Continuum Audio

*/ ?>

Latest Episodes:

BONUS EPISODE: Continuum Aloud NMOSD and MOGAD Aug 31, 2024

Show notes

This bonus episode of Continuum Audio features Continuum Aloud, a program of verbatim audiobook-style recordings of Continuum articles. In this episode, Dr. Michael Grasso reads the NMOSD and MOGAD article from the August 2024 issue on Autoimmune Neurology.

This article is open access until December 2, 2024. Read it here.

Continuum Aloud is available to Continuum subscribers at the article level on ContinuumJournal.com or on the AAN's Online Learning Center at continpub.com/Aloud.

For more information on subscribing to the journal visit shop.lww.com/continuum.

Autoimmune Movement Disorders With Dr. Bettina Balint Aug 28, 2024

Show notes

Autoimmune cerebellar ataxia and other autoimmune movement disorders encompass a broad spectrum of different clinical syndromes, antibodies, and immunopathophysiologic mechanisms. Given the overlap between phenotypes and antibodies, panel testing in serum and CSF is recommended. In this episode, Gordon Smith, MD, FAAN, speaks with Bettina Balint, MD, author of the article "Autoimmune Movement Disorders," in the Continuum August 2024 Autoimmune Neurology issue. Dr. Smith is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and professor and chair of neurology at Kenneth and Dianne Wright Distinguished Chair in Clinical and Translational Research at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia. Dr. Balint is an assistant professor for clinical research on complex movement disorders and Parkinson's diseases, a consultant neurologist, the head of the Department of Movement Disorders, and co-lead for the Centre for Movement Disorders and Functional Neurosurgery in the Department of Neurology at the University Hospital Zurich in Zurich, Switzerland. Additional Resources Read the article: Autoimmune Movement Disorders Subscribe to Continuum: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @gordonsmithMD Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum, the premier topic-based neurology clinical review and CME journal from the American Academy of Neurology. Thank you for joining us on Continuum Audio, which features conversations with Continuum's guest editors and authors who are the leading experts in their fields. Subscribers to the Continuum journal can read the full article or listen to verbatim recordings of the article and have access to exclusive interviews not featured on the podcast. Please visit the link in the episode notes for more information on the article, subscribing to the journal, and how to get CME. Dr Smith: This is Dr Gordon Smith. Today, I'm interviewing Dr Bettina Balint about her article on ataxia and other autoimmune movement disorders, which appears in the August 2024 Continuum issue on autoimmune neurology, which is a highly anticipated and exciting issue. Dr Balint, welcome to the podcast, and, perhaps, you can just introduce yourself to our audience and tell us a little bit about your practice and how you became interested in this topic. Dr Balint: Thank you, Gordon, for having me. I am an assistant professor for clinical research in complex movement disorders and Parkinson's disease at the University of Zurich and the Head of the Movement Disorders Department at the University Hospital in Zurich. So while I'm originally German (from Heidelberg), I have now been to Switzerland since end of 2021. Dr Smith: So, you know, how many movement disorder chiefs have a focus on autoimmune movement disorders? I found that really interesting. Most of the movement disorder folks I interact with, their primary interest is in neurodegeneration. Dr Balint: Very good question. Even so, I never asked myself that question, really, but I think I'm the only one with this designated focus as such. Many people come from the neurology angle - most of them. Even so, movement-disorder people really welcome this field and are interested, but I think somebody who has dedicated their interest and time to it? I think I can't actually think of many other people. Dr Smith: Yeah, I think it's really cool, and, of course, autoimmune neurology is the flavor of the day these days, right? I mean, I remember when I was at the University of Utah, we were recruiting Stacy Clardy (who I think many of our listeners will know). I remember thinking, you know, she's never going to be busy. How many of these autoimmune problems are there, really? And she was, like, deluged when she came. These are really common problems. I guess that was one question I had for you. You know, we think of these as rare disorders, and when we look at the article, you have these tables of these antibodies, and a lot of them are pretty uncommon – but, cumulatively, how common are autoimmune movement disorders? Dr Balint: It's a very difficult question, because we don't have good epidemiological data. And if you look at series, I mean, most papers addressing this issue come actually from the ataxia field. And then, depending on where you look at, you might find varying numbers, and they might be also influenced by the fact that they come from ataxia centers with own certain biases. Even so, it's very close to my heart, but, I also still think it's overall very rare. So, in my practice, I see all sorts of movement disorders, and overall, they're still quite rare, but the point is that they are treatable and have important management implications, so you want to be sure not to miss any of them. Dr Smith: Well, maybe we can go to that next. Part of the challenge here, of course, is there's just so many of these different syndromes and antibodies. Are there pearls that you can provide our listeners that would help them guide when they should be thinking about these disorders when they confront a patient with a particular phenotype? Like ataxia, for instance - you know, there are certain aspects of the clinical scenario that should trigger, "Wow, this might be an autoimmune problem". Dr Balint: So, in general, I would say there are certain scenarios where you would want to think of an autoimmune etiology in your differential. One is a very characteristic phenotype. So, speaking broadly in terms of movement disorders, stiff-person spectrum disorders have a very characteristic phenotype which you need to recognize, and then you will be able to see it when a patient enters. Important phenotypes to know which are very characteristic are faciobrachial dystonic seizures, for example, with anti-GA1 antibodies, or pseudofinalistic movements in non-REM sleep is IgLON5 antibodies, leg myoclonus is CASPR2 antibodies. I don't want to necessarily enumerate all the scenarios. The point here is there are some characteristic phenotypes where you would think of autoimmune neurology. Another scenario where you would think of autoimmune, for example, the context of late-onset paroxysmal movement disorders. So, classically, when we think of paroxysmal dyskinesia, we think of a group of genetic disorders, but if somebody develops a paroxysmal movement disorder later in life in adulthood, then you would think of autoimmune neurology, and this applies also in the context of episodic ataxias. Another red flag might be a propensity to autoimmunity. For example, somebody with type one diabetes and vitiligo coming in for cerebellar ataxia, of course, you would think of anti-GAD ataxia. And, similarly, if somebody has recently been diagnosed with a cancer and develops a rapidly disabling syndrome, of course, then you would think of a paraneoplastic autoimmune disorder. And with autoimmune syndrome, there are some symptoms which are also like tell-tale signs. So, for example, somebody with a stiff-person spectrum disorder, an ataxia with long-lasting diarrhea over months, losing weight - investigations haven't found anything, then you would think of DPPX antibodies or celiac disease. Or, if you have, like, a neuropathic pain which is otherwise not explained, then you might think of CASPR2 antibodies in somebody with a cerebellar ataxia. So, there are some features of some antibodies. (Again, I will not now list all of them which might point you to a diagnosis.) Then, of course, another scenario which is important, I think, is if you have a hemisyndrome without a structural lesion on imaging. Classically, neurologists are trained to think of a hemisyndrome - we look for a lesion on the contralateral side. But if you have, like, for example, a hemichorea without a lesion or a hemiataxia without a lesion, one should also think of an autoimmune disorder with antibodies. And then, more generally, of course, if you have changes on brain MRI or information on CSF, of course, if the clinical cause is more rapidly progressive - and last, but not least, if somebody does not really fit into our categories of the degenerative symptoms or metabolic syndromes or functionality disorders, then, of course, one should just take a step back and think, could it be something autoimmune? Having said that, if I may, I just want to say that, I mentioned that rapid disease course, and on the other hand, it's important to stress that a slowly progressive disease cause does not exclude an autoimmune etiology. Dr Smith: So, that was a great summary. Thank you. I don't know if you're familiar with the term "Aunt Minnie" (something I learned in medical school and radiology). There are certain findings that are "Aunt Minnie", you know what "Aunt Minnie" looks like, and if you see these particular findings, you should really think about a specific disease - and I think you gave a lot of pearls in that answer, so I appreciate that. This may seem like a bit of a random question, but it's interesting that there are some of these phenotypes that do replicate genetic phenotypes, and you used episodic ataxia, which, in a younger individual, we think of a spectrum of various genetic disorders. Is that random, or are there instances where the underlying mutation in a genetic disorder actually serves as a target for autoimmunity in a later-onset autoimmune problem? Not that the mutation causes autoimmunity, but are there shared targets - in one disease it's the mutation, and another, there's an antibody that binds to the protein, for instance? Dr Balint: That's an excellent topic, and even though it's not addressed in the Continuum article, I actually covered this in an article in Brain from 2018, where we also discuss parallels (immunogenetic parallels) with targets seen in genetic disease or in autoimmune disease, and there are actually some examples for cerebellar ataxia, and some of the targets are, indeed, the same for the antibodies and mutation. And some targets are a little bit more difficult, because for those, the antibodies would probably not be pathogenic, but it's more like an autoimmune overall target but it's T-cell mediated. But, for example, water-gated, um, calcium channels - we have antibodies and we have mutations. Or, another example would be glycine receptor antibodies give you acquired hyperekplexia, whereas the mutations give you hereditary hyperekplexia. So, there is, indeed, a bit of an overlap between autoimmune and genetic disorders, but often, also, like, the age at onset (because that might be the next question, the age at onset), and maybe family history and associated features, should help to distinguish the two. I think more from the pathophysiological point interesting, rather than clinically too confusing. Dr Smith: Wow, that's really cool. So, another question I have is regarding antibody panels, right? And so, I think, oftentimes (at least around here), folks confronting an unusual phenotype will send the Mayo panel - they'll send autoimmune encephalitis or a paraneoplastic panel – and, you know, I think one of the challenges I have thinking about the spectrum of phenotypes that you described, I mean, if you recognize "Aunt Minnie", then you know where to go, but it seems to me that there's a lot of these that maybe folks don't recognize "Aunt Minnie". What is the diagnostic utility and pearls and pitfalls of ordering these panels when you're not really certain? In other words, is there a risk of a false positive if the pretest probability is low? So, I guess that's a long question, but do you have guidance about when we should and maybe when we should not be ordering these panels? So, you know, undifferentiated ataxia that's chronically progressive - should we be sending a panel or not? Patients who are later-onset acute, maybe so. So, what's the guidance on when to order the panel? Dr Balint: It's a tricky topic also for many people in our practice, because, of course, as you said, we don't want to miss something, but, indeed, with any test which you order with a low pretest probability and which is not quite appropriate, you might have false positives, and that might cause much additional trouble in security, or maybe unnecessary and invasive immunotherapy with adverse effects – so, it's really important to think well about antibody testing. And, generally speaking, like always in medicine, we shouldn't order random tests, and antibody panels and neuronal antibodies are not designed as a screening test, so you need to have a phenotype and a reasonable suspicion - and clinical acumen is really key, and that's why also the article is so much focused on the phenotype. It's clearly not that any movement disorder patient who enters the outpatient clinic should get a blood test for antibodies that will likely cause harm, and it has been shown that these antibodies can be falsely positive, both in other diseases but also in healthy controls, and much depends also on which tests you use (but, let's not go into too much detail over here) - so, generally speaking, I would say if you have a suspicion of an autoimmune disease clinically (I mentioned some scenarios where you would think of an autoimmune disorder). And then, ataxias are, of course, a bit tricky, because often, we don't have too many other handles there, and there's still also a significant number of acquired late-onset ataxia where we don't know what the cause is. I think in the ataxia scenario, if I don't have a good answer or explanation, I would order antibody tests a bit more freely - I mean, if you do it properly, you do the serum and the CSF, and that also increases your sensitivity but also the specificities, so I wouldn't then just do the serum, but then go for serum and CSF. In other movement disorders, it depends also a little bit on the phenotype. So, somebody with a phenotype fitting well with Parkinson's disease, I wouldn't do any testing. Somebody with clear PSP phenotype without any red flags or not-fitting features, it is very unlikely to have an antibody finding, and this has been shown also in cohorts. But, if you have something which is not fitting in the phenotypes - for example, you have somebody where you think it might be a PSP phenotype with predominantly axial Parkinsonism falls, but you notice that the oculomotor disturbance is not a vertical gaze palsy, but a horizontal gaze palsy – so, it's not really fitting phenotype as you know it. That's a scenario where would probably think of antibody testing. Then, if you do the testing theorem - and CSF, in general, is gold standard - there are some antibodies where theorem is good enough (like, for example, with aquaporin-4 antibodies), but the reason why we do serum and CSF, as I mentioned, is the increased sensitivity and specificity. And nowadays, in the antibody world, we have something similar to the genetics - we have the variant of unknown significance and in the neurology world, we coin the term "antibody of unknown significance" to also give a name to the problem that, sometimes, we get a test result and it is difficult to interpret. Another handle over there would be to try to confirm the test result in another test method. So for example, if you have a cell-based assay with an antibody finding, you would like to confirm that on immunohistochemistry - the staining pattern is in keeping with that. Dr…

Full show notes at the publisher

NMOSD and MOGAD With Dr. Elia Sechi Aug 21, 2024

Show notes

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

Full show notes at the publisher

Paraneoplastic Neurologic Disorders With Dr. Anastasia Zekeridou Aug 14, 2024

Show notes

Paraneoplastic neurologic syndromes can present with manifestations at any level of the neuraxis. In patients with high clinical suspicion of a paraneoplastic neurologic syndrome, cancer screening and treatment should be undertaken, regardless of the presence of a neural antibody. In this episode, Katie Grouse, MD, FAAN, speaks with Anastasia Zekeridou, MD, PhD, author of the article "Paraneoplastic Neurologic Disorders," in the Continuum August 2024 Autoimmune Neurology issue. Dr. Grouse is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a clinical assistant professor at the University of California San Francisco in San Francisco, California. Dr. Zekeridou a senior associate consultant in the departments of neurology, laboratory medicine, and pathology, and for the Center for Multiple Sclerosis and Autoimmune Neurology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Additional Resources Read the article: Paraneoplastic Neurologic Disorders Subscribe to Continuum: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Guest: @ANASTASIA_ZEK Transcript Full transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum, the premier topic-based neurology clinical review and CME journal from the American Academy of Neurology. Thank you for joining us on Continuum Audio, which features conversations with Continuum's guest editors and authors who are the leading experts in their fields. Subscribers to the Continuum journal can read the full article or listen to verbatim recordings of the article and have access to exclusive interviews not featured on the podcast. Please visit the link in the episode notes for more information on the article, subscribing to the journal, and how to get CME. Dr Grouse: This is Dr Katie Grouse. Today, I'm interviewing Dr Anastasia Zekeridou about her article on classical paraneoplastic neurologic disorders, which is part of the August 2024 Continuum issue on autoimmune neurology. Welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to our audience. Dr Zekeridou: Hi. Thank you, Dr Grouse. I'm always excited to talk about paraneoplastic neurological diseases. So, I'm an autoimmune neurologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, and I spend my time between the lab and seeing patients in the autoimmune neurology clinic. Dr Grouse: Thank you so much for joining us, and we're really excited to talk about this really important topic. So, to start, I'd like to ask what, in your opinion, is the key message from this article. Dr Zekeridou: That's a good question - there are a lot of messages, but maybe if I can distill it down. For me, one of the first things is that paraneoplastic neurological diseases can actually affect any level of the neuraxis. It can manifest with different types of presentations. If we do suspect a paraneoplastic neurological syndrome, then we need to look for the cancer, and then if we're not certain, even do an immunotherapy trial. A negative antibody does not make for an absence of a paraneoplastic neurological disease (because, often, we depend a lot on them), but you can see patients with paraneoplastic disease that do not have neural antibodies. And then, we always need to be thinking that if we have a paraneoplastic neurological disease, we actually need to be thinking of both the cancer and the immune response together - so, we need to be treating the cancer, we need to be treating the immune response – because, essentially, paraneoplastic neurological syndrome is evidence of this antitumor immune response. So, the main (if I can distill this down in one) is probably that we need to be discussing all of these patients with the treating oncologist, because they have complicated care. Dr Grouse: Great. Thank you so much for that summary. It's very helpful. While many of our listeners are likely familiar with paraneoplastic disorders in their workup (which you've mentioned just now), the concept of neurologic autoimmunity in the context of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy has more recently become widely recognized. Can you summarize this briefly for our listeners who may be less familiar with this? Dr Zekeridou: I think that we learn more and more about this and we see more and more patients with immune checkpoint inhibitor-related neurological immunity, so, I always think about it in a very straightforward way. So, I think the way we think about immune responses is a balance between tolerance and regulation and immune activations. And then, immune checkpoints are the molecules that help us maintain self-tolerance. So, our immune system - it's probably the best tool that we have to fight against cancer. So, essentially, when we inhibit the immune checkpoints, we actually use our own immune system to fight cancer, but taking the breaks of the immune system essentially can lead to a lot of complications that are immune-mediated. Some of them are neurological - the neurological complications are rare, especially the ones that we need to do something about (so, it's 1% to 4%, in some cases up to 14%), and they do increase when you use multiple immune checkpoint inhibitors together. The main thing for me with the neurological complications is that, sometimes, they are difficult to recognize, they can (again) affect every level of the neuraxis - like, it can be the neuromuscular or the central nervous system (even though neuromuscular complications are much more common than central nervous system complications) - and then a lot of them (the vast majority) will happen within the first three months, but they can also happen even after you stop the immune checkpoint inhibitor. But this three-month interval, it's sometimes useful when you're in a diagnostic silence - it kind of helps you make the decision more towards an immune-related adverse event affecting the nervous system. And then, I think that, practically, once we have diagnosed this patients, we still are not very certain how to treat. All of them will get steroids upfront, but some of them will be difficult to treat, so then, we have to decide on the next treatment depending on evolution. And then, I will just say that (I mentioned it previously, but) these are the patients that the coordination with other subspecialties is one of the main things that we need to do (eg, oncologists) - they often have immune-related adverse events from other systems, so, there is a lot of coordination of care. And, always, the question at the end comes up, Should we be putting these patients back to their immune checkpoint inhibitor cancer immunotherapy that might help them with the cancer? And I think that this is difficult sometimes, and it needs to be decided - most cases - in a case-by-case basis, even though there are some recommendations that I've been discussing in the Continuum article. Dr Grose: That's great, and I encourage everyone to read more about this, because it is a very complex and fascinating topic. On the note of the immune checkpoint inhibitor neurologic dysfunction - I would imagine these are pretty rare - how common are these? And I would suspect they're getting missed a lot - is that correct? Dr Zekeridou: I think it's a very good question. Essentially, what we say for the neurological immune-related adverse events (the ones that we need intervention) - so, they are at least of grade two. (I think that there are less than 4%, mostly, probably close to 1.5%.) There was a study where they used double immune checkpoint inhibitors (so CTLA-4 and PD-1, PD-L1) - they were up to 14%, but this was any grade (so, a little bit of tingling, a little bit of headache), while the ones that we actually need to act upon and we need to actually do something about, they are probably closer to 1.5%. So, are they being missed? I am certain that some of them never make it to the neurologist. So, the ones that we know that we are underestimating is definitely the meningitis - because I think it's more common – but, often, when the patients present, they have something else as well. So, the oncologists will put them on steroids and then they will get better - so, we don't really see them in the neurology clinic (the ones with the very mild side effects). And then, also, these patients are often very sick, and they have a lot of things going for them, so they sometimes do not make it to the diagnosis. Dr Grouse: So then, I want to just take a step back and ask you, what's the most challenging aspect of paraneoplastic neurologic disorders in your opinion? Dr Zekeridou: I think, for me, one of the main things, the classic paraneoplastic disorders - and when I say "classic paraneoplastic disorders", they are the ones that we think more of with antibodies that are mostly biomarkers of the immune response, and they suggest a cytotoxic T-cell mediated disorder (so, like PCA1 [or anti-Yo] or ANNA-1 [or anti-Hu]) - these patients are very sick often, and we don't have a lot of good treatments for them. And then, even if we treat them, we actually sometimes do not manage to reverse their course - the best that we can do is stabilize. So, I think that this is part of the discussion that we have upfront with these patients - but it is quite challenging, because most of them, we will be giving them a cancer diagnosis ourselves, because we recognize the paraneoplastic neurological syndrome, and we look for the cancer, and then we'll be giving them a cancer diagnosis. And even if we treat their cancer and we treat the immune system, sometimes, then, we don't make a real improvement – like, we stabilize their disease and we sometimes get improvement, but there are cases that we do not and they continue to progress – so, that has been the most challenging aspect of this, and I think that's kind of where we really need more things coming – like, we need more treatments, we need to better understand these diseases and get more straightforward. Dr Grouse: I agree. I think that's absolutely, uh, what we all hope for these types of disorders, and I can imagine we all can remember at least one case just like this where someone had this type of problem and just didn't respond to treatment. So, strong hopes that there will be improvement with this in the years coming. Another question I have for you is, what in your article do you think would come as the biggest surprise to our listeners? Dr Zekeridou: I think that, because we discussed that immune checkpoint inhibitors (maybe we don't know as well), so one of the main things for me is when we first started thinking of neurological complications of immune checkpoint inhibitors, there was a lot of myasthenia gravis mentioned (patients presenting with myasthenia gravis), and then some of them antibody-positive, some of them antibody-negative. Now, with the time that has passed by, we recognize that myasthenia gravis is very rare. Like, I've seen tons of patients (probably more than that, actually) – and then, maybe I've seen one patient with de novo myasthenia gravis. We realize that the immune checkpoint inhibitor myasthenia gravis that we were thinking of are – they're mostly the immune checkpoint inhibitor myocytes cases - so, then, this is one of these myopathies that looks like no other. So, it really has a very predominant oculobulbar involvement (that's why everybody was thinking that this is myasthenia gravis), but, practically, the EMGs are negative, the patients do not respond to pyridostigmine - so, practically, these are really myopathy cases. And why is that important? Because 30% to 40% of these cases might also have a cardiomyopathy, for example, and then we're putting all these patients on pyridostigmine and medications that they do not necessarily need. So, I think one of the chains in concepts that we have in the later years is that, really (and this is one of the most common immune-related adverse events that we see in our clinic), that these patients with ICI myositis really present with the oculobulbar involvement and proximal involvement that we can see in myasthenia, but they do not have a neuromuscular junction problem. Dr Grouse: Now, we've all struggled with identifying a primary malignancy in patients where a paraneoplastic syndrome was strongly suspected. Do you have any tips on how to make this workup as high yield as possible? Dr Zekeridou: Yeah, I think that's a difficult question. I think it depends a little bit on your patient as well. So, if you have an antibody that makes things easier (and we can discuss about that, but), practically, for me, a patient that I have a high suspicion, that we get a CT chest, abdomen, and pelvis upfront - and often, we don't get PET scans, right, directly, because we have insurance companies maybe playing a role in what we would do. So, I would get this for a woman - she has to have a mammogram. For a man, they have to have a testicular ultrasound. That's the basics for me. And then, when we see more younger women or when we suspect an MDA, then they will need to have the ultrasound to look for the ovarian teratomas or an MRI of the abdomen - so, the PET scan for me, if I have a high suspicion, it will always be the next step. Like, we have increased diagnostic yield with PET scans, but we also need to remember, what are the tumors that you will not find on a PET scan? Teratomas are not PET-avid, and, often we say, "Oh, we found the lesion in the ovary and the PET scan was negative." That doesn't matter. In an NMDA-receptor antibody patient, if you find the lesion in the ovary, you need to make certain it's not a teratoma, because PET scans will not necessarily pick up a teratoma - it's not an avid malignancy. So, if the patient is a smoker and I suspect small-cell lung cancer, so I would always get the PET scan. If I have a patient with a high-risk antibody like PCA1 (or anti-Yo) and I didn't really find the tumor with the CT chest, abdomen, and pelvis and the mammogram, I will always get the PET scan. Same for the patients with the smoking history. I will also say that, sometimes, we forget other malignancies. So, for example, we have neuronal intermediate filament antibodies (so, ANNA-3 antibodies), and some of them will have Merkel cell. So, depending on the patient, on the antibody, and if we didn't find anything else, I would do a skin check. If they have GI symptoms, I would look for the GI tumor as well. So, even though the basics are what I mentioned, I will adapt depending on the patient symptoms. And all of these patients should have age-appropriate cancer screening, so if they didn't have a colonoscopy, they will have to have a colonoscopy. So, this is part of the main things. And then, the question for me that always comes up is, "Who is the person that you're going to keep on repeating the screen?" And then, practically, if you have a low-risk paraneoplastic antibody that comes (let's say LGI1), we know it's a low risk, so I would actually do the cancer screening - I will look for the thymoma once, and then that would be it. But if you have a patient with a high-risk paraneoplastic antibody (let's say ANNA-1 [or anti-Hu] or anti-Yo [anti-PCA1]), these are the patients that I will keep on screening - and then I will do every four to six months for two years (that's the current recommendation), but I will probably continue yearly after. And then, we need to also remember that whenever you have a neurological relapse, that's exactly when you need to be looking for the c…

Full show notes at the publisher

Overview and Diagnostic Approach in Autoimmune Neurology With Dr. Sean Pittock Aug 07, 2024

Show notes

Autoimmune neurology is a rapidly evolving subspecialty that focuses on neurologic disorders with atypical immune responses. In this episode, Aaron Berkowitz, MD, PhD FAAN, speaks with Sean J. Pittock, MD, an author of the article "Overview and Diagnostic Approach in Autoimmune Neurology," in the Continuum August 2024 Autoimmune Neurology issue. Dr. Berkowitz is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a professor of clinical neurology at the University of California, San Francisco Dr. Pittock is the director for the Center for Multiple Sclerosis and Autoimmune Neurology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Additional Resources Read the article: Overview and Diagnostic Approach in Autoimmune Neurology Subscribe to Continuum: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @AaronLBerkowitz Transcript Full transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum, the premier topic-based neurology clinical review and CME journal from the American Academy of Neurology. Thank you for joining us on Continuum Audio, which features conversations with Continuum's guest editors and authors who are the leading experts in their fields. Subscribers to the Continuum journal can read the full article or listen to verbatim recordings of the article and have access to exclusive interviews not featured on the podcast. Please visit the link in the episode notes for more information on the article, subscribing to the journal, and how to get CME. Dr Berkowitz: This is Dr Aaron Berkowitz, and today, I'm interviewing Dr Sean Pittock about his article, "Introduction to Autoimmune Neurology and Diagnostic Approach", which he wrote with his colleague, Dr Andrew McKeon. This article is a part of the August 2024 Continuum issue on autoimmune neurology. Welcome to the podcast, Dr Pittock. Could you introduce yourself to our audience? Dr Pittock: Well, thank you very much, Dr Berkowitz. So, yeah, I'm a neurologist at the Mayo Clinic. I direct the neuroimmunology laboratory with Dr McKeon and Dr Mills here, and I have also been very much involved in the autoimmune neurology section at the American Academy of Neurology. Dr Berkowitz: So, many of you probably know Dr Pittock - or if you don't know, you've certainly diagnosed diseases that he has described and written about, and so it's a real honor to get to talk to you today and pick your brain a little bit about some of these complex diseases. So, autoimmune neurology is certainly one of the most exciting subspecialties of our field. I feel like when I talk to students and they ask me to make a case for why they should consider neurology as a career, I tell them, "Of course, I have many reasons I love neurology", but one thing I mention is that, although many other fields of medicine may have made incredible advances as far as treatments, I can't think of too many other fields outside neurology where entirely new diseases have been described since I've been in training and come out of training - and many of those have been in your field of autoimmune neurology. I can think of cases where I've heard you or one of your colleagues on a neurology podcast describing a new antibody, new disease, and a few weeks later, we see that disease and give a patient a diagnosis that had been elusive from other physicians and hospitals. It's a very exciting, gratifying area. It's also daunting, like, every time I go to the AAN and hear one of your colleagues, there's a new disease, and we realize, "Oops! Was I missing that?" or, "Am I going to see this?" And so, hoping to pick your brain a bit today about some of the key concepts and how to keep them in mind so our listeners can recognize, diagnose, and treat these conditions, even if they can't remember every single antibody in your article and all the new ones you and your colleagues will probably discover between now and when this, um, podcast is released. So, before we get into some of the important clinical aspects of these conditions, could you just lay out sort of the broad breaststrokes, the lay of the land of cell-mediated versus antibody-mediated paraneoplastic versus nonparaneoplastic cell surface versus intracellular - how can we sort of organize this area in our minds? Dr Pittock: Yeah. It's complex, and it's really an evolving story. But the importance, really, from the perspective of the reader and the perspective of the clinician is that we're talking about disorders where we can actually do something - we can actually impact patients. And we think about the concept of stopping and restoring in neurology now. We're talking about disorders where we have the potential to stop these inflammatory immune-mediated disorders and, potentially, by stopping early, we may be able to restore function - so, a really important new and evolving field in neurology, because you don't want to miss these conditions. Trying to get your head around the complexity of these entities is difficult, but what we've done in this chapter is, really, to try and lay the groundwork for the following chapters, but provide somewhat of a simplistic approach, but a practical approach that really, I think, can help clinicians. So, the way I think of it, a lot of autoimmune neurology really has stemmed from the discovery of antibodies that cause neurological disease, and the examples of those would be going back to myasthenia gravis (with antibodies to the acetylcholine receptor), going back to Lambert-Eaton syndrome. And then, you know, even if you go back to the older traditional paraneoplastic disorders (the Hu, the Ri, the Yo), at the end of the day, you really have two essential entities, if you want to be very simple. The first is disorders that are caused by an antibody, and the second are disorders where the antibodies you detect are not causing the disorder, but they're telling you that there's predominantly a cellular or T-cell mediated attack of the nervous system. And I think thinking about the diseases in those kind of simple terms helps us when we think about what would be the best treatment to use in these types of cases. Dr Berkowitz: Fantastic. I think that's very helpful. And just to make sure it's clear in the minds of our listeners when we're dividing into these sort of causative antibodies versus antibodies that might be, uh (I don't know if I'm using the word properly), but, sort of epiphenomena (or they're present, but they're not causative) as you said, can you just give some examples of the ones on either side and how making this distinction helps us in practice? Dr Pittock: Yes. So, antibodies that are causative of disease - I think, you know, the one that I've done a lot of work on is in neuromyelitis optica, where you have antibodies that are targeting a water channel that sits on an astrocyte, and so it causes NMOSD, or what we consider an autoimmune astrocytopathy. And we know that when the antibody binds to the target, many things can happen. So, when aquaporin-4 antibodies bind to aquaporin-4, they can do a lot of things. They can cause internalization, they can activate complement that results in the killing of the cell - but there can be other situations. For example, when NMDA-receptor antibodies bind to the NMDA receptor, then a variety of different things can occur different to water channel autoimmunity - where, for example, the receptor (the NMDA receptor) is downregulated off the cell surface, and that results, to some extent, in the neuropsychiatric phenomenon that we see in NMDA-receptor autoimmunity. And, obviously, when you have a situation where the antibodies are causing the disease, removal of those antibodies, or the reduction in the production of those antibodies, is going to help patients. Now, on the other side, we have antibodies that we detect in the blood or in the spinal fluid, and those antibodies are targeting proteins that are inside the cell - so those antibodies we don't consider as being pathogenic. Now, remember, there are sometimes situations where proteins that are inside the cell occasionally can be available for antibodies to bind at certain situations. So, for example, in the synapse, amphiphysin or the septins, may at times become available. And so, sometimes, there are targets or antibodies that are somewhat in between those two simplistic concepts. But when we're talking about antibodies that are targeting proteins on the inside of the cell, remember that antibodies don't just suddenly occur. There's a whole process of presentation of target antigen at the lymph node, and then both a T- and a B-cell response. The B-cell response potentially produces the antibodies but also triggers and stimulates T-cells, and those T-cells then go on to cause the disease. And those T-cells are very problematic, because those classical paraneoplastic and the newer ones we've described (and many have described) - these are associated with quite severe neurological disability, and they're very, very difficult to treat. And if you ask me, "Where is the holy grail of autoimmune neurology therapeutic research?" It's in trying to actually figure out ways of treating the predominantly T-cell mediated paraneoplastic and autoimmune neurological disorders. We're making great headway in terms of the treatments of the antibody-mediated neurological disorders. Dr Berkowitz: That's a helpful overview. So, sticking with this framework, you mentioned as sort of the "causative antibody" category and the antibodies that are predominantly for intracellular antigens, but not believed to be causative - I want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly and we can convey it to our listeners - I believe you said in your paper, then, that the antibodies that are predominantly causative are more likely to be associated with conditions that are very treatable, as compared to the intracellular antibodies that are not thought to be causative, as you just said the disability can be irrecoverable or very hard to treat. And I believe another theme in your paper that you brought out is the antibodies that tend to be causative tend to be cell surface and tend to be less likely to be associated with underlying cancer (although not a perfect rule), and the intracellular antigens more commonly associated with cancer in those cases to look very hard for a cancer before giving up. Are those themes that I understand them from your paper properly, or anything else to add there? Dr Pittock: Yes, I think that that's exactly the message that we were trying to get across, so that's good news that you've picked up on the themes. I think, yeah, in simple terms, remember that when a cytotoxic T-cell identifies the peptide that its T-cell receptor will target, the ultimate outcome is poor, all right? T-cells are like the marines - they don't mess around. Once they find their target, they eliminate that target, and so, it's really difficult to treat those types of diseases if you get them late. And most patients with cytotoxic T-cell mediated paraneoplastic neurological disorders, oftentimes, by the time they get to a center of excellence, the boat has left the dock in many respects - in other words, it's too late. So, you know, I will often see patients, for example, with progressive cerebellar degeneration (say, in the context of Purkinje cell autoantibody type 1 antibodies and a breast cancer), and if those patients are in a wheelchair at the time that I see them, there's very, very little that we can do. So, you really want to try and get that patient into the office, you know, when they're using a cane (or not), and then, potentially, you have the opportunity - using very aggressive immunosuppressive medications - to make a difference. And that is quite different to other scenarios, where, for example, if you have NMDA-receptor encephalitis - as many of the readers will know, this is a condition that is very treatable, and most patients do very well, because the antibodies, they're disrupting function, but they're not killing the neuron, as we see in those more aggressive, paraneoplastic cytotoxic T-cell mediated diseases. Dr Berkowitz: Also, in terms of searching for an underlying cancer, another theme in your paper as I understood (but want to make sure I'm understanding and conveying to our listeners and hear your thoughts), that the cell surface and treatable antibody-mediated syndromes, as you mentioned (NMO, NMDA) tend to be less associated with underlying cancers (although can be), whereas the intracellular antigens, um, a much higher percentage of those patients are going to end up having underlying cancers. Is that correct, or any notable exceptions to be aware of in that framework? Dr Pittock: Yeah, I think the major exception to the rule for the antibodies that are targeting intracellular antigens is the GAD65 antibody story. We generally don't consider the stiff person syndrome, cerebellar ataxia, or other autoimmune neurological disorders associated with very high levels of GAD65 antibodies - those are generally not paraneoplastic. And then there are always exceptions on both sides. You know, one of the benefits of understanding the implications of certain antibodies is trying to understand, you know, what is the likelihood of identifying a malignancy, which antibodies are high-risk antibodies (in other words, high-risk paraneoplastological disorders), and which are low risk in terms of cancer? And, you know, age and the demographic of the individual is often important, because we know, for example, with NMDA-receptor antibodies, the frequency of ovarian teratoma varies with the age of the patient. Dr Berkowitz: Fantastic. And we encourage our listeners to read your articles – certainly, some very helpful tables and figures that help to elucidate some of these broad distinctions Dr Pittock is making - but just to summarize for the antibody-related part of autoimmune neurology, we have one category of cell-surface antibodies and another of intracellular antibodies. Both can cause very severe and varied neurologic presentations, but the cell surface tend to be more treatable, less likely to be associated with the underlying cancer, and the intracellular less treatable, more likely to be associated with the underlying cancer - but, as with everything in neurology and medicine, exceptions on both sides. Is that a fair aerial view of some of the details we've discussed so far, Dr Pittock? Dr Pittock: Yeah, I think so. I mean, I also think that, you know, not only, at least, for the antibody-mediated disorders (you know, as we discussed) we have drugs that will reduce the production of those antibodies, but we're also learning a lot more about the cytokine and chemokine signatures of these disorders. For example, NMO, water-channel antibody-mediated diseases are associated with elevated levels of IL-6. We know, for example, in LGI1 encephalitis and other encephalitides, that IL-6 also is elevated at the time of that encephalitic process. And so, the potential to target IL-6 with, you know, drugs that inhibit IL-6 and the IL-6 receptor, these potentially have, you know, a role to play in the management of these types of patients - whereas in the T-cell mediated disorders, you know, no advance has been made in the treatment of those conditions, I would say, in over 50 years. So, for example, the standard of tre…

Full show notes at the publisher

August 2024 Autoimmune Neurology Issue With Dr. Eoin Flanagan Jul 31, 2024

Show notes

In this episode, Lyell K. Jones Jr, MD, FAAN, speaks with Eoin P. Flanagan, MBBCh, FAAN who served as the guest editor of the Continuum® August 2024 Autoimmune Neurology issue. They provide a preview of the issue, which publishes on August 1, 2024. Dr. Jones is the editor-in-chief of Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology® and is a professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Dr. Flanagan is a professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Additional Resources Continuum website: ContinuumJournal.com Subscribe to Continuum: shop.lww.com/Continuum More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @LyellJ Guest: @EoinFlanagan14 Transcript Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum, the premier topic-based neurology clinical review and CME journal from the American Academy of Neurology. Thank you for joining us on Continuum Audio, a companion podcast to the journal. Continuum Audio features conversations with the guest editors and authors of Continuum, who are the leading experts in their fields. Subscribers to the Continuum journal have access to exclusive audio content not featured on the podcast. If you're not already a subscriber, we encourage you to become one. For more information, please visit the link in the show notes. Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology. Today, I'm interviewing Dr Eoin Flanagan, who recently served as Continuum's guest editor for our latest issue on autoimmune neurology. Dr Flanagan is a neurologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, where he's a professor of neurology. Eoin, why don't you introduce yourself to our listeners? Dr Flanagan: Yeah, it's a great pleasure to be here today. I'm a neurologist. I'm originally from Ireland – I did my medical school training over there, and then came over to the Mayo Clinic to train in neurology and in neuroimmunology. And delighted to be able to edit this exciting issue of autoimmune neurology of Continuum. I think, um, it's a really fascinating area that's moving very quickly, and I'm hoping that we can educate listeners to be able to feel comfortable when they come to see these patients and to realize how much of a growing specialty it is and how we're getting treatments, and we can really help these patients. Dr Jones: Yeah, it's a pretty exciting area. And, so, not only are you the Guest Editor for our latest issue of Continuum, this is the first-ever Continuum issue dedicated to autoimmune neurology, so I want to thank you for taking it on. This is something that our readers have been asking for for many years. I hope the topic wasn't too daunting. Dr Flanagan: No, absolutely, it's a pleasure to be able to do it, and it's just great when you read all the articles to kind of feel where the field is going and how much of a benefit we can now make for our patients. So, that's been a real joy to do. Dr Jones: Well, congratulations, and it's a magnificent issue. You have a lot to be proud of putting this group of authors together. So, for a few of our issues now, we've had the opportunity on the Continuum Audio podcast to interview the Guest Editor, which is really fun for me. I have to confess it's really a joy to talk to someone who is up to the minute not only in their narrow area of expertise at the article level, but, really, across the entire breadth of the subspecialty. And so, you've had an opportunity to delve into all relevant topics in autoimmune neurology. When you look at the issue as a whole, or the field as a whole, what do you think the biggest debate or controversy in the world of autoimmune neurology is right now? Dr Flanagan: Yeah, I think there's some changes happening. You know, initially, people used to recognize a disease called Hashimoto's encephalitis, where patients would have a presentation of encephalitis in the setting of thyroid antibodies. And what we're now realizing is that many of these patients actually have antibodies to neural-specific targets, because we know that the antibodies that target the thyroid don't really impact the brain. And what we're now realizing is that there's many antibodies out there that bind to different receptors in the brain (the NMDA receptor, for example, AMPA receptor), so we're really trying to refine the field towards these different antibody-associated disorders - and each different disorder may behave very differently. A patient with NMDA receptor encephalitis, for example, may be in the ICU, in hospital, may take them six, nine months to recover. On the other hand, a patient with LGI1-antibody encephalitis may get five days of steroids and be almost back to normal within a few weeks. So, it's a really broad spectrum. And, I think, what we're now learning is that each antibody has a role in helping define the disease, guide your treatment, guide your search for cancer - but, also, they behave differently - so these neural-specific antibodies are really important, while the older antibodies (like the thyroid antibodies) may just be a bystander and something that's happening in the background in a patient who's more prone to autoimmune disease. Dr Jones: Very helpful, and I think that resonates with our listeners who have taken care of patients with autoimmune neurologic disorders, and it really is, I think, a great prototype in our specialty, maybe (for lack of a better word) of how observations start at the bedside, and then discoveries are made at the bench, and those benefits are brought back to patients. You know, there's been a recognition of autoimmunity in neurology for a long time, right - responsiveness to immunosuppression, even before the biomarkers were discovered - tell us a little story about how that works for our listeners. Dr Flanagan: Yeah, so, I think one of the first steps is defining a clinical syndrome. So what you'll find is that some of these syndromes (for example, neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder, where they have longitudinally extensive lesions within a spinal cord) provoked people to be interested that these looked different to MS, and then that went to the lab, and the aquaporin-4 antibodies were discovered - or, more recently, MOG antibodies were discovered. The aquaporin-4 antibody-associated neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder is a good prototype, because that went to the laboratory. Initially, they saw complement deposition on the pathology of these patients, they saw antibody deposition - the antibody was then discovered to aquaporin-4. And then, many labs around the world went to their own labs and they tried to delve in to determine what the pathogenesis was, and they found that complement was important in cell killing, that interleukin-6 elevation was important, and that complement appeared to be important. So, then, what they did was they tried to find treatments that would target those pathways. So, and now, we have treatments that are successful for this disease that can target complement, target interleukin-6, and target B cells (be it CD19 or CD20). So, we now have many different treatments, and this disease used to be very severe (so, had a 33% mortality at five years), and now these patients can live a long life with these treatments. So, I think that gives you an example of how you can follow the immunology of the disease and use targeted treatments to help our patients, and I think we can use that as a good prototype for many of the other antibodies, because every year we discover two to three new antibodies, and each disease is a bit different in its mechanism. So, there are now clinical trials in NMDA receptor encephalitis starting up. There's clinical trials in MOG antibody-associated disease. And I think we're going to see that as we move forward, that these treatment trials will come and we'll be able to help our patients better with proven treatments that we know work, rather than a history of we would just use five days of steroids and then we didn't know exactly what to do in the long term - and we could manage some of the relapse as well, but we couldn't really take care of the disease in the background - so, I think the NMO is a good model for moving forward, and the pharmaceutical companies are supporting moving forward with different trials for the disease. Dr Jones: So, a key message there is understanding the biology so we can be a little more targeted and less indiscriminate in the immunomodulation we're going to use. And we have parallels to that in the neuromuscular world, right, like using B-cell depletion for MuSK-associated neuromuscular junction disorders, as opposed to the trial-and-error approach, right? That's got to be a little more patient-centric and you get to a therapeutic response faster, right? Dr Flanagan: I think so. Yeah, and I think, in the future, that might be something where, you know, a different patient, if they had elevated cytokines that pointed more to an IL-6 elevation, then maybe, in that patient, you would target IL-6, while the next patient with the same disease has more prominent complement activation, maybe you would target complement, or another patient has more prominent B-cell markers elevated, that you would target B cells. So, I think, we're really moving towards a more individualized treatment in some of these disorders. So, it's a very exciting time, but we've only really made that breakthrough in one of the antibodies, and we have probably sixty, seventy antibody-mediated disorders now. So, it's going to get complicated, but it's also going to be, really, an exciting time for our patients, and I think an exciting time for neurology trainees and people who see patients in practice that we can now make diagnoses and guide their treatment that, previously, you know, these patients were told they might have presumed infectious encephalitis or we didn't know the exact cause. Dr Jones: So targeted not only to the diagnosis, but to the individual. Dr Flanagan: Yeah. Dr Jones: So, that's a level of complexity that I think is going to blow a lot of our minds, right? And it's exciting, but I think it also is a little daunting, right? Dr Flanagan: Absolutely. Yeah. Yeah, it's going to be complicated, and these are rare diseases, so they're difficult to do clinical trials in. But I think we can be guided, and our experience tells us that if you follow the mechanisms, that you can find targeted treatments. Now, you can also find targeted treatments in MS - you know, it took us a longer time to find successful high-efficacy treatments, but now we're doing much better with many high-efficacy treatments available. But, I think in these autoantibody-mediated diseases, really looking at the mechanisms and trying to figure out that and then targeting the treatment in that direction makes the most sense and is the most likely to be successful. Dr Jones: So, one of the purposes of Continuum is to educate our readers and our listeners, and because neurology is so broad, because it is evolving so quickly, it's really hard to stay current. And so, again, that's part of the purpose of the journal. I think one of the challenging areas is autoimmune neurology, because it changes fast, and it's complicated, and the treatments are high stakes and complicated to administer - so, I think this is an important topic. I know from my own experience in clinical practice, one of the challenging scenarios is you see a patient who may have an autoimmune neurological disorder, you obtain some serum or CSF markers of neurologic autoimmunity, right? And of the ten antibodies you check, one of them comes back, and it's a low titer-positive antibody. I know that's something that you get a lot of questions about. How do you approach that? Dr Flanagan: Yeah, I think, you know, we're all neurologists, and, you know, it's immediately back to the history, the examination, and the investigations, and what do they support - so, are you really dealing with an antibody-mediated disorder? And I think, from a neuroimmunology laboratory standpoint, we're always trying to get better tests, remove those less-specific tests (so, move away from the thyroid peroxidase antibodies) and really hone in on the exact targets and their mechanisms. So, I suppose, when you find a low-positive result, it's really important to go back to that clinical. And, I think, you know, that is job security for neurologists, right? Because you really have to interpret these in context. And, I think when you're seeing autoimmune cases, you need to have a good, broad understanding of differential diagnosis, because there are many different disorders that can present in a similar way, and you don't want to get distracted by that low-positive antibody and then put a patient on long-term immunosuppression that has many different risks. So, there is a potential for misdiagnosis, and I think that's an emerging area that we're recognizing that we always have to put the antibodies into clinical context. And, you know, there are more and more studies coming out that will help guide you, and I think the issue in Continuum will help guide you in terms of your understanding of, you know, what does a positive antibody mean? And it'll give a little bit on the methodology of how the antibodies are tested and how that can help you – or, sometimes, be it the titer may be very high that can help you. So, different aspects of the antibody test results can also help guide you in the likelihood of that being kind of a true positive versus a false positive. But I think always back to the history, exam, and the investigations, too. Dr Jones: You're being very gracious there, and I'm glad you bring it up that it's really not just about the laboratory performance of the test, right? It's about the pretest probability of the clinical syndrome if it doesn't clinically resemble an autoimmune neurological disorder. So, I'm not going to pretend to be an expert in Bayesian statistics, but I think we should recognize that if we obtain any test when there's a low likelihood of the syndrome or the diagnosis being present, we're more likely to have false positives than in other scenarios or other settings. So, I think that is a charge to the clinician, where if we are obtaining these tests, we do really need to think about the likelihood of there being a clinical autoimmune neurology syndrome, right? Dr Flanagan: That's exactly right. You know, one of the teachings that I sometimes give to the trainees is that, you know, if you have a ninety-year-old patient with mild cognitive impairment who comes into the emergency department with some worsened altered mental status, you know, you want to check for a urinary tract infection, you want to check a chest x-ray - you don't want to test neural antibodies upfront. So, you always have to consider the setting and avoid overtesting, because like any test, they're not perfect, and you can run into trouble if you order it too frequently - so, that's another thing that we try to educate people. And then if you do order the test, we like to educate people on, you know, what the positive test results mean, and is there any potential for false positives like we talked about? Dr Jones: And I think, keeping in mind - obviously, there are exceptions - but the subacute onset of multifocal neurological disorder is really suggestive of autoimmunity. It doesn't mean that it can't happen in other contexts. And it has been exciting…

Full show notes at the publisher

Prognostication in Neurocritical Care With Dr. Susanne Muehlschlegel Jul 24, 2024

Show notes

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

Full show notes at the publisher

Neuromuscular Emergencies With Dr. Casey Albin Jul 17, 2024

Show notes

In this episode, Gordon Smith, MD, FAAN speaks with Casey S.W. Albin, MD, author of the article "Neuromuscular Emergencies," in the Continuum® June 2024 Neurocritical Care issue. Dr. Smith is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and professor and chair of neurology at Kenneth and Dianne Wright Distinguished Chair in Clinical and Translational Research at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia. Dr. Albin is an assistant professor of neurology and neurosurgery in the departments of neurology and neurosurgery, division of neurocritical care at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia. Additional Resources Read the article: Neuromuscular Emergencies Subscribe to Continuum: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @gordonsmithMD Guest: @caseyalbin Transcript Full transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum, the premier topic-based neurology clinical review and CME journal from the American Academy of Neurology. Thank you for joining us on Continuum Audio, a companion podcast to the journal. Continuum Audio features conversations with the guest editors and authors of Continuum, who are the leading experts in their fields. Subscribers to the Continuum journal can read the full article or listen to verbatim recordings of the article by visiting the link in the show notes. Subscribers also have access to exclusive audio content not featured on the podcast. As an ad-free journal entirely supported by subscriptions, if you're not already a subscriber, we encourage you to become one. For more information on subscribing, please visit the link in the show notes. AAN members, stay tuned after the episode to hear how you can get CME for listening. Dr Smith: Hi. This is Dr Gordon Smith. I'm super excited today to be able to have the opportunity to talk to Dr Casey Albin, who will introduce herself in a second. She's well known to Continuum Nation as the Associate Editor for Media Engagement for Continuum. She's also a Neurointensivist at Emory University and wrote a really outstanding article for the neurocritical care issue of Continuum on neuromuscular emergencies. Casey, thanks for joining us. Tell us about yourself. Dr Albin: Sure. Thank you so much, Dr Smith. So, yes, I'm Casey Albin. I am a Neurointensivist. I practice at Emory. We have a really busy and diverse care that we provide at the Emory neuro ICUs. Just at the Clifton campus, there's over forty beds. So, although neuromuscular emergencies certainly do not make up the bread and butter of our practice - I mean, like many intensivists, I spend most of my time primarily caring for patients with cerebrovascular disease - this is a really interesting and just kind of a fun group of patients to take care of because of the ability we have to improve their outcomes and that some of these patients really do get better. And that's a really exciting thing to bear witness to. Dr Smith: I love finding neurointensivists that are interested in neuromuscular medicine because I share your interest in these patients and the fact that there's a lot that we can do for them. You know, how did you get interested in neurocritical care, Casey? Dr Albin: You know, I was always interested in critical care. It was really actually the neurology part that I came late to the party. I was actually, like, gearing up to apply into emergency medicine and was doing my emergency medicine sub-I (like, that was the route I was going to take), and during that sub-I, I just kept encountering patients with neurologic emergencies - so, you know, leptomeningeal carcinomatosis and obstructive hydrocephalus, and then a patient with stroke - and I realized I was just gravitating towards the neuroemergencies more so than just any general emergencies. And I had really enjoyed my neurology rotation. I did not foresee that as the path I was going to take, but after kind of spending some time and taking care of so many neurologic emergencies from the lens of an emergency department, sort of realized, like, "You know, I should go back and do a neurology sub-I." And so, kind of, actually, late in the game is when I did that rotation and, like, dramatically changed my whole life trajectory. So, I have known since sort of that fourth year of medical school that I really wanted to focus on neurocritical care and neurologic emergencies, and I love the blend of critical care medicine and the procedural aspect of my job while doing it with the most interesting of all the organ systems. So, it's really a great blend of medicine. Dr Smith: Did you ever think about neuromuscular medicine? Dr Albin: Uh, no. Dr Smith: I had to ask. I had to ask. Dr Albin: No, I mean, I do really love neuromuscular emergencies, but I've known for forever that like, really wanted to be in an acute care setting. Dr Smith: You know, I think it's such a great story, Casey, and I know you're an educator, too, right? And, um, we hear this from learners all the time about how they come to neurology relatively late in medical school, and it's been really great to see the trajectory in terms of fellowship determination dates and giving our students opportunities to make their choice, you know, later during their medical school career. And I wonder whether your journey is an example of what we're seeing now (which is more and more students going into neurology because we're giving them the free space to do that), and then also in terms of fellowship decisions as well (which was what I was alluding to earlier)? Dr Albin: Yeah, absolutely. I think having more exposure to neurology and getting a chance to be in that clinical environment - you know, when you are doing the "brain and behaviors" (or whatever your medical school calls the neurology curriculum) - it is so hard and it's so dense, and I think that that's really overwhelming for students. And then you get into the clinical aspect of neurology, and sure, you have to know neurolocalization - and that is fundamentally important to everything we do - but the clinical application is just so beautiful and so much fun and it's so challenging, but in a good way. So, I totally agree. I think that more students need more exposure. Dr Smith: Well, I mean, that's a perfect segue to something I wanted to talk to you about, which is you brought up the beauty of neurology - which is, I think, you know, neurologic formulation, really – and we talk a lot about the elegance of the neurologic examination. But one of the things I really liked about your article was its old-school formulation – you talk about the importance of history, examination, localization, pattern recognition – I wonder if, maybe, you could give us some pearls from that approach and how you think about acute neuromuscular problems and the ICU? Dr Albin: Absolutely. I really do think that this is the cornerstone of making a good diagnosis, right? I will tell you what's really challenging about some of these patients when they are admitted to the ICU is that we are often faced with sort of a confounded exam. The patient may have been rapidly deteriorating, and they may not be able to provide a good history. They may be intubated by the time that we meet them. And so not only are they not able to provide a history themselves, but their exam may be confounded by the fact that they're on a little bit of sedation, or they were aspirating and now they have a little bit of pneumonia. I mean, it can be really challenging to get a good neurologic exam in these patients. But I do think the history and the physical are really where the money is in terms of being able to send the appropriate test. And so, when I think about these patients who get admitted to the neuro ICU, the first thing that we have to have is someone who can provide a really good collateral history, because so much of what we're trying to determine is, "Is this the first presentation, and this is a de novo (new) neuromuscular problem?" or "Had the patient actually had sort of a subacute or chronic (even) decline and they've been undiagnosed for something that was maybe a little bit more indolent, but (you know, they had an abrupt decline because, you know, they got pneumonia, or they have bloodstream infection, or whatever it was allowing them to sort of compensate) they have no longer been able to compensate?". And so, I really do think that that's key. And when I am hearing the story the first time, that's really one of the focuses of my history – is, "Was this truly a new problem?". And then, when we think about, you know, "Where do we localize this within the nervous system?", it's actually quite challenging because, you know, patients with acute spinal cord pathology may also not present with the upper motor neuron findings that are classic for spinal cord pathology. And so I think, again, it's a little bit recognizing that you can be confounded and we have to keep a broad differential, but I am sort of examining for whether or not there's proximal versus distal (like, the gradient of where they're weakest), is there symmetry or asymmetry, and then, are there other, sort of, features that go along with helping us localize to something to the nerves (such as sensory symptoms or autonomic symptoms)? So when I think about, you know, where we're putting this, you can put anything in sort of the anterior horn cells or to the nerves themselves, to the neuromuscular junction, and then to the muscles. And teasing that out, I put in some figures and tables within the article to help kind of help the reader think about what are features of my patient's exam, my patient's history, that might help me to put it into one of those four categories. Dr Smith: Yeah, I was actually going to comment on the figures in your article, Casey. They're really fantastic, and I encourage all of our listeners to check it out. There's, you know, figures showing muscle group involvement and different diseases and different muscle disorders and different forms of Guillain-Barré syndrome - it's a really beautiful way of visualizing things. I wonder if we could go back, though, because I wanted to delve down a little bit in this concept of patients who have chronic neuromuscular diseases presenting into the ICU. I mean, this happens surprisingly frequently with ALS patients or, like, myotonic dystrophy. I've seen this a number of times where folks are, just, they're not diagnosed and they're kind of slowly progressing and they tipped over the edge. Can you tell us more about how you recognize this? You talked a little bit about collateral history - other words of wisdom there? Dr Albin: I would say this is one of the hardest things that we encounter in critical care medicine, because quite frequently - and I see this more with ALS than myotonic dystrophies - but, I would say, like, I don't know, once every six months, we have a patient who's undiagnosed ALS present. And I think it can be extremely difficult to tease this out because there's something that's tipped them over the edge. And as an intensivist, you were always focused on resuscitating the patient and saving them from that life-threatening thing that pushed them over the edge, and then trying to tease out, "Well, were they hypercarbic and did they have respiratory failure because, you know, they've got a little bit of COPD, and is that what's going on here?" or, "Have they been declining and has there been sort of this increase in inability to ventilate actually because of diaphragmatic weakness and because of neuromuscular weakness?" Again, the collateral history is really important. One of the things that I think we are challenged by is how difficult - and I'm sure you can comment on this, as someone who is a neuromuscular guy - is how difficult it is to get a good EMG and nerve conduction study in the ICU in patients who may have been there for a little bit, you know? I think about this, sort of, the electrical interference, the fact that the patient's body temperature has fluctuated, the fact that they are, usually, by this time, like, they're a little volume overloaded – they're puffy. You know, it can be very frustrating. I think, actually, you probably would know more about, like, what it's like to do that exam on our ICU patients. Dr Smith: Sometimes, it's really challenging, I agree. And it's the whole list of things that you raised - and I think it goes back to the first question, really. You put a premium on old-school formulation, pattern recognition, localization, and taking a good history - you know, thinking of that ALS patient, right? I mean, one of the challenges, of course, that you have to deal with in that situation is prognostication and decisions regarding intubation, right? And that's very different from (I'll give another scenario that sometimes we run into, which is the other extreme) a patient with myasthenia gravis who, maybe we expect to be able to get off a ventilator very quickly, but sometimes they're reluctant to be ventilated because of their age or advanced directives and whatnot. I wonder if you could talk a little bit about how you approach counseling patients regarding prognosis related to their underlying neuromuscular disease and the need for intubation in a period of mechanical ventilation? Dr Albin: Just like you said, it really ranges from what the underlying diagnosis is. So, one of the things that, you know, like you said, myasthenia - these patients, when they're coming in in crisis, we know that there is a good chance that they're going to respond pretty quickly to immunotherapy. I mean, I think we've all seen these patients get plasma exchange, and within a day or two, they are so much stronger (they're lifting their head off the bed, they're clearing their secretions), and every now and then, we're able to temporize those patients with just noninvasive ventilation. You know, when we're having a discussion about that with the patient and with the care team, we really have to look at the amount of secretions and how well they're clearing them, because, again, we certainly don't want them to aspirate - that really sets people back. But, you know, I think, often in those cases, we can kind of use shared decision-making of, you know, "Can we help you get through this with noninvasive?" or, you know, "Looking at you, would you be all right with a short term of intubation?" Knowing that, usually, these patients stabilize not all the time, but quite frequently, with plasma exchange, which we use preferentially. The middle of that is, then, Guillain-Barré - those patients, because of the neuropathy features (the fact that it's going to take their nerves quite some time to heal, you know) - when those patients need to be intubated, a good 70% or more are going to require longer-term ventilation. And, so, again, it's working with a family, it's working with a patient to let them know, "We suspect that you're going to need to be on the ventilator for a long time. And we suspect, actually, you would probably benefit from early tracheostomy". And there was a really nice guidance that was just presented in the Journal of Neurocritical Care about prognosticating in patients with specifically Guillain-Barré (…

Full show notes at the publisher

Neuroinfectious Emergencies With Dr. Alexandra Reynolds Jul 10, 2024

Show notes

Neurologic infections become emergencies when they lead to a rapid decline in a patient's function; however, neurologic infections are often challenging to recognize. In this episode, Aaron Berkowitz, MD, PhD, FAAN, speaks with Alexandra S. Reynolds, MD, author of the article "Neuroinfectious Emergencies," in the Continuum® June 2024 Neurocritical Care issue. Dr. Berkowitz is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a professor of clinical neurology at the University of California, San Francisco Dr. Reynolds is an associate professor in the departments of neurosurgery and neurology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Health System in New York, New York. Additional Resources Read the article: Neuroinfectious Emergencies Subscribe to Continuum: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @AaronLBerkowitz Transcript Full transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum, the premier topic-based neurology clinical review and CME journal from the American Academy of Neurology. Thank you for joining us on Continuum Audio, a companion podcast to the Journal. Continuum Audio features conversations with the guest editors and authors of Continuum, who are the leading experts in their fields. Subscribers to the Continuum journal can read the full article or listen to verbatim recordings of the article by visiting the link in the show notes. Subscribers also have access to exclusive audio content not featured on the podcast. As an ad-free journal entirely supported by subscriptions, if you're not already a subscriber, we encourage you to become one. For more information on subscribing, please visit the link in the show notes. AAN members, stay tuned after the episode to hear how you can get CME for listening. Dr Berkowitz: This is Dr Aaron Berkowitz, and today, I'm interviewing Dr Alexandra Reynolds about her article on neuroinfectious emergencies, which is part of the June 2024 Continuum issue on neurocritical care. Welcome to the podcast, Dr Reynolds. Um, would you mind, please, introducing yourself to our audience? Dr Reynolds: Sure. Thank you for the invitation. I'm Alex Reynolds, and I am a neurointensivist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City. Dr Berkowitz: Fantastic. Thanks for joining us. Dr Reynolds has written a really comprehensive article with lots of clinical pearls for the evaluation of patients with neurologic infections. So, to start off, when should we consider a neurologic infection as the cause of a patient's neurologic symptoms? Dr Reynolds: That is a, really, much more complicated question than I think you recognize. I feel like a lot of it has to do with the risk factors of the patient. So, certainly, you know, a lot of times, we think about a patient who comes in with fever and altered mental status, and that's sort of the patient we're thinking about as having an intracranial infection – but, I do think there are a lot of risk factors that, sort of, may push us in that direction even if the patient doesn't have a fever or even if the patient doesn't seem like meningitis (for example). So, you know, a lot of patients nowadays are immunosuppressed, either because of infections or because of the therapies that we're using as immunosuppressants (so, autoimmune diseases, transplants, bone marrow patients). And then, I think, any patient who has had an intracranial procedure or a spinal procedure, we sort of just have to have in the back of our mind that surgical procedures come, by definition, with risk of infection (and so, that's always something to think about). And then, certainly, anything in terms of endemic risk factors (so a patient who has come from a country that has an endemic infection), we need to just be a little bit more broad about what we're thinking about in that patient population. Dr Berkowitz: That's very helpful. You mentioned something I wanted to pick up on. We always think fever, of course we're going to be thinking about a neurologic infection, but some types of neurologic infections and in some patient populations, it's possible to have an infection of the nervous system with no fever, sometimes even no white count. What other clues should be considered, or when would you think about pursuing infection even in patients who don't have a fever or an elevated white count? Dr Reynolds: So, certainly, in patients who have imaging that's a little abnormal. I think, oftentimes, the patients that I've seen with sort of indolent infections have a subdural collection that just doesn't look quite right or doesn't make sense with the clinical history (you know, you can have P. acnes infections that go on for months that people really don't necessarily notice) - so any imaging, oftentimes on MRI, you'll see, sort of, diffusion restriction where you don't really expect to see it. So, those sorts of patients might be ones where if the story is just not really fitting, you might want to think about infection. So, I think it's also important to remember that patients who have procedures elsewhere in the body can sort of seed themselves, and either by direct spread or by hematogenous spread, those infections can kind of seed the CNS - so, patients with valve procedures in the heart, patients who have intraabdominal procedures, there really is no reason that those infections can't travel to the CNS as well. And so, I was sort of always taught, you know, if the story doesn't make sense, then you have to consider infection, even if the patient doesn't have a white count or fever. So, I think just having, sort of, that suspicion in the back of your mind that if you can't really make sense of the story, then consider an infection. Dr Berkowitz: Yeah. So, obviously, fever, white count, those would clue us in that a patient with new neurologic symptoms (signs) may have an infection as a cause. But, as you said, they may not be present in patients who have had any type of neurosurgical procedure (or you've just taught us even non-neurosurgical procedures elsewhere in the body) that could have led to bacteremia. And then, you mentioned earlier, also patients who are immunocompromised may develop a neurologic infection without fever or white count, and our threshold is certainly lower to pursue that possibility in that population as well. Other points on that before we move on? Dr Reynolds: I had an attending that told me if you're thinking about a lumbar puncture, you better just do it – so, I think those are wise words to sort of live by. If you're thinking about an infection, you better just work it up. Dr Berkowitz: Yeah. I think that's right. I heard something similar that if you're standing around on rounds debating whether the patient should get a lumbar puncture, probably, if you've talked about it that much, you should probably do it. I think we've heard the same things in different places. Along those lines of who needs a lumbar puncture, many patients with systemic infections can develop a headache, even if it's just from systemic infection (you don't necessarily have meningitis and cephalitis), and many patients, particularly older patients, develop confusion in the course of systemic infections, like pneumonia and urinary tract infections. And as neurologists, we are often consulted on these patients because they are confused, they are febrile, they may have an elevated white count, and people start to wonder, Could this patient have meningitis? Could this patient have encephalitis? In many cases, at least in my experience (I'm curious to hear your experience), it turns out that these patients have a systemic infection and the confusion and/or headache are related to that systemic infection, not a primary neurologic infection - but based on that topic we just discussed about, if you've talked about lumbar puncture enough, probably best to do it. How do you think about these patients who are, for example, admitted to a medical service for fever and confusion, may or may not have had a systemic source identified, but the suspicion is there? How do you think about which of those patients need a lumbar puncture, or what clues you into thinking to have a higher concern for meningitis, encephalitis, abscess, other neurologic infections in this context? Dr Reynolds: It's such a good question, because I think, especially as we get older, you know, even things like nuchal rigidity might be hard to assess in a patient who's sort of started to fuse their spine - so, I think it can be really challenging. I think, you know, always go back to basics. Is there any new laterality that doesn't really make sense? Is there a sort of disconnect between imaging and how the patient looks? And it can be so confounded, because these are patients who are also on antibiotics (which themselves can be neurotoxic), and so, it can be really hard to sort of parse that out. But, I do think that there are some less invasive things you can try to do first to sort of help risk stratify your patient. So, you know, certainly, getting a CAT scan and just making sure that everything looks as you would expect it to look - there's no, sort of, hydro out of proportion to what you might expect. I've definitely seen patients who have meningitis that we caught because they have just a little bit of pus in the ventricles that was interpreted as intraventricular hemorrhage. And you sort of just have to sit there and think, like, Does that make sense, or is it an infection? EEG can be helpful, too, if it's lateralizing. You know, I think we don't think as much about HSV in the hospital. But, certainly, if you have something lateralizing on your EEG that just doesn't make sense, I think that could sort of push you in that direction as well. But, again, I think in most cases, unless the patient's very thrombocytopenic or coagulopathic, the risk of an LP sort of doesn't really outweigh the benefit of feeling confident that you haven't missed something, because I think, you know, one of the big points of this article is that if you catch these CNS infections early, people can actually do really well, and, really, most of the morbidity and mortality is from missing the infection - so we've been trying to move away from LP-ing everybody on admission, but I do think that you should be tapping some people that are not infected, because then you're probably catching everyone who is. Dr Berkowitz: It's great to hear your approach, and I think that aligns with my thinking as well. I do want to ask as a follow-up to that question (I've asked this of internists I work with and other neurologists) - I totally agree with everything you said in the sense that, you know, we are consulted by our internists, we presume that they haven't found a reason that the patient is febrile and confused from a systemic standpoint, and that's why we're being consulted. There are, obviously, many patients who are febrile and confused in the hospital where neurology has not been called because there's other obvious reasons, as you have mentioned. However, as you said, if the patient has some immunocompromise, maybe there's some features that are suggestive in the history or nuchal rigidity - as you said, harder in older patients - but there's something there that you sort of think, maybe we should just do a lumbar puncture just to make sure we sort of settle this because we keep thinking about it. The question is, in your experience, when you've gotten a lumbar puncture more as a rule-out, or you think, I think this is the patient's pneumonia and they're confused because they're delirious in the hospital (sort of toxic metabolic encephalopathy), have you ever been surprised? Talking to an internist colleague, I've said, I feel like I haven't actually seen that much bacterial meningitis in the U.S., fortunately, thanks to vaccination. And, usually, the patient is coming in with a pretty profound syndrome of meningitis or encephalitis. But, as far as patients in the hospital with a fever, where you're thinking, "This is kind of a rule-out, so just make sure, even though I don't think I'm going to find meningitis in a patient who is immunocompetent", have you ever been surprised and found meningitis encephalitis when you didn't expect to find it? Or, what's been your experience when you, as you said, tap these patients because you'd rather get a few normal ones in there to make sure you never missed the abnormal? Dr Reynolds: I would say the few times that I've been surprised were not with fully immunocompetent patients. You know, someone with a splenectomy who otherwise looks immunocompetent, someone with pretty advanced cancer - those are examples where you wouldn't necessarily have thought about it as being immunocompromised, but they are. Certainly, I think patients with advanced cancer can, really - they're much higher risk than I used to think about. The more I've taken care of them, the more I've realized how sensitive they are to infections and how quickly that can spread, even if they're not actively getting chemotherapy. But, I would say in general, for the truly immunocompetent patient, I would say I haven't really diagnosed anything super exciting. Dr Berkowitz: Yeah, that's good to hear. I love to, on these Continuum Audio interviews, poll experts in other institutions who trained other places and, you know, learn from different patient populations if your experience resonates with mine and others I've spoken to. Yeah, that sounds similar to my experience as well, yeah, if the patient is immunocompromised - and as you said, we maybe need to broaden that from being truly profoundly immunocompromised by congenital immunodeficiency or HIV or immunomodulatory therapy to have a slightly broader perspective on what could constitute immunocompromise - and, of course, we'd have an extremely low threshold to perform a lumbar puncture in such patients, as you said. You reminded me of a case I was trying to remember the details (which I don't) – it was a patient, actually, with a temporal lobe glioblastoma that had been resected and had some recurrence and was worsening, and it looked like it was tumor recurrence/progression. And I don't - wasn't my patient, I just sort of heard about it - but I don't know which attending or resident or fellow decided that the patient should get a lumbar puncture, and the patient actually developed HSV encephalitis of the temporal lobe, where the glioblastoma was. Dr Reynolds: Wow. Dr Berkowitz: Patients with cancer, especially with all the new immunotherapies - and even without them, as you said - this is a state in which people may be vulnerable to infections and ones you might not immediately think of. So, those are some great pearls. Speaking of pearls, you have a really fantastic section in your article on neurologic complications of CNS infections. In other words, you've already diagnosed the meningitis, encephalitis, abscess, or otherwise, and all the other neurologic complications that can occur in the course of this illness. So, it'd be great to talk with you a little bit about that here. So, if a patient is diagnosed with infectious meningitis or encephalitis (we've made that diagnosis by the clinical picture, the lumbar puncture…

Full show notes at the publisher

Traumatic Brain Injury and Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury With Dr. Jamie Podell Jul 03, 2024

Show notes

Despite validated models, predicting outcomes after traumatic brain injury remains challenging, requiring prognostic humility and a model of shared decision making with surrogate decision makers to establish care goals. In this episode, Lyell Jones, MD, FAAN, speaks with Jamie E. Podell, MD, an author of the article "Traumatic Brain Injury and Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury," in the Continuum June 2024 Neurocritical Care issue. Dr. Jones is the editor-in-chief of Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology® and is a professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Dr. Podell is an assistant professor in the department of neurology, program in trauma at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland. Additional Resources Read the article: Traumatic Brain Injury and Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury Subscribe to Continuum: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @LyellJ Guest: @jepodell Transcript Full transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum, the premier, topic-based neurology clinical review and CME journal from the American Academy of Neurology. Thank you for joining us on Continuum Audio, a companion podcast to the journal. Continuum Audio features conversations with the guest editors and authors of Continuum, who are the leading experts in their fields. Subscribers to the Continuum journal can read the full article or listen to verbatim recordings of the article by visiting the link in the show notes. Subscribers also have access to exclusive audio content not featured on the podcast. As an ad-free journal entirely supported by subscriptions, if you're not already a subscriber, we encourage you to become one. For more information on subscribing, please visit the link in the show notes. AAN members, stay tuned after the episode to hear how you can get CME for listening. Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology. Today, I'm interviewing Dr Jamie Podell, who has recently authored an article on traumatic brain injury and traumatic spinal cord injury in the latest issue of Continuum on neurocritical care. Dr Podell, welcome. Thank you for joining us today. Why don't you introduce yourself to our audience and tell us a little bit about yourself? Dr Podell: Thanks, Dr Jones. It's great to be here. As you mentioned, I'm Dr Podell. I'm neurocritical care faculty at University of Maryland Shock Trauma. I have a primary interest in traumatic brain injury, both from a research and clinical perspective. I previously have more of a cognitive neuroscience background, but I think it kind of ties into how I think about TBI and outcomes from traumatic brain injury. But what I really like doing is managing acutely ill patients in the ICU, and I think TBI really affords those kinds of interventions, and it's a really rewarding kind of setting to take care of patients. Dr Jones: Yeah, and I really can't wait to talk to you about your article here, which is fantastic. For our listeners who might be new to Continuum, Continuum is a journal dedicated to helping clinicians deliver the best possible neurologic care to their patients, just like Dr Podell was talking about. We do that with high quality and current clinical reviews, and Dr Podell's article - it's a massive topic - traumatic brain injury and traumatic spinal cord injury. And, you know, as we start off here, Dr Podell, we have the attention now of a massive audience of neurologists. If you had one most important practice change that you would like to see in the care of these patients who have trauma, what would that practice change be? And, I think, maybe, we'll give you two answers, because you cover TBI and you cover spinal cord injury. What would be the most important practice changes you'd like to see? Dr Podell: So, this isn't that specific, but I think it's really important. I think we need more neurologists, and specifically neurointensivists, managing these patients. I think there's a lot of variability across institutions and how acute severe TBI and spinal cord injury patients are managed. They're often in surgical ICUs, and neurology may be involved in consultation but not in the day-to-day management. But I think what we're seeing is that, you know, there's a lot of multisystem organ dysfunction that happens in these patients, and that has a really strong interplay with neurologic recovery and brain function. And I think, you know, neurointensivists are very well equipped to think about the whole body and how we can kind of manipulate and really aggressively support the body to help heal the brain with special attention to, kind of, the nuance of any individual patient's brain injury. Because TBI is extremely heterogeneous and there's not just a cookie-cutter script for how these patients can be managed, I think, you know, people like neurologists, neurointensivists who have a lot of attention to the nuance - that's really helpful in their management. Dr Jones: I'm so glad you said that, and not just because I'm a neurologist who's a fan of neurologists, but I do think there are some corners of neuroscience care where neurologists could be a little more present - and trauma definitely seems like one of those, doesn't it? Dr Podell: Yeah, I think it's tough, because some patients with severe TBI and spinal cord injury can have a lot of multisystemic trauma with, you know, pulmonary contusions, intraabdominal pathology - you need to go to the OR for their other injuries, and so I think it really makes sense to have kind of a collaborative multidisciplinary approach to these patients, but I think neurologists should play a very big role in that approach, however that's done (there are lots of different ways that it's done). But I think having a primary neurology-trained neurointensivist – I know I'm biased, but I think that's where I'd like to see the field moving. Dr Jones: And, obviously, neurocritical care is an intuitive place for neurological trauma care to start, and even with the sequelae of downstream things, I think neurologists could be more engaged. I wonder if neurology hasn't historically been as involved because it's sort of gravitated to surgical specialists. And I think part of it is, you know, trauma is not usually a diagnostic mystery, right? The neurologist can't pretend to be Sherlock Holmes and try to figure out what's going on when it was pretty clear what the event was, right? Dr Podell: Right. Yeah, I agree with both of those points. I think, for one, I think postacute care is also a big area where neurologists can be involved more - and patients kind of fall through the cracks. A lot of times, these patients will just follow up with a neurosurgeon and get a repeat head CT and it'll look stable. We started implementing post-TBI neural recovery clinics, which I think other places are starting to do as well, and I think that's kind of a good model for getting neurologists involved - but also, rehab specialists are involved in that. But in terms of, yeah, the diagnostic mysteries and stuff, I think there still can be some, though, with TBI. Yes, obviously, the initial primary insult is obvious, but the secondary pathology that can happen in patients is really nuanced, and it is so variable, and, sometimes, it does take that detective eye to see, "Oh, this patient has one cerebrovascular injury, their risk of stroke to this territory? How are we going to manage it? and thinking about all the kind of sources of secondary decline that are possible. I think it takes that neurology detective sometimes to think about, too. Dr Jones: Yeah. We never stop pretending to be detectives, right? Dr Podell: Yeah. Dr Jones: And on a related note, you know, in your article, you mentioned some of the novel serum and electrophysiologic and imaging biomarkers that are being used to care for these patients. How are you using those in your practice, Dr Podell? Dr Podell: That's a good question. I think, unfortunately, as with a lot of clinical care, the clinical care does kind of lag behind the research and what we know what we can learn about these patients and their outcomes through retrospective studies. So, to be completely honest, you know, even the serum studies that I mentioned in the article (like GFAP, UCH-L1) - those kind of things, that's not clinically available at our institution. We don't use those. I think a lot of the imaging biomarkers that we see, some of them are coming from more advanced imaging – like, we're talking about FMRI - that requires a lot of post processing (so, again, we're not necessarily using that clinically). But what I would say is that we use imaging to kind of try to predict what complications patients might be at risk of and to try to predict their clinical course. And I think it comes down to trying to break down the heterogeneity of these patients and to try to kind of lump them into different bins of, "What's this patient at risk for?", "What's their trajectory going to be like?", "When can I start peeling back how aggressive I am with this patient?". And, so far, I don't think any of the markers that we have are really clear black-white prescriptive indicators of what to do (I don't think we're quite there yet). So, again, I think we just kind of use all of the data in combination to come up with a management plan for these patients. I think some of the markers, (like some of the electrophysiologic markers), looking at EEG for things like background can provide prognostic information, especially in patients who are comatose that you're wondering about if they're going to wake up (so a lot of this can inform family discussions). But, you know, we used to think that grade three diffuse axonal injury on MRI portended a very poor prognosis (and in the past, some surgeons and ICUs might use that to limit care in patients), but more and more, we're finding that even that is quite nuanced and we're detecting more and more diffuse axonal injury on images in patients who then wake up, or have already woken up and they have the MRI later, and you're like, "Hmm, they had DAI. It's a good thing you didn't get the MRI early and decide not to move forward with aggressive care". But, I think, in a patient who's comatose and you don't have a good explanation, sometimes, looking for those additional biomarkers to explain what kind of injury pathology you have can just provide more information for families. Dr Jones: Yeah, and that's a great point that comes up in a lot of our articles and interviews (that the biomarkers really do have to be in a clinical context). So, if I understand you correctly, really, no individual biomarker that has emerged as a precise predictor or prognosticator for outcomes - but you do talk a lot about recent advances in the care of these patients. What would you want to point out to our listeners that's come up recently in the care of trauma? Dr Podell: Yeah. I think the evidence basis for severe TBI is limited because, again, there's so much heterogeneity and different things going on with different patients, but some of the evidence that has come out more recently involves, kind of, indications for surgical procedures and the timing of those procedures. Some of that is still kind of expert consensus-based. But, for example, doing a secondary decompression for elevated ICP with the DECRA and RESCUEicp trials. We do have better high-quality evidence that doing a secondary decompression for more refractory, elevated ICP can improve both mortality and functional outcomes in patients, so that has kind of become more standard of care. Additionally, I think timing for spinal cord injury, neurosurgical procedures - that's been a topic that's been studied in more evidence-based to perform earlier decompressive surgeries. And then, I think, you know, more and more is emerging just about the pathophysiology of secondary injury - and some of those things haven't necessarily translated to what to do about it - but we've learned about things like cortical spreading depolarizations being associated with worse outcomes in traumatic brain injury, and we've also identified that ketamine or memantine can both actually stop those cortical spreading depolarizations. But the overall impact of managing them is still unknown, and the way that we detect those, it requires an invasive electrocorticography monitor which not all centers have. So, I think, one of the important things as we move forward in TBI care is, as we get this better mechanistic understanding of some of the pathophysiology that's happening in these TBI patients, figuring out a way to be able to translate that across all clinical settings where you can actually do the monitoring invasively - that's also an issue we see. Even intracranial pressure monitoring is pretty standard of care, but not all centers do that, and we have to be able to apply practice recommendations to centers where there isn't necessarily access to the same things that we have at large academic trauma centers. Dr Jones: Got it. Obviously, there's a lot of research in this area, a lot of clinical research, and I'm glad you mentioned the secondary injury - things that are happening at the tissue level are important for us to think about. As the care of patients with trauma has evolved (and I'm thinking now of patients with spinal cord injury), we still see patients who receive high-dose corticosteroids in the setting of acute spinal cord injury - and obviously, that's something that's evolved. Can you tell our listeners a little bit more about what they should be doing when they're seeing a patient with a traumatic spinal cord injury? Dr Podell: Yes. So, the steroids story for spinal cord injury is kind of interesting. There were a series of trials called the NASCIS trials that looked at corticosteroids and spinal cord injury, and they were initially interpreted that high-dose steroids had a beneficial effect on spinal cord injury recovery - but then, kind of in relooking at the data and recognizing that these were kind of unplanned subgroup analyses that showed benefit, and then looking at kind of pooled reanalysis and meta-analysis of all the data out there, it was determined that there actually was no clear benefit from steroids and that there was a clear incidence of more complications from high-dose steroids. So, in general, corticosteroids are not recommended for spinal cord injury. Same for traumatic brain injury, too (even though some people will still give steroids for that) - there was a CRASH study that looked at corticosteroids in TBI and found worse outcomes in TBI (so there actually is high-level evidence not to use steroids in that case). That's not to say that there's not an inflammatory process that's going on that could be causing secondary injury - I think that's still, really, you know, an area of active research is to try to figure out what is the balance between potential adaptive mechanisms of inflammation that are happening versus more maladaptive sources of secondary injury from inflammation and how and when do we target that inflammation to improve outcomes. So, there's still, I think, more to come on that. Dr Jo…

Full show notes at the publisher

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected