? It's such a powerful way of communicating to the patient what's wrong with them diagnostically, giving them that confidence. What it's also doing is showing them the potential for improvement. It's giving them some hope, which they badly need. And, as we'll perhaps talk about, the physio treatment uses that as well because we have to use a different kind of physio for many forms of functional movement disorder, which relies on just glimpsing these little moments of normal function and promoting them, promoting the automatic movement, squashing down that abnormal pattern of voluntary movement that people have got with FND.

Dr Smith: So, maybe we can talk about that now. You know, I've got a bunch of other questions to ask you about mechanism and stuff, but let's talk about the approach to physical therapy because it's such a good lead-in and I always worry that our physical therapists aren't knowledgeable about this. So, maybe some examples, you have some really great ones in the article. And then words of wisdom for us as we're engaging physical therapists who may not be familiar with FND, how to kind of build that competency and relationship with the therapist with whom you work.

Dr Stone: Some of the stuff is the same. Some of the rehabilitation ideas are similar, thinking about boom and bust activity, which is very common in these patients, or grading activity. That's similar, but some of them are really different. So, if you have a patient with a stroke, the physiotherapist might be very used to getting that person to think and look at their leg to try and help them move, which is part of their rehabilitation. In FND, that makes things worse. That's what's happening in Hoover sign and tremor entrainment sign. Attention towards the limb is making it worse. But if the patient's on board with the diagnosis and understands it, they'll also see what you need to do, then, in the physio is actively use distraction in a very transparent way and say to the patient, look, I think if I get you to do that movement, and I'll film you, I think your movement's going to look better. Wouldn't that be great if we could demonstrate that? And the patient says, yeah, that would be great.

We're kind of actively using distraction. We're doing things that would seem a bit strange for someone with other forms of movement disorder. So, the patients, for example, with functional gait disorders who you discover can jog quite well on a treadmill. In fact, that's another diagnostic test. Or they can walk backwards, or they can dance or pretend that they're ice skating, and they have much more fluid movements because their ice skating program in their brain is not corrupted, but their normal walking program is. So, can you then turn ice skating or jogging into normal walking? It's not that complicated, I think. The basic ideas are pretty simple, but it does require some creativity from whoever's doing the therapy because you have to use what the patient's into. So, if the patient used to be a dancer- we had a patient who was a, she was really into ballet dancing. Her ballet was great, but her walking was terrible. So, they used ballet to help her walk again. And that's incredibly satisfying for the therapist as well. So, if you have a therapist who's not sure, there are consensus recommendations. There are videos. One really good success often makes a therapist want to do that again and think, oh, that's interesting. I really helped that patient get better.

Dr Smith: For a long time, this has been framed as a mental health issue, conversion disorder, and maybe we can talk a little bit about early life of trauma as a risk factor. But, you know, listening to you talk, it sounds like a brain network problem. Even the word "functional", to me, it seems a little judgmental. I don't know if this is the best term, but is this really a network problem?

Dr Stone: The word "functional", for most neurologists, sounds judgmental because of what you associate it with. If you think about what the word actually is, it's- it does what it says on the tin. There's a disordered brain function. I mean, it's not a great word. It's the least worst term, in my view. And yes, of course it's a brain network problem, because what other organ is it going to be? You know, that's gone wrong? When software brains go wrong, they go wrong in networks. But I think we have to be careful not to swing that pendulum too far to the other side because the problem here, when we say asking the question, is this a mental health problem or a neurological one, we're just asking the wrong question. We're asking a question that makes no sense. However you try and answer that, you're going to get a stupid answer because the question doesn't make sense. We shouldn't have those categories. It's one organ. And what's so fascinating about FND---and I hope what can incite your sort of curiosity about it---is this disorder which defies this categorization. You see some patients with it, they say, oh, they've got a brain network disorder. Then you meet another patient who was sexually abused for five years by their uncle when they were nine, between nine and fourteen; they developed an incredibly strong dissociative threat response into that experience. They have crippling anxiety, PTSD, interpersonal problems, and their FND is sort of somehow a part of that; part of that experience that they've had. So, to ignore that or to deny or dismiss psychological, psychiatric aspects, is just as bad and just as much a mistake as to dismiss the kind of neurological aspects as well.

Dr Smith: I wonder if this would be a good time to go back and talk a little bit about a concept that I found really interesting, and that is FND as a prodromal syndrome before a different neurological problem. So, for instance, FND prodromal to Parkinson's disease. Can you talk to us a little bit about that? I mean, obviously I was familiar with the fact that patients who have nonepileptic seizurelike events often have epileptic seizures, but the idea of FND ahead of Parkinson's was new to me.

Dr Stone: So, this is definitely a thing that happens. It's interesting because previously, perhaps, if you saw someone who was referred with a functional tremor---this has happened to me and my colleagues. They send me some with a functional tremor. By the time I see them, it's obvious they've got Parkinson's because it's been a little gap. But it turns out that the diagnosis of functional tremor was wrong. It was just that they've developed that in the prodrome of Parkinson's disease. And if you think about it, it's what you'd expect, really, especially with Parkinson's disease. We know people develop anxiety in the prodrome of Parkinson's for ten, fifteen years before it's part of the prodrome. Anxiety is a very strong risk factor for FND, and they're already developing abnormalities in their brain predisposing them to tremor. So, you put those two things together, why wouldn't people get FND? It is interesting to think about how that's the opposite of seizures, because most people with comorbidity of functional seizures and epilepsy, 99% of the time the epilepsy came first. They had the experience of an epileptic seizure, which is frightening, which evokes strong threat response

Paroxysmal movement disorders refer to a group of highly heterogeneous disorders that present with attacks of involuntary movements without loss of consciousness. These disorders demonstrate considerable and ever-expanding genetic and clinical heterogeneity, so an accurate clinical diagnosis has key therapeutic implications.

In this episode, Kait Nevel, MD, speaks with Abhimanyu Mahajan, MD, MHS, FAAN, author of the article "Paroxysmal Movement Disorders" in the Continuum® August 2025 Movement Disorders issue.

Dr. Nevel is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a neurologist and neuro-oncologist at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, Indiana.

Dr. Mahajan is an assistant professor of neurology and rehabilitation medicine at the James J. and Joan A. Gardner Family Center for Parkinson's Disease and Movement Disorders at the University of Cincinnati in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Paroxysmal 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 American Academy of Neurology: aan.com

Social Media

facebook.com/continuumcme

@ContinuumAAN

Host: @IUneurodocmom

Guest: @MahajanMD

Full episode transcript available here

Dr Jones: This is Doctor 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 doctor Abhi Mahajan about his article on diagnosis and management of paroxysmal movement disorders, which appears in the August 2025 Continuum issue on movement disorders. Abhi, welcome to the podcast and please introduce yourself to the audience.

Dr Mahajan: Thank you, Kait. Thank you for inviting me. My name is Abhi Mahajan. I'm an assistant professor of neurology and rehabilitation medicine at the University of Cincinnati in Cincinnati, Ohio. I'm happy to be here.

Dr Nevel: Wonderful. Well, I'm really excited to talk to you about your article today on this very interesting and unique set of movement disorders. So, before we get into your article a little bit more, I think just kind of the set the stage for the discussion so that we're all on the same page. Could you start us off with some definitions? What are paroxysmal movement disorders? And generally, how do we start to kind of categorize these in our minds?

Dr Mahajan: So, the term paroxysmal movement disorders refers to a group of highly heterogeneous disorders. These may present with attacks of involuntary movements, commonly a combination of dystonia and chorea, or ataxia, or both. These movements are typically without loss of consciousness and may follow, may follow, so with or without known triggers. In terms of the classification, these have been classified in a number of ways. Classically, these have been classified based on the trigger. So, if the paroxysmal movement disorder follows activity, these are called kinesigenic, paroxysmal, kinesigenic dyskinesia. If they are not followed by activity, they're called non kinesigenic dyskinesia and then if they've followed prolonged activity or exercise they're called paroxysmal exercise induced dyskinesia.

There's a separate but related group of protogynous movement disorders called episodic attacks here that can have their own triggers. Initially this was the classification that was said. Subsequent classifications have placed their focus on the ideology of these attacks that could be familiar or acquired and of course understanding of familiar or genetic causes of paroxysmal movement disorders keeps on expanding and so on and so forth. And more recently, response to pharmacotherapy and specific clinical features have also been introduced into the classification.

Dr Nevel: Great, thank you for that. Can you share with us what you think is the most important takeaway from your article for the practicing neurologist?

Dr Mahajan: Absolutely. I think it's important to recognize that everything that looks and sounds bizarre should not be dismissed as malingering. Such hyperkinetic and again in quotations, "bizarre movements". They may appear functional to the untrained eye or the lazy eye. These movements can be diagnosed. Paroxysmal movement disorders can be diagnosed with a good clinical history and exam and may be treated with a lot of success with medications that are readily available and cheap. So, you can actually make a huge amount of difference to your patients' lives by practicing old-school neurology.

Dr Nevel: That's great, thank you so much for that. I can imagine that scenario does come up where somebody is thought to have a functional neurological disorder but really has a proximal movement disorder. You mentioned that in your article, how it's important to distinguish between these two, how there can be similarities at times. Do you mind giving us a little bit more in terms of how do we differentiate between functional neurologic disorder and paroxysmal movement disorder?

Dr Mahajan: So clinical differentiation of functional neurological disorder from paroxysmal movement disorders, of course it's really important as a management is completely different, but it can be quite challenging. There's certainly an overlap. So, there can be an overlap with presentation, with phenomenology. Paroxysmal nature is common to both of them. In addition, FND and PMD's may commonly share triggers, whether they are movement, physical exercise. Other triggers include emotional stimuli, even touch or auditory stimuli. What makes it even more challenging is that FND's may coexist with other neurological disorders, including paroxysmal movement disorders. However, there are certain specific phenom phenotypic differences that have been reported. So specific presentations, for example the paroxysms may look different. Each paroxysm may look different in functional neurological disorders, specific phenotypes like paroxysmal akinesia. So, these are long duration episodes with eyes closed. Certain kinds of paroxysmal hyperkinesia with ataxia and dystonia have been reported. Of course. More commonly we see PNES of paroxysmal nonepileptic spells or seizures that may be considered paroxysmal movement disorders but represent completely different etiology which is FND. Within the world of movement disorders, functional jerks may resemble propiospinal myoclonus which is a completely different entity. Overall, there are certain things that help separate functional movement disorders from paroxysmal movement disorders, such as an acute onset variable and inconsistent phenomenology. They can be suggestibility, distractibility, entrainment, the use of an EMG may show a B-potential (Bereitschaftspotential) preceding the movement in patients with FND. So, all of these cues are really helpful.

Dr Nevel: Great, thanks. When you're seeing a patient who's reporting to these paroxysmal uncontrollable movements, what kind of features of their story really tips you off that this might be a proximal movement disorder?

Dr Mahajan: Often these patients have been diagnosed with functional neurological disorders and they come to us. But for me, whenever the patient and or the family talk about episodic movements, I think about these. Honestly, we must be aware that there is a possibility that the movements that the patients are reporting that you may not see in clinic. Maybe there are obvious movement disorders. Specifically, there's certain clues that you should always ask for in the history, for example, ask for the age of onset, a description of movements. Patients typically have videos or families have videos. You may not be able to see them in clinic. The regularity of frequency of these movements, how long the attacks are, is there any family history of or not? On the basis of triggers, whether, as I mentioned before, do these follow exercise? Prolonged exercise? Or neither of the above? What is the presentation in between attacks, which I think is a very important clinical clue. Your examination may be limited to videos, but it's important not just to examine the video which represents the patient during an attack, but in between attacks. That is important. And of course, I suspect we'll get to the treatment, but the treatment can follow just this part, the history and physical exam. It may be refined with further testing, including genetic testing.

Dr Nevel: Great. On the note of genetic testing, when you do suspect a diagnosis of paroxysmal movement disorder, what are some key points for the provider to be aware of about genetic testing? How do we go about that? I know that there are lots of different options for genetic testing and it gets complicated. What do you suggest?

Dr Mahajan: Traditionally, things were a little bit easier, right, because we had a couple of genes that have been associated with the robust movement disorders. So, genetic testing included single gene testing, testing for PRRT2 followed by SLC2A. And if these were negative, you said, well, this is not a genetic ideology for paroxysmal movement disorders. Of course, with time that has changed. There's an increase in known genes and variants. There is increased genetic entropy. So, the same genetic mutation may present with many phenotypes and different genetic mutations may present with the similar phenotype. Single gene testing is not a high yield approach. Overall genetic investigations for paroxysmal movement disorders use next generation sequencing or whole exome sequence panels which allow for sequencing of multiple genes simultaneously. The reported diagnostic yield with let's say next generation sequencing is around 35 to 50 percent. Specific labs at centers have developed their own panels which may improve the yield of course. In children, microarray may be considered, especially the presentation includes epilepsy or intellectual disability because copy number variations may not be detected by a whole exome sequencing or next generation sequencing. Overall, I will tell you that I'm certainly not an expert in genetics, so whenever you're considering genetic testing, if possible, please utilize the expertise of a genetic counsellor. Families want to know, especially as an understanding of the molecular underpinnings and knowledge about associated mutations or variations keeps on expanding. We need to incorporate their expertise. A variant of unknown significance, which is quite a common result with genetic testing, may not be a variant of unknown significance next year may be reclassified as pathogenic. So, this is extremely important.

Dr Nevel: Yeah. That's such a good point. Thank you. And you just mentioned that there are some genetic mutations that can lead to multiple different phenotypes. Seemingly similar phenotypes can be associated with various genetic mutations. What's our understanding of that? Do we have an understanding of that? Why there is this seeming disconnect at times between the specific genetic mutation and the phenotype?

Dr Mahajan: That is a tough question to answer for all paroxysmal movement disorders because the answer may be specific to a specific mutation. I think a great example is the CACNA1A mutation. It is a common cause of episodic ataxia type 2. Depending on when the patient presents, you can have a whole gamut of clinical presentations. So, if the patient is 1 year old, the patient can present with epileptic encephalopathy. Two to 5 years, it can be benign paroxysmal torticollis of infancy. Five to 10 years, can present with learning difficulties with absence epilepsy and then of course later, greater than 10 years, with episodic ataxia (type) 2 hemiplegic migraine and then a presentation with progressive ataxia and hemiplegic migraines has also been reported. So not just episodic progressive form of ataxia has also been reported. I think overall these disorders are very rare. They are even more infrequently diagnosed than their prevalence. As such, the point that different genetic mutations present with different phenotypes, or the same genetic mutation I may present with different phenotypes could also represent this part. Understanding of the clinical presentation is really incomplete and forever growing. There's a new case report or case series every other month, which makes this a little bit challenging, but that's all the more reason for learning about them and for constant vigilance for patients who show up to our clinic.

Dr Nevel: Yeah, absolutely. What is our current understanding of the associated pathophysiology of these conditions and the pathophysiology relating to the genetics? And then how does that relate to the treatment of these conditions?

Dr Mahajan: So, a number of different disease mechanisms have been proposed. Traditionally, these were all thought to be ion channelopathies, but a number of different processes have been proposed now. So, depending on the genetic mutation that you talk about. So certain mutations can involve ion channels such as CACMA1A, ATP1A3. It can involve solute carriers, synaptic vesicle fusion, energy metabolism such as ECHS1, synthesis of neurotransmitters such as GCH1. So, there are multiple processes that may be involved. I think overall for the practicing clinician such as me, I think there is a greater need for us to understand the underlying genetics and associated phenotypes and the molecular mechanisms specifically because these can actually influence treatment decisions, right? So, you mentioned that specific genetic testing understanding of the underlying molecular mechanism can influence specific treatments. As an example, a patient presenting with proximal nocturnal dyskinesia with mutation in the ADCY5 gene may respond beautifully to caffeine. Other examples if you have SLC2A1, so gluc-1 (glucose transporter type 1) mutation, a ketogenic diet may work really well. If you have PDHA1 mutation that may respond to thiamine and so on and so forth. There are certain patients where paroxysmal movement disorders are highly disabling and you may consider deep brain stimulation. That's another reason why it may be important to understand genetic mutations because there is literature on response to DBS with certain mutations versus others. Helps like counselling for patients and families, and of course introduces time, effort, and money spent in additional testing.

Dr Nevel: Other than genetic testing, what other diagnostic work up do you consider when you're evaluating patients with a suspected paroxysmal movement disorder? Are there specific things in the history or on exam that would prompt you to do certain testing to look for perhaps other things in your differential when you're first evaluating a patient?

Dr Mahajan: In this article, I provide a flow chart that helps me assess these patients as well. I think overall the history taking and neurological exam outside of these paroxysms is really important. So, the clinical exam in between these episodic events, for example, for history, specific examples include, well, when do these paroxysms happen? Do they happen or are they precipitated with meals that might indicate that there's something to do with glucose metabolism? Do they follow exercise? So, a specific example is in Moyamoya disease, they can be limb shaking that follows exercise. So, which gives you a clue to what the etiology could be. Of course, family history is important, but again, talking about the exam in between episodes, you know, this is actually a great point because out– we've talked about genetics, we've talked about idiopathic paroxysmal movement disorders, –but a number of these disorders are because of acquired causes. Well, of course it's important because acquired causes such as autoimmune causes, so multiple sclerosis, ADEM, lupus, LGI1, all of these NMDAR, I mentioned Moyamoya disease and metabolic causes. Of course, you can consider FND as under-acquired as well. But all of these causes have very different treatments and they have very different prognosis. So, I think it's extremely important for us to look into the history with a fine comb and then examine these patients in between these episodes and keep our mind open about acquired causes as well.

Dr Nevel: When you evaluate these patients, are you routinely ordering vascular imaging and autoimmune kind of serologies and things like that to evaluate for these other acquired causes or it does it really just depend on the clinical presentation of the patient?

Dr Mahajan: It mostly depends on the clinical presentation. I mean, if the exam is let's say completely normal, there are no other risk factors in a thirty year old, then you know, with a normal exam, normal history, no other risk factors. I may not order an MRI of the brain. But if the patient is 55 or 60 (years) with vascular risk factors, then you have to be mindful that this could be a TIA. If the patient has let's say in the 30s and in between these episodes too has basically has a sequel of these paroxysms, then you may want to consider autoimmune. I think the understanding of paraneoplastic, even autoimmune disorders, is expanding as well. So, you know the pattern matters. So, if all of this is subacute started a few months ago, then I have a low threshold for ordering testing for autoimmune and paraneoplastic ideology is simply because it makes such a huge difference in terms of how you approach the treatment and the long-term prognosis.

Dr Nevel: Yeah, absolutely. What do you find most challenging about the management of patients with paroxysmal movement disorders? And then also what is most rewarding?

Dr Mahajan: I think the answer to both those questions is, is the same. The first thing is there's so much advancement in what we know and how we understand these disorders so regularly that it's really hard to keep on track. Even for this article, it took me a few months to write this article, and between the time and I started and when I ended, there were new papers to include new case reports, case series, right? So, these are rare disorders. So most of our understanding for these disorders comes from case reports and case series, and it's in a constant state of advancement. I think that is the most challenging part, but it's also the most interesting part as well. I think the challenging and interesting part is the heterogeneity of presentation as well. These can involve just one part of your body, your entire body can present with paroxysmal events, with multiple different phenomenologies and they might change over time. So overall, it's highly rewarding to diagnose such patients in clinic. As I said before, you can make a sizeable difference with the medication which is usually inexpensive, which is obviously a great point to mention these days in our health system. But with anti-seizure drugs, you can put the right diagnosis, you can make a huge difference. I just wanted to make a point that this is not minimizing in any way the validity or the importance of diagnosing patients with functional neurological disorders correctly. Both of them are as organic. The importance is the treatment is completely different. So, if you're diagnosing somebody with FND and they do have FND and they get cognitive behavioral therapy and they get better, that's fantastic. But if somebody has paroxysmal movement disorders and they undergo cognitive behavioral therapy and they're not doing well, that doesn't help anybody.

Dr Nevel: One hundred percent. As providers, obviously we all want to help our patients and having the correct diagnosis, you know, is the first step. What is most interesting to you about paroxys

Tics are movements or sounds that are quick, recurrent, and nonrhythmic. They fluctuate over time and can be involuntary or semivoluntary. Although behavioral therapy remains the first-line treatment, modifications to comprehensive behavioral intervention have been developed to make treatment more accessible.

In this episode, Casey Albin, MD, speaks with Jessica Frey, MD, author of the article "Tourette Syndrome and Tic Disorders" in the Continuum® August 2025 Movement Disorders issue.

Dr. Albin is a Continuum® Audio interviewer, associate editor of media engagement, and an assistant professor of neurology and neurosurgery at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

Dr. Frey is an assistant professor of neurology, Movement Disorders Fellowship Program Director, and Neurology Student Clerkship Director at the Rockefeller Neuroscience Institute in the department of neurology at West Virginia University in Morgantown, West Virginia.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Tourette Syndrome and Tic 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: @caseyalbin

Transcript

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 Albin: Hi all, this is Dr Casey Albin. Today I'm interviewing Dr Jessica Frey about her article Tourette Syndrome and Tic Disorders, which appears in the August 2025 Continuum issue on movement disorders. Dr Frey, thank you so much for being here, and welcome to the podcast. I'd love for you to briefly introduce yourself to our audience.

Dr Frey: Thank you for having me here today. My name is Jessica Frey, and I am a movement disorder specialist at West Virginia University. I'm also the movement disorder fellowship director, as well as the neurology clerkship student director.

Dr Albin: Dr. Frey, I feel like this was one of the things I actually had no exposure to as a resident. For trainees that kind of want to get a better understanding of how these are managed, what kind of counseling you do, what kind of interventions you're using, how can they get a little bit more exposure?

Dr Frey: That's a great question, and I actually had a similar experience to you. I did not see that many patients with Tourette syndrome while I was in my residency training. I got a lot more exposure during my fellowship training, and that's when I actually fell in love with that patient population, caring for them, seeing them be successful. I think it depends on the program that you're in. During the pediatric neurology rotation might be your best bet to getting exposure to patients with Tourette syndrome, since a lot of them are going to be diagnosed when they're quite young, and sometimes they'll even continue to follow through young adulthood in the pediatric neurology clinic. However, up to 20% of patients with Tourette syndrome will have persistent tics during adulthood. And so, I think it is important for neurology trainees to understand how to manage them, understand what resources are out there. So, if you have an interest in that, absolutely try to follow either in the pediatric neurology department, or if you have a movement disorder program that has a Tourette clinic or has a movement disorder specialist who has an interest in Tourette syndrome, definitely try to hang out with them. Get to know that patient population, and educate yourself as much as you're able to educate the patients as well.

Dr Albin: Yeah, I think that's fantastic advice. You wrote a fantastic article, and it covers a lot of ground. And I think let's start at some of the basics. When I think of Tourette syndrome and tics, I think of Tourette syndrome having tics, but maybe not all patients who have tics have Tourette syndrome. And so, I was wondering, A, if you could confirm that's true; and then could you tell us a little bit about some of the diagnostic criteria for each of these conditions?

Dr Frey: Sure. So, a tic is a phenomenological description. So basically, what you're seeing is a description of a motor or phonic tic, which is a particular type of movement disorder. Tourette syndrome is a very specific diagnosis, and the diagnostic criteria for Tourette syndrome at this point in time is that you need to have had at least one phonic tic and two or more motor tics over the course of at least a year before the age of eighteen.

Dr Albin: Got it. So, there's certainly more specific and a lot more criteria for having Tourette syndrome. I was struck in reading your article how many myths there are surrounding Tourette syndrome and tic disorders kind of in general. What's known about the pathophysiology of Tourette syndrome, and what are some common misconceptions about patients who have this disorder?

Dr Frey: Yeah, so I think that's a really excellent question because for so many years, Tourette syndrome and tic disorders in general were thought to be psychogenic in origin, even dating back to when they were first described. The history of Tourette syndrome is quite interesting in that, when Tourette---who, you know, it's named after---was working with Charcot, a lot of the initial descriptors were of actual case reports of patients who had more psychogenic descriptions, and eventually they became known as tic disorders as well. It wasn't until the discovery of Haldol and using Haldol as a treatment for tic disorders that people started to change their perception and say, okay, maybe there is actually a neurologic basis for Tourette syndrome. So, in terms of the pathophysiology, it's not completely known, but what we do know about it, we think that there is some sort of hyperactivity in the corticostriatal-thalamocortical circuits. And we think that because of this hyperactivity, it leads to the hyperactive movement disorder. We think similar circuitry is involved in conditions like OCD, or obsessive compulsive disorder; as well as ADHD, or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. And because of that, we actually do tend to see an overlap between all three of these conditions in both individuals and families.

Dr Albin: And hearing all of that, does this all come back to, sort of, dopamine and, sort of, behavioral motivation, or is it different than that?

Dr Frey: It's probably more complex than just dopamine, but there is the thought that dopamine does play a role. And even one of the hypotheses regarding the pathophysiology is actually that these tics might start as habits, and then when the habits become more common, they actually reshape the dopaminergic pathways. And each time a tic occurs, there's a little bit of a dopaminergic reward. And so over time, that reshapes those hyperactive pathways and changes the actual circuitry of the brain, leading it to be not just a habit but part of their neurologic makeup.

Dr Albin: It's fascinating to hear how that actually might play into our neural circuitry and, over time, rewire our brain. Fascinating. I mean, this is just so interesting how movement disorders play into such behavioral regulation and some comorbid conditions like ADHD and OCD. I thought it would be really helpful, maybe, to our listeners to kind of think through a case that I suspect is becoming more common. So, if it's okay with you, I'll present sort of a hypothetical.

Dr Frey: Absolutely.

Dr Albin: This is a father bringing in his seventeen-year-old daughter. She's coming into the clinic because she's been demonstrating, over the past four to six weeks, some jerking movement in her right arm. And it's happened multiple times a day. And it was a pretty sudden onset. She had not had any movement like this before, and then several weeks ago, started moving the right hand. And then it became even more disruptive: her right leg was involved, she had some scrunching her face. This is all happening at a time where she was dealing with some stress, maybe a little bit of applications around college that she was having a lot of anxiety about. How do you sort of approach this case if this is someone who comes to your office?

Dr Frey: Sure. So, I think the first thing that you want to get is a good solid history, trying to understand, what is the origin of these abnormal movements and what led to the abnormal movements. Now, a key thing here is that in Tourette syndrome, and most physiologic tic syndromes, there's a pretty early onset. So, in Tourette syndrome, the expected age of onset is between the ages of five and seven years old. So, to have kind of acute new abnormal movements as a seventeen-year-old would be very unusual for a new-onset diagnosis of Tourette syndrome. However, there's a couple of things from the history that could help you. One would be, were there ever tics in the past? Because sometimes, when you think retrospectively, a lot of these patients might have had a simple eye-blinking tic or a coughing tic when they were a child. And perhaps they did have Tourette syndrome, a very mild case of it. But because the tics were never that pronounced, they never went to see anyone about it and it was never known that they had Tourette syndrome in the first place.

If there is no history like that and the movements are completely new, out of the blue, of course you want to rule out anything acute that could be going on that could be causing that. Looking at the phenomenology of the movements can also be very helpful. When you're looking at abnormal tic movements, you would expect most cases of something like Tourette syndrome to occur first in the midline and go in a rostrocoidal distribution. So, you mostly see things happening with eye blinking, throat clearing, sniffling, neck snapping. These are some of the immediate tics that start to happen. We also usually start to see simple tics, as opposed to complex tics, at the beginning. Now, over the course of time, many patients do develop more complex tics that might involve the arms or the extremities, but that would be unusual to see this as a presenting feature of new-onset Tourette syndrome.

Dr Albin: Got it. So, I'm hearing that the history really matters and that sometimes, like those, like, first-onset seizures, I imagine as a neurointensivist, we see a lot of patients who've had seizures who think that they're presenting the first time. And then we go back and we say, well, actually they have had some abnormal movements at night. Sounds like it's very similar with these movement disorders where you have to really go back and ask, well, was there some sniffling? Did they go through a phase where they were grunting frequently? Because I can imagine that many children make those behaviors, and that it may not have registered as something that was cause for concern.

Dr Frey: Absolutely.

Dr Albin: And then the other thing I heard from you was that the phenomenology really matters and that there is a typical presentation, starting from sort of the face and working the way down. And that can be really helpful. But in this case, the family is quite clear. No, no, no. She's never had movements like this before. This is- nothing like this. We promise you, did not go through a phase where she was coughing or blinking, or, this is all totally new. And the phenomenology, they say, no, no, she did not start with blinking. It definitely started in the arm and then progressed in its complex movements. So, knowing that about her, how does that sort of shape how you move forward with the diagnosis?

Dr Frey: Yeah. So, really good question. And this is something that I think really peaked during the Covid-19 pandemic. We saw an influx of patients, especially teenage girls or young adult girls, who basically would come in and have these new, acute-onset, abnormal movements. We weren't sure what to call them initially. There was some discussion of calling them "explosive tic disorder" and things like that. A lot of these actually looked very similar to psychogenic nonepileptic seizures, where they would come into the emergency department and have many abnormal movements that were so severe, that they were having a "tic attack" and couldn't stop the abnormal movements from occurring. And we saw so many of these cases during the Covid-19 pandemic that it eventually became known as a distinctive diagnostic criteria with the name of "functional ticlike behavior", or FTLB.

When we think about functional ticlike behavior, we think that these tics are driven more by anxiety and stress. A lot of times, the backstory of these patients, they were in a very stressful situation, and that's when the abnormal movement started. So, a very similar kind of backstory to patients that might develop psychogenic nonepileptic seizures. These tics were popularized, for lack of a better term, via social media during the Covid-19 pandemic. One article is out there that even has called these functional ticlike behaviors as "a pandemic within a pandemic", because there was such a strong showing of ticlike behavior in the clinics during the Covid-19 pandemic. Although social media was thought to play a big role in these functional ticlike behaviors, we think that there's probably a little bit more complexity and nuance to why these functional ticlike behaviors develop. There is probably a little bit of a genetic predisposition. There's probably some other psychosocial factors at play. And when we see cases like this, the best thing that you can do is educate your patients about the differences between functional ticlike behaviors and tics that we see associated with conditions like Tourette syndrome. And then the best types of treatments that we have seen thus far are treating any underlying stressors, if any of those exist, as well as cognitive behavioral therapy has been shown to be somewhat helpful.

As the Covid-19 pandemic has wound down, we have actually seen a lot less cases in our clinic. And one reason we think is less stressors, less uncertainty for the future, which we think was a driving precipitant of some of these cases. But it also is not as popularized in the media as well. There were a lot of TikTok users in particular, which lent itself to the name "TikTok tic". These videos are not as viewed or not as popular as they were during the Covid-19 pandemic. One reason being that because we are not all relegated to our homes, constantly looking to online sources of information---just in general, we have kind of not been on the Internet as much as we were during the Covid-19 pandemic---as a society as a whole.

Dr Albin: This is really fascinating how the environmental milieu, for lack of a better word, like, really influenced how patients were experiencing, sort of, functional neurologic disorders. In your article you describe really these three baskets of primary tic---which can then be a part of Tourette syndrome---,functional ticlike behaviors---which really were a unique manifestation of stress and anxiety specifically during the Covid-19 pandemic---, and then tics as a manifestation of some either different underlying etiology or medication side effect. So, when do you get concerned about that secondary etiology?

Dr Frey: So secondary tics can occur in a variety of instances. I think some of the more common examples would be in genetic disorders. So, Huntington's disease is a really good example. I think we all associate chorea with Huntington's disease. That's probably the most commonly associated phenomenology that we see with Huntington's disease. But we can see a variety of movement disorders in Huntington's, and one of them is tics. So, when we see tics in association with other types of movement disorders, we should be thinking about a possible genetic etiology. If we see tics in association with other neurologic symptoms, such as seizures or cognitive changes, we should be thinking that this is something besides a primary tic disorder.

You also mentioned medication use, and it's really important to think about tardive tics. I know we often think about tardive dyskinesia, and the first kind of phenomenology that jumps into our brain is usually chorea because it's those abnormal lip movements, finger movements, toe movements that we see after a patient has been on, for example, an antipsychotic or an antiemetic that has antidopaminergic properties. However, we can see a variety of abnormal movement disorders that occur secondary to antidopaminergic medications, especially after abrupt withdrawal of these antidopaminergic medications. And tics are one of them. There have been cases reported where people that have tardive tics will still report that they have a premonitory urge, as well as a sense of relief after their tics. So, it actually can seem very similar to Tourette syndrome and the tics that people with Tourette syndrome experience on a regular basis. The key here is that the treatment might differ because if it's due to an antidopaminergic medication or abrupt withdrawal of that antidopaminergic medication, you might need to treat it a little bit differently than you would otherwise.

Dr Albin: I love that you bring in, it's not just looking at their specific movement disorder that they may be coming to clinic with, that tic disorder, but are there other movement disorders? Has there been a change in their medication history? Have they had cognitive changes? So really emphasizing the importance of that complete and comprehensive neurologic history, neurologic physical exam, to really get the complete picture so that it's not honing in on, oh, this is a primary tic. That's all there is to it, because it could be so much more.

I know we're getting close to sort of the end of our time together, but I really wanted to switch to end on talking about treatment. And your article does such a beautiful job of talking about behavioral interventions and really exciting new medical interventions. But I would like to, if you don't mind, have you focus on, what behavioral counseling and what education do you provide for patients and their families? Because I imagine that the neurologist plays a really important role in educating the patient and their family about these disorders.

Dr Frey: Absolutely. When we think about treatment, one of the most important things you can do for patients with Tourette syndrome or other primary tic disorders is educate them. This remains true whether it's a primary tic disorder that we see in Tourette syndrome or the functional ticlike behavior that we've discussed here. A lot of times, because there is such a stigma against people with tic disorders and Tourette syndrome, when they hear that they have Tourette syndrome or they are diagnosed with that, sometimes that can be an upsetting diagnosis. And sometimes you have to take time explaining what exactly that means and debunking a lot of the myths that go along with the stigmas associated with Tourette syndrome. I think a lot of times people are under the false assumption that people with Tourette syndrome cannot lead normal lives and cannot hold down jobs and cannot be productive members of society. None of that is true. Most of my patients have great lives, good quality of life, and are able to go about their day-to-day life without any major issues. And one of the reasons for that is we do have a lot of great treatment options available.

Another important stigma to break down is that people with tic disorders are doing this for attention or doing this because they are trying to get something from som

Ataxia is a neurologic symptom that refers to incoordination of voluntary movement, typically causing gait dysfunction and imbalance. Genetic testing and counseling can be used to identify the type of ataxia and to assess the risk for unaffected family members.

In this episode, Katie Grouse, MD, FAAN, speaks with Theresa A. Zesiewicz, MD, FAAN, author of the article "Ataxia" in the Continuum® August 2025 Movement Disorders 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. Zesiewicz is a professor of neurology and director at the University of South Florida Ataxia Research Center, and the medical director at the University of South Florida Movement Disorders Neuromodulation Center at the University of South Florida and at the James A. Haley Veteran's Hospital in Tampa, Florida.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Ataxia

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. 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 Theresa Zesiewicz about her article on ataxia, which appears in the August 2025 Continuum issue on movement disorders. Welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to our audience.

Dr Zesiewicz: Well, thank you, Dr Grouse. I'm Dr Theresa Zesiewicz, otherwise known as Dr Z, and I'm happy to be here.

Dr Grouse: I have to say, I really enjoyed reading your article. It was a really great refresher for myself as a general neurologist on the topic of ataxia and a really great reminder on a great framework to approach diagnosis and management. But I wanted to start off by asking what you feel is the key message that you hope our listeners will take away from reading your article.

Dr Zesiewicz: Yes, so, thanks. I think one of the key messages is that there has been an explosion and renaissance of genetic testing in the past 10 years that has really revolutionized the field of ataxia and has made diagnosis easier for us, more manageable, and hopefully will lead to treatments in the future. So, I think that's a major step forward for our field in terms of genetic techniques over the last 10 years, and even over the last 30 years. There's just been so many diseases that have been identified genetically. So, I think that's a really important take-home message. The other take-home message is that the first drug to treat Friedreich's ataxia, called omaveloxolone, came about about two years ago. This was also a really landmark discovery. As you know, a lot of these ataxias are very difficult to treat.

Dr Grouse: Now pivoting back to thinking about the approach to diagnosis of ataxia, how does the timeline of the onset of ataxia symptoms inform your approach?

Dr Zesiewicz: The timeline is important because ataxia can be acute, subacute or chronic in nature. And the timeline is important because, if it's acute, it may mean that the ataxia took place over seconds to hours. This may mean a toxic problem or a hypoxic problem. Whereas a chronic ataxia can occur over many years, and that can inform more of a neurodegenerative or more of a genetic etiology. So, taking a very detailed history on the patient is very important. Sometimes I ask them, what is the last time you remember that you walked normal? And that can be a wedding, that can be a graduation. Just some timeline, some point, that the patient actually walked correctly before they remember having to hold onto a railing or taking extra steps to make sure that they didn't fall down, that they didn't have imbalance. That sometimes that's a good way to ask the patient when is the last time they had a problem. And they can help you to try to figure out how long these symptoms have been going on.

Dr Grouse: I really appreciate that advice. I will say that I agree, it can sometimes be really hard to get patients to really think back to when they really started to notice something was different. So, I like the idea of referencing back to a big event that may be more memorable to them. Now, given that framework of, you know, thinking through the timeline, could you walk us through your approach to the evaluation of a patient who presents to your clinic with that balance difficulties once you've established that?

Dr Zesiewicz: Sure. So, the first thing is to determine whether the patient truly has ataxia. So, do they have imbalance? Do they have a wide base gait? That's very important because patients come in frequently to your clinic and they'll have balance problems, but they can have knee issues or hip issues, neuropathy, something like that. And sometimes what we say to the residents and the students is, usually ataxia or cerebellar symptoms go together with other problems, like ocular problems are really common in cerebellar syndromes. Or dysmetria, pass pointing, speech disorder like dysarthria. So, not only do you need to look at the gait, but you should look at the other symptoms surrounding the gait to see if you think that the patient actually has a cerebellar syndrome. Or do they have something like a vestibular ataxia which would have more vertigo? Or do they have a sensory ataxia, which would occur if a person closes his eyes or has more ataxia when he or she is in the dark?

So, you have to think about what you're looking at is the cerebellar syndrome. And then once we look to see if the patient truly has a cerebellar syndrome, then we look at the age, we look at---as you said before, the timeline. Is this acute, subacute, or chronic? And usually I think of ataxia as falling into three categories. It's either acquired, it's either hereditary, or it's neurodegenerative. It can be hereditary. And if it's not hereditary, is it acquired, or is it something like a multiple system atrophy or a parkinsonism or something like that? So, we try to put that together and start to narrow down on the diagnosis, thinking about those parameters.

Dr Grouse: That's really a helpful way to think through it. And it is true, it can get very complex when patients come in with balance difficulties. There's so many things you need to think about, but that is a great way to think about it. Of course, we know that most people who come in to the Movements Disorders clinic are getting MRI scans of their brains. But I'm curious, in which cases of patients with cerebellar ataxia do you find the MRI to be particularly helpful in the diagnosis?

Dr Zesiewicz: So, an MRI can be very important. Not always, but- so, something like multiple system atrophy type C where you may see a hot cross bun sign or a pontine hyperintensity on the T2-weighted image, that would be helpful. But of course, that doesn't make the diagnosis. It's something that may help you with the diagnosis. In FXTAS, which is fragile X tremor/ataxia syndrome, the patient may have the middle cerebellar peduncle sign or the symmetric hyperintensity in the middle cerebellar peduncles, which is often visible but not always. Something like Wernicke's, where you see an abnormality of the mammillary bodies. Wilson's disease, which is quite rare, T2-weighted image may show hyperintensities in the putamen in something like Wilson's disease. Those are the main MRI abnormalities, I think, with ataxia. And then we look at the cerebellum itself. I mean, that seems self-evident, but if you look at a sagittal section of the MRI and you see just a really significant atrophy of the cerebellum, that's going to help you determine whether you really have a cerebellar syndrome.

Dr Grouse: That's really encouraging to hear a good message for all of us who sometimes feel like maybe we're missing something. It's good to know that information can always come up down the line to make things more clear. Your article does a great review of spinal cerebellar ataxia, but I found it interesting learning about the more recently described syndrome of SCA 27B. Would you mind telling us more about that and other really common forms of SCA that's good to keep in mind?

Dr Zesiewicz: Sure. So, there are now 49 types of spinal cerebellar ataxia that have been identified. The most common are the polyglutamine repeat diseases: so, spinocerebellar ataxia type 3 or type 2, type 6, are probably the most common. One of the most recent spinocerebellar ataxias to be genetically identified and clinically identified is spinocerebellar ataxia 27B. This is caused by a GAA expansion repeat in the first intron of the fibroblast growth factor on chromosome 13. And the symptoms do include ataxia, eye problems, downbeat nystagmus, other nystagmus, vertical, and diplopia. It appears to be a more common form of adult-onset ataxia, and probably more common than was originally thought. It may account for a substantial number of ataxias, like, a substantial percentage of ataxias that we didn't know about. So, this was really a amazing discovery on SCA 27B.

Dr Grouse: Now a lot of us I think feel a little anxious when we think about genetic testing for ataxia simply because there's so many forms, things are changing quickly. Do you have a rule of thumb or a kind of a framework that we can think of as we approach how we should be thinking about getting genetic testing for the subset of patients?

Dr Zesiewicz: Sure. And I think that this is where age comes into play a lot. So, if you have a child who's 10, 11, or 12 who's having balance problems in the schoolyard, does not have a history of ataxia in the family, the teachers are telling you that the child is not running correctly, they're having problems with physical education, that is someone who you would think about testing for Friedreich's ataxia. A preteen or a child, that would be one thing that would be important to test. When you talk to your patient, it's important to really take a detailed family history. Not just mom or dad, but ethnicity, grandparents, etc. And sometimes, once in a while, you come up with a known spinal cerebellar ataxia. Then you can just test for that. So, if a person is from Portugal or has Portugal background and they have ataxia and the parents had ataxia, you would think of spinal cerebellar ataxia type 3. Or if they're Brazilian, or if the person is from a certain area of Cuba and mom and dad had ataxia and that person has ataxia, you would think of spinal cerebellar ataxia type 2. Or if a person has ataxia and their parent had blindness or visual problems, you may be more likely to think of spinal cerebellar ataxia type 7, for example.

If they have that---either they have a known genetic cause in in the family, first degree family, or they come from an area of the world in which we can pinpoint what type we think it is---you can go ahead and get those tests. If not, you can take an ataxia comprehensive panel. Many times now, if you take the panel and the panel is negative, it will reflex to the whole exome gene sequencing, where we're finding really unusual and more rare types of ataxia, which are very interesting. Spinal cerebellar ataxia type 32, spinal cerebellar ataxia type 36, I had a spinal cerebellar ataxia type 15. So, I think you should start with the age, then the family history, then where the person is from. And then, if none of those work out, you can get a comprehensive panel, and then go on to whole exome gene sequencing.

Dr Grouse: That's really, really useful. Thank you so much for breaking that down in a really simple way that a lot of us can take with us. Pivoting a little bit now back towards different types of acquired ataxias, what are some typical lab tests that you recommend for that type of workup?

Dr Zesiewicz: Again, if there's no genetic history and the person does not appear to have a neurodegenerative disease, we do test for acquired ataxias. Acquired ataxias can be complex. Many times, they are in the autoimmune family. So, what we start with are just basic labs like a CBC or a CMP, but then we tried to look at some of the other abnormalities that could cause ataxia. So, celiac disease, stiff person syndrome. So, you would look at anti-glutamic acid decarboxylase antibodies, Hashimoto's---so, antithyroglobulin antibodies or antithyroperoxidase antibodies would be helpful. You know, in a case of where the patients may have an underlying neoplasm, maybe even a paraneoplastic workup, such as an anti-Hu, anti-Yo, anti-Ri. A person has breast cancer, for example, you may want to take a paraneoplastic panel. I've been getting more of the anti-autoimmune encephalitis panels in some cases, that were- that are very interesting. And then, you know, things that sometimes we forget now like the syphilis test, thyroid-stimulating test, take a B12 and folate, for example. That would be important. Those are some of the labs. We just have on our electronic chart a group of acquired labs for ataxia. If we can't find any other reason, we just go ahead and try to get those.

Dr Grouse: Now, I'm curious what you think is the most challenging aspect of diagnosing a patient with cerebellar ataxia?

Dr Zesiewicz: So, for those of us who see many of these patients a day, some of the hardest patients are the ones that---regardless of the workup that we do, we've narrowed it down, it's not hereditary. You know, they've been through the whole exome gene sequencing and we've done the acquired ataxia workup. It doesn't appear to be that. And then we've looked for parkinsonism and neurodegenerative diseases, and it doesn't appear to be that either; like, the alpha-synuclein will be negative. Those are the toughest patients, where we think we've done everything and we still don't have the answer. So, I've had patients in whom I've taken care of family members years and years ago, they had a presumed diagnosis, and later on I've seen their children or other family members. And with the advent of the genetic tests that we have, like whole exome gene sequencing, we have now been able to give the patient and the family a definitive diagnosis that they didn't have 25 years ago. So, I would say don't give up hope. Retesting is important, and as science continues and we get more information and we make more landmark discoveries in genetics, you may be better able to diagnose the patient.

Dr Grouse: I was wondering if you had any recommendations regarding either some tips and tricks, some pearls of wisdom you can impart to us regarding the work of ataxia, or conversely, any big pitfalls that you can help us avoid? I would love to hear about it.

Dr Zesiewicz: Yeah, there's no easy way to treat or diagnose ataxia patients. I've always felt that the more patients you see- and sounds easy, but the more patients you see, the better you're going to become at it, and eventually things are going to fall into place. You'll begin to see similarities in patients, etc. I think it's important not only to make sure that a person has ataxia, but again, look at the other signs and symptoms that may point to ataxia that you'll see in a cerebellar syndrome. I think it's important to do a full neuroexam. If a person has spasticity, that may point you more towards a certain type of ataxia than if a person has no reflexes, for example, that we see in Friedreich's ataxia. Some of the ocular findings are very interesting as well. It's important to know if a person has a tremor. I've seen several Wilson's disease cases in my life with ataxia. They're very important. I think a full neuroexam and also a very detailed history would be very helpful.

Dr Grouse: Tell us about some promising developments in the diagnosis and management of ataxia that we should be on the lookout for.

Dr Zesiewicz: The first drug for Friedreich's ataxia was FDA-approved two years ago, which was an NRF2 activator, which was extremely exciting and promising. There are also several medications that are now in front of the FDA that may also be very promising and have gone through long clinical trials. There's a medication that's related to riluzole, which is a medication used for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, that has been through about seven years of testing. That is before the FDA as well for spinal cerebellar ataxia. Friedreich's ataxia has now completed the first cardiac gene therapy program with AAV vectors, which- we're waiting for full results, but that's a cardiac test. But I would assume that in the future, neurological gene therapy is not far behind if we've already done cardiac gene therapy and Friedreich's ataxia. So, you know, some of these AAV vector-based genetic therapies may be very helpful, as well as ASO, antisense oligonucleotides, for example. And I think in the future, other things to think about are the CRISPR/Cas9 technology for potential treatment of ataxia. It is a very exciting time, and some major promising therapies have been realized in the past 2 to 3 years.

Dr Grouse: Well, that's really exciting, and we'll all look forward to seeing these becoming more clinically applicable in the future. So, thank you so much for coming to talk with us today.

Dr Zesiewicz: Thank you.

Dr Grouse: Again, today I've been interviewing Dr Theresa Zesiewicz about her article on ataxia, which appears in the August 2025 Continuum issue on movement disorders. 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.

Chorea describes involuntary movements that are random, abrupt, and unpredictable, flowing from one body part to another. The most common cause of genetic chorea in adults is Huntington disease, which requires comprehensive, multidisciplinary care as well as support for care partners, who may themselves be diagnosed with the disease.

In this episode, Aaron Berkowitz, MD, PhD FAAN speaks with Kathryn P. L. Moore, MD, MSc, author of the article "Huntington Disease and Chorea" in the Continuum® August 2025 Movement Disorders 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 in San Francisco, California.

Dr. Moore is an assistant professor and director of the Parkinson's Disease and Movement Disorders Fellowship in the department of neurology at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Huntington Disease and Chorea

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: @KatiePMooreMD

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 with Continuum Audio, and today I'm interviewing Dr Kathryn Moore about her article on diagnosis and management of Huntington disease and chorea, which appears in the August 2025 Continuum issue on movement disorders. Welcome to the podcast, Dr Moore. Could you please introduce yourself to our audience?

Dr Moore: Yeah, thank you so much. I'm so excited to be here. I'm Dr Moore. I'm an assistant professor of neurology at Duke University, where I work as a movement disorder specialist. I run our fellowship there and help with our residency program as well. So, I'm excited to speak with our listeners about chorea today.

Dr Berkowitz: Fantastic. And we're excited to talk to you about chorea. So, as a general neurologist myself, I only see chorea pretty rarely compared to other movement disorders like tremor, myoclonus, maybe the occasional tic disorder. And like anything I don't see very often, I always have to look up the differential diagnosis and how to evaluate a patient with chorea. So, I was so glad to read your article. And next time I see a patient with chorea, I know I'll be referring to your article as a great reference to have a framework for how to approach it. I hope our readers will look at all these helpful tables on differential diagnosis based on distribution of chorea in the body, potential etiologies, time course of onset and evolution, associated drug-induced causes, what tests to send. So, I highly recommend our listeners read the article. Keep those tables handy for when a patient comes in with chorea. I'm excited to pick your brain about some of these topics today. First, how do you go about distinguishing chorea from other hyperkinetic movement disorders when you see a patient that you think might have chorea?

Dr Moore: One of the wonderful things about being a movement disorder specialist is we spend a lot of time looking at movements and training our brain to make these distinctions. The things that I would be looking out for chorea is involuntary, uncontrolled movements that appear to be brief and flowing from one part of the body to another. So, if you can watch a patient and predict what movements they're going to do, this probably isn't chorea. And it should be flowing from one part of the body to another. So, not staying just in one part of the body or having sustained movements. It can be difficult to distinguish between a tic or dystonia or myoclonus. Those things tend to be more predictable and repetitive than the chorea, which tends to be really random and can look like dancing.

Dr Berkowitz: That's very helpful. So, once you've decided the patient has chorea, what's your framework for thinking about the differential diagnosis of the cause of the patient's chorea?

Dr Moore: Well, that could be really challenging. The differential for chorea is very broad, and so the two things that I tend to use are age of the patient and acuity of onset. And so, if you're thinking about acute onset of chorea, you're really looking at a structural lesion like a stroke or a systemic issue like infection, hyperglycemia, etc. Where a gradually progressive chorea tends to be genetic in nature. When you're thinking about the difference between a child and an adult, the most common cause of chorea in a child is Sydenham's chorea. And actually, the most common cause of chorea that I tend to see is Parkinson's disease medication. So, if anybody's seen dyskinesia in Parkinson's disease, you've seen chorea. But it's those two things that I'm using, the age of the patient and the acuity. Somewhere in the middle, though---so, if you have subacute onset of chorea---it's important to remember to think about autoimmune conditions or paraneoplastic conditions because these are treatable.

Dr Berkowitz: That's very helpful. So, like in any chief concern in neurology, we're using the context like the age and then the time course. And then a number of other helpful points in your article about the distribution of chorea in the body. Any comments you'd like to make about- we have this very helpful table that I thought was very interesting. So, you really get deep into the nuances of chorea and the movement disorder specialist expert level. Are there any aspects of parts of the body affected by chorea or distribution of chorea across the body that help you hone your differential diagnosis?

Dr Moore: Certainly. I think where the chorea is located in the body can be helpful, but not as helpful as other conditions where you're localizing a lesion or that sort of thing. Because you can have a systemic cause of chorea that causes a hemichorea; that you can have hyperglycemia causing a hemichorea, or even Sydenham's chorea being a hemichorea. But things that we think about, if the forehead is involved, I would think about Huntington's disease, although this is not pathognomonic. And if it's involving the face or the mouth, you can think about neuroacanthocytosis or, more commonly, tardive dyskinesia. Hemichorea would make me think about some of those systemic issues like hyperglycemia, Sydenham's chorea, those sorts of things, but I would rely more on the historical context and the acuity of presentation than the distribution itself.

Dr Berkowitz: Got it. That's very helpful. So those can be helpful features, but not sort of specific for any particular condition.

Dr Moore: Exactly.

Dr Berkowitz: Yeah, I often see forehead chorea mentioned as sort of specific to Huntington's disease. Since I don't see much Huntington's disease myself, what does forehead chorea look like? What is the forehead doing? How do you recognize that there is chorea of the forehead? It's just sort of hard for me to imagine what it would look like.

Dr Moore: It's really tricky. I think seeing the eyebrows go up and down or the brows furrow in an unpredictable way is really what we're looking for. And that can be hard if you're having a conversation. My forehead is certainly animated as we're talking about one of my favorite topics here. One of the tricks that I use with the fellows is to observe the forehead from the side, and there you can see the undulation of the forehead muscles. And that can be helpful as you're looking for these things. I think where it's most helpful to use the forehead is if you're trying to determine if someone with a psychiatric history has tardive dyskinesia or Huntington's disease, because there can be quite a lot of overlap there. And unfortunately, patients can have both conditions. And so, using the forehead movement can be helpful to maybe direct further testing for Huntington's disease.

Dr Berkowitz: Oh, wow, that's a very helpful pearl. So, if you see, sort of, diffuse chorea throughout the body and the forehead is involved, to my understanding it may be less specific. But in the context of wondering, is the neuropsychiatric condition and movement disorder related by an underlying cause in the case of seeing orofacial dyskinesias, is the relationship a drug having caused a tardive dyskinesia or is the whole underlying process Huntington's, the absence of forehead might push you a little more towards tardive dyskinesia, presuming there is an appropriate implicated drug and the presence of forehead chorea would really clue you in more to Huntington's. Did I understand that pearl?

Dr Moore: That's exactly right, and I'm glad you brought up the point about making sure, if you're considering tardive dyskinesia, that there has been an appropriate drug exposure. Because without that you can't make that diagnosis.

Dr Berkowitz: That's a very helpful and interesting pearl, looking at the forehead from the side. That is a movement disorders pearl for sure. Sort of not just looking at the forehead from one angle and trying to figure out what it's doing, but going to look at the patient in profile and trying to sort it out. I love that. Okay. So, based on the differential diagnosis you would have crafted based on whether this is sort of acute, subacute, chronic, the age of the patient, whether it's unilateral, bilateral, which parts of the body. How do you go about the initial evaluation in terms of laboratory testing, imaging, etc.?

Dr Moore: Well, certainly in an acute-onset patient, you're going to get a number of labs---and that's listed out for you in the paper---and consider imaging as well, looking for an infarct. One thing our learners will know is that sort of the typical answer to what's the infarct causing hemichorea would be the subthalamic nucleus. But really, those infarcts can be almost anywhere. There are case reports for infarcts in a wide variety of places in the brain leading to hemichorea. So, I think some general blood work and an MRI of the brain is a good place to start. For someone who has a more chronic course of the development of chorea, there are certain labs that I would get---and an MRI, because if you get an MRI and there's heavy metal deposition or other disease, structurally, that indicates a certain condition, that can help you pretty considerably. But otherwise, I'm looking for inflammatory markers, heavy metals, HIV, some general other things that are outlined, to help make sure that I'm not missing something that's treatable before I go down the route of genetic testing. And we may talk about this in a little bit, but if you start out with genetic testing and then you sort of have to back up and do more systemic testing, that can be very disjointed when it comes to good patient care.

Dr Berkowitz: That's very helpful. So yeah, if it's acute, obviously this is the most straightforward scenario, acute and unilateral. We're imagining something lesional, as you said, either a stroke or---not sort of sudden, but fast, but not sudden---you might think of another structural lesion. Toxoplasmosis, right, has an affinity for the basal ganglia if you were seeing this in a patient who is immunocompromised. But in a case that, probably as you alluded to, sort of what we would see most commonly in practice, those still relatively rare, sort of subacute to chronic symmetric chorea. There's a long list of tests that are recommended. In your article and in other texts, I've read lupus testing, anti-phospholipid antibodies… but the list is long. I'll refer readers to your article. Out of curiosity as a specialist, how often do you see any of these labs come back revealing any underlying diagnosis in a patient who's otherwise healthy and just has developed chorea and comes to you with that chief concern? I feel like I've sent that mega-workup a few times; I'm obviously a general neurologist, but not nearly as many times as you have been. It's- I can't remember a time where something has come up, maybe an ANA one to forty or something like this that we don't think is relevant. But in your practice, how often do you end up finding a reversible cause in the laboratory testing versus ending up starting to go down the genetic testing route, which we'll talk about in a moment?

Dr Moore: It's not common, but it is important that we capture these things. Because for a lot of those laboratory tests, there are treatments that are available, or other health implications if those come back positive. So, the case I think of is a polycythemia vera patient who had diffused subacute onset chorea and was able to be treated, was temporarily managed with medication for her chorea, and as her PV improved, she was able to come off those medications. As I was alluding to before---and I'm sure we'll talk about genetic testing---if you test for HD and it's negative, do you go down the route of additional expensive genetic testing, or do you then circle back and go, oops, I missed this treatable condition? As we talk about genetic testing as well, getting HD testing is a pretty involved process. And so, we want to make sure we are checking all those boxes before we move forward. So, it's not common, but we do catch some treatable conditions, and that's really important not to miss.

Dr Berkowitz: That's very interesting. So, you diagnosed that polycythemia vera by blood smear, is that how you make the diagnosis?

Dr Moore: Yes.

Dr Berkowitz: And is that a once-in-a-career-so-far type of thing, or does that happen time to time?

Dr Moore: For me, that's a once-so-far, but I don't doubt that I'll see it again.

Dr Berkowitz: Great. And how about lupus and some of these other things we look for in the absence of other systemic features? Have you picked up any of these or heard of colleagues picking up something on laboratory testing? They said, oh, this patient came in for a referral for genetic testing, negative Huntington's disease. And good news, we found polycythemia vera; good news, we found undiagnosed lupus and we reversed it. I'm just curious, epidemiologically, seeing these long lists and not having the subspecialty practice that you do, how often you find a reversible cause like we do for neuropathy all the time, right? Oh, it's diabetes, it's B12---maybe not reversible, but preventing progression---or reversible dementia work up. You get so excited when you find low B12 and you replete the patient's B12, and they get better when they had been concerned they were developing an irreversible condition. How often does one in your subspecialty find a reversible cause on that initial mega-lab screen?

Dr Moore: I think it's really uncommon, and maybe the folks that do are caught by someone else that never make it to Huntington's clinic, but I don't tend to see those cases. There are, of course, case reports and well-described in the literature about lupus and movement disorders and things of that nature, but that doesn't come to our clinic on a regular basis for sure.

Dr Berkowitz: Got it. That's helpful to hear. Well, we've alluded to genetic testing a number of times now, so let's go ahead and talk about it. A lot of your article focuses on Huntington disease, and I was thinking about---in the course of our medical training in medical school, and then neurology residency, for those of us who don't become movement disorder experts like yourself---we learn a lot about Huntington disease. That's sort of the disease that causes chorea, until we later learned there are a whole number of diseases, not just the reversible causes we've been talking about, but a number of genetic diseases which you expertly reviewing your article. So, what are some of the red flags that suggest to you that a patient with chronically progressive chorea---and whom you're concerned for Huntington's or another genetic cause---what are some things you notice about the history, about the exam, the symptoms, the signs, the syndrome, that suggest to you that, actually, this one looks like it might not turn out to be HD. I think this patient might have something else. And as you have alluded to, how do you approach this? Do you send HD testing, wait for it to come back, and then go forward? Are there genetic panels for certain genetic causes of chorea? Do you skip just a whole exome sequencing, or will you miss some of the trinucleotide repeat conditions? How do you approach this in practice?

Dr Moore: I'll try to tackle all that. One thing I will say is that a lot of patients with chorea, regardless of the cause, can look very similar to one another. So, if you're looking at chronic onset chorea, perhaps with some neuropsychiatric features, I'm going to most often think about HD because that's the most common cause. Certainly, as we mentioned before, if there's a lot of tongue protrusion, I would think about the acanthocytic conditions, neurocanthocytosis and McCloud syndrome. But generally in those conditions, we're looking at HD as the most likely cause. Certainly, if there is epilepsy or some other syndromic types of things going on, I may think more broadly. But it's important to know that while HD, as you mentioned, is the cause of chorea, many of our patients will have parkinsonism, tics, dystonia, a whole host of other movement phenomenologies. So, that wouldn't dissuade me from thinking about HD. When we think about the kind of patients that you're describing, upwards of 95% of those people will have Huntington's disease. And the process for genetic testing is fairly involved. The Huntington's Disease Society of America has organized a set of recommendations for providers to go about the process of genetic testing in a safe and supportive way for patients and their families. And so that's referred to in the article because it really is important and was devised by patients and families that are affected by this disease.

And so, when we're thinking about genetic testing for HD, if I reveal that you have HD, this potentially affects your children and your parents and your siblings. You can have a lot of implications for the lives and health and finances of your family members. We also know that there is high suicidality in patients with HD, in patients who are at risk for HD; and there's even a higher risk of suicidality in patients who are at risk but test negative for HD. So, we do recommend a supportive environment for these patients and their families. And so, for presymptomatic patients or patients who are at risk and don't have chorea, this involves making sure we have, sort of, our ducks in a row, as it were, when we think about life insurance, and, do you have somebody supportive to be with you through this journey of genetic testing, no matter what the results are? So, oftentimes I'll say to folks, you know, there's this 20-page policy that I encourage you to look at, but there are Huntington's Disease Centers of Excellence across the country that are happy to help you with that process, to make sure that the patients are well supported. This is an individual genetic test because, as you mentioned, it is a CAG repeat disorder. And unfortunately, there is no chorea panel.

So, if an HD test comes back negative, what we'll do then is think about what's called the HD phenocopies. As I mentioned before, some of these patients who look like they have HD will have a negative HD test. And so, what do you do then? Well, there's a handful of phenocopies---so, other genetic mutations that cause a very similar presentation. And so, we try to be smart,

Progressive supranuclear palsy and corticobasal syndrome are closely related neurodegenerative disorders that present with progressive parkinsonism and multiple other features that overlap clinically and neuropathologically. Early recognition is critical to provide appropriate treatment and supportive care.

In this episode, Teshamae Monteith, MD, FAAN speaks with Nikolaus R. McFarland, MD, PhD, FAAN, author of the article "Progressive Supranuclear Palsy and Corticobasal Syndrome" in the Continuum® August 2025 Movement Disorders issue.

Dr. Monteith is the associate editor of Continuum® Audio and an associate professor of clinical neurology at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Miami, Florida.

Dr. McFarland is an associate professor of neurology at the University of Florida College of Medicine at the Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases in Gainesville, Florida.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Progressive Supranuclear Palsy and Corticobasal Syndrome

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: Hi, this is Dr Teshamae Monteith. Today I'm interviewing Dr Nikolaus McFarland about his article on progressive supranuclear palsy and cortical basilar syndrome, which appears in the August 2025 Continuum issue on movement disorders. Welcome, how are you?

Dr Farland: I'm great. Thank you for inviting me to do this. This is a great opportunity. I had fun putting this article together, and it's part of my passion.

Dr Monteith: Yes, I know that. You sit on the board with me in the Florida Society of Neurology and I've seen your lectures. You're very passionate about this. And so why don't you first start off with introducing yourself, and then tell us just a little bit about what got you interested in this field.

Dr Farland: I'm Dr Nicholas McFarlane. I'm an associate professor at the University of Florida, and I work at the Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases. I am a director of a number of different centers. So, I actually direct the cure PSP Center of Care and the MSA Center of Excellence at the University of Florida; I also direct the Huntington's clinic there as well. But for many years my focus has been on atypical parkinsonisms. And, you know, I've treated these patients for years, and one of my focuses is actually these patients who suffer from progressive supranuclear palsy and corticobasal syndrome. So that's kind of what this review is all about.

Dr Monteith: You probably were born excited, but I want to know what got you interested in this in particular?

Dr Farland: So, what got me interested in this in particular was really the disease and the challenges that's involved in it. So, Parkinson's disease is pretty common, and we see a lot of that in our clinic. Yet many times, roughly about 10 to 15% of my patients present with these atypical disorders. And they're quite fascinating. They present in different ways. They're fairly uncommon. They're complex disorders that progress fairly rapidly, and they have multiple different features. They're sort of exciting to see clinically as a neurologist. I think they're really interesting from an academic standpoint, but also in the standpoint of really trying to bring together sort of a team. We have built a multidisciplinary team here at the University of Florida to take care of these patients. They require a number of folks on that team to take care of them. And so, what's exciting, really, is the challenge of treating these patients. There are very limited numbers of therapies that are available, and the current therapies that we have often really aren't great and over time they fail. And so, part of the challenge is actually doing research. And so, there's actually a lot of new research that's been going on in this field. Recently, there's been some revisions to the clinical criteria to help diagnose these disorders. So, that's really what's exciting. The field is really moving forward fairly rapidly with a number of new diagnostics, therapeutics coming out. And hopefully we can make a real difference for these patients. And so that's what really got me into this field, the challenge of trying to treat these patients, help them, advocate for them and make them better.

Dr Monteith: And so, tell me what the essential points of this article.

Dr Farland: So, the essential points, really, of this article is: number one, you know, just to recognize the new clinical criteria for both PSP and corticobasal syndrome, the diagnosis for these disorders or the phenotypic spectrum has really expanded over the years. So, we now recognize many different phenotypes of these disorders, and the diagnosis has gotten fairly complicated. And so, one of the goals of this article was to review those new diagnostic criteria and the different phenotypic ways these diseases present. I wanted to discuss, also, some of the neuropathology and clinicopathological overlap that's occurred in these diseases as well as some of the new diagnostic tests that are available. That's definitely growing. Some of the new studies that are out, in terms of research and clinical trials. And then wanted to review some of the approaches for treatment for neurologists. Particularly, we're hoping that, you know, this article educates folks. If you're a general neurologist, we're hoping that recognizing these diseases early on will prompt you to refer these patients to specialty clinics or movement disorder specialists early on so they can get appropriate care, confirm your diagnosis, as well as get them involved in trials if they are available.

Dr Monteith: And how has the clinical criteria for PSP and cortical basilar syndrome changed?

Dr Farland: I think I already mentioned there's been an evolution of the clinical criteria for PSP. There's new diagnostic criteria that were recently published, and it recognizes the multiple clinical phenotypes and the spectrum of the disease that's out there, which is much broader than we thought about. Corticobasal clinical criteria are the Dr Armstrong criteria from 2013. They have not been updated, but they are in the works of being updated. But it does recognize the classic presentation of corticobasal syndrome, plus a frontal executive predominant and then a variant that actually overlaps with PSP. So, there's a lot more overlap in these two diseases than we originally recognized.

Dr Monteith: And so, you spoke a bit about FTD spectrum. So why don't you tell us a little bit about what that is? I know you mentioned multiple phenotypes.

Dr Farland: What I really want to say is that both PSP and corticobasal syndrome, they're relatively rare, and what- sort of as to common features, they both are progressive Parkinson disorders, but they have variable features. While they're commonly associated with Parkinson's, they also fit within this frontotemporal lobar spectrum, having features that overlap both clinically and neuropathologically. I just want folks to understand that overlap. One of this pathological overlap here is the predominant Tau pathology in the brain, an increasing recognology- recognition of sort of the pathological heterogeneity within these disorders. So, there's an initial description, a classic of PSP, as Richardson syndrome. But now we recognize there are lots of different features to it and there are different ways it presents, and there's definitely a lot of clinical pathological overlap.

Dr Monteith: Why don't we just talk about some red flags for PSP?

Dr Farland: Yeah, sure. So, some of the red flags for PSP and even corticobasal syndrome are: number one is rapid progression with early onset of falls, gait difficulty, falling typically backwards, early speech and swallow problems that are more prominent than you see in Parkinson's disease, as well as eye gaze issues. So, ocular motor features, particularly vertical gaze palsy. In particular what we talk about is the supranuclear gaze palsy, and one of the most sensitive features that we've seen with these is downgaze limitation or slowed downgaze, and eventually a full vertical gaze palsy and followed supranuclear gaze palsy. So, there's some of the red flags that we see. So, while we think about the lack of response to levodopa frequently as something that's a red flag for Parkinson's, there are many times that we see Parkinson's patients, and about a quarter of them don't really respond. There's some features that don't respond to levodopa that may not be so specific, but also can be helpful in this disease.

Dr Monteith: And what about the red flags for cortical basilar syndrome?

Dr Farland: So, for cortical basilar syndrome, some of the red flags again are this rapidly depressive syndrome tends to be, at least in its classical present presentation, more asymmetric in its presentation of parkinsonism, with features including things like dystonic features, okay? For limb dystonia and apraxias---so, inability to do a learned behavior. One of those red flags is a patient who comes in and says, my hand doesn't work anymore, which is something extremely uncommon that you hear in Parkinson's disease. Most of those patients will present, say, I might have a tremor, but they very rarely will tell you that I can't use my hand. So look out for that sign.

Dr Monteith: And let's talk a little bit about some of the advances in the fields you mentioned, evolving biomarker and imaging capacities. So, how are these advances useful in helping us understand these conditions, especially when there's so much heterogeneity?

Dr Farland: I might start by talking a little bit about some of the clinical criteria that have advanced. Why don't we start there and just discuss some of the advances? I think in PSP, I think, originally we had both probable and possible diagnoses of PSP, and the diagnostic criteria were basically focused on what was what's called "classical PSP" or "Richardson syndrome". But now we recognize that there are multiple phenotypes. There's an overlap with Parkinsonism that's slower in progression and morphs into PSP, the classical form. There's a frontal behavioral variant where patients present with that frontal behavioral kind of thing. There's a speech-language variant that can overlap with PSP. So they have prominent speech language, potentially even apraxia speech. So, recognition of these different phenotypes is sort of a new thing in this field. There's even overlap with cortical basal syndrome and PSP, and we note that the pathology can overlap as well. So, I think that's one of the things that have changed over time. And these were- recently came out in 2017 in a new publication in the Movement Disorders Society. So, in terms of diagnostic tests as well---and there's been quite a bit of evolution---really still to date, our best diagnostic test is imaging. MRI is really one of our best tests currently. Currently blood tests, spinal fluid, there's new biomarkers in terms of skin… they're still in the research phase and not necessarily very specific yet. So, we rely heavily on imaging still; and for PSP, what we're looking for largely are changes in the brain stem, and particularly focused on the midbrain. So disproportionate midbrain atrophy compared to the pons and the rest of the midbrain is a fairly specific intensive sign for PSP. Whereas in MSA we see more of a pontine atrophy compared to the midbrain. So that can be really helpful, and there are lots of different new measurements that can be done.

PET scans are also being used as well. And there are new PET markers, but they still remain kind of research-based, but are becoming more and more prevalent and may be available soon for potential use. Although there's some overlap with PET tracers with Alzheimer's disease and different Tau isoforms. So, something to be wary about, but we will be seeing some of these soon coming out as well. More kind of up-to-date things include things like the spinal fluid as well as even some of the skin biopsies. And I think we've heard some word of recent studies that have come out that potentially in the very near future we might actually have some Tau protein tests that we can look at Tau either in spinal fluid or even in a skin biopsy. But again, still remains research-based and, we still need more information as to whether these tests can be reproducible and how sensitive or specific they are.

Dr Monteith: It sounds like, when really approaching these patients, still, it's a lot of back to the history, back to the clinical and some basic imaging that we should be able to identify to distinguish these types of patients, and we're not quite where we need to be yet for biomarker.

Dr Farland: I totally agree with you. I think it starts, really, with the clinical exam and that's our main focus here; and understanding some of the new clinical criteria which are more sensitive, but also specific, too. And they're really useful to look at. So, I think reviewing those; patients do progress, following them over time can be really useful. And then for diagnosis, getting imaging if you suspect a patient has an atypical presentation of parkinsonism, to look for signs or features that might be specific for these different disorders.

Dr Monteith: Why don't we take a typical case, a typical patient that you would see in clinic, and walk us through the thought process---especially, maybe they presented somewhat early---and the different treatment approaches to helping the patient, and of course their family.

Dr Farland: Yeah, sure. So, a typical patient might be someone who comes in with, like, a three year history of progressive gait problems and falling. And let's say the patient says, I'm falling backwards frequently. They may have had, like, a rib fracture, or they hit their head once, and they're describing some speech issues as well. Now they're relying on a walker and family members saying they rarely let them be by themselves. And there may be some slowing of their cognitive function and maybe a bit of withdrawal. So that's a typical patient. So, the approach here is really, what are some of the red flags? I think already you hear a red flag of a rapidly progressive disease. So, Parkinson's disease patients rarely have frequent falls within the first five years. So, this is within three years or less. You're already hearing early onset of gait problems and falling, and particularly falling backwards rather than forwards as often Parkinson's disease patients do. You're hearing early speech problems and maybe a subtle hint of cognitive slowing and some withdrawal. So, a lot of things that sort of are red flags. So, our approach really would be examining this patient really closely. Okay? We'd be listening to the history, looking at the patient. One thing is that some of these patients come in, they may be in a wheelchair already. That's a red flag for us. If they're wearing sunglasses---sometimes we see that patients, they have photosensitivity and they're in a chair and they're wearing sunglasses---you take the glasses off and you look at their face and they have that sort of a facial stare to them---not just the masked face, but the stare---and their eyes really aren't moving. So, another kind of clue, maybe this is probably something atypical, particularly PSP is what I'm thinking about.

So, the approach is really, do a thorough exam. I always recommend looking at eye movements and starting with volitional saccades, not giving them a target necessarily, but asking them to look up and then look down. And then particularly look at the speed of downgaze and whether they actually have full versions down, are able to do that. That's probably your most sensitive test for a patient who has PSP. Not the upgaze, which can be- upgaze impairment in older patients can be nonspecific. So, look for that down gaze. So, if I can get out one message, that's one thing that can be easily done and examined fairly quickly for diagnosis of these patients. And then just look for signs of rigidity, bradykinesia, maybe even some myelopraxia, and then look at their gait carefully so that there's a high suspicion. Again, if there's some atypical features, imaging is really important. So, my next step would be probably getting an MRI to evaluate whether- do they have brain somatrophy or other widespread atrophy or other signs? You need to think about your differential diagnosis for some of these patients as well. So, common things are common; vascular disease, you can't have vascular parkinsonism or even signs of NPH. Both of those can present with progressive gait difficulty and falls. So, the gait may look more like Parkinson's rather than ataxic gait that we see in classic PSP, but still they have early gait issues, and that can be a mimicker of PSP, So looking for both of those things in your imaging. Think about sort of autoimmune potentially causes. So, if they have a really rapid progressive cause, there are some rare autoimmune things. There have been recent reports of things like IgLON5, although there's limited cases, but we're doing more screening for some of those autoimmune causes. And then even some infectious causes like Whipples, that are rarely present like this. Okay? And have other signs and features.

Dr Monteith: So, let's say you diagnose this patient with PSP and you're assessing the patients to see how you can improve their quality of life. So, what are some potential symptomatic managements that will help our patient?

Dr Farland: I recommend for most all of these patients… while the literature indicates that many patients with PSP, and especially corticobasal syndrome, don't respond well to levodopa. So, the classic treatment for parkinsonism. However, we all recommend a trial of levodopa. These patients may respond partially to doses of levodopa, and we try to push the doses a bit higher. So, the recommended trial is usually a dose up to roughly 1000 milligrams of levodopa per day. And give it some time, at least two, if not actually three months of a trial. If not well-tolerated, you can back off. If there's no response at all or no improvement, then slowly back off and taper patients off and ask them to tell you whether they feel like they're actually worsening. So, many patients, sometimes, don't recognize the improvements, or family members don't recognize it until we actually taper them back off. And they may end up saying there are some other things that even recognize. Even some nonmotor benefits can be seen with levodopa. In some cases, we do keep them on levodopa, but levodopa's our best therapy for this. Dopamine agonists, MAO inhibitors, have all been sort of tried and they've been studied, but often don't really help or fail to help benefit these patients and could be fraught with some other side effects.

I think many people do also turn to Amantadine as a treatment for Parkinson's, gait problems, freezing, if you see it in these disorders. Yet Amantadine is fraught with issues of side effects, including cognitive issues, and I think is not well-tolerated. But there are the rare patient who actually does respond to this or claims they respond to this. By and large, these patients relentlessly progress, unfortunately. So, beside treatment of other symptoms, I think it's really important to recognize

Multiple system atrophy is a rare, sporadic, adult-onset, progressive, and fatal neurodegenerative disease. Accurate and early diagnosis remains challenging because it presents with a variable combination of symptoms across the autonomic, extrapyramidal, cerebellar, and pyramidal systems. Advances in brain imaging, molecular biomarker research, and efforts to develop disease-modifying agents have shown promise to improve diagnosis and treatment.

In this episode, Casey Albin, MD speaks with Tao Xie, MD, PhD, author of the article "Multiple System Atrophy" in the Continuum® August 2025 Movement Disorders issue.

Dr. Albin is a Continuum® Audio interviewer, associate editor of media engagement, and an assistant professor of neurology and neurosurgery at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

Dr. Xie is director of the Movement Disorder Program, chief of the Neurodegenerative Disease Section in the department of neurology at the University of Chicago Medicine in Chicago, Illinois.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Multiple System Atrophy

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: @caseyalbin

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 Albin: Hello everyone, this is Dr Casey Albin. Today I'm interviewing Dr Tao Xie about his article on diagnosis and management of multiple system atrophy, which appears in the August 2025 Continuum issue on movement disorders. Welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to our audience.

Dr Xie: Thank you so much, Dr Albin. My name is Tao Xie, and sometimes people also call me Tao Z. I'm a mood disorder neurologist, professor of neurology at the University of Chicago. I'm also in charge of the mood disorder program here, and I'm the section chief in the neurodegenerative disease in the Department of Neurology at the University of Chicago Medicine. Thank you for having me, Dr Albin and Dr Okun and the American Academy of Neurology. This is a great honor and pleasure to be involved in this education session.

Dr Albin: We are delighted to have you, and thank you so much for the thoughtful approach to the diagnosis and management. I really want to encourage our listeners to check out this article. You know, one of the things that you emphasize is multiple system atrophy is a fairly rare condition. And I suspect that clinicians and trainees who even have a fair amount of exposure to movement disorders may not have encountered that many cases. And so, I was hoping that you could just start us off and walk us through what defines multiple system atrophy, and then maybe a little bit about how it's different from some of the more commonly encountered movement disorders.

Dr Xie: This is a really good question, Dr Albin. Indeed, MSA---multisystem atrophy----is a rare disease. It is sporadic, adult-onset, progressive, fatal neurodegenerative disease. By the name MSA, multisystem atrophy. Clinically, it will present with multiple symptoms and signs involving multiple systems, including symptoms of autonomic dysfunction and symptoms of parkinsonism, which is polyresponsive to the levodopa treatment; and the symptom of cerebellar ataxia, and symptom of spasticity and other motor and nonmotor symptoms. And you may be wondering, what is the cause- underlying cause of these symptoms? Anatomically, we can find the area in the basal ganglia striatonigral system, particularly in the putamen and also in the cerebellar pontine inferior, all of the nuclear area and the specific area involved in the autonomic system in the brain stem and spinal cord: all become smaller. We call it atrophy. Because of the atrophy in this area, they are responsible for the symptom of parkinsonism if it is involved in the putamen and the cerebral ataxia, if it's involved in the pons and cerebral peduncle and the cerebellum. And all other area, if it's involved in the autonomic system can cause autonomic symptoms as well.

So that's why we call it multisystem atrophy. And then what's the underlying cellular and subcellular pathological, a hallmark that is in fact caused by misfolded alpha-synuclein aggregate in the oligodontia site known as GCI---glial cytoplasmic increasing bodies---in the cells, and sometimes it can also be found in the neuronal cell as well in those areas, as mentioned, which causes the symptom. But clinically, the patient may not present all the symptoms at the same time. So, based on the predominant clinical symptom, if it's mainly levodopa, polyresponsive parkinsonism, then we call it MSAP. If it's mainly cerebellar ataxia, then we call it MSAC. But whether we call it MSP or MSC, they all got to have autonomic dysfunction. And also as the disease progresses, they can also present both phenotypes together. We call that mixed cerebellar ataxia and parkinsonism in the advanced stage of the disease. So, it is really a complicated disease. The complexity and the similarity to other mood disorders, including parkinsonism and the cerebellar ataxia, make it really difficult sometimes, particularly at the early stages of disease, to differentiate one from the other. So, that was challenging not only for other professionals, general neurologists and even for some movement disorder specialists, that could be difficult particularly if you aim to make an accurate and early diagnosis.

Dr Albin: Absolutely. That is such a wealth of knowledge here. And I'm going to distill it just a little bit just to make sure that I understand this right. There is alpha-synuclein depositions, and it's really more widespread than one would see maybe in just Parkinson's disease. And with this, you are having patients present with maybe one of two subtypes of their clinical manifestations, either with a Parkinson's-predominant movement disorder pattern or a cerebellar ataxia type movement disorder pattern. Or maybe even mixed, which really, you know, we have to make things quite complicated, but they are all unified and having this shared importance of autonomic features to the diagnosis. Have I got that all sort of correct?

Dr Xie: Correct. You really summarize well.

Dr Albin: Fantastic. I mean, this is quite a complicated disease. I would pose to you sort of a case, and I imagine this is quite common to what you see in your clinic. And let's say, you know, a seventy-year-old woman comes to your clinic because she has had rigidity and poor balance. And she's had several falls already, almost always from ground level. And her family tells you she's quite woozy whenever she gets up from the chair and she tends to kind of fall over. But they noticed that she's been stiff,and they've actually brought her to their primary care doctor and he thought that she had Parkinson's disease. So, she started levodopa, but they're coming to you because they think that she probably needs a higher dose. It's just not working out very well for her. So how would you sort of take that history and sort of comb through some of the features that might make you more concerned that the patient actually has undiagnosed multiple systems atrophy?

Dr Xie: This is a great case, because we oftentimes can encounter similar cases like this in the clinic. First of all, based on the history you described, it sounds like an atypical parkinsonism based on the slowness, rigidity, stiffness; and particularly the early onset of falls, which is very unusual for typical Parkinson disease. It occurs too early. If its loss of balance, postural instability, and fall occurred within three years of disease onset---usually the motor symptom onset---then it raises a red flag to suspect this must be some atypical Parkinson disorders, including multiple system atrophy. Particularly, pou also mentioned that the patient is poorly responsive to their levodopa therapy, which is very unusual because for Parkinson disease, idiopathic Parkinson disease, we typically expect patients would have a great response to the levodopa, particularly in the first 5 to 7 years. So to put it all together, this could be atypical parkinsonism, and I could not rule out the possibility of MSA. Then I need to check more about other symptoms including autonomic dysfunction, such as orthostatic hypertension, which is a blood pressure drop when the patient stands up from a lying-down position, or other autonomic dysfunctions such as urinary incontinence or severe urinary retention. So, in the meantime, I also have to put the other atypical Parkinson disorder on the differential diagnosis, such as PSP---progressive supranuclear palsy---and the DLBD---dementia with Lewy body disease.---Bear this in mind. So, I want to get more history and more thorough bedside assessment to rule in or rule out my diagnosis and differential diagnosis.

Dr Albin: That's super helpful. So, looking for early falls, the prominence of autonomic dysfunction, and then that poor levodopa responsiveness while continuing to sort of keep a very broad differential diagnosis?

Dr Xie: Correct.

Dr Albin: One of the things that I just have to ask, because I so taken by this, is that you say in the article that some of these patients actually have preservation of smell. In medical school, we always learn that our Parkinson's disease patients kind of had that early loss of smell. Do you find that to be clinically relevant? Is that- does that anecdotally help?

Dr Xie: This is a very interesting point because we know that the loss of smelling function is a risk effect, a prodromal effect, for the future development of Parkinson disease. But it is not the case for MSA. Strange enough, based on the literature and the studies, it is not common for the patient with MSA to present with anosmia. Some of the patients may have mild to moderate hyposmia, but not to the degree of anosmia. So, this is why even in the more recent diagnosis criteria, the MDS criteria published 2022, it even put the presence of anosmia in the exclusion criteria. So, highlight the importance of the smell function, which is well-preserved for the majority in MSA, into that category. So, this is a really interesting point and very important for us, particularly clinicians, to know the difference in the hyposmia, anosmia between the- we call it the PD, and the dementia Lewy bodies versus MSA.

Dr Albin: Fascinating. And just such a cool little tidbit to take with us. So, the family, you know, you're talking to them and they say, oh yes, she has had several fainting episodes and we keep taking her to the primary care doctor because she's had urinary incontinence, and they thought maybe she had urinary tract infections. We've been dealing with that. And you're sort of thinking, hm, this is all kind of coming together, but I imagine it is still quite difficult to make this diagnosis based on history and physical alone. Walk our listeners through sort of how you're using MRI and DAT scan and maybe even some other biomarkers to help sort of solidify that diagnosis.

Dr Xie: Yeah, that's a wonderful question. Yeah. First of all, UTI is very common for patients with MSA because of urinary retention, which puts them into a high risk of developing frequent UTI. That, for some patients, could be the very initial presentation of symptoms. In this case, if we check, we say UTI is not present or UTI is present but we treat it, then we check the blood pressure and we do find also hypertension---according to new diagnosis criteria, starting drop is 20mm mercury, but that's- the blood pressure drop is ten within three minutes. And also, in the meantime the patients present persistent urinary incontinence even after UTI was treated. And then the suspicion for MS is really high right at this point. But if you want increased certainty and a comfortable level on your diagnosis, then we also need to look at the brain MRI mark. This is a required according to the most recent MDS diagnosis criteria. The presence of the MRI marker typical for MSA is needed for the diagnosis of clinically established MSA, which holds the highest specificity in the clinical diagnosis. So then, we have- we're back to your question. We do need to look at the brain MRI to see whether evidence suggestive of atrophy around the putamen area, around the cerebellar pontine inferior olive area, is present or not.

Dr Albin: Absolutely. That's super helpful. And I think clinicians will really take that to sort of helping to build a case and maybe recognizing some of this atypical Parkinson's disease as a different disease entity. Are there any other biomarkers in the pipeline that you're excited about that may give us even more clarity on this diagnosis?

Dr Xie: Oh, yeah. This is a very exciting area. In terms of biomarker for the brain imaging, particularly brain MRI, in fact, today there's a landmark paper just published in the Java Neurology using AI, artificial intelligence or machine learning aid, diagnoses a patient with parkinsonism including Parkinson's disease, MSA, and PSP, with very high diagnostic accuracy ranging from 96% to 98%. And some of the cases even were standard for autopsy, with pathological verification at a very high accurate rate of 93.9%. This is quite amazing and can really open new diagnosis tools for us to diagnose this difficult disease; not only in an area with a bunch of mood disorder experts, but also in the rural area, in the area really in need of mood disorder experts. They can provide tremendous help to provide accurate, early diagnosis.

Dr Albin: That's fantastic and I love that, increasing the access to this accurate diagnosis. What can't artificial intelligence do for us? That's just incredible.

Dr Xie: And also, you know, this is just one example of how the brain biomarker can help us. Theres other---a fluid biomarker, molecular diagnostic tools, is also available. Just to give you an example, one thing we know over the past couple years is skin biopsy. Through the immunofluorescent reaction, we can detect whether the hallmark of abnormally folded, misfolded, and the phosphorate, the alpha-synuclein aggregate can be found just by this little pinch of skin biopsy. Even more advanced, there's another diagnosis tool we call the SAA, we call the seizure amplification assay, that can even help us to differentiate MSA from other alpha-synucleinopathy, including Parkinson disease and dementia with Lewy bodies. If we get a little sample from CSF, spinal cerebral fluids, even though this is probably still at the early stage, a lot of developments still ongoing, but this, this really shows you how exciting this area is now. We're really in a fast forward-moving path now.

Dr Albin: It's really incredible. So, lots coming down the track in, sort of, MRI, but also with CSF diagnosis and skin biopsies. Really hoping that we can hone in some of those tools as they become more and more validated to make this diagnosis. Is that right?

Dr Xie: Correct.

Dr Albin: Amazing. We can talk all day about how you manage these in the clinic, and I really am going to direct our listeners to go and read your fantastic article, because you do such an elegant job talking about how this takes place in a multidisciplinary setting, if at all possible. But as a neurointensivist, I was telling you, we have so much trouble in the hospital. We have A-lines, and we have the ability to get rapid KUBs to look at Ilias, and we can have many people as lots of diagnosis, and we still have a lot of trouble treating autonomiclike symptoms. Really, really difficult. And so, I just wanted to kind of pick your brain, and I'll start with just the one of orthostatic hypotension. What are some of the tips that you have for, you know, clinicians that are dealing with this? Because I imagine that this is quite difficult to do without patients.

Dr Xie: Exactly. This is indeed a very difficult symptom to deal with, particularly at an outpatient setting. But nowadays with the availability of more medication---to give an example, to treat patients with orthostatic hypertension, we have not only midodrine for the cortisol, we also have droxidopa and several others as well. And so, we have more tools at hand to treat the patient with orthostatic hypertension. But I think the key thing here, particularly for us to the patient at the outpatient setting: we need to educate the patient's family well about the natural history of the disease course. And we also need to tell them what's the indication and the potential side effect profile of any medication we prescribe to them so that they can understand what to expect and what to watch for. And in the meantime, we also need to keep really effective and timely communication channels, make sure that the treating physician and our team can be reached at any time when the patient and family need us so that we can be closely monitoring, their response, and also monitoring potential side effects as well to keep up the quality of care in that way.

Dr Albin: Yeah, I imagine that that open communication plays a huge role in just making sure that patients are adapting to their symptoms, understanding that they can reach out if they have refractory symptoms, and that- I imagine this takes a lot of fine tuning over time.

Dr Xie: Correct.

Dr Albin: Well, this has just been such a delight to get to talk to you. I really feel like we could dive even deeper, but I know for the sake of time we have to kind of close out. Are there any final points that you wanted to share with our listeners before we end the interview?

Dr Xie: I think for the patients, I want them to know that nowadays with advances in science and technology, particularly given a sample of rapid development in the diagnostic tools and the multidisciplinary and multisystemic approach to treatment, nowadays we can make an early and accurate diagnosis of the MSA, and also, we can provide better treatment. Even though so far it is still symptomatically, mainly, but in the near future we hope we can also discover disease-modifying treatment which can slow down, even pause or prevent the disease from happening. And for the treating physician and care team professionals, I just want them to know that you can make a difference and greatly help the patient and the family through your dedicated care and also through your active learning and innovative research. You can make a difference.

Dr Albin: That's amazing and lots of hope for these patients. Right now, you can provide really great care to take care of them, make an early and accurate diagnosis; but on the horizon, there are really several things that are going to move the field forward, which is just so exciting. Again today, I've been really greatly honored and privileged to be able to talk to Dr Tao Xie about his article on diagnosis and management of multiple system atrophy, which appears in the August 2025 Continuum issue on movement disorders. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes for this and other issues. And thank you again to our listeners for joining us today.

Dr Xie: Thank you so much 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 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 evaluat

Essential tremor is the most common movement disorder, although it is often misdiagnosed. A careful history and clinical examination for other neurologic findings, such as bradykinesia, dystonia, or evidence of peripheral neuropathy, can reveal potential alternative etiologies. Knowledge about epidemiology and associated health outcomes is important for counseling and monitoring for physical impairment and disability.

In this episode, Lyell Jones, MD, FAAN, speaks with Ludy C. Shih, MD, MMSc, FAAN, author of the article "Essential Tremor" in the Continuum® August 2025 Movement Disorders 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. Shih is clinical director of the Parkinson's Disease and Movement Disorders Center at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Essential Tremor

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

Guest: @ludyshihmd

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 Ludy Shih, who recently authored an article on essential tremor for our latest issue of Continuum on movement disorders. Dr Shih is an associate professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School and the clinical director of the Parkinson's Disease and Movement Disorder Center at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. Dr Shih, welcome, and thank you for joining us today. Why don't you introduce yourself to our listeners?

Dr Shih: Thank you, Dr Jones, for having me. It's a real pleasure to be here on the podcast with you. I'm a neurologist, I trained in movement disorders fellowship, and I currently see patients and conduct clinical research. We offer a variety of treatments and diagnostic tests for our patients with movement disorders. And I have developed this interest, a clinical research interest in essential tremor.

Dr Jones: And so, as an expert in essential tremor, the perfect person to write such a really spectacular article. And I can't wait for our listeners to hear more about it and our subscribers to read it. And let's get right to it. If you had, Dr Shih, a single most important message for our listeners about caring for patients with essential tremor, what would that message be?

Dr Shih: Yeah, I think the takeaway that I've learned over the years is that people with essential tremor do develop quite a few other symptoms. And although we propose that essential tremor is this pure tremor disorder, they can experience a lot of different comorbidities. Now, there is some debate as to whether that is expected for essential tremor or is this some part of another syndrome, which we may talk about later in the interview. But the fact of the matter is, it's not a benign condition and people do experience some disability from it.

Dr Jones: And I think that speaks to how the name of this disorder has evolved over time. right? You point out in your article, it used to be called benign essential tremor or benign familial tremor. But it's really not so straightforward as it. And fairly frequently these symptoms, the patient's tremor, can be functionally limiting, correct?

Dr Shih: That is correct. In fact, the reason I probably started getting interested in essential tremor was because our center had been doing a lot of deep brain stimulation for essential tremor, which is remarkably effective, especially for tremor that reaches an amplitude that really no oral medication is going to satisfyingly treat. And if you have enough upper limb disability from this very large-amplitude tremor, a surgical option may make a lot of sense for a lot of patients. And yet, how did they get to that point? Do they continue to progress? These were the sort of interesting questions that got raised in my mind as I started to treat these folks.

Dr Jones: We'll come back to treatment in just a minute here, because there are many options, and it sounds like the options are expanding. To start with the diagnosis- I mean, this is an extraordinarily common disorder. As you point out, it is the most common movement disorder in the US and maybe the world, and yet it seems to be underrecognized and frequently misdiagnosed. Why do you think that is?

Dr Shih: Great question. It's been pretty consistent, with several case series over the decades showing a fairly high rate of quote/unquote "misdiagnosis." And I think it speaks to two things, probably. One is that once someone sees a postural and kinetic tremor of the arms, immediately they think of essential tremor because it is quite common. But there's a whole host of things that it could actually be. And the biggest one that we also have to factor in is also the heterogeneity of the presentation of Parkinson's disease. Many people, and I think increasingly now these days, can present with not a whole lot of the other symptoms, but may present with an atypical tremor. And it becomes actually a little hard to sort out, well, do they have enough of these other symptoms for me to suspect Parkinson's, or is the nature of their tremor suspicious enough that it would just be so unusual that this stays essential tremor and doesn't eventually develop into Parkinson's disease? And I think those are the questions that we all still grapple with from time to time in some of our clinics.

Dr Jones: Probably some other things related to it with, you know, our understanding of the pathophysiology and the availability of tests. And I do want to come back to those questions here in just a minute, but, you know, just the nomenclature of this disorder… I think our clinical listeners are familiar with our tendency in medicine to use words like essential or idiopathic to describe disorders or phenomena where we don't understand the precise underlying mechanism. When I'm working with our trainees, I call these "job-security terms" because it sounds less humbling than "you have a tremor and we don't know what causes it," right? So, your article does a really nice job outlining the absence of a clear monogenic or Mendelian mechanism for essential tremor. Do you think we'll ever have a eureka moment in neurology for this disorder and maybe give it a different name?

Dr Shih: It's a great question. I think as we're learning with a lot of our neurologic diseases---and including, I would even say, Parkinson's disease, to which ET gets compared to a lot---there's already now so much more known complexity to something that has a very specific idea and concept in people's minds. So, I tend to think we'll still be in an area where we'll have a lot of different causes of tremor, but I'm hopeful that we'll uncover some new mechanisms for which treating or addressing that mechanism would take care of the tremor in a way that we haven't been able to make as much progress on in the last few decades as maybe we would have thought given all the advances in in technology.

Dr Jones: That's very helpful, and we'll be hopeful for that series of discoveries that lead us to that point. I think many of our listeners will be familiar with the utility---and, I think, even for most insurance companies, approval---for DAT scans to discriminate between essential tremor and Parkinsonian disorders. What about lab work? Are there any other disorders that you commonly screen for in patients who you suspect may have essential tremor?

Dr Shih: Yeah, it's a great question. And I think, you know, I'm always mindful that what I'm seeing in my clinic may not always be representative of what's seen in the community or out in practice. I'll give an example. You know, most of the time when people come to the academic Medical Center, they're thinking, gosh, I've tried this or that. I've been on these medicines for the last ten years. But I've had essential tremor for twenty years. We get to benefit a little bit from all that history that's been laid down. And so, it's not as likely you're going to misdiagnose it. But once in a while, you'll get someone with tremor that just started a month ago or just started, you know, 2 or 3 months ago. And you have to still be thinking, well, I've got to get out of the specialist clinic mindset, and think, well, what else really could this be? And so, while it's true for everybody, moreso in those cases, in those recent onset cases, you really got to be looking for things like medications, electrolyte abnormalities, and new-onset thyroid disorder, for example, thyroid toxicosis.

Dr Jones: Very helpful. And your article has a wonderful list of the conditions to consider, including the medications that might be used for those conditions that might result or unmask a tremor of a different cause. And I think being open-minded and not anchoring on essential tremor just because it's common, I think is a is a key point here. And another feature in your article that I really enjoyed was your step-by-step approach to tremor. What are those steps?

Dr Shih: Well, I think you know first of all, tremor is such common terminology that even lay people, patients, nonclinicians will use the word "tremor." And so, it can be tempting when the notes on your schedule says referred for tremor to sort of immediately jump to that. I think the first step is, is it tremor? And that's really something that the clinician first has to decide. And I think that's a really important step. A lot of things can look superficially like tremor, and you shouldn't even assume that another clinician knows what tremor looks like as opposed to, say, myoclonus. Or for example a tremor of the mouth; well, it actually could be orolingual or orobuccal dyskinesia, as in tardive dyskinesia. And another one that tremor can look like is ataxia. And so, I think- while they sound obvious to most neurologists, perhaps, I think that---especially in the area of myoclonus, where it can be quite repetitive, quite small amplitude in some conditions---it can really resemble a tremor. And so, there are examples of these where making that first decision of whether it's a tremor or not can really be a good sort of time-out to make sure you're going down the right path to begin with. And I think what's helpful is to think about some of the clinical definitions of a tremor. And tremor is really rhythmic, it's oscillatory. You should see an agonist and antagonist muscle group moving back and forth, to and fro. And then it's involuntary. And so, I think these descriptors can really help; and to help isolate, if you can describe it in your note, you can probably be more convinced that you're dealing with the tremor.

The second step that I would encourage people to really consider: you've established it's a tremor. The most important part exam now becomes, really, the nontremor part of the exam. And it should be really comprehensive to think of what else could be accompanying this, because that's really how we make diagnosis of other things besides essential tremor. There really should be a minimum of evidence of parkinsonism, dystonia, neuropathy, ataxia- and the ataxia could be either from a peripheral or central nervous system etiology. Those are the big four or five things that, you know, I'm very keen to look for and will look pretty much in the head, neck, the axial sort of musculature, as well as the limbs. And I think this is very helpful in terms of identifying cases which turn out to have either, say, well, Parkinson's or even a typical Parkinson disorder; or even a genetic disorder, maybe even something like a fragile X tremor ataxia syndrome; or even a spinal cerebellar ataxia. These cases are rare, but I think if you uncover just enough ataxia, for example, that really shouldn't be there in a person, let's say, who's younger and also doesn't have a long history of tremor; you should be more suspicious that this is not essential tremor that you're dealing with.

And then the last thing is, once you've identified the tremor and you're trying to establish, well, what should be done about the tremor, you really have to say what kind of tremor it is so that you can follow it, so you can convey to other people really what the disability is coming from the tremor and how severe the tremor is. So, I think an example of this is, often in the clinic, people will have their patients extend their arms and hands and kind of say, oh, it's an essential tremor, and that's kind of the end of the exam. But it doesn't give you the flavor. Sometimes you'll have a patient come in and have a fairly minimal postural tremor, but then you go out, take those extra few seconds to go grab a cup of water or two cups of water and have them pour or drink. And now all of a sudden you see this tremor is quite large-amplitude and very disabling. Now you have a better appreciation of what you really need to do for this patient, and it might not be present with just these very simple maneuvers that you have at bedside without props and items. And then the severity of it; you know, we're so used to saying mild, moderate, severe. I think what we've done in the Tremor Research Group to use and develop the Essential Tremor Rating Assessment Scale is to get people used to trying to estimate what size the tremor is. And you can do that by taking a ruler or developing a sense of what 1 centimeter, 2 centimeters, 3 centimeters looks like. I think it'd be tremendously helpful too, it's very easy and quick to convey severity in a given patient.

Dr Jones: I appreciate you, you know, having a patient-centered approach to the- how this is affecting them and being quantitative in the assessment of the tremor. And that's a great segue to a key question that I run into and I think others run into, which is when to initiate therapy? You know, if you see a patient who, let's say they have a mild tremor or, you know, something that quantitatively is on the mild end of the spectrum, and you have, you know, a series of options… from a medication perspective, you have to say, well, when does this across that threshold of being more likely to benefit the patient than to harm the patient? How do you approach that question? What's your threshold for starting medication?

Dr Shih: Yeah. You know, sometimes I will ask, because---and I know this sounds like a strange question---because I feel like my patients will come for a couple of different reasons. Sometimes it's usually one over the other. I think people can get concerned about a symptom of a tremor. So, I actually will ask them, was your goal to just get a sense for what this tremor is caused by? I understand that many people who develop tremor might be concerned it might be something like Parkinson's disease. Or is this also a tremor that is bothering you in day-to-day life? And often you will hear the former. No, I just wanted to get checked out and make sure you don't think it's Parkinson's. It doesn't bother me enough that I want to take medication. They're quite happy with that. And then the second scenario is more the, yeah, no, it bothers me and it's embarrassing. And that's a very common answer you may hear, may be embarrassing, people are noticing. It's funny in that many people with essential tremor don't come to see a doctor or even the neurologist for many years. And they will put up with it for a very long time. And they've adopted all sorts of compensatory strategies, and they've just been able to handle themselves very admirably with this, in some cases, very severe tremor. So, for some of them, it'll take a lot to come to the doctor, and then it becomes clear. They said, I think I'm at the point where I need to do something about this tremor. And so, I think those three buckets are often sort of where my patients fall into. And I think asking them directly will give you a sense of that. But you know, it can be a nice time to try some as-needed doses of something like Propranolol, or if it's something that you know that they're going to need something on day-to-day to get control of the tremor over time, there are other options for that as well.

Dr Jones: Seems like a perfect scenario for shared decision-making. Is it bothersome enough to the patient to try the therapy? And I like that suggestion. That's a nice pearl that you could start with an a- needed beta blocker, right, with Propranolol. And this is a question that I think many of us struggle with as well. If you've followed a patient with essential tremor for some time and you've tried different medications and they've either lost effectiveness or have intolerable adverse effects, what is your threshold for referring a patient for at least considering a surgical neurostimulator therapy for their essential tremor?

Dr Shih: Yeah, so surgical therapies for tremor have been around for a long time now, since 1997, which was when it was approved by the FDA for essential tremor and Parkinson tremor. And then obviously since then, we have a couple more options in the focus ultrasound thalamotomy, which is a lesioning technique. When you have been on several tremor medications, the list gets smaller and smaller. It- and then chance of likely satisfying benefit from some of these medications can be small and small as you pass through the first and second line agents and these would be the Propranolol and the primidone. And as you say, quite a few patients- it's estimated between 30 to 50% of these patients end up not tolerating these first two medications and end up discontinuing them. Some portion of that might also be due to the fact that some of our patients who have been living with essential tremor for decades now, to the point that their tremor is getting worse, are also getting older. And so, polypharmacy and/or some of the potential side effects of beta blockers and anticonvulsants like primidone may be harder to bear in an older adult. And then as you talk about in the article, there's some level of evidence for topiramate, and then from there a number of anticonvulsants or benzos, which have even weaker evidence for them. It's a personal decision. As I tell folks, look, this is not going to likely extend your life or save your life, but it's a quality of life issue. And of course, if there are other things going on in life that need to be taken care of and they need that kind of care and attention, then, you know, you don't need to be adding this to your plate. But if you are in the position where those other things are actually okay, but quality of life is really affected by your being unable to use your upper limbs in the way that you would like to… A lot of people's hobbies and applications are upper limb-based, and enjoying those things is really important. Then I think that this is something- a conversation that we begin and we begin by talking about yes, there are some risks involved, but fortunately this is the data we have on it, which is a fairly extensive experience in terms of this is the risk of, you know, surgery-related side effects. This is the risk of if you're having stimulation from DBS stimulation-related side effects, which can be adjustable. It's interesting, I was talking with colleagues, you know, after focused ultrasound thalamotomy was approved. That really led more people to come to the clinic and start hav

Parkinson disease is a neurodegenerative movement disorder that is increasing in prevalence as the population ages. The symptoms and rate of progression are clinically heterogenous, and medical management is focused on the individual needs of the patient.

In this episode, Kait Nevel MD, speaks with Ashley Rawls, MD, MS, author of the article "Parkinson Disease" in the Continuum® August 2025 Movement Disorders issue.

Dr. Nevel is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a neurologist and neuro-oncologist at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, Indiana.

Dr. Rawls is an assistant professor at the University of Florida Health, Department of Neurology at the Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases in Gainesville, Florida

Additional Resources

Read the article: Parkinson 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: @IUneurodocmom

Guest: @DrRawlsMoveMD

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 Ashley Rawls about her article on Parkinson disease, which appears in the August 2025 Continuum issue on movement disorders. Ashley, welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to the audience.

Dr Rawls: Thank you, Kait. Hello everyone, my name is Dr Ashley Rawls. I am a movement disorder specialist at the University of Florida Fixel Institute for Neurologic Diseases in Gainesville, Florida. It's a pleasure to be here.

Dr Nevel: Awesome. To start us off talking about your article, can you share what you think is the most important takeaway for the practicing neurologist?

Dr Rawls: Yes. I would say that my most important takeaway for this article is that Parkinson disease remains a clinical diagnosis. I think the field has really been advancing and trying to find a biomarker to help with diagnosis through ancillary testing. For example, with the dopamine transporter, the DAT scan, an alpha-synuclein skin biopsy, an alpha-synuclein amplification assay that can happen in blood and CSF. However, I think it's so critical to make sure that you have a very strong history and a very thorough physical exam and use those biomarkers or other testing to help with, kind of, bolstering your thoughts on what's going on with the patient.

Dr Nevel: Great. And I can't wait to talk a little bit more about the ancillary testing and how you use that. Before we get to that, can you review with us some of the components of the clinical diagnosis of Parkinson disease?

Dr Rawls: Yes. So, when I think about a person that comes in that might have a neurodegenerative disease, I think about two different features, mainly: both motor and Manon motor. So, for my motor features, I'm thinking about resting tremor, bradykinesia---which is fullness of movement with decrement over time---rigidity, and then a specific gait disturbance, a Parkinsonian gait, involving stooped posture, decreased arm swing. They can also have reemergent tremor while walking if they do have tremor as part of their disease process, and also in-block turning as they are walking down the hallway. So, those are my motor features that I look for. So now, when we're talking about a specific diagnosis of Parkinson disease, the one motor feature that you need to have is bradykinesia. The reason why I make sure to speak about bradykinesia, which is slowness of movement with decrement over time, is because people can still have Parkinson disease without having tremor, a resting tremor. So even though that's one of the core cardinal features that most of us will be able to notice very readily, you don't have to necessarily have a resting tremor to be diagnosed with Parkinson' disease. When I talk about nonmotor features, those are going to be the three, particularly the prodromal features that can occur even ten years before people have motor features, can be very prominent early on in the disease process. For example, hyposmia or anosmia for decrease or lack of sense of smell. Another one that we really look for is going to be RBD, or rapid eye movement behavior disorder; or REM behavior disorder, the person acting out their dreams, calling out, flailing their limbs, hitting their bed partner. And then the other one is going to be severe constipation. So those three prodromal nonmotor symptoms of hyposmia/anosmia, RBD or REM behavior disorder, and severe constipation can also make me concerned as a red flag that there is a sort of neurodegenerative issue like a Parkinson disease that may be going on with the patient.

Dr Nevel: Great, thank you so much for that overview. While we're talking about the diagnosis, do you mind kind of going back to what you mentioned in the beginning and talking about the ancillary tests that sometimes are used to kind of help, again, bolster that diagnosis of Parkinson disease? You know, like the DAT or the alpha-synuclein skin biopsy. When should we be using those? Should we be getting these on everyone? And what scenarios should we really consider doing one of those tests?

Dr Rawls: The scenario in which I would order one of the ancillary testing, particularly like a DAT scan or a skin biopsy, looking for alpha-synuclein is going to be when there are potential red flags or a little bit of confusion in regard to the history and physical that I need to have a little bit more clarification on. For example, if I have a patient that has a history of using dopamine blocking agents, for example, for severe depression; or they have a history of cancer diagnosis and they've been on a dopamine agent like metoclopramide; those I want to be mindful because if they're coming in to see me and they're having the symptoms of Parkinsonism---which is going to be resting tremor, bradykinesia rigidity, or gait disturbance---I need to try to figure out is it potentially due to a medication effect, particularly if they're still on the dopamine blockade medication, or is it something where they're actually having a neurodegenerative illness underneath it, like a Parkinson disease?

The other situation that would make me order a DAT skin or a skin biopsy is going to be someone who is coming in that maybe has elements of essential tremor, they have more of a postural or an intention tremor that's very flapping and larger amplitude, and maybe have some mild symptoms and Parkinsonism that might be difficult to distinguish between other musculoskeletal things like arthritis, other imbalance issues from, you know, hip problems or knee problems and what have you. Then I might say, okay, let's see if there is some sort of neurodegeneration underneath this; that may be- that there could be, you know, potentially two elements like a central tremor and Parkinson disease going on. Or is this someone who actually really has Parkinson disease, but there's other factors that are kind of playing into that.

Dr Nevel: Great, thank you for that. Gosh, things have really changed over the past fifteen years or so where we have this ancillary testing that we're able to use more, because what you read in the textbook isn't always what you see in clinic. And as you described, there are patients who… it's not as clear cut, and these tests can be helpful. Could you tell us more about the levodopa challenge test? How is this useful in clinical practice? And what are some key points that we should know about when utilizing this strategy for patients who we think have Parkinson disease?

Dr Rawls: So, before we had all this ancillary testing with the DAT scan, the skin biopsy, the alpha-synuclein amplification assay, many times if you had a suspicion that a person that had Parkinson disease, but you weren't entirely sure, you would say, hey, listen, let us give you back the dopamine that your body may be missing and see if you have an improvement, in particular in your motor symptom. So, when I talk with my patients, I say, listen, I might have a strong suspicion that you have Parkinson disease. Doing a levodopa trial can not only be diagnostic, but also can be therapeutic as well. So, with this levodopa trial, what I end up doing is saying, okay, we're going to start the medication at a low dose because we are looking to see if you have improvement in three of the main cardinal motor symptoms. Obviously, tremor is much easier for us to see if it gets better. It's very obvious on exam, and the patients are more readily able to see it. Whereas stiffness and slowness is much harder to quantify and try to figure out. Am I stiff and slow because of potential muscle tightness from Parkinson disease, or is it something that's more of a musculoskeletal issue? So, I will tell persons, okay, we're looking for improvement in these three cardinal motor symptoms, and things that we're looking for is getting into and out of a car, into and out of a chair, turning over in bed, seeing how do we navigate ourselves in our daily lives? I give people the example of going through the grocery store, going through a busy airport. Are we able to move better and respond better to different changes in our environment which can give us a better clue of if our stiffness and slowness in particular are being improved with the medication?

The other part of this is talking about potential side effects of the carbidopa- of the levodopa in particular. One big thing that I think limits people initially is going to be the nausea, vomiting, potential GI upset when starting this medication initially. So, oftentimes I will find people coming in, oh, you know, my outside doctor started me immediately on one tab of carbidopa/levodopa three times per day. I got nauseous, I threw up, and I never took the medication again. So often times I will start low and go slow because once someone throws up my medication, they are not going to want to take it again---with good reason. So, often times I will ask the patient, hey listen, are you very sensitive to medications? If you are very sensitive, we might start one tablet per day for a week, one tablet twice a day, and then go up until we get to two tablets three times a day if we're talking about carbidopa/levodopa. If someone is not as sensitive then I might go up a little bit quicker. What do we mean when we talk about 600 milligrams per day? So usually, the amount that I use is carbidopa/levodopa, 25/100; so, 100 milligrams being the levodopa portion. Many people just start off at 1 tab 3 times a day, which gives you 300 milligrams of levodopa, and they say, oh, it didn't work, I must not have Parkinson or something else. Well, it just may have been that we did not give an adequate trial and adequate dose to the person. Now if they're not able to tolerate the medication because of the side effects, that's something different. But if they don't have side effects and don't notice a difference, there is room to increase the carbidopa/levodopa or the levodopa replacement that you are using so that you can give it, you know, a very good try to see, is it actually improving resting tremor, bradykinesia and rigidity?

Dr Nevel: Yeah, great. Thanks for that. When you diagnose a patient with Parkinson disease, how do you counsel that patient? How do you break that difficult news? And how do you counsel them on what to expect in the future and goals of treatment? I know that's a lot in that question, but it also is a lot that you do in one visit, oftentimes, or at least introduce these kind of concepts to patients in a single visit.

Dr Rawls: One thing that I think is helpful for me is trying to understand where the patients and their families are when they come in. Because some of the patients come in and have no prior inkling that they may have a neurodegenerative illness like Parkinson disease. Some of my patients come in and say, I'm here for a second opinion for Parkinson disease. So, then I have an idea of where we are in regard to potential understanding of how to start the conversation going forward. If it is someone who is coming in and has not heard about Parkinson disease, or their family has not been made aware that that's the one reason why they're coming to see a movement disorder specialist, then I will start at the beginning After we finish our history, do a very thorough physical exam, I will talk about things that I heard in the history and that I see on the physical exam that make me concerned for a disease like Parkinson disease. I make sure to tell them where I'm getting my criteria from and not just start off, I think you have Parkinson, here's your medication. I think that's very jarring when you're talking with patients and their families, particularly if they had no idea that this could be a potential diagnosis on the table. Like I said, I will start off with recounting, this is what I've heard in your history that makes me concerned. This is what I've seen on your physical exam that makes me concerned. And I think you have Parkinson disease and here is why. And I'll tell them about the tenants like we discussed about Parkinson disease, both the motor and nonmotor symptoms that we see. So that's kind of the first part is, I make sure to lay it out and then open the room up for some questions and clarification. The other portion of this is that, when I'm talking about counseling the patient, I say, we do not expect Parkinson disease to decrease your lifespan. However, over time, our persons, because it is a neurodegenerative illnesses will accumulate deficits over time. So, more stiffness, more slowness, more walking problems. They may, if they have tremor, the tremor may become worse. If they don't have tremor, they might develop tremor in the future. If we're talking about the nonmotor symptoms that we talk about, the main ones are going to be issues with urinary problems, issues with bowels, and then the other thing is going to be neuropsychiatric issues like anxiety and depression. And those things become more prominent, usually, the nonmotor symptoms later on in the disease process, and then also cognitive impairment as well. I really want to make sure that they have the information that I'm seeing, and if there's anything that they want to correct on their end, as in they're saying, oh wait, well, actually I noticed something else, then that's usually when that comes out around kind of the wrapping-up portion of the visit.

So, I think that's really important to, one, be very clear in what I am seeing and if there's red flags, and then tell them, okay this is not going to shorten your lifespan. However, over time, we do have other issues and problems that will arise and we can support you as best as we can through that. The one thing I also been very open with people about is- because our patients will say, is there anything I can do? What can be done? Is there any medication to slow down or stop things? And I let people know that unfortunately, right now there's not an intervention that slows down, stops, or reverses disease progression, with the exception of exercise. Consistent exercise has been found to help to slow down disease progression, okay? And also, it can help to release the dopamine already being made innately in the brain. And also, it can help with our cardiovascular health in the big thing: being balanced. Core strength, quadricep strength. So that's also something that people can work on that they should. And I let people know that exercise is as important as the medications themselves.

Dr Nevel: Absolutely. And it's incredible how much they incorporate exercise into their daily lives and get active, people who weren't active before their diagnosis, and how much that can help. One question that I think patients sometimes ask is, when they understand how carbidopa/levodopa works and what the expectations are for that medication, that it's not a disease-modifying medication, but that it can help with their symptoms. And then they kind of hear, well as time goes on, they need higher doses or, you know, it doesn't control their motor symptoms as well. They'll say, okay well, is it better to wait then? Should I wait to start carbidopa/levodopa? Like in my mind, I'm only maybe going to get X amount of time from carbidopa/levodopa. So, I'd rather wait to start it than start it now. What do you say to them and how do you counsel them through that?

Dr Rawls: So that is a common question that I do get with my patients. So, I tell people, I'm here for you. And it really depends on how you feel at this time. Because you have to weigh the risks and benefits of the medication itself. If someone who's very, very mild decides to take the medication, they feel nauseous, they're just going to say, hey, listen, it's not for me right now. I don't feel like I need it, and then stop, which is with definitely within their right. But what I always counsel patients as well is to say, the dopamine-producing neurons in the substantia nigra are starting to die over time. That is why we are getting the signs and symptoms of Parkinson disease. At some point, your brain is not going to produce enough dopamine that is needed for you to move when you want to move and not move when you don't want to move. Okay? Giving you at least the motor symptoms of Parkinson disease. With this, it's not that the medication stops working, it's just that you need more dopamine to help replace the dopamine that's being lost. However, the dopamine that you are taking or levodopa that you're taking orally is not going to be released as consistently as it is in your brain on demand and shut off when you don't need it. Hence the reason we get more motor fluctuations. Also, potential side effects in the medication like orthostatic hypertension, hallucinations, impulse control disorders. Because you're having to take more escalating doses, those side effects can become more prominent and also lead us to have to balance between the side effects and the medication itself. So, it's not that the medication does not work, your body needs more of it.

Some people will say, oh, well, I want to wait, and I say, that's completely fine. However, my cutoff is basically saying, if you are finding that you, as the person who's afflicted is not able to get up in the morning like you want to, you're avoiding going to walk your dog or working in your garden, you know, because you feel stiff and feel slow; you're avoiding, you know, going out to the community, having lunch with your friends or your family because you're embarrassed by your tremor; this is something that is keeping you from living your life. And that's the time that we need to strongly consider starting the medications. So, a person afflicted will accumulate deficits. However, it's how much the deficits are going to affect you. So, if it's really affecting your life, we have tools and ways to help mitigate that.

Dr Nevel: Yeah, absolutely. Are there any aspects of Parkinson disease management that you feel are maybe underrecognized or perhaps underutilized? In other words, you know, are there things that we the listeners should be maybe more aware of or think about offering or recommending to our patients that you think maybe aren't as much as they could be?

Dr Rawls: I will say the nonmotor symptoms---in particular the neuropsychiatric symptoms with the anxiety and depression, usually later on disease process but also can be earlier as well---I think that is going to be something th

In this episode, Lyell K. Jones Jr, MD, FAAN, speaks with Michael S. Okun, MD, FAAN, who served as the guest editor of the August 2025 Movement Disorders issue. They provide a preview of the issue, which publishes on August 1, 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. Okun is the director at Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases and distinguished professor of neurology at University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida.

Additional Resources

Read the issue: continuum.aan.com

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

Host: @LyellJ

Guest: @MichaelOkun

Full episode transcript available here:

Dr Jones: Our ability to move through the world is one of the essential functions of our nervous system. Gross movements like walking ranging down to fine movements with our eyes and our hands, our ability to create and coordinate movement is something many of us take for granted. So what do we do when those movements stop working as we intend? Today I have the opportunity to speak with one of the world's leading experts on movement disorders, Dr Michael Okun, about the latest issue of Continuum on Movement Disorders.

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 Lyle Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology. Today, I'm interviewing Dr Michael Okun, who is Continuum's guest editor for our latest issue on movement disorders. Dr Okun is the Adelaide Lackner Distinguished Professor of Neurology at the University of Florida in Gainesville, where he's also the director of the Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases. Dr Okun, welcome, and thank you for joining us today. Why don't you introduce yourselves to our listeners?

Dr Okun: It's great to be here today. And I'm a neurologist. Everybody who knows me knows I'm pretty simple. I believe the patient's the sun and we should always orbit around the person with disease, and so that's how I look at my practice. And I know we always participate in a lot of research, and I've got a research lab and all those things. But to me, it's always the patients and the families first. So, it'll be great to have that discussion today.

Dr Jones: Yeah, thank you for that, Dr Oaken. Obviously, movement disorders is a huge part of our field of neurology. There are many highly prevalent conditions that fit into this category that most of our listeners will be familiar with: idiopathic Parkinson's disease, essential tremor, tic disorders and so on. And having worked with trainees for a long time, it's one of the areas that I see a lot of trainees gravitate to movement disorders. And I think it's in part because of the prevalence; I think it's in part because of the diversity of the specialty with treatment options and DBS and Botox. But it's also the centrality of the neurologic exam, right? That's- the clinical examination of the patient is so fundamental. And we'll cover a lot of topics today with some questions that I have for you about biomarkers and new developments in the field. But is that your sense too, that people are drawn to just the old-fashioned, essential focus on the neurologic encounter and the neurologic exam?

Dr Okun: I believe that is one of the draws to the field of movement. I think that you have neurologists from all over the world that are really interested and fascinated with what things look like. And when you see something that's a little bit, you know, off the normal road or off the normal beaten path… and we are always curious. And so, I got into movement disorders, I think, accidentally; I think even as a child, I was looking at people who had abnormal movements and tremors and I was very fascinated as to why those things happened and what's going on in the brain. And, you know, what are the symptoms and the signs. And then later on, even as my own career developed, that black bag was so great as a neurologist. I mean, it makes us so much more powerful than any of the other clinicians---at least in my biased opinion---out on the wards and out in the clinic. And, you know, knowing the signs and the symptoms, knowing how to do a neurological examination and really walking through the phenomenology, what people look like, you know, which is different than the geno- you know, the genotypes, what the genes are. What people look like is so much more important as clinicians. And so, I think that movement disorders is just the specialty for that, at least in my opinion.

Dr Jones: And it helps bring it back to the patient. And that's something that I saw coming through the articles in this issue. And let's get right to it. You've had a chance to review all these articles on all these different topics across the entire field of movement disorders. As you look at that survey of the field, Dr Okun, what do you think is the most exciting recent development for patients with movement disorders?

Dr Okun: I think that when you look across all of the different specialties, what you're seeing is a shift. And the shift is that, you know, a lot of people used to talk in our generation about neurology being one of these "diagnose and adios" specialties. You make the diagnosis and there's nothing that you can do, you know, about these diseases. And boy, that has changed. I mean, we have really blown it out of the water. And when you look at the topics and what people are writing about now and the Continuum issue, and we compare that the last several Continuum issues on movement disorders, we just keep accumulating a knowledge base about what these things look like and how we can treat them. And when we start thinking about, you know, all of the emergence of the autoimmune disorders and identifying the right one and getting something that's quite treatable. Back in my day, and in your day, Lyle, we saw these things and we didn't know what they were. And now we have antibodies, now we can identify them, we can pin them down, and we can treat many of them and really change people's lives. And so, I'm really impressed at what I see in changes in identification of autoimmune disorders, of channelopathies and some of the more rare things, but I'm also impressed with just the fundamental principles of how we're teaching people to be better clinicians in diseases like Parkinson's, Huntington's, ataxia, and Tourette. And so, my enthusiasm for this issue of Continuum is both on, you know, the cutting edge of what we're seeing based on the identification on our exams, what we can do for these people, but also the emergence of how we're shifting and providing much better care across a continuum for folks with basal ganglia diseases.

Dr Jones: Yeah, I appreciate that perspective, Dr Okun. One of the common themes that I saw in the issue was with these new developments, right, when you have new tools like new diagnostic biomarker tools, is the question of if and when and how to integrate those into daily clinical practice, right? So, we've had imaging biomarkers for a while, DAT scans, etc. For patients with idiopathic Parkinson disease, one of the things that I hear a lot of discussion and controversy about are the seed amplification assays as diagnostic biomarkers. What can you tell us about those? Are those ready for routine clinical use yet?

Dr Okun: I think the main bottom-line point for folks that are out there trying to practice neurology, either in general clinics or even in specialty clinics, is to know that there is this movement toward, can we biologically classify a disease? One of the things that has, you know, really accelerated that effort has been the development of these seed amplification assays, which---in short for people who are listening---are basically, we "shake and bake" these things. You know? We shake them for like 20 hours and we use these prionlike proteins, and we learn from diseases like prion disease how to kind of tag these things and then see, do they have degenerative properties? And in the case of Parkinson's disease, we're able to do this with synuclein. That is the idea of a seed amplification assay. We're able to use this to see, hey, is there synuclein present or not in this sample? And people are looking at things like cerebrospinal fluid, they're looking at things like blood and saliva, and they're finding it. The challenge here is that, remember- and one of the things that's great about this issue of Continuum is, remember, there are a whole bunch of different synucleinopathies. So, Dr Jones, it isn't just Parkinson's disease. So, you've got Parkinson's disease, you've got Lewy body, you know, and dementia with Lewy bodies. You've got, you know, multiple system atrophy is within that synucleinopathy, you know, group primary autonomic failure… so not just Parkinson's disease. And so, I think we have to tap the brakes as clinicians and just say, we are where we are. We are moving in that direction. And remember that a seed amplification assay gives you some information, but it doesn't give you all the information. It doesn't forgive you looking at a person over time, examining them in your clinic, seeing how they progress, seeing their response to dopamine- and by the way, several of these genes that are associated with Parkinson; and there's, you know, less than 20% of Parkinson is genetic, but several of these genes, in a solid third---and in some cases, in some series, even more---miss the synuclein assay, misses, you know, the presence of a disease like Parkinson's disease. And so, we have to be careful in how we interpret it. And I think we're more likely to see over time a gemish: we're going to smush together all this information. We're going to get better with MRIs. And so, we're actually doing much better with MRIs and AI-based intelligence. We've got DAT scans, we've got synuclein assays. But more than anything, everybody listening out there, you can still examine the person and examine them over time and see how they do over time and see how they do with dopamine. And that is still a really, really solid way to do this. The synuclein assays are probably going to be ready for prime time more in choosing and enriching clinical trials populations first. And you know, we're probably 5, 10 years behind where Alzheimer's is right now. So, we'll get there at some point, but it's not going to be a silver bullet. I think we're looking at these are going to be things that are going to be interpreted in the context for a clinician of our examination and in the context of where the field is and what you're trying to use the information for.

Dr Jones: Thank you for that. And I think that's the general gestalt I got from the articles and what I hear from my colleagues. And I think we've seen this in other domains of neurology, right? We have the specificity and sensitivity issues with the biomarkers, but we also have the high prevalence of copathology, right? People can have multiple different neurodegenerative problems, and I think it gets back to that clinical context, like you said, following the patient longitudinally. That was a theme that came out in the idiopathic Parkinson disease article. And while we're on Parkinson disease, you know, the first description of that was what, more than two hundred years ago. And I think we're still thinking about the pathophysiology of that disorder. We understand risk factors, and I think many of our listeners would be familiar with those. But as far as the actual cause, you know, there's been discussion in recent years about, is there a role of the gut microbiome? Is this a prionopathic disorder? What's your take on all of that?

Dr Okun: Yeah, so it's a great question. It's a super-hot area right now of Parkinson. And I kind of take this, you know, apart in a couple of different ways. First of all, when we think about Parkinson disease, we have to think upstream. Like, what are the cause and causes? Okay? So, Parkinson is not one disease, okay? And even within the genes, there's a bunch of different genes that cause it. But then we have to look and say, well, if that's less than 20% depending on who's counting, then 80% don't have a single piece of DNA that's closely associated with this syndrome. And so, what are we missing with environment and other factors? We need to understand not what happens at the end of the process, not necessarily when synuclein is clumping- and by the way, there's a lot of synuclein in the brains normally, and there's a lot of Tau in people's brains who have Parkinson as well. We don't know what we don't know, Dr Jones. And so when we begin to think about this disease, we've got to look upstream. We've got to start to think, where do things really start? Okay? We've got to stop looking at it as probably a single disease or disorder, and it's a circuit disorder. And then as we begin to develop and follow people along that pathway and continuum, we're going to realize that it's not a one-size-fits-all equation when we're trying to look at Parkinson. By the way, for people listening, we only spend two to three cents out of every dollar on prevention. Wouldn't prevention be the best cure, right? Like, if we were thinking about this disease. And so that's something that we should be, you know, thinking about. And then the other is the Global Burden of Disease study. You know, when we wrote about this in a book called Ending Parkinson's Disease, it looked like Parkinson's was going to double by 2035. The new numbers tell us it's almost double to the level that we expected in 2035 in this last series of numbers. So, it's actually growing much faster. We have to ask why? Why is it growing faster? And then we have lots of folks, and even within these issues here within Continuum, people are beginning to talk about maybe these environmental things that might be blind spots. Is it starting in our nose? Is it starting in our gut? And then we get to the gut question. And the gut question is, if we look at the microbiomes of people with Parkinson, there does seem to be, in a group of folks with Parkinson, a Parkinson microbiome. Not in everyone, but if you look at it in composite, there seems to be some clues there. We see changes in Lactobacillus, we see some bacteria going up that are good, some bacteria going down, you know, that are bad. And we see flipping around, and that can change as we put people on probiotics and we try to do fecal microbiota transplantations- which, by the way, the data so far has not been positive in Parkinson's. Doesn't mean we might not get there at some point, but I think the main point here is that as we move into the AI generation, there are just millions and millions and millions of organisms within your gut. And it's going to take more than just our eyes and just our regular arithmetic. You and I probably know how to do arithmetic really well, but this is, like, going to be a much bigger problem for computers that are way smarter than our brains to start to look and say, well, we see the bacteria is up here. That's a good bacteria, that's a good thing or it's down with this bacteria or this phage or there's a relationship or proportion that's changing. And so, we're not quite there. And so, I always tell people---and you know, we talk about the sum in the issue---microbiomes aren't quite ready for prime time yet. And so be careful, because you could tweak the system and you might actually end up worse than before you started. So, we don't know what we don't know on this issue.

Dr Jones: And that's a great point. And one of the themes they're reading between the lines is, we will continue to work on understanding the bio-pathophysiology, but we can't wait until that day to start managing the risk factors and treating patients, which I think is a good point. And if we pivot to treatment here a little bit, you know, one of the exciting areas of movement disorders---and really neurology broadly, I think movement disorders has led the field in many ways---is bioelectronic therapy, or what one of my colleagues taught me is "electroceutical therapy", which I think is a wonderful term. Dr Okun, when our listeners are hearing about the latest in deep brain stimulation in patients who have movement disorders, what should they know? What are the latest developments in that area with devices?

Dr Okun: Yeah. So, they should know that things are moving rapidly in the field of putting electricity into the brain. And we're way past the era where we thought putting a little bit of electricity was snake oil. We know we can actually drive these circuits, and we know that many of these disorders---and actually, probably all of the disorders within this issue of Continuum---are all circuit disorders. And so, you can drive the circuit by modulating the circuit. And it's turned out to be quite robust with therapies like deep brain stimulation. Now, we're seeing uses of deep brain stimulation across multiple of these disorders now. So, for example, you may think of it in Parkinson's disease, but now we're also seeing people use it to help in cases where you need to palliate very severe and bothersome chorea and Huntington's disease, we're seeing it move along in Tourette syndrome. We of course have seen this for various hyperkinetic disorders and dystonias. And so, the main thing for clinicians to realize when dealing with neuromodulation is, take a deep breath because it can be overwhelming. We have a lot of different devices in the marketplace and no matter how many different devices we have in the marketplace, the most important thing is that we get the leads. You know, where we're stimulating into the right location. It's like real estate: location, location, location, whether you've got a lead that can steer left, right, up, down and do all of these things. Second, if you're feeling overwhelmed because there are so many devices and so many settings, especially as we put these leads in and they have all sorts of different, you know, nodes on them and you can steer this way and that way, you are not alone. Everybody is feeling that way now. And we're beginning to see AI solutions to that that are going to merge together with imaging, and then we're moving toward an era of, you know, should I say things like robotic programming, where it's going to be actually so complicated as we move forward that we're going to have to automate these systems. There's no way to get this and scale this for all of the locales within the United States, but within the entire world of people that need these types of devices and these therapies. And so, it's moving rapidly. It's overwhelming. The most important thing is choosing the right person. Okay? For this, with multidisciplinary teams, getting the lead in the right place. And then all these other little bells and whistles, they're like sculpting. So, if you think of a sculpture, you kind of get that sculpture almost there. You know, those little adds are helping to maybe make the eyes come out a little more or the facial expression a little bit better. There's little bits of sculpting. But if you're feeling overwhelmed by it, everybody is. And then also remember that we're starting to move towards some trials here that are in their early stages. And a lot of times when we start, we need more failures to get to our successes. So, we're seeing trials of peopl

With the increase in the public's attention to all aspects of brain health, neurologists need to understand their role in raising awareness, advocating for preventive strategies, and promoting brain health for all. To achieve brain health equity, neurologists must integrate culturally sensitive care approaches, develop adapted assessment tools, improve professional and public educational materials, and continually innovate interventions to meet the diverse needs of our communities.

In this BONUS episode, Casey Albin, MD, speaks with Daniel José Correa, MD, MSc, FAAN and Rana R. Said, MD, FAAN, coauthors of the article "Bridging the Gap Between Brain Health Guidelines and Real-world Implementation" in the Continuum® June 2025 Disorders of CSF Dynamics issue.

Dr. Albin is a Continuum® Audio interviewer, associate editor of media engagement, and an assistant professor of neurology and neurosurgery at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

Dr. Correa is the associate dean for community engagement and outreach and an associate professor of neurology at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine Division of Clinical Neurophysiology in the Saul Korey Department of Neurology at the Montefiore Medical Center, New York, New York.

Dr. Said is a professor of pediatrics and neurology, the director of education, and an associate clinical chief in the division of pediatric neurology at the University of Texas Southwest Medical Center in Dallas, Texas.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Bridging the Gap Between Brain Health Guidelines and Real-world Implementation

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

Host: @caseyalbin

Guests: @NeuroDrCorrea, @RanaSaidMD

Full episode transcript available here

Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. This exclusive Continuum Audio interview is available only to you, our subscribers. We hope you enjoy it. Thank you for listening.

Dr Albin: Hi all, this is Dr Casey Albin. Today I'm interviewing Dr Daniel Correa and Dr Rana Said about their article on bridging the gap between brain health guidelines and real-world implementation, which they wrote with Dr Justin Jordan. This article appears in the June 2025 Continuum issue on disorders of CSF dynamics. Thank you both so much for joining us. I'd love to just start by having you guys introduce yourselves to our listeners. Rana, do you mind going first?

Dr Said: Yeah, sure. Thanks, Casey. So, my name is Rana Said. I'm a professor of pediatrics and neurology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. Most of my practice is pediatric epilepsy. I'm also the associate clinical chief and the director of education for our division. And in my newer role, I am the vice chair of the Brain Health Committee for the American Academy of Neurology.

Dr Albin: Absolutely. So just the right person to talk about this. And Daniel, some of our listeners may know you already from the Brain and Life podcast, but please introduce yourself again.

Dr Correa: Thank you so much, Casey for including us and then highlighting this article. So yes, as you said, I'm the editor and the cohost for the Brain and Life podcast. I do also work with Rana and all the great members of the Brain Health Initiative and committee within the AAN, but in my day-to-day at my institution, I'm an associate professor of neurology at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Montefiore Health System. I do a mix of general neurology and epilepsy and with a portion of my time, I also work as an associate Dean at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, supporting students and trainees with community engagement and outreach activities.

Dr Albin: Excellent. Thank you guys both so much for taking the time to be here. You know, brain health has really become this core mission of the AAN. Many listeners probably know that it's actually even part of the AAN's mission statement, which is to enhance member career fulfillment and promote brain health for all. And I think a lot of us have this kind of, like, vague idea about what brain health is, but I'd love to just start by having a shared mental model. So, Rana, can you tell us what do you mean when you talk about brain health?

Dr Said: Yeah, thanks for asking that question. And, you know, even as a group, we really took quite a while to solidify, like, what does that even mean? Really, the concept is that we're shifting from a disease-focused model, which we see whatever disorder comes in our doors, to a preventative approach, recognizing that there's a tremendous interconnectedness between our physical health, our mental health, cognitive and social health, you know, maintaining our optimal brain function. And another very important part of this is that it's across the entire lifespan. So hopefully that sort of solidifies how we are thinking about brain health.

Dr Albin: Right. Daniel, anything else to add to that?

Dr Correa: One thing I've really liked about this, you know, the evolution of the 2023 definition from the AAN is its highlight on it being a continuous state. We're not only just talking about prevention of injury and a neurologic condition, but then really optimizing our own health and our ability to engage in our communities afterwards, and that there's always an opportunity for improvement of our brain health.

Dr Albin: I love that. And I really felt like in this article, you walked us through some tangible pillars that support the development and maintenance of this lifelong process of maintaining and developing brain health. And so, Daniel, I was wondering, you know, we could take probably the entire time just to talk about the five pillars that support brain health. But can you give us a pretty brief overview of what those are that you outlined in this article?

Dr Correa: I mean, this was one of the biggest challenges and really bundling all the possibilities and the evidence that's out there and just getting a sense of practical movement forward. So, there are many organizations and groups out there that have formed pillars, whether we're calling them seven or eight, you know, the exact number can vary, but just to have something to stand on and move forward. We've bundled one of them as physical and sleep health. So really encouraging towards levels of activity and not taking it as, oh, that there's a set- you know, there are recommendations out there for amount of activity, but really looking at, can we challenge people to just start growing and moving forward at their current ability? Can we challenge people to look at their sleep health, see if there's an aspect to improve, and then reassess with time? We particularly highlight the importance of mental health, whether it's before a neurologic condition or a brain injury occurs or addressing the mental health comorbidities that may come along with neurologic conditions. Then there's of course the thing that everyone thinks about, I think, with brain health in terms of is cognitive health. And you know, I think that's the first place that really enters either our own minds or as we are observers of our elder individuals in our family. And more and more there has been the highlight on the need for social interconnectedness, community purpose. And this is what we include as a pillar of social health. And then across all types of neurologic potential injuries is really focusing on the area of brain injury. And so, I think the area that we've often been focused as neurologists, but also thinking of both the prevention along with the management of the condition or the injury after it occurs.

Dr Albin: Rana, anything else to add to that? That's a fantastic overview.

Dr Said: Daniel, thank you for- I mean, you just set it up so beautifully. I think the other thing that maybe would be important for people to understand is that as we're talking through a lot of these, these are individual. These sound like very individual-basis factors. But as part of the full conversation, we also have to understand that there are some factors that are not based on the individual, and then that leads to some of the other initiatives that we'll be talking about at the community and policy levels. So, for example, if an individual is living in an area with high air pollution. Yes, we want them to be healthy and exercise and sleep, but how do we modify those factors? What about lead leaching from our aging pipes or even infectious diseases? So, I think that outside of our pillars, this is sort of the next step is to understand what is also at large in our communities.

Dr Albin: That's a really awesome point. I love that the article really does shine through and that there are these individual factors, and then there there's social factors, there's policy factors. I want to start just with that individual because I think so many of our patients probably know, like, stress management, exercise, sleep, all of that stuff is really important. But when I was reading your article, what was not so obvious to me was, what's the role that we as neurologists should play in advocating? And really more importantly, like, how should we do that? And again, it struck me that there are these kind of two issues at play. And one is that what Daniel was saying that, you know, a lot of our patients are coming because they have a problem, right? We are used to operating in this disease-based care, and there's just limited time, competing clinical demands. If they're not coming to talk about prevention, how do we bring that in? And so Rana, maybe I'll start with you just for that question, you know, for the patients who are seeing us with a disease complaint or they're coming for the management of a problem, how are you organizing this at the bedside to kind of factor in a little bit about that preventative brain health?

Dr Said: You know, I think the most important thing at the bedside is, one, really identifying the modifiable risk factors. These have been well studied, we understand them. Hypertension, diabetes, smoking, weight management. And we know that these definitely are correlative. So is it our role just to talk about stroke, or should we talk about, how are you managing your blood pressure? Health education, if there was one major cornerstone, is elevating health literacy for everyone and understanding that patients value clear and concise information about brain health, about modifiable risk factors. And the corollary to that, of course, are what are the resources and services? I completely understand---I'm a practicing clinician---the constraints that we have at the bedside, be it in the hospital or in our clinics. And so being the source of information, how are we referring our families and individuals to social workers, community health worker support, and really partnering with them, food banks, injury prevention programs, patient advocacy organizations? I think those are really ways that we can meet the impacts that we're looking at the bedside that can feel very tangible and practical.

Dr Albin: That's really excellent advice. And so, I'd like to ask a follow-up question. With your knowledge of this, trying to get more multidisciplinary buy-in from your clinic so that you really have the support to get these services that are so critically important. And how do you do that?

Dr Said: Yeah, I think it's, one, being a champion. So, what does a champion mean? It means that somebody has to decide this is really important. And I think we all realize that we're not the only ones in the room who care about this. We're all in this, and we all care about it. But how do we champion it and carry it through? And so that's the first. Second you find your partnerships: your social workers, your case managers, your other colleagues. And then what is the first-level entry thing that you can do? So for example, I'm a pediatric epileptologist. One of the things we know is that in pediatric epilepsy, depression and anxiety are very strong comorbidities. So, before we get to the point where a child is in distress, every single one of our epilepsy patients who walks in the door over the age of twelve has an age-appropriate screener that is given to them in both English and Spanish. And we assess it and we determine stratifying risk. And then we have our social workers on the back end and we decide, is this a child who needs resources? Is this a child who needs to be walked to the emergency room, escorted? And anything in between. And I think that that was a just a very tangible example of, every single person can do this and ask about it. And through the development of dot phrases and clear protocols, it works really well.

Dr Albin: I love that, the way that you're just being mindful. At every step of the way, we can help people towards this lifelong brain health. And Daniel, you work with an adult population. So I wonder, what are your tips for bringing this to a different patient population?

Dr Correa: Well, I think---adult or child---one thing that we often are aware of with so many of the other things that we're doing in bedside or clinic room counseling, but we don't necessarily think of in this context of brain health, is, remember all the people in the room. So, at the bedside, whether it's in the ICU, discharge counseling, the initial admission, the whole family is often involved and really concerned about the active issue. But you can look for opportunities- we often try to counsel and support families about the importance of their own sleep and rest and highlighting it not just as being there for their family member, but highlighting it to them as a measure of their own improvement of their brain health. So, looking at ways where, one, I try to find, is there something I can do to support and educate the whole family about their brain health? And then- and with an epilepsy, or in many other situations, I try to look for one comorbidity that might be a pillar of brain health to address that maybe I wasn't already thinking. And then I consider, is there an additional thing that they wouldn't naturally connect to their epilepsy or their headaches that I can bring in for them to work on? You know, we can't often give people twelve different things to work on, and they'd just feel like, okay like, you have no realistic understanding of my life. But if we can just highlight on one, and remind them that there can be many more ways to improve their health and to follow up either with us as their neurologist or their future primary care doctors to address those additional needs. Again, I would really highlight the importance of a multidisciplinary approach and looking for opportunities. We've too often, I feel, relied on primary care as being the first line for addressing unmet social health needs. We know that so many people, once they have a neurologic condition or the potential, even, of a neurologic condition, they're concerned about dementia or something, they may view us, as their neurologist, as their most important provider. And if they don't have the resource of time and money to show up at other doctors, we may be the first one they're coming to. And so, tapping into your institution's resources and finding out, are there things that are available to the primary care services that for some reason we're not able to get on the inpatient side or the outpatient side? Referring to social workers and care workers and showing that our patients have an independent need, that they're not somehow getting captured by the primary care doctors.

Dr Albin: I really love that. I think that we- just being more invested and just being ready to step into that role is really important. I was noticing in this article, you really call that being a brain health ambassador, being really mindful, and I will direct all of our listeners to Figure 3, which really captures what practitioners can do both at the bedside, within their local community, and even at the professional society level, to really advocate for policies that promote brain wellness. Rana, at the very beginning of this conversation, you noted, you know, this is not just an individual problem. This really is something that is a component of our policy and the structure of our local communities. I really loved in the article, there's a humility that this cannot be just a person-by-person bedside approach, that this is a little bit determined by the social determinants of health. And so, Rana, can you walk us through a little bit of what are the social determinants of health, and why are these so crucially important when we think about brain health for all?

Dr Said: Yeah, social determinants of health are a really key factor that it looks at, what are the health factors that are environmental; for example, that are not directly like what your blood pressure is, what, you know, what your BMI is, that definitely impact our health outcomes. So, these include environmental things like where people are born, where they live, where they learn, work, play, worship, and age. It encompasses factors like your socioeconomic status, your education, the neighborhoods where you are living, definitely healthcare access. And then all of this is in a social and community context. We know that the impact of social determinants of health on brain health are profound for the entire lifespan and that- so, for example, if someone is from a disadvantaged background or that leads to chronic stress, they can have limited access to healthcare. They can have greater risk of exposure to, let's say, environmental toxins, and all of that will shape how their brain health is. Violence, for example. And so, as we think about how we're going to target and enhance brain health, we really have to understand that these are vulnerable populations, special high-risk populations, that often have a disproportionate burden of neurologic disorders. And by identifying them and then developing targeted interventions, it promotes health equity. And it really has to be done in looking at culturally- ethnocultural-sensitive healthcare education resources, thinking about culturally sensitive or adaptive assessment tools that work for different populations so that these guidelines that we have, that we've already identified as being so valuable, can be equitably applied, which is one crucial component of reducing brain health risk factors. And lastly, at the neighborhood level, this is where we really rely on our partnerships with community partners who really understand their constituents and they understand how to have the special conversations, how to enhance brain health through resource utilization. And so, this is another plug for policy and resources.

Dr Albin: I love that. And thinking about the neighborhood and the policy levels and all the things that we have to do. Daniel, I'd like to ask you, is there anything else you would add?

Dr Correa: Yeah, you know, so I really wanted to come back to this thing is that often and unfortunately, in the beginning understanding of social determinants of health, they're thought of as a positive or a negative factor, and often really negative. These are just facts. They're aspects about our community, our society, and some of them may be at the individual level. They're not at fault of any individual or community, or even our society. They're just the realities. And when someone has a factor that may predict a health disparity or an unmet social need---I wanted to come back to that concept and that term---one or two positive factors that are social determinants of health for that individual are unmet social needs. It's a point of promise. It's a potential to be address

Childhood-onset hydrocephalus encompasses a wide range of disorders with varying clinical implications. There are numerous causes of symptomatic hydrocephalus in neonates, infants, and children, and each predicts the typical clinical course across the lifespan. Etiology and age of onset impact the lifelong management of individuals living with childhood-onset hydrocephalus.

In this episode, Casey Albin, MD, speaks with Shenandoah Robinson, MD, FAANS, FAAP, FACS, author of the article "Childhood-onset Hydrocephalus" in the Continuum® June 2025 Disorders of CSF Dynamics issue.

Dr. Albin is a Continuum® Audio interviewer, associate editor of media engagement, and an assistant professor of neurology and neurosurgery at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

Dr. Robinson is a professor of neurosurgery, neurology, and pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Childhood-onset Hydrocephalus

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: @caseyalbin

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 Albin: Hi, this is Dr Casey Albin. Today I'm interviewing Dr Shenandoah Robinson about her article on childhood onset hydrocephalus, which appears in the June 2025 Continuum issue on disorders of CSF dynamics. Dr Robinson, thank you so much for being here. Welcome to the podcast. I'd love to start by just having you briefly introduce yourself to our audience.

Dr Robinson: I'm a pediatric neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins, and I'm very fortunate to care for kids and children from the neonatal intensive care unit all the way up through young adulthood. And I have a strong interest in developing better treatments for hydrocephalus.

Dr Albin: Absolutely. And this was a great article because I really do think that understanding how children with hydrocephalus are treated really does inform how we can care for them throughout the continuum of their lifespan. You know, I was shocked in reading your article about the scope of the problem for childhood onset hydrocephalus. Can you walk our listeners through what are the most common reasons why CSF diversion is needed in the pediatric population?

Dr Robinson: For the United States, and Canada too, the most common reasons are spina bifida---so, a baby that's born with a myelomeningocele and then develops associated hydrocephalus---and then about equally as common is posthemorrhagic hydrocephalus of prematurity, congenital causes such as from aquaductal stenosis, and other genetic causes are less common. And then we also have kids that develop hydrocephalus after trauma or meningitis or tumors or other sort of acquired problems during childhood.

Dr Albin: So, it's a really diverse and sort of heterogeneous causes that across sort of the, you know, the neonatal period all the way to, you know, young adulthood. And I'm sure that those etiologies really shift based on sort of the subgroup population that you're talking about.

Dr Robinson: Yes, they definitely shift over time. Fortunately for our kids that are born with problems that raise concerns, such as myelomeningocele or if they're born preterm, they sort of declare themselves by the time they're a year old. So, if you're an adult provider, they should have defined themselves and it's unlikely that they will suddenly develop hydrocephalus as a teenager or older adult.

Dr Albin: Totally makes sense. I think many of the listeners to this podcast are adult neurologists who are probably very familiar with external ventriculostomies for temporary CSF diversion, and with the more permanent ventricular peritoneal shines or ventricular atrial or plural shines that are needed when there's the need for permanent diversion. But you described in your article two procedures that provide temporary CSF diversion that I think many of our listeners are probably not as familiar with, which is the ventricular access devices and ventriculosubgaleal shunts. Can you briefly describe what those procedures provide? Who are the candidates for them? And then what complications neurologists may need to think about if they're consulted for comanagement in one of these complex patients?

Dr Robinson: Well, the good thing is that if as an adult neurologist you encounter someone with, you know, residual tubing from one of these procedures, you are unlikely to need to do anything about it. So, we put in ventricular access device or ventriculosubgaleal shunts, usually in newborns or infants. And sometimes when they no longer need the device, we just leave it in because that saves them an extra surgery. So, if you encounter one later on, it's most likely you won't need to do anything. Often if the baby goes on to show that they need a permanent shunt, we go ahead and put in that permanent shunt. We may or may not go back and take out the reservoir or the subgaleal shunt. The reservoir and subgaleal shunts are often put in the frontal location. Sometimes we'll put the permanent shunt in the occipital location and just leave the residual tubing there. So, you're very unlikely to need to intervene with a reservoir or subgaleal shunt if you encounter an older child or adult with that left in. We use these in the small babies because the external ventricular drains that we're very familiar with have a very high complication rate in this population. In the adult ICU, you often see these, and maybe there's, you know, a few percent risk of infection. It actually heads into 20 to 25% in our preterm infants and other newborns that require one of these devices for drainage. So, we try not to use external ventricular drains like we use in older patients. We use the internalized device: either the ventricular reservoir with a little area for us to tap every day, every other day; or the ventriculosubgaleal shunt, which diverts the spinal fluid to a pocket in the scalp. So, we use these in preterm infants that are too tiny for a permanent shunt. And for some of our babies that are born, for example, with an omphalocele, that we can't use their peritoneal cavity and so we need some temporizing device to manage their CSF.

Dr Albin: Totally makes sense. And so just to clarify, I mean, this is a tube that's placed into the ventricles of the brain and then it's tunneled into the subgaleal space and the collection, the CSF, just builds up there, like?

Dr Robinson: Yeah.

Dr Albin: And over time either, you know, the baby will learn how to account for that extra CSF, and then I guess it's just reabsorbed?

Dr Robinson: Yeah. When it's present, though, it looks like maybe, I don't know if you're familiar with like a tissue expander. There is this bubble of fluid under the scalp, but it's prominent, it can be several centimeters in diameter.

Dr Albin: Wow, that's just absolutely fascinating. And I don't think I've ever had the opportunity to see this in clinical practice. I've really learned quite a bit about this. I assume that these children are going to go on to get some sort of permanent diversion. And then, you know, over time, those permanent shunts do create a lot of problems. And so, I was hoping you could kind of walk us through, you know, what are some of the things that you're seeing that you're concerned about? And then if you've just inherited a patient who had a shunt placed at, say, a different institution, how do you go about figuring out what kind of shunt it is and if they're still dependent on it?

Dr Robinson: There's a few things that, fortunately, technology is helping with. So, it is much easier now for patients to get their images uploaded to image-sharing software, and then we can download their images into our institutional software, which is very helpful. Another option is that we are strongly encouraging our families to use a app such as HydroAssist that's available from the Hydrocephalus Association. So that's an app that goes on your phone, and you can upload the images from an MRI or a CT scan or x-rays from a shunt series. And then that you can take if you're traveling and you have to go to emergency department or you're establishing care with a new provider, you can have your information right there and not be under stress to remember it. It also has areas so you can record the type of valve. And all of our valves have pluses and minuses, they all tend to malfunction a little bit. And they can be particularly helpful with different types of hydrocephalus. I really doubt that we're going to narrow down from the fifteen or so valves we have access to now. And so, recording your valve type, the manufacturer as well as the setting, is very helpful when you're transferring care or if you're traveling and then have to, unfortunately, stop in the emergency department.

Dr Albin: Yeah, I thought that was a really great pearl that, like, families now are empowered to sort of take control of understanding sort of the devices that they have, the settings that they're using. And what an incredible thing for providers who are going to care for these patients who, you know, unfortunately do end up in centers that are not their primary center. The other challenge that I find… I practice as a neurointensivist, and sometimes patients come in and they have a history of being shunt dependent and they present with a neurologic change. And I think that we as neurologists can be a little quick to blame the shunt and want the shunt to be tapped. And I was really struck in reading this article about the complexity of shunt taps. And I was hoping, you know, can you kind of walk us through what's involved and maybe why we should have a little bit of a higher threshold before just saying, ah, just have the neurosurgeons tap the shunt. Like, it's not that straightforward.

Dr Robinson: And it may depend on the population you're caring for. So, when I was at a different institution, we actually published that there's about a 5% complication rate from shunt taps. And that may be- that was in pediatric patients. And again, that may be population dependent, but you can introduce infection to a perfectly clean shunt by doing a shunt tap. You can also cause an acute shunt malfunction. So that's why we tend to prefer that only neurosurgeons are doing shunt taps for evaluation of a shunt malfunction. There are times that, for example, our patients who are getting intrathecal chemotherapy or something have a CSF access device like an Ommaya reservoir, and other providers may tap that reservoir to instill medicine. But that's different than an evaluation, like, you're talking about somebody with a neurological change. And so, it is possible that if somebody has small ventricles or something, if you tap that shunt, you can take a marginally functioning shunt and turn it into an acute proximal malfunction, which is an emergency.

Dr Albin: Absolutely. I think that's a fantastic pearl for us to take away from this. It's just that heightened level. And kind of on the flip side of that, you know, and I really- I do feel for us when we're trying to kind of, you know, make a case that it's, it's not the shunt. Many of our shunted patients also have a lot of neurologic complexity, which I think you really talked upon in this article. I mean, these are patients who have developmental cognitive delays and that they have epilepsy and that they're at risk for, you know, complications from prematurity, since that's a very common reason that patients are getting shunts. But from your experience as a neurosurgeon, what are some of the features that make you particularly concerned about shnut malfunction? And how do you sort of evaluate these patients when they come in with that altered mental status?

Dr Robinson: It is challenging, especially for our patients that have, you know, some intellectual delay or other difficulties that make it hard for them to give an accurate history. Problem is, if they're sick and lethargic, they may not remember the symptoms that they had when they were sick. But sometimes there's hopefully there's a family member present that does remember and can say, oh, no, this is what they look like when they have a viral illness. And this is different from when they have the shot malfunction, which was projectile emesis, not associated with a fever. It's rare to have a fever with a shunt malfunction, although shunt infection often presents with malfunction. So, it's not completely exclusionary. We often look at the imaging, but it's taking the whole picture together. Some of the common other diagnoses we see are severe constipation that can decrease the drainage from the shunt and even cause papilledema in some people. So, we look at that as well on the shunt series. It's very important to have the shunt series if you're concerned about shunt malfunction or- the shunt tubing is good. It tends to last maybe 20to 25 years before it starts to degrade. And so, you may have had a functioning shunt for decades and it worked well and you're very dependent on it, and then it breaks and you become ill. But on the flip side, we have patients that have had a broken shunt for years, they just didn't know about it. And we don't want to jump in and operate on them and then cause complexities. And so, it is a challenge to sort out. The simplest thing is obviously if they come in and their ventricles are significantly larger, and that goes along with a several-hour or a couple-day deterioration, that's a little more clear-cut.

Dr Albin: Absolutely. And you talked about this shunt series. What other imaging- and, sort of maybe walk us through, what's involved in a shunt series, what are you looking at? And then what other imaging is sort of your preferred method for evaluating these patients?

Dr Robinson: In adult patients, the shunt series is the x-ray from the entire shunt. And so, if they have an atrial shunt, that would be skull x-ray plus a chest x-ray; or the shunt ends in the perineal cavity, it goes to the perineum. And we're looking for continuity. We're looking for the- sometimes as people grow and age, the ventricular catheter can pull out of the ventricle. So, we're looking to make sure that the ventricular catheter is in an optimal position relative to the skull. We can also look at the valve setting to see the type of valve. So, that can also be helpful as well. And then in terms of additional imaging, a CT scan or an MRI is helpful. If you don't know what type of valve they have, they should not, ideally, go in the MRI scanner. We like to know what their setting is before they go in the MRI because we're going to have to reset the valve after they come out of the MRI if it's a programmable valve.

Dr Albin: This is fantastic. I've heard several pearls. So, one is that with the shunt series, which, am I correct in understanding those are just plain X-rays?

Dr Robinson: Yes.

Dr Albin: Right. Then we can look for constipation, and that might be actually something really serious in a pediatric patient that could clue us in that they could actually be developing hydrocephalus or increased ICP just because of the abdominal pressure. And then that we need to be mindful of what are the stunt settings before we expose anyone to the MRI machine. Is that two good takeaways from all of this?

Dr Robinson: Yes. And it's very rare that there'll be an MRI tech that will allow a patient with a valve in the MRI without knowing what it is. So, they have their job security that way. But yeah, if you're not sure, just go ahead and get the CT. Obviously, in our younger kids, we're trying to avoid CT scans. But if you're weighing off trying to decide if somebody has a shunt malfunction versus, you know, waiting 12 or 24 hours for an MRI, go ahead and get the CT.

Dr Albin: Absolutely. I love it. Those are things I'm going to take with me for this. I have one more question about these shunts. So, every now and then, and I think you started to touch on this, we will get a shunt series and we'll see that the catheter is fractured. Do the patients develop little- like, a tract that continues to allow diversion even though the catheter is fractured?

Dr Robinson: Yes. So, they can develop scar tissue around, and some people have more scar tissue than others. You'll even see that sometimes, say, the catheter has fractured and we'll take out that old fractured tubing and put in new tubing on the other side. But if you go and palpate their neck or chest, you'll still feel that tract is there because it calcifies along the tract. Some patients drain through that calcified tract for weeks or months without symptoms, and then it can occlude off. So, we don't consider it a reliable pathway. It's also not a reliable pathway if you're positioned prone in the OR. So some of our orthopedic colleagues, for example, if they go to do a spine fusion, we like to confirm that the shunt is working before you undergo that long anesthesia, but also that you're going to be positioned prone and you could potentially- you know, the pressure could occlude that track that normally is open.

Dr Albin: This is fantastic. I feel like I've gotten everything I've ever wanted to know about shunts and all of their complications in this, which is, you know, this is really difficult. And I think that because we are not trained to put these in, sometimes we see them and we just say, oh, it's fractured that must be a malfunction. But it's good to know that sometimes those patients can drain through, you know, a sort of scarred-down tract, but that it may not be nearly as reliable as when they have the tubing in place. Another really good thing that I'm going to put in my back pocket for the next time I see a patient with a potential shunt malfunction.

Dr Robinson: And we do have some patients that the tubing is fractured years ago and they don't need it repaired, and that totally can be challenging when they then transfer to your practice for follow-up care. We tend to follow those patients very closely, both our clinic visits as well as having them seen by ophthalmology. So, there are teenagers and young adults out there that have… their own system has recovered and they are no longer shunt-dependent; and they may have a broken shunt and not actually be using that track, but they usually have had fairly intensive follow up to prove that they're not shunt-dependent. And we still have a healthy respect there that, you know, if they start to get a headache, we're going to take that quite seriously as opposed to, you know, some of our shunt patients, about 10 to 20%, have chronic headaches that are not shunt-related. So, not everybody who has a headache and has a shunt has a shunt malfunction. It's tough.

Dr Albin: This is really tough. That actually brings me to sort of the last clinical scenario that I was hoping we could get your perspective on. And I think this would be of great interest to neurologists, especially in the context that these children may develop headaches that have nothing to do with the shunt. I'd like to sort of give you this hypothetical case that I'm a neurologist seeing a patient in clinic and it's a teenager, maybe a young adult, and they had a shunt placed early in childhood. They've done really well. And they've come to me for management of a new headache. And, you know, as part of this workup, their primary care provider had ordered an MRI. And, you know, I l

Normal pressure hydrocephalus (NPH) is a pathologic condition whereby excess CSF is retained in and around the brain despite normal intracranial pressure. MRI-safe programmable shunt valves allow for fluid drainage adjustment based on patients' symptoms and radiographic images. Approximately 75% of patients with NPH improve after shunt surgery regardless of shunt type or location.

In this episode, Aaron Berkowitz, MD, PhD, FAAN, speaks with Kaisorn L. Chaichana, MD, author of the article "Management of Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus" in the Continuum® June 2025 Disorders of CSF Dynamics 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 in San Francisco, California.

Dr. Chaichana is a professor of neurology in the department of neurological surgery at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Management of Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus

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

Guest: @kchaichanamd

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 Kaisorn Chaichana about his article on management of normal pressure hydrocephalus, which he wrote with Dr Jeremy Cutsforth-Gregory. The article appears in the June 2025 Continuum issue on disorders of CSF dynamics. Welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to our audience.

Dr Chaichana: Yeah, thank you for having me. I'm Kaisorn Chaichana. I'm a neurosurgeon at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida. Part of my practice is doing hydrocephalus care, which includes shunts for patients with normal pressure hydrocephalus.

Dr Berkowitz: Fantastic. Well, before we get into shunt considerations and NPH specifically, which I know is the focus of your article, I thought it would be a great opportunity for a neurologist to pick a neurosurgeon's brain a bit about shunts. So, to start, can you lay out for us the different types of shunts and shunt procedures, the advantages, disadvantages of each type of shunt, how you think about which shunt procedure should be used for which patient, that type of thing?

Dr Chaichana: Yeah. So, there are different types of shunts, and the most common one that is used is called a ventricular peritoneal shunt. So, it has a ventricular catheter, it has a catheter that tunnels underneath the skin and it goes into the peritoneum where the fluid goes from the ventricular system into the peritoneum. Typically, the shunts are in the ventricle because that is the largest fluid-filled space in the brain. Other terminal areas include the atrium, which is really the jugular vein, and those are called ventricular atrial shunts. You can also have ventricular pleural shunts, which end in the pleural space and drain flui into the pleural space. Those are pretty much the most common ventricular shunts. There's also a lumboperitoneal shunt that drains from the lumbar spine, similar to a lumbar drain into the peritoneum. For the lumbar shunts, we don't typically have a lumbar pleural or lumbar atrial shunt just because of the pressure dynamics, because the lumbar spine is below the lung and as well as the atrium. And so, the drainage pattern is very different than ventricular peritoneal which is top to bottom. The most common shunt, why we use the ventricular peritoneal shunt the most, is because it has the most control. So, the peritoneum is set at a standard pressure in the intraabdominal pressure, whereas the ventricular atrial shunt depends on your venous return or venous pressure and your ventricular pleural shunt varies with inspiration and expiration. So, the easiest way for us to control the fluid, the ventricular system is through the ventricular peritoneal shunt. And that's why that's our most common shunt that we use.

Dr Berkowitz: Fantastic. So, as you mention in the article, neurologists may be reluctant to offer a shunt to patients with NPH because many patients may not improve, or they improve only transiently; and out of fear of shunt complications. So, of course, as neurologists, we often only hear about a patient's shunt when there is a problem. So, we have this sort of biased view of seeing a lot of shunt malfunction and shunt infection. Of course, we might not see the patient if their shunt is working just fine. How common are these complications in practice, and how do you as a neurosurgeon weigh the risks against the often uncertain or transient benefits of a shunt in a patient with NPH who may be older and multiple medical comorbidities? How do you think about that and talk about it with patients?

Dr Chaichana: When you hear about shunt complications, most of the shunt complications you hear about are typically in patients with congenital hydrocephalus. Those patients often require several shunt revisions just from either growing or the shunt stays in for a long time or the ventricular caliber is a lot less than some with normal pressure hydrocephalus. So, we don't really see a lot of complications with normal pressure hydrocephalus. So that shunt placement in these patients is typically pretty safe. The procedure's a relatively short procedure, around 30 minutes to 45 minutes to place a shunt, and we can control the pressure within the shunt setting so that we don't overdrain---which means too much fluid drains from the ventricular system---which can cause things like a subdural, which is probably the most common complication associated with normal pressure hydrocephalus. So, to obviate those risks, what we do is typically insert the shunt and then keep the shunt setting at a high setting. The higher the setting, the less it drains, and then we bring it slowly down based on the patient's symptoms to try to minimize the risk of this over drainage in the subdural hematoma while at the same time benefiting the patient. So, there's a concern for shunt in patients with normal pressure hydrocephalus. The concern or the complication risks are very low. The problem with normal pressure hydrocephalus, though, is that over time these patients benefit less and less from drainage or their disease process takes over. So, I do recommend placing this shunt as soon as possible just so that we can maximize their quality of life for that period of time.

Dr Berkowitz: So, if I'm understanding you, then the risk of complication is more sort of due to the mechanical factors in patients with congenital hydrocephalus or sort of outgrowing the shunt, their pressure dynamics may be changing over time. And in your experience, an older patient with NPH, although they may have more medical comorbidities, the procedure itself is relatively quick and low-risk. And the actual complications due to mechanical factors, my understanding, are just much less common because the patient is obviously fully grown and they're getting one sort of procedure at one point in time and tend to need less revision, have less complication. Is that right?

Dr Chaichana: Yeah, that's correct. The complication risk for normal hydrocephalus is a lot less than other types of hydrocephalus.

Dr Berkowitz: That's helpful to know. While we're talking about some of these complications, let's say we're following a patient in neurology with NPH who has a shunt. What are some of the symptoms and signs of shunt malfunction or shunt infection? And what are the best studies to order to evaluate for these if we're concerned about them?

Dr Chaichana: Yeah. So basically, for shunt malfunction, it's basically broken down into two categories. It's either overdrainage or underdrainage. So, underdrainage is where the shunt doesn't function enough. And so basically, they return to their state before the shunt was placed. So that could be worsening gait function, memory function, urinary incontinence are the typical symptoms we look for in patients with normal pressure hydrocephalus and underdrainage, or the shunt is not working. For patients that are having overdrainage, which is draining too much, the classic sign is typically headaches when they stand up. And the reason behind that is when there's overdrainage, there's less cerebrospinal fluid in their ventricular system, which means less intracranial pressure. So that when they stand up, the pressure differential between their head and the ground is more than when they're lying down. And because of that pressure differential, they usually have worsening headaches when standing up or sitting up. The other thing are severe headaches, which would be a sign of a subdural hematoma or focality in their neurological symptoms that could point to a subdural hematoma, such as weakness, numbness, speaking problems, depending on the hemisphere.

How we work this up is, regardless if you're concerned about overdrainage or underdrainage, we usually start with a CAT scan or an MRI scan. Typically, we prefer a CAT scan because it's quicker, but the CAT scan will show us if the ventricular caliber is the same and/or the placement of the proximal catheter. So, what we look for when we see that CAT scan or that MRI to see the location of the proximal catheter to make sure it hasn't changed from any previous settings. And then we see the caliber of the ventricles. If the caliber of the ventricles is smaller, that could be a sign of overdrainage. If the caliber of the ventricles are larger, it could be a sign of underdrainage. The other thing we look for are subdural fluid collections or hydromas or subdural hematomas, which would be another sign of lower endocranial pressure, which would be a sign of overdrainage. So those are the biggest signs we look for, for underdrainage and overdrainage. Other things we can look for if we're concerned of the shunt is fractured, we do a shunt X-ray and what a shunt x-ray is is x-rays of the skull, the neck and the abdomen to see the catheter to make sure it's not kinked or fractured. If you're really concerned, you can't tell from the x-ray, another scan to order is a CT of the chest and abdomen and pelvis to look at the location of the catheter to make sure there's no brakes in the catheter, there's no fluid collections on the distal portion of the catheter, which would be a sign of shunt malfunction as well.

Other tests that you can do to really exclude shunt malfunction is a shunt patency test, and what that is a nuclear medicine test where radionucleotide is injected into the valve and then the radionucleotide is traced over time or imaged through time to make sure that it's draining appropriately from the valve into the distal catheter into the peritoneum or the distal site. If there's a shunt malfunction that's not drainage, that radioisotope would remain stagnant either in the valve or in the catheter. There's overdrainage, we can't really tell, but there will be a quick drainage of the radioisotope. For shunt infection, we start with an imaging just to make sure there's not a shunt malfunction, and that usually requires cerebrospinal fluid to test. The cerebrospinal fluid can come from the valve itself, or it can come from other areas like the lumbar spine. If the lumbar spine is showing signs of shunt infection, then that usually means the shunt is infected. If the valve is aspirated with- at the bedside with a butterfly needle into the valve and that shows signs of shunt infection, that also could be a sign of infection.

Dr Berkowitz: That's very helpful. You mentioned CT and shunt series. One question that often comes up when obtaining neuroimaging in patients with a shunt, who have NPH or otherwise, is whether we need to call you when we're doing an MRI to reprogram the shunt before or after. Is there a way we can know as a neurologists at the bedside or as patients carry a card, like with some devices where we know whether we have to call and bother our neurosurgery colleagues to get this MRI? Or if the radiology techs ask us, is this safe? And is the patient's shunt going to get turned off? How do we go about determining this?

Dr Chaichana: Yeah, so unfortunately, a lot of patients don't carry a card. We typically offer a card when we do the shunt, but that card, there's two problems with it. One is it tells the model, but the second thing is it has to be updated any time the shunt is changed to a different setting. Oftentimes patients don't know that shunt setting, and often times they don't know that company brand that they use. There are different types of shunts with different types of settings. If there's ever concern as to what type of shunt they have, an x-ray is usually the best bet to see with a shunt series, or a skull x-ray. A lateral skull x-ray usually looks at the valve, and the valve has certain radio-dense markers that indicate what type of shunt it is. And that way you can call neurosurgery and we can always tell you what the shunt setting is before the MRI is done. Problem with an MRI scan if you do it without a shunt x-ray before is that you don't know the setting before unless the patient really knows or it's in the patient chart, and the MRI can need to change the setting. It doesn't usually turn it off, but it would change the setting, which would change the fluid dynamics within their ventricular system, which could lead to overdrainage or underdrainage. So, any time a patient needs MRI imaging, whether it's even the brain MRI, a spine MRI, or even abdominal MRI, really a shunt x-ray should be done just to see the shunt setting so that it could be returned to that setting after the MRI is done.

Dr Berkowitz: So, the only way to know sort of what type of shunt it would be short of the patient knowing or the patient getting care at the same hospital where the shunt was placed and looking it up in the operative reports would be a skull film. That would then tell us what type of shunt is there and then the marking of the setting. And then we would be able to call our colleagues in neurosurgery and say, this patient is getting an MRI this is the setting, this is the type of shunt. And do we need to call you afterwards to come by and reprogram it? Is that right?

Dr Chaichana: That's correct, yeah.

Dr Berkowitz: Is there anything we would be able to see on there, or it's best we just- best we just call you and clarify?

Dr Chaichana: The easiest thing to do is, when you get the skull x-ray, you can Google different types of shunts or search for different shunts, and they'll have markers that show the type of shunt it is as well as the setting that it's at. And just match it up with the picture.

Dr Berkowitz: And as long as it's not a programmable shunt, there's no concern about doing the MRI. Is that right?

Dr Chaichana: Correct. So, if it's a programmable shunt, even if it's MRI-compatible, we still like to get the setting before and make sure the setting after the MRI is the same. Nonprogrammable shunts can't be changed with MRI scans, and those don't need neurosurgery after the MRI scan, but it should be confirmed before the scan is done.

Dr Berkowitz: Very helpful. Okay, so let's turn to NPH specifically. As you know, there's a lot of debate in the literature, some arguing, even, NPH might not even exist, some saying it's underdiagnosed. I think. I don't know if it was last year at our American Academy of Neurology conference or certainly in recent years, there was a pro and con debate of "we are underdiagnosing NPH" versus "we are overdiagnosing NPH." What's your perspective as a neurosurgeon? What's the perspective in neurosurgery? Is this something we're underdiagnosing, and the times you shunt these patients you see miraculous results? Is this something that we're overdiagnosing, you get a lot of patients sent to that you think maybe won't benefit from a shunt? Or is it just really hard to say and some patients have shunt-responsive noncommunicating hydrocephalus of unclear etiology and either concurrent Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, cervical lumbar stenosis, neuropathy, vestibular problems, and all these other issues that play into multifactorial gait to sort of display a certain amount of the percentage of problem in a given patient or take overtime? What's your perspective if you're open to sharing it, or what's the perspective of neurosurgery? Is this debated as it is in neurology or this is just a standard thing you see and patients respond to shunt to some degree in some proportion of the time? And what are the sort of predictors you see in your experience?

Dr Chaichana: Yeah, so, for me, I'd say it's too complicated for a neurosurgeon to evaluate. We rely on neurology to tell us whether or not they need a shunt. But I think the problem is, obviously, a part of the workout for at least the ones that I like to do, is that I want them to have a high-volume lumbar puncture with pre- and postgait analysis to see if there's really an objective measure of them improving. If they have an objective measure of improvement---and what's even better is that they have a subjective measure of improvement on top of the objective measure of improvement---then they benefit from a shunt. The problem is, some patients do benefit even though they don't have objective performance increases after a high-volume shunt. And those are the ones that make me the most worrisome to do the shunt, just because I don't like to do a procedure where there's no benefit for the patient. I do see, according to the literature as well, that there's around a 30 to 40%, even 50%, increase in gait function, even in patients that don't have large improvements following the high-volume lumbar puncture. And those are the most challenging patients for us as neurosurgeons because we'll put the shunt in, they say we're no better in terms of their gait, no better in terms of their urinary incontinence. We try to lower their shunt down to a certain setting and we're kind of stuck after that point. The good thing about NPH, though, is that, from the neurosurgery side, the shunt, like I said, is a pretty benign, low-risk procedure. So, we're not putting the patient through a very severe procedure to see if there's any benefit. So, in cases where we try to improve their quality of life in patients that don't have a benefit from high-volume lumbar puncture, we give them the odds of whether or not it's improving and say it might not improve. But because the procedure's minimally invasive, I think it's a good way to see if we can benefit their quality of life.

Dr Berkowitz: Yeah, it's a very helpful perspective. Yeah, those are the most challenging cases on our side as well, right. If the patient- we think they may have NPH, or their gait and/or urinary and/or cognitive problems are- at least have a component of NPH that could be reversible, we certainly want to do the large volume lumbar puncture and/or consider a lumbar drain trial, all discussed in other articles and interviews for this issue of Continuum, But the really tough ones, as you said, there is this literature on patients who don't respond to the large-volume lumbar puncture for some reason but still may be shunt responsive. And despite all the imaging predictors and all the other ways we try to think about this, it's hard to know who's going to benefit. I think that's really a helpful perspective from your end that, as you say in the very beginning of your article,

Normal pressure hydrocephalus (NPH) is a clinical syndrome of gait abnormality, cognitive impairment, and urinary incontinence. Evaluation of CSF dynamics, patterns of fludeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake, and patterns of brain stiffness may aid in the evaluation of challenging cases that lack typical clinical and structural radiographic features.

In this episode, Katie Grouse, MD, FAAN, speaks with Aaron Switzer, MD, MSc, author of the article "Radiographic Evaluation of Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus" in the Continuum® June 2025 Disorders of CSF Dynamics 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. Switzer is a clinical assistant professor of neurology in the department of clinical neurosciences at the University of Calgary in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Radiographic Evaluation of Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus

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. 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 Aaron Switzer about his article on radiographic evaluation of normal pressure hydrocephalus, which he wrote with Dr Patrice Cogswell. This article appears in the June 2025 Continuum issue on disorders of CSF dynamics. Welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to our audience.

Dr. Switzer: Thanks so much for having me, Katie. I'm a neurologist that's working up in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and I have a special interest in normal pressure hydrocephalus. So, I'm very happy to be here today to talk about the radiographic evaluation of NPH.

Dr Grouse: I'm so excited to have you here today. It was really wonderful to read your article. I learned a lot on a topic that is not something that I frequently evaluate in my clinic. So, it's really just a pleasure to have you here to talk about this topic. So, I'd love to start by asking, what is the key message that you hope for neurologists who read your article to take away from it?

Dr. Switzer: The diagnosis of NPH can be very difficult, just given the clinical heterogeneity in terms of how people present and what their images look like. And so, I'd like readers to know that detailed review of the patient's imaging can be very helpful to identify those that will clinically improve with shunt surgery.

Dr Grouse: There's another really great article in this edition of Continuum that does a really great job delving into the clinical history and exam findings of NPH. So, I don't want to get into that topic necessarily today. However, I'd love to hear how you approach a case of a hypothetical patient, say, where you're suspicious of NPH based on the history and exam. I'd love to talk over how you approach the imaging findings when you obtain an MRI of the brain, as well as any follow-up imaging or testing that you generally recommend.

Dr. Switzer: So, I break my approach down into three parts. First, I want to try to identify ventriculomegaly and any signs that would support that, and specifically those that are found in NPH. Secondly, I want to look for any alternative pathology or evidence of alternative pathology to explain the patient's symptoms. And then also evaluate any contraindications for shunt surgery. For the first one, usually I start with measuring Evans index to make sure that it's elevated, but then I want to measure one of the other four measurements that are described in the article, such as posterior colossal angle zed-Evans index---or z-Evans index for the American listeners---to see if there's any other features that can support normal pressure hydrocephalus. It's very important to identify whether there are features of disproportionately enlarged subarachnoid space hydrocephalus, or DESH, which can help identify patients who may respond to shunt surgery. And then if it's really a cloudy clinical picture, it's complicated, it's difficult to know, I would usually go through the full evaluation of the iNPH radscale to calculate a score in order to determine the likelihood that this patient has NPH. So, the second part of my evaluation is to rule out evidence of any alternative pathology to suggest another cause for the patient's symptoms, such as neurodegeneration or cerebrovascular disease. And then the third part of my evaluation is to look for any potential contraindications for shunt surgery, the main one being cerebral microbleed count, as a very high count has been associated with the hemorrhagic complications following shunt surgery.

Dr Grouse: You mentioned about your use of the various scales to calculate for NPH, and your article does a great job laying them out and where they can be helpful. Are there any of these scales that can be reasonably relied on to predict the presence of NPH and responsiveness to shunt placement?

Dr. Switzer: I think the first thing to acknowledge is that predicting shunt response is still a big problem that is not fully solved in NPH. So, there is not one single imaging feature, or even combination of imaging features, that can reliably predict shunt response. But in my view and in my practice, it's identifying DESH, I think, is really important---so, the disproportionately enlarged subarachnoid space hydrocephalus---as well as measuring the posterior colossal angle. I find those two features to be the most specific.

Dr Grouse: Now you mentioned the concept of the NPH subtypes, and while this may be something that many of our listeners are familiar with, I suspect that, like myself when I was reading this article, there are many who maybe have not been keeping up to date on these various subtypes. Could you briefly tell us more about these NPH subtypes?

Dr. Switzer: Sure. The Japanese guidelines for NPH have subdivided NPH into three different main categories. So that would be idiopathic, delayed onset congenital, and secondary normal pressure hydrocephalus. And so, I think the first to talk about would be the secondary NPH. We're probably all more familiar with that. That's any sort of pathology that could lead to disruption in CSF dynamics. These are things like, you know, a slow-growing tumor that is obstructing CSF flow or a widespread meningeal process that's reducing absorption of CSF, for instance. So, identifying these can be important because it may offer an alternative treatment for what you're seeing in the patient. The second important one is delayed onset congenital. And when you see an image of one of these subtypes, it's going to be pretty different than the NPH because the ventricles are going to be much larger, the sulcal enfacement is going to be more diffuse. Clinically, you may see that the patients have a higher head circumference. So, the second subtype to know about would be the delayed onset congenital normal pressure hydrocephalus. And when you see an image of one of these subtypes, it's going to be a little different than the imaging of NPH because the ventricles are going to be much larger, the sulcal enfacement is going to be more diffuse. And there are two specific subtypes that I'd like you to know about. The first would be long-standing overt ventriculomegaly of adulthood, or LOVA. And the second would be panventriculomegaly with a wide foramen of magendie and large discernomagna, which is quite a mouthful, so we just call it PAVUM. The importance of identifying these subtypes is that they may be amenable to different types of treatment. For instance, LOVA can be associated with aqueductal stenosis. So, these patients can get better when you treat them with an endoscopic third ventriculostomy, and then you don't need to move ahead with a shunt surgery. And then finally with idiopathic, that's mainly what we're talking about in this article with all of the imaging features. I think the important part about this is that you can have the features of DESH, or you can not have the features of DESH. The way to really define that would be how the patient would respond to a large-volume tap or a lumbar drain in order to define whether they have this idiopathic NPH.

Dr Grouse: That's really helpful. And for those of our listeners who are so inclined, there is a wonderful diagram that lays out all these subtypes that you can take a look at. I encourage you to familiarize yourself with these different subtypes. Now it was really interesting to read in your article about some of the older techniques that we used quite some time ago for diagnosing normal pressure hydrocephalus that thankfully we're no longer using, including isotope encephalography and radionuclide cisternography. It certainly made me grateful for how we've come in our diagnostic tools for NPH. What do you think the biggest breakthrough in diagnostic tools that are now clinically available are?

Dr. Switzer: You know, definitely the advent of structural imaging was very important for the evaluation of NPH, and specifically the identification of disproportionately enlarged subarachnoid space hydrocephalus, or DESH, in the late nineties has been very helpful for increasing the specificity of diagnosis in NPH. But some of the newer technologies that have become available would be phase-contrast MRI to measure the CSF flow rate through the aqueduct has been very helpful, as well as high spatial resolution T2 imaging to actually image the ventricular system and look for any evidence of expansion of the ventricles or obstruction of CSF flow.

Dr Grouse: Regarding the scales that you had referenced earlier, do you think that we can look forward to more of these scales being automatically calculated and reported by various software techniques and radiographic interpretation techniques that are available or going to be available?

Dr. Switzer: Definitely yes. And some of these techniques are already in development and used in research settings, and most of them are directed towards automatically detecting the features of DESH. So, that's the high convexity tight sulci, the focally enlarged sulci, and the enlarged Sylvian fissures. And separating the CSF from the brain tissue can help you determine where CSF flow is abnormal throughout the brain and give you a more accurate picture of CSF dynamics. And this, of course, is all automated. So, I do think that's something to keep an eye out for in the future.

Dr Grouse: I wanted to ask a little more about the CSF flow dynamics, which I think may be new to a lot of our listeners, or certainly something that we've only more recently become familiar with. Can you tell us more about these advances and how we can apply this information to our evaluations for NPH?

Dr. Switzer: So currently, only the two-dimensional phase contrast MRI technique is available on a clinical basis in most centers. This will measure the actual flow rate through the cerebral aqueduct. And so, in NPH, this can be elevated. So that can be a good supporting marker for NPH. In the future, we can look forward to other techniques that will actually look at three-dimensional or volume changes over time and this could give us a more accurate picture of aberrations and CSF dynamics.

Dr Grouse: Well, definitely something to look forward to. And on the topic of other sort of more cutting-edge or, I think, less commonly-used technologies, you also mentioned some other imaging modalities, including diffusion imaging, intrathecal gadolinium imaging, nuclear medicine studies, MR elastography, for example. Are any of these modalities particularly promising for NPH evaluations, in your opinion? Do you think any of these will become more popularly used?

Dr. Switzer: Yes, I think that diffusion tract imaging and MR elastography are probably the ones to keep your eye out for. They're a little more widely applicable because you just need an MR scanner to acquire the images. It's not invasive like the other techniques mentioned. So, I think it's going to be a lot easier to implement into clinical practice on a wide scale. So, those would be the ones that I would look out for in the future.

Dr Grouse: Well, that's really exciting to hear about some of these techniques that are coming that may help us even more with our evaluation. Now on that note, I want to talk a little bit more about how we approach the evaluation and, in your opinion, some of the biggest pitfalls in the evaluation of NPH that you've found in your career.

Dr. Switzer: I think there are three of note that I'd like to mention. The first would be overinterpreting the Evans index. So, just because an image shows that there's an elevated Evans index does not necessarily mean that NPH is present. So that's where looking for other corroborating evidence and looking for the clinical features is really important in the evaluation. Second would be misidentifying the focally enlarged sulci as atrophy because when you're looking at a brain with these blebs of CSF space in different parts of the brain, you may want to associate that to neurodegeneration, but that's not necessarily the case. And there are ways to distinguish between the two, and I think that's another common pitfall. And then third would be in regards to the CSF flow rate through the aqueduct. And so, an elevated CSF flow is suggestive of NPH, but the absence of that does not necessarily rule NPH out. So that's another one to be mindful of.

Dr Grouse: That's really helpful. And then on the flip side, any tips or tricks or clinical pearls you can share with us that you found to be really helpful for the evaluation of NPH?

Dr. Switzer: One thing that I found really helpful is to look for previous imaging, to look if there were features of NPH at that time, and if so, have they evolved over time; because we know that in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus, especially in the dash phenotype, the ventricles can become larger and the effacement of the sulci at the convexity can become more striking over time. And this could be a helpful tool to identify how long that's been there and if it fits with the clinical history. So that's something that I find very helpful.

Dr Grouse: Absolutely. When I read that point in your article, I thought that was really helpful and, in fact, I'm guessing something that a lot of us probably aren't doing. And yet many of our patients for one reason or other, probably have had imaging five, ten years prior to their time of evaluation that could be really helpful to look back at to see that evolution.

Dr. Switzer: Yes, absolutely.

Dr Grouse: It's been such a pleasure to read your article and talk with you about this today. Certainly a very important and helpful topic for, I'm sure, many of our listeners.

Dr. Switzer: Thank you so much for having me.

Dr Grouse: Again, today I've been interviewing Dr Aaron Switzer about his article on radiographic evaluation of normal pressure hydrocephalus, which he wrote with Dr Patrice Cogswell. This article appears in the most recent issue of Continuum on disorders of CSF dynamics. 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.

Normal pressure hydrocephalus (NPH) is a clinical syndrome characterized by the triad of gait apraxia, cognitive impairment, and bladder dysfunction in the radiographic context of ventriculomegaly and normal intracranial pressure. Accurate diagnosis requires consideration of clinical and imaging signs, complemented by tests to exclude common mimics.

In this episode, Lyell Jones, MD, FAAN speaks with Abhay R. Moghekar, MBBS, author of the article "Clinical Features and Diagnosis of Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus" in the Continuum® June 2025 Disorders of CSF Dynamics 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. Moghekar is an associate professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Clinical Features and Diagnosis of Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus

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 Abhay Moghekar, who recently authored an article on the clinical features and diagnosis of normal pressure hydrocephalus for our first-ever issue of Continuum dedicated to disorders of CSF dynamics. Dr Moghekar is an associate professor of neurology and the research director of the Cerebrospinal Fluid Center at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. Dr Moghekar, welcome, and thank you for joining us today. Why don't you introduce yourself to our listeners?

Dr Moghekar: Thank you, Dr Jones. I'm Abhay Moghekar. I'm a neurologist at Hopkins, and I specialize in seeing patients with CSF disorders, of which normal pressure hydrocephalus happens to be the most common.

Dr Jones: And let's get right to it. I think most of our listeners who are neurologists in practice have encountered normal pressure hydrocephalus, or NPH; and it's a challenging disorder for all the reasons that you outline in your really outstanding article. If you were going to think of one single most important message to our listeners about recognizing patients with NPH, what would that be?

Dr Moghekar: I think I would say there are two important messages. One is that the triad is not sufficient to make the diagnosis, and the triad is not necessary to make the diagnosis. You know these three elements of the triad: cognitive problems, gait problems, bladder control problems are so common in the elderly that if you pick 10 people out in the community that have this triad, it's unlikely that even one of them has true NPH. On the other hand, you don't need all three elements of the triad to make the diagnosis because the order of symptoms matters. Often patients develop gait dysfunction first, then cognitive dysfunction, and then urinary incontinence. If you wait for all three elements of the triad to be present, it may be too late to offer them any clear benefit. And hence, you know, it's neither sufficient nor necessary to make the diagnosis.

Dr Jones: That's a really great point. I think most of our listeners are familiar with the fact that, you know, we're taught these classic triads or pentads or whatever, and they're rarely all present. In a way, it's maybe a useful prompt, but it could be distracting or misleading, even in a way, in terms of recognizing the patient. So what clues do you use, Dr Moghekar, to really think that a patient may have NPH?

Dr Moghekar: So, there are two important aspects about gait dysfunction. Say somebody comes in with all three elements of the triad. You want to know two things. Which came first? If gate impairment precedes cognitive impairment, it's still very likely that NPH is in the differential. And of the two, which are more- relatively more affected? So, if somebody has very severe dementia and they have a little bit of gait problems, NPH is not as likely. So, is gait affected earlier than cognitive dysfunction, and is it affected to a more severe degree than cognitive dysfunction? And those two things clue me in to the possibility of NPH. You still obviously need to get imaging to make sure that they have large ventricles. One of the problems with imaging is large ventricles are present in so many different patients. Normal aging causes large ventricles. Obviously, many neurodegenerative disorders because of cerebral atrophy will cause large ventricles. And there's an often-used metric called as the events index, which is the ratio of the bitemporal horns- of the frontal horns of the lateral ventricles compared to the maximum diameter of the skull at that level. And if that ratio is more than 0.3, it's often used as a de facto measure of ventriculomegaly. What we've increasingly realized is that this ratio changes with age. And there's an excellent study that used the ADNI database that looked at how this ratio changes by age and sex. So, in fact, we now know that an 85-year-old woman who has an events index of 0.37 which would be considered ventriculomegaly is actually normal for age and sex. So, we need to start adopting these more modern age- and sex-appropriate age cutoffs of ventriculomegaly so as not to overcall everybody with big ventricles as having possible NPH.

Dr Jones: That's very helpful. And I do want to come back to this challenge that we've seen in our field of overdiagnosis and underdiagnosis. But I think most of us are familiar with the concept of how hydrocephalus could cause neurologic deficits. But what's the latest on the mechanism of NPH? Why do some patients get this and others don't?

Dr Moghekar: Very good question. I don't think we know for sure. And it for a long time we thought it was a plumbing issue. Right? And that's why shunts work. People thought it was impaired CSF absorption, but multiple studies have shown that not to be true. It's likely a combination of impaired cerebral blood flow, biomechanical factors like compliance, and even congenital factors that play a role in the pathogenesis of NPH. And yes, while putting in shunts likely drains CSF, putting in a shunt also definitely changes the compliance of the brain and affects blood flow to the subcortical regions of the brain. So, there are likely multiple mechanisms by which shunts benefit, and hence it's very likely that there's no single explanation for the pathogenesis of NPH.

Dr Jones: We explored this in a recent Continuum issue on dementia. Many patients who have cognitive impairment have co-pathologies, multiple different causes. I was interested to read in your article about the genetic risk profile for NPH. It's not something I'd ever really considered in a disorder that is predominantly seen in older patients. Tell us a little more about those genetic risks.

Dr Moghekar: Yeah, everyone is aware of the role genetics plays in congenital hydrocephalus, but until recently we were not aware that certain genetic factors may also be relevant to adult-onset normal pressure hydrocephalus. We've suspected this for a long time because nearly half of our patients who come to us to see us in clinic with NPH have head circumferences that are more than 90th percentile for height. And you know, that clearly indicates that this started shortly at the time after birth or soon afterwards. So, we've suspected for a long time that genetic factors play a role, but for a long time there were not enough large studies or well-conducted studies. But recently studies out of Japan and the US have shown mutations in genes like CF43 and CWH43 are disproportionately increased in patients with NPH. So, we are discovering increasingly that there are genetic factors that underlie even adult onset in patients. There are many more waiting to be discovered.

Dr Jones: Really fascinating. And obviously getting more insight into the risk and mechanisms would be helpful in identifying these patients potentially earlier. And another thing that I learned in your article that I thought was really interesting, and maybe you can tell us more about it, is the association between normal pressure hydrocephalus and the observation of cervical spinal stenosis, many of whom require decompression. What's behind that association, do you think?

Dr Moghekar: That's a very interesting study that was actually done at your institution, at Mayo Clinic, that showed this association. You know, as we all get older, you know, the incidence of cervical stenosis due to osteoarthritis goes up, but the incidence of significant, clinically significant cervical stenosis in the NPH population was much higher than what we would have expected. Whether this is merely an association in a vulnerable population or is it actually causal is not known and will need further study.

Dr Jones: It's interesting to speculate, does that stenosis affect the flow of CSF and somehow predispose to a- again, maybe a partial degree for some patients?

Dr Moghekar: Yeah, which goes back to the possible hydrodynamic theory of normal pressure hydrocephalus; you know, if it's obstructing normal CSF flow, you know, are the hydrodynamics affected in the brain that in turn could lead to the development of hydrocephalus.

Dr Jones: One of the things I really enjoyed about your article, Abhay, was the very strong clinical focus, right? We can't just take an isolated biomarker or radiographic feature and rely on that, right? We really do need to have clinical suspicion, clinical judgment. And I think most of our listeners who've been in practice are familiar with the use and the importance of the large-volume lumbar puncture to determine who may have, and by exclusion not have, NPH, and then who might respond to CSF diversion. And I think those of us who have been in this situation are also familiar with the scenario where you think someone may have NPH and you do a large-volume lumbar puncture and they feel better, but you can't objectively see a difference. How do you make that test useful and objective in your practice? What do you do?

Dr Moghekar: Yeah, it's a huge challenge in getting this objective assessment done carefully because you have to remember, you know, subconsciously you're telling the patients, I think you have NPH. I'm going to do this spinal tap, and if you walk better afterwards, you're going to get a shunt and you're going to be cured. And you can imagine the huge placebo response that can elicit in our subjects. So, we always like to see, definitely, did the patient subjectively feel better? Because yes, that's an important metric to consider because we want them to feel better. But we also wanted to be grounded in objective truths. And for that, we need to do different tests of speed, balance and endurance. Not everyone has the resources to do this, but I think it's important to test different domains. Just like for cognition, you know, we just don't test memory, right? We test executive function, language, visuospatial function. Similarly, walking is not just walking, right? It's gait speed, it's balance, and it's endurance. So, you need to ideally test at least most of these different domains for gait and you need to have some kind of clear criteria as to how are you going to define improvement. You know, is a 5% improvement, is a 10% improvement in gait, enough? Is 20%? Where is that cutoff? And as a field, we've not done a great job of coming up with standardized criteria for this. And it varies currently, the practice varies quite significantly from center to center at the current time.

Dr Jones: So, one of the nice things you had in your article was helpful tips to be objective if you're in a lower-resource setting. For you, this isn't a common scenario that someone encounters in their practice as opposed to a center that maybe does a large volume of these. What are some relatively straightforward objective measures that a neurologist or someone else might use to determine if someone is improving after a large-volume LP?

Dr Moghekar: Yeah, excellent question, Dr Jones, and very practically relevant too. So, you need to at least assess two of the domains that are most affected. One is speed and one is balance. You know, these patients fall ultimately, right, if you don't treat them correctly. In terms of speed, there are two very simple tests that anybody can do within a couple of minutes. One is the timed "up-and-go" test. It's a test that's even recommended by the CDC. It correlates very well with faults and disability and it can be done in any clinic. You just need about ten feet of space and a chair and a stopwatch, and it takes about a minute or slightly more to do that test. And there are objective age-associated norms for the timed up-and-go test, so it's easy to know if your patient is normal or not. The same thing goes for the 10-meter walk test. You do need a slightly longer walkway, but it's a fairly easy and well-standardized test. So, you can do one of those two; you don't need to do both of them. And for balance, you can do the 30-second "sit-to-stand"; and it's literally, again, 30 seconds. You need a chair, and you need somebody to watch the patient and see how many times they can sit up and stand up from a seated position. Then again, good normative data for that. If you want to be a little more sophisticated, you can do the 4-stage balance test. So, I think these are tests that don't add too much time to your daily assessment and can be done with even trained medical assistants in any clinic. And you don't need a trained physical therapist to do these assessments.

Dr Jones: Very practical. And again, something that is pretty easily deployed, something we do before and then after the LP. I did see you mentioned in your article the dual timed up-and-go test where it's a simultaneous gait and executive function test. And I've got to be honest with you, Dr Moghekar, I was a little worried if I would pass that test, but that may be beyond the scope of our time today. Actually, how do you do that? How do you do the simultaneous cognitive assessment?

Dr Moghekar: So, we asked them to count back from 100, subtracting 3. And we do it particularly in patients who are mildly impaired right? So, if they're already walking really good, but then you give them a cognitive stressor, you know, that will slow them down. So, we reserve it for patients who are high-performing.

Dr Jones: That's fantastic. I'm probably aging myself a little here. I have noticed in my career, a little bit of a pendulum swing in terms of the recognition or acceptance of the prevalence of normal pressure hydrocephalus. I recall when I was a resident, many, many people that we saw in clinic had normal pressure hydrocephalus. Then it seemed for a while that it really faded into the background and was much less discussed and much less recognized and diagnosed, and less treated. And now that pendulum seems to have swung back the other way. What's behind that from your perspective?

Dr Moghekar: It's an interesting backstory to all of this. When the first article about NPH was published in the Newman Journal of Medicine, it was actually a combined article with both neurologists and neurosurgeons on it. They did describe it as a treatable dementia. And what that did is it opened up the floodgates so that everybody with any kind of dementia started getting shunts left, right, and center. And back then, shunts were not programmable. There were no antibiotic impregnated catheters. So, the incidence of subdural hematomas and shunt-related infections was very high. In fact, one of our esteemed neurologists back then, Houston Merritt, wrote a scathing editorial that Victor and Adam should lose their professorships for writing such an article because the outcomes of these patients were so bad. So, for a very long period of time, neurologists stopped seeing these patients and stopped believing in NPH as a separate entity. And it became the domain of neurosurgeons for over two or three decades, until more recently when randomized trials started being done early on out of Europe. And now there's a big NIH study going on in the US, and these studies showed, in fact, that NPH exists as a true, distinct entity. And finally, neurologists have started getting more interested in the science and understanding the pathophysiology and taking care of these patients compared to the past.

Dr Jones: That's really helpful context. And I guess that maybe isn't rare when you have a disorder that doesn't have a simple, straightforward biomarker and is complex in terms of the tests you need to do to support the diagnosis, and the treatment itself is somewhat invasive. So, when you talk to your patients, Dr Moghekar, and you've established the diagnosis and have recommended them for CSF diversion, what do you tell them? And the reason I ask is that you mentioned before we started recording, you had a patient who had a shunt placed and responded well, but continued to respond over time. Tell us a little bit more about what our patients can expect if they do have CSF diversion?

Dr Moghekar: When we do the spinal tap and they meet our criteria for improvement and they go on to have a shunt, we tell them that we expect gait improvement definitely, but cognitive improvement may not happen in everyone depending on what time, you know, they showed up for their assessment and intervention. But we definitely expect gait improvement. And we tell them that the minimum gait improvement we can expect is the same degree of improvement they had after their large-volume lumbar puncture, but it can be even more. And as the brain remodels, as the hydrodynamics adapt to these shunts… so, we have patients who continue to improve one year, two years, and even three years into the course of the intervention. So, we're, you know, hopeful. At the same time, we want to be realistic. This is the same population that's at risk for developing neurodegenerative disorders related to aging. So not a small fraction of our patients will also have Alzheimer's disease, for example, or go on to develop Lewy body dementia. And it's the role of the neurologist to pick up on these comorbid conditions. And that's why it's important for us to keep following these patients and not leave them just to the neurosurgeon to follow up.

Dr Jones: And what a great note to end on, Dr Moghekar. And again, I want to thank you for joining us, and thank you for such a wonderful discussion and such a fantastic article on the clinical diagnosis of normal pressure hydrocephalus. I learned a lot reading the article, and I learned a lot more today just in the conversation with you. So, thank you for being with us.

Dr Moghekar: Happy to do that, Dr Jones. It was a pleasure.

Dr Jones: Again, we've been speaking with Dr Abhay Moghekar, author of a wonderful article on the clinical features and diagnosis of NPH in Continuum's first-ever issue dedicated to disorders of CSF dynamics. 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

Idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH), a condition of increased intracranial pressure (ICP), causes debilitating headaches and, in some, visual loss. The visual defects are often in the periphery and not appreciated by the patient until advanced; therefore, monitoring visual function with serial examinations and visual fields is essential.

In this episode, Kait Nevel, MD speaks with John J. Chen, MD, PhD, and Susan P. Mollan, MBChB, PhD, FRCOphth, authors of the article "Treatment and Monitoring of Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension" in the Continuum® June 2025 Disorders of CSF Dynamics issue.

Dr. Nevel is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a neurologist and neuro-oncologist at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, Indiana.

Dr. Chen is a professor of ophthalmology and neurology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

Dr. Mollan is an honorary professor of metabolism and systems science in the department of neuro-ophthalmology at University Hospitals Birmingham in Birmingham, United Kingdom.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Treatment and Monitoring of Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension

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

Guests: @chenmayo, @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 Kate Nevel. Today, I'm interviewing Drs John Chen and Susan Mollan about their article on treatment and monitoring of idiopathic intracranial hypertension, which appears in the June 2025 Continuum issue on disorders of CSF dynamics. Drs Chen and Mollan, welcome to the podcast. And please, could you introduce yourselves to the audience?

Dr Chen: Hello, everyone. I'm John Chen, one of the neuro-ophthalmologists at the Mayo Clinic. Thanks for having us here.

Dr Mollan: Yeah, it's great to be with you here. I'm Susan Mollan. I'm a consultant neuro-ophthalmologist in Birmingham, England.

Dr Nevel: Wonderful. So great to have you both here today, and our listeners. To start us off, talking about your article, can you share with us what you think is the most important takeaway from your article for the practicing neurologist out there?

Dr Chen: Yeah, so our article talked about the treatment and monitoring of IIH. And I think one takeaway point is, IIH is becoming much more prevalent now that there's this worldwide obesity epidemic with obesity having- essentially being the largest risk factor for IIH other than female. It's really important to monitor vision because vision loss is often peripheral vision loss at first, which the patient may be completely unaware of. And so, it's important to pair up with an ophthalmologist so you can monitor the papilledema of the visual fields and make sure they don't get permanent vision loss. And in the article, we also talk about- there's been changes in the treatment of severe IIH, where traditionally, we used VP shunts; but there's been a trend toward using more venous sinus stenting in addition to the traditional surgeries.

Dr Nevel: Great, thank you. I think probably most of our listeners or a lot of neurologists out there have a pretty good understanding of kind of the basics of the IIH. But can you kind of just go over a few key characteristics of IIH, and maybe some things that are less commonly known or things that are maybe just been kind of better understood over the past decade, perhaps?

Dr Mollan: Yes, certainly. I think, as Dr Chen said, it's because this condition is becoming more prevalent, people recognize it. I think it's- we like to go back to the diagnostic criteria so that we're making a very accurate diagnosis. So, the patients may come in to the emergency room with, say, papilledema that's been identified elsewhere or crashing headaches. And it's important to go through that sort of diagnostic pathway, taking a blood pressure, taking a full blood count to make sure the patient is anemic, and then moving forward with that confirmation of papilledema into urgent neuroimaging, whether it's CT or MRI, but including venography to exclude a venous sinus thrombosis. And then if you have no structural lesion that's causing the raised ICP, it's moving forward with your lumbar puncture and carefully checking those pressures. But the patients may not only have crashing headache, they often have pulsatile tinnitus and neck pain. I think some of the features that we're now recognizing is the systemic metabolic effects that are unique to IIH. And so, there's an increased risk of cardiometabolic disease that's over and above what is conferred by obesity. Also, our patients have a sort of maternal health burden where they get impaired fertility, gestational diabetes and preeclampsia. And there's also an associated mental health burden, amongst other things. So we're really starting to understand the spectrum of the disease a bit more.

Dr Nevel: Yeah, thank you for that. And that really struck me in your article, how important it is to be aware of those things so that we're making sure that we're managing our whole patient and connecting them with the appropriate providers for some of those other issues that may be associated. For the practicing neurologist out there without all the neuro-ophthalmology equipment, if you will, what should our bedside exam focus on to help us get maybe an early but accurate picture of the patient's visual function when we suspect IIH to be at play, perhaps before they can get in with the neuro-ophthalmologist?

Dr Chen: Yeah, I think at the bedside you can still check visual acuity and confrontational visual fields, you know, with finger counting. Of course, you have to know that those are, kind of, crude kind of ways of screening. With papilledema, oftentimes the visual acuity is intact. And the confrontational visual fields aren't as sensitive as automated perimetry. Another important thing will be to do your direct ophthalmoscope and look at the amount of papilledema. If it's grade one or two papilledema on the more mild side, it's actually not vision threatening. It's the higher degrees of papilledema that can cause rapid vision loss. And so, if you look in and you see grade one papilledema, obviously you need to do the full workup, the MRI, MRV, lumbar puncture. But in terms of rapidly getting to an ophthalmologist to screen for vision loss, it's not going to be as important because you're not going to have vision loss at that low grade. If you look in and you see this rip-roaring papilledema, grade five papilledema, that patient is going to be at very severe risk of vision loss. So, I think that exam, looking at the optic nerve can be very helpful. And of course, talking to the patient about symptoms; is there decreased vision Is there double vision from a sixth nerve palsy? Are there transient visual obscurations which would indicate at least a higher degree of papilledema? That'd be helpful as well.

Dr Nevel: Great, thank you. And when the patient does get in with a neuro-ophthalmologist, you talk in your article and, of course, in clinical practice, how OCT testing is important to monitor in this condition. Can you provide for the listeners the definition of OCT and how it plays a role in monitoring patients with IIH?

Dr Mollan: Sure. So, OCT is short for optical coherence tomography imaging, and really the eye has been at the forefront of OCT alone. Our sort of cardiology colleagues are catching up on the imaging of blood vessels. But what it allows us to do is give us really good cross-sectional, anatomical-level changes that we can see both in the retina and also at the optic nerve head. And it gives us some really good measurements. It's not so good at sort of saying, is this definitely papilledema or not? That sort of lower end of disc elevation. But it is very good at ruling out what we call the pseudopapilledema. So, things like drusens or these other little masses we find underneath the optic nerve head. But in terms of monitoring, because we can longitudinally take these images and the reproducibility is pretty good at the optic nerve head, it allows us to see whether there's direct changes: either the papilledema getting worse or the papilledema getting better at the optic nerve head. It also gives us some indication of what's going on in the ganglion cell layer complex. And that can be helpful when we're thinking about sort of looking at structure versus function. So, ophthalmologists in general, we love OCT; and we spend much more time nowadays looking at the OCT than we really do the back of the eye. And it's just become critical for patients with papilledema to be able to be very accurate from visit to visit to see what's changing.

Dr Nevel: How do you determine how frequently somebody needs to see the neuro-ophthalmologist with IIH and how often they need that OCT evaluation?

Dr Chen: Once the diagnosis of IIH is made, how often they need to be seen and how frequent they need to be seen depends on the degree of papilledema. And again, OCT is really nice. You can quantify it and then different providers can actually use the same OCT numbers, which is super helpful. But again, if it's grade three papilledema or higher, or article thickness of 200 or higher, I tend to follow them a little bit more closely, trying to treat them more aggressively. Try to get the papilledema down into a safer zone. If it's grade one or two papilledema, we see them less frequently. So, my first visit might be three months out. They come with grade five papilledema, I'm seeing them within a few days to make sure that's papilledema's come down quickly because we're trying to decide, are they going to need surgery or not?

Dr Nevel: Yeah, great. And that's a nice segue into talking a little bit about how we treat patients with IIH after the diagnosis is confirmed. And I'd like to just point out you have a very lovely figure in your article---Figure 5-6,---that I'd like to direct our listeners to read your article and check out that figure, which is kind of an algorithm on how we think about the various treatment options for patients who have IIH, which seems to rely a lot on the degree of presence of papilledema and the presence of vision disturbance. Could you maybe walk us through a little bit about how you think about the different treatment options for patients with IIH and when more urgent surgical intervention might be indicated?

Dr Mollan: Yeah, sure. We always find it quite hard in any medical specialty to write these kind of flow diagrams because it's really an individual we're looking at. But these are kind of what we'd say is "broad brushstrokes" into those patients that we worry about, sort of, red disease in those patients, more amber disease. Now obviously, even those patients that may not have severe papilledema, they may have crashing headaches. So, they may be an urgent referral themselves because of that. And so, it's nice to try and work out which end of the spectrum you're working with. If we think of the papilledema, Dr Chen's already laid out the sort of lower end of the prison's scale---our grades one, our grades two---that we're less anxious about. And those patients, we would definitely be having discussions about medical management, which includes acetazolamide therapy; but also thinking about weight management. And it may well be that we talk a little bit further about weight management, but I think it's helpful to sort of coach those conversations after you've made a definite diagnosis. And then laying out the risk that's caused, potentially, the IIH in an individual. And then having a sort of open conversation with them about what changes they can have in their lifestyle alongside thinking about medical therapy. There's some patients with very low levels of papilledema that we decide not to put on medicines initially.

As patients progress up that papilledema grade, we're definitely thinking about medical therapy. And our first line from the IIH treatment trial would be using acetazolamide, but we need to be thinking about using appropriate dosing. So, a lot of the patients that I see can be sent to me with very low doses that may be inappropriate for that person. In the IIHTT they used up to four grams daily in a divided dose. And you do need to counsel your patients when you're putting them on acetazolamide because of the side effects. You've got quite a nice table in this article about the side effects. I think if you get the patient on board, that they understand that they will experience side effects, that is helpful because they will expect it, and then possibly tolerate it a bit better. Moving through to that area where we're more anxious, that visual-threatening papilledema. As Dr Chen said, it's sort of like you look in and it's sort of "blood and thunder" in there. And you need to be getting on and encouraging the ophthalmologist to get a formal assessment of the visual field. It's very difficult to determine exactly the level at which- and we talk about the mean deviation in a lot of our research studies. But in general, it's a combination of things: the patient's journey to get to you, their symptoms, what's going on with the visual field, but what's also happening at the OCT. So, we look in and we see that fluid is seeping towards the fovea. We get very anxious, and those patients may not even have enough time for a rapid escalation of acetazolamide. It may well be at the first presentation, which we would term, like, fulminant; that we'd be thinking about surgical intervention. And I think before I stop, the other thing to say is, the surgical landscape is really changing. So, we're having some good studies coming out in terms of stenting. And so, there is a sort of bracket where it may well be that we are thinking about neuroradiological intervention in an earlier case. They may not quite be at that visual-threatening stage, but they may be resistant to medical treatments.

Dr Nevel: Thank you for that. What do you think is a potential pitfall or a mistake to avoid, if you will, in the management of patients with IIH?

Dr Chen: I think it's- in terms of pitfalls, I think the potential pitfalls I've seen are essentially patients where we don't necessarily create a good patient physician relationship. Where they don't have buy-ins on the treatment, they don't have buy-ins to come back, and they're lost to follow-up. And these patients can be dangerous, because they could have vision threatening papilledema and if not getting the appropriate treatment---and if they're not monitoring the vision---this can lead to poor outcomes. So, I've definitely seen that happen. As Dr Mollan said, you really have to tell them about the side effects from the medications. If you just take acetazolamide, letting them know the paresthesias and the changes in taste and some of these other side effects, they're going to immediately stop the medication. Again, and these medications do work, proven in the IIH treatment trial. So again, I think that patient-physician relationship is very important to make sure they have appropriate follow up.

Dr Nevel: The topic of weight loss in this patient population can be tricky, and I know I talked with Susie in a prior interview about how to approach this topic with our patients in a sensitive and compassionate manner. Once this topic is broached, I find many patients are looking for advice on strategies for weight loss, or potentially medications or other interventions. How do you prioritize or think about the different weight loss strategies or treatments with your patients, and how do you think about the way that you recommend these different treatments or not?

Dr Mollan: Yeah. I think that's a really great question because we sort of stray here into a specialty that we have not been trained in. One thing I definitely ask my patients: if they've been on a weight loss journey before, and what's worked for them and what's not worked for them. And within our different healthcare systems, we have access to different tiers of weight management approaches. But for the person sitting in front of me, that possibly there may be a long journey to access more professional care, it's about understanding. iIs there things that are free, such as, we have some apps in the National Health Service which are weight management applications where they can actually just start putting in their calories, their daily calorie intake. And those apps can be quite helpful and guiding in terms of targeting areas, but also informing the patient of what types of foods to avoid in their diet and what types of foods to include in their diet. And with some of the programs that are completely complementary, they also sometimes add on things about exercise. But I think it is a really difficult thing to manage as, say, an ophthalmologist or a neurologist, mainly because it's not our area of expertise. And I think we've all got to find, in our local hospitals and healthcare systems, those pathways where the patients may be able to access nutritional support, and sort of behavioral lifestyle therapy support, all the way through to the new medications for weight loss; and also for some people, bariatric surgery pathways. It's a tricky topic.

Dr Nevel: So how should we counsel our patients about what to expect in the future in terms of visual outcomes?

Dr Chen: I think a lot of that depends on the degree of papilledema when they present. If a patient comes in with grade five papilledema, that fulminant IIH that Dr Mollan had mentioned, these patients can have very severe vision loss. And even if we treat them very aggressively with high-dose medications and urgent surgical interventions, sometimes they can have permanent vision loss. And so, we counsel them that, you know, there's a strong chance that they're going to have a good amount of vision loss. But some patients, we're very surprised and we get a lot of vision back. So, we kind of set expectations, but we're cautiously optimistic that we can get vision back. If a patient presents with more mild papilledema like grade one or two papilledema, they're most likely not going to have any permanent vision loss as long as we're treating them, we're monitoring their vision, they're coming to their follow-ups. They tend to do very well from a vision perspective.

Dr Nevel: That's great, thank you. And you know, ties into what you said earlier about really making sure that, you know, we create good- as with any patient, but good physician-patient relationships so that they, you know, trust us and they come to follow up so we can really monitor their vision appropriately. What do you think is going on in research in this area that's exciting? What do you think one of the next breakthroughs or thing that we need to understand the most about treatment and monitoring of IIH?

Dr Chen: I think surgically, venous sinus stenting is going to probably take over the bulk of surgeries. We still need that randomized clinical trial, but we have some amazing outcomes with venous sinus stenting. And there's many efforts on randomized clinical trials for venous sinus stenting. So we'll have those results soon. From a medical standpoint, Dr Mollan can actually say, actually, more about this.

Dr Mollan: I completely agree. The GLP-1 receptor agonists, the twofold prong approach: one is the weight loss where these patients, you know, h

Idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) is characterized by symptoms and signs of unexplained elevated intracranial pressure (ICP) in an alert and awake patient. The condition has potentially devastating effects on vision, headache burden, increased cardiovascular disease risk, sleep disturbance, and depression.

In this episode, Teshamae Monteith, MD, FAAN speaks with Aileen A. Antonio, MD, FAAN, author of the article "Clinical Features and Diagnosis of Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension" in the Continuum® June 2025 Disorders of CSF Dynamics 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. Antonio is an associate program director of the Hauenstein Neurosciences Residency Program at Trinity Health Grand Rapids and an assistant clinical professor at the Michigan State University College of Osteopathic Medicine in Lansang, Michigan.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Clinical Features and Diagnosis of Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension

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: @aiee_antonio

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: Hi, this is Dr Teshamae Monteith. Today I'm interviewing Dr Aileen Antonio about her article on clinical features and diagnosis of idiopathic intracranial hypertension, which appears in the June 2025 Continuum issue on disorders of CSF dynamics. Hi, how are you?

Dr Antonio: Hi, good afternoon.

Dr Monteith: Thank you for being on the podcast.

Dr Antonio: Thank you for inviting me, and it's such an honor to write for the Continuum.

Dr Monteith: So why don't you start off with introducing yourself?

Dr Antonio: So as mentioned, I'm Aileen Antonio. I am a neuro-ophthalmologist, dually trained in both ophthalmology and neurology. I'm practicing in Grand Rapids, Michigan Trinity Health, and I'm also the associate program director for our neurology residency program.

Dr Monteith: So, it sounds like the residents get a lot of neuro-ophthalmology by chance in your curriculum.

Dr Antonio: For sure. They do get fed that a lot.

Dr Monteith: So why don't you tell me what the objective of your article was?

Dr Antonio: Yes. So idiopathic intracranial hypertension, or IIH, is a condition where there's increased intracranial pressure, but without an obvious cause. And with this article, we want our readers---and our listeners right now---to recognize that the typical symptoms and learning about the IIH diagnostic criteria are key to avoiding errors, overdiagnosis, or sometimes even misdiagnosis or underdiagnosis. Thus, we help make the most of our healthcare resources. Early diagnosis and management are crucial to prevent disability from intractable headaches or even vision loss, and it's also important to know when to refer the patients to the appropriate specialists early on.

Dr Monteith: So, it sounds like your central points are really getting that diagnosis early and managing the patients and knowing how to triage patients to reduce morbidity and complications. Is that correct?

Dr Antonio: That is correct and very succinct, yes.

Dr Monteith: And so, are there any more recent advances in the diagnosis of IIH?

Dr Antonio: Yes. And one of the tools that we've been using is what we call the optical coherence tomography. A lot of people, neurologists, physicians, PCP, ER doctors; how many among those physicians are well-versed in doing an eye exam, looking at the optic disc? And this is a great tool because it is noninvasive, it is high resolution imaging technique that allows us to look at the optic nerve without even dilating the eye. And we can measure that retinal nerve fiber layer, or RNFL; and that helps us quantify the swelling that is visible or inherent in that optic nerve. And we can even follow that and monitor that over time. So, this gives us another way of looking at their vision and getting that insight as to how healthy is their vision still, along with the other formal visual tests that we do, including perimetry or visual field testing. And then all of these help in catching potentially early changes, early worsening, that may happen; and then we can intervene more easily.

Dr Monteith: Great. So, it sounds like there's a lot of benefits to this newer technology for our patients.

Dr Antonio: That is correct.

Dr Monteith: So, I read in the article about the increased incidence of IIH, and I have to say that I completely agree with you because I'm seeing so much of it in my clinic, even as a headache specialist. And I had a talk with a colleague who said that the incidence of SIH and IIH are similar. And I was like, there's no way. Because I see, I can see several people with IIH just in one day. That's not uncommon. So, tell me what your thoughts are on the incidence, the rising incidence of IIH; and we understand that it's the condition associated with obesity, but it sounds like you have some other underlying drivers of this problem.

Dr Antonio: Yes, that is correct. So, as you mentioned, IIH tends to affect women of childbearing age with obesity. And it's interesting because as you've seen that trend, we see more of these IIH cases recently, which seem to correlate with that rising rate of obesity. And the other thing, too, is that this trend can readily add to the burden of managing IIH, because not only are we dealing with the headaches or the potential loss of vision, but also it adds to the burden of healthcare costs because of the other potential comorbidities that may come with it, like cardiovascular risk factors, PCOS, and sleep apnea.

Dr Monteith: So why don't we just talk about the diagnosis of IIH?

Dr Antonio: IIH, idiopathic intracranial hypertension, is also called pseudotumor cerebri. It's essentially a condition where a person experiences increased intracranial pressure, but without any obvious cause. And the tricky part is that the patients, they're usually fully awake and alert. So, there's no obvious tumor, brain tumor or injury that causes the increased ICP. It's really, really important to rule out other conditions that might cause these similar symptoms; again, like brain tumors or even the cerebral venous sinus thrombosis. Many patients will have headaches or visual disturbances like transient visual obscurations---we call them TVOs---or double vision or diplopia. The diplopia is usually related to a sixth nerve palsy or an abducens palsy. Some may also experience some back pain or what we call pulsatile tinnitus, which is that pulse synchronous ringing in their ears. The biggest sign that we see in the clinic would be that papilledema; and papilledema is a term that we only use, specifically use, for those optic nerve edema changes that is only associated with increased intracranial pressure. So, performing of endoscopy and good eye exam is crucial in these patients. We usually use the modified Dandy criteria to diagnose IIH. And again, I cannot emphasize too much that it's really important to rule out other secondary causes to that increased intracranial pressure. So, after that thorough neurologic and eye evaluation with neuroimaging, we do a lumbar puncture to measure the opening pressure and to analyze the cerebrospinal fluid.

Dr Monteith: One thing I learned from your article, really just kind of seeing all of the symptoms that you mentioned, the radicular pain, but also- and I think I've seen some papers on this, the cognitive dysfunction associated with IIH. So, it's a broader symptom complex I think than people realize.

Dr Antonio: That is correct.

Dr Monteith: So, you mentioned TVOs. Tell me, you know, if I was a patient, how would you try and elicit that from me?

Dr Antonio: So, I would usually just ask the patient, while you're sitting down just watching TV---some of my patients are even driving as this happens---they would suddenly have these episodes of blacking out of vision, graying out of vision, vision loss, or blurred vision that would just happen, from seconds to less than a minute, usually. And they can happen in one eye or the other eye or both eyes, and even multiple times a day. I had a patient, it was happening 50 times a day for her. It's important to note that there is no pain associated with it most of the time. The other thing too is that it's different from the aura that patients with migraines would have, because those auras are usually scintillating and would have what we call the positive phenomena: the flashing lights, the iridescence, and even the fortification that they see in their vision. So definitely TVOs are not the migraine auras. Sometimes the TVOs can also be triggered by sudden changes in head positions or even a change in posture, like standing up quickly. The difference, though, between that and, like, the graying out of vision or the tunneling vision associated with orthostatic hypotension, is that the orthostatic hypotension would also have that feeling of lightheadedness and dizziness that would come with it.

Dr Monteith: Great. So, if someone feels lightheaded, less likely to be a TVO if they're bending down and they have that grain of vision.

Dr Antonio: That is correct.

Dr Monteith: Definitely see patients like that in clinic. And if they have fluoride IIH, I'm like, I'll call it a TVO; if they don't, I'm like, it's probably more likely to be dizziness-related. And then we also have patient migraines that have blurriness that's nonspecific, not necessarily associated with aura. But I think in those patients, it's usually not seconds long, it's usually probably longer episodes of blurriness. Would you agree there, or…?

Dr Antonio: I would agree there, and usually the visual aura would precede the headache that is very characteristic of their migraine, very stereotypical for their migraines. And then it would dissipate slowly over time as well. With TVOs, they're brisk and would not last, usually, more than a minute.

Dr Monteith: So, why don't we talk about routine imaging? Obviously, ordering an MRI, and I read also getting an MRV is important.

Dr Antonio: It is very important because, one: I would say IIH is also a diagnosis of exclusion. We need to make sure that the increased ICP is not because of a brain tumor or not because of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis. So, it's important to get the MRI of the brain as well as the MRV of the head.

Dr Monteith: Do you do that for all patients' MRV, and how often do you add on an orbital study?

Dr Antonio: I usually do not add on an orbital study because it's not really going to change my management at that point. I really get that MRI of the brain. Now the MRV, for most of my patients, I would order it already just because the population that I see, I don't want to lose them. And sometimes it's that follow-up, and that is the difficult part; and it's an easy add on to the study that I'm going to order. Again, it depends with the patient population that you have as well, and of course the other symptoms that may come with it.

Dr Monteith: So, why don't we talk a little bit about CSF reading and how these set values, because we get people that have readings of 250 millimeters of water quite frequently and very nonspecific, questionable IIH. And so, talk to me about the set value.

Dr Antonio: Right. So, the modified Dandy criteria has shown that, again, we consider intracranial pressure to be elevated for adults if it's above 250 millimeters water; and then for kids if it's above 280 millimeters of water. Knowing that these are taken in the left lateral decubitus position, and assuming also that the patients were awake and not sedated during the measurement of the CSF pressure. The important thing to know about that is, sometimes when we get LPs under fluoroscopy or under sedation, then these can cause false elevation because of the hypercapnia that elevated carbon dioxide, and then the hypoventilation that happens when a patient is under sedation.

Dr Monteith: You know, sometimes you see people with opening pressures a little bit higher than 25 and they're asymptomatic. Well, the problem with these opening pressure values is that they can vary somewhat even across the day. People around 25, you can be normal, have no symptoms, and have opening pressure around 25- or 250; and so, I'm just asking about your approach to the CSF values.

Dr Antonio: So again, at the end of the day, what's important is putting everything together. It's the gestalt of how we look at the patient. I actually had an attending tell me that there is no patient that read the medical textbook. So, the, the important thing, again, is putting everything together. And what I've also seen is that some patients would tell me, oh, I had an opening pressure of 50. Does that mean I'm in a dire situation? And they're so worried and they just attach to numbers. And for me, what's important would be, what are your symptoms? Is your headache, right, really bad, intractable? Number two: are you losing vision, or are you at that cusp where your optic nerve swelling or papilledema is so severe that it may soon lead to vision loss? So, putting all of these together and then getting the neuroimaging, getting the LP. I tell my residents it's like icing on the cake. We know already what we're dealing with, but then when we get that confirmation of that number… and sometimes it's borderline, but this is the art of neurology. This is the art of medicine and putting everything together and making sure that we care and manage it accordingly.

Dr Monteith: Let's talk a little bit about IIH without papilledema.

Dr Antonio: So, let's backtrack. So, when a patient will fit most of the modified Dandy criteria for IIH, but they don't have the papilledema or they don't have abducens palsy, the diagnosis then becomes tricky. And in these kinds of cases, Dr Friedman and her colleagues, when they did research on this, suggested that we might consider the diagnosis of IIH. And she calls this idiopathic intracranial hypertension without papilledema, IIHWOP. They say that if they meet the other criteria for modified Dandy but show at least three typical findings on MRI---so that flattening of the posterior globe, the tortuosity of the optic nerves, the empty sella or the partially empty sella, and even the narrowing of the transverse venous sinuses---so if you have three of these, then potentially you can call these cases as idiopathic intracranial hypertension without papilledema.

Dr Monteith: Plus, the opening pressure elevation. I think that's key, right? Getting that as well.

Dr Antonio: Yes. Sometimes IIHWOP may still be a gray area. It's a debate even among neuro-ophthalmologists, and I bet even among the headache specialists.

Dr Monteith: Well, I know that I've had some of these conversations, and it's clear that people think this is very much overdiagnosed. So, that's why I wanted to plug in the LP with that as well.

Dr Antonio: Right. And again, we have not seen yet whether is, this a spectrum, right? Of that same disease just manifesting differently, or are they just sharing a same pathway and then diverging? But what I want to emphasize also is that the treatment trials that we've had for IIH do not include IIHWOP patients.

Dr Monteith: That is an important one. So why don't you wrap this up and tell our listeners what you want them to know? Now's the time.

Dr Antonio: So, the- again, with IIH, with idiopathic intracranial hypertension, what is important is that we diagnose these patients early. And I think that some of the issues that come into play in dealing with these patients with IIH is that, one: we may have anchoring bias. Just because we see a female with obesity, of reproductive age, with intractable headaches, it does not always mean that what we're dealing with is IIH. The other thing, too, is that your tools are already available to you in your clinic in diagnosing IIH, short of the opening pressure when you get the lumbar puncture. And I need to emphasize the importance of doing your own fundoscopy and looking for that papilledema in these patients who present to you with intractable headaches or abducens palsy. What I want people to remember is that idiopathic intracranial hypertension is not optic nerve sheath distension. So, these are the stuff that you see on neuroimaging incidentally, not because you sent them, because they have papilledema, or because they have new headaches and other symptoms like that. And the important thing is doing your exam and looking at your patients.

Dr Monteith: Today, I've been interviewing Dr Aileen Antonio about her article on clinical features and diagnosis of idiopathic intracranial hypertension, which appears in the most recent issue of Continuum on disorders of CSF dynamics. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues, and thank you to our listeners for joining today. Thank you again.

Dr Antonio: Thank you.

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.

Recently, sophisticated myelographic techniques to precisely subtype and localize CSF leaks have been developed and refined. These techniques improve the detection of various types of CSF leaks thereby enabling targeted therapies.

In this episode, Katie Grouse, MD, FAAN, speaks with Ajay A. Madhavan, MD, author of the article "Radiographic Evaluation of Spontaneous Intracranial Hypotension" in the Continuum® June 2025 Disorders of CSF Dynamics 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. Madhavan is assistant professor of radiology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Radiographic Evaluation of Spontaneous Intracranial Hypotension

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. 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 Ajay Madhavan about his article on Radiographic Evaluation of Spontaneous Intracranial Hypotension, which he wrote with Dr Levi Chazen. This article appears in the June 2025 Continuum issue on disorders of CSF dynamics. Welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to our audience.

Dr Madhavan: Hi, thanks a lot, Katie. Yeah, so I'm Ajay Madhaven. I'm a neuroradiologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. I did all my training here, so, I've been here for a long time. And I have a lot of interest in spinal CSF leaks, and I do a lot of that work. And so I'm really excited to be talking about this article with you.

Dr Grouse: I'm really excited too. And in fact, it's such a pleasure to have you here talking today on this topic. I know a lot's changed in this field, and I'm sure many of our listeners are really interested in learning about the developments and imaging techniques to improve detection and treatment of CSF leaks, especially since maybe we've learned about this in training. I want to start by asking you what you think is the most important takeaway from your article.

Dr Madhavan: Yeah, that's a great question. I think---and you kind of already alluded to it---I think the main thing is, I hope people recognize that this field has really changed a lot in the last five to ten years, through a lot of multi-institutional collaboration and also collaboration between different specialties. We've learned a lot about different types of spinal CSF leaks, how we can recognize the disease, particularly the types of myelography that we need to be using to accurately localize and treat these leaks. Those are the things that have really evolved in the last five to ten years, and they've really helped us improve these patients' lives.

Dr Grouse: Can you remind us of the different common types of spinal leaks that can cause spontaneous intracranial hypotension?

Dr Madhavan: Yeah, so there are a number of different spinal CSF leaks, types, and I would say the three most common ones that really most people should try to be aware of and cognizant of are: first, ventral dural tears. So those are, like, just physical holes in the dura. And they're usually caused by little bone spurs that come from the vertebral columns. So, they're often patients who have some degenerative changes in their spine. And those are really very common. Another type of spinal CSF leak that we commonly see is a lateral dural tear. So that's like the same thing in a slightly different location. So instead of being in the front, it's off to the side of the dura laterally. And so, it's also just a hole in the dura. And then the third and most recently discovered type of spinal CSF leak is a CSF-venous fistula. So those are direct connections between the subarachnoid space and little paraspinal vein. And it took us a long time to even realize that this was a real pathology. But now that it's been recognized, we've found that this is actually quite common. So those three types of leaks are probably the three most common that we see. And there's certainly others out there, but I would say over 90% of them fall into one of those three categories.

Dr Grouse: That's a great review, thank you. Just as another quick review, as we talk more about this topic, can you remind us of some of the most common or typical brain imaging findings that you'll see in cases of spontaneous intracranial hypotension?

Dr Madhavan: Yeah, absolutely. So, when you do a brain MRI in a patient who has spontaneous intracranial hypotension, you will usually, though not always, see typical brain MRI abnormalities. And I kind of think of those as falling into three different categories. So, the first one I think of is dural enhancement or thickening. So that's enlargement or engorgement of the dura, the pachymeninges, and enhancement on postgadolinium imaging. So, that's kind of the first category. The second is that, when you lose spinal fluid volume, other things often expand to take up the space. So, for example, you can get distension or enlargement of the dural venous sinuses, and sometimes you can also get subdural food collections or hematomas. They can arise spontaneously. And I kind of think of those as, you know, you, you've lost the cerebrospinal fluid volume and something else is kind of filling up the space. And then the third category is called brain sagging. And that's a constellation of findings where the posterior fossa structures and the pituitary gland in the cell have become abnormal because you've lost the fluid that normally cushions those structures and causes them to float up. For example, the brain stem will sag down, the distance between the mammillary body and the ponds may become reduced. The suprasellar cistern space may be reduced such that the optic chiasm becomes very close to the pituitary gland, and the prepontine cistern may also become reduced in size. And there are various measurements that can be used to determine whether something is subtly abnormal. But just generally speaking, those are really the three categories of brain MRI abnormalities you'll see.

Dr Grouse: That was a great review. And of course, I think in many times when we are thinking about or suspecting this diagnosis, we may be lucky to find those imaging findings to reinforce a diagnosis. Because as it turns out, after reading your article, I was really surprised to find out that in as many as 19% of cases we actually see normal brain imaging, which really was a surprise to me, I have to say. And I think that this really encompasses why spontaneous intercranial hypotension is such a difficult diagnosis to make. I think a lot of us struggle with how far to take the workup when, you know, spontaneous intercranial hypotension is clinically suspected, but multiple imaging studies are normal. Do you have any guidance on how to approach these more difficult cases?

Dr Madhavan: So, that's a really good question. And you know, it's- as you can imagine, that's a topic that comes up in most meetings where people discuss this, and it's been a continued challenge. And so, like you said, about 19 or 20% of patients who have this disease can have a, a normal brain MRI. And we've tried to do some work to figure out why that is and how we can identify patients who still have the disease. And I can just provide, I guess, some tips that have helped me in my clinical practice. One thing is, if I ever see a patient with a normal brain MRI where this disease is clinically suspected---for example, maybe they have orthostatic headaches or other very typical symptoms and we don't know why, but their brain MRI is normal---the first thing I do is I try to look back at their old imaging. So many times, these patients who present to us at Mayo, who, when we do their MRI scan here, their brain MRI looks normal… if you really look back at imaging that they've had done elsewhere---maybe even two to three years prior---at the time their symptoms started, they actually had some abnormalities. So, I might see that a patient, two years ago, had dural enhancement that spontaneously resolved; but now they still have symptoms of SIH and they may still have a CSF leak that we can find and treat, but their brain MRI has, for whatever reason, normalized.

So, I always start by looking back at old imaging, and I found that to be very helpful. The other thing is, if you see a patient with a normal brain MRI, it's also important to look at their spine MRI because that can provide clues that might suggest that they could still have a spinal CSF leak. And the two things I look for on the spine MRI: one, if there's any extradural CSF. So, spinal fluid outside of where it's supposed to be within the confines of the subarachnoid space. And you know, really, if you see extradural CSF, you know they probably have a spinal fluid leak somewhere. Even if their brain MRI is normal, that just gives you the information that there is a dural tear probably somewhere. And so, in those patients we'll definitely still proceed to myelography or other testing, even if they have a normal brain MRI. And then the last thing I look for is whether or not they have prominent meningeal diverticula. Patients with CSF venous fistulas almost always have one or more prominent diverticula on their spine along the nerve root sleeves. And that's probably because most of these fistulas come from nerve root sleeve diverticula. We don't completely understand the pathogenesis of CSF venous fistulas, but they're clearly associated with meningeal diverticula. So, if I see a patient who has a normal brain MRI, but I see on their spine MRI that they have many meningeal diverticula that are relatively prominent, that makes me more inclined to be a little bit more aggressive in doing myelography to find a CSF leak. And then I look at other demographic features, too. So, for example, elevated BMI and older age are associated with CSF venous fistulas. So, that can help you determine whether or not it's warranted to go on to more advanced imaging, too. So those are all just a variety of different things that we've used to help us.

Dr Grouse: Thank you for sharing that. I wanted to go on to say that, you know, reading your article, of course, as you mentioned, you alluded to the fact there's lots of new imaging modalities out there. It was very illuminating and just an excellent resource for the options that exist and when they're useful. You did a great job summarizing it. And I encourage our readers to check out your article, to refresh themselves, update themselves on what's happened in this space. And of course, we can't summarize them all today, but I was wondering if you could possibly walk us through a hypothetical case of a patient who comes in with a history very suspicious for SIH? How would you approach this patient? Say you have gotten imaging that suggested that there is a spinal fluid leak and now you have to figure out where it is.

Dr Madhavan: Yeah. So, you know, I think the most typical scenario it'll be a patient who has been seen by one of my excellent neurology colleagues and they've done a brain MRI and they've made the diagnosis through a combination of clinical information and brain MRI finding. And then the next thing we'll do always is, we'll obtain a spine MRI. So, I think of the purpose of the spine MRI as to determine what type of spinal fluid leak they have. On the spine MRI, if you see extradural CSF, those patients essentially always will have a dural tear. And it may be a ventral dural tear or a lateral dural tear. But if you see extradural CSF, that is pretty much what they have. And conversely, if you don't see extradural CSF---if you just see, for example, many meningeal diverticula, but you don't see anything else particularly abnormal---most of those patients have a CSF venous fistula, just common things being common.

So I use the spine MRI to determine what type of leak they have. And then the next thing I think about is, okay, I'm going to do a myelogram on this patient. How do I want to position them? Because it turns out that positioning is probably the most important factor for finding these spinal fluid leaks. You have to have the patient positioned correctly to find the leak that you're trying to localize. And so, if I suspect they have a ventral dural tear, I will always position those patients prone for their myelogram. And I might do one of many different types of myelograms. And, you know, the article talks about things like digital subtraction myelography and dynamic CT myelography. And you can find any of these leaks with any of those techniques, but you just have to have the patient positioned correctly. So, if I think I have a ventral dural tear, I'll put them prone for the myelogram. If I think they have a lateral dural tear, I'll put them in the cubitus position for the myelogram. And also, if they- if I think they have a CSF-venous fistula, I'll also put them in the decubitus position. Obviously if you're putting them in the decubitus position, you have to decide whether it's going to be left or right side down. So that may require a two-day exam. Sometimes you don't have to; in many cases, we're able to just do everything in one day. But those are all the different factors I think about when I'm trying to determine how I'm going to work those patients up further. So, I really use the spine MRI chiefly to think about what type of leak they're going to have and how I'm going to plan the myelogram.

Dr Grouse: That's really great. And it's, I think, really nice to emphasize how much the positioning matters in all this, which I think is not something we've been classically taught as far as the diagnosis of spinal leaks. Another thing I'm really interested in your opinion on is, you talked a lot about how to optimize and what can make you successful at diagnosis. I'm curious what you think one of the easiest mistakes to make or, you know, that we should hopefully avoid when treating patients with this disease.

Dr Madhavan: Yeah. And I think, you know, one other thing that's been discussed a lot in this topic… you know, we've talked about the patients with a normal brain MRI. Another barrier or challenge particularly with CSF-venous fistulas is, sometimes they can be very subtle on imaging. So, it's not always you see it very definitive CSF-venous fistula where you can say, like, there's no question, that's a fistula. There are many times where we do a good-quality myelogram and we see something that looks, like, possible for a CSF venous fistula, or probable. If I had to put a number on it, maybe there's a 50 to 70% chance of real. So, in those cases, we end up wondering, like, should we treat this suspected leak? And I think one common mistake or one thing that needs to be looked at further is, how do we handle these patients where we don't know whether the fistula is real or not? That's usually something where I will have a discussion with the patient, and I'm usually just very upfront with him about my interpretation of the imaging. I'll just tell them, we did a good-quality myelogram. You did a great job. We got good images. I don't see anything definitive, but I see this thing that I think has maybe a 60% chance of being real. And then I'll confer with one of my neurology colleagues and we'll decide whether it's worth treating that or not. And we'll just be very upfront with a patient about whether- about the likelihood of its success and what their long-term prognosis is. And oftentimes we let them make the decision. But I think that remains to be one of the big challenges is, how do we treat these patients who have suspected leaks that are not definitive on imaging.

Dr Grouse: That sounds absolutely like an important area where there can be problems, so I appreciate that insight. I'm interested what you think in your article would come as the biggest surprise to our listeners who may not have kept up as much with all of the changes that have happened in recent years?

Dr Madhavan: One of the things that was certainly, at least, a surprise to me as I was going through my training and learning about this topic is how diverse myelography has really become. You know, when I was a radiology resident, I learned about myelography as this thing that we've been doing for 30 to 40 years. And historically we've used myelograms just to look for degenerative changes: disc bulges, you know, disc herniations and things like that. Now that MRI is more prevalent, we don't use it as much, but it has turned out that it has a very big role in patients with spinal fluid leaks. Furthermore, something that I've learned is just how diverse these different types of myelograms have become. It used to kind of be just that a myelogram is a myelogram is a myelogram, but now we have different types of positioning, different types of equipment that we use. We vary the timing between contrast injection and imaging to optimize success for finding spinal fluid leaks. So, I think many times I talk to people who may not be as familiar with this field and they're surprised at just how diverse that has become and how sophisticated some of the various myelographic techniques have become and how much that really makes a difference in being able to accurately diagnose these patients.

Dr Grouse: Well, I can say it was a surprise to me. Even as someone who does treat quite a few patients with this condition, I was surprised to see the breadth of different options that have become available. And then kind of a follow-up to that, what do you think the current area of controversy is in this area of diagnosis and treatment?

Dr Madhavan: The biggest ones are ones you've sort of already alluded to. So, one big one is, how far do we go in patients who have a normal brain MRI who still have a clinical suspicion of the disease? And sometimes it's really hard, because sometimes you will find patients who clinically have a very strong case for having spontaneous intracranial hypotension. You look at them, they have very acute-onset orthostatic headaches. There's no better explanation for their symptoms that we know of. And it's hard to know what to do with those patients, because some of them want to continue to undergo diagnostic workup, but you can only do so many myelograms and you can only do so much with this diagnostic workup that requires some radiation dose before it becomes very challenging. That's a major point of just, I guess, ongoing research as to what can we do better for that subset of patients. Fortunately, it's not all of them, it's a subset of them, but I think we could help those patients better in the future as we learn more about the disease. So that's one. And the other one is treating these equivocal findings, like I discussed. And where should our threshold be to treat a patient, and what type of treatment should we do in patients where we don't know whether a leak is real? Should we just do a very noninvasive- relatively noninvasive blood patch? Do we do an embolization where we're leaving a foreign body there? Is it worth sending those patients to surgery? Those are all unanswered questions and things that continue to spark ongoing debate.

Dr Grouse: Do you think that there's going to be any new big breakthroughs, or even, do you know of any big developments on the horizon that we should be keeping our e

Spontaneous intracranial hypotension reflects a disruption of the normal continuous production, circulation, and reabsorption of CSF. Diagnosis requires the recognition of common and uncommon presentations, careful selection and scrutiny of brain and spine imaging, and, frequently, referral to specialist centers.

In this episode, Gordon Smith, MD, FAAN speaks with Jill C. Rau, MD, PhD, author of the article "Clinical Features and Diagnosis of Spontaneous Intracranial Hypotension" in the Continuum® June 2025 Disorders of CSF Dynamics 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. Rau is an assistant professor of clinical neurology at the University of Arizona, School of Medicine-Phoenix in Phoenix, Arizona.

Additional Resources

Read the article: continuumjournal.com

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

Interview with Jill Rau, MD

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 Dr Jill Rau about her article on clinical features and diagnosis of spontaneous intracranial hypotension, which she wrote with Dr Jeremy Cutsworth-Gregory from the Mayo Clinic. This article appears in the 2025 Continuum issue on disorders of CSF dynamics. I'm really excited to welcome you to the Continuum podcast. Maybe you can start by just telling our listeners a little bit about yourself?

Dr Rau: Hi, thanks for having me. I'm really honored to be here, and I really enjoyed writing the paper with Dr Cutsforth-Gregory. I hope you guys enjoy it. I am the director of headache medicine at the Baba Bay Neuroscience Institute at Honor Health in Scottsdale, Arizona. I'm also currently the chair of the special interest group in CSF Dynamics at the American Headache Society, and I've had a special interest in this field since I first watched Dr Linda Gray speak at a conference where she talked about spinal CSF leaks and their different presentations. And they were so different than what I had been taught in residency. They're not just the post-LP headache. They have such a wide variety of presentations and how devastating they can be, and how much impact there is on someone's life when you find it and fix it. And I've been super interested in the field and involved in research since that time. And, yeah. Love it.

Dr Smith: Well, thanks for sharing your story. And as I reflected on our conversation ahead of time and have been thinking about this issue… this is a cool topic, and every time I read one of these manuscripts and have the opportunity to speak with one of the authors, I learn a ton, because this was something that wasn't even on the radar when I trained back in the 1800's. So, really looking forward to the conversation. I wonder if you could really briefly just summarize or remind for everyone the normal physiology about CSF dynamics, you know, production, absorption, and so forth?

Dr Rau: So, the CSF is the fluid that surrounds the brain and the spinal cord, and it's contained by the dura, which is like a canvas or a sac that covers that whole brain and spinal cord. And within the ventricles of the brain, the choroid plexus produce CSF. It's constantly producing and then being reabsorbed by the arachnoid granulations and pushed into the venous space, the cerebral sinuses, venous sinuses. And also some absorption and push into the lymphatics that we've just learned about in the past year. This is kind of new data coming out, so always learning more and more about CSF, but we know that it bathes the brain and the spinal cord, helps keep some buoyancy of the brain as well as pushing nutrients in and pulling out metabolic waste. And it sort of keeps the brain in the state of homeostasis that's happy. And so, when there's a disruption of that flow and the amount of fluid there, that disrupts that, that can cause lots of different symptoms and problems for people.

Dr Smith: One of the many new things I learned is that even the name of this---spontaneous intracranial hypotension---is misleading. And I think this is clinically relevant, as we'll probably get to in a moment, but can you talk a little bit about this? Is this really like a pressure disorder or a volume disorder?

Dr Rau: Yeah. It's almost certainly a volume disorder. We do see in some people that they have low pressure, and it's still part of the diagnostic criteria. But it's there because if you have a low pressure, if you measure an opening pressure and it's below six, if you're measuring it in the spine in the right place, then you have indication that there's low volume. But there's over 50% of people's opening pressure who have a spinal CSF leak, have all the symptoms and can be fixed. So, they have normal pressure in 50% of the people. So, it is an inaccurate term, hypotension, but it was originally discovered because of the thought that it was a low-pressure situation. Some of the findings would suggest low pressure, but ultimately, we are pretty sure it's a low-volume condition.

Dr Smith: Another new thing that I learned that really blew me away is how bad this can be. I did a podcast with Mark Burish about cluster, and I was reminded many cluster patients are pushed to the point of suicidal ideation or committing suicide by the severity of pain. And this sounds like for many patients it's equally severe. Can you maybe paint a picture for our listeners why this is so clinically important?

Dr Rau: A large number of people, even people who are known to have leaks because they've had them before or they've releaked, they have a lot of brain fog and cognitive impairment. They often have severe headaches when they're upright. So, orthostatic headache is probably the number one most common symptom, and those headaches are one of the worst headaches out there. When people stand up, their fluid is not supporting the brain and there's an intense amount of pain. And so, they spend a large portion of their lives horizontal. And there's associated symptoms with that, it's not just headache pain and brain fog. There's neck pain. There's often subsequent disorders that accompany this, like partial orthostatic tachycardia syndrome. We don't know if that's because of deconditioning or an actual sequela of the disease, but it's a frequent comorbidity. We have patients that have extreme dizziness with their symptoms, but many patients are limited to hours, if that, upright per day, combined, total. And so they live their lives, often, just in the dark, lots of photophobia, sensitive to the light, really unable to function. It's also very hard to find and so underrecognized that a lot of patients, especially if they don't have that really clinical symptom of orthostatic headache. So, it's often missed. So, they're just debilitated. You know, treatments don't work because it's not a migraine and it's not a typical headache. It's a mechanical issue as well as a metabolic issue and not found, not a lot helps it.

Dr Smith: So, you know, I have always thought about this as really primarily an orthostatic symptom. I wonder if you can talk about the complexity of this; in particular, kind of how this evolves over time, because it's not quite that simple. And maybe in doing so, you can give our listeners some pearls on when they should be thinking about this disorder?

Dr Rau: A large portion of people do have headache with spinal CSF leak, in particular, spontaneous intracranial hypertension- hypotension, excuse me. And that's something to be thought about, is that there are spontaneous conditions where people have either rupture of the dural sac, or an erosion of the dural sac, or a development of a connection between the dura and the venous system. And that is taking away or allowing CSF to escape. In these instances that patients have spontaneous, there may be a different presentation than if they have, like, a postdural puncture or a chronic traumatic or iatrogenic leak. And we're not sure of that yet, but we're looking into that. Still, the largest presentation is headache, and orthostatic headache is very dominant in the headache realm. But over time, patients' brains can compensate for that lack of CSF and start overproducing---or at least we think that's probably what's happening. And you may see a reduction in the orthostatic symptoms over time, and you may see an improvement in the radiographic findings. So, there are some interesting papers that have been published that look at these changes over time, and we do see that sometimes within that first three to four months; this is the most common time to see that change. Other patients may worsen. You may actually see someone going from looking sort of normal radiographically to developing more of a SIH-type of picture on the brain. And so it's not predictable which patients have gone from orthostatic to improvement or the other way around, both radiographically and clinically.

So, it can be quite difficult to tell. So, for me, if I have a patient that comes to me and they're struggling with headache… if it's orthostatic, very clearly orthostatic: I lay down, I get considerably better or my headache completely goes away. And then when I stand up, it comes on relatively quickly, within an hour. And sometimes it's a worsening-throughout-the-day type of thing, it's lowest in the morning and it worsens throughout the day. These are the times that it's most obvious to think about CSF leak. Especially if that headache onset relatively suddenly, if it onset after a small trauma. Like I've had patients that say, you know, I was doing yoga and I did some twists and I felt kind of a pop. And then I've had this headache that is horrible when I'm upright but is better when I lay down ever since, you know, since that time. That's kind of a very classic presentation of spinal CSF leak or spontaneous intracranial hypotension. Maybe a less common presentation would be someone who comes to you, they've had a persistent headache for a couple years, they kind of remember it started in March of a couple years ago, but they don't know. Maybe it's, you know, it's a little better when they lay down. It may be a little worse when they're up moving around, but so is migraine, and it's a migrainous headache. But they've tried every migraine drug you can think of. Nothing is responding, nothing helps. I'm always looking at patients who are new daily, persistent headaches and patients who aren't responding to meds even if it's not new daily, but they have just barely any response. I will always go back and examine their brain imaging and get full spine to make sure I'm not missing. And you can never be 100% sure, but it's always good to consider those patients to the best of your ability, if that- have that in the back of your mind.

Dr Smith: So obviously, goes without saying, this is something people need to have on their radar and think about. And then we'll talk more about diagnostic tools here in a second. But how common is this? If you're a headache doc, you see a lot of patients who have intractable headaches. And how often do you see this in your headache practice? Now you're- this is your thing, so probably a little more than others, but, you know, how common will someone who sees a lot of headache encounter these patients?

Dr Rau: If you see a lot of headache, I mean, currently the thought is it's about 5 in 100,000. That was from a study before we were finding CSF venous fistulas. I think a lot of us think it's more common than that, but it's not super common. We don't have good estimates, but I would guess between 5 and 10 for 100,000 persons, not "persons who come to a tertiary headache clinic with intractable headaches". So, it's hard to gauge how frequent it is, but I would say it's considerably more frequent than we currently think it is. There's still a group of people with orthostatic headaches that we can't find leaks on; that, once you treat other things that can cause or look for other things that can cause orthostatic headaches. So, there may be even still a pathophysiology out there that is still a leak type. Before 2014, we didn't even know about CSF venous fistulas. And now here we are; like, 50% of them are CSF venous fistulas. So, you know, we're still in a huge learning curve right now.

Dr Smith: So, I definitely want to talk about the fistulas in a second. But before moving on, one of the things that I found really interesting is the wide spectrum of clinical phenotype. And we obviously don't have a lot of time to get into all of these different ones, but the one that I was hoping you might talk about---and there's a really great case, and you're on bunch of great case, a great case of this---is brain sagging dementia, not a term I've used before. Can you really briefly just tell our listeners about that, because that's a really interesting story and a great case in your article?

Dr Rau: Yeah. So, brain sag dementia is a… almost like an extreme version of a spontaneous intracranial hypotension. Where there is clear brain sag in the imaging---so that's helpful---but the patients present kind of like a frontotemporal dementia. And when this was first started to being determined, you could turn the patient into Trendelenburg, and sometimes they would improve. There are some practitioners that have introduced fluid into the thecal sac and had temporary improvement. Patching has improvement, then they leak again, sometimes not. But the clinical changes with this have been pretty tremendous to be able to identify that that's a real thing. And in some cases, out of Cedars Sinai, you know, who does a lot of the best research in this, they've had lots of cases where they can't find the leak, but there's clear brain sag that fits with our clinical picture of CSF leaks. So, we're on a learning curve. But yeah, this- they really present. They have disinhibition and cognitive impairment that is very similar to frontotemporal dementia.

Dr Smith: Well, so let's talk about what causes this. You mentioned CSF venous fistulas. I mean, that was reported now just over a decade ago, it's pretty amazing. That accounts for about half of cases, if I understand correctly. What are the other causes? And then we'll talk more about therapy in a minute, but what causes this?

Dr Rau: So, within the realm of spontaneous, you know, we say it's spontaneous. But the spontaneous cases we account for, they can be tears in the dura, which are usually sort of lateral tears in the dura. They can be little places that rubbed a hole, often on an osteophyte from the spine. They can come from these spinal diverticuli. So, I always describe it to my patients like those balls that have mesh and squishy, and you squeeze them in the- through the mesh, there's the extra little bubbling out. If you think of like the dura bubbling, out in some cases, through the framing of the spine, right where the spinal nerve roots come out, they should poke out like wires from the dura. But in many cases they poke out with this extra dura surrounding them, and we call that spinal diverticuli. And if you imagine like the weakening of where you squeeze that, you know, balloon through your fingers, in those locations, that's a very common place to find a CSF leak, and you can imagine that the integrity of the dura there may be less than it would be if it were not being expanded in that direction. And that's often the most common place we see these CSF venous fistulas.

So, you can get minor traumas; like I said, it can be spontaneous, like someone just develops a leak one day. It can be rubbed off, and it can be a development of a connection between the dura and the venous system. There are also iatrogenic causes, but we don't consider them spontaneous. But when you're considering your patients for spontaneous cases, you should consider if they've ever had chronic---even long, long time ago---had any spinal implementation, procedures near the spine, spinal injections, LPs in the past, and especially women who've had epidurals in pregnancy.

Dr Smith: All right, so we see a patient, positional severe headache, who meets the clinical criteria. Next step, MRI scan?

Dr Rau: Yeah. So, the first thing is always to get the brain MRI with and without contrast. Most places will have a SIH or a spinal CSF leak protocol, but you should get contrast because one of the most pathognomonic findings on brain MRI is that smooth diffuse dural enhancement. And that's a really fantastic thing when you find it, because it's kind of a slam dunk. If you find it, then you will see other findings. It almost never exists alone. But if you see that, it's pretty much a spinal CSF leak. But you're also looking for subdural collections, any indication of brain sag. We do have these new algorithms that have come out in the past couple of years that are helpful. They're not exclusionary---you can have negative findings on the brain and still have spinal CSF leak---but the brain MRI is extremely helpful. If it's positive for the findings, it really does help you nudge you in the direction of further investigations and treatments.

Dr Smith: And what about those further investigations and treatments, right? So, you see that there's findings consistent with low pressure, and I guess I should say low intracranial CSF volume. Be that as it may, what's the next step after that?

Dr Rau: Depends on where you are and what you can do. I almost always will get a full spine MRI: so, C spine, T spine, and L spine separately. Not, you know, we don't want it all in one picture, because we want to get the full view. And you want to get that with at least T2 highly- heavily T2 weighted with fat saturation in at least the sagittal and axial planes. It's really helpful if you can get it in the coronal planes, but we have to have- often have good talks with your radiologist to get the coronal plane. I spoke about the spinal diverticuli earlier, and I want to clarify a little bit of something. The coronal image will show those really nicely. It's interesting, but 44% of people have those. So just having the spinal diverticuli does not indicate that you have a leak. But if you have a lot of those, there may be more likelihood of having leak than if you don't have any of those.

So, I will get all of those and I will look at them myself, but I've been looking at them myself for a long time. But a lot of radiologists in community hospitals, especially not- nonneuroradiologists, but even neuroradiologists, this isn't something that's that everybody's been educated about, and we've been learning so much about it so rapidly in the past ten years. It's not easy to do and it's often missed. And if it's not protocoled properly, the fat saturation's not there, it's very hard to see… you can have a leak and not see it. Even the best people, like- it's not always something that's visible. And these CSF venous fistulas that we talked about are never visible on normal MRI imaging. Nonetheless, I will run those because if I can find a leak---and 90% of the ones that are found on MRI imaging are in the thoracic spine. So that's where I spend the most of my time looking. But if you find it, that's another thing to take

In this episode, Lyell K. Jones Jr, MD, FAAN, speaks with Jeremy K. Cutsforth-Gregory, MD, FAAN, who served as the guest editor of the June 2025 Disorders of CSF Dynamics issue. They provide a preview of the issue, which publishes on June 2, 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. Cutsforth-Gregory is an associate professor in the department of neurology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

Additional Resources

Read the issue: continuumjournal.com

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

Host: @LyellJ

Guest: @JCGneuro

Full episode transcript available here

Interview with Jeremy Cutsforth-Gregory, MD

Dr Jones: Most of the time when neurologists think about cerebrospinal fluid or CSF, we're thinking about getting a sample so we can test it for biomarkers of infection or inflammation, tumors, more recently neurodegenerative diseases. But there are many patients for whom the CSF isn't a clue to the problem---it is the problem. Today I have the opportunity to interview Dr Jeremy Cutsforth-Gregory, who is the guest editor of our first-ever issue at Continuum on disorders of CSF dynamics.

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 Jeremy Cutsforth-Gregory, who recently served as Continuum's guest editor for our latest issue, which covers disorders of CSF dynamics. Dr Cutsforth-Gregory is an associate professor in the Department of Neurology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, where he's also the director of the Mayo Clinic CSF Dynamics Clinic and an assistant dean of career advising at the Mayo Clinic School of Medicine. Dr Cutsforth-Gregory, welcome, and thank you for joining us today. Why don't you introduce yourself to our listeners?

Dr Cutsforth-Gregory: Thank you so much, Dr Jones. I'm excited to be here and really privileged to have served as the guest editor for this first issue devoted to CSF dynamics. You mentioned my title as director of the CSF Dynamics Clinic, in which we brought together what we think of as the full spectrum of disorders where pressure or flow of the fluid around the central nervous system is off. So, we do CSF leaks, we do intracranial hypertension and normal pressure hydrocephalus, and from that have been able to gain quite a few insights that I'm excited to share with you today.

Dr Jones: Yeah. And I'm really grateful for your time. I'm really grateful for this issue. You know, we all learn about disorders of CSF flow in training, but my impression---and maybe you share it, Dr Cutsforth-Gregory---is that many of these patients fall through the cracks. I think there's probably many reasons for this. I think it's in part because some aspects of this practice are relatively new or they're changing rapidly, or some of the disorders are uncommon. And I think many of these require a high degree of coordination between neurologists and neurosurgeons and radiologists. So we thought a Continuum issue dedicated to this would help close some practice gaps that we're pretty confident are out there. I'm really grateful for your leadership of it, and I think it'll come in handy for junior readers and even our more experienced listeners as well. And let's get right to it. You've had a chance now to review all of the articles in the issue and, you know, the latest in the field. What's the biggest thing that you would like to see change in the care of these patients?

Dr Cutsforth-Gregory: I think you're right that there is often delay in diagnosis, incorrect diagnosis, misdiagnosis, really across the spectrum of the low pressure, high pressure and normal pressure disorders. And that's what I'd like to see change with this issue, is increased awareness of the really myriad presentations that spontaneous intracranial hypotension can have. It's not all orthostatic headache, although that's common. Similarly, idiopathic intracranial hypertension is misdiagnosed in a third or more cases presenting to ophthalmology clinics. So, it's not just papilledema, high pressure in a certain demographic. And I think the article by Dr Aileen Antonio really goes into the details on how to make an accurate diagnosis and not miss these and not mistreat them. And normal pressure hydrocephalus, the pendulum has really swung between whether this is an entity or isn't an entity. It is. It's patients we can help. The imaging findings are surprisingly common, and the disorder is probably somehow both overcalled on CT scans of the head---cannot rule out normal pressure hydrocephalus, clinical correlation required, we've all seen that report---but also missed opportunities to help patients who have treatable gait, cognitive and bladder disorders. So, if we could improve awareness and increase the accuracy of diagnosis on these three disorders, I will say the mission has really been moved forward.

Dr Jones: Thanks for that. Let's start with NPH because again, over my career, I have seen the pendulum swing back and forth in terms of awareness of this disorder and thresholds for diagnosis. What's our latest in terms of the understanding of normal pressure hydrocephalus and how should our listeners think about the approach to diagnosing these patients?

Dr Cutsforth-Gregory: I think we all learn that NPH is dementia, gait disorder and urinary incontinence, and that hasn't changed. A good chunk of these patients, perhaps half or more, don't have the full triad, and you do not have to have the full triad for the diagnosis or to justify intervention with permanent CSF diversion through shunt placement. And so, being open to the diagnosis in a patient with a gate apraxia, which is usually the first leading present presenting change which is a gait disorder. Cognitive changes follow that, bladder comes along the way. So, I think anytime you see someone with an unexplained gait disorder that has apraxic features, short steps, three steps to turn, can look a little Parkinsonian but you don't have other Parkinsonism on exam necessarily, we should be thinking about NPH and ordering a good-quality head imaging to look for those features.

Dr Jones: Yeah, thanks for that point, Jeremy. It does seem like the pendulum has swung back and forth on the diagnosis of this disorder. And I think in many ways it comes down to having good diagnostic biomarkers. A term that I know… I was only made aware of it a few years ago: disproportionately enlarged subarachnoid space hydrocephalus, or DESH. So, tell us a little bit more about that. It's not just about the ventricles, right?

Dr Cutsforth-Gregory: That's exactly right. So, we think hydrocephalus, that means ventriculomegaly, and it does, but DESH, as you said, the mouthful "disproportionately enlarged subarachnoid space hydrocephalus", is basically CSF accumulation around the brain outside the ventricles. Common features would be enlarged Sylvian fissures, focally dilated sulci, and then at the same time, up high on the convexity, tight sulci. So, it's this combination; there's clearly a flow problem where CSF is being trapped in certain areas outside the brain and excluded from others. And that is a common feature. And that alone predicts a positive response to shunt surgery.

Dr Jones: I remember the first time one of my colleagues pointed that out to me on an image, and it just made me wonder how many times I had missed it before that point in my career. But that's the point, is to learn and move forward. One of the common themes, I think, in this practice, one of the common themes in this issue, is the interdisciplinary work that's necessary not just for treating patients with CSF dynamics disorders, but also the diagnosis. We really do have to work carefully and closely with neurosurgeons and with radiologists. And to reflect that we had a pretty diverse group of authors. Moreso, I think, that we usually do for Continuum, given the overlap with the radiology and surgical practice. As you were reviewing these articles, were there any unique or distinctive perspectives that you saw come through?

Dr Cutsforth-Gregory: Absolutely. And I have to say, I'm so proud of the diverse author panel we were able to put together: as you said, including clinicians, but also neuroradiologists; neurosurgeons, both adult and pediatric; as well as a couple- an ENT surgeon to talk about those cranial skull base leaks. So, we really brought together what we think is necessary to take care of these patients. As far as unique perspectives here, I would point to the article on diagnosis, surgical treatment, the long term implications of atraumatic cranial CSF leaks. So, these are the patients who present with CSF otorrhea or rhinorrhea and do not have a history of skull base surgery or trauma to explain it. That is often a chronic intracranial hypertension patient who, instead of staying sealed up and building up pressure and presenting with papilledema and headaches, had a leak. And that's relevant because, after it's fixed, that patient needs to come to us in neurology to be monitoring for papilledema, measure lumbar puncture, open pressure. And we've developed that as part of our workflow with our colleagues in neurosurgery and ENT who seal those leaks, because that's a patient who is at high risk of recurrent leak if we don't treat the underlying high pressure disorder. That's a new concept, I think, for many of us. And so, to be able to put that front and center in an article, in an issue for practicing neurologists, I think, is really important, and it's something we haven't been able to do before.

Similarly, the article by Dr Olga Fermo on the treatment of persistent symptoms after normalization of CSF pressure. We've all taken care of patients who had a CSF leak or had hypertension, and it seems like those issues are resolved, and yet they still have headaches. The IIH treatment trial taught us that that happens in perhaps two thirds of patients with IIH. And so, to have Dr Fermo's article on how to help those patients manage the headaches when the CSF disorder seems to have been resolved, I think it's super useful. The last one I would mention is just the final one by Dr Shenandoah Robinson, a pediatric neurosurgeon, talking about child onset hydrocephalus. And so, NPH is the focus of most of those other articles. But the patients who we will take care of as adult neurologists, child neurologists, whose issue really started early on, it's important that we stay involved and how to do that, what things we should be watching for, when to suspect shunt malfunction, it's all covered in Dr Robinson's article, and it's a unique one for this issue.

Dr Jones: It's always interesting to read articles, as a neurologist, that are written by a neurosurgeon because, you know, they have a different perspective, right? T're intervening on the anatomy, and just hearing how they think about these things was illuminating for me. The article on atraumatic cranial skull base CSF leaks, that connection with intracranial hypertension, I was unaware of that. So that was a good learning point for me. And while we're still on the too-high-pressure problem of idiopathic intracranial hypertension, do we have any more insight into what causes that? What's the mechanism of that disease? Do we know any more than we used to?

Dr Cutsforth-Gregory: We know more than we used to. We certainly don't understand all of it. But rather than just a disease of reproductive-age women carrying extra weight, it is now recognized as, really, a metabolic and hormonal-driven condition. And it's relevant because it really highlights new ways to intervene and to treat these patients. The GLP-1 inhibitors may have a role, considering some of the comorbidities like polycystic ovary syndrome and the hormonal connections. The patients who perhaps are female-to-male trans, who then can present with intranial hypertension, and how we can help them without needing to take them off gender confirming hormone therapy, is all really relevant to help us help more patients by having that broader understanding of the cause of disease, that it's not just weight gain/weight loss.

Dr Jones: Fantastic, and very useful to know. Thinking of the other end of the spectrum, right, rather than too much CSF or too much CSF pressure… I know this has been a focus of your academic work, Dr Cutsforth-Gregory. We also have disorders of CSF hypotension where the pressure is too low, and that this is usually reflective of a dural defect. I know in my own practice, sometimes, these are very difficult to find, and that's really- as you said, diagnosis is the first step, but then we have to find the problem and try to direct surgeons where to go to repair it. Do you have any tips for our listeners on how to approach the hunt for the source of CSF leaks?

Dr Cutsforth-Gregory: Absolutely. And I first have to give a call out to my mentor, Dr Bahram Mokri, who is the one who first reported the diffuse sterile enhancement, back in the early 1990s, that marks some, but not all, patients with spontaneous intracranial hypotension. He would also remind me that that's not a good term to call it, even though I just did and I will continue to do it intermittently. Because really, this is an underlying spinal CSF leak or a CSF venous fistula. And the problem is not too-low pressure, which is why hypotension is probably not the best word, but too-low volume. It's intracranial CSF hypovolemia. You know, with the opportunity that Dr Mokri gave me to see some of those patients with him and become intrigued by it, it is the bulk of my clinical practice, my research focus, and the conversations I get to have every single day with neuroradiologists and neurosurgeons. I tell patients, it is a field that is moving incredibly quickly and that, when I see them again in a few months or the next year, for whatever reason, I always joke and I say, I reserve the right to have different recommendations, because it is moving. I finished residency in 2014, which is the year CSF fistulas were first reported. I'm sure they existed before that. So, it was a lack of awareness. And so, look for what you know. Now we know to look for fistulas. You find what you look for; we've developed a number of new myographic techniques to find these things, and they are now the majority of the type of leak that we find. So, it is a patient population where we were missing more than we were hitting ten years ago. And now maybe that's still true, but we're certainly finding a lot more than we used to because of those collaborations.

Dr Jones: Thinking back to DESH, right? Once you're aware that it is something that can be identified, you start to see it more and more. And again, that's how we move the field forward. And again, the CSF venous fistula story is one that I know was relatively new to me and something I learned a lot about reading through the issue. And hopefully our readers and our listeners find some insights and benefits there. This is a rapidly changing field. This may be a hard question to answer, but when you look into the future, what are some of the changes on the horizon in this practice?

Dr Cutsforth-Gregory: See, I'll probably point to the- both diagnosis and treatment. We're recognizing that it's, like I said earlier, not all orthostatic headache, but some of the other manifestations, such as frontotemporal brain sagging syndrome, can be a manifestation of leak. So, suspected leak is the first step. Then you have to look for it. And MRI will change, you know, incrementally, I'm sure; we'll get higher resolution pictures. But the C wave of change is going to be in how to do the myelogram, what imaging modality we use; and the newest kit on the block, if you will, is photon-counting detector CT myelography. That's a different kind of CT scanner than we've been used to over the last few decades. It detects light energy differently. It allows better signal-to-noise ratio, faster acquisition of scans. And so, using that allows us to get thinner slices through the spine to look for leaks and fistulas. I think photon CT will become more widespread because it has applications well beyond neurology and just myelograms.

And so, as those scanners become more available, everyone will get to be better at finding these leaks. And then treatment, I'll highlight a procedure called transvenous paraspinal vein embolization. You know, a CSF venous fistula is an abnormal connection between a nerve root sleeve and a vein. And the CSF is escaping up through the that vein in an unregulated fashion. And historically when those were found, the treatment was to ligate the nerve root. Get rid of the nerve root sleeve, you get rid of the abnormal connection, you get rid of the vein, you stop the leak. And that is effective. A number of studies have shown that. But it's also invasive; it requires a laminectomy and losing a nerve root. You can't do that at every level of the spine, right? This is predominantly thoracic, and only if you're away from the artery of Adamkiewicz. But a few years ago, Dr Walid Benjigchi pioneered a procedure of going through the vein and embolizing it, putting in a liquid embolic agent that seals it off. The nerve root stays attacked. We can do it at every level of the spine, and it's an outpatient, endovascular procedure to fix fistulas. That kind of minimally invasive procedure for fistulas has been a major shift away from the open surgeries. We will, I think, make advances with new catheters and new needles to be able to do some other kind of minimally invasive procedures for the other kinds of leaks. I think that's what we'll be seeing, is less and less invasive procedures on the leak side.

Dr Jones: Great summary there. Thank you. So, it sounds like a combination of hopefully improved clinician awareness, which will improve diagnostic recognition; more sensitive tools like the photon counting CTS; and less invasive definitive therapies, which I think is promising for the field. And you've led a lot of that work, Dr Cutsforth-Gregory, over the last few years. When you see these patients, I'm sure it's rewarding to see patients with previously poorly-recognized or misunderstood symptoms get better. Is that the most rewarding part of this practice for you, or what can you tell me about your experience in the care of these patients?

Dr Cutsforth-Gregory: You know, I'm a curious person. I like to learn. So, I will say it is really rewarding to develop a new technique and put it into practice and see it increase our hit rate on finding these leaks and helping these patients. But nothing beats the feeling of taking a patient who's been stuck in bed or saying that they can't function and they're out of work or out of their family life, and getting that Christmas card or that hug that says they're back. But, you know, we're here to help our patients, and nothing can beat that feeling.

Dr Jones: I think that's a great point to end on. Dr Cutsforth-Gregory, thank you for joining us. Thank you for such a detailed discussion of a broad, diverse topic. I learned a lot today---some things that I wasn't aware of, having read the issue---and hopefully our listeners did, too.

Dr Cutsforth-Gregory: Thank you so much, Dr Jones.

Dr Jones: Again, we've been speaking with Dr J

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 lik

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

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 reside

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: Ye

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, i

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

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 looki

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 arter

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 bec

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/

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 tha

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

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

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 re

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 Ski

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 clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco.