Continuum Audio

Advances in immunotherapies for multiple sclerosis and related disorders have increased the risk of infections and raised important questions about vaccination efficacy. This episode reviews infection risks across treatment classes, emphasizes the importance of monitoring and patient education, and discusses optimal vaccine timing to preserve protective immune responses. In this episode, Aaron L. Berkowitz, MD, PhD, FAAN, speaks with Avindra Nath, MBBS, FAAN, coauthor of the article "Infection Risk and Vaccine Considerations in Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders" in the Continuum® April 2026 Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders issue. Dr. Berkowitz is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a professor of neurology in the Department of Neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, in San Francisco, California. Dr. Nath is the chief of the Section of Infections of the Nervous System at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, in Bethesda, Maryland Additional Resources Read the article: Infection Risk and Vaccine Considerations in Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @AaronLBerkowitz Full episode transcript available here Dr Berkowitz: Over the last decades, there has been a revolution in the treatment of multiple sclerosis, neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder, and other immune-mediated neurologic conditions with countless new, highly effective medications. However, with every new treatment comes new risks; and in the case of immunomodulatory therapy, many of those risks relate to infection. Today, I have the privilege of talking with an expert on this topic, Dr Avindra Nath, about the infectious risks of treatments for multiple sclerosis and other immune-mediated neurologic disorders.  Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast.  Dr Berkowitz: This is Dr Aaron Berkowitz, and today I'm interviewing Dr Avi Nath about his article on vaccine considerations and infection risk in multiple sclerosis and related disorders, which he coauthored with Dr Amit Bar-Or. This article appears in the April 2026 Continuum issue on multiple sclerosis. Welcome to the podcast, Dr Nath, and could you please introduce yourself to our audience?  Dr Nath: Thanks very much for inviting me to this podcast. I'm absolutely delighted to have the opportunity to discuss our areas of interest and expertise related to infections and vaccinations for MS patients. My area has been studying the infections of the nervous system since the beginning of the AIDS pandemic, and over the years and decades, we've developed expertise related to various types of CNS infections. That includes ones that are developing in individuals who have immune compromise due to a variety of different reasons. Dr Berkowitz: Fantastic. Well, glad to have the opportunity to speak with you today. When I was in medical school---and you were my attending, actually, we were just reminiscing, which we probably think was not that long ago, but is now over twenty years ago---there were just two medications for MS, right? Beta interferon and glatiramer acetate. And now we have over a dozen, and it's amazing to think of all the progress in these last two decades, as well as for related diseases like NMO. I don't think we even had the aquaporin-four biomarker, right, when I was working with you as a med student in the early 2000s. Dr Nath: And that certainly dates me a lot.  Dr Berkowitz: Both of us.  Dr Nath: Yeah.  Dr Berkowitz: Of course, with all these new treatments, these have been amazing advances for our patients, right? But these come with new treatment-related risks to monitor for with the immunomodulatory medications for MS and related disorders. And one of those most important risks is that of infection. So, your article reviews the potential infectious complications of medications used to treat MS, NMO, etc, and also covers considerations related to thinking about vaccines in this patient population. So, as the MS treatment landscape grows, I can say as a general neurologist, keeping up with all these medications and what to screen for and what to worry about and when to vaccinate just becomes more challenging every year. And your article has so many helpful tables, some organized by medicine, some organized by- sorry, medication, some organized by infection, some by vaccines. So, this is gonna be a great resource for our providers to print out and tape up in their clinic rooms. We won't be able to get into all the depth and detail that you have in this article today, but I do want to focus on some of the key points here related to the common medications we use for MS and which infections to think about and which vaccine considerations we might need to keep in mind for these medications. But before we delve into the drugs, I just wanna ask you more broadly, you talk in the article about the challenge of patients with immune-mediated diseases who are on immunomodulatory therapy being at risk for both flares of their disease and for infections; and these infections can present somewhat atypically, right, in immunomodulated hosts, to maybe coin a term you can correct me on, because they can't mount the full inflammatory response. So how do you approach new symptoms in patients on these immunomodulatory medicines as far as distinguishing disease flare from a treatment-related infection?  Dr Nath: So, I have to say that although a lot of new treatments have come along for MS, and they've really, you know, improved the outcome tremendously and there are so many different options, it has also kept people like me relevant because they cause a lot of various types of infections, and so keeps me in business all the same. But just as you mentioned, there's so many of them, even I have difficulty keeping track of what does what. So, you do need to be able to refer back to published literature, and the tables, I hope, will be quite useful in that regard. You're absolutely right, and you can get new infections, you can get reactivation of existing infections, and you can get atypical presentations of various types of infections that you may not normally think of. So that presents multiple challenges to the treating physician. The other interesting thing about MS is, just as you mentioned, that you already have CNS lesions to begin with. Now, on top of it, you have an infection, so now how to sort out what is the existing disease and what is the infection, it can again become challenging. But one thing is for sure: all these infections are caused by an organism. So, what you really need to do is, the underlying diagnostic is to demonstrate the presence of the organism. Whether you demonstrate it depending on the infection in the spinal fluid or in the brain or, you know, some peripheral organ system, that is going to be key to making the diagnosis. So, all your clinical acumen is good, but that alone may not be sufficient. Dr Berkowitz: Very good. So, when you see a, a patient now who has a new neurologic symptom in the context of an immune-mediated disease who's on immunomodulatory therapy, what goes through your mind? Are you thinking this disease and this drug, and sort of what are the infections, and does the syndrome match? Or are you thinking, you know, you can't always rely on the imaging to distinguish between, say, a flare of an MS and PML because white matter lesions could look similar? How do you sort of approach this scenario when it comes up?  Dr Nath: So, you're right. You have to keep an open mind so that even though you know some infections are more likely to occur with certain types of medications, that doesn't mean that others cannot occur. So, I think when you first see the patient, you should not jump to conclusions, but rather have an open mind. But yes, for example, your patient is on natalizumab, the chances of PML are going to be high. It's a very interesting drug. It does not cause immune compromise in the periphery, but what it's doing is preventing these cells from getting into the brain. So, because then it's acting at the blood-brain barrier. So that means that organisms that are already present in the brain have an opportunity to get reactivated. Turns out you don't have a lot of organisms in the brain, except JC virus seems to be one of them that does somehow, in some individuals, manage to reside out there. And so that can get reactivated. It can get reactivated in the periphery and then enter the brain, too. So, where the very specific mutations have to occur in that virus in order to take residence in the brain. That would be a suspicion that you might have, and MRI can be useful in, again, helping you think about that possibility. If you have typical lesions involving the U fibers, they're demyelinating, usually you do not have much edema around them because patient is immune compromised, but certainly within the brain in these individuals. And so, then you need to demonstrate the organism. The demonstration of the organism should be in the spinal fluid and not in the blood because in the virus, it can-- is reservoir in the kidneys and in the lymph nodes, and periodically it'll shed into the blood. Detection of the organism in the blood can be a false positive, but in the spinal fluid, it shouldn't be there unless you have an infection. Or if you cause a traumatic tap, I guess, if a patient is viremic, that's a possibility, but those are extremely rare. So at least for PML, that's the way that you would diagnose it. Now, you can develop, for example, if an individual is on fingolimod, you can get a wide variety of infections. Here it's a totally different type of mechanism of action. Here the cells are trapped within the lymph nodes, so that means now your entire periphery is immune compromised, right?  So here you can get viral infections, bacterial infections, fungal infections. So here, if a patient presents with new neurological symptoms, you have to have a really open mind for all these possibilities. Now, let's say a patient was on dimethyl fumarate, and dimethyl fumarate causes neutropenia early on. So here you have to worry about an individual developing bacterial infections, so latent tuberculosis or bacterial meningitis can occur in these individuals. That's something to keep in mind. It's not that other infections cannot occur with dimethyl fumarate, you can see PML and other things too, but the chances of bacterial infections are greater. So, you got to make sure that you draw all the cultures for that purpose. Similarly, if you're on a complement inhibitor, like a C5 inhibitor or the thing that I could use in NMO, there are the chances of meningococcal meningitis. So, these patients, you need to prevaccinate them before you start these kinds of treatments and look for that possibility. When you suspect bacterial infections, particularly acute bacterial meningitis, there time is of essence. Also, in some of the acute viral infections, for example---herpes encephalitis is another one---you have to be so careful, and if you suspect any of them, even if they're with possibly atypical manifestations, you treat first and then diagnose later, and draw all your cultures, whatever you need to, and just treat them. And these infections can also cause cerebral edema, so one has to be careful about doing spinal taps in these individuals. You want some kind of neuroimaging before you do them. In the days when we didn't have neuroimaging, we used to say, "Okay, if your patient has focal neurological signs or is comatose, you don't do it." But these days, you can get imaging very quickly and very easily. All the-- Because of our stroke management, we've learned how to do them so quickly. So, I think there's little excuse not to do imaging and prevent herniation from occurring.  Dr Berkowitz: That's very helpful. So, using the information we know about the drug, and we're going to rapid-fire review some of that in a bit to know what infections the patient is susceptible to, but acknowledging that any patient can get any infection, right? Whether they're on particular medications or not. And then if you're not sure, based on the neuroimaging, which as you said, is helpful, but not always helpful in distinguishing between infections and flares or, as you said, in the case of meningitis, encephalitis, early on at least, especially in immunocompromised or immunomodulated, quote unquote, patient might not see the typical imaging. So really, when safe, getting CSF or cultures, PCRs, and other infectious studies too is really gonna be the definitive diagnostic maneuver here. Is that fair summary across the board?  Dr Nath: I think you said that absolutely right. And you summarized that correctly. And, you know, thing about infection, a lot of neurological diseases are, you know, diagnosed by clinical acumen, like your Parkinson's and Alzheimer's and others. Think about infections is caused by an organism, demonstrate the organism, right? That should be your goal. It doesn't mean that clinical acumen is not important, but here you have an opportunity to demonstrate the organism, so you should depend upon that.  Dr Berkowitz: Okay. Well, you gave us a nice segue by talking about some of the infections to worry about with some of the medications. So what I'd like to do now for the sort of second half of our interview here is to go through some of the more common medications used for MS, and if we have time, for NMO, and just sort of go kind of rapid fire here, and for each medication, if you can tell us the kind of top infectious concerns and whether when to consider them or what screening needs to take place before or during administration of the medication, and then any vaccine considerations we should be aware of. Some of these will obviously be quite short depending on the medicine. So, going back to the two medications I alluded to earlier that were the only ones in play when you and I last saw each other on the wards when I was a medical student, beta interferon, glatiramer acetate, any infections or vaccine considerations with these medications?  Dr Nath: No, I think they're probably your safest medications now as far as immunomodulatory therapies are concerned. These two, and IVIG, if you ever use them, are probably the safest, do not require any vaccine considerations, per se. Dr Berkowitz: Perfect. Okay. So, moving on to fingolimod and others in the sphingosine-one phosphate receptor modulator family, what are the infectious considerations? Any prescreening or vaccination considerations?  Dr Nath: I think all your patients should be prescreened for antibodies to JC virus, because there is a risk for PML, and those who are positive should be closely monitored. So, it's not an absolute contraindication for using these medications, but they just require closer monitoring. With this class of drugs, PML is of consideration. Also, these varicella-zoster virus infection, yeah, with that you can develop zoster encephalitis or myelitis. It can present with motor symptoms as well, which can be atypical. You don't usually see them otherwise in immune-competent individuals. So, varicella-zoster, sometimes you can develop encephalitis, also vasculitis with varicella-zoster, so one has to be careful. So, getting the shingles vaccine can be actually very helpful to prevent these things. And then some patients can even develop herpes simplex encephalitis also, and that can be extremely atypical. So, they don't- they can involve the basal ganglia, can involve the brain stem and cerebellum. So again, your index of suspicion should be very high. Interestingly, although HSV encephalitis has been associated with NMDA receptor encephalitis, those reports of NMDA receptor encephalitis have not been published yet with NMS patients. Not sure why, maybe they just have been missed. But that doesn't seem to be a major concern. And then there are a whole host of other infections that can occur with this class of drugs, and that can include toxo; fungal infections, particularly crypto. There's a case report of histoplasmosis; hepatitis virus, particularly hepatitis C; and then the poxvirus is a good example. You can get molluscum contagiosum; warts with papillomavirus; you can get atypical mycobacteria; and even Kaposi sarcoma, which is HHV8. So, there's a huge variety of infections with the sphingosine one phosphate receptor modulators.  Dr Berkowitz: And any- aside from screening for JC virus before initiating these, any- and then continuing to monitor for JC antibody index, any other considerations as far as labs to send, monitoring before or on the drug or vaccine considerations for patients on fingolimod and the others in this category, siponimod, etcetera?  Dr Nath: Yeah, there are a lot of things to consider. All the details are really available in the chapter if you look at them. But briefly, all the things that one could potentially vaccinate patients for, all these infections I mentioned, one should do so. The timing is critical so that if you can do it before treatment, I think, before starting treatment, that is absolutely important. And you got to give them at least, you know, two to three weeks for these vaccines to take effect before starting your medication. If your patient already arrives on a medication, then you got to play this game of you know, before the next dose, give them again two to three weeks before the next dose and start vaccinating them and get all the vaccines in. Broadly, about the things to worry about the vaccines are you have live vaccines, and you've got the inactivated vaccines or the subunit vaccines. You have to be careful with live vaccines, because if your patient is immunocompromised, that virus can sometimes itself cause harm. For example, you know, yellow fever is one, and there you can develop encephalitis from it. Measles, mumps, rubella, these are all live vaccines. Now, the good thing is that a lot of us have been immunized very early in childhood, but that may not be the case any longer. And so, these things, one has to be very careful with when you're giving live vaccines, that we want to avoid them as much as possible, and individuals are gonna be immune-compromised. But all the others, meningococcus, for example, you should- the HPV vaccines, the varicella zoster vaccines, all these things, you've got to pre-vaccinate and make sure that they have an antibody response to them before starting immunocompromising therapy. Dr Berkowitz: Perfect. Okay, moving on to some of the other orals. What infectious and/or vaccine considerations do we have with teriflunomide?  Dr Nath: Okay, yeah. Teriflunomide is a very interesting drug. It's relatively safe. There is concern about the possibility of varicella zoster infection, people have reported that, and also tuberculosis. But PML is extremely rare, if not at all, and we haven't seen herpes encephalitis quite yet.  Dr Berkowitz: Got it. How about dimethyl fumarate? Dr Nath: Yeah. So dimethyl fumarate is... as I mentioned earlier, it's interesting because it causes this neutropenia. It's transient, but it occurs early on, and these patients can be at risk of PML, although small. They can develop varicella zoster virus infection, herpes encephalitis, and also fungal infections. For example, cryptococcal infection has been reported with dimethyl fumarate. Dr Berkowitz: Okay. We've spoken a bit about natalizumab and PML, and you have extensive information on this in your article, and I'll defer the reader to that. But for natalizumab, what are the key points every neurologist should know about natalizumab and PML as far as from the practical perspective, screening, frequency of screening, when to worry, when to not use natalizumab at all in the first place based on what you find in your screening for JC virus? What are the key points every neurologist should know?  Dr Nath: Uh, yes. You bring up an important point, and that is all patients should be monitored for JC virus. If they're JC virus-negative, so that's your most ideal patient to go on natalizumab, but that doesn't mean they cannot get infected with the virus. In fact, there's an interesting study claiming that, you know, patients, when they get these infusions, they're all sitting in the same room getting infused. Some have JC virus, some don't have JC virus, and so there's the potential that we may be aiding the transmission here in some way or another. The virus is an interesting one. It comes out in urine, and then it's spread through oral contamination, gets into the tonsils, and then spreads from there to your marrow and resides in the kidney and the marrow, as well as the lymph nodes, forever. So, you, you have to monitor these patients to see that during the course, even if they're negative, they could turn out positive. So, every six months or a year, an antibody test should be done on all patients irrespective. If a patient already has antibodies, that's not an absolute contraindication. It just means you've got to monitor them closely for development of new symptoms, and if, whenever there are new symptoms, don't just assume this is due to MS, but just make sure the MRI is done with and without contrast. The- and if there's still a suspicion, that you do a CSF evaluation for JC virus. Just detecting, looking for JC virus in the blood, a rising titer is another thing that can help you. And so, the titer is also important. And the reason you have rising titers is it means that there's an infection that's already occurred in the brain, and the immune system is reacting to that infection by increasing titers. But that alone is not sufficient to make the diagnosis. You still- that gives you an index of suspicion. You've got to then do the MRI and the spinal tap to, you know, be absolutely certain. So, each patient is a little bit different, so the way you monitor them is going to depend on where they are. You know, if they've had prior immunomodulatory therapy before starting natalizumab, or if they're on natalizumab for more than two years, then the chances of PML are much greater, so you may want to monitor them more closely. Uh, they never had any prior immunomodulatory therapy, you're just starting natalizumab, maybe once a year is sufficient. So, I think you've got to tailor it depending on what your risks are for each patient. Dr Berkowitz: Perfect. That's very helpful. And again, you write extensively about PML and natalizumab and PML considerations in your article. So, for a more detailed and in-depth discussion of what we just discussed, definitely hope readers will take a look at your article. Okay. Last but not least---certainly not least, 'cause we're using these probably, it seems, the most commonly in many places I've worked---rituximab, ocrelizumab are B-cell therapies for MS. What are some of the infectious and vaccine considerations related to these infusion medications?  Dr Nath: So, there's concern for PML with anti-B-cell therapies also, maybe not to the same degree as natalizumab, but the same principles should be applied. A lot of people think that these are relatively safe. I don't think so. I think we see enough number of patients on B-cell therapies with PML. So, I would use the same caution because these infections are... you know, can be fatal. So, one should be very careful, even with anti-B-cell therapies. And just with natalizumab, you also have the risk of VZV infection causing shingles. HSV1 has been reported, but there's another interesting complication that has been reported with anti-B-cell therapies, and that is severe West Nile encephalitis. And as mosquitoes-borne diseases are getting more and more prevalent, and we're seeing West Nile cases erupting every summer, I think one's got to be, you know, very cognizant of the fact that this can occur. These patients should take precautions to prevent mosquito bites from occurring and not expose themselves to areas where they could be at risk for it. Unfortunately, there is no vaccine for it and no specific treatment for West Nile. So, all one can do is use prevention strategies for mosquito bites.  Dr Berkowitz: Yeah, I'm glad you mentioned that. I think the only really truly severe neuroinvasive cases I've seen of West Nile virus have indeed been in patients who were being treated with B-cell therapy. Not, if I'm remembering correctly, for immune-mediated disease, but for a lymphoma, so probably other confounding factors there. But yeah, it's a disease we learn about and think about, but I've only seen the most severe cases in patients who had abnormal immune systems, so I'm glad you flagged that. This has been a very helpful discussion, and I've learned a lot from you. I learned a lot from your article, just as I did when you were my attending some 20-something years ago on the wards when I was a medical student. So, it's good to continue learning from you through your writing and research, and today from getting to talk to you again. I encourage our readers to read your article and to bookmark those tables for when these considerations come up for your patients on these immunomodulatory therapies and you're wondering which infections to worry about and how to manage vaccines in this patient population. So again, today I've been interviewing Dr. Avi Nath about his article on vaccine considerations and infection risk in multiple sclerosis and related disorders, which he wrote with Dr. Amit Bar-Or. This article appears in the April 2026 Continuum issue on multiple sclerosis. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues, and thank you again to our listeners for joining today.  Dr Nath: Thank you so much, Aaron, for that wonderful interview, and I'm extremely proud of all your accomplishments over the last 20 years. You've done an amazing job, and it was such a pleasure to see you and to be able to do this interview with you. Thank you again.  Dr Berkowitz: Thanks. That means a lot. I never would have imagined- we won't say 20, how many, but 20-something years ago as the medical student looking up to you and all your expertise on these infections and all of your research that led to so much of our understanding on these, that I would find myself interviewing you two decades later. So, for all the students listening, you never know where you'll end up, but I appreciate your very kind words.  Dr Nath: That's what we hope for all our students. Thank you so much.  Dr Berkowitz: Thanks again.  Dr Monteith: This is Dr. Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

There are many treatment options for people with relapsing MS. Patients should be carefully monitored to assess treatment response, and a change in treatment approach should be considered if safety concerns emerge. In this episode, Teshamae Monteith, MD, FAAN, speaks with Ellen M. Mowry, MD, MCR, and Daniel Ontaneda, MD, PhD, coauthors of the article "Treatment of Multiple Sclerosis" in the Continuum® April 2026 Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders issue. Dr. Monteith is the associate editor of Continuum® Audio and an associate professor of clinical neurology at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Miami, Florida. Dr. Mowry is the director of the Multiple Sclerosis Experimental Therapeutics Program and a professor of neurology at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland. Dr. Ontaneda is the director of research at the Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis and a professor of neurology at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. Additional Resources Read the article: Treatment of Multiple Sclerosis Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @headacheMD Guest: @EllenMowryMD Full episode transcript available here Dr. Monteith: There are so many new treatment strategies for multiple sclerosis, which is a blessing, but it does come with the complexity of really just trying to nail down the approach. I just got finished talking to Drs Ellen Mowry and Daniel Ontaneda about their article on treatment of multiple sclerosis. We discussed relapses, weighing escalation versus early high-effective treatment and progressive disease. This is a must-listen-to podcast. I hope you enjoy it as much as I enjoyed talking to them.  Dr. Jones: This is Dr. Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr. Monteith: This is Dr. Teshamae Monteith. Today, I'm interviewing Ds Ellen Mowry and Daniel Ontaneda about their article on treatment of multiple sclerosis, which they wrote with Dr. Darin Okuda. This article appears in the April 2026 Continuum issue on multiple sclerosis. Welcome, both of you. How are you?  Dr. Mowry: Great. And thank you so much for having us.  Dr. Monteith: Absolutely. So, why don't you both introduce yourself?  Dr. Ontaneda: All right. My name is Daniel Ontaneda. I'm a neurologist at the Cleveland Clinic. I spend the majority of my time doing research, but I still dedicate about a day a week to seeing people with MS in clinic.  Dr. Mowry: I'm Ellen Mowry. I'm also a neurologist, but practice at the Johns Hopkins University. And similar to Dan, I mostly work on research, but also have an active clinical care component, taking care of people with MS.  Dr. Monteith: Well, thank both of you for writing this article and being on our podcast. I assume you guys have probably known each other for quite a while now.  Dr. Mowry: Yes. Dr. Ontaneda: Yes. Dr. Monteith: What inspired you to get into multiple sclerosis research and then clinical care?  Dr. Ontaneda: I always loved neurology, and I think a lot of us who go into neurology are attracted to the complexity of the human brain and how the nervous system works. But what really hit home to me was a family member of mine who had multiple sclerosis, and he was being treated in a time where we really didn't have super effective disease-modifying medications. And so, as I went through my medical career, I always kind of kept an eye on what was happening with multiple sclerosis, and I started my training at a time where it was really flourishing in terms of the medications available, so that's what inspired me to go into MS. It's a disease that we can definitely treat, and you can change outcomes for people. So, that was it.  Dr. Monteith: Yeah, that personal experience can be very impactful.  Dr. Mowry: My journey started, actually, because I was thinking about whether I wanted to be a physician at all, and I happened to land, just after high school, a position with a neurologist who happened to mostly focus on multiple sclerosis and taking care of folks with multiple sclerosis. And by the end of the summer, I knew I wanted to go to med school and I wanted to be a neurologist and I wanted to work with people with MS. I thought I would be a clinician exclusively, but I think as time went on and I started to hear the consistent questions that people I served were asking in the clinic and realizing that those questions could be turned into research projects that could address their concerns, I moved more and more towards research. Dr. Monteith: Great. There are a lot of really detailed information in the article, so I think that research mind is very useful, and I see that in the writing. Why don't we talk about the goal of the article? Dr. Ontaneda: So, I think the goal of the article was to set out kind of what the large view of what treatment for multiple sclerosis looks like. And, you know, many times we divide the treatment of multiple sclerosis into these large pillars, and I think that's what we did in the article. The first was, you know, what do you do with a person who has an MS attack or relapse? The second is, what medications do we use to treat the relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis where there is a lot of acute inflammation, focal inflammatory lesions that are occurring? And then the final one is, what do you do with individuals who have a more progressive form of the disease where they're accruing disability slowly and gradually? Dr. Monteith: And what were some of the main points? Dr. Mowry: Dr. Okuda provided a really nice section on the treatment of acute relapses in multiple sclerosis, and it's important to understand what we talk about when we are saying "relapse". For people with MS, many symptoms can fluctuate and occur and then get better over time, and sometimes people with MS use the same term of "relapse" to describe those symptom fluctuations. As neurologists, when we're thinking about relapse, we're really trying to think about symptoms that can be attributed to new focal inflammatory events somewhere in the central nervous system. Typically, these are accompanied---if you were to get an MRI at the same time---by a new lesion or MS spot, as I like to call them, on MRI scan. And so, it's important to distinguish when somebody is talking about symptoms, whether they are true new symptoms that could be mapped to a place in the central nervous system. Because alternatively, a lot of people who've had attacks or relapses in the past can have what we call pseudo-relapses, and these are essentially recrudescence of old symptoms, typically in a similar pattern as what had occurred in the past. And these can be brought out by things like fever or infection, sometimes stress. And pseudo-relapses are not thought to be due to new development of immune system-induced injury and therefore would be less likely to respond to treatment; and in fact, treatment may be contraindicated for those events. We also talked a little bit in that article about how relapses are treated, talking about the use of high-dose steroids for true new relapses, but also kind of cautioning that those are not necessarily free of concerns, especially if you have a pseudo-relapse or there could be an infection going on. And that ultimately, the decision as to whether to treat a relapse really is a shared decision-making because it's thought that although the steroids can speed up recovery from a relapse, they may not have a major impact on ultimate recovery. And so, a lot of the shared decision-making comes in here because for a mild relapse, you might choose to forego a course of high-dose steroids.  Dr. Monteith: Daniel, any other main points?  Dr. Ontaneda: Yeah. On the side of treating relapses, I think one of the other things that probably has changed a lot, at least during the course of my training, is that in the past, whenever we had identified a relapse, as Dr. Mowry has clearly defined, we would typically treat with intravenous high-dose corticosteroids, typically with methylprednisolone. And that was kind of our go-to. We would either do it in an infusion center or we would set it up with home care. And I think one of the things that our field learned over, I would say, the last five or ten years is there's an abundance of studies that show that you can give that same dose of methylprednisolone. Rather than giving it IV, you can give it orally. No pun intended, as I tell my patients, a lot of pills to swallow because we use fifty-milligram prednisone pills, and they have to take 1,250 a day. The pharmacy always pushes back on that many pills, but really the advantage of being able to take steroids orally that way for three to five days is really, I think, one, better for people with MS because they can do it in the comfort of their own home, and two, I think also when you look at the costs associated with that treatment, it is the most cost-effective option. Dr. Monteith: And what are some of the latest developments that you're really excited about that weren't in the article?  Dr. Mowry: A lot of the article focused on the approach to treatment of people with what we've traditionally called relapsing/remitting multiple sclerosis. So, this is the kind of MS that traditionally presents with a relapse or an attack initially, although some of that nomenclature is changing, actually. And the article focused a lot on the strategies surrounding treatment of somebody with newly diagnosed relapsing MS, and thinking about this vast number of disease-modifying therapies that are available to people with MS and their clinicians, and how to think about the strategy with respect to largely centered around the efficacy class of the medication, whether people should take an approach of using a higher-efficacy therapy---meaning a medicine that in clinical trials was more likely on average to suppress relapses as well as new lesions---or whether there's still a good argument for the case of using an escalation approach, using some of the more modest efficacy medications that also probably in general have lower risks, monitoring for response to treatment and changing if the medication isn't working. And so, there's still a lot of debate in the field, I would say, even though many people have moved towards a one-size-fits-all kind of approach. I think there's still a lot of debate in the field about the evidence underlying that. And, you know, full disclosure, Dr. Ontaneda and I are each running parallel and very complementary clinical trial programs to address this very question, the results of which should be available within the next year, year and a half.  Dr. Monteith: Well, we can't wait that long. Give me some clinical pearls to how we initiate these modifying therapies. Like, what are the pearls that we need to have in our mind?  Dr. Ontaneda: Yeah. I think when we think about starting the disease-modifying therapy in an individual who has an active form of multiple sclerosis, I think, you know, one of the cornerstones I would say of making that decision is shared decision-making. I think we tend to sit down with the patient and analyze the data that we have at hand, what we know about their multiple sclerosis, and we use several factors to inform how likely we think their disease is gonna be active or potentially might not respond to the initial treatment you give. And we look heavily at the MRI. The MRI is really a useful marker because it shows us, one, how many lesions a person might have---both, you know, where those lesions are and also kind of the amount of lesions. Lesions, certainly, that are in the spinal cord, a very large burden of diseases. A lot of active lesions, which we determine by the presence of contrast-enhancing lesions, really helps us inform on disease severity. I would say that was our number one tool that we use to decide and help us decide how we think that person's MS is gonna do over time. And then the second thing that we put into the equation also is, you know, how well do we think this person is going to tolerate our medications? All our disease-modifying medications act through suppression of the immune system, and we know that that carries some risks associated with it. Some of those risks are stuff like infections. Some of those can be simple infections that really don't have major consequences, but some of them can be quite serious, including the need for hospitalizations or prolonged antibiotic treatment courses. And so, we also look at what, you know, the underlying risk of a person has for infection. This kind of is determined by, one, A, how many infections they've had up to date, and also how much disability they had. I would say in our average patient who when we see them, they're probably typically pretty young, in their twenties, thirties, forties, they typically don't have a lot of infectious risks. And therefore, I think there's kind of a move to saying, "Well, actually their risk of infections is quite low." And we put that together with, you know, also what the preference of the patient might want. So, do they prefer to take a pill, for example? Do they prefer a medication where they receive that via infusion every six months and they don't really have to think about it? There are some people that don't like going into a hospital, and they might prefer an injection type of those medications. And so, after a complex discussion of all those factors, we take into consideration how much risk the patient wants to take as well, and we come up with a rational choice of a couple of medication options. So, I think it's challenging sometimes because we have over two dozen medications. There's the risk of you saying, "There are these twenty-four medications, you can pick one." And I think our job as neurologists is to kind of pare those down, talk about, in a person like yourself, these are the two or three medications that I would recommend using. Why don't you review them? And then we bring them back, and we kind of make a final decision with, one of the key factors that I think is important to remind people is that you're gonna start this medication, and we are gonna monitor to make sure it's working. We're gonna monitor to make sure you're tolerating it well. And although it's an important, the first decision you make, I think one key theme that we tell people is, we can revise our strategy whenever we like. We just have to think about it and do it in a way that we think is gonna make sure that their MS is under the best control. And then we think about the ultimate goal of treatment, which, in multiple sclerosis, is the absence of any attacks and also the absence of any new lesions on MRI. And that's where whether you are offering more of the high-effective medications or more moderate- or low-efficacy medications, that's where there's a little bit of controversy still in our field, and that's what our trials are trying to answer.  Dr. Monteith: Excellent. So now we've selected a particular option- and I love those points with shared decision-making, using the MRI to guide and then kind of risk tolerance related to infection. But now a patient's still having relapses, and I know the goal is zero, but, you know, there's some margin. What are the pearls to advance to more high-efficacy therapies?  Dr. Mowry: Yeah, that's a great question. Dr. Ontaneda in the article actually talked about the literature surrounding monitoring for breakthrough disease and when to say this much is too much, and there's actually not a definite right answer. It's clear that more active disease early in the course is probably more of concern than, say, developing, you know, a new spot in your fifties or something to that effect. So, different people have different thresholds. I know at our center, we tend to be pretty on top of making changes for breakthrough disease. So, what we typically do is reimage people about six months after they start a medication to establish a new baseline. And sometimes, because of delays in starting or because the medications take a while to kick in, there might be a new spot or two. So, if that's the case, I really only get concerned if the spots are also taking up the dye or enhancing to indicate they're really quite recent, and I think, "Ugh, that's not something I'd like to see six months after starting a medication." And so that otherwise is sort of the reference scan, moving forward, to evaluate the medication, and I have a very low threshold for changing, particularly if somebody is on a moderate-efficacy therapy. To me, I think, well, our goal of trying the moderate efficacy therapy is essentially to see if we could get away with a medicine that is probably, on average, safer and that will still work for your MS. But if the answer is no, I personally don't like to stick around too much on them. One caveat I would say is that if somebody develops what appears to be a new lesion or spot on higher-efficacy therapy, before presuming that that new area of activity is a definite new MS event, I always like to rethink carefully, did I get the diagnosis correct? Or could this be an early infection such as, you know, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy in people on natalizumab in particular? Because I see breakthrough activity so rarely in people on higher-efficacy therapies that I just like to rethink my diagnosis and the differential prior to making switches to, typically, another higher-efficacy therapy in that case. But that, again, is a little bit of shared decision-making. It's sometimes contextual. If a person is using a self-administered medication and they have a little breakthrough, sometimes you can solicit some history, saying, "Oh, I actually kind of stopped taking it for a few weeks because something was going on, and I really want to retry." And that's very reasonable as well. Dan, do you have any other thoughts?  Dr. Ontaneda: No, I think I agree. That's really close to how I practice myself as well, and the majority of people at my center. I think that we are learning that when you start a treatment, many times---depending on how deeply you look---you can find evidence of ongoing disease, and that's something that we struggle with. It's almost like we have tools to treat inflammation in terms of new MS lesions and new relapses. And so, when those are present, it's pretty clear that you probably have to switch medication. I think a slightly trickier issue is when, for example, you have a person who might be stable. They don't have an attack. But you notice that they're worsening, and they tell you they're worsening. I think our ability and tools for that is a little bit harder, and we recognize that that can actually happen fairly early in the disease. And that's why we're trying to rethink this mantra that we've had for many years, where we kind of divide MS up into relapsing and progressive, and we see people develop progressive MS 10 to 15 years after they've had a relapsing form of the disease. So, I think that's just a reality of clinical practice. And we don't have as many tools to treat that gradual worsening, which is kind of what the rest of our article spent some time talking about. Dr. Monteith: You've also written about the clinical trial long-term extension studies. And what are the few points that you take away from the emergence of these types of publications over the past few years? Dr. Mowry: Yeah, well, long-term extension studies can be really helpful to understand whether the findings that are evidenced during the randomized portion of trials themselves continue into a longer term. And for people with MS, understanding these data can be really helpful because, particularly when we're looking for impact of a given treatment or a strategy on disability worsening, often it takes longer than the short-term portion of the trial to truly understand if the medication or strategy has an impact on insidious worsening that Dan is speaking about. Many trials have demonstrated a short-term benefit, but we think a lot of times that benefit is probably because of the reduction in relapses, which sometimes leave a permanent mark on neurologic function. But the extension studies are trying to understand a little bit more about whether the effect on disability worsening is sustained, and also to look a little bit more deeply at long-term safety, especially when it comes to medications that do increase the risk of infection. The caveats, though, in interpreting those types of studies are that people drop out, and so probably the people who drop out of those studies are really different. They may be either less disabled and they think, "Oh, you know, I'm done. I feel good." Or potentially more disabled and they think, "Ugh, I have more things to do I've got to take care of. What's going on?" And so that kind of dropout can produce some bias in interpreting the results. Dan, any other thoughts?  Dr. Ontaneda: No, I think that's spot on. I mean, I think that when we're trying to decide on what general philosophy to use, right? Like, you're seeing a patient for the first time. They've recently been diagnosed with MS, and you have... you know, I kind of bin them into three options. You can start a low-efficacy, a moderate, or a high-efficacy medication. And the first piece of information you could use is clinical trials, and Dr Mowry very clearly identified why some of that data might be a little bit biased and isn't, you know, completely applicable to the patient who's in front of you. The second thing that we might look at is observational data, and there's a wealth of observational data that shows that, in general, people on higher-efficacy medications tend to do better over time. But one of the challenges we have is that there's always biases related to those observational study designs. And so, I think you have to interpret them with a little bit of caution because there are reasons people start specific medications in people. And when you look at them in a purely observational study, even if you do some fancy way of addressing those biases, such as propensity, there always is the possibility of some residual bias. You know, that's part of the reason why we're doing the trials that Dr Mowry described, because we really need kind of long-term evidence to show that these medications actually can affect disability ten, twelve years after started. And I think pragmatic clinical trials, like the ones we're running, are really gonna be the key to answer those questions. We all have our favorite approaches right now, but I think that the data to actually demonstrate what's best for people with MS is really needed.  Dr. Monteith: Great, and there's so much in this article. I mean, we didn't even touch on radiological isolated syndrome, monitoring MS therapeutically, and treatment of progressive MS. Any final take-home points?  Dr. Ontaneda: Yeah. Maybe I will touch a little bit on the side of progressive MS, because it has been, you know, the MS that we historically have not been able to treat as much. So, we described there's over two dozen therapies approved for relapsing forms of MS. For purely progressive forms of MS that don't have any evidence of activity, we really only have one approved therapy, and it appears that that therapy actually does work through active inflammation anyway. And in the article, we highlighted examples of studies that have been negative, but also some recent examples of studies that have been positive, specifically with a new class of medication called BTKI, or Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors. We just recently heard of a second molecule that also had positive results in this realm. So, we're excited that, you know, in the next four to five years-  Dr. Monteith: I'm sorry. Can you just go ahead and say what that molecule...You're leaving people hanging.  Dr. Ontaneda: One molecule is tolebrutinib, which already has a positive study in secondary progressive MS in individuals without activity. And then the second compound that has been studied with positive trial results, we only have summary results from that, is a medication called fenobrutinib. And we think these two compounds that are part of a single class, the hope is that maybe they can address some of that gradual worsening that occurs in MS. And then the question comes whether we should use those from the get-go or if we should just use them later. So, a whole sort of variety of different questions. But I think important to call out for clinicians that this area where we had no available treatments for so many years might be changing.  Dr. Monteith: Well, thank you both. I really loved this conversation. I learned a lot listening to both of you, and I look forward to your clinical trial results.  Dr. Mowry: Thank you so much for having us. Dr. Ontaneda: Thanks so much. It was our pleasure. Dr. Monteith: Again, today I've been interviewing Doctors Ellen Mowry and Daniel Ontaneda about their article on treatment of multiple sclerosis, which they wrote with Dr. Darin Okuda. This article appears in the April 2026 Continuum issue on multiple sclerosis. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues. And thank you to our listeners for joining today. Dr. Monteith: This is Dr. Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Although rare, recognizing NMOSD is crucial for improving patient outcomes through correct diagnostic and treatment approaches. Reports of atypical forms and increasing knowledge of clinical, imaging, and laboratory-specific features are fundamental for the accurate recognition of this condition. Research on targeted therapies and biomarkers measuring and predicting disease activity will improve NMOSD management. In this episode, Gordon Smith, MD, FAAN, speaks with Sara Mariotto, MD, PhD, coauthor of the article "Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorder" in the Continuum® April 2026 Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders issue. Dr. Smith is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a professor and chair of neurology at Kenneth and Dianne Wright Distinguished Chair in Clinical and Translational Research at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia. Dr. Mariotto is a neurologist in the Neurology Unit in the Department of Neurosciences, Biomedicine, and Movement Sciences at the University of Verona in Verona, Italy. Additional Resources Read the article: Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorder Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @GordonSmithMD Full episode transcript available here Dr Smith: Neurology is an increasingly therapeutic specialty, and across many of our subspecialty areas, lots of new drugs are being approved. Are you interested in learning more about a historically disabling disorder for which we now have a spectrum of new therapies that, if used appropriately and promptly in the right clinical situation, promise to dramatically improve patient outcomes? If so, keep listening. My name's Dr Gordon Smith. Today I'll be talking with Dr Sara Mariotto about her article on neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder or NMOSD, which she wrote with Dr Romain Marignier. This article appears in the April 2026 Continuum issue on multiple sclerosis.  Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast.  Dr Smith: This is Dr Gordon Smith. Today, I'm interviewing Dr Sara Mariotto about her article on neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder or NMOSD, which she wrote with Dr Romain Marignier. This article appears in the April 2026 Continuum issue on multiple sclerosis. Sara, welcome to the podcast, and maybe you can start by introducing yourself to our audience.  Dr Mariotto: Yes. Thanks, Gordon. I'm Sara Mariotto. I'm a neurologist, and I work at the Neurology Unit, University of Verona, where I do both clinical diagnosis and research into neuroimmunology---so, in particular, autoimmune encephalitis, NMOSD, and MOGAD.  Dr Smith: Well, this is a super exciting area. Whenever I hear about NMOSD, I think of one specific patient I had, and I always think of her when I come across something like your article, which is really fantastic. So, before we dive into the details, I wonder if maybe you can just explain to our listeners who aren't up to speed on what NMOSD is, what the disorder is, and maybe why it's so important that all of our listeners learn how to recognize it quickly and get people started on therapy.  Dr Mariotto: Yes, sure. So, neuromyelitis optica is an inflammatory autoimmune CNS disorder usually associated with aquaporin-4 antibodies, although there are a few cases, around 10%, who can be antibody-negative. And I think it's very much important to have in mind this disease and recognize it because it can be severe, as you pointed out; can present with very severe optic neuritis, myelitis, the brain stem, or area postrema syndrome. So, it can be really severe, affect quite young people around 40 years of age---although it can affect also the pediatric population and elderly people---and, importantly, it can be treated. It's very much important to treat this patient in the acute stage very quickly with steroids or plasma exchange in addition, and then to start a chronic treatment. So, we have treatment for this condition. So, it's very much important to, to recognize it quickly and treat the patient properly.  Dr Smith: So, I wonder if we can talk a little bit about the diagnostic criteria and boundaries of NMOSD, right? So, someone who comes in with bilateral op- severe long segment optic neuritis or long segment myelitis, we think about it. But what are the boundaries? Should we be looking for this, for instance, in someone who comes in with a unilateral optic neuritis or looks like typical multiple sclerosis? Is it important to get aquaporin-4 antibodies in those patients? What do the diagnostic criteria say about this?  Dr Mariotto: So, I wouldn't test aquaporin-4 antibodies in all patients with demyelinating conditions because although aquaporin-4 antibody assay is very specific, as for all assay and all antibody testing---also for MOG antibodies, for example---some false positive results can come out. So, I would suggest to test aquaporin-4 antibodies not in typical MS cases but in those who could be suggestive for not being MS, so in all those cases with atypical optic neuritis and myelitis or other syndromes. For those cases, it's important to test aquaporin-4 antibodies, but I wouldn't test them in all typical, classical MS cases. As I said, it's quite specific, the assay, so it's uncommon to have false positive results, but it can be.  Dr Smith: Serum, CSF, both?  Dr Mariotto: So, for aquaporin-4 antibodies, they're usually present in serum. They can be positive also in the CSF. And there are a few reports of isolated CSF positivity. But if we analyze larger samples volume, then it becomes clear that isolated CSF positivity is so, so rare that it's not recommended to test them in the CSF when serum is negative. So, for aquaporin-4 antibodies, the recommended matrix of testing is serum, which is different for MOG, which is not the topic of our article but is important to mention because MOG antibodies should be tested in serum and CSF. But aquaporin-4, I would recommend to test serum.  Dr Smith: What are the boundaries between MOGAD and NMOSD? And you talked about the differential testing of antibodies, which I was going to ask about. But when should we think of NMOSD relative to MOG? Dr Mariotto: Yeah. There are aspects which are the one mentioned in the criteria, highly suggestive for NMOSD. But the clinical spectrum can be similar to that of MOGAD. Usually, although there are some clinical aspect---like, for example cortical encephalitis or ADEM, which is more typical for MOGAD, or others like area postrema syndrome, which are more typical of NMOSD. The spectrum can be similar among the two conditions, so that's why in our clinical experience, usually they ask both aquaporin-4 and MOG antibodies in patients. It's- for experts, it can be easy to differentiate the two conditions, but for nonexperts can not be so easy.  Dr Smith: Can you define area postrema syndrome? I think not all of our listeners see that every day.  Dr Mariotto: Yeah, sure. This is a syndrome which is highly suggestive of NMOSD. That's why I mention it. And it's characterized by nausea, vomiting, hiccups are known as the syndrome. And it is very, very suggestive because of the expression of aquaporin-4 in that area of NMOSD. That's why I strongly recommend for all patients who comes out to have this syndrome to test for aquaporin-4 antibodies. MOGAD is hardly ever positive for that, so I think that whenever you see a patient with that syndrome, you should think about NMOSD.  Dr Smith: I'm just curious, aquaporin-4 is a water channel, which is kind of an interesting concept. Our conversation, I really want to make sure we give clinically important information to folks, but it's so curious to me at least, how does this actually result in a inflammatory demyelinating syndrome? For a simple neuromuscular guy, what's the immunopathogenesis of this?  Dr Mariotto: Yeah, the immunopathogenesis is quite complicated, as in all CNS disorders. And of course, aquaporin-4 antibodies are the main focus, but they are not the only one. As you said, aquaporin-4 antibodies have a target, this water channel, which is at the basis of the disease, and they are produced by the interplay between T cells, B cells, and plasma cells. But then also eosinophils, macrophages, cytokines, and chemokines are involved, enter the CNS, and then another important component is complement, which is highly activated in this disease. At the end, we have astrocyte damage because astrocytes are the main target of the disease, but also axon and myelin are involved. So, it's a quite complex pathogenesis based on the antibodies, but not only on that.  Dr Smith: And this will become important when we start talking about treatment. There seems to be a recurring theme of long segment demyelination, right? Optic neuritis is typically a large percentage of the length of the optic nerve, and obviously the myelitis se- more than three segments. Do you see other long segment areas of CNS demyelination, corpus callosum or things like that? Any ideas why that is, if that's true?  Dr Mariotto: Of note, this is quite interesting because usually when we have NMOSD, we have a longitudinal involvement, especially of the optic nerve and spinal cord, while brain lesions are quite different. Like, we usually do not have the typical Dawsen fingers-like lesions that we have in MS, for example, or the classical periventricular or subcortical extensive lesions that we can see and we have in mind when we think about MS. In some cases with NMOSD, the brain is completely negative, so we do not see anything. And Dawsen lesion's quite suggestive of NMOSD. So, you're right. I mean, this is related partially to the expression of aquaporin-4, and that's why we have this typical involvement also for area postrema, for example, and maybe also our other examples of clinical aspect that we can see in these conditions. But it's basically linked with the expression of aquaporin-4, which is the main target of the disease. And that's why usually the brain doesn't show so much involvement as we can see in MS, for example.  Dr Smith: I was actually really interested in some of the unusual manifestations or phenotypes, and I don't want to get into arcadia, really, but which of these should our listeners be familiar with that would really suggest that they should be thinking about NMOSD beyond the area postrema and other features that we've already talked about that are part of the core criteria?  Dr Mariotto: Yeah. I mean, I think that the encephalic syndromes or also ADEM, which is most typical of MOGAD but can be observed also in NMOSD or PRES, for example, are syndromes that can be considered in patients with NMOSD. There are the typical ones, which are the ones showed in the criteria, but whenever we have a brainstem involvement or, like, these encephalic syndromes or also PRES, we should think about NMOSD also.  Dr Smith: Another area I was interested in are red flags. In your article, you talk about red flags that might suggest an alternative diagnosis, right? And then this presumably is particularly important in seronegative patients, which 10% is not a reasonably high number, I suppose. What are red flags we should be thinking about for some other diagnosis?  Dr Mariotto: Yeah. I would here mention two very important red flags. The first one is a very hyperacute onset. Usually these conditions, these inflammatory conditions have a subacute onset, so whenever you have a very, very acute onset, you should think about something else. This can occur sometimes also in NMOSD, but hardly ever occur. Like, a very acute myelitis, the first thing we should think about is a vascular origin, for example, with a lot of pain and not about NMOSD, although sometimes the differential diagnosis is not so easy. The second thing is a progression independently of relapses, which hardly ever occur in NMOSD. Usually in NMOSD, we have the onset, and then we have a relapsing disease course. That's why we have to treat patients always and not to stop treatment. But we do not have progression in the meanwhile, while we can have, for example, this in MS. Same thing is for MOGAD. So, these are two things that I think is very much important to keep in mind.  Dr Smith: I want to pivot to talk about treatment because that's been super exciting. But rumor has it there are new diagnostic criteria coming for NMOSD in the next year. I bet you know a bit about those. Can you give our listeners any indication about kind of where the puck is going on this? Not so much what the criteria are specifically, but what sort of diagnostic challenges are the new criteria going to help us with once they come out?  Dr Mariotto: Yeah. So basically, we are working on that, so you will read them in the next future. This is the good point of the conversation on the new criteria. And we work a lot on the definition, on the new definition and nomenclature of NMOSD; on the definition of seronegative NMOSD, which is also quite tricky; and then on the assay we should use to test aquaporin-4 antibodies, and also on potentially new syndromes which should be included into the main feature of the disease. But hopefully you will read about this very soon.  Dr Smith: Looking forward to it. And Continuum Audio listeners, you heard it here first, so thank you. Let's pivot to treatment. This has been super exciting, and I wonder if the way to approach this is to start with acute management and then sort of chronic management. Would that make sense?  Dr Mariotto: Sure.  Dr Smith: Let's say I go on service on Friday, and I have a patient who comes in with positive aquaporin-4 and bilateral optic neuritis. What's the acute approach to managing that patient?  Dr Mariotto: So, the first approach is to administer intravenous steroids, but I would not wait to escalate to plasma exchange. There is quite good evidence that we should treat the patient with additional plasma exchange very quickly, and every day of delay of plasma exchange can cause increased disability. So, we should treat patients with steroids first, and then if we are not satisfied by the recovery, soon start with a plasma exchange. There is also some evidence, although less, for IVIG, but it's important to try to treat them very quickly, even if it's Friday, you know, there is the weekend and so on. But I think it's very much important to start with steroids after excluding other infectious causes or so on, and then to start quickly with plasma exchange. The main problem could be that we do not have the results of the antibody yet.  Dr Smith: Right. So, let me ask that question. You know, let's say my patient comes in on Friday, and clinical syndrome that really looks like NMOSD, and we're waiting for the aquaporin-4. There are many places where it's hard to get plasma exchange over weekends. And so, in that setting, are you better off doing the steroids over the weekend then PLEX on Monday, or should we just give IVIG because maybe it's as good as PLEX? What's your advice there? I'm trying to get ready for Friday because I know one's coming in.  Dr Mariotto: That's true, that's true. Usually they come on Friday or Saturday. I think it's acceptable to have three days of steroids and see how the patient improves, and then after three days to start with plasma exchange. Actually, we have a very good improvement if we start between three and five days after onset. So, I think waiting for three days is acceptable just because we can see if the steroids work properly or not, and then we can quickly start to plasma exchange. But I would not wait, like, 10 days, you know, before starting with a plasma exchange, and I would not wait for antibody results.  Dr Smith: Got it. Super helpful. And I'm actually not joking around, I learned recently that I have a reputation among our residents for having lots of optic neuritis when I'm on service, which I think is sort of karmic justice for being a peripheral nerve expert. But let me ask another question. So, let's say we do that, and the patient gets three or five days of pulse methylprednisolone and five courses of PLEX, and they're not doing well. Do you then just move right along into another agent B cell depletion therapy? I mean, what's your next step in escalation in the acute setting?  Dr Mariotto: I would for sure start to, as you said, with steroids, plasma exchange, and in case IVIG, and then quickly move to chronic treatment. And for patients who are not recovering well, I would think of something which has a quick effect so we can really start treating patients very quickly. There are different options. And all over the world, there are different rules for using immunosuppression in NMOSD. Like in Italy, for example, it's different from US or other countries, Germany, for example. There are different approved treatments and different rules of using them before or after rituximab, for example. We all know that there are treatments approved for NMOSD all over the world. But in some countries, like for example in Italy, we should use rituximab first, and then if it doesn't work, escalate to the approved treatment. I know in the US it's different. But anyway, for a patient who does not improve quickly, I would start with something which has a quick effect on the disease.  Dr Smith: And then rituximab versus inebilizumab, you know, CD20, CD19, what's your advice there? Is one preferable to the other, you know, if we have options to do either?  Dr Mariotto: Yeah. So, between rituximab and inebilizumab, we know that the target, well, is different, but is anyway B cells, so CD19 and CD20. With CD19, we can affect both plasma blast, plasma cells, and B cells. That's why the target is broader. And of note, this is an approved drug, while rituximab is, in most countries, used as off-label treatment.  Dr Smith: So inebilizumab would probably be preferable if we're able to do that.  Dr Mariotto: Unfortunately, there are not so many studies comparing rituximab with the approved drug, which is, of course, a pity, but that's the case. While we have clinical trials for all the approved drugs, and although the trials were designed differently, as we mentioned in the Continuum paper, we can argue something of the comparison between the approved drugs. But it is not so clear the comparison between rituximab and the new drugs, which is also something that we should work on.  Dr Smith: And then for chronic suppressive management, what other options are there?  Dr Mariotto: So, in addition to B cells, target can be interleukin-6, as we know with tocilizumab or satralizumab, and then complement with eculizumab. These drugs are both based on the pathogenesis of the disease. That's why we also discuss it in the paper, which shows a clear involvement of complement, and among cytokines of interleukin-6. So, targeting these made clear that could improve the disease quite well, and that's why they designed some clinical trials on these drugs, which are now approved, as we said, for NMOSD.  Dr Smith: Wow, so many options, and a lot of questions, but limited time. Let me just ask a couple of more. I see a lot of myasthenia patients, and there's a lot of variability, as you know, in patients with myasthenia, the extent to which complement is an important mechanism versus other, you know, important mechanisms. To what extent is response to a complement inhibitor kind of uniform across NMOSD? Or there's some patients who just don't respond to a complement inhibitor and others that respond really well. And then just, I'll just give my second question out is, you know, what about combination therapies for patients who have particularly challenging NMOSD?  Dr Mariotto: So usually these patients have a terrific response to complement inhibitors, and this is also shown by the clinical trials where we saw how eculizumab have a very impressive effect on the disease. And also, maybe this is also your experience, a very quick effect. So that's why there are also thoughts on using it in a very acute stage of the disease. That was what I was thinking about before. But then it has a very huge effect on complement, which is a major factor involved in the pathogenesis of NMOSD also in the chronic disease stage, and that's what also we see from clinical trials. Usually, we prefer to switch treatment from one to another and not to combine them. Of course, in very difficult cases, this can be considered, but the recommendation is to switch from one of these approved drugs to the other, or from rituximab to one of the approved drugs, and try to find out the best for our patient before combining them. Dr Smith: The complement inhibitor trials are breathtaking, at least for me. If I'm trying to convince students to go into neurology, I'll say, "Take a look at that paper," because anyone who claims that we're "diagnose and adios" is so wrong. It's so exciting. So, at a high level, this must have fundamentally changed outcomes for patients. I mean, it's still a difficult disease, but what is the kind of prognosis for that patient I described who comes in, gets the therapy you talked about? What does their long-term outcome look like in this modern therapeutic environment? Dr Mariotto: So, NMOSD is almost always a relapsing disease. That's why, as we mentioned, we have to treat patients always. But the prognosis changes a lot since we were also able to use all these drugs for the disease. So, the prognosis changes if we recognize it properly and early, and if we treat NMOSD properly with immunosuppressives. So, whatever we choose it's important to start it quickly, and this is the only way that we have to improve the prognosis of this disease. We have very active cases, but we have also cases who responds quite well to this immunosuppressive treatment, since now we have, as mentioned, these ones which are very impressive and show incredible results. So, the prognosis of the disease change in the last year, thanks also to the improvement of the diagnosis and of the treatment choices for the disease.  Dr Smith: I'm just... I- maybe my last question, you know, just at a personal level, not only for you as an expert who's caring for these patients, but in the patient community, this must have been a pretty exciting period of time, right? I mean, these, these drugs are coming fast and furious, and what a change. What's the kind of zeitgeist in the community, both your professional community and amongst the patient community about where we are? Dr Mariotto: Yeah, you're right. The last years were defined the years of NMOSD and also MOGAD because we had finally approved drugs which is relevant for all the disease that we treat and changed the landscape of the disease for clinicians, but also for patients. And we have more than one, as we said, so we have more options that we can also discuss with patients to try to choose the best one in terms of activity, but also route of administration or time. Some years ago, we just had rituximab, which is not approved in most of the countries, and now we have different approved drugs. And we improved the diagnosis of the disease thanks to the availability of live cell-based assay. And then we are working a lot also on biomarkers like GFAP, for example, which has been shown to be a very attractive biomarker able to mark disease activity and maybe also prognosis on this disease. So, you're right. I mean, in the last years, the landscape of NMOSD changed a lot.  Dr Smith: Sara, thank you so much for talking with me. I could keep going for another half an hour, but I would be in trouble with my editor, so I think we probably need to wrap it up. But thank you so much. This has been very informative.  Dr Mariotto: My pleasure. Dr Smith: Mine too. Thank you. Again, today I've been interviewing Dr Sara Mariotto about her article on NMOSD, which she wrote with Dr Romain Marignier. This article appears in the April 2026 issue of Continuum on multiple sclerosis. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues, and thanks to you, our listeners, for joining us today. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Familiarity with the clinical, MRI, CSF, and serologic features of MOGAD can help neurologists recognize this condition in clinical practice. Awareness of the utility and pitfalls of the MOG antibody test is critical. The current therapeutic approach is guided by retrospective studies and the application of immunotherapies used in other autoimmune neurologic disorders. In this episode, Gordon Smith, MD, FAAN, speaks with Eoin P. Flanagan, MBBCh, coauthor of the article "Myelin Oligodendrocyte Glycoprotein Antibody–Associated Disease" in the Continuum® April 2026 Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders issue. Dr. Smith is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a professor and chair of neurology at Kenneth and Dianne Wright Distinguished Chair in Clinical and Translational Research at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia. Dr. Flanagan is a professor of neurology and the division chair of the Division of Multiple Sclerosis and Autoimmune Neurology in the Department of Neurology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Additional Resources Read the article: Myelin Oligodendrocyte Glycoprotein Antibody–Associated Disease Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @GordonSmithMD Full episode transcript available here Dr Smith: So, what neurological disorder can cause bilateral optic neuritis, transverse myelitis, ADEM, or can mimic acute flaccid myelitis, intracranial hypertension, viral encephalitis, or cause seizures? Sounds like the great imitator, perhaps. If you want to know and learn more about this syndrome and how you can treat it---and it is very treatable---keep listening. My name is Gordon Smith, and today I have the great opportunity to talk with Dr Eoin Flanagan from the Mayo Clinic on his article on myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody associated disease, or MOGAD, which is in the April 2026 issue of Continuum on Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders.  Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Smith: This is Dr Gordon Smith. Today I'm interviewing Dr Eoin Flanagan about his article on myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein associated disease, or MOGAD, which appears in the April 2026 Continuum issue on multiple sclerosis and related disorders. Eoin, welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to our audience.  Dr Flanagan: Yeah, thanks so much. I'm Eoin Flanagan. I'm a neurologist at the Mayo Clinic. I'm originally from Ireland. I work in the neuroimmunology lab at the Mayo Clinic, and work and see patients with MS, MOG, and autoimmune disorders here in Rochester, Minnesota.  Dr Smith: Your article is super interesting, I think, and this has been a really rapidly evolving area over the last, you know, many years. We have many more antibodies, and MOG is something that's been around for a while, but we've certainly learned a lot more about it. This is a topic that I think will be familiar to most of our listeners, but I wonder if maybe you can just begin by laying the foundation. Like, what is MOG? What's its typical presentation?   Dr Flanagan: So, MOG is a protein on the surface of the oligodendrocyte or its CNS myelin, and it was always of interest as a potential antibody target, and initially it was investigated in multiple sclerosis. But subsequently, we recognized that the antibodies to MOG have a specific syndrome, of which about a quarter of patients are pediatric and then the remainder are adults. And they can present with a variety of syndromes, probably most commonly optic neuritis, but also acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, or ADEM. Transverse myelitis can also occur, and then some other unusual brain and brainstem cerebellar syndromes can also occur.   Dr Smith: I was really impressed in the very broad phenotypic spectrum of MOG. We'll talk more about that, of course. But I wonder if maybe you can tell us when we should be ordering MOG antibody? Given this broad variability, does anyone who has a CNS demyelinating disease need a MOG assay, only specific phenotypes? What guidance do you have for our listeners?   Dr Flanagan: Yeah. It's a great question. So, I think you have to be a little bit careful because the MOG antibody test is a little bit sticky. So sometimes we can see some low-positive false positives. So, we don't wanna order it in every single patient with classical MS. So, I suppose we'll start with who not to order it in. I think it's also a very optic nerve- and optic neuritis-central disease, so I think you really need to be considering this in a patient with optic neuritis who does not have lesions in the brain suggestive of multiple sclerosis. And then we think about some of the features: if the lesion, the enhancement along the optic nerve is long, if it's bilateral, if there's a lot of optic disc edema accompanying that, we tend to think about MOG antibodies. And then children with demyelinating disease, MOG is over-represented in that cohort, so it accounts for about a third of those. So, if you have a child with CNS demyelinating disease, particularly if they're under twelve, with ADEM presentations or other presentations, you probably want to be ordering the MOG antibody test. And then a longitudinally extensive transverse myelitis in adults, certain types of cerebral phenotypes that we can get into, you would want to consider ordering MOG antibodies too.   Dr Smith: Now, you point out in the article that it's really important that laboratories use the cell-based assay for MOG as opposed to an ELISA, for instance. Is this something folks need to be very attentive to, or are all of the commercial laboratories now using a cell-based assay?   Dr Flanagan: Yeah. I think all of the commercial labs are using cell-based assays, so we don't really get into much of an issue. There are some differences between serum and CSF, so really, serum is the optimal sample to order. There is also some differences between the live cell-based assay and the fixed cell-based assay, where the live cell-based assay may have some advantages in terms of sensitivity. And then CSF is kind of still under evaluation about its role in the condition. So in general, it's a serum test. And then we have to remember that the antibody tends to be highest at the onset, and then it goes down over time. So, if you delay your testing or you're testing a patient long after the condition, it can go negative, for example. So it tends to be highest both around the relapses and particularly at the onset of the condition.   Dr Smith: You mentioned earlier that the test is sticky, which I take to mean that there is some risk for low-titer false positives. How do you navigate that situation? When should we be suspicious about a false positive?   Dr Flanagan: Yeah. I think there's some very useful features that can help you. You know, the main differential diagnosis is going to be multiple sclerosis, particularly in the US, in regions of the northern US where MS is particularly common. So, you really wanna be making sure that if you get a positive result, low positive, that it's not multiple sclerosis. And some of the best discriminating features are CSF oligoclonal bands. They're about 85% in MS and about 15% in MOG, so an easy number to remember, 85 and 15. And then the lesions in MOG, the brain lesions, tend to disappear over time. So, if you have the advantage of that follow-up MRI a year down the line, about 70% of lesions in MOGAD will resolve, while in MS, as we know, the term means multiple scars, so the MS lesions tend to persist over time. So, they are two quite useful features that can help discriminate.   Dr Smith: And how about specific phenotypes or areas of involvement or imaging abnormalities that suggest MOG? One of the things I found really interesting in your article is there are a host of different syndromes that I think had largely been previously described, many of them, that became clear later that these were really tied to MOG antibodies. Presumably, that's helpful in interpreting the antibody assay in that patients who have, perhaps, a borderline low titer, for instance, but have a very typical phenotype are more likely to have MOG than those who have a more clearly MS-type phenotype.   Dr Flanagan: Yeah, absolutely right. Yes. So, there's certain phenotypes that we don't tend to see with MS. The acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, or ADEM, is one that's particularly common in children. And about half of people that have ADEM will be positive for the MOG antibody. So that's a syndrome you need to look out for, which would be often in children, encephalopathy, and they would have multifocal white matter lesions, sometimes involving the gray matter. A second syndrome that was an interesting discovery from a Japanese group was this unilateral cerebral cortical encephalitis, where patients can have this swelling and T2 hyperintensity, often just on one side of the brain. And it's in the cortex, and some of those patients won't have any white matter lesions. And in that situation, it's important to order the MOG antibody, and that seems to be a specific phenotype of MOGAD. But sometimes people don't think about it because the white matter is not involved. So, if you see these patients, they often present with seizures, sometimes they even have fever accompanied by it. And if you see those patients and see this radiological feature, then you really want to consider ordering the MOG antibody too.   Dr Smith: Yeah, I found that really interesting. And I- actually, my next question is perhaps a good follow-up on that, is, what are the diagnostic pitfalls? You give a lot of examples of situations and I think some cases where it's easy to get tripped up and misdiagnose someone who has MOG with another fairly common neurological problem.   Dr Flanagan: Yeah, I think some of the things that can help you when you're determining if the MOG is a true positive or false positive is the level of the antibodies. The super high titers, if it's a clear positive or very strong positive, the likelihood is that that is much more likely to be MOGAD than those low positives just above the cutoff. So that can be useful to help you discriminate from false positives. Those lesions, again, if all the lesions persist over time, that's going to be more suggestive of multiple sclerosis. Other diagnostic pitfalls, I suppose, if it's a syndrome that's not really associated with MOG, like peripheral neuropathy or other syndromes where we'll see some case reports, but usually I would be very cautious about those kind of presentations. So usually, having the antibody at a high level, and then also if they've had other symptoms suggestive of MOGAD, like if a patient has had recurrent optic neuritis and then they have an unusual brain syndrome, or they start out with an unusual brain syndrome and then have recurrent optic neuritis. You know, there are situations that make it more likely if they're having other typical phenotypes of the MOGAD where we can kind of expand the spectrum, but we have to be careful.   Dr Smith: I was really curious about the dynamic imaging findings. And you point this out both in terms of the resolution of imaging findings, but also in that patients who have an acute MOG syndrome often have very rapid evolution of the imaging abnormalities. I'm just curious, you know, why is that, and what do you make of it? Does it have a mechanistic implication, do you think?   Dr Flanagan: I don't think we know for sure. I think there's probably a lot more happening than we see on MRIs sometimes. What sometimes can happen in about 10% of patients is the initial MRI can be normal. We don't tend to see that with multiple sclerosis or NMOSD. Then what we see is it evolving over time. So, at that time, if you do a CSF, you'll often see inflammation, but we don't see the lesions. Now, that might be because the MRI is not very good at picking up cortical involvement. That can be difficult to see in MRI. Or there could be other factors. It could be a functional effect on the MOG but without frank demyelination yet, for example. Or there could be edema that you- myelin edema that you can't see as a lesion yet on MRI. But we do see that if you repeat the MRI, sometimes it'll change a lot. So, you may go from one or two lesions on the first MRI to twenty lesions on the second MRI a week later. So, it does tend to change a lot. And then over time, those lesions also resolve. So, what I say is if it's a very suspicious situation---like a child comes in with new-onset encephalitis, has inflammatory CSF---you might wanna consider repeating that MRI down the line and seeing if it's changing. And then over time, you know, a repeat MRI a year after the onset when there's brain or spinal cord lesions can be very helpful just to make sure you're on the right track, because lots of those lesions will then disappear, and that's a very clear discriminator from multiple sclerosis.   Dr Smith: Yeah, thanks. I mean, I was wondering the same thing about whether that particular feature might imply, you know, a functional abnormality as opposed to more of a structural abnormality. So probably a lot more to learn as we move forward. There are now consensus diagnostic criteria that were published a couple of years ago. I think you've already touched on kind of the general approach, but do you want to speak to those? I found your summary pretty helpful.   Dr Flanagan: Yeah, I think that those criteria are quite useful. They have three main parts to them. The first part is having a characteristic clinical syndrome. So, we talked about ADEM, we talked about cerebral cortical encephalitis, transverse myelitis that's often longitudinally extensive, and optic neuritis being the main syndromes, but sometimes other brainstem or cerebellar involvement can be seen. And then the second part is having a positive MOG antibody. And then there's some caveats there. So, if you have a high positive, then you don't really need any additional supportive criteria. On the other hand, if you're low positive, to get at those sticky antibodies that make sure it's not a false positive, you need some additional supportive clinical or MRI criteria. Or if you're only positive in CSF, you need that additional criteria. You also need to be negative for the aquaporin-4 antibody, because they can overlap clinically. And some of those supportive criteria are things that we talked about a little bit earlier, longer lesions within the optic nerve, bilateral involvement, involvement of the nerve sheath or optic disc edema. This is a situation, MOG antibody disease, where your fundoscope is useful and looking in the back of the eye and seeing swelling, because we don't tend to see that quite as often. It's less common in multiple sclerosis, but we often see prominent edema in MOGAD. And then in the spinal cord, the lesions tend to be central in the cord. Sometimes they form this H sign where it's restricted to the gray matter, and they tend to be longer, sometimes involving the conus. Patients will often have neurogenic bowel or bladder. And then in the brain, deep gray involvement, those large lesions along the cortex with swelling are some of the typical features. And then the final step is exclusion of another diagnosis. Just like with any test that we do in neurology, our final step is going to be to put that into context. So that's just a normal thing that we will always do when we get a group of test results back that we don't know what it means. We have to put it into context. So, make sure it's not multiple sclerosis, everything else does not look like multiple sclerosis, and then you can be on your way to make a diagnosis.   Dr Smith: Definitely encourage listeners to read your article. I guess I say that with every time I- or with everyone I talk to for Continuum Audio, but the images are really fantastic and the cases are fantastic. So, everything you've described is well-illustrated, including really nice schematic sort of diagrams that help differentiate NMO from MOG and MS. So, if you like MRI scans and good imaging frameworks, then this is the article for you.   Dr Flanagan: I think that's true, and the other thing is that the imaging is quite helpful because it takes a while for that antibody to come back. We're lucky at Mayo Clinic, if you work here, it, it comes back faster for you. But for many places, that time of sending it in, so a lot of times you don't know right away. So, looking at scrutinizing that MRI can be very helpful to guide you on your way and to know what you're dealing with and how to approach both the acute treatment and plans to have potentially a steroid taper after the acute treatment and those kind of things that can help guide you in that regard.   Dr Smith: Yeah. So, let's talk about treatment. You know, what's your approach to treating a patient who has an acute demyelinating syndrome related to MOG?   Dr Flanagan: So similar to other things, MOG is very steroid responsive. So, we use high-dose IV methylprednisolone in adults. That would be one gram IV for five days. And then we also will sometimes use oral steroids, twelve hundred and fifty milligrams. That's a bit of a hassle because it's twenty-five fifty-milligram tablets, it doesn't come in a larger tablet version. But it's very helpful to patients because they can get started on it right away. You don't have to set up an infusion center. So, we have used those oral steroids often in people who don't have access to an infusion center, are not in the hospital. And particularly as it's often optic neuritis, some of those patients are seen in the outpatient setting, so we can get in with treatment quickly. In patients where it's more severe, it doesn't recover quickly with steroids, then we would consider escalating to plasma exchange as our second-line treatment, and there's some retrospective data that suggests that plasma exchange can be useful. That's gonna be particularly for those people who don't have that quick response to steroids, or maybe more severe phenotypes like that brain involvement with ADEM or cerebral cortical encephalitis, where those patients might be in the hospital and quite unwell. I will say, we might get on to this, that sometimes MOG can be very, very severe and even fulminant, where there can be increased intracranial pressure, and these patients can be in the ICU, and it can be life-threatening. And so, it's really important to treat those patients aggressively, and some patients have even required hemicraniectomy or additional treatment. Sometimes IL-6 blocking medications have been used in that situation. So, monitoring and treating increased intracranial pressure in those rare patients, probably 2 or 3% that have the very severe attack, is important.   Dr Smith: I think one of the things I found interesting, and then I'd love to get your feedback on this, is that most patients with MOG seem to have a very readily treatable disorder that's monophasic, right? You treat them with steroids, and they do well. On the other extreme, there are these patients that have a much more malignant presentation, and there are some that sound like they benefit from prophylactic or some chronic therapy. What's your approach, right? In MS, we do serial scans to monitor, and obviously, our patients are on, you know, chronic disease-modifying therapy. How do you decide when you're going to provide some sort of prophylactic therapy? How do you monitor it? How long do you continue it?   Dr Flanagan: That's a great point. We don't know for sure yet, but I think for the most part, our approach has been if the patient has a single episode, they recover well from that episode. So, if that's optic neuritis, they're back to twenty/twenty vision. They have recovered well. We don't tend to use chronic maintenance immunotherapy. Sometimes after the first attack, we'll do a little bit of a slow taper, maybe over four, six weeks. We have done longer than that. And then we won't place them on any long-term treatment, because it's about 50% of patients that may have a monophasic disease, so we don't want to treat all those people who are destined never to have another relapse. On the other hand, if a patient had a very severe episode, they're in the ICU, they're intubated, some of those patients then afterwards we will start them at least temporarily on an attack prevention medication for at least a few years to get them through. Some patients will be very fearful of future relapses in that situation. Or if they don't recover well, if they're blind in one eye after an episode and then their other eye is vulnerable, or they're left with some residual deficits neurologically from a myelitis, then we would often sometimes put those patients after the first attack. But most of the time, we're gonna wait and see if they get that second attack, and then once they have the second attack, that is when we would consider a steroid-sparing medication. But I will say that there's no proven medications. We don't have any clinical trial data available yet. So some of those patients with relapsing disease, we'll either try to enroll them in a clinical trial, or we'll use an off-label treatment to try and manage their disease based on what we've learned from neuromyelitis optica or from multiple sclerosis. A few different options seem to be better, and we can maybe get into that too.   Dr Smith: Yeah, let's go there. So, what options are there? You mentioned in more fulminant disease IL-6 inhibitors, and by that I assume you mean tocilizumab, but what are the options when you want to use prophylactic therapy?   Dr Flanagan: So, that tocilizumab can be beneficial in the very acute situation, in that malignant situation. But also as an attack prevention treatment, the IL-6 blockers seem to- some of the retrospective data seems to look like it works reasonably well, so we work and see if we can get that approved. Another medication that can work well is IVIG or subcutaneous immunoglobulin as a maintenance treatment, so we would sometimes give that, like, at least one gram per kilogram once a month. The benefit of that is it doesn't lower your immune system, so there's some advantages there, particularly in people who may be more prone to infections, older people. So, we'll sometimes use that. But we do get into a lot of challenges with insurance coverage, and it can be difficult to get these approved by insurance because we only have retrospective data out there. So then for some patients, if they're in a region where there's a clinical trial available, we might try to enroll them in a clinical trial. And there are some clinical trials underway now, so hopefully in the future we'll be able to have some FDA-approved medications that can have some Class 1 data that we can follow. Because it's hard when you're just following retrospective data or anecdotal reports, it's a little bit difficult to know exactly how well you're doing with your treatments.   Dr Smith: Well, Eoin, I wonder if we could finish up by just looking into the future, right? I mean, it sounds like a fun patient population to take care of because you've got lots of great therapies and can have a durable impact. But sure would be nice to have more evidence-based therapies and an FDA approval. What trials are going on? What's the future look like?   Dr Flanagan: Yep. So, there's some trials going on in the- a couple of worldwide trials. One is on an FCRN blocker called rozanolixizumab, which is kind of like a plasma exchange-type treatment which removes your antibodies, and it's a weekly subcutaneous treatment where adults are enrolled. And the second one is called satralizumab, which is another IL-6 blocking medication. And again, that one's given once monthly under the skin. And the trial for that also includes children down to age eighteen, so for adolescents, too, that can be an option. There are trials, I believe, in Asia for tocilizumab too, and there's one starting in Australia for rituximab. So, the good news is that we're going to have some really good data down the line for lots of different agents, and we'll be able to figure out which treatments work. And this will be really of great benefit to our patients when we get that Class 1 data to kind of guide us on what we should be using and really build on the success of some of the other conditions like neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder, where we now have four or five approved, medications that work very well.   Dr Smith: Well, Eoin, thank you. This is a great conversation. I will say that it... the topic that I was a little intimidated about. I'm a simple peripheral nerve guy, as you know. But I think moreso than any other Continuum article I've read recently, I'm, like, loaded for bear. I can't wait to go back on the inpatient service and look for some MOG patients, because your article really left me feeling kind of prepared to think through this in a clinical setting. So, thank you for the conversation, and congratulations on a really wonderful piece for Continuum.   Dr Flanagan: Yeah, thanks so much. Always a great honor to be involved in the Continuum, and thanks to all the readers out there.   Dr Monteith: This is Dr. Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Adult‑onset leukodystrophies, though rare, can closely mimic MS on both clinical presentation and neuroimaging, posing a significant diagnostic challenge. This episode highlights key clinical and radiologic red flags that can help distinguish these disorders from MS, preventing misdiagnosis and avoiding inappropriate treatment while enabling timely genetic counseling and targeted therapies. In this episode, Teshamae Monteith, MD, FAAN, speaks with Roberta La Piana, MD, PhD, coauthor of the article "Adult-Onset Leukodystrophies Mimicking Multiple Sclerosis" in the Continuum® April 2026 Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders issue. Dr. Monteith is the associate editor of Continuum® Audio and an associate professor of clinical neurology at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Miami, Florida. Dr. La Piana is an associate professor in the Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery at the Montreal Neurological Institute, McGill University, and an associate member of the Department of Diagnostic Radiology at McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Additional Resources Read the article: Adult-Onset Leukodystrophies Mimicking Multiple Sclerosis Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @headacheMD Full episode transcript available here Dr Monteith: You just saw a patient in clinic. And you're clear, the diagnosis is multiple sclerosis. Not everything fits, but it kind of looks like multiple sclerosis. You see the patient back years later. There're some treatment issues, the patient's not responding to treatment, and things look different. Have you thought about a genetic inherited problem like leukodystrophy or a genetic white matter disorder? Listen to this podcast. We're going to help you figure it out. Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith. Today I'm interviewing Dr Roberta La Piana about her article on adult-onset leukodystrophies mimicking multiple sclerosis, which she wrote with Dr Gabrielle Macaron. This article appears in the April 2026 Continuum issue on multiple sclerosis. Welcome to our podcast.  Dr La Piana: Thank you. Thank you for having me.  Dr Monteith: Absolutely. Why don't we start off with you introducing yourself? Dr La Piana: So, my name is Roberta La Piana. I'm a pediatric neurologist. I trained in Italy, I did my medical school, I did my residency in pediatric neurology there. And then I moved here to Montreal, to the Montreal Neurological Institute, to do a PhD in neuroscience. And that's where I specialized in adult-onset genetic white matter diseases. And after my PhD, I was recruited as an assistant professor here. So, that's where I got into this field.  Dr Monteith: This big field, highly specialized; lots of disorders, but highly specialized. And what got you into this? Neuroscience is huge. So, was it a mentor, or…?  Dr La Piana: No, actually, it was because of my background, because I trained as a pediatric neurologist and I loved the genetic white matter disorders in the pediatric population. So, when I came to the Montreal Neurological Institute, initially it was mainly to have a better expertise in imaging. And being at an adult neurology institute, I started seeing patients with adult genetic white matter diseases, and I was immediately fascinated by how different they were from their pediatric counterparts. Because in pediatric genetic white matter diseases, pediatric leukodystrophies look very diffuse, look very confluentous, so it's difficult to mistake them. But in adults, in the adult forms, I was initially driven by how often they can be misdiagnosed as multiple sclerosis or as other acquired white matter disorders. So that's why I got really interested in in this field.  Dr Monteith: You're, like, literally the perfect person for this discussion.  Dr La Piana: I'm not sure- *laughs* Dr Monteith: Why don't we start off with what your objectives were when writing this article? Dr La Piana: With writing this article, the goal is what I have been, actually, doing for the past ten years or so. So, really try to get more attention into the field because of the high rate of potential misdiagnosis of patients. So, that's exactly the reason why I really would like to raise the interest of neurologists for these disorders, because they are not considered enough in the differential diagnosis of patients, of adult patients presenting with white matter disorders. They are considered rare---which are, they are rare, definitely. But collectively, while each single form is rare, collectively they are not as rare. So- and thus, the risk of misdiagnosis and the potential impact of misdiagnosis on them with, you know, you can imagine giving patients inappropriate treatment or missing the possibility of a prenatal genetic diagnosis is so high that I really would like people to keep these disorders in the differential.  Dr Monteith: And it sounds like more than ever, this is really important because some of the newer developments in the field. Dr La Piana: Yes. Specifically, we have now tools that will allow to diagnose these patients quite quickly. All the genetic techniques that are available nowadays can really, with one single shot, we can now sequence hundreds of genes so we can have a quicker diagnosis. And this thing was impossible up until ten years ago. So that's definitely the first huge improvement that makes these disorders now easily diagnosed. Dr Monteith: Yeah. So why don't we talk a little bit about how common is this misdiagnosis for these rare subtypes? Dr La Piana: Yeah, the misdiagnosis, it depends on the cohorts. Generally speaking, I would say that the rate of that misdiagnosis for these forms is up to 25% or even more in some other cohorts. And it really depends on the forms. Like, there are clearly some forms, especially those that present with multifocal white matter diseases, that present with nonspecific clinical presentations like migraines, image---and especially for female patients, and for which migraine is so common, having multifocal with other abnormalities is so common, the rate of diagnosis increases even further. So, these are all things that we need to keep in mind. I know these are rare, but still, we need to always have them on the back of our minds.  Dr Monteith: Are there any particular disorders that are more often misdiagnosed? And you spoke about progressive forms of multiple sclerosis being a common kind of misdiagnosis.  Dr La Piana: Yeah. So, there are definitely forms that are more commonly misdiagnosed. And these are those that, as I probably repeated already too many times, is the word multifocal, which is key. So, all those genetic white matter disorders that present with multifocal white matter abnormalities are not initially considered as genetic. So, I'm thinking about all of the leukovasculopathies, so, the small vessel diseases which are genetic in origin. For example, CADASIL; for example, the disorders related to collagen-4; so, the COL4 A1 or A2-related disorders. Those are clearly more commonly misdiagnosed initially. Another big group, unfortunately, is the CSF1R-related disorders. I know I'm saying a lot of gene names, but due to the fact that they start with multifocal abnormalities and they start with quite nonspecific, slowly progressive symptoms, the rate of misdiagnosis is definitely higher. Dr Monteith: And can you discuss some of the clinical challenges when seeing patients that might lead to this misdiagnosis?  Dr La Piana: There are multiple clinical challenges. One is definitely the presence of nonspecific or initially mild clinical symptoms that sometimes don't raise initially the red flag of something, degenerative or progressive or genetic. One category that I would mention are psychiatric disturbances, especially in the form of depression, anxiety, or apathy. This is quite common in patients with some forms of genetic white matter disorders, and they are initially misdirected to psychiatrists and taken care in that domain. But it's only when some even mild neurological symptoms like a gait disturbance or hyperreflexia, or we had patients with, like, a urinary incontinence. It's only at that time, but maybe years have passed meanwhile, that these patients are finally referred to the neurologist Dr Monteith: You spoke about some of these clinical symptoms. Can you give us some other clinical red flags?  Dr La Piana: Well, some other clinical red flags can be, for example, the extraneurological involvement. So, we have patients where- and there's a reason immediately to some specific disorders. For example, infertility. The presence of infertility in a female patient with white matter disorders should immediately form the consideration of the specific genetic white matter diseases that are associated with these forms. And this is not something that neurologists tend to ask about in the collection of the clinical history. And this is something that can make the difference and can accelerate the diagnosis.  Dr Monteith: What are some other things? I mean, I know we can think about treatment, lack of a common treatment response, maybe, to steroids. You gave a great example of optic neuritis, for example. Give us some other things that we should say, hey, this doesn't fit the picture. Red flag.  Dr La Piana: In this case, I think we want to talk more about the specific misdiagnosis of MS. Because these patients are often misdiagnosed with MS, but they might sometimes be misdiagnosed with other forms of acquired white matter diseases. When we consider MS, definitely the presence of being treatment resistant: so, patients that are not responsive to the common MS-targeting treatment should be always a red flag. The evolution as well. So, for example, the presence of a more slowly progressive course is another red flag. The presence of optic neuritis. Sometimes it's tricky because it's not common in the genetic white matter disorders, it's used as a criterion to orient correctly towards a multiple sclerosis. But we need to keep in mind that there are forms, genetic forms, especially the mitochondrial forms, that can present with optic neuritis and are really at the overlap with the multiple sclerosis spectrum. Then, if we want to move forward beyond the clinical side and go into the laboratory, of course a negative lumbar puncture with no oligoclonal bands should be a major red flag. Dr Monteith: What about some of the radiographic features?  Dr La Piana: So, the radiographic features is something we are really working on in the field, especially with the new criteria used in MS. So, for example the paramagnetic rim lesions or the central vein sign, they are considered the specific forms. But it's true- and don't have an answer for that. I want to be clear, but it's true that they haven't been assessed yet extensively in patients with genetic white matter disorders. Anecdotally, I can say, because I have already reported this at conferences, that we have seen patients with genetic white matter conditions reaching a threshold for a central vein sign that can be considered diagnostic for MS. And we have seen that in some patients. Again, no study has been carried out extensively to date, but I think we should consider that with a grain of salt. But yeah, the paramagnetic rim in lesions is probably more accurate to distinguish between genetic and acquired white matter disorders.  Dr Monteith: And what about some of the genetic white matter disorders that mimic MS? You spoke about things like CADASIL; what are other things that we should keep in the back of our mind? And you have great charts, to our listeners, and they're going to have to review those charts, because they're excellent. I think maybe they need to find a way to make that a little bookmark you walk around with on the ward. But what are some other conditions that kind of commonly mischaracterized?  Dr La Piana: Two of the main groups are the one that you mentioned. So, leukovasculopathy is- so, CADASIL, is definitely one of the most common misdiagnoses of MS. And the presence, as we said, of some clinical features like migraine, especially when it's complicated migraine with visual aura, we all know that. But especially in the context of a positive family history for either a psychiatry condition or migraine as well, or strokes, these are all factors that should prompt the consideration of these disorders in the differential of a patient with white matter disorders. Another category are definitely mitochondrial disorders, which I think are more neglected than others because we don't think about mitochondrial disorders when we see white matter disease; we tend to consider that mitochondrial disorders are a problem of the gray matter, but they are not. There are white matter diseases that have definitely mitochondrial. And the third category are probably microgliocytes, which are represented by the CSF1R-related disorder. And this is also something that is clearly quite prevalent, relatively prevalent, in the field of genetic white matter disorders misdiagnosed as MS.  Dr Monteith: Yeah. Why don't we go through some of the, kind of, key history, you know, some of the key questions you would ask in the history to try and differentiate? You mentioned kind of subtle symptoms, longstanding progressive symptoms. I know things that we look at like relapsing/remitting and some trigger factors can actually be associated with some of these genetic disorders. So how do you approach a patient? What are some of the key questions? You talked about family history and you talked about medical history, but why don't you kind of give us a nice way to kind of hone in on to the patient? Dr La Piana: There are a couple of questions that we usually ask. I should make a disclaimer, though, that I work very closely with the MS clinics, so we are ready to receive patients that are prescreened. So, these are already patients that people working on acquired white matter disorders feel like they are atypical, so they want our opinion. But usually, there are two groups of questions that we always ask. One is about the family history. And by saying family history, I really dig into the family history. I don't just want to know whether there are family members with neurological disorders. I ask specifically about migraine. I ask specifically about infertility issues. I ask specifically about psychiatric issues. These three things are always on the top of my mind when asking about family history. The other thing is a family history for neurodevelopmental disorder, because you know that some people might not remember that some genetic white matter diseases can present at different ages. So, in the same family, there might be cases with a pediatric-onset leukodystrophy, and that can manifest at a later age in other family members. So, this is something that we always explore. In terms of the clinical history, one question that I recommend always to ask is really about more subtle symptoms. So, for example, many of our patients present with progressive balance problems or progressive mobility issues that have been going on for a while. So, we always ask how they were when they were in their teenage years, for instance. And it's frequent that they say, actually, I was a bit clumsy. Actually, I was not the first being picked in school at phys-ed sports. And these are all interesting aspects. Maybe they are totally incidental, and sometimes they suggest that there was probably something going on for a long time. The other thing is the presence, for example, of learning difficulties. Again, these are things that are subtle but testify that there was probably a process that was more longstanding. Dr Monteith:  You talked about things like rim lesions. Are there other types of sequences that might be useful to better characterize demyelinating diseases that are genetic in origin? I assume higher levels of MRI might be better at differentiating.  Dr La Piana: Yeah. So, in the clinical setting, there are a couple of sequences that are very useful. One is the diffusion, because as opposed to multiple sclerosis, the presence of persistently restricted areas of diffusion can point immediately towards some genetic white matter diseases. One is CSF1R-related disorders. But there are also some other, more rare tremor and ataxia syndrome that present with persistent areas of restricted diffusion as well as others. The presence of calcification. So, adding an SWI, susceptibility weighted imaging, to check not just for calcifications that can immediately orient towards some disorders, but can also identify areas of microhemorrhages that, if we are going back to the leukovasculopathies, to the genetic leukovasculopathies, can tell us that we are on the right track for excluding those type of diseases. Basically, these are the two that are available in every scanner without even going into fancy, more advanced techniques. Dr Monteith: I was going to ask you that question, how often should we think about this next-generation sequencing when you're kind of on the fence, allowing for some negative results to come back in the abundance of caution?  Dr La Piana: The problem with the panel, of course, is that you run a panel and you don't know what's coming back. So, then having to deal with variants of unknown significance in genes, then you have to deal with them, and then you have to deal with results that maybe are not as black or white as you would expect initially. So, I'll answer to your question when to do that, our recommendation would be to do that every time you are presented with a patient that presents those atypical features that we summarized in the paper, and that basically raise multiple red flags for an atypical white matter disease that is not multiple sclerosis. And then what to do when you have results? I still believe that having access, of course, to genetic counselors, to neurogeneticists, is critical, but also having access and being in contact with the network of people working on this. Because we are a network; we put the website address on the paper of the white matter rounds because this is an international network that we built over the years, and we connect monthly, on a monthly basis, with meetings to discuss exactly this type of patient. So, we are all learning together, and it's very frequent that people ask us to present cases at the white matter rounds because they have a presented with unusual or atypical genetic findings and they want the opinion of experts.  Dr Monteith: Great. Well, I'm really glad that resource is available. And I'm also really glad that you wrote that article with your colleague. Thank you so much. Dr La Piana: Thank you so much, Tesha.   Dr Monteith: Today I have been interviewing Dr Roberta La Piana about her article on adult-onset leukodystrophies mimicking multiple sclerosis, which she wrote with Dr Gabrielle Macaron. This article appears in the April 2026 Continuum issue on multiple sclerosis. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues, and thank you to our listeners for joining today.  Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Novel MRI biomarkers, including cortical lesions, the central vein sign, and paramagnetic rim lesions, are highly specific for MS and can aid diagnosis in select clinical scenarios, particularly early in the disease course or in atypical presentations. When used with appropriate MRI sequences, these markers can improve diagnostic sensitivity while helping prevent misdiagnosis. In this episode, Casey Albin, MD, speaks with Jiwon Oh, MD, PhD, FRCPC, FAAN, author of the article "Diagnostic Neuroimaging Biomarkers for Multiple Sclerosis" in the Continuum® April 2026 Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders issue. Dr. Albin is a Continuum® Audio interviewer, associate editor of media engagement, and an assistant professor of neurology and neurosurgery at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia. Dr. Oh is the medical director of the Barlo Multiple Sclerosis Program at St. Michael's Hospital and an associate professor at the University of Toronto in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Additional Resources Read the article: Diagnostic Neuroimaging Biomarkers for Multiple Sclerosis Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @caseyalbin Full episode transcript available here Dr Albin: Spend any time in a neurology conference, and you are certain to hear about the new central vein sign, which, as I learn, is not actually all that new. But have you heard about cortical lesions or these paramagnetic rim lesions? Because today I have the privilege of talking to Dr Jiwon Oh about her article, and we're going to unpack all these new biomarkers in MS. Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, editor in chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Albin: Hello, this is Dr Casey Albin. Today I'm interviewing Dr Jiwon Oh about her article on diagnostic neuroimaging biomarkers for Multiple Sclerosis, which appears in the April 2026 Continuum issue on multiple sclerosis. Welcome to the podcast. Thank you so much for being here. I'd love to start by having you introduce yourself to our listeners.  Dr Oh: Thanks, Casey. Hi, everybody. My name is Jiwon Oh and I'm a neurologist, mainly an MS specialist at Saint Michael's Hospital at the University of Toronto, and I'm the medical director of our MS program. Dr Albin: And you have written a really fantastic article that dives deep into some of the nitty gritty about these new diagnostic biomarkers that we find on the MRI that we're getting for our patients with multiple sclerosis. And I think we are going to get into a lot of that nitty gritty. How do we look for them? How do they improve our diagnostic specificity? This is really come a long way in shaping the advances for multiple sclerosis. And I'd kind of like to just start with the big picture. Like why do we need these more specific biomarkers?  Dr Oh: This set of diagnostic criteria in MS, it's actually a huge change in the field, and particularly for people like me who are really interested in developing new MRI measures, we're really, really excited because it's actually the first time since MRI was officially incorporated into the MS Diagnostic criteria, which was way back in 2001. It's the first time that we've actually been able to get newer, more advanced imaging measures beyond just simply detecting, new T2 lesions in the MS diagnostic criteria. So, it's a big moment in the field, and many of us are really excited about it in terms of why we need some of these newer, more specific imaging measures. Well, you know, diagnostic criteria always evolve over time for any disease state, and MS is one that we've recognized over the years. By the time someone actually presents with typical clinical symptoms and has diagnosed, whatever has been happening from a patho-biological standpoint has been happening probably for almost 5 to 10 years before that individual actually presents. And so, because of this recognition in the field and the fact that we're recognizing how important it is to first diagnose MS and then treat MS earlier and earlier, because we know that early treatment helps prevent more clinical outcomes. Diagnostic criteria over time have become much more permissive, meaning that we're doing everything that we can to try to facilitate a diagnosis of MS when we know that someone biologically has MS. But the problem with making diagnostic criteria more permissive, and it's obviously a good thing because you want to capture as many people with MS as early on as possible. The problem with making it permissive is there is this terrible risk of misdiagnosis. As clinicians, we all think we never make mistakes. But it turns out when you actually do studies, you do. And even at MS specialty centers, when studies have been done, 10% to 20% of people with MS are misdiagnosed. So, this is exactly why we need in diagnostic criteria that really help to facilitate a diagnosis. We need things that help us prevent misdiagnosis as well. And these are these specific imaging measures that have now been incorporated into the diagnostic criteria in many settings that will help to facilitate a diagnosis. But the really big perk is if you use them, you can help to prevent misdiagnosis as well.  Dr Albin: Yeah, that really shone through in your article that this was such a big step in towards being more specific about who were diagnosing. Also capturing more people, right? Trying to get those people that we, we don't want to miss because of all the things you say, you know, that allows them to accumulate more disability, have worse outcomes. Early diagnosis is so important. But I really did take away from your article just how critical these are and sharping our diagnostic acumen. And so just to jump right in, and you describe these three new biomarkers, these cortical lesions the central vein sign and paramagnetic rim lesions. And so just to kick things off let's start with cortical lesions I sort of conceptualize multiple sclerosis a disease of white matter. So, what's going on here?  Dr Oh: Yes. MS classically has always been described as a white matter disease. But it turns out when you look at brain and spinal cord tissue, as well as when you use kind of better sequences to actually look for lesions in the gray matter, it actually turns out there's a ton of lesions in the gray matter as well. And in fact, what's interesting is that regardless of whether it's the cortex or the deep gray matter, it's lesions within these areas that seem to have the highest relevance for clinical disability in MS. So, all this to say, of course, MS is a lesion that does affect white matter, but it also affects gray matter a lot. And maybe pathology within the gray matter is even more relevant to clinical disability. So, this is why we're really interested in being able to develop methods using MRI to more accurately visualize the gray matter, particularly the cortex, as well as deep gray matter structures like the thalamus. I should add the caveat that cortical lesions were actually included in the 2017 diagnostic criteria revisions, but they were included together with juxtacortical lesions, which are a typical area that MS lesions form. And so, this imaging measure, despite the fact that it is relatively novel and we consider it advanced, it hasn't been used that much only because it's not that easy to detect lesions within the cortex. And reasons for this include that you usually need higher field magnet platforms. And so, the typical clinical MRI scanners that are available kind of widely, regardless of whether you're at an academic center or a community center, are 1.5 Tesla magnets. And cortical lesions are actually really difficult to detect on those typical scanners. But when you get to like, say, three Tesla or seven Tesla, they're a lot easier to detect. But obviously that's a big hindrance to widespread use. And then you actually need very specialized sequences to adequately visualize cortical lesions. And these are not sequences that are usually collected for clinical purposes. So, it kind of requires convincing your radiologists that you need this additional sequence. And then it actually takes a lot of time and training to be able to adequately, accurately detect cortical lesions. So, despite the fact that it's actually very useful when you do have the appropriate MRI sequences and scanners to detect cortical lesions, even though they were incorporated into the 2017 criteria outside of specialty centers, they're not actually widely used. But when you do have the appropriate sequences, cortical lesions are actually pretty specific for MS. So, very helpful for a diagnosis in certain settings. But there's all these practical limitations that have really limited its widespread use. Dr Albin: That is a beautiful summary. So, it sounds like once we kind of get up to speed in terms of like the protocols for this, having the magnet strength for this, this will be really a game changer in terms of increasing the specificity and also maybe finding things that impact patient's clinical presentation and therefore quite meaningful. But it sounds like for most of us, this is probably not something that they're going to be adopting right away. Is that a fair assessment?  Dr Oh: Yes. And you know, they were included in the last diagnostic criteria revisions. And it really hasn't changed things very much, only because of these difficulties with, you know, requiring higher field magnet strengths and these specialized sequences and then needing training to kind of figure out how you can adequately detect cortical lesions. Dr Albin: Totally. So, the other thing we've heard a lot about, and I have to say, I was in the AAN fall conference not too long ago, and this came up quite a bit, was the central vein sign and the fascination with that, because it tells us a lot about the MS pathophysiology and again, increasing that specificity. And it seems like maybe this is one that we can more easily adopt in clinical practice. So, tell our listeners about what that is, how they detect it. How many do you need to find?  Dr Oh: Sure. And so, this is one of the imaging measures I'm really excited about. So, the central vein sign heard about it recently. And probably in the last ten years particularly in the MS field we're talking about it all the time. But just wanted to emphasize that the central vein sign is not something that is new. Even back in the 1800s, when Charcot described MS lesions in these ancient textbooks, he actually very clearly described that MS lesions form around the central vein. And that makes sense, because we know that these waves of peripherally mediated inflammation somehow get through the blood-brain barrier and cause this cascade of events leading to inflammation in the brain and spinal cord, which is what MS is. But we know that B cells in T cells require veins to get into the central nervous system. And so, it's no surprise, really, that MS lesions form around veins. And so, this is something that's been known pathologically. But the reason we're so excited about it now is because we actually have good enough iron-sensitive MRI sequences that allow us to see a central vein when it is present within a white matter lesion. As a neurologist, we know that there's probably hundreds and hundreds of different things that can cause white matter lesions in the brain. But when you use an appropriate iron-sensitive sequence and you see that many of them, if not most of them, actually have visible central veins, that tells you that this person very likely has MS. And so that's why we're so excited about it, because there have been many studies done in the last ten years. In fact, so much evidence generated in the last ten years that there have been I think it's now four systematic reviews and meta analyzes. Looking at the diagnostic properties of the central vein sign. And, you know, it turns out that when you look at people with MS, most of them have a pretty high proportion of white matter lesions that have visible central veins. And there's a lot of questions about, you know, how to best use the central vein sign. But when 40% or more of the white matter lesions that you see have visible central veins, then the likelihood of a diagnosis of MS is very high. So, this is why we're so excited about it in the MS field because it's a really useful diagnostic tool. You know, again when you have appropriate ion sensitive sequences, if you see someone with white matter lesions and you see that 40% or more of them have visible central veins, this tells you that this person very likely has MS.  Dr Albin: So, Dr Oh, I hear you say, you know, 40% of the lesions. Does that mean the neuro radiologist needs to look at every single lesion and then count how many have the central veins, or is there an easier way to do this? Dr Oh: Great question. Casey, there is definitely an easier way because our neuro radiologists would not be our friends anymore if we made them look at every white matter lesion and make sure that 40% of them had the central vein sign. So, because it's so time-consuming to use that 40% threshold, there's an easier criterion that has actually made it into the diagnostic criteria. And it's called Select Six. And what this means is when you have more than ten lesions, as long as you show that six of them have a visible central vein, you just have to count six with the central vein. Then you're done. So that means you're Select Six positive or central veins nine positive. However, if you have ten or fewer lesions, as long as you show that more than 50% of them show a visible central vein, then you are select six positive, and then you're done. So, as you can see, it's a much simpler criterion to apply, and it seems to perform almost as well as that 40% threshold, which is why that is the criterion that's made it into the new diagnostic criteria.  Dr Albin: Perfect. I love that we definitely do not want to make enemies with our neuro radiology colleagues, but yet they do so much for us. So perfect. I'm glad that we can, make their jobs a little easier without losing any specificity there, or just losing a touch of specificity there. All right. If I am working with a, you know, in a center that maybe doesn't do this all the time, am I just getting a run of the mill SWI sequence? Do I need to ask my radiologist for a special sequence? Or is this just, you know, you can get it from the typical array of what our patients are getting.  Dr Oh: You know, SWI is a widely available commercial sequence that's iron-sensitive, the ones that are typically commercially available, they can detect central veins, but there actually are little tweaks that you can do to make it a little more optimal. With the recent diagnostic criteria publication, which was, led by Xavier Montalban and recently published in Lancet Neurology. There's actually a companion MRI paper that was led by Frederick Barkov and Danny Wright. And the reason I'm specifically citing those papers is in that companion MRI paper, there's a table that has kind of optimal sequence parameters that you can use even with a conventional SWI sequence, to try to best detect the central vein sign. And then there's a wide range of different iron-sensitive sequences, and SWI is one of them, but the one that seems to have emerged as most sensitive to detect the central vein sign is something called the 3D T2*-EPI sequence. But the bottom line is there's a whole bunch of different iron-sensitive sequences that you can use, little tweaks that you can do to make them optimal, to be able to visualize central veins when they're present within white matter lesions. Dr Albin: Incredible. So like partner with your neuro radiologist, there is a great sounds like a field guide almost to this. So, it makes it easy to pick up in your standard of care so that you can make sure that you are detecting them at the optimal level to see that more specific diagnostic biomarker.  Dr Oh: Yes. And you know, in contrast to what we were talking about with cortical lesions, you can actually detect central veins when you use these iron-sensitive sequences at any field magnet. So even at 1.5 Tesla, particularly when you use contrast, which is often given with the diagnostic scan anyway, you can very easily detect a central vein. So that's a huge benefit because it allows for widespread use. As long as you work with your radiologist to get the right iron-sensitive sequences in.  Dr Albin: Yeah, that's incredible. I mean, I think that it really will be practice-changing. And then the last one that I think was honestly new to me, I feel like I had heard a lot about the central vein sign, but the whole new to me term was this paramagnetic rim lesion. So, what does that tell us about the underlying biology of MS? And are there any other things that might also have this finding that we should sort of be aware of? And how specific is it?  Dr Oh: You know, the central vein sign is kind of the main, really new imaging measure that's made it into every part of the MS diagnostic criteria. And then together with that paramagnetic rim lesions or we call them PRL or pearls for short, they've made it as well, but in a much more limited way only because there's not as much evidence that has accumulated over time to support the diagnostic utility of pearls. But first of all, what are pearls? So, people in the MS field are really excited about pearls, because we know that they capture a subset of what we call chronic active lesions. So, MS lesions will form acutely and over time, some of them will become inactive. And then some of them are chronic active lesions, meaning that they have this rim of activated microglia around them. Over time, they continue to slowly expand. And it's almost like this slow burn. And the reason why we focus a lot on chronic active lesions is because we know that they're a driver of progressive disease biology and MS, meaning that in people who have progressive MS or who have pretty severe disability, global disability or cognitive disability, we know that they have a high burden of pearls. And so that's why there's so much excitement in MS about being able to image chronic active lesions. It's because we're always looking for an imaging measure that allows us to accurately predict progression or to, measure progression over time. So that's why there's so much excitement in MS about pearls. But as kind of an added bonus, it turns out pearls are also really specific for MS. And so, when you use the same iron-sensitive sequences, by the way, that's used to detect the central vein sign when you use appropriate iron‑sensitive sequence. And if you see that someone has a pearl, the likelihood of a diagnosis of MS is very high. The one exception to that is Susac syndrome, where pearls have been observed. But other than that, with many other white matter diseases like neuro rheumatology disease, NMOSD, MOGAD, you really don't see pearls. And so, this is why it's made it into the new diagnostic criteria. In contrast to the central vein sign, though, not everybody with MS has a pearl, so the sensitivity isn't as high. However, it's really, really specific in the range of, you know, 90 to 95%. So, this is why it's been added as, an imaging measure in certain settings. It can help facilitate a diagnosis. But the real utility, again, is when you use it, it helps you to prevent misdiagnosis.  Dr Albin: It's fantastic. And hearing you talk about that, this one stands out to me as a biomarker that not only helps increase our diagnostic specificity, but also may really inform if the patient has having progression despite the treatment they're on, that this could play a role in helping you say, look, there probably is something that we need to switch because we can still see this ongoing progression. Dr Oh: Yes. And especially in this new era of treatment in MS. I think, you know, MS as a field, we've been so fortunate to have so many treatments emerge over the years that mainly target relapsing disease. But we hopefully, in the next little while, in short order, I hope we'll have treatments that target these progressive disease biologies. And so, not only is it helpful as a diagnostic marker, but there's a lot of evidence accumulating, showing that it may have a lot of prognostic value and will also help guide treatment decisions, exactly as you said.  Dr Albin: It truly does sound like it's a great time to be an MS doctor there. So, so many new advances in the field. There is so much more that we can do for these patients in our limited time left. I'd love to ask you, what is it that you're most excited about now with the change in the biomarkers, the change in the treatment, what makes you really excited to be a doctor specializing in MS right now? Dr Oh: I feel like we're on the brink of a new era of treatment. I think, you know, in the last two decades, MS care has changed so dramatically. I remember, you know, way back when, as a medical student, when I did my first neurology elective, this was when the first treatments for MS were emerging. And the prognosis that we were talking to patients about at that time is like night and day compared to what we talk to them about now. But we're going to do even better in the next couple of years. And so, there's a number of new treatments that hopefully will be approved soon that, for the first time, have shown an effect in clinical trials where it seems to be decreasing progression that is independent of relapsing activity. And that's really the greatest unmet treatment need that we have. And it seems like we might have some therapies on the horizon that can actually target that aspect of progression. It's really exciting, and even more that we're going to be able to do for our patients to completely change the way, we look at and the way we treat MS in the years to come.  Dr Albin: Dr Oh, this has just been fantastic. To all of our listeners, I really want to point you to the article because obviously, as an imaging biomarker article, there are so many beautiful images. There are great examples. There are some fantastic cases that show how applying these new biomarkers can help get you to the right diagnosis. This is truly a tour de force of how imaging has really shifted the care that we provide patients with MS, and so please go and check it out. It is one that you do not want to miss. And again, today I've been interviewing Dr Jiwon Oh about her article on diagnostic neuroimaging biomarkers for multiple sclerosis, which appears in the April 2026 Continuum issue on multiple sclerosis. Thank you again, Dr Oh, this has just been such a delight.  Dr Oh: Thank you for having me on the show, Casey, and look forward to people reading the article. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, associate editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

In this episode, Lyell K. Jones Jr, MD, FAAN, speaks with Andrew J. Solomon, MD, FAAN, who served as the guest editor of the April 2026 Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders issue. They provide a preview of the issue, which publishes on April 2, 2026. Dr. Jones is the editor-in-chief of Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology® and is a professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Dr. Solomon is the Division Chief of Multiple Sclerosis and a Professor in the Larner College of Medicine at the University of Vermont in Burlington, Vermont. Additional Resources Read the issue: continuum.aan.com Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @LyellJ Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: It's been more than 150 years since Jean-Martin Charcot first described the disease that we now know as multiple sclerosis. Since then, the tools we have to diagnose and treat this disorder have expanded enormously. So why are the diagnostic criteria for MS. still evolving? Today we're speaking with Dr Andrew Solomon, guest editor of our latest issue of Continuum on MS and related disorders. To learn more about this question and much more. Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, editor in chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about subscribing to the journal, listening to verbatim recordings of the articles, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, editor in chief of Continuum, Lifelong Learning in Neurology. Today I'm interviewing Dr Andrew Solomon, who is Continuums guest editor for our latest issue of Continuum on multiple sclerosis and related disorders. Dr Solomon is a professor of neurological sciences at the University of Vermont, where he also serves as the division chief of multiple sclerosis. Dr Solomon is an internationally recognized authority on MS, particularly on the diagnostic approach to this complex disorder. Dr Solomon, welcome. Thank you for joining us today. Why don't you introduce yourself to our listeners?  Dr Solomon: Hi, everyone. This is Andy Solomon. It's a pleasure to be here with you. And I feel honored to have helped this collaborative effort that created this important tool for trainees and clinicians in practice, the Continuum issue on multiple sclerosis and related disorders.  Dr Jones: Obviously, we're grateful that you've taken us on. A lot has happened in the world of MS and other neuroinflammatory disorders in the last few years, so lots to update. But as we've done over the last few podcasts, I'm going to start off the interview today, Dr Solomon, with a trivia question. And then we'll come back at the end of the podcast and give the answer. So, the trivia question is this. There are now more than 20 drugs approved by the FDA for the treatment of MS. What was the first disease-modifying therapy approved for MS? And when was it approved? So, don't answer because I know you know the answer. But we'll come back to it at the end of the interview. And our listeners can think about that question. So, let's get right to it. As many of our listeners know, the diagnostic criteria for MS. were recently revised. And you were involved with that revision. So, you're the perfect person to ask what were the major changes in the 2024 McDonald criteria, and why did we need to update them in the first place? Dr Solomon: I'm very excited about the 2024 McDonald criteria, and it was an honor to be part of that process that resulted in that manuscript. When we revise the diagnostic criteria for MS usually it's driven by accumulating data that suggests some changes or revisions might help us diagnose patients either earlier or with more accuracy. And that's certainly the case with this criteria. There was accumulating data that suggested some particular changes were important. You know, there's a lot of expert opinion involved as well. You know, there's many experts who are involved in the collaborative decisions that go into these revisions. And some of the changes in our field also pushed some of the revisions to where maybe there's not as much evidence, but where we felt it would improve care for patients with MS. This criteria, I would argue, is probably one of the most substantial revisions in over 20 years. There's multiple changes that are potentially impactful for the diagnosis of MS. Some very important changes involve the incorporation of new paraclinical tools that we can use to assess the visual pathway, as well as, imaging tools that provide high specificity for MS that we can use to substitute or dissemination in time, for instance, as well as other tools that may allow us to diagnose patients earlier than we would have in prior criteria.  There's also some opportunities with the new criteria to potentially provide access in regions where some tools are more available than others. For instance, the incorporation of Kappa Free Light Chains as a substitute for oligoclonal bands may open up opportunities in regions where expertise for oligoclonal band testing are not available. That's a very qualitative test, whereas Kappa Free Light Chain index is more quantitative, less expensive and may allow CSF testing to be performed to aid the diagnosis of MS in some regions where it wasn't available previously. This criteria provides multiple pathways to the diagnosis of MS, many more than we've had in prior criteria. So, it's important to emphasize that while there's all these new tools and changes that have been incorporated, not every pathway needs to be available where you practice. What it incorporates as flexibility. It is a bit more complex looking at all of these different possibilities, but the point is this flexibility allows clinicians or providers to diagnose MS early with high accuracy based on the tools they have available. Dr Jones: I think it will be a learning curve, right? I think any time we make a change in how clinicians get accustomed to approaching a diagnosis of a disorder, it will take some time for folks to incorporate it. And I see what you mean about the complexity, but I think that's a really great point, that emphasizing the different pathways to the diagnosis is really a strength of the revision, right? Dr Solomon: I agree, I think, you know, in other disorders, particularly if you think about rheumatologic disorders, systemic rheumatologic disorders or inflammatory disorders, where over time we've not had very highly specific and sensitive biomarkers. And we've incorporated a variety of clinical and prior clinical findings, testing, laboratory testing and biopsy and other things to confirm a diagnosis. These approaches to these disorders are sort of a checklist. And I think that clinicians became familiar with that approach and were able to make diagnoses accurately this way. And I think of the new criteria in a similar way. It's not quite amenable to a checklist, but the pathways are sort of simplified with multiple options. Hopefully, using the figures, clinicians can look at the paper and see what tools they have available to help them confirm a diagnosis of MS. I think it's really important to emphasize that the diagnostic criteria for MS still does not discriminate MS from other disorders. Everyone who's listening here, you do, the clinicians do. So, to enter the diagnostic criteria and these pathways, we first have to feel confident that the patient has a clinical presentation and an MRI presentation or MRI findings that are highly suggestive of MS. That aspect of the criteria hasn't changed since, the Schumacher criteria in the 1960s. This concept of no better explanation. So, we still need to know what's typical for MS. And we need to know what signs or symptoms or findings are that might suggest another disorder, because the criteria are really only validated and tested in patients who have these presentations to start with that are typical for MS. A major change in this particular criteria is that we can now diagnose patients who are asymptomatic. Previously just called radiological isolated syndrome. Not every patient with an MRI finding concerning for MS and now being diagnosed with MS. There's other features that, must be present, but even more than before, knowing what the typical appearance of MRI lesions suggestive of MS, it is even more critical now than it was before, because in those patients who have either no symptoms or a nonspecific presentation, if we have an MRI that's highly convincing for MS and some other prior clinical findings, we can make the diagnosis. But we first need to know with some confidence what that MRI should look like.  Dr Jones: So, there is a little circularity when we do these diagnostic criteria. I think our listeners who see patients will be reassured that the clinician is still in the loop. We haven't been automated out of the process yet.  Dr Solomon: We need a highly sensitive and specific biomarker or a set of biomarkers for MS.  We're getting closer with some of these advanced imaging findings like central vein sign and paramagnetic rim lesions. But not every patient can be diagnosed with those. And they're not required for the diagnostic criteria. In lieu of a highly sensitive and specific test. Our clinical acumen, for what we find a neurologic exam. And what we see on imaging in particular, is quite critical for ensuring that the criteria perform as well as we hope they will. Dr Jones: So, you've had the opportunity, the vantage point, to review all of these articles covering a wide variety of topics, MS, other neuroinflammatory disorders like aquaporin‑4–positive neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD), myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody-associated disease, MOGAD. Anything that surprised you in these articles as you were reading through them?  Dr Solomon: I think maybe for listeners, what may be surprising to some of them is that despite guidelines surrounding the use of some of our disease modifying therapies in pregnancy and breastfeeding that are published by regulatory authorities in the United States or Europe or other places, we are making other decisions for patients based on the data we have, the best data we have. Thinking about family planning is really important for us with patients who are newly diagnosed with MS, as well as through the course of their disease. This is a conversation we should be having shortly after diagnosis, because there are strategies we can take to minimize the risk of exposure of DMT around conception and to make plans for how we're going to think about DMT surrounding breastfeeding, to ensure the health of mom and the baby, and reduce risks as much as we can with the knowledge we have. I think in medicine it's quite common for us to use medications off label, right? I mean, so medications are often FDA approved for one indication. And in neurology, for instance, we find a lot of medications after their approval were quite effective for migraine prophylaxis for instance. Right? And so, it's not unusual for us to prescribe medications beyond the label. And I'm not suggesting that we necessarily ignore the advice of our regulatory authorities. But sometimes the data is accumulating really fast around some of these therapies after they're approved. Sometimes we can look towards experts and how we can navigate pregnancy and breastfeeding in MS. Dr Jones: I think that's a great point about the importance of family planning and having to use judgment. I do want to highlight to our listeners and our subscribers a fantastic article in the issue on family planning and MS and other neuroinflammatory disorders. This was written by Dr Ruth Dobson and Dr Kersten Hellwig, and I think it covers a lot of that gray area where we have to use our clinical judgment to manage these diseases in the absence of a regulatory approval. And I think, again, that's an important gap that the issue fills. And really, that's just a wonderfully written article that I think is a must-read. So, we cover lots of topics in this issue. And one of them is again a relatively newly characterized disorder, MOGAD. What's the latest in the world of MOGAD, what should our listeners be aware of? Dr Solomon: I agree, I think we're in an exciting time in CNS inflammatory disease. And this is a recently described disorder. You know, and the diagnostic criteria now is only a few years old. So, I think importantly, readers should be aware of the diagnostic criteria. This is something that, really will help us distinguish this disorder from NO spectrum disorder and MS. There's a key overlap between the MS diagnostic criteria and MOGAD. Two decades ago we saw a pediatric MS included somewhat atypical presentations like bilateral optic neuritis or acute disseminated encephalomyelitis. And we had caveats in our approaches to pediatric presentations of presumed MS, suggesting that there could be something very different than adult MS. Subsequently, we've realized that pediatric MS presents quite similarly to adult MS in terms of its clinical syndromes and MRI appearance, and many of those pediatric patients who had initially been diagnosed with MS and MOGAD. MOGAD is actually probably more common demyelinating syndrome in patients who are under 12 years old. So, the MS diagnostic criteria requires testing for MOG-IgG with a good assay, a cell-based assay, any patient being evaluated under the age of 12 or with a demyelinating syndrome to avoid misdiagnosis.  Dr Jones: Thanks for that. Obviously, MOGAD is one of several disorders that have been more recently characterized and, something that our readers need to be familiar with, and there's plenty of updates within the issue on that and other topics. Okay. So now back to our Continuum audio trivia question. And just to remind our listeners, there are now more than 20 drugs approved by the FDA for the treatment of MS. What was the first disease-modifying therapy approved for MS? And when was it approved? Dr Solomon, do you want to take the honors and answer the question?  Dr Solomon: Sure. It was way back in 1993. You had to get on a wait list, I believe, initially to get on it. There was some sort of lottery, and it was Betaseron.  Dr Jones: Betaseron in 1993, was the first disease-modifying therapy approved by the FDA for the treatment of MS. It just shows how much water under the bridge we've had since then. 1993 was also the first year of the Jurassic Park series of movies. It was the biggest movie of the year, the song of the year in 1993 was "I Will Always Love You" by Whitney Houston. It was also the year you can tell that I look back into 1993 to see what else happened. It was also the first year the World Wide Web became publicly available, which is it kind of puts brackets on the era or the epoch of MS disease modifying therapy. And finally, the Super Bowl champs that year were the Dallas Cowboys, who unfortunately, have not had much luck in Super Bowls since the 1990s. Maybe they will have more opportunities like we've seen with MS therapeutics. So, Dr Solomon, I want to thank you for joining us today. I want to thank you for such a wonderful discussion of the latest in MS. I think the updated diagnostic criteria are really going to be critical for our listeners to understand and incorporate into their practice. Really grateful for your leadership of the issue, putting together a really stellar group of experts for all of our articles and grateful for your time today. Thank you for joining us.  Dr Solomon: Thanks so much for having me. Thank all the other listeners out there for joining us as well. I'm really excited about this issue of Continuum.  Dr Jones: Again, we've been speaking with Dr Andrew Solomon, guest editor of Continuums most recent issue on multiple sclerosis and related disorders. Please check it out. And thank you to our listeners for joining today. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, associate editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the Journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Neurologic complications of substance use may be the first symptoms that lead patients with substance use disorders to seek care. Neurologists have a key role in identifying patients with substance use disorders and connecting them to treatment. In this episode, Lyell K. Jones Jr, MD, FAAN, speaks with Adeline L. Goss, MD, author of the article "Neurologic Complications of Drug and Alcohol Use" in the Continuum® February 2026 Neurology of Systemic Disease issue. Dr. Jones is the editor-in-chief of Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology® and is a professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Dr. Goss is a neurohospitalist and associate chief of neurology for Highland Hospital in Oakland, California. Additional Resources Read the article: Neurologic Complications of Drug and Alcohol Use Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @LyellJ Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: A big part of neurology is solving mysteries. Patients can show up with all kinds of mysterious symptoms. Sometimes the diagnosis comes from within, some internal disruption of neurophysiology. But sometimes the problem is a complication of drug or alcohol use. Today we have the pleasure of speaking with Dr Adeline Goss, who recently authored an article for Continuum on this exact problem, a topic all neurologists need to be familiar with. Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology. Today I'm interviewing Dr Adeline Goss, who recently authored an article on the neurologic complications of drug and alcohol use for our latest issue of Continuum on the neurology of systemic disease. Dr Goss is a neurohospitalist and the associate chief of neurology at Highland Hospital in Oakland, California. She's also an accomplished writer, broadcaster and podcaster. Dr Goss, welcome, and thank you for joining us today. Why don't you introduce yourself to our listeners? Dr Goss: Great to speak with you, Dr Jones. Yes, I'm Adeline. I also go by Addie Goss. Dr Jones: So, before we get into the discussion, we're going to start off today with something fairly new to the podcast, the Continuum Audio trivia question. So, we all know that alcohol and other substances have many potential complications in that use of these substances fluctuates over time. But this one stood out to me from your article, Dr Goss, just for the sheer size of the change. So, for our listeners, here's the question. Accidental exposures to what substance increased a whopping 1,375% between 2017 and 2021? I'll read that again. Accidental exposures to what substance increased 1,375% between 2017 and 2021? So, stick around to the end of our interview for the answer. And let's get right to it, Dr Goss. If you had a single most important message to our listeners from your article, what would it be? Dr Goss: Well, I mean, many of us went into neurology because of the way that neurologic illnesses can be life-changing for patients. And I work as a neurohospitalist at a public hospital in Oakland, California. Many of my patients are admitted for neurologic conditions related to substance use. And when I see my patients later in the discharge clinic, many tell me that the last day that they used meth or the last day they used cocaine, the last day they smoked, was the day they had their stroke or whatever they came into the hospital for. I think the most important message is that hospitalization for a neurologic condition related to substance use can interrupt use patterns, can motivate change. And therefore, as neurologists, we really have an opportunity to connect to our patients and connect our patients to substance use treatment and make a dramatic difference in people's lives in this regard. Dr Jones: I think that's a fantastic point. I enjoyed a point you made in your article---and I can't remember exactly how you phrased it, I won't say it as well---that you think of the syndromes through which alcohol and drug exposures can present. Those syndromes almost always could end up of other primary neurologic disorders. So, put a different way, when a patient presents with a neurologic problem, most of the time an exposure could be on the differential.  And so, we really do have a responsibility as neurologists to be familiar with these. Dr Goss: To be familiar with these and to know how to connect patients to resources to try to get treatment. Dr Jones: Totally agree. And you touched on the public health aspect of this. It's really hard to talk about drug or alcohol use without acknowledging the public health impact particularly of opioids, which has been a crisis for most of this century. Right? And I think most of our listeners will be familiar with the rapid rise in opioid-related deaths. But there might be a glimmer of optimism there. Is what I've seen true, that opioid-related deaths may have plateaued? Dr Goss: So, yes, it's true that opioid-related deaths, overdose deaths in general, have begun to decline, actually, since 2023. And that's in part because overdose deaths really surged early on in the Covid-19 pandemic, in the setting of all of the social disruption, reduced access to services, and social isolation that occurred with the pandemic. But there were really multiple factors there. So, as you mentioned, there was this really rapid rise in illicitly manufactured fentanyl. Fentanyl became a major driver in overdose deaths starting in the mid-2010s. And by the late 2010s, it overtook heroin and prescription opioids as drivers of overdose deaths. And then this just collided with the pandemic in 2020, causing skyrocketing deaths. So, as we know as neurologists, fentanyl is more potent, it's shorter-acting, and it's also cheaper than heroin. It can cost as little as 50 cents or a dollar a pill. Thankfully, as services have rebooted and also as naloxone has become more widely distributed, there has begun to be a decline in opioid overdose-related deaths. So, we're relying on provisional data from the CDC for the most recent years, but that shows about a 24% decline in annual overdose deaths, comparing late 2023 to late 2024. And that's real. That comes out to 70 lives saved per day. Unfortunately, deaths still remain above prepandemic levels, and we're still talking about 87,000 drug overdoses per year. So, I would agree, a glimmer of hope. But we're still seeing overdose as the leading cause of death among young Americans aged 18 to 44. And there's a very long way to go. Dr Jones: 23% is a big number, and that is certainly exciting to think about, but we're still above that long-term secular trend. So, hopefully whatever is happening to bring that down, hopefully it continues. And we talk a lot about- appropriately, we talk a lot about opioid exposures and some of the neurologic presentations of opioid use and toxicity, but alcohol use disorder is the most common substance use disorder, correct? I learned that from your article. And it has been for some time, and it has well-known acute and chronic toxicities. But I think many of us have been taught something of a myth in the acute treatment of patients who may have thiamin deficiency or Wernicke's encephalopathy. Can you tell us a little more about that? Dr Goss: Yeah, sure. So, boy, what is my favorite vitamin? As a neurologist, I think thiamin is my favorite vitamin. Thiamin is a cofactor in- for several enzymes that are involved in glucose catabolism. And it's necessary to synthesize myelin and several neurotransmitters. And as we know, alcohol use disorder leads to reduced nutritional intake and impaired digestion and absorption of nutrients. And this can lead to deficiencies in water-soluble B vitamins, including thiamin, as well as trace elements. The thing about thiamin is that thiamin deficiency often appears first, because the body's stores of thiamin deplete in about 4 to 6 weeks. You know, we're traditionally taught if a patient presents with symptoms concerning for Wernicke's encephalopathy, that if they're also hypoglycemic or just in general, we have to get glucose into them first, because we don't want to tax these thiamin-dependent glucose catabolism pathways. But really, there's no reported case of a single glucose bolus precipitating some dramatic symptomatic thiamin deficiency. It's thought that harm would come potentially from prolonged carbohydrate administration without thiamin. And so, if a patient in front of you is both thiamin deficient and hypoglycemic, you just treat both. You treat both emergently. But it doesn't really matter in what order you do so. Dr Jones: That's good to know that doing the right thing for the patient can involve using either of those in whatever order. And I agree with you, I don't think I've ever hurt anybody by giving them thiamin. It's an easy one to miss and an important one to remember in the right context. And speaking of, and I think a lot about in your article, Dr Goss, I can see a neurologist seeing a patient in the emergency department or in the hospital or even in the clinic thinking about the wonderful points in your article. But we know that when alcohol or substance use enters our mind on the differential, the next impulse is to test for it. And we also know there are pitfalls of drug screening, doing urine drug screens, etc. How do you approach testing when you think about a potential drug-related complication in their differential? Dr Goss: So, like most people, I would start with a urine drug screen for any patient who's presenting with a possible toxidrome or some substance-related neurological presentation. These urine drug screens, they're rapid, they're inexpensive, they're immunoassays for traditional drugs and their metabolites. So, usually amphetamines, cocaine, opiates, plus/minus cannabis. But I think the first thing to note is that they miss entire categories of drugs, and not just drugs that are not in that list. They miss synthetic opioids, including fentanyl. One group is keeping track of this number. So, I have an update for mid-2025. And that's that 30% of U.S. ED overdose encounters as of mid-2025 included fentanyl testing. Only 30% for patients who are presenting with an overdose syndrome. Dr Jones: And that's for one of the most widely used synthetic opioids. So that's really a striking number. Dr Goss: Yeah, one of the most widely used and one with the greatest rate of complications. So, states can make a difference here. In 2022, California passed a law requiring fentanyl testing on hospital urine drug screens and several states have followed. And so that number is rising, the rate of testing for fentanyl. But that's just a really key thing to know, that that one is often missed. Other just important pitfalls, the timing of the urine drug screen matters because for most substances, it only picks up the drug within 24 to 72 hours after the last use. With amphetamines and cocaine going out a couple more days after that, especially in patients who use repeatedly. And then also, notably, there's a risk of false positives. This is especially true with amphetamine use, and beta blockers are one of the drugs that can lead to false positives on an amphetamine test, on a urine drug screen. So, I'll share that I've had several patients who have presented with intracerebral hemorrhage and who tested positive on the emergency department's urine drug screen and who adamantly stated that they do not use amphetamines, they've never used amphetamines, and they didn't ingest anything that could have contained amphetamines. And when we did serum confirmatory testing, in fact, their amphetamine testing was negative, and all those patients had received esmelol or the labetalol in the ED to treat their blood pressure related to their ICH. So false positives can occur with, you know, other medications like decongestants and certain antidepressants. But beta blockers are a key one to know. And then finally, there are just a number of things outside of that short list of substances that I mentioned, including a huge range of novel psychoactive substances that would not be tested for on a standard urine drug screen. And for those, you'd require serum testing, or at some large academic centers or specialty toxicology labs, you can actually do liquid chromatography high-resolution mass spectrometry, with- which is basically unbiased testing for any substance that's present in the patient sample. So, I guess, you know, you asked about my approach. Start with the urine drug screen, but there's no substitute for good history-taking and close examination of your patient's general examination, not just their neurologic presentation. And if patients are presenting with a toxidrome that I would expect would show up on a urine drug screen but it's negative, there are other confirmatory tests that can be sent, although they're often send-out labs and come back in a very delayed fashion. Dr Jones: So, in other words, it's complicated, which usually means it's humbling. And if I'm understanding it correctly, there's the risk of the false positive on the urine drug screen. And then there's the risk of the false negative if we think we're screening for something that might not even be on that initial screen. So, that's a wonderful reminder that these are clinical diagnoses and we have to keep our clinician hats on while we're thinking about how to establish these diagnoses or exclude them. So, back to opioids, Dr Gross. There are some really peculiar neurologic syndromes associated with opioid overdose. Tell us a little about those. Dr Goss: Well, I mean, some of these were described first with heroin. So, we can start with the one that almost anybody has heard of, heroin-associated spongiform leukoencephalopathy, which we know is associated with a practice known as "chasing the dragon," which is inhaling vapors of heroin heated on foil. But we know now that this syndrome can occur with other opioids, including fentanyl. The clinical features are, you know, apathy, cerebellar signs, quadriparesis, parkinsonism, myoclonus, and some patients progress to coma or even death. But on MRI you're seeing, you know, these confluence symmetric white matter diffusion restriction and T2 hyperintensities in the cerebellar white matter and the posterior limb of the internal capsule that spare the subcortical U-fibers. So, you know, I think this is kind of the classic example of something that's symmetric, that has a very obvious and interesting MRI pattern. But as time is passing, we're seeing more and more similar types of syndromes of leukoencephalopathies, but with different clinical presentations and MRI characteristics. So, another of these is CHANTER syndrome. This is an opioid overdose-related presentation where people have stupor and coma. And on the MRI there, you see bilateral symmetric diffusion restriction in the cerebellar cortex, in the hippocampi, in the basal ganglia. And it spares the cerebral cortex. And notably in these cases, patients can progress to cerebellar edema, to obstructive hydrocephalus. And some require suboccipital craniotomy. I had a week recently at Highland Hospital, where I work, where we had two of these cases in the same week, in just a community hospital. And there's a similar syndrome in children known as POUNCE syndrome with profound cerebellar edema, and many patients require posterior decompression. So that's another different distribution of findings with a different outcome. Fortunately, there's a milder sort of phenotype of opioid-associated amnestic syndrome, is what it's been described, where there's primarily DWI changes in the hippocampi and the globus pallidus. So, patients primarily present with an amnestic syndrome, mostly anterograde amnesia. Seeing these in practice, I'm not sure that patients always fall into one bucket or another. But in general, you'll see some degree of symmetric diffusion restriction or symmetric white matter changes that clearly point to a toxic presentation, a toxic syndrome, as opposed to pure anoxia, for example. And it's important to know that because from a prognostic standpoint, anoxic brain injury, which can occur after cardiac arrest and after opioid overdose, can look different than some of these syndromes. Finally, heroin has been associated with myelopathy, but also that's been reported on with fentanyl. So, I think some of these conditions got their reputation from heroin. But as fentanyl has proliferated---and prior to that as prescription opioid, you know, misuse had proliferated---we're seeing similar syndromes with all of the opiates. Dr Jones: And I think it's a good case in point that you can have multifocal disease and it be a manifestation of an intoxication, and I think that's a really good reminder that we have to have many of these syndromes in our differential, we have to be aware of them, otherwise we might miss them or attribute them to another mechanism. Dr Goss, our last issue of Continuum that was dedicated to the neurology of systemic disease came out in 2023, and here we are in 2026 publishing our latest issue, including your article and this podcast. Since 2023, have there been any emerging patterns or novel agents of abuse or misuse out there? Dr Goss: The short answer is yes, and I would say the reason is just the supply is moving at more and more rapid speed. The relationship between the internet and drug supply has really informed what's out there at any given moment. So, the turnover in the market can change in weeks, not in years. And there's all of this distribution through social media and encrypted apps. And then manufacturers are kind of continuously tweaking chemical structures to evade law enforcement. In the process of researching this article, I came across some, I mean, really wild examples. To be clear, these are not- not all these are common substances, but I think the general phenomenon should be known that people can walk into a vape shop or walk into a gas station or meander around online and buy some really weird stuff. So, in 2024, there was this nationwide recall of a product called Diamond Shrooms that was sold online and in smoke and vape shops, and this was billed as, like, a hemp and mushroom mixture. But it led to multiple- I mean, over 100 cases of seizures and agitation and depressed consciousness and a few possible deaths. And when the contents were analyzed, they included psilocybin analogs and pregabalin. I mean, some weird stuff. And so, those have been pulled. But people are constantly inventing and marketing these different substances. I think another example… we all know about nitrous oxide and its association with B12 myopathy. But the use of nitrous oxide has really changed. Companies are selling large canisters online and in vape shops, and they're flavored, like, in blue raspberry flavor. And unfortunately, there's been a rise of nitrous among youth. So, we're seeing not just increased cases of myelopathy, but also a 2025 study in JAMA found a spike in deaths attributed to actual nitrous oxide overdose. And so nitrous, I think, had not been that commonly used a few years ago, but has become more common in the last couple of years. A final one I'll just mention is ketamine. So, ketamine has certainly appeared in reviews of neurological syndromes related to substance use for a long time, and it's also been studied and used off-label for mood disorders in outpatient infusion clinics for some time. But in the pandemic, there was an expansion in telemedicine, as we know, and an associated proliferation of teleclinics that were prescribing very frequent, even daily oral and lozenge and nasal formulations of ketamine, which has led to increased rates of misuse. So, you know, acutely, the syndrome associated with ketamine intoxication is very brief. And often by the time people come to the emergency department, their symptoms have already worn off. But long-term, frequent use of ketamine is really still being studied. There seems to be an association with persistent neuropsychiatric effects like cognitive impairment, psychosis, persistent depressive symptoms. And so, you know, I think it's just important to realize that while the list of substances may look pretty similar to 2023, the use patterns, the distribution patterns are continuing to change. It's hard to keep up. And while alcohol and opioids and stimulants are by far the most common substances that a neurologist is going to encounter in daily practice, there's this ever-expanding range of possible substances that can trigger neurologic syndromes, both acute and chronic. Dr Jones: And I think that might be the best possible plug to read your article, because it is evolving and we have to stay on top of it. And we really can't be complacent with it. So, thank you for that update. Okay, back to our trivia question. Accidental exposures to what substance increased a whopping 1,375% between 2017 and 2021? Dr Goss, what do you think? Dr Goss: That was THC-infused edibles. Specifically, these would be THC-infused substances that are often marketed as looking like candy or snacks or cereal. Exactly what a kid might want to get their hands on. And unfortunately, accidental cannabis exposures in children under age five went up by 1,375% between 2017 and 2021, and 600 of those patients required critical care admission. Dr Jones: Yeah. So, just a mind-blowing number, and obviously something for us to be on the lookout for, especially if you see children in your practice and someone comes in with CNS depression or stupor, it's one to not miss. So that was something I learned in reading your article, among many other things. And Dr Goss, I want to thank you for joining us. I want to thank you for such a great discussion. I learned a lot from reading your article, I learned a lot just from our conversation today, and I suspect our readers and our listeners will too. Dr Goss: What a pleasure. Thank you so much, Dr Jones. Dr Jones: Again, we've been speaking with Dr Adeline Gross, author of a fantastic article on neurologic complications of drug and alcohol use in our latest issue of Continuum on the neurology of systemic disease. Please check it out, and thank you to our listeners for joining us today. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Neurologic care during pregnancy and menopause requires careful attention to the dynamic interplay between hormonal transitions, evolving evidence on diagnostic and treatment safety, and the lifelong risks associated with neurologic complications of pregnancy. In this episode, Katie Grouse, MD, FAAN, speaks with Sara C. LaHue, MD, author of the article "Neurologic Complications of Pregnancy and Menopause" in the Continuum® February 2026 Neurology of Systemic Disease issue. Dr. Grouse is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a clinical assistant professor at the University of California, San Francisco in San Francisco, California. Dr. LaHue is an assistant professor of neurology for the Weill Institute for Neurosciences in the Department of Neurology at the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine in San Francisco, California Additional Resources Read the article: Neurologic Complications of Pregnancy and Menopause Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Full episode transcript available here Dr Grouse: Despite the high prevalence of neurologic conditions in women, critical gaps remain in training, research, and clinical guidelines on sex and gender specific considerations across the lifespan. Today, I have the opportunity to speak with an expert on neurologic complications of pregnancy and menopause and coauthor of the and women's neurology curriculum core competencies, Dr Sara LaHue about the latest issue of Continuum on neurology of systemic disease. Dr Jones: This is Dr Jones, editor in chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Grouse: This is Dr Katie Grouse. Today I'm interviewing Dr Sara LaHue about her article, Neurologic Complications of Pregnancy and Menopause, which appears in the February 2026 Continuum issue on Neurology of Systemic Disease. Welcome to the podcast and please tell us more about yourself. Dr LaHue: Well, thanks so much for having me. I'm really excited to talk about this topic. So, I'm Sara LaHue. I'm a neurologist at UCSF, assistant professor of neurology, and a neurohospitalist. So much of my role is taking care of people who are coming into the hospital with urgent and emergent neurologic conditions. And so that's very much a framing that I come to this chapter with. Dr Grouse: I just want to start by congratulating you on your article, which is such a phenomenal compendium of important neurologic issues related to pregnancy and menopause, which I think I really needed and a lot of us really need and was missing, I think, in all of the literature out there. This article will be such an important clinical resource. I know for me, and I'm sure for many of our listeners, this may be a difficult question to answer because of how comprehensive the article is. But what do you hope will be the main takeaway for those who read your article? Dr LaHue: So, I really hope that listeners walk away with understanding that pregnancy and menopause are not contraindications to providing excellent neurologic care. I think too often we default to withholding treatment, pseudo-assumed risk, rather than actual evidence of harm. And so, I think that the key message here is that protecting maternal health is protecting fetal health, and that under-treating neurologic conditions during pregnancy can harm both mother and baby. Dr Grouse: You did say specifically in your article that I thought it was so important that presumption of harm from medications during pregnancy, due to lack of evidence rather than evidence of harm, was something that we really had to be aware of, of that bias. And how do you recommend neurologists listening to this podcast approach situations where diagnostic or management strategies become less certain due to safety considerations in pregnancy? Dr LaHue: Yeah, that's such an important question. I really frame it as a risk-benefit calculation with a patient, and I'm very transparent about what we know and what we don't know. And I emphasize that untreated disease may also impact fetal health. I use resources like LactMed and pregnancy registries that can help provide some of the more latest data. And then when evidence is limited, I document our discussion thoroughly, and I'll often involve maternal-fetal medicine colleagues for their multidisciplinary input. So, the goal is really to have an informed, shared decision-making process rather than a reflexive avoidance of all treatments. Dr Grouse: I think that's really important to reiterate, and I think something that we're all I think working on as we try to manage these difficult situations and conditions. Now, I want to switch gears a little bit and ask. Your article was so comprehensive and so helpful, but what isn't in the article that you wanted to put in? Dr LaHue: There was a fair amount that I ended up having to take out. So, this is a question that's near and dear to my heart. So, I would have liked to include more on the neurodevelopmental outcomes for children who are exposed to various neurologic medications in utero. And I also wanted to discuss more about transgender and non-binary individuals who are experiencing pregnancy and menopause, as they're often underrepresented in research. They've faced unique challenges accessing care. Dr Grouse: Now, I was really struck by one statistic in your article, specifically that intimate partner violence is a leading cause of head injury during pregnancy, and that actually homicide is a leading cause of death during pregnancy in the postpartum period in the US, which was absolutely a surprising statistic to me. What does this mean for our listeners caring for pregnant patients with concussions and head injuries? What should we be doing differently? Dr LaHue: This is also something that really struck me when I first encountered it. I think that the statistics should really fundamentally change how we approach head injuries in pregnant patients. I think we need to screen everyone routinely and privately for violence in the home and in the relationships, and to document injuries very carefully. But we also need to be prepared if someone does screen positive. And so, it's important to be familiar with what's available in terms of resources within your community, where you work, and also to remember that that strangulation in particular is something that can cause dissection and stroke. And so, to maintain a high index of suspicion for any kind of vascular injury in these cases. So not just thinking about head injury itself, but also thinking about complications of strangulation as well. Dr Grouse: Really a great reminder of the role that we can play in our own careers and our own clinical settings when we see cases like this. So, I really appreciate that this point was made, and I hope this will change people's practice. Now switching gears to stroke in pregnancy. Could you walk us through your evaluation and management of a patient who comes in with acute stroke in the peripartum period? Dr LaHue: This is such an important topic, and I think the first thing I'd like to emphasize is that time is brain. Whether or not you're pregnant. It's important to get whatever imaging modality is going to be fastest. Get the CT or get the MRI as soon as you can. Don't delay for fetal concerns. The radiation risk is minimal compared to missing a treatable, disabling stroke. In terms of treatment, thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy should be considered just as in a non-pregnant person, when the benefits outweigh the risks. And so, I think the key is involving obstetrics early for shared decision making, and being very transparent with what treatment options are available for the individual, and to not let pregnancy alone stop you from offering standard stroke therapies. Dr Grouse: Definitely a helpful resource, and I think the resources that you put in specifically around the considerations and differentials in these various populations. Postpartum, while still pregnant during the period of period, I think is all just so helpful and a great review. So, I encourage our listeners to check that out. Now switching over to the topic of menopause. I have to say, I really appreciated your coverage of neurologic issues related to the perimenopause period. What do you think is the biggest debate or controversy in this area? Dr LaHue: I think this has to be our understanding of the use of menopausal hormone therapy. The pendulum, when using menopausal hormone therapy, has really swung dramatically. So, we went from routine use to predominantly avoidance. After the Women's Health Initiative was published in 2002, and now we're finding that we're starting to come more to a middle ground. I think there's still great debate when it comes around timing of initiation, formulation of the different therapies, a route of administration and also the dosing, as well as just including how to individualize therapy for individuals with neurologic conditions. Dr Grouse: Well, going into that a little further, I know I get a lot of questions about the use of hormone therapy as it relates to stroke risk and particularly in higher risk patients such as patients who've had prior strokes, dissections, a history of migraine with aura. And I find it hard to get the answers in the literature that's out there. How are you counseling these patients? Dr LaHue: So, I think this is where discussions around the route of administration and dosing become especially important. And this is where there's emerging literature that I think is helping to guide some of these discussions. So, for higher risk patients, I discuss how low dose transdermal formulations which can bypass hepatic metabolism and reduce clotting risk. These are medications that can appear safer in those higher risk individuals. I think the key is really individualizing the risk-benefit discussion with the patient. For a woman with severe vasomotor symptoms that are affecting sleep and cognition, who had a remote stroke. I think this is a person for whom low dose transdermal patch might be a reasonable option. All of these factors end up being considerations for that shared decision-making. Dr Grouse: Now your article covers another topic that I often get questions about, and that's specifically regarding safety of vaginal delivery for patients with neurologic conditions that are sensitive to increased intracranial pressure. Could you summarize your advice for these types of questions when they come up? Dr LaHue: So broadly speaking, most neurologic conditions don't require C-section delivery. And this is a procedure that, just globally speaking, as has been increasing dramatically. And so, I think that's the key message that really, most neurologic conditions don't require a C-section as a main indication. And really, the indication should be based on obstetric considerations. For most conditions, like controlled idiopathic intracranial hypertension, a vaginal delivery is fine. But for patients with mass effect or obstruction at the foramen magnum, a C-section with general anesthesia, it's probably going to be safer. The transient increase in intracerebral pressure that can come with pushing. It hasn't really been shown to harm patients who have stable, treated neurologic conditions. Dr Grouse: I really appreciated the advice that you given in the article, which was that if generally you feel like this would be a patient who would be safe to get a lumbar puncture, you have a little less concern about vaginal delivery versus those that you feel would not be safe to get a lumbar puncture, that you'd be more leaning towards a C-section. Dr LaHue: Yeah, that's exactly right. Dr Grouse: Now, why do you think we have so many gaps in our understanding of how pregnancy and menopause affect neurologic conditions? Dr LaHue: So, I think it really comes down to a perfect storm of factors. So, in 1977, the USFDA came down with the recommendation, stating that it was best to exclude all women of reproductive potential from both phase one and phase two studies. And this recommendation wasn't reversed until 1993. And there are also concerns around liability and also the fact that pregnancy is a temporary state is something that may falsely minimize the potential for delays. The potential for harms that come with delays in treatment. And I think that the fact of menopause is also historically been dismissed, despite this is something that is affecting half of the population. I think we need systemic change. We need to mandate inclusion in research. We need funding for dedicated studies. We also need to recognize women's health as a core competency and not just a special interest. Dr Grouse: That all sounds like a great roadmap for improving our knowledge. And I really hope we get there. But hearing you talk about it really does give me hope that we can improve how we are understanding and treating these conditions. Now, your article included a really helpful overview of headaches in pregnancy, and that's certainly something I think many of our listeners are very familiar with. We do have a lot of questions around that, and I think there's a lot of areas where we don't really always know what the best thing to do is. I think that your article really gave a lot of great information and a really great framework to think about. It would be wonderful to hear you walk through your approach to evaluation of a patient who was pregnant with a new onset headache. Dr LaHue: You'll see in this chapter that I introduce a mnemonic that's spelled out pericardium as a framework for thinking about headache and pregnancy. And here are the you specifically points to an unusual headache, referring to a new or atypical presentation of headache for the patient. I think this is an important place to start, because one of the initial considerations should be this is a new headache, or is this an old headache? If this is a patient who already has a preexisting diagnosis of migraine or some other primary headache disorder, then it's certainly possible that the headache that they're experiencing during pregnancy is also a continuation of their primary headache disorder. But certainly, our role is to make sure that we're not missing a scary complication, a secondary headache that could be dangerous to the patient. And so, then this is where I also think about, well, where are they in the course of their pregnancy. Is this person currently pregnant or are we in the postpartum period? When someone is after 20 weeks gestation, one of the first things to consider is going to be preeclampsia. And so, it's important in those individuals to check blood pressure, check urine to rule out preeclampsia, as this is always going to be top of mind after 20 weeks. I think it's also important to emphasize that preeclampsia is not just a condition that can occur when someone is pregnant. This is also something that can occur postpartum. One needs to be vigilant for looking out for this complication during both time periods. And then I think for new headaches, I really want to focus on what the timing is and any other red flags. For example, if it's a thunderclap headache and onset, then I might be worried about something like RCBS or cerebral venous sinus thrombosis. If the headache itself is orthostatic and patient may have had an epidural, then I might think about a post-dural puncture headache, which is a, unfortunately very common complication and reason for headache in the postpartum period. I think the key is that most dangerous headaches often will occur late in the third trimester or early postpartum. And I think it's also important to remember that if you need imaging to make the diagnosis, and you should get it. The risks of missing something serious far outweigh concerns that one might have around imaging. And when possible, it's certainly preferred to get an MRI if that's available. Dr Grouse: I really did appreciate articles, overview of the various imaging modalities out there and the overview of risk versus benefits and times where they may or may not be needed. So, yet another very useful piece of information that I think that our listeners will appreciate in your article. Now, I'm curious how did you get interested in this area of neurology? Dr LaHue: So, it really was my interest in both reproductive health and neurology that led me to go to medical school in the first place. I knew early on at the beginning of medical school that I was interested in neurology, but I also was very drawn to obstetrics, and I recognized in medical school and then further on as, as a resident, just how vast the knowledge gaps were. When I was counseling my own patients and I found this to be just a very frequent source of frustration as both a clinician and a researcher, I very much feel an obligation to try to help fill these gaps. And I've also just been very encouraged by an outstanding community of other neurologists that I've been able to meet in this space. It's been a just a wonderful collaborative network that we've been able to grow, both within United States and even more globally, when it comes to other neurologists who are interested in this topic. And I'm just very excited to see the direction that this field is going in. Dr Grouse: Well, we can't wait to learn more as this field develops and more is understood about the right way to approach these types of diagnostics and treatments. So, thank you for all your work in this space. And it's been absolutely fascinating reading your article and talking with you today. Dr LaHue: Well, thank you so much for having me, and I'm just so thrilled that these important topics are going to be part of this issue of Continuum. Dr Grouse: Again, today, I've been interviewing Dr Sara LaHue about her article and Neurologic Complications of Pregnancy and Menopause, which appears in the February 2026 Continuum issue on Neurology of systemic disease. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues. And thank you to our listeners for joining today. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, associate editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the Journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe AA and members. You can get to me for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Prompt recognition of direct and indirect neurologic complications of systemic cancers and their evolving treatments is essential. Neurologists should be familiar with common and rare neurologic toxicities of conventional chemotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and CAR T-cell therapy. In this episode, Teshamae Monteith, MD, FAAN, speaks with Amy A. Pruitt, MD, FAAN, author of the article "Neurologic Complications of Cancer and Its Treatment" in the Continuum® February 2026 Neurology of Systemic Disease issue. Dr. Monteith is the associate editor of Continuum® Audio and an associate professor of clinical neurology at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Miami, Florida. Dr. Pruitt is the William N. Kelley Professor of Neurology, Vice Chair for Education, and Division Chief in the Department of General Neurology for the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Additional Resources Read the article: Neurologic Complications of Cancer and Its Treatment Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @headacheMD Full episode transcript available here Dr Monteith: As neurologists, we have a critical role in diagnosing neurologic complications of cancer from metastatic disease, seizures to neuropathies. Increasingly, the rapid development of novel treatments themselves, like immunotherapies, Car-T cells, and targeted drugs are causing new neurologic side effects, which we need to recognize, manage and anticipate as therapeutic developments evolve. Dr Jones: This is Dr Jones, editor in chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Monteith: Hi, this is Dr Teshamae Monteith. Today I'm interviewing Dr Amy Pruitt about her article on neurologic complications of cancer and its treatment, which appears in the February 2026 issue on neurology of systemic disease. Welcome to our podcast. How are you? Dr Pruitt: Thanks for having me. Dr Monteith: Absolutely. Why don't you introduce yourself? Dr Pruitt: As you said, my name is Dr Amy Pruitt. I'm a professor of neurology at the University of Pennsylvania, where I am also the clerkship director and have been for a long time. I'm the division chief of general neurology and the vice chair for education in my department. Dr Monteith: You have a lot of hats. Dr Pruitt: I do. Dr Monteith: Okay. So, before we dive into all this great work that you did in the article, why don't you just let us know just a little bit about what led you to this career path? Dr Pruitt: Sure. So, I've always been interested in the intersection between internal medicine and neurology; in fact had I've not been a neurologist. I probably would have been either an oncologist or infectious disease specialist. And that leads to doing neuro oncology and seeing a fair amount of CNS infections. I see both inpatients and outpatients and really enjoy my neuro hospitalist time because, honestly, as all of you who do consults on inpatient services know, there is an incredibly changing landscape of consequences of cancer therapies. And if you haven't been on service for a while, you probably don't even know the name, is much less the adverse effects of these medicines. Dr Monteith: Okay, so you were just like me to write this article. Dr Pruitt: Well, I think where it is directed, I think, as I said, that people who are seeing a lot of inpatients and who may not know it's a new consequences of cytotoxic or immunotherapies or T cell therapies and the different appearances and really prognoses, which have changed dramatically in the last few years in the field of systemic cancer. Dr Monteith: Any other essential points of your article? Dr Pruitt: So, I think there are certain areas where neurologists are going to intersect with oncologic patients even before oncologists do so, what tumors might present synchronously in the brain and the rest of the body. And those would include things like small cell and non-small cell lung cancer and melanoma, to a lesser extent, women who are surviving much longer now with good therapies for various versions of breast cancers, have one of the solid tumors most likely to present at first relapse in the brain, either in the brain metastases category or in the leptomeninges. So, these are the areas where I think it most likely that our neurologists are going to intersect with oncology. And then there is the burgeoning, thankfully, realm of long-term survivors who have had cancer therapies in young adult lives, sometimes in childhood. And we need to be abreast of the ever-changing spectrum of complications that will plague these people all their lives. And we can do a great deal to improve the quality of survival in these patients. Dr Monteith: And of course, there has been a lot of great development in cancer research, which has led to novel therapeutics. So, can you tell us about a few of these therapeutics and their complications that neurologists need to know about? Dr Pruitt: Sure. Well, as I said, some of the cancers you're most likely to encounter are lung cancer and melanoma. And here the prognosis has changed dramatically. A few years ago, someone with metastatic melanoma might have had a couple months prognosis. And now we're talking honestly about long term survivors, complete responses in lung cancer and melanoma, and really good responses in the breast cancer realm as well. So, these are dramatic changes. And these are ways neurologists need to know what the actual nuanced and much more variable prognosis is among patients with brain metastases. In order to give the patients good advice and also to give the radiation oncologist and the oncologist, the medical oncologist, good advice. So, for example, just in the realm of brain metastases, a stage change has been that people with asymptomatic metastases for, let's say, non-small cell lung cancer or melanoma might have systemic therapy rather than local therapy, local therapy being gamma knife radiation or less likely, whole brain radiation therapy, but really systemic therapy with responses and the brands that are nearly as good as those in the rest of the body. And sustained, durable responses. The article goes into great detail about what's available in the way of therapies for these cancers, like breast, HER2-positive breast cancer, like EGFR‑positive lung cancer and melanoma of various types. It's really quite amazing actually, to have anybody quote a seven-year survival of little over 40% in people who presented with non-symptomatic melanoma metastases. Unheard of, really. So, I think if you're still practicing, quote unquote old school neuro-oncology, you need to get up to date because you're giving patients and their caregivers good advice that will lead them to the very important therapies. You mentioned some of the immunotherapies. If we have time, I'm happy to go into those because those are really important for neurologic consultants in the hospital. Dr Monteith: Yeah. Let's talk about immune checkpoint inhibitors. What do we need to know about them and their complications? Dr Pruitt: So, they have a novel set of central nervous system and peripheral nervous system complications. These include both acute and subacute presentations. They can arise after the very first dose and usually do so within the first several doses. Importantly, even though the patient may be quite sick, about three quarters will recover entirely. However, the most common ones are actually the peripheral nervous system, and they have the highest morbidity and mortality rate. So, a very unfortunate combination of myasthenia, myocarditis and skeletal myositis has a high mortality rate and is very hard to treat in a group of people who have received these immune checkpoint inhibitors in the central nervous system, there can be cerebellitis, encephalitis. These again can be acute or subacute presentations. And the big discussion with the attending oncologist is, can we continue these therapies after we've withdrawn them, and for instance, treated them with steroids? Because you can imagine that if you knock down the immune system with steroids, you might make the patient temporarily better. But in so doing, you're negating the important consequences of the mechanisms of immune checkpoint inhibitors. So, I would say probably in a given week on the inpatient service, I'll see five or so. So nearly a daily event when I see some major complication of immune checkpoint inhibitors. And again, I've already mentioned the histology in which those have been useful, but they're not indicated for a variety of other malignancies as well. And the Car-T cell therapies are a whole different set of side effects. And some of your listeners may know about cytokine release syndrome, which is nearly universal right after the infusion of the car T cells. But a few days later is where we come into action with the immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome. Or ICANS can say that I'll refer to it as ICANS since then. These include focal neurologic symptoms and the form of what's often a conduction sort of aphasia, a predictable deterioration, and handwriting along with confusion. As far as the radiology of that syndrome, that's really pretty odd. It can range from a dramatic cerebellitis, just a dramatic basal ganglia syndrome, a dramatic and enhancing leptomeningeal syndrome to an absolutely normal MRI scan. And the important thing for our consultant consultants to remember is that the patient can look really, really ill, and you can turn to the team and say, you know what, there's a very good chance that it's going to get all better. So, supporting people through what are very good diagnostic and therapeutic algorithms that exist in the literature and are quoted in the Continuum chapter to help know when you should be giving steroids, when you should be giving tocilizumab, etc. these are tried and true therapies now, and the Car-T world has improved not only the prognosis of patients. And I remember seeing some of the very first Car-T patients, and we really didn't know what to do to help them, how to turn off the cascade of this immunologic reaction. Now we know how to do that. And it's important to stay up to date on those algorithms because you can make a big difference for these patients. Dr Monteith: Yeah. So, this is great. We're going to dive back into the diagnostics, which is really related to my follow up question. I think you gave a really great pearl. And it's always can we keep going? Do we stop? So, I want to like dive into that question. And I assume that there are categories. Yes. You can, somewhere in between, and absolutely not. And so, tell me a little bit more about that thinking. Dr Pruitt: Well that's a very nuanced question. And so, the answer that some oncologists will give you as well, they've had such a dramatic response. So maybe we don't need it anymore. It's never the neurologist's decision. It's always the joint decision with the oncologist. So, for instance, with a Merkel cell cancer patient develops a severe anti‑AChR syndrome on an immune checkpoint inhibitor. And we tell the oncologist maybe you shouldn't go back and do that again. And the person says, never mind, he'll be fine. He's already had the response that we want, but that's a difficult question to answer because, for instance, in a slightly different subset, let's look at multiple myeloma patients. And I spent a fair amount of time on multiple myeloma in the article because it affects the nervous system in so many ways. And we have so many different therapies for these patients, one of which is a Car T-cell. And this is a B-cell maturation antigen, Car-T. It's different from the ones that we know for lymphoma and leukemia. And it has a different set of neurologic problems, which unfortunately do preclude going back to taking a Car-T cell therapy again. And just to make a long story short, this particular complication makes the patient look Parkinsonian. The consult you're probably going to get from the medical services is patients weak. Well, the patient is not exactly weak. He is Parkinsonian. He has a extrapyramidal rigidity, sometimes a tremor a negative cat scan and a B-cell maturation antigen syndrome occurs not at the sort of 5 to 7 day mark about ICANS that we just discussed, but rather a month or so out and a month or so out. It's not when you're expecting to see Car-T cell therapies. So, patients end up getting worked up extensively for, let's say, some sort of infection, when in fact, what we should be looking at is a newly described complication of Car-T cell therapy. So, the part of my article on multiple myeloma is one that's really important because as you know, it's such a common hematologic problem among older people. And many of these people may have direct complications of multiple myeloma, such as direct tumor infiltration of nerves. POEMS syndrome. So, it's really a wealth of neurological issues for us to contend with for these people. Dr Monteith: Yeah. And I know you've really done a great job of adding lots of wonderful charts, including understanding the time course of some of these complications, when to anticipate, because I think some of it is about when to anticipate some of these complications. Dr Pruitt: Well, exactly. Yes. Given the time constraints, I've made a lot of tables because there was a lot of information. And those, I think, are the kinds of things that a consultant should know: what should I be thinking about at this point in time? And that sort of leads us to what are the later complications of these things. And those include many medical things, from failure due to neoplasia, morbidity, radiation, chemotherapy agents, the long-term and medium-term consequences of these things for people. Are going to come back to our office as well. Immunocompromised patients, such as the ones and heavily treated patients that I just mentioned, may lack a robust inflammatory response. And they can have infections really at any time out. Some are predictable, as in our leukemia patients who have had hematopoietic cell transplant. So, we kind of know when to expect viral infections, nosocomial infections, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, many other things down the road. But in this era of COVID, we know that these patients are more susceptible to the dire effects of COVID, and they may not mount a good vaccination response. We have seen types of neurologic complications of all sorts of infections, including babesiosis this year, and persistent enteric viral meningitis. So, the patient can present a very atypical fashion. And the neurologic consultant has to keep a really open mind about the broad differential of what might be happening. Dr Monteith: And you do have a section under imaging and metastatic disease. Are there any like new sequences or a way to kind of tease out complexities? Dr Pruitt: So, there is marked variability in the radiographic appearance of brain metastases. And I must confess that I made a very large collage of all the different representative types of things. And I think that's important for neurologic consultants to recognize that some metastases don't enhance. They don't all look like ring-enhancing lesions. Some can be much more diffuse, particularly if the patient has received something like a VEGF inhibitor like bevacizumab therapy can look exceedingly different. They can involve the dura, which should be treated differently. There can be simultaneous leptomeningeal and disease. So as far as I know, sequences perhaps not so much. Although if one is thinking about the differential between radiation-related injury and someone who's already been treated versus tumor recurrence, then we have some pretty good microscopic data, some susceptibility weighted images, other ways of getting whether this is really radiation related change or tumor recurrence, a major problem obviously. What we also know about radiation is kind of a theme of the article is use it as infrequently as possible, because we just talked about some of the other therapies that we have. We may need to give local therapy for symptomatic patients, but we give as little as possible, and we try never to give whole brain radiation therapy. I'll go on record as saying that it's certainly necessary. Sometimes people have diffuse lymphoma, this disease that's recurred, they have multiple metastases in a sort of miliary fashion may be necessary, but if you can use gamma knife radiation, if you cause any use form of focal radiation, new in the leptomeningeal world is proton therapy for spinal metastases. So quick sparing techniques. And this is something that should always be considered when you're consulting on someone in a place in which you have the option of proton therapy. So, I would say that distinguishing between radiation necrosis and recurrent tumor and the use of protons are the big news in the radiation therapy world. And don't give whole brain radiation therapy if you can avoid it. Dr Monteith: Yeah. I'm getting a flashback from residency because, you know, that always happens. And the radiologist saying, you know, we need more information when you put in those orders. And so, I think with this whole era of new chemotherapeutic agents and how they could present on imaging and give the radiologists as much information, including the type of chemotherapeutic agent used. Dr Pruitt: Yeah, I think particularly in the transplant world. So, the leukemia lymphoma patients who have received one of the calcineurin inhibitors, like tacrolimus or cyclosporine, that induces a whole set of complications, some of which are visible radiographically. There's a delayed leukoencephalopathy. There can be stroke. There can be SMART syndrome, stroke like migraine after radiation therapy. And perhaps many of our listeners have been confronted with someone who has a prolonged focal deficit, say, a hemianopia and maybe a hemisensory deficit with or without a subsequent headache. It goes on for days to hours. It looks peculiar on the MRI scan because it's not then a vascular distribution. There's sort of diffuse gyral swelling, flattening of the EEG on that side, the patients getting steroids and valproate and anticoagulation and angiography and all. It doesn't need any of that. The syndrome of stroke, like migraine after radiation therapy, needs to be recognized. And best thing to do is don't just do something. Stand there. You should wait until it goes away. And so, I think that's we are seeing this increasingly, that we first reported this in young adults who had been treated years ago for medulloblastoma. So, it was posterior fossa tumors primarily. But this has now been broadened, as you know, to include supratentorial tumors of many types and adults at various times out from their radiation therapy from a few months to many years. Dr Monteith: I should ask you in writing this article, clearly you have a wealth of knowledge, but in kind of just putting this together, what surprised you? Dr Pruitt: I think what surprised me is the increasing range of complications and that virtually anything needs to be thought of central nervous system or peripheral nervous system. With some of these newer therapies. There is a chart in there about the conventional cytotoxic therapies, and we're all familiar with things like methotrexate and that sort of thing. But what surprised me really is the increasing diversity of complications of these newer drugs, and also the fact that I didn't know some of the third and fourth generations of the tyrosine kinase inhibitors too. When you look at even the year of 2020, neurologic drugs were second only to oncologic drugs and FDA approval even at the height of COVID. So, don't feel badly if you don't remember any of the drugs really changing so rapidly. And they're better ideas, they're going to be fancier Car-T cells that attempt to get around some of the adverse effects of these and neurologists will retain really important role in following some of these patients, to be sure that these improvements are actually real and durable. Dr Monteith: Excellent. Thank you so much for this wonderful conversation. Dr Pruitt: Well, thank you so much for having me. And I hope people do get information from the article. Thanks. Dr Monteith: Again, today I've been interviewing Dr Amy Pruitt about her article on neurologic complications of cancer and its treatment, which appears in the February 2026 Continuum issue on neurology of systemic disease. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues. And thank you to our listeners for joining today. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, associate editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe, AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Nearly one in five patients in intensive care units (ICUs) requires neurologic consultation. The neurologic complications of critical illness can be unique to its underlying processes and can persist as independent disease states even after resolution of the inciting critical illness. In this episode, Casey Albin, MD, speaks with Shivani Ghoshal, MD, author of the article "Neurologic Complications of Critical Illness" in the Continuum® February 2026 Neurology of Systemic Disease issue. Dr. Albin is a Continuum® Audio interviewer, associate editor of media engagement, and an assistant professor of neurology and neurosurgery at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia. Dr. Ghoshal is an assistant professor of neurology for the Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York, New York. Additional Resources Read the article: Neurologic Complications of Critical Illness Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @caseyalbin Guest: @ghoshal_shivani Full episode transcript available here Dr Albin: The ICU can be such an intimidating place. There's unresponsive patients, there's beeping equipment and a seemingly endless way in which the nervous system can be compromised. But fortunately, today I have the opportunity to speak with Dr Shivani Ghoshal about her paper, Neurologic Complications of Critical Illness, which is going to help us demystify the approach to these patients and provide some clinical pearls that you can take to your next consult in the ICU. Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Albin: Hello, this is Dr Kasey Albin. Today I'm interviewing Dr Shivani Ghoshal about her article on neurologic complications of critical illness, which appears in the February 2026 Continuum issue on neurology of systemic disease. Welcome to the podcast, Dr Ghoshal. It's really such a treat for me to get to interview you, someone who I know and have worked with in the past. But for those who do not know you, please give us a little background about what brought you to this topic and what you do in your clinical life. Dr Ghoshal: Thank you so much. It's a thrill to be interviewed by someone that I know well and get to work with. Outside of writing this article for Continuum, I am a neurointensivist. I'm an assistant professor of neurology at Columbia University and the program director for the Neurocritical Care Fellowship between Columbia Cornell and New York Presbyterian. So, a lot of what I do in my day-to-day is thinking about acute brain injury along with the neurology of systemic disease and how, really, the two interplay with each other, of how neurologic complications can arise from systemic illness and the other way around. Dr Albin: Yeah, you are the absolute perfect person to kind of walk us through the complexity of the brain and body connection. Dr Ghoshal: I don't know if I can deal with that kind of praise, but thank you. Dr Albin: And you've really written a powerhouse article on just the myriad of complications that really arise in the ICU, and you've broken it down into what I think is a very thoughtful way of sort of bucketing these complications. So, tell us a little bit about the approach you took here. Dr Ghoshal: I love this article because neurologic complications are just so common in so many types of acute critical illness. And I think we have to think for each organ system, how does this affect the brain, and then how does the brain then interplay, let's say, in kidney failure, in hepatic failure, in sepsis, right? Which is so common that I think we don't even think a lot about, like, what are types of septic encephalopathy for all the antibiotics we give; like, what are the implications of this? I really enjoy taking each system and thinking about, how does it specifically affect neurologic complications? Dr Albin: Yeah. And then there was a really nice breakdown in terms of some of the procedures that will happen within the ICU in general. You know, the things that are happening to the patients at the bedside also put them at risk for neurologic complications. Then there are those neurologic changes that are happening because of some of the underlying problem that brought those patients to the ICU. And then the unfortunate number of problems that arise because the patient has been in the ICU for such a long period of time. Dr Ghoshal: You know- and I think that that first part you mentioned, just about procedures in the neuro-ICU, right? Or in the ICU in general. I think that we don't think about that on a day-to-day level, right? Just like arterial lines are one of the most associated with any kind of peripheral nerve injury, especially axillary arterial lines. I learned quite a bit, even going through this article and then looking at other sources. So, thank you also for pointing that part out. Dr Albin: Yeah. When I was thinking about how do we distill all of what was covered through this article, I actually really thought it would be sort of most interesting to have you model sort of your approach to these patient complications and how you approach the complexity of an ICU patient. And so, if it's okay with you, we'll just walk through a couple cases. Dr Ghoshal: Oh my gosh, let's do it. Dr Albin: All right. So, these are all, of course, composite cases. You know, there is no patient violation here. Let's say that this is a 64-year-old patient and they're admitted with influenza, and they develop ARDS. And they're in the MICU. And this patient, they were pretty sick on arrival and they were intubated for three days. But now the patient's been extubated, and the MICU team calls you because today she's having trouble swallowing and her voice, you know, the family says that this is not what she normally sounds like. And the team is really quite worried that she's had a stroke. And so they are calling for a neurology consult because they want to know what they should do. So, walk us through your approach to that patient. Dr Ghoshal: Well, I think the primary team being concerned for a stroke is definitely reasonable, but I think, taking a bigger step back, what I would first want to think about, is this neurologic or non-neurologic? Neurology, you know, there's a parcel of things we can go through, but even just a non-neurologic, like, is this just primary injury to the vocal cords, right? I think about the cough were there, the ET tube, it wasn't overinflated which caused direct damage, right? And then after that, then I would think a little bit more about my approach for what is going on neurologically. Thinking about either, is this a brain process or is this a- more of like a spinal cord cervical cord injury process or more cranial nerve issue? Dr Albin: Yeah. How would you approach the exam in that patient? Dr Ghoshal: Yeah. You know, I- and just to, again, take a step back, right? To remember that when we do intubate someone, the physical maneuvers that we have are a chin lift and regular endoscopy, right? They have, like, significant movement for the cervical spine. So, I might want to know even before I examine the patient, right, or their history, right, do they have anything like, do they have known cervical stenosis? Do they have any, like, cervical spine pathology? Was it a difficult intubation? Right? So, these are the kind of the things I'd want to know even from the history, along with whatever vascular risk factors they may have. And then, to your question about the actual exam. Yes, you know, I may look for, like, crossed findings, right? If we're thinking about, let's say, a medullary lesion, etc. I think all listening to this podcast know about MRI testing there. But beyond what I would be looking for, let's say, in a medullary stroke, I'd also want to be looking at just, like, water paresis, right? I might want to be interested in, let's say, signs of neurogenic shock. You know, you mentioned they're in septic shock, ARDS. I might want to actually take a look to see, like, was this all septic, right? Or what are their other shock types present. Dr Albin: So, what I hear you're saying is you're evaluating A, first of all, answering the consulting question, you know, is there a real risk for some sort of cerebrovascular phenomenon, but then actually going to the bedside to examine the patient, to say, does that make sense? Do we see hemibody involvement here? And it's a good thing that you're approaching it that way. Because actually, when you go to the bedside, she does have some difficulty speaking. And reading the notes, this was actually quite a difficult intubation. From just the cranial nerve, you know, where she has maybe some dysphonia and dysphagia. But you also, on exam, then find that she's got some pretty symmetric distal weakness in her arms bilaterally. And so, when you find that, what are some of the imaging that you're going to think through to try to pin down exactly what's going on here? Dr Ghoshal: I love these cases because it's not so straightforward. Now, let's say if she has, like, an upper extremity weakness and lower cranial nerve deficits, you know, things I'd be looking for, like any injury to, like, hypoglossal nerve, vagus nerve. The vagus nerve is going to be hard to tell, right? Recurrent laryngeal nerve, you know, the lingual nerve. I might be thinking more about stretch injury, which we think of as tapia syndrome, right? So, just a textbook answer. The hypoglossal recurrent laryngeal nerve injury. And what we're going to be looking for is dysphonia, dysphagia, and unilateral tongue paralysis. Could be a bilateral as well. But I guess, then, the next question after I'm going through my physical exam findings is thinking about my imaging choice. Dr Albin: So, for this patient, given that she's got this bilateral upper extremity, maybe some tepia syndrome where there may have been some stretch injury to some of those hypoglossal nerves. She may have also just had some trauma to the vocal cords. Like, as you said, these procedures can really put patients at risk for just mechanical injury to some of those structures. But knowing that upper extremity weakness, what kind of imaging, then, do you look at for the court? Dr Ghoshal: I think it's not unreasonable to do an MRI brain, right; with that, it then cuts through the brain stem. And then doing an MRI of the cervical spine. I guess the point that you mentioned at the very beginning, that this is three days after she was intubated… you do run the risk beyond 72 hours of, let's say, a primary injury. Let's say if she had, you know, God forbid, an injury to the cervical spine, those hyperintensities, especially when associated with ligamentous injury, they can pseudonormalize beyond that time. I would say yes, absolutely. MRI of the brain, cervical spine, then cuts through the brain stem. But I would worry that if too much time elapses, you may miss some of those injuries that you would otherwise find. Dr Albin: Yeah. I think those are some really important take-home pearls, and when we're thinking about the cord injury that could occur through the intubation process, that we really do need to be aware of student normalization of the T2 hyperintensities after that 72 hours. And so, I think that's a really important pearl for us to take home. So, kind of summarizing this case here, there was probably a multitude of things going on, which highlights to me the complexity of ICU patients. Less likely in this case, and they did not find a stroke. But that is, of course, something that we must keep on the differential for any critical care, critically injured, critically ill patient. But tapia syndrome where you have some stretch injury to the hypoglossal nerve and the recurrent laryngeal nerve, which can put people at risk for dysphasia or dystonia after intubation. And then that hyperextension injury that can happen for patients who are intubated, because people, especially for difficult intubations, are really having to manipulate the neck. And for an elderly patient who may have some cervical stenosis, that hyperextension can actually result in a central cord syndrome, which is what they discovered with the C-spine MRI in this case. So, cognizant of all of the cervical injuries that might accompany the procedure of intubation. Dr Ghoshal: And you know what I would say, right. Because I think that our population is overall aging. I think with that, we're going to end up with, like, more cervical spine pathology for these patients that are ongoing intubation, just as you, you know, very astutely pointed out. Right? Trying to have at least, like, manual inline stabilization, right, or even like, considering fiber optic intubation in some of these patients is probably going to be a safer way to go to avoid these kind of injuries. Dr Albin: Yeah, I think that that's so true and really emphasizes the importance of communication between the neurology team and the critical care team. Dr Ghoshal: Totally.  Dr Albin: Neurology is probably not the person intubating the patient. Right? But it's really important for any of these consults to have a good appreciation and that robust communication with the critical care team about what has been going on systemically for this patient, even opening that intubation note and saying, was this an easy intubation? Was it a difficult intubation? I think sometimes we forget that key skill of just communicating across the teams to have a holistic picture of what's been happening in MICU. Dr Ghoshal: Yeah, I totally agree. It's kind of why my first part of this case you mentioned is just like asking the team, like, what happened during the intubation, right? Dr Albin: It's a really important takeaway. All right. We're going to shift gears from procedural complications, reminding our listeners there is a fantastic summary of all of the things that can happen to ICU patients, just because we're doing things to them, putting needles in places where needles aren't usually, such as for arterial lines, for central lines, intubating patients; all of these have complications that can affect neurologic function downstream. But let's shift gears and let's talk now about a 72-year-old man. And he's admitted to the ICU with pyelonephritis and bacteremia. He's got nephrolithiasis. And the team calls you because he, like many patients in the ICU, has some, quote, "shaking events." And he's altered, and they want to know what to do. Dr Ghoshal: So, there's a lot to unpack there. Sepsis is so common, right? When you're saying this patient is altered, sepsis-associated encephalopathy occurs in 70% of patients. So, like, in sepsis or septic shock. And we know that, you know, they say it affects mortality, long-term cognitive outcomes. But because, I think, it's so common, we don't really take the time to think about what is going on in sepsis in the brain. Dr Albin: The brain is an end organ perfusion. And the end organs are what we're sort of monitoring in sepsis, and the brain is such a key marker of that. Dr Ghoshal: Absolutely. I think there are a lot of things that happen with sepsis in the brain. But if I were going to pick like 1 or 2 points that I really wanted to hone in on, it's thinking about that blood brain barrier disruption that happens in sepsis. And so, what that does when you disrupt the blood brain barrier is that you end up with this inflammatory milieu, for lack of a better term, that, like, comes into the brain. You have, like, a disordered sort of microglial activation, cytokine release. You know, all of these things are creating more oxidative stress, neuronal damage. And the other hand of this, right, along with that blood brain barrier disruption, is disordered cerebral auto regulation. Dr Albin: And I think that those two things are probably underappreciated. The complications and why, maybe, they lead to this downstream difficulty in recovering and then probably are also setting the patient up to be at risk of downstream delirium that is so frequent in the ICU. Dr Ghoshal: I couldn't agree more. And, you know, for this patient's case, right, where you're saying, like, they're altered, they're shaking, I bring up this idea of cerebral autoregulation. Right? Just because for normal patients---or normal people, rather, right?---normal cerebral autoregulation allows us to have, like, stable brain perfusion through whatever range of pressures we have. A lot of these patients are septic; whether they are hypertensive or not, they have significant changes in cerebral vasoconstriction, vasodilation, right? And this can create anything from, let's say, like, neuronal excitotoxicity, metabolic alterations. Right? Just in that setting of cerebral inflammation. So, these patients, yes, are at a very high risk of encephalopathy. And then from these changes, right, from blood brain barrier disruption, whether that's from a cerebral autoregulation or just from that inflammatory milieu, they're at a super high risk of stroke and seizure. Dr Albin: Yeah. So, they… in calling you to the bedside, someone comes to meet you and they say, we sent a bunch of labs off and we just got one back, and it's his ammonia, and his ammonia is 92. So, do you think that's what's going on here? This is so common. Right? Hyperammonemia. Give us sort of your approach to kind of triaging, is the hyperammonemia really a problem or is it just some sort of bystander? Dr Ghoshal: Oh, you know, ammonia is such a slippery lab, right? That… well, it's very hard not to have a strong opinion on it one way or the other. And so, I think what I would say is that ammonia can be elevated for, like, a parcel of reasons. Right? Like if someone has tonic colonic movements, you can have ammonia. That's just, like, part of like enteral metabolism, muscle breakdown, whatever it may be. And ammonia can go up for a lot of reasons. And it's true also that ammonia can contribute encephalopathy. And there are a few mechanisms that can go through in a little bit. I would first want to know… a part of understanding, I guess, any lab is understanding in this context of, like, what was the ammonia before? Right? What is their baseline ammonia? Is this a significant rise? Like, how much of a rise should you care about? Dr Albin: Yeah, absolutely. So, you look back and they live sort of at the upper range of normal with 60 being their sort of baseline. Dr Ghoshal: Yeah. You know, I don't know that I would be so concerned about this particular ammonia level. I may trend it. But, you know, just to talk a little bit about ammonia and why we care about encephalopathy, right? So, the reason why it's so concerning, I guess I should say, in any kind of acute illness is that ammonia will cross the blood brain barrier. And then it's converted into ammonium ions, and it will go into astrocytes and, like, they can increase interstellar osmolarity. Right? So, these cells swell. Right? And because water is drawn into the astrocytes, they cannot interfere with actual functioning of the astrocytes. Also worsen cerebral auto regulation and cause, I guess, sort of an excitotoxic environment. Right? So, ammonia can be concerning, I think when you send in a lab, right? I think it's important to remember that there's no direct relationship between ammonia level and encephalopathy severity. Dr Albin: Right. I think that's a really key point to drive home that it's usually not until we're in the hyperammonemic ranges above the 120s-150s up into the high two, three, four hundreds that we really need to be concerned about that cerebral edema and potential, even herniation. But these low-level ammonias, just like you said, like we really need to understand the baseline, how much they've changed, the context of, you know, what the ammonia sent on ice? Was it laying out in the room for hours on end? That really contextualizes this lab that we otherwise have a very hard time interpreting. Dr Ghoshal: You're absolutely right that an ammonia greater than 120, you know, from our guidelines, both in lymphatic disease along with kidney disease. So, let's say above 120, your patient may be more at risk for cerebral edema. I could also play the devil's advocate and just remind, you know, that because ammonia isn't converted into ammonium in the brain, a peripheral ammonia level really may not reflect central nervous system levels. Right? So, let's say your ammonia is a bit lower also. But let's say there's been a significant change in ammonia for the patient. That may cause some cerebral disturbance that, you know, let's say this ammonia is still below 120. I may still be worried about it just because of the trend. Right? And knowing that my serum level may not really reflect what's going on above. Dr Albin: That's such a great point. So, lots of pearls around this lab, comes back abnormal all the time. In fact, I feel like it's more frequently abnormal than it is normal in our ICU patients. And so, I really wanted to give residents and listeners a way that we who work in the ICU contextualize that. So, in this case, you've been musing, hmm, this is probably not what's really going on here. He is still having these movements at the bedside. Let me ask you, when you hear shaking in the ICU, what's your big differential there? Dr Ghoshal: I always want to know, is it something like a myoclonus? Right? Is it something like an actual coordinated movement? Is this also something like a chorea, right? There are so many movements. So, like, I think that Continuum actually in the past put out a great issue about, like, movement disorders in critical illness. But really what I want to know is, like, first of all, like, is this neurologic or not neurologic? Right? Is this a, you know, let's say a seizure? Is this something suppressible, nonsuppressible? I really want to know more about what that movement is before I could even create a differential. Dr Albin: Totally. And so, when you're in the bedside, he's doing exactly that sort of classic myoclonus. He is having these short, jerky movements. They are not rhythmic. He is intermittently following some commands through this, but inattentive would be the best neurologic term for his mental status state. But then while you're there, he actually does have a GTC and you're in the room. It's generalized, it's convulsive, no longer responsive. His eyes are rolling up and you are well-convinced this truly is a seizure. As you start to approach, now, a seizure in the ICU, walk us through kind of some of the things that you think about in terms of labs you might want, what imaging you might want, what risk factors you're most concerned about. Dr Ghoshal: It sounds like he's having two distinct types of movement, right? He's having some myoclonus, right, or multifocal myoclonus where he has an intact mental status, for better or worse, through it. On that sort of bucket, I'm thinking more of metabolic disturbances. So, I went through this whole thing about the ammonia. But I think what I'd really want to know is, like, what is happening with his uremia, right? What is happening to his kidney function? I think you mentioned you had nephrolithiasis on top of being, I think, critically ill. I think that's some of the things I'd be looking at. I also would like to know about his antibiotics, any medications he's taking. And then for the seizure, I may want to know some of the similar labs. Right? Even just whatever, like, what is his magnesium? What is his calcium? Like, simple things being simple. And then I can go down a little bit more of a list on what I would do for the actual seizure. Just knowing that sepsis, hepatic disease, renal disease, antibiotics themselves may all increase your risk of having a seizure. Dr Albin: Yeah, absolutely. And I think what you said about sort of knowing the labs and knowing the medications plays such a crucial role in our workup for ICU changes in neurostatus. And so, in this case, because of that nephrolithiasis, you go scroll through his labs. And it looks like his creatinine has risen to 4 quite abruptly. So, he's got a pretty severe acute kidney injury. And his BUN has risen all the way to 80 over the course of three days. And then you're looking at the med list, and he is on a bunch of antibiotics, but one of them is cefepime. And so, walk us through, with just those couple of key words, what are some of the things that you are thinking about from the neurologic perspective? Dr Ghoshal: I am, like, salivating. I love these cases. No, I'm serious, right? So, like, I'll take a few minutes at the beginning to talk about, like, uremia and uremic encephalopathy. You know, we see uremia often, and uremic encephalopathy, we think, maybe there's some part of cytotoxic edema, right? Because that urea accumulates in the brain; it accumulates similar to, like, almost ammonia, creates these toxic wanding compounds in the thalamus, like, in the cortex, wherever it may be. And that itself will cause, like, a, let's say, impaired cytokine clearance from the brain, neuronal apoptosis, also affects the blood brain barrier. So, all of these things itself, like, from urea, all right, like a worsening uremia, can cause a different sort of CNS changes that could affect both the seizure side along with the multifocal myoclonus. Dr Albin: Yeah. Just putting him at risk of two very different types of neuropathology, right in the same case. Dr Ghoshal: Totally. And you know what I'll say about like, uremia? I could talk about this for a very long time, but like, really what I want people to remember is that uremia really increases your risk of seizure. I talked a little bit about this accumulation of uremia, like a uremic exquisitely in the brain, but you have this metabolic acidosis that develops from urea and you increase the activation of your acid-sensing ion channels. Right? And these retaining creatine metabolite actually cause more inhibition of your GABA receptors and stimulation of your NMDA. Right? So, all of these things together, like I think uremia is so common that we don't really take the time to think about, like, all of these things that could be happening. Dr Albin: Yeah. And then because of the poor kidney function, there's also accumulation of drugs. And there's this risk for toxic accumulation of some of the things that are sort of more renally metabolized. Dr Ghoshal: Absolutely. And on top of that, if you include, you know, what we talked about before, let's say you have cortical edema or hypoperfusion or a disordered cerebral autoregulation just from sepsis itself. You know, all of these things do fit together, right? It's not just a one thing for every. I know that you mentioned also there, antibiotic. I loved writing the section on antibiotic-associated encephalopathy, in part because it's something we don't spend as much time thinking about. I will say just broadly, there are three subtypes of antibiotic-associated encephalopathy. The first one, I think, is the most common. That, like, I associate it with beta-lactam, cephalosporins, or penicillin. Right? And that is where we can often see, like, seizure and myoclonus, right? You're really between, like, in days from antibiotic use. We think some of that is just from competitive antagonism of GABA receptors. To quickly talk about, you know, we also have types that are associated with quinolones and macrolides. More of, like, an acute psychosis. And then absolutely metronidazole, which causes a subacute encephalopathy---takes a little bit longer, you know, and more associated with cerebellar dysfunction. But I think every time that I am looking at a patient like this, I am absolutely going through and looking at the antibiotics. Dr Albin: I love that. And because it's not- cefepime is really the classic, and it's been the poster child for that type-one complication where you get mild blueness and seizure, usually within a day or two of starting the antibiotics---but it's all cephalosporins. It can be any beta-lactam. And so, cefepime is sort of our, like, poster child, but is not the only one. And so, with removing that antibiotic by getting him on a continual renal replacement therapy, this patient actually does quite well. And I think this is a take-home message for all of us, that helping the critical care team limit the risk to the patient from a medication perspective, us helping them say, you know, can we pull this off? Can we switch this to something that's going to be more neuro-friendly from their antibiotic perspective? really can make a huge amount of difference to that patient's long-term outcomes. Dr Ghoshal: Totally. Dr Albin: I think that you and I could talk about this all day long. I mean, this is just the, like, bread and butter of these complex patients that we see. But I think I'll summarize it for our listeners that really have to think about what procedures did the patient get, opening some of those notes to figure out where are their complications, and then taking a very holistic approach to the ICU patient and making sure that you're characterizing what kind of abnormal movements are they having? What are their labs? Being mindful about the context the lab was sent in and the patient's baseline, like we talked about with that hyperammonemia, really matters where the patient's been. And then that medication list is- can be culprit number one, two, and three for bad things that are happening to the patient. Again today. I've been interviewing Dr Shivani Ghoshal on her article on neurologic complications of critical illness, which appears in the February 2026 Continuum issue on neurology of systemic disease. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and all other issues. And thank you so much to our listeners and to Dr Ghoshal for joining today. It was a pleasure. Dr Ghoshal: Thank you for having me. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, associate editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Neurologic complications of hematologic disorders are frequently encountered in clinical practice and can involve both the central and peripheral nervous systems. Early recognition and appropriate management in collaboration with a hematologist are essential to reduce morbidity and mortality. In this episode, Kait Nevel, MD, speaks with Lauren Patrick, MD, and Mark Terrelonge, MD, MPH, authors of the article "Neurologic Complications of Hematologic Disorders" in the Continuum® February 2026 Neurology of Systemic Disease issue. Dr. Nevel is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a neurologist and neuro-oncologist at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, Indiana. Dr. Patrick is an assistant professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, in San Francisco, California. Dr. Terrelonge is an associate professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, in San Francisco, California. Additional Resources Read the article: Neurologic Complications of Hematologic Disorders Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @IUneurodocmom Full episode transcript available here Dr Nevel: Thick blood, thin blood. These are terms often used by patients and caregivers to describe some of the hematologic disorders that can lead to neurological diseases such as stroke. So, when should we consider a hematologic disorder as a potential cause for neurological conditions, such as stroke or neuropathy. Today I have the opportunity to interview Drs Lauren Patrick and Mark Terrelonge to learn more about neurologic complications of hematologic disorders in their recent article in Continuum. Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, editor-in-chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Nevel: Hello, this is Dr Kate Nevel. Today I'm interviewing Drs Lauren Patrick and Mark Terrelonge about their article on neurologic complications of hematologic disorders. This article appears in the February 2026 Continuum issue on neurology of systemic disease. Welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to the audience. Dr Patrick: Thank you for having us. We're both thrilled to be here. I'm Lauren Patrick, a vascular neurologist and assistant professor at the University of California, San Francisco, and program director for the Vascular Neurology Fellowship here. Dr Terrelonge: And I'm Mark Terrelonge, I'm an associate professor of neurology and neuromuscular medicine here at UCSF and one of the associate program directors for the adult neurology residency. Nice to meet you. Dr Nevel: Nice to meet you both. Really looking forward to getting into your article and learning more. So, to kind of kick us off, I always like to ask what do you think is the most important takeaway from your article for the practicing neurologist? And maybe since there are two of you and I suspect you covered slightly different aspects of this article, maybe you could give us two most important takeaways. Dr Patrick: Sure. I think the biggest takeaway is to keep hematologic disorders on the differential when evaluating patients with neurologic symptoms. Conditions like sickle cell disease, myeloproliferative neoplasms, or plasma cell dyscrasias and paraproteinemia can cause strokes or peripheral neuropathies, and many have specific and targetable treatments. The early recognition and collaboration with our hematology colleagues can truly change patient outcomes, whether that's by initiating cytoreductive therapy, managing thrombocytopenia, or optimizing antithrombotic therapy. Dr Nevel: Great. So, this is a really big and diverse topic. As always, I'm going to urge our listeners to read the article because there is a lot of really good stuff in your article that we just don't have time to get into during this interview today. But you cover a lot of different hematological disorders and how they can cause neurological complications. One of the major neurological complications of hematological disorders is cerebral vascular events. So, I'm hoping, Warren, that you can walk us through a little bit. When should we consider workup of potential hematologic disorder as a cause when we see a patient with ischemic stroke, because certainly not all patients with ischemic stroke should be getting a broad hematological disorder work up. So how can we kind of identify early on that there might be something else at play? Dr Patrick: Absolutely, great question. So, in many cases, the underlying hematologic disorder is already known, such as sickle cell disease or polycythemia vera. But sometimes stroke is the initial presentation or manifestation of the disease. So red flags can include young age, recurrent cryptogenic strokes or thrombosis, and unusual locations like the cerebral venous system. Laboratory clues such as unexplained erythrocytosis, thrombocytosis, thrombocytopenia, or hemolytic anemia should raise suspicion for an occult hematologic disorder. In the setting of acute illness, immune-mediated or heparin-induced thrombocytopenia or thrombotic microangiopathies should be suspected in patients that have hemorrhagic and or thrombotic complications, particularly when relevant lab disturbances are present. Acquired thrombophilia such as anti-phospholipid antibody syndrome should be considered in young patients with autoimmune disease, prior venous or arterial thrombotic complications, or pregnancy morbidity. Now, these are rare causes overall, but they're important to catch because the management can differ dramatically from our typical stroke care. Dr Nevel: Great. And what are some of the most common inherited or acquired thrombophilias and when should we be sending these labs? Dr Patrick: The hematologic causes really account for small minority of arterial strokes approximately one to two percent, but among those, sickle cell disease, anti-phospholipid antibody syndrome and the myeloproliferative neoplasms are the most common. Timing of testing is key. So, the genetic thrombophilia panels can be drawn at presentation, but lab values such as protein C, protein S, and antithrombin levels may be falsely low during acute thrombosis, so they're often repeated weeks later. Similarly, for anti-phospholipid antibody testing that should be done at presentation and when positive, confirmed at twelve weeks, since transient positivity can occur with affections or acute events. So, in patients that are already anticoagulated for anti-phospholipid antibody syndrome, testing becomes particularly tricky, especially with lupus anticoagulant assays. Some results need to be interpreted carefully or repeated when feasible. The main message is to collaborate early with our hematology colleagues to guide the timing and interpretation of these studies. Dr Nevel: Yeah, wonderful. Thank you. I'll ask some similar questions about neuropathy. So when should we consider an underlying hematologic disorder as being the cause for someone's neuropathy? Dr Terrelonge: So, luckily for a neurologist, then serum protein electrophoresis or an SPEP is already a part of the first pass evaluation for even the most common neuropathies we see, technically already considered every time we do an evaluation. However, we do know that most neuropathies progress very slowly and don't really lead to significant limitations in patient activities of daily living. And for those, the initial workup step, you may not need to do any additional search for any hematologic diseases after that first step. Within patients who start to have more unusual features with their neuropathy, including a rapid progression, early proximal weakness, significant and extremely painful neuropathies, significant ataxia, or new tremor or anything that's kind of outside of the garden variety neuropathy, then you should start to think about a hematologic cause. Additionally, if a patient already has a known hematologic malignancy or process before their neuropathy, there should be some form of assessment to see through exam or electrodiagnostically if the two are correlated. I do have to add one caveat, though, and that's just because someone has a hematologic malignancy or a paraprotein seen in their blood, their neuropathy and the neurologic syndrome don't necessarily have to be causally related. So, we have to do some additional testing to determine if the patient's presentation of the paraprotein are actually linked. Dr Nevel: Can you walk us through a little bit how we determine if they're associated or just coincidental? Dr Terrelonge: Yeah. So, for some of the proteins, there's a specific phenotype that will come with the specific protein. For example, an anti MAG proteinopathies or MAG standing for a myelin associated glycoprotein, it usually leads to a distal sensor and motor polyneuropathy where the most distal portions of nerves are affected. So, in that case, people might notice that they have numbness and weakness in their toes and their fingers, and it doesn't follow that typical length dependent pattern. So, in that case, if you have the anti mag neuropathy and the electrodiagnostic signature of an anti mag neuropathy along with the symptoms, you're more likely to think that the two are related then if not. Dr Nevel: Great. Thank you. And I was hoping you could speak a little bit more about amyloidosis just because I think that that's one that can be really tricky to diagnose. And I see patients, you know, have sometimes more drawn out evaluations or see multiple providers before a diagnosis is reached. So, can you speak a little bit more to how we diagnose amyloidosis in relationship to neuropathy or other neurological conditions and when we should push for more invasive testing like a nerve biopsy? Dr Terrelonge: So, amyloidosis certainly is a tricky diagnosis. I've been tricked by it and I think most of my neuromuscular colleagues have probably been tricked by it at least once. It's a hard diagnosis to make is it usually requires a pretty high index of suspicion, and also requires a tissue diagnosis to cinch. There're some patients who will come in with a prior history of amyloidosis and they're a little bit easier to figure out if the neuropathy is related. Maybe it's started in their heart or their kidney first and then you can just see if the type of amyloid they have usually deposits in nerve, and that may be enough. But if there's any diagnostic uncertainty, you could go forward with tissue biopsy. But it's patients in which the neuropathy is the first symptom that amyloidosis can be especially tricky to diagnose. It's a primarily light chain disease. So, if you do only an SPEP as a part of your initial neuropathy evaluation, you could miss it. But usually, the patients will have either a severely painful neuropathy, early autonomic dysfunction, or really prominent bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. So, if they have any of those, usually we'll add in an amyloid workup as a part of that of the rest of the workup, which would include both light chain evaluations to see if there's any increase in Lambda or Kappa light chains and then also biopsy. Biopsy can be of the skin or fat pad first, which have reasonable sensitivity for picking up disease, but they're not necessarily a hundred percent. So if the suspicion remains high in those cases, a nerve biopsy should be considered. And the reason why this is important is that the chemotherapeutic agents that we have now can actually help arrest a lot of these diseases and stop further organ involvement. So, if you think about it, it is important to keep pushing and looking until you find it. Dr Nevel: Thank you so much for that. And a follow up question to that, once patients are started on appropriate therapy, the diagnosis is made, chemotherapy is started, what's the typical clinical course that you see in terms of their neuropathy? Do you ever see improvement or is it arrest of worsening? Dr Terrelonge: Usually for amyloid, there is an arrest of disease, but in some patients, they could have some improvement, not necessarily a dramatic improvement, but some patients could see some reversal of symptoms. That may not necessarily be because nerves injured nerves are regrowing, but because of reorganization of nerves to muscle, they could have some strength increases or at least less pain. Dr Nevel: Yeah, thank you. So, when should we involve a hematologist in aiding in the evaluation of patients we suspect may have an underlying hematological disorder? You guys really outlined very nicely in your article some of the laboratory workup or other workup like you just talked about with amyloidosis. But at what point in that workup should we reach out to our hematology colleagues? Dr Patrick: I would say almost always. So, these disorders are inherently multi-system and benefit from early co-management. In acute sickle cell stroke, for example, hematology helps direct emergent exchange transfusion. For myeloproliferative disorders they guide cyto reduction and long term antithrombotic strategy. And for antibody mediated or plasma cell disorders, hematology determines disease specific therapies. So, neurology may help with identifying the presentation, but the definitive management is almost always shared with our hematology colleagues. Dr Nevel: And as you both have mentioned that a lot of times in these cases, their hematologic disorder may be already known before they present with their neurological symptoms. So, I imagine obviously in those cases that a hematologist hopefully is already heavily involved in their care. What do you think is the most difficult aspect of identifying and diagnosing patients with neurologic illness as having an underlying hematological disorder? Dr Patrick: The hardest part is maintaining a high index of suspicion, especially since hematologic causes account for a very small minority of arterial strokes. Most strokes are from traditional vascular risk factors like you mentioned, or cardio embolism, so it's easy to stop diagnostic evaluation after standard studies have been performed. An example of a challenging case is a patient that's young, they've had recurrent cryptogenic stroke, and they could have antiphospholipid antibody syndrome, but it can be easy to miss if their antibody titers are borderline or if they're already anticoagulated, which would complicate retesting. So, it's about balancing the urge to over-test with recognizing the few cases where identifying A hematologic cause truly changes that management. Dr Terrelonge: And then on the neuropathy side, probably the hardest part is deciding what's causal and what's coincidence. Monoclonal gammopathy of unknown significance, or MGUS, is really common in older adults, so not every M-spike on an SPEP explains a neuropathy. And even sometimes there's times when the neurologic picture will develop a little bit faster than the hematologic one. So, it's hard to put the two together. Dr Nevel: Yeah. What's the most rewarding aspect of taking care of patients with complications from their hematologic disorders? Dr Patrick: It's deeply rewarding when a targeted diagnosis leads to a tangible improvement in that patient's care. For example, identifying A cryptogenic stroke is being due to myeloproliferative neoplasm or an inherited thrombophilia allows us to move from empiric treatment to possible disease specific strategy. It's really gratifying to give patients that clarity, to give them a diagnosis and in some cases prevent future events. Dr Terrelonge: Agreed. And even on the neuropathy side, almost all of the neuropathies that are hematologically related are treatable. So, it's so satisfying whenever you have a patient with say an anti-MAG neuropathy or Waldenström can start the patient on therapy, and you can see someone who's been having a progressive decline to stability and in those cases sometimes even significant recovery. Dr Nevel: Yeah, absolutely. Very rewarding when you can identify the problem and make it better. That's what it's all about. So, what are the future areas of research in this area? What do we still need to learn? Dr Patrick: There's still a lot to learn. I think we need better data on the safety of acute reperfusion therapy and antithrombotic agents, particularly in patients that are at dual risk for bleeding and thrombosis. Other examples, secondary prevention strategies and anti-phospholipid antibody syndrome. What's the best target INR? Do you add aspirin to warfarin or not? All of that is often left up to expert opinion. What's the best management for adults with sickle cell stroke? There are many open questions there. A lot of the protocols that we have in place for sickle cell patients that are adults as derived from pediatric literature and there's vast potential in terms of disease modifying therapies, especially in the fields of sickle cell disease and amyloidosis. And we'll need to reassess how those treatments may change neurologic outcomes. Dr Terrelonge: I think on the neuropathy side that having some form of new biomarkers to help us clearly know of the neuropathy and that hematologic illness are associated would be very helpful. On the treatment side, a lot of this is really being driven by the hematology space, but new therapies that treat hematologic plasma cell disorders, including some of the new BTK inhibitor, may be incorporated relatively soon into the algorithm for how we treat many of our patients. I'm excited to see what's to come from this. Dr Nevel: Wonderful. Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge with us today. I know I've certainly learned a lot by reading your article and through our discussion today. Highly encourage our listeners to read your wonderful article, which is a very thorough review of hematologic disorders and neurological complications. Again, today I've been interviewing Dr Lauren Patrick and Dr Mark Terrelonge on their article Neurologic Complications of Hematologic Disorders, which appears in the February 2026 Continuum issue on Neurology of Systemic Disease. Please be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues. And as always, thank you so much to our listeners for joining today, and thank you so much to Lauren and Mark. Dr Terrelonge: Yeah, thank you so much for having us. Dr Patrick: Thank you so much for having us and for highlighting this topic. We hope the issue encourages clinicians to think broadly about hematologic causes of neurologic disease and to continue collaborating closely with our hematology colleagues. It's a complex but very fascinating intersection for both of our fields. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, associate editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use this link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/AudioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Neurologic complications of endocrine disorders are diverse and may arise before systemic manifestations. Early recognition is essential because neurologic symptoms may represent the presentation of an undiagnosed underlying endocrine disorder, and because many neurologic complications of endocrine disorders are reversible with timely treatment. In this episode, Gordon Smith, MD, FAAN, speaks with Rafid Mustafa, MD, author of the article "Neurologic Complications of Endocrine Disorders" in the Continuum® February 2026 Neurology of Systemic Disease issue. Dr. Smith is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a professor and chair of neurology at Kenneth and Dianne Wright Distinguished Chair in Clinical and Translational Research at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia. Dr. Mustafa is an assistant professor of neurology for the Department of Neurology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Additional Resources Read the article: Neurologic Complications of Endocrine Disorders Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @gordonsmithMD Guest: @RafidMustafa Full episode transcript available here Dr Smith: So what group of disorders causes cognitive changes, weakness, fatigue, neuropathy, and seizures? Kind of sounds like all of neurology in one, doesn't it? It turns out that disorders of the endocrine system can cause all of these neurological problems and others. And kind of reminds me of William Osler, who famously said at the end of the 19th century that "he or she who knows syphilis knows medicine." Syphilis was the great imitator of his time. I wonder if in our time, the great imitator is actually endocrine disorders because it can cause all of these different problems. Today I have the great opportunity to talk with Dr Rafid Mustafa from Mayo Clinic about the neurological complications of endocrine disorders, which is a really terrific article in the February 2026 issue of Continuum. Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Smith: This is Dr Gordon Smith. Today I'm interviewing Dr Rafid Mustafa about his article on neurological complications of endocrine disorders, which appears in the February 2026 Continuum issue on neurology of systemic disease. Rafid, welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to our listeners. Dr Mustafa: Well, thank you for having me, Dr Smith. Like you had mentioned, I'm Dr Rafid Mustafa. I'm a neurohospitalist at the Mayo Clinic and I had the pleasure of writing this issue with Dr Aaron Berkowitz, and it's been such a fun ride to be a part of Continuum for this issue. Dr Smith: Yeah, it's a really exciting issue. And I have to say, I was really excited to have the opportunity to talk to you. Even though my research is in diabetes and I'm looking forward to talking about that---not my research, but about diabetes---I think the area of endocrine and neurological complications of endocrine disorders is confusing to us. And I guess maybe you could begin by just this concept that most of us check a few endocrine labs on just about everything. But how do you bring order to this when there's a group of disorders that all cause just about every domain of neurological problem, be it weakness, neuropathy, cognitive changes, and so forth? Dr Mustafa: Yeah, I think it's super interesting. I think that's why, you know, this issue on systemic diseases is fun. I had a mentor one time telling me that your interim year in residency is important so you can learn about all these organ systems that are there to keep the brain alive. And so, I think neurologic complications of systemic disease are fun. You know, like you said, the endocrine system, whenever it goes awry, you can get all sorts of neurologic complications. Putting order to it can be challenging. I think it's important to know what the different parts of the endocrine system do, the different glands and how they're connected, and what to look out for when you encounter neurologic problems, because sometimes those neurologic manifestations can be the very earliest sign of something wrong with different parts of the endocrine system. Dr Smith: You knew exactly where I was heading without having to tip my cards. I mean, that's exactly where I wanted to begin, because I think of this as an intimidating topic, but in reading your article, you outlined kind of the glandular structure or anatomy of the endocrine system and sort of the logic of its function. And actually, it's not as complicated as I was thinking going in. You did a good job of framing. And I wonder if maybe you can begin by just reminding our listeners the basic anatomy and functional logic that they'll need to keep in mind. Dr Mustafa: Yeah, absolutely. The system itself is this network of different glands and hormones that work to influence each other, just like our, you know, our nervous system is all interconnected as well, too. But this is more ensuring homeostasis in various ways. So, you have the hypothalamus all the way at top that secretes things, usually just to stimulate the pituitary, which often ends up being the controller of the endocrine system. And then there are these various other organs that have different jobs or things to do. So, there's, you know, the thyroid, parathyroid, adrenal glands; you have your pancreas, there's gonads. And all of these different things have different roles to keep us healthy and regulated. to function appropriately, you know, whether that's just generalized metabolic things from the thyroid gland or more flight or fight responses from the adrenal gland, even, you know, renin, aldosterone, etc, etc, from the adrenal. And then you know, the pancreas, diabetes, all sorts of things there. Gonads are important for sexual health. It's kind of cool how it's all regulated together and there's these feedback loops and- ah, we'll have fun talking about it. Dr Smith: Just listening to you, it kind of feels almost like the endocrine system is part of the nervous system, isn't it? I mean- and there are these sort of relationships between the two that I know we'll get into. We think of insulin sensitivity, for instance, and, you know, patients with diabetes. I mean, there's neuronal insulin resistance as well. So, they're very, very interconnected systems. Dr Mustafa: Absolutely. You're absolutely right. Dr Smith: I wonder if you can talk about this idea of feedback loops. This is something that we all learned in medical school, but probably worth reminding ourselves of as we begin the conversation. Dr Mustafa: Yeah, one part of the endocrine system is important for secreting a hormone that will influence another part of the endocrine system. And that new end target will have some kind of function, and then it all loops together. So, for example, the hypothalamus, it secrets out thyrotropin-releasing hormone and that stimulates the anterior pituitary gland to secrete thyroid-stimulating hormone, and then that hormone acts on the thyroid gland itself to produce the final-acting thyroid hormones themselves, like T3 and T4. Now, if any of these are thrown off, then it throws off other parts of the system. So, for example, maybe you're hyperthyroid and you have too much T3 and T4 coming from the thyroid gland. That may signal the hypothalamus and pituitary to reduce levels of thyrotropin-releasing hormone and thyroid-stimulating hormone to in turn affect the thyroid gland and help reduce production of those end-target thyroid hormone. Or vice versa, it just depends on the condition. You can see this at all aspects of the system at various accesses. So, it's kind of this complicated neural network in a way, but just from endocrine purposes, glands and hormones. Dr Smith: I wonder if we can start talking about the pituitary gland. Your article has all kinds of really cool information. One pearl that I wasn't really aware of is that 10% of adults have a pituitary microadenoma. It's pretty amazing. You point out that most of these aren't clinically significant, but they clearly come up on, kind of, an evaluation now and again. I mean, how should our listeners sort through how to approach these situations, right? Most of them aren't clinically significant, but some of them are. What does a neurologist need to know about this? Dr Mustafa: Yeah, To me, it's like anything else in our field. You scan enough people, you're going to find incidental things. You scan a spine, you're probably going to find a disc herniation. The question is, how clinically relevant is that and how is that affecting your patient? What are the things you need to be worried about and how do you work through it? As you mentioned, yeah, 10% of the population has a pituitary microadenoma. Those are the small ones. Most of them are clinically insignificant. So, if you find it, you know, usually it's not something to worry about too much. You might repeat serial imaging just to make sure it's not growing. But if they're not having neurologic symptoms because of mass effect or physiologic symptoms because of hormonal effect, then most of the time it's just an incidental finding and you just have to work really hard to reassure your patient. Now sometimes, there can be mass effect as the tumor itself grows, as benign tumor, or there can be hormonal effects. And then you might start thinking about how you're going to intervene. Dr Smith: Let's talk about macroadenomas and mass effect. You spend some time, and I actually have a really good example of pituitary apoplexy as well as the relationship between macroadenomas and other headache syndromes. So maybe you can talk about the relationship between macroadenomas and headache? Dr Mustafa: Yeah. So, you know, when pituitary adenomas become large, usually over 10 millimeters or so, we call it a macroadenoma. And the neurologic symptoms that come to play are usually because of mass effect. I think many of us are trained to recognize visual defects like a, you know, bitemporal hemianopia from compression of the optic chiasm. That's one of the classic things. But even just the mass effect alone in that area can cause symptoms like headache. Many of this will be, you know, migrainous in nature. Sometimes you can get a typical trigeminal-type phenomenon, just given everything that's in the region. And with something like pituitary apoplexy that you alluded to, I mean, that usually comes on very quickly. It can be a thunderclap headache. So, not all thunderclap headaches are subarachnoid hemorrhage from aneurysms. You have to think about other things on the differential, and that includes pituitary apoplexy. Dr Smith: Yeah, I mean, I think one of the things I found interesting was the fact that headaches can be associated with pituitary macronoma that are migranous or even look like a trigeminal autonomic cephalgia. I mean, is that something that commonly influences your management of either the headache or the macroadenoma? I mean, if you have a patient with a macroadenoma, do you treat the headache syndrome any differently, or are you particularly attentive for pituitary findings in someone that you're scanning because of headache? Dr Mustafa: Yeah. From my perspective, if I know there's a pituitary macroadenoma and they have these associated headaches, my practice is in general to treat the headache symptomatically, focusing on the phenotype, whether it's migrainous or more, you know, like an attack, a trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia. Now if it starts with they had an atypical headache like a trigeminal autonomic cephalgia, maybe I'm doing the imaging as a result of that to explore why they may be having this from a structural perspective. And if indeed it is because of a pituitary macroadenoma, we'll probably be monitoring the characteristics of the adenoma on a serial basis to see how it transforms over time. And if it's enlarging, you know, those symptoms might be a reason to consider intervention from a surgical resection standpoint. Dr Smith: So, I wonder if we should pivot and talk a little bit about how neurologists encounter patients who have symptoms related to endocrine disorders. And presumably the clues come with the impact of the distal endocrine gland, for instance, either over- or underproduction of the thyroid hormone. Is that the right way of thinking of it? And then, you know, having identified that, you'll start to look whether it's a primary glandular problem or upstream in the pituitary. Dr Mustafa: Absolutely. That's in general my approach. You know, often these patients are coming to the neurologist with specific symptomatology, and being familiar with how that's related to the endocrine system is what's important. So, I try to organize this article kind of by parts of the endocrine system and how that's related to neurologic manifestations. But really, it's about being familiar. So, if the patient presents in a comatose status and it's not a clear-cut structural reason, neurologically, as to why they're comatose, you might be exploring metabolic reasons for their coma. You may find disturbances in thyroid hormone levels, and that can influence you to work your way back up the axis---just like you mentioned, Gordon---to see where the problem is coming from that influences the thyroid problem. Dr Smith: So, you know, maybe we can use that as a good hook to hang our coat on, right? So we have a patient in the unit, comatose, not clear why. Are there specific pearls or indicators that would trigger you to really think about, is this a thyroid problem? Is it adrenal or whatnot? I mean, you give some great examples of, like, myxedema coma, which is very interesting. But what's the clue that we should be going down this pathway? Or, you know, on the other extreme, do you just look for thyroid abnormalities in everyone with a coma that you're having a hard time figuring out? Dr Mustafa: Great question. I am slightly more of a traditionalist in my approach to neurologic disease that, instead of shotgunning every single possible test, I try to localize in any way I can. And what's cool about these disorders of the endocrine system is that there's so much on your examination that can help clue you in. And it's not just the neurologic exam, it's the systemic exam as well, too. So, important to keep an eye out for those things. Since we're on the topic of thyroid, patients with mixed edema coma, you know, they may have neurologic signs like myoedema, etc, but they may also have systemic signs like hair loss, changes in weight, changes in temperature regulation, that you can pick up on history as well, too. And it's putting all that together to localize to not just part of the nervous system now, but part of the body that helps you with your testing. And that's how I tend to approach things. Dr Smith: So, so many questions I have for you. I wonder, can we talk a little bit about Hashimoto's encephalopathy? Dr Mustafa: Oh, yes, absolutely. Dr Smith: What's the deal there? That's something I've always found a little bit challenging. So, when should we think about it? There are lots of people out there with elevated thyroperoxase antibodies. How do you make the connection between serology and clinical phenotype and management? Dr Mustafa: Yeah, it's a great point of contention among groups, this diagnosis of Hashimoto encephalopathy. There are those that believe in this is a distinct autoimmune, essentially encephalitis entity associated with abnormal thyroid antibodies. And then there are those that believe that patients have this encephalopathy, but it's just incidental that we find these abnormalities in thyroid testing. What I'll tell you is there's been some really nice studies looking at Hashimoto's or what's to be Hashimoto's encephalopathy, and most patients that present with what is thought to be that actually have normal thyroid function studies. The other thing is finding abnormal antithyroid antibodies is also pretty prevalent in the general population. So, I think in my approach to thinking about Hashimoto's encephalopathy, you've just got to take everything with a grain of salt. You got to recognize that some things are just very prevalent, and you have to keep your clinical suspicion high for what you normally would see and consider other things on the differential. My personal thought is that there probably is some unique antibody-driven disease process that represents what we think of as Hashimoto's encephalopathy, but we just haven't fully classified what that antibody may be quite yet. And then there's probably some overlap, because in general a lot of these thyroid diseases themselves are reflective of underlying autoimmunity. So, there's probably something going on, but I don't think it's a direct effect of something like, you know, thyroid peroxidase antibodies. Dr Smith: Maybe we should pivot and spend a little time talking about the most common endocrine disorder that we encounter in neurologic practice, which is diabetes. And as I mentioned earlier, it's a topic near and dear to my heart. What's the latest that our listeners should know about regarding peripheral nervous system complications of diabetes? We're all familiar with distal symmetric polyneuropathy. Or are there other new updates or pearls that we should be thinking about? Dr Mustafa: Absolutely. So, the complications on the nervous system extend far beyond just your distal symmetric polyneuropathy is probably the most common thing we see, but you can get all sorts of unique manifestations. In fact, I recently just took care of a patient that had many of these. You can get a single thoracic radiculopathy. You can have what we see often at Mayo Clinic here, a diabetic lamosacral radicule plexus neuropathy where patients have profound, initially, usually pain in their lower limbs, and then this spreading of profound weakness in their lower limbs. That can be a huge complication of association with rapid control of glycemic status. And especially this day and age where we have newer medications that are very effective at controlling diabetes, we're seeing this more and more. I wrote this article before some recent publications that come out highlighting the association with GLP-1 agonists. But with these types of medication, rapid glycemic control can result in, you know, associated DLRPN quite frequently. Dr Smith: Yeah, it's interesting. I think we think of the, kind of the neuro-ophthalmological manifestations or risks of GLP-1 agonists, but the relationship too, of treatment-induced neuropathy and diabetes. And I'm curious of your experience. My sense is that if you aren't attuned to these sort of problems, you often miss them. And you certainly see people that come close to having surgical interventions or, you know, end up going off in the wrong direction with these acute neuropathies that I think are probably a little more common than we often give them credit for. Dr Mustafa: Absolutely. Yeah. I think, you know, learning about these things and being familiar is very important. It's important to keep a good broad differential because there can be mimickers, whether it's infectious things or malignant things like lymphoma, but I wanted to highlight in this article how common something like diabetic radiculoplexus, Lumbosacral radiculoplexus neuropathy can be. I mean, in fact, we see this more than things like Guillain-Barré syndrome, CIDP, etc. And so, I think practicing neurologists everywhere should at least be familiar and know what to look for so that they can make the diagnosis appropriately when they encounter patients with these debilitating diseases that can improve significantly. Dr Smith: So, I have one other diabetes question. That's a central nervous system complication that I wasn't particularly familiar with, and I'd love to hear you talk about a little more. And that is the diabetic striatopathy. Am I saying that right? Dr Mustafa: Absolutely. Yeah, yeah. Dr Smith: Yeah. Talk to us about that. That's pretty cool. Dr Mustafa: Yeah. You know, I think many of us that practice in the hospital setting will encounter patients with severe hyperglycemia. We're trained to recognize it as a stroke mimic. So many times these patients will come in, you know, glucose is in the six hundreds, thousands. And they might be just comatose, they might have focal neurologic signs that can mimic stroke. But one unique feature to be on the lookout for is diabetic striatopathy. And it's really thought to be an influence of out-of-range glycemic control on the basal ganglia itself. And so, these patients can present with unilateral hemibilismus, hemichorrhea, essentially a basal ganglia disorder. If you image them, you'll often see T1 hyperintensity in the striatum on MRI. And as you control the glycemic status, these patients improve. And it's just a unique phenomenon, but it's not- you know, many neurologists will see one of these probably in their careers. So, it's not something that's super rare that you'll never see it. Dr Smith: I think we're probably about out of time, Rafid. I wonder if there's anything that I didn't ask you about that you really think our listeners would like to hear. What nugget did I miss? And there are a great many from which you have to pick, I'm sure. Dr Mustafa: I think you've done such a great job. It's been a pleasure to chat with you. For me, the biggest takeaway for everyone to be aware of is oftentimes the first manifestation of something being off with the endocrine system will be something neurologic. And so, these patients may present to the neurologist first, or the neurologist will be consulted first, for something that seems purely neurologic. But it's important for us to have a high index of suspicion that the root cause could be something outside of the nervous system to help guide management down the line. When you're facing a patient with coma or peripheral neuropathy or myopathy or unique syndromes like the LRPN, remember to look beyond the nervous system, as this could be a very big clue to helping patients recover from disorders that are very, very treatable. Dr Smith: Rafid, thank you so much. It's been a great conversation. Your article is truly outstanding. Topic is kind of complicated, but it's not as complicated as I thought it was going into it. And I certainly learned a lot and enjoyed it a great deal. So, thank you for spending time with me today.  Dr Mustafa: Thank you so much for having me. I appreciate it. Dr Smith: Again, today I've been interviewing Dr Rafid Mustafa from the Mayo Clinic about his article on neurologic complications of endocrine disorders, which appears in the February 2026 Continuum issue on neurology of systemic disease. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues of Continuum, and thanks for joining us today. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Many serious medical illnesses are associated with some degree of serum electrolyte abnormality, renal impairment, or both. The neurologist must determine if the patient's neurologic symptoms are related to the renal and electrolyte disturbances or whether a concurrent primary neurologic process is at play. In this episode, Casey Albin, MD, speaks with Eelco F. M. Wijdicks, MD, PhD, FAAN, FACP, FNCS, author of the article "Neurologic Manifestations of Renal and Electrolyte Disorders" in the Continuum® February 2026 Neurology of Systemic Disease issue. Dr. Albin is a Continuum® Audio interviewer, associate editor of media engagement, and an assistant professor of neurology and neurosurgery at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia. Dr. Wijdicks is a professor of neurology and attending neurointensivist for the Neurosciences Intensive Care Unit at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Additional Resources Read the article: Neurologic Manifestations of Renal and Electrolyte Disorders Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @caseyalbin Guest: @EWijdicks Full episode transcript available here

In this episode, Lyell K. Jones Jr, MD, FAAN, speaks with Aaron L. Berkowitz, MD, PhD, FAAN, who served as the guest editor of the February 2026 Neurology of Systemic Disease issue. They provide a preview of the issue, which publishes on February 2, 2026. Dr. Jones is the editor-in-chief of Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology® and is a professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Dr. Berkowitz is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a professor of neurology in the Department of Neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, in San Francisco, California. Additional Resources Read the issue: continuum.aan.com Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @LyellJ Guest: @AaronLBerkowitz Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: The human nervous system is so complex. You can spend your whole career studying it and still have plenty to learn. But the human brain does not exist in isolation. It's intricately connected with and reliant on other bodily systems. When those systems go awry, sometimes the first sign is in the nervous system. Today we will speak with Dr Aaron Berkowitz, an expert on the neurology of systemic disease, and learn a little about how these disorders can present and what we can do about it. Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about subscribing to the journal, listening to verbatim recordings of the articles, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology. Today, I'm interviewing Dr Aaron Berkowitz, who is Continuum's guest editor for our latest issue of Continuum on the neurology of systemic disease. Dr Berkowitz is a professor of clinical neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, and he has an active practice as a neurohospitalist and in outpatient general neurology---and, importantly, as a clinician educator. In addition to numerous teaching awards, Dr Berkowitz has published several books and also serves on our editorial board for Continuum. Dr Berkowitz, welcome. Thank you for joining us. Why don't you introduce yourself to our listeners?  Dr Berkowitz: Thanks, Lyell. As you mentioned, I'm a general neurologist and neurohospitalist here in San Francisco, California at UCSF and very involved in resident education as well. And I was honored, flattered and a little bit frightened when I received the invitation to guest edit this massive issue on the neurology of systemic disease. But I've learned a ton, and it's been great to work with you and the incredible authors we recruited to write for us. And I'm excited to have the issue out in the world.  Dr Jones: Yeah, me too. And you and I have talked about it before: you're one of a very small group of people who have guest edited multiple issues on different topics, right?  Dr Berkowitz: That's right. I did the neuroinfectious disease issue in… was it 2020? 2021? Something like that.  Dr Jones: Yeah. So, congratulations, more people have walked on the moon than done what you've done. And I'm looking forward to chatting, Aaron, and really grateful for your work putting together a fantastic issue. I think our listeners will appreciate that the nervous system does not function in isolation. It's important to understand the neurologic manifestations of diseases that originate within the brain, spinal cord, nerves, muscles, etc., but also the manifestations of diseases that begin in other systems and, you know, may masquerade as a primary neurologic disorder. So, it's obviously an important topic for neurologists, since many of these patients are receiving care in another setting, perhaps from another specialist. I almost think of this issue of Continuum as a handbook for the consultant neurologist, inpatient or outpatient. I don't know. Do you think that's a fair characterization of the topic? Dr Berkowitz: Absolutely. I completely agree with you. I think, yeah, many of us go into neurology interested in our primary diseases, whether it's stroke or Parkinson's or neuropathy or particular interest in neurologic symptoms, whether they're cognitive, motor, sensory, visual. And we quickly learn in residency, right? As you said, a lot of what we see is neurologic manifestations of primary diseases. So, I don't know how similar this is to other training programs. But it seemed like, if I'm remembering correctly, my first year of residency was mostly on primary neurology services, general stroke, ICU. And we moved into the consultant role more in the PGY-3 year the next year. And I remember explaining to students rotating with us on the consult services, this is actually much more complex in a way, because the patient has some type of symptom in a much broader and much more complicated context of multiple things going on. And I call it "neurology in the wild." There's, like, neurology of, this patient's had a stroke and we know they have a stroke and we're trying to figure out why and treat it. That's all interesting. But our question here, is there a stroke needle buried in this haystack of all of these medical or surgical complications? And learning what I call neurology of X, which is really what this issue is; as you said, that there's a neurology of everything. There's a neurology of cardiac disease. There's a neurology of the peripartum. There's a neurology of rheumatologic disease. There's every new treatment that comes out in oncology has a neurology we learn, right? There's a neurology of everything.  Dr Jones: There's a lot of axes, right? There's the heart-brain axis and the kidney-brain axis. And… I think we cover everything except the spleen-brain axis, which maybe that's a thing, maybe not. I'll probably hear from all the spleen fans out there. So, I want to do a little bit of an experiment. We're going to do something new today on the podcast. Before we get into the questions, we're going to start with a Continuum Audio trivia question. So, this will be a first time ever. Dr Berkowitz, we all know that chronic hyperglycemia, or diabetes, can lead to many neurologic and systemic complications and that optimal glucose control is our goal. For our listeners, here's the question: what neurologic complication can occur from correcting hyperglycemia too quickly? What neurologic complication can occur from correcting hyperglycemia too quickly? Stick around to the end of our interview for the answer. So, Aaron, let's get right to it. You had a chance to review all the articles in this issue on the neurology of systemic disease. What do you think in all of those is the most exciting recent development for patients who fit into this category? Dr Berkowitz: Yeah, that's a great question. I think we talked about when we were putting this issue together, right, a lot of the Continuum subspecialty topics; there should have been updates on particular disease diagnostics, treatments, new phenotypes. Whereas here probably a lot less has changed in primary heart disease, primary cancer. As I'd like to say to our students trying to excite them about neurology, most specialties have new treatments, but I can name a large number of new diseases, right, that have been discovered since we've been out of training. So, a lot of the primary medicine stays the same, and the neurologic complications stay the same. But probably the thing that many readers will want to keep handy and will probably be much in need of update again in three years are the neurologic complications of all the new cancer treatments. So, if we think back to I finished training just over ten years ago when a lot of the fill-in-the-blank-umabs were coming out, CAR T therapy, and we were starting to see a lot of neurology, I remember, related to these and telling the oncologists and they said, oh, you just wait. We are seeing at the conferences that there's a lot of neurology to these. And I feel like that is always a moving target. And I think we are seeing a lot of those and it's hard to keep up with which treatments can cause which complications, which syndromes and which severities require holding the treatment when you can rechallenge longer-term complications of CAR T cell therapies now that we've learned more about the acute complications. So, Amy Pruitt from Penn has written us a fantastic article for this issue that covers a lot of the updates there. And I learned a lot from that. I feel like that's the one that just like every time the carnioplastic diseases are reviewed in Continuum, it seems like the table is another page longer from your colleagues there in Rochester teaching us about new antibodies. And I feel like, for this issue, that's one of the areas that felt like there was a lot of very new content to keep up with since last time.  Dr Jones: That's good news, right? It's good that we have new immunotherapies for cancer, but it does lead to neurologic catastrophes sometimes, and it is a moving target, really rapid. So, you mentioned that just over ten years ago you finished your training and now we see a lot more of these complex immunotherapy-related neurologic complications. What about in the other direction? Are there any things that you see less commonly now in your practice than you might have seen ten years ago right when you were finishing training?  Dr Berkowitz: I would say no, I think. I think we're seeing a lot of new stuff, and we're still seeing a high volume of the classic consults we tend to get, whether that's altered mental status in a patient who's systemically ill; weakness or difficulty reading from the ventilator in a patient who's critically ill; patient has endocarditis and has a stroke hemorrhage or mycotic aneurysm, what do we do? Yeah, one of the parts that was really fun and educational editing this issue is, I really wanted to ask the experts the questions I find that are really troubling and challenging and make sure we could understand their perspective on things like the endocarditis consult, which I always feel like each time there's some twist that even though the question is what do we do about this stroke and/or hemorrhage and/or aneurysm and is surgery safe? It seems like each time I always feel like I'm reinventing the wheel, trying to really sort out how to think about this. And we have a great article from Alvin Doss at Beth Israel and Steve Feskey from Boston Medical Center. It covers a lot of cardiology, as you know, in that article about a great section on endocarditis where every time it came back for review, I would say, but what about this? This comes up. What about this? Can you explain how you think about this for our readers? I don't know. I'd be curious to hear your perspective. It sounds like we agree on what has become more common. I don't think anything in neurology seems to become less… Dr Jones: Well, no, I guess we haven't really solved anything, I guess we haven't cured any problem. But that's okay, right? I mean, it's building on an established foundation of experience and history in our field. And you know, we mentioned earlier that in many ways this issue is kind of like a neurology consultant's handbook. We did something a little different with it in that sense. In addition to you serving as the guest editor, you have authored an article in the issue. It touches on something that we've talked about a couple of times, and I'd be interested to hear you talk through it with our listeners a little bit on how to approach the neurologic consultation. Tell us a little more about that and your article and how you approached it.  Dr Berkowitz: Oh, yeah, thanks. Well, thanks first of all for inviting me to think about a sort of introductory article to this issue. And I was trying to think about what to write about because, as you've said and we've been talking about, no one could know every neurologic complication of every medical disease, treatment, surgery, hospital context. Probably many of us don't even know all the muscle diseases, right, within neurology. So how could we know all this stuff? And we need some type of manual from our colleagues that can explain, okay, I know this patient has inflammatory bowel disease and they've had a stroke. Is that- are these related? Are these unrelated? And I thought the articles kind of answer all of these questions. What would I say beyond this patient has disease X and is on drug Y? Well, look up in this issue disease X and see what the neurology can be, common and rare and how often it's associated, how often it's the presenting feature, how often it means the treatment is failing, etc. I thought, I'm not sure there's much to say there. That's about a paragraph. And I thought, well, let's think even more broadly about neurologic consultation. And as you know, I like to think about diagnostic reasoning and clinical reasoning. And we talk a lot about framing bias right? And I think that is very common in consultative neurology because we'll be told in the consult or in the page or E-consult or whatever it is, this is a blank-year-old blank with a history of blank on treatment blank. And right away your mind is starting to say, oh, well, the patient just had heart disease, or, the patient is nine months pregnant, or, the patient is on an immune checkpoint inhibitor. And whether you want to do it or not, your mind is associating the patient's neurology with that. And it's- even if we know we're framing or anchoring, it's hard to kind of pull away from that. And most of the time, common things being common, a patient with cancer develops new neurology, It's probably the cancer, the treatment, or sometimes a paraneoplastic syndrome. But I've definitely found if you do a lot of inpatient neurology and a lot of consults that you're seeing so much and you have no choice but to apply these heuristics, because you're seeing a lot of volume quickly and the patients are in the hospital or they're being closely followed and outpatient setting by another specialist. You presume if you didn't get it quite right the first time, it's going to come back to you. And there's a little bit of difficulty figuring out, this is a case, actually, of all the altered mental status in acutely ill patients I got today, this is the one I should dig deeper in that I think this could turn out to be a stroke or encephalitis as opposed to delirium. I felt like that I really haven't approached that except knowing that it's easy to fall into traps. And so, I started to think about framing bias. You know, we talked about if we become aware of our biases, right, we're better at not falling prey to them. But it's subconscious. So, we might be applying it without even realizing, or even saying, I might be framing this case the wrong way, you can go right on framing it the wrong way. So, I want to kind of get a little more granular on what types of framing biases actually are relevant, specifically, to the console setting. And so, I tried to come up with a few more specific examples and try to think about ways that we could at least have a quick, if our knee-jerk is to associate primary disease X that the patient has or primary treatment X with neurologic symptom Y, what's at least a quick counter-knee jerk to say, what if it could be something else? So, for example, one of them I call "low signal-to-noise ratio bias." Altered mental status in the acutely ill hospitalized patient. What would you say, Lyell? 99 out of 100- 99.9 out of 100, it's not a primary neurologic disease. Is that fair to say? Dr Jones: Very high, yep. I agree. Dr Berkowitz: Yeah. But could it be a stroke? Could it be non-convulsive status epilepticus, meningitis encephalitis? So, how do we sort of counteract low signal-to-noise ratio bias, acknowledging it exists, acknowledging most of the time there is a low signal-to-noise, that it's not going to be neurology---to just for example, use the time course. This is pretty acute. Have I convinced myself this is not a stroke or a seizure or an acute neurologic infection? And if I'm not sure at the bedside, should I err on the side of more testing? Or the "curbside bias," as I call when your colleague just sends you a text message on your phone, No need to even open the chart, Dr Jones. Patient had a cerebellar stroke. Incidental. They're here for something else. Aspirin, right? Just like a super tentorial stroke. And you might reply thumbs up. And then imagine you open the CT scan and it's a huge cerebellar stroke with fourth ventricular compression- and patient can hide a lot of stroke back there, might just have a little ataxia. You were curbsided and that framed you to think, oh, they asked me, is aspirin okay for a cerebellar stroke and I said yes, without realizing actually the question should have been posed is, how do you manage a huge stroke with mass effect in the posterior fossa? So, these types of biases, I come up with five of them, I won't go through all of them. I'm in the article to sort of acknowledge for the reader, most of the time it's going to be what you look up in this issue, but how to think about the times where it might not be and how to be more precise about what framing is and different types of framing that occur specifically in the consultant arena. Dr Jones: And I think the longer we practice, the more of those low-frequency exceptions that you see. And, you know, and then it sticks in our mind and sometimes the bias swings the other way; people, you know, think primarily about the low frequency. And so, it's tricky. And what I really enjoyed about that article, we started talking about this probably more than a year ago, and more than a year ago, I would say relatively few clinicians were using a now widely popular large language model for clinical decision-making; we won't name the model. And now I think most clinicians are using it almost every day, right? And I think it puts a premium on how to think and how to engage with the patient, and less about the facts and the lists that a lot of conventional medical education really is derived from. So, I really appreciate that article. We can pat ourselves in the back. We had some foresight to put it in the issue, and I think it's a great addition to it. Dr Berkowitz: Thank you. Dr Jones: So, the list of potential topics when we think about the neurologic manifestations of systemic disease, we tend to break it down by organ systems, right? But the amount of things that could end up in the issue is almost infinite. Is there anything that, when you were putting this issue together---either in terms of the topics or editing the articles---is there anything that you wanted to include, but we just didn't have room? Dr Berkowitz: I certainly won't say we covered everything, but I will say we were able to recruit a fantastic team of authors. And as you and I also talked about at the beginning, although you could say, we're doing the movement disorders issue, let's find all the top movement disorders folks who are expert specialists in this field, there's not really a neurohematologist or a neurogastroenterologist out here. So, you and I put our heads together to think of phenomenal general neurologists in most cases, some subspecialists who know a lot about this but were also excited to read a lot more about it and assemble the existing knowledge by the practicing neurologist for the practicing neurologist. And I think with that approach and letting folks have kind of, you know, I asked some specific questions. These are topics I hope you'll cover. These are vexing questions in this area. I hope you'll find some answers to how often can this neurology be the primary feature of this rheumatologic disease with no systemic manifestations and when should we look or as we mentioned, the complicated endocarditis consult. I won't say we covered everything. This could be, and is, textbook-sized, and there are textbooks on this topic. But I think on the contrary, authors came back and had sections on things that I might not have thought to ask- to cover. Dr Sarah LaHue, my colleague here at UCSF, I asked for an article, as traditionally in this issue, on the neurology of pregnancy in the postpartum state and included, I think probably for the first time in Continuum, a fantastic review of neurologic considerations in patients in menopause, which I'm not sure has been covered before. So, things that I wouldn't have even thought to ask for. Our authors came back with some fantastic stuff. And the ICU article by Dr Shivani Ghoshal, instead of focusing just on altered mental status in the ICU, weakness in the ICU---those are all in there---I also asked her to discuss complications of procedures in the ICU. How often do procedures in the ICU cause local neuropathies or vascular injury, these types of things. Dr Jones: Yeah, me too. And I guess that's a great advertisement, that there probably are things that we didn't cover, but if there are, we can't think of them. We've done as best as we can. So now let's come back to our Continuum Audio trivia question for our listeners. And I'll repeat the question: what neurologic complication can occur from correcting hyperglycemia too quickly? And I actually think there might be two correct answers to this one. Dr Berkowitz, what do you think? Dr Berkowitz: Yeah, I was thinking of two things. I hope these are the things you're thinking of as well. One is what I think used to be referred to as insulin neuritis, sort of an acute painful small fiber neuropathy from after the initiation of insulin, I think also called treatment-induced diabetic neuropathy or something of that nature. And then the other one described, defined and classified by your colleagues there in Rochester, the diabetic lumbosacral radiculoplexis neuropathy or Bruns-Garland syndrome or a diabetic amyotropy, I think, can also---if I'm not mistaken---also occur in this context; you should have weight loss in association with diet treatment of diabetes. But how did I do? Dr Jones: Yeah, you win the prize, the first-ever prize. There's no monetary value to the prize, but pride, I think, is a good one. Yeah, those were the two I was thinking of. The treatment-induced neuropathy of diabetes is really nicely covered in Dr Rafid Mustafa's article on the neurologic complications of endocrine disorders. It's a rare condition characterized by the acute/subacute onset of diffuse neuropathic pain and some usually some autonomic dysfunction. And it occurs when you have rapid and substantial reductions in blood glucose levels. And you can almost map it out. There was a study from 2015 which is referenced in the article, which found that a drop in hemoglobin A1c of 2 to 3% over three months confers about a 20% absolute risk of developing this treatment-induced neuropathy of diabetes, and a drop of more than 4%, more than 80% risk. So, very substantial. And then in the other---we see this commonly in patients with diabetic lumbosacral radiculoplexis neuropathy---they have the subacute onset of usually asymmetric pain and weakness in the lower limbs that tends to occur more frequently in patients who have had recent better control of their sugar. We can also see it in the upper limbs too. So, you get a perfect score. Dr Berkowitz, well done. Again, I want to thank you. I want to thank you for such a great issue, a great article to kick off the issue, and a great discussion of the neurology of systemic disease. Today I learned a lot talking today, I learned a lot reading the issue. Really grateful for your leadership of putting it together, pulling together a really great author panel, and I think it will come in handy not just for our junior readers and listeners, but also our more experienced subscribers as well. Dr Berkowitz: Thank you so much. Like I said, it was a big honor to be invited to guest edit this issue. I've read it every three years since I started residency. It's always one of my favorite issues. As you said, a manual for consultative neurology, and I learned a ton from our authors and really appreciate the opportunity to work with you and the amazing Continuum team to bring this from an idea, as you said, probably over a year ago to a printed issue. So, thanks again, Lyell. Dr Jones: Thank you. And again, we've been speaking with Dr Aaron Berkowitz, guest editor of Continuum's most recent issue on the neurology of systemic disease. Please check it out, and thank you to our listeners for joining today. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Clinicians and patients are in a state of prognostic uncertainty when they are unsure about the future course of an illness. By embracing uncertainty while cultivating prognostic awareness, neurologists can serve the critical role of supporting patients and families through the living and dying process. In this episode, Casey Albin, MD, speaks with Robert G. Holloway, MD, MPH, FAAN, author of the article "Managing Prognostic Uncertainty in Neurologic Disease" in the Continuum® December 2025 Neuropalliative Care issue. Dr. Albin is a Continuum® Audio interviewer, associate editor of media engagement, and an assistant professor of neurology and neurosurgery at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia. Dr. Holloway is the Edward and Alma Vollertsen Rykenboer Chair and a professor of neurology in the department of neurology at the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry in Rochester, New York. Additional Resources Read the article: Managing Prognostic Uncertainty in Neurologic Disease Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @caseyalbin Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Albin: Hello, this is Dr Casey Albin. Today I'm interviewing Dr Bob Holloway about his article on managing prognostic uncertainty in neurologic disease, which appears in the December 2025 Continuum issue on neuropalliative care. Welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to our audience. Dr Holloway: Hi, Casey, and thank you. Again, my name is Bob Holloway. I'm a clinician and neurologist up in Rochester, New York, and I've been doing both neurology and palliative care for many years. Dr Albin: Well, that's fantastic. And I really wanted to emphasize how much I really enjoyed reading this article. I know that we're going to get into some of the pearls that you offer, but I really want to tell the listeners, like, this is a great one to read because not only does it have sort of a philosophical take, but you also really provide some pragmatic tips of how we can help our patients manage this prognostic uncertainty. But maybe just tell us a little bit, what is prognostic uncertainty? Dr Holloway: Yes, thank you. Well, I think everyone has a sense of what prognostic uncertainty is. And it's just the uncertain futures that we as clinicians and our patients face. And I would just say that a way to summarize it is just, how do we manage the "not yet" of neurologic illness? Dr Albin: I love that. In neurologic illness, there is so much "not yet" and there are so many unknowns. And what I thought was really helpful about your article is you kind of give us three buckets in which we can think about the different types of uncertainty our patients are facing. What are those? Dr Holloway: This is, I think, an area that really is of interest to me, thinking about how to organize the prognostic "not yet" or that landscape. And one way I've tried to simplify it is to think about it as data-centered. And that's the world that we mostly live in as neurologists. That's the probability distributions. We also have kind of system-level uncertainties, and that's the uncertainties that our health system affords for our patients. And then we have, also, the patient-centered uncertainties and the uncertainties that those two prior categories cause for our patients. And that's a big uncertainty that we often don't address. Dr Albin: In reading the article, I was really struck by, we spend a lot of time thinking about data uncertainty. Can we get population-based research? Can we sort of look at prognostication scoring? I live in the ICU, and so we think a lot about these, like, scoring metrics and putting patients into buckets and helping us derive their care based on where their severity index is. And I'm sure that is true in many of the divisions of neurology. But what I did not really appreciate---and I thought you did a really fantastic job of kind of drawing our attention to---is there's a lot of system-centered uncertainty. Can you give us a little bit of examples, like, what is system-based uncertainty? Dr Holloway: I think system-level uncertainties just encompass the practical information gaps that may arise during our healthcare encounter. And a lot of, I think, the uncertainty that our patients face and families, they actually describe it as they feel captive by the uncertainty. And it's just the unknowns, not just what affords from the actual information about the disease and its prognosis in the future, but actually the level of the system, like, who's going to take care of them? How do you manage arranging for nurses to come into the home or all those practical-level uncertainties that the system provides that sometimes we don't do a good job of road-mapping for patients. Dr Albin: Absolutely. Because I feel like we have a little bit of a gap in that often as physicians. Like, the family asks, what will hospice at home look like? Well, you know, that's a question for case management. I think they'll come in and they'll tell you. But it strikes me that that's a real gap of my being able to walk patients through. Will they get home health care? Will they have transportation set up? Will there be a nurse who comes in to check? How often are they available? What's the cost going to be? All of these practical aspects of dealing with an illness that are beyond sort of our scope of knowledge, but probably have a huge practical impact to the patient. Dr Holloway: Without question, every encounter patients wonder about, that kind of future wish landscape that we- all our future-oriented desires and hopes. And so much of that is the practical aspects of our health system, which is often fragmented, kind of unknown, uncertain. And that's a huge source of uncertainty for our patients and families. And then that leads to many other uncertainties that we need to address. Dr Albin: Absolutely. I think another one that we, again, maybe don't spend quite as much time thinking about is this patient-level uncertainty. What's going on there? Dr Holloway: Yeah. So, I think patient-level uncertainty is that uncertainty that they experience when confronted with the two other types of uncertainty: the actual data-centered uncertainty and the system-level uncertainty. And that's that, kind of, very huge kind of uncertainty about what it means for them and their family and their future futures. And that's a source of huge stress and anxiety, and often frankly bordering on dread and fear for our patients and families. That actually gets into very levels of uncertainty that I would call maybe over even in the existential realm. Patient-level uncertainty in the actual existential questions or the fear and the dread or the kind of just unnerving aspect of it is actually even more important to patients than the scientific or data-centered uncertainty that we focus most of our attention on. Dr Albin: Yeah, I think this is, to me, was getting towards that, like, what does the patient care about and how are they coping with what is in many times a really dramatic shift in their life expectancy or morbidity expectations and this sort of radical renegotiation about what it means to have a neurologic illness? And how does that shift their thinking about who they are and their priorities in the world? Is that right? Dr Holloway: One thousand percent, and in fact, I will say---and I think is one of the main take home messages is that, you know, managing prognostic certainty is not an end in itself. It really is to help patients and families adaptively cope to their new and often harsh new reality, that we could help them adapt to their new normal. I think that is one of our main tasks as neurologists in our care teams is to help patients find and ultimately maybe achieve existential or spiritual or well-being even in their new health states. You know, that you certainly often see in the intensive care unit, but we often always see in the outpatient realm as well, and all our other diseases. Dr Albin: I think that's really hard to do. I think those conversations are incredibly difficult and trying to navigate where patients want to be, what would bring meaning, what would bring value. I think many of us struggle to have these pretty real and intense conversations with families about what really is important. And one of the things I really liked about this article is you kind of walk us through some steps that we as clinicians can take to get a little bit more comfortable. Maybe just walk us through, what are some of the things that you have found most helpful in trying to get families and patients to open up about what brings them meaning? How are they navigating this new, really uncertain time in their life? Dr Holloway: Yeah, so I do kind of have a ten-point recommendations of how to help cultivate a more integrated awareness of an uncertain future. I mean, I think the most important thing is actually just recognizing that embracing uncertainty as an amazingly remarkable cognitive tool. I mean, let's face it, uncertainty, when it happens with neurologic illness and disease, is often fearful. It's scary. It kind of changes our world. But on the flip side of it, it's a remarkable cognitive tool that actually can help us find new ways and new paths and new creativity. And I think we can use that kind of opposites to help our patients find new meaning in very difficult situations. So, thinking about uncertainty, kind of being courageous, leaning into it and recognizing that it does create anxieties and fear, but it also can kind of help create new solutions and new ideas to help people navigate. Dr Albin: I was hoping that maybe you could give us an example of, like, how would you do that? If a patient comes in and they're dealing with, you know, a new diagnosis and they're navigating this new uncertainty, what are some of the things that you ask to help them reframe that, to kind of take some of the good about that uncertainty? How do you navigate that? Dr Holloway: One of the other recommendations is actually just resetting the timeline and expectations for these conversations. That it shouldn't be expected that patients should accept their harsh new reality immediately, that it takes time in a trusted environment. And that there's this, like, oscillating nature of hopes and fears and dread, and you've just got to work with them over time. And with time, and once you understand who the patient and family are and understand where they find meaning and where they find, actually, joy in their life, or what actually brings them meaning, you can start recasting their futures into credible narratives in their kind of future landscape in ways that I think can help them enter into their new realities within the, you know, framework of disease management that you can offer them within your healthcare team or your healthcare system or wherever you are in the world and the available resources that you have to offer patients and families. Dr Albin: So, this sounds like a lot to me like active listening and really trying to get to know what is important to the family, what is important to the patient. And I guess probably just creating that space even in that busy clinical environment. Do I have that right? Dr Holloway: You can absolutely do that, right. You know, and honestly, active listening, we are challenged in our busy healthcare system to do this, but I think with the right listening skills and the appropriate ways of paying attention, you can definitely illuminate these possible, kind of future-oriented worlds for patients and help them navigate those new terrains with them. Frankly, I think that's a real new space for us in neurology. We don't think about and train how to create credible narratives for patients and families. We do it on the fly, but I think there's so much more work to do. How do you actually keep, you know, that best-case, worst-case, most likely credible narratives for patients that can help them adapt to their new realities and support them on their new journeys? Dr Albin: I love that best-case, worst-case, most likely case. I find that framework really helpful. But you talk in your article, it's not just about using that best case or worst case or most likely, but it's actually building some forecasting into that and having some real data to kind of support what you're saying. And there's a lot of growth towards actually becoming good as a medical forecaster. Can you describe a little bit, what did you mean by that? Dr Holloway: You're absolutely right. I think, actually, one of the skillsets of becoming and managing prognostic uncertainty is actually becoming a skilled medical forecaster. And it's a really tall order. So, we've got to be both good medical forecasters as well as helping patients adaptively cope to their new reality. But the good medical forecasting is actually now going more quantitative in thinking about the data that's available to help think about the important outcomes for patients and families and then predicting what their probabilities are so you can shape those futures around. So, yes, we do have to have an open mindset. We do have to actually look at the data that's available and actually think about, what are those long-term probabilities and outcomes? And we can be honest about those and even communicate them with families. But it's a really good skill set to have. Dr Albin: Yeah. This to me was a little bit about, how do you bring in the data knowledge that we try to get over time as we develop our expertise? You're developing not just a reliance on population-based data, but in my experience, I have seen this. And that sort of ability to kind of look at the patient in front of you, think about the big picture, but also a little bit about their unique medical comorbidities or prior life experiences. So, some of that database knowledge, and then bringing in and getting to know what is important to the patient. And so, sort of marrying that data-centric/patient-centric mindset. Dr Holloway: I love it. I guess the other way of saying that, too, is we need to think with precision, but communicate in narratives. And it's okay to gently put more precise estimates on our probability predictions with patients and families, what we think is the most likely case, best and worst case. Because patients and families want us to be more precise. We often shy away from it, but- so, it's okay to think in precisions, but we've got to put those in narratives in the most likely, best-, and worst-case scenarios. And don't be afraid if you think in terms of ninety percents, ten percents, fifty percents; most patients and families don't mind that. And what they're telling us is they actually want to hear that, if you are comfortable talking in those terms. Dr Albin: Yeah, absolutely. And giving a sense of the humility to say, like, this is my best guess based on medical data and my experience, I would say, but again, none of us have a crystal ball. And I do think families, as long as you're sort of couching your expectations into the sort of imperfect, but I'm doing my best, really appreciate that. Dr Holloway: They totally do all the time. Just say, I simply don't know for certain, but these are my best estimates. That's a good way of just phrasing that. Dr Albin: Yeah. So powerful. I don't know for certain. And then I wanted to just kind of close out, because there's this one term that you use that I thought was so interesting. And I wanted you to kind of tell our listeners a little bit about what you mean here, which is that, when you're actively open-minded, you're using this, quote, "dragonfly eyes." What do you mean by that? Dr Holloway: So, the dragonfly eyes, as you know, they can look at three sixty around them and they just, they move in all directions. Being actively open minded, I guess the biggest example I would say is, I don't like the term prognostic discordance, which means that there's a difference of subjective estimates of prognosis between patients and families. Being openly minded is actually embracing the potential information that the family has about prognosis and incorporating that into your estimates. So, I wouldn't say it's discordances, per se; I think being really actively open-minded is taking that all in and utilizing that as, you know what, they know more than you do about the patient and their loved ones, and they may have insights that can inform your best estimates of prognosis. So, the true dragonfly prognosticator actually is one who embraces and doesn't consider it discord, but considers it kind of new, useful information that I just need to weigh in so I can help the family in my best professional way in terms of developing a prognosis, whatever the condition may be. Dr Albin: I can imagine this is just so challenging and something that takes a long time to sort of perfect all of this. I think you say right below that, you need a growth mindset to do this because it is hard, and it's going to take an active participation and an active desire to get better at these conversations with our families. Dr Holloway: One thousand percent. You are so right that it takes time, effort, and not feeling like you're being challenged, but that actually you are including them in your entire body of knowledge, that you're just- it's part of all you're collecting. And even, I was on service last week, and I talked to residents and students about that very issue. It's like take their prognosis. And someone who came in, we thought CJB, very sad, tragic case, but we were thinking about what the future may look like and how do we actually work with the family who had very what we thought was unrealistic expectations. I said, well, no, this is not discordance. This is just useful information that we can take understand where they're coming from and incorporate that into the ways we want to build relationships, build trust, and over time we'll get to a point where we hopefully can work with them and have them have that fully integrated awareness of their future. Dr Albin: Yeah, that's beautiful. It really is this ongoing negotiation that really requires so much listening, understanding, and then obviously information and expertise about the data that we're presenting and the likelihood outcome, recognizing that there's a lot of uncertainty in all of this. Which, you know, again, this is kind of a 360 talk. At every level there is uncertainty, and that's what makes it so hard. Dr Holloway: Yeah, you're absolutely right. And actually, even in the article I kind of used the term radical uncertainty as that, no matter how resolvable all this uncertainty is, there will always still remain that radical element of our existence which we have to actually incorporate and be prepared for. And actually, not only of ourselves, but actually for patients and families and helping manage that. Using narratives and credible narratives and kind of ranges of possibilities is the best way to do that in a personalized way. Dr Albin: Well, this has been a fantastic conversation, and I know that we are running a bit short on time. So, as we wrap up and you think about this topic, are there any key take-home messages that you hope our listeners will walk away with? Dr Holloway: I think one main emphasis is that despite all the successes we feel we have in neurology, is that we all have to recognize that prognostic uncertainty is just going to increase in the future. But this is going to be for several reasons. One is that, just, the illness uncertainty of all of our great therapies are just going to be creating more uncertainty for the future. And precision medicine is paradoxical, and that actually it creates more uncertainty. So, I think we need to be prepared that we have to manage prognostic uncertainty better, because it's definitely going to increase. And two, it's what I said earlier, is that actually managing prognostic uncertainty is not an end to itself. It's actually helping patients and families adapt to their new and sometimes harsh new reality and actually help them to ultimately get to a place where maybe either their condition is neither dreaded, but actually they can accept it as their new reality and actually achieve some sort of existential well-being and existential health. I think that we have a lot more to emphasize in this area. And for far too long, we've focused on the certainty aspect of our field and not enough on the uncertainty in the world of medicine to help our patients and families. Dr Albin: And gosh, isn't there just so much uncertainty? And I think this has been beautiful. So, thank you again for coming and sharing your expertise. Dr Holloway: Thank you very much. It's been a pleasure. Dr Albin: For all of our listeners out there, this is a truly fantastic article, and I would just like to direct you to going to read the cases because not only do the cases offer a little bit of practical advice, but there's one that's actually sort of a philosophical discussion about, what does it mean to be alive and confront death? There's some beautiful artwork that's featured as well. So this is just a really unique article, and I'm excited for our listeners to have a chance to check it out. So again, today I've been interviewing Dr Bob Holloway about his article on managing prognostic uncertainty in neurologic disease, which appears in the December 2025 Continuum issue on neuropalliative care. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Pediatric neuropalliative medicine is an emerging area of subspecialty practice that emphasizes the human experience elements of serious neurologic illness. Child neurologists care daily for patients who can benefit from the communication strategies and management practices central to pediatric neuropalliative medicine, whether at the primary or subspecialty level. In this episode, Gordon Smith, MD, FAAN, speaks with Lauren Treat, MD, author of the article "Neuropalliative Medicine in Pediatric Neurology" in the Continuum® December 2025 Neuropalliative Care issue. Dr. Smith is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a professor and chair of neurology at Kenneth and Dianne Wright Distinguished Chair in Clinical and Translational Research at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia. Dr. Treat is an associate professor in the divisions of child neurology and palliative medicine at the University of Colorado School of Medicine in Aurora, Colorado. Additional Resources Read the article: Neuropalliative Medicine in Pediatric Neurology Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @gordonsmithMD Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Smith: This is Gordon Smith. Today I've got the great pleasure of interviewing my good friend Dr Lauren Treat about her article on neuropalliative medicine in pediatric neurology practice. This article appears in the December 2025 Continuum issue on neuropalliative care. Lauren, welcome to the Continuum podcast, and maybe you can introduce yourself to our listeners. Dr Treat: Such a delight to be here, Gordon. Thank you. I am a pediatric neurologist and palliative medicine doctor at the University of Colorado, Children's Hospital Colorado, and I am practicing in both areas. I do general child neurology, and I also run a pediatric neuropalliative medicine clinic. So, I'm happy to be here to talk about it. Dr Smith: And, truth in advertising, I tried very hard to get Dr Treat to move to VC to work with me. And I haven't given up yet. I'm looking forward to the conversation. And Lauren, I wonder- one, I'm really excited about this issue, by the way. This is the second podcast I've done. And I'd like to ask the same question I asked of David Oliver, who's amazing. What a great article and conversation we had. And that question is, can you define palliative care? I think a lot of people think of it as, like, end-of-life care or things like that. And is the definition a little different in the pediatric space than it is in the adult space? Dr Treat: Such a great place to start, Gordon. I absolutely think that there are nuances that are very important in pediatrics. And we especially acknowledge in pediatrics that there is a very longitudinal component of this. And even moreso, I think, then in adult neuropalliative medicine, in pediatrics, we are seeing people=even prenatally or early in their first hours and days of life, and walking with them on a journey that might last days or weeks, but might last years or decades. And so, there is this sense that we are going to come alongside them and be part of the ups and the downs. So yes, neuropalliative medicine is a kind of medicine that is a very natural partner to where neurology is in its current field. We're doing a lot of exciting things with modifying diseases, diagnosing things early, and we have a very high reliance on the things that we can measure in medicine. And not all things can be measured that are worthwhile about one's quality of life. A family very poignantly told me very recently, making sure someone stays alive is different from making sure they have a life. And that's what neuropalliative medicine is about. Dr Smith: Well, great summary, and I definitely want to follow up on several aspects of that, but there's one point I was really curious about as I've been thinking about this, you know, these are really exciting times and neurology in general and in child neurology in particular. And we've got all of these exciting new therapies. And as you know, I'm a neuromuscular person, so it's hard not to think back on SMA and not be super excited. And so, I wonder about the impact of these positive developments on the practice of neuropalliative care in kids. You know, I'm just thinking, you know, you mentioned it's a journey with ups and downs. And I wonder, the complexity of that must be really interesting. And I bet your job looks different now than it did seven or eight years ago. Dr Treat: That's absolutely true. I will self-reference here one of the figures in the paper. Figure 2 in my section is about those trajectories, about how these journeys can have lots of ups and downs and whether this person had a normal health status to begin with or whether they started out life with a lot of challenges. Those ups and downs inherently involve a lot of uncertainty. And that's where palliative medicine shines. Not because we have the answer---everyone would love for us to have the answer---but because we consider ourselves uncertainty specialists in the way that we have to figure out what do we know, what can we ground ourselves in, and how can we continue to move forward even if we don't have all the answers? That is a particular aspect of neurology that is incredibly challenging for families and clinicians, and it can't stand as a barrier to moving forward and trying to figure out what's best for this child, what's best for this family. What do we know to be true about them as people, and how can we integrate that with all of the quantitative measures that we know and love in neurology? Dr Smith: So, I love the comment about prognostication, and this really ties into positive uncertainty or negative undercertainty in terms of therapeutic development. I wonder if you can talk a little bit about your approach to prognostication, particularly in a highly fluid situation. And are there pearls and pitfalls that our listeners should consider when they're discussing prognosis for children, particularly maybe young children who have severe neurological problems? Dr Treat: It's such a pivotal issue, a central issue, to child neurology practice. Again, because we are often meeting people very, very early on in their journey---earlier than we ever have before, sometimes, because of this opportunity to have a diagnosis, you know, prenatally or genetically or whatever else it is---sometimes we are seeing the very early signs of something as compared to previously where we wouldn't have a diagnosis until something was in its more kind of full-blown state. This idea of having a spectrum and giving people the range of possible outcomes is absolutely still what we need to do. However, we need to add on another skill on top of that in helping people anchor into what feels like the most likely situation and what the milestones are going to be in the near future, about how we're going to walk this journey and what we'll be on the lookout for that will help us branch into those different areas of the map down the road. Dr Smith: So, I wonder if we can go back to the framework you mentioned, two answers ago, I think? You and the article, you know, provide four different types of situations kind of based on temporal progression. I wonder if maybe the best way of approaching is to give an example and how that impacts your thoughts of how you manage a particular situation. Dr Treat: Absolutely. So, this figure in particular is helpful in multiple ways. One is to just give a visual of what these disease trajectories are doing, because we're doing that when and we take a history from a patient. But actually, to put it into an external visual for yourself, for your team, but also perhaps for the family can be really powerful. It helps you contextualize the episode of care in which you're meeting the family right now. And it also helps, sometimes, provide some sense of alignment or point out some discrepancies about how you're viewing that child's health and quality of life as compared to how the family might be viewing it. And so, if you say, you know, it sounds like during those five years before we met, you were up here, and now we find ourselves down here, and we're kind of in the middle of the range of where I've seen this person's health status be. Do I have that right? Families feel really seen when you do that and when you can get it accurately. And it also invites a dialogue between the two parties to be able to say, well, maybe I would adjust this. I think we had good health or good quality of life in this season. But you're right, it's getting harder. It's kind of that "show, don't tell" approach of bringing together all the facts to put together the relative position of where we are now in the context of everything they've been through. Dr Smith: You know, I wonder if you could talk a little bit more about the differences between palliative care and adult patients and in children? Dr Treat: Absolutely. One of the key features in pediatrics is this kind of overriding sense of an out-of-order event in the family's life. Children are not supposed to have illness. Children are not supposed to have disability. Children are not supposed to die before their parents. And that layer of tragedy is incredibly heavy and pervasive. It's not every encounter that you have in child neurology, but it does kind of permeate some of the conversations that neurologists have with their patients, especially patients who have serious neurological disease. So that could be things like epileptic encephalopathies, birth injuries, other traumatic brain injuries down the line. In the paper, I'd go through many different categories of the types of conditions that are eligible for pediatric neuropalliative medicine, that kind of support. When we think about that layer of tragedy in the relation to where we're meeting these families, they deserve extra support, not just to think about the medicines and the treatments, but also, what can we hope for? How can we give this child the best possible life in whatever circumstance that they're in? How can we show up in whatever medical decision-making circumstances present themselves to us and feel like we've done right by this child? It's a complex task, and pediatric neural palliative medicine is evolving to be able to be in those spaces with families in a very meaningful way. Dr Smith: So, of course, one of the differences is the, you know, very important role of parents in the situation, right? Obviously, parents are involved in adult palliative care issues and family is very important. But I wonder if you can talk about specific considerations given the parent-child relationship? Dr Treat: So, pediatric neuropalliative medicine really helps facilitate discussions not just about, again, those things that we have data on, but also about what is meaningful and foundational for those families. What's possible at home, what's possible in the community. In pediatrics, parents are making decisions on behalf of their child, often as a dyad, and I don't think this gets enough attention. We know from adult literature that making decisions on behalf of someone else is different from making decisions on behalf of oneself. We call this proxy decision-making. And proxies are more likely to be conservative on behalf of someone else than they are on behalf of themselves, and they're also more likely to overestimate the tolerability of a medical intervention. So, they might say, I wouldn't want this, or, I wouldn't accept this risk on behalf of myself, or, I don't think I'd want to have to persevere through something, but on behalf of this other person, I think they can do it or I will help them through it or something else like this, or, I can't accept the risk on behalf of them. So that's not good or bad. That's just different about making a decision on behalf of oneself as compared to making a decision on behalf of someone else. When there's two people trying to be proxies on behalf of a third person, on behalf of a child, that's a really, really complex task, and it deserves support. And so, pediatric neural palliative medicine can function, then, as this neutral space, as this kind of almost coaching opportunity alongside the other medical doctors to give parents an opportunity when their minds are calm---not in the heat of the moment---to talk about how they see their child, how they've shown up themselves, what they've seen go well, what they've struggled with. And how,, then we can feel prepared for future decision making times, future high-stress encounters, about what will be important to ground them in those moments, even though we can't predict fully what those circumstances might be. Dr Smith: It sounds, you know, from talking to you and having read the article, that these sorts of issues evolve over time, right? And you have commented on this already from your very first answer. And you do describe a framework for how parents think---their mental model, I guess---of, you know, a child with a serious illness. And this sounds like appreciation of that's really important in providing care. Maybe you can talk us through that topic? Dr Treat: I refer to this concept of prognostic awareness in all of the conversations that we have with families. So, what I mean by prognostic awareness is the degree of insight that an individual has about what's currently happening with their child and what may happen in the future regarding the disease and/or the complications. And when we meet people early on in their journey, often their prognostic awareness, that sense of insight about what's going on, can be limited because it requires lived experience to build. Oftentimes time is a factor in that, we gain more lived experience over time, but it's not just time that goes into building that. It's often having a child who has a complication. Sometimes it's experiencing a hospitalization. That transfer from a cognitive understanding of what's going on, from a lived experience about what's going on, really amplifies that prognostic awareness, and it changes season by season in terms of what that family is going through and what they're willing to tolerate. Dr Smith: You introduced a new term for me, which is hyper-capableism. Can you talk about that? I found that really interesting and, you know, it reminds me a lot of the epiphanies that we've had about coma and coma prognosis. So, what's hyper-capableism? Dr Treat: Yes. In neurology, we have to be very aware of our views on ableism, on understanding how we prognosticate in relation to what we value about our abilities. And hyper-capableism refers to someone who feels very competent both cognitively and from a motor standpoint and fosters that sense of value around those two aspects to a high degree. I'm referencing that in the article with regard to medicine, because medicine, the rigors of training, the rigors of practice, require that someone has mental and motor fortitude. That neurology practice and medical practice in general can breed this attitude around the value of skills in both of those areas. And we have to be careful in order to give our patients and families the best care, to not overly project our values and our sense of what's good and bad in the world regarding ableism. Impairments can look different in different social contexts. And when the social context doesn't support an impairment, that's where people struggle. That's where people have stigma. And I think there's a lot of work that we can do in society at large to help improve accommodations for impairment so that we have less ableism in society. Dr Smith: Another term that I found really interesting kind of going back to parents is the "good parent identity." Maybe you can talk about that? Dr Treat: Good parent identity, good parent narrative, is something that is inherent to the journey when you're trying to take care of and make decisions on behalf of a child. And whether you're in a medical context or outside of a medical context, all parents have this either explicit or implicit sense of themselves about what it means to do right by their child. This comes up very poignantly in complex medical conditions because there are so many narratives about what parents ought to do on behalf of their child, and some of those roles can be in tension with one another. It's a whole lot of verbs that often fall under that identity. It's about being able to love and support and take good care of and make good decisions on behalf of someone. But it's also about protecting them from harm and treating their pain and being able to respond to them and know their cues and know these details about them. And you can't, sometimes, do multiple of those things at once. You can't give them as much safety and health as possible and also protect them from pain and suffering when they have a serious illness, when they need care in the hospital that might require a treatment that might be invasive or burdensome to them. And so, trying to be a good parent in the face of not being able to fulfill all those different verbs or ideas about what a good parent might do is a big task. And it can help to make it an explicit part of the conversation about what that family feels like their good parent roles might be in a particular situation. Dr Smith: I want to shift a little bit, Lauren, that's a really great answer. And just, you know, listening to you, your language and your tongue is incredibly positive, which is exciting. But, you know, you have talked about up and downs, and I wanted you to comment on a quote. I actually wrote it down, I'm going to read it to you, because you mentioned this early on in your article: "the heavy emotional and psychological impacts of bearing witness to suffering as a child neurologist." I think all of us, no matter how excited we are about all the therapeutic development, see patients who are suffering. And it's hard when it's a child and you're seeing a family. I wonder if you could talk a little bit about that comment and how you balance that. You're clearly- you're energized in your career, but you do have to bear witness to suffering. Dr Treat: You're right. Child neurologists do incredible work, it's an incredible, exciting field, and there are a lot of challenges that we see people face. And we see it impacts their lives in really intense ways over the course of time. We bear witness to marriages that fall apart. We bear witness to families that lose jobs or have to transition big pieces of their identity in order to care for their children. And that impacts us. And we hold the collective weight of the things that we are trying to improve but sometimes feel less efficacious than we hoped that we could around some of these aspects of people's lives. And so, pediatric neuropalliative medicine is also about supporting colleagues and being able to talk to colleagues about how the care of the patients and the really real effort that we exert on their behalf and the caring that we have in our hearts for them, how that matters. Even if the outcome doesn't change, it's something that matters for our work and for our connections with these families. It's really important. Dr Smith: I wonder, maybe we can end by learning a little bit about your journey? And maybe this is your opportunity to- I know we have students and residents who listen to us, and junior faculty. I think neuropalliative care is obviously an important issue. There's a whole Continuum issue on it---no pun intended---but what was your journey, and maybe what's your pitch? Dr Treat: I'm just going to give a little bit of a snippet from a poem by Andrea Gibson, who's a poet, that I think speaks really clearly to this. They say a difficult life is not less worth living than a gentle one. Joy is simply easier to carry than sorrow. I think that sums these things up really well, that we find a lot of meaning in the work that we do. And it's not that it's easier or harder, it's just that these things all matter. I'm going to speak now, Gordon, to your question about how I got to my journey. When I went into pediatrics and then neuro in my training, I have always loved the brain. It's always been so crucial to what I wanted to do and how I wanted to be in the world. And when I was in my training, I saw that a lot of the really impactful conversations that we were having felt like we left something out. It felt like we couldn't talk about some of the anticipated struggles that we would anticipate on a human level. We could talk about the rate and the volume of the G tube, but we couldn't talk about how this was going to impact a mother's sense of being able to nourish and bond and care for their child because we didn't have answers for those things. And as I went on in my journey, I realized that even if we don't have answers, it's still important for us to acknowledge those things and talk about them and be there for our patients in those conversations. Dr Smith: Well, Lauren, what a great way to end, and what a wonderful conversation, and what a great article. Congratulations and thank you. Dr Treat: Thank you, Gordon. It was a pleasure to be here. Dr Smith: Again today, I've been interviewing Dr Lauren Treat about her really great article on neuropalliative medicine in pediatric neurology practice. This article appears in the December 2025 Continuum issue on neuropalliative care. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this issue and other issues. And thanks again to you, our listeners, for joining us today. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, associate editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Patients with Parkinson disease and other movement disorders have significant palliative care needs that are poorly met under traditional models of care. Clinical trials demonstrate that specialist palliative care can improve many patient and family outcomes. In this episode, Aaron Berkowitz, MD, PhD, FAAN, speaks with Benzi M. Kluger, MD, MS, FAAN, author of the article "Neuropalliative Care in Movement Disorders" in the Continuum® December 2025 Neuropalliative Care issue. Dr. Berkowitz is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a professor of neurology at the University of California San Francisco in the Department of Neurology in San Francisco, California. Dr. Kluger is the Julius, Helen, and Robert Fine Distinguished Professor of Neurology in the Departments of Neurology and Medicine (Palliative Care) at the University of Rochester in Rochester, New York. Additional Resources Read the article: Neuropalliative Care in Movement Disorders Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @AaronLBerkowitz Guest: @BenziKluger Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Berkowitz: This is Dr Aaron Berkowitz, and today I'm interviewing Dr Benzi Kluger about his article on neuropalliative care in Parkinson disease and related movement disorders, which is found in the December 2025 Continuum issue on neuropalliative care. Welcome to the podcast, Dr Kluger, and could you please introduce yourself to our audience? Dr Kluger: I'm Benzi Kluger. I'm a professor of neurology and palliative medicine at the University of Rochester. I'm the chief of our neuropalliative care service, I'm the director of our Palliative Care Research Center, and I'm also the founding president of the International Neuropalliative Care Society. Dr Berkowitz: Wow, that is a large number of hats that you wear in a very important area of palliative care. So, your article is a fantastic article that covers a lot of concepts in palliative care that I myself was not familiar with and really applies them in a very nuanced way to patients with Parkinson's disease and related disorders. So, I'm looking forward to learning from you today to discuss some of the concepts you talk about in the article and how you apply them in your daily practice of palliative care in this particular patient population. So, one of the key points in your article is that we're often so focused on treating the motor symptoms of Parkinson's disease and other degenerative movement disorders that we are often at risk of underdiagnosing and undertreating the nonmotor symptoms, which in some cases, as you mentioned in the article, are more disabling to the patient than the motor symptoms that we tend to focus on. So, from a palliative care perspective, what are some of the nonmotor symptoms that you find tend to be underdiagnosed and undertreated in this patient population? Dr Kluger: The literature suggests---and we've replicated it, actually, Lisa Schulman published a paper twenty-five years ago and the data is almost exactly the same when it comes to things like depression, pain, fatigue, constipation, sleep---that you miss it about 50% of the time. And there's a number of reasons for that. One is that these are subjects that people don't always like to talk about. People don't like talking about depression. People don't like talking about poop and constipation. And I think there are things that neither the patient or the caregiver nor the physician are necessarily comfortable with. And they're also sometimes confusing of, which doctor should I talk to this about? Should I talk to my primary care doctor, should I talk to my neurologist? And so I think the key here is really having a checklist and being proactive about it. In the article, I suggest a template or previsit questionnaire that you can use, but I think it's just about being automatic about it. And it just takes the burden off of the patient and the family to bring them up and letting them know that this is a safe space and this is the right space to talk about these symptoms. Dr Berkowitz: That's very helpful to know. So, having some type of checklist or template just so we go all through them and, as you said, it sort of destigmatizes, just, this is the list of things, and I'm going to just ask about all of them. So we check in on those particular symptoms, whether they're present or not. Are there any particular symptoms that jump out to you as ones that tend to be missed---either because we don't ask about them or patients are less comfortable mentioning them---that in your practice, when you've elicited them, have allowed for particular intervention that's really improved the quality of life for patients in this group? Dr Kluger: Yeah, I'll mention a few that I think come up and are very pertinent. One is mood. And, to use depression---but we could also use anxiety as an example---again, these are topics that people don't always want to talk about. And I think it's important---we may get to this a little bit more later---is being careful to distinguish between depression and grief, sadness, normal worry, frustration. A lot of times the way I'll ask that when I'm talking to a patient is, you know, I hear you're using the word depressed. I want to make sure. does this feel to you like normal sadness given that you have an illness that sucks, or does this really feel like it's above and beyond that and you feel like you'd need a little extra help to get your emotions under control? The second one, which is kind of related, is other behavioral symptoms, including PD psychosis and hallucinations. And there, I think, the thing is that people are quite frankly afraid that they're losing their mind or going insane. So, I think that's another critical one. And then one that, you know, it's kind of a low-hanging fruit but people don't want to talk about, is constipation. And when we did our large randomized control trial of palliative care, our single biggest effect size was actually that we did a better job of treating constipation than usual care. And I think the only trick there is that we asked about it. Dr Berkowitz: I see. So, do you then as part of your routine practice and seeing these patients with Parkinson's disease in particular, you have a particular checklist you go through during the appointment or, as you mentioned, you- one could do it before the appointment. But you tend to go through this in the visit, and is there any palliative care wisdom you have for us, those who are not trained in palliative care, to making sure we really elicit these symptoms in an effective way and how much they're bothering the patient? Dr Kluger: Two things that I've seen work---and we've done a lot of implementation studies. One is that, if it works for your practice, having patients fill out a questionnaire or survey in advance. And I think one of the highest-yield things there too is for blank lines to allow patients to write in what their top three problems are. And I've found when we've used it, and I think other people have found, that it's a huge time saver. People hand them the form, they look to see what's at checked a yes or what's checked as high, and then that becomes the agenda for the visit. The other thing that I think works equally well is just having a template, and at this point its just kind of, like, hard-wired into my neurons that, you know, no matter what we talked about in the HPI, I'll always ask about sleep and mood and bowel and bladder and pain to make sure that I don't miss those things. Dr Berkowitz: You mentioned in your article that palliative care needs in patients with Parkinson's disease really differ over the course of the illness and may be different at the time the initial diagnosis is given versus as the disease progresses versus the latest, most advanced stages of the disease. Can you talk a little bit more about how your approach to these patients changes over time from a palliative care perspective? Dr Kluger: Yes. And I'll also add, I think some of this is going to be more relevant to our listeners than to me. I'm now almost entirely in a neuropalliative care clinic, but for early-stage illness, it's really primary palliative care. And just to reinforce, this is palliative care that's provided by neurologists and primary care doctors, not specialist palliative care. I think that mindset's particularly important around the time of diagnosis. One of the things that, for me, was most eye-opening when we were doing qualitative interviews and studies was how devastating the diagnosis of Parkinson's disease was for patients and their families. And that was not something that I really anticipated. I think, like a lot of people and a lot of movement disorder doctors, I kind of thought of Parkinson's disease as a relatively good-news diagnosis. And that was often the way I pitched it, and we talked about Sinemet and DBS and exercise and all these things, but I have a relativity bias. And that bias is, I know that Parkinson's is better than PSP or MSA or brain cancer. But for the individual getting that diagnosis, that's it's not good news because their relativity bias is, I didn't have Parkinson's before and now I do. And for the rest of my life I'm going to have Parkinson's. And for the rest of my life, there may be things that I can do today that I won't be able to do tomorrow or next week. And so that was… yeah. And I think it really changed my practice and was pretty eye-opening for me. In the article, I mentioned the SPIKES (S-P-I-K-E-S) protocol for talking about serious conversations or talking about bad news. But I think one of the keys there for the time of diagnosis is asking people about their perceptions of Parkinson's. And part of that's also asking them what they know and what they're worried about. And you may be surprised that when you ask somebody about Parkinson's, you know, sometimes they may say it was good news. It's been three years, I've been trying to find an answer, and I feel like I've been being blown off. And sometimes you might say, this is the thing I feared the most. My uncle died of Parkinson's in a nursing home. And I also find that more often than not, even in end-of-life, that a lot of times the serious illness conversations I have, the facts that I have to present people, are better than their fears. And that's true at the time of diagnosis. But I think if we don't go into it and we don't ask people what they're feeling and what their perceptions are, then we miss this opportunity to support them. So that's the early stage. And in midstage, I think the, you know, the real keys there are to catch nonmotor symptoms early, to catch things like pain and depression and constipation before they become really bad or even lead to a hospital stay. And also starting to plant the seed and maybe doing some advanced care planning so that we are- people feel more prepared for the end stages of Parkinson's. And I think there, too, people ask about the future; when we tell them everyone's different or you don't have to worry about that now, that doesn't help an individual very much. So, oftentimes in the middle stages of the illness, people do want to know, am I going to go to a nursing home? How much longer is this going to be? You don't need a crystal ball, but if you can give people the best case, the worst case, the most likely case, that can be very helpful for life planning. And then as we're getting to more advanced and endstage, the lens that I'm looking at people with really is, should we begin talking about hospice? And we know again, from data that as a system---not just neurologists, but as a system---we're missing this all the time. And that if you have Parkinson's disease, you're about 50% chance of dying in a hospital, which is not where people want to die. And so, when I see people with more advanced disease, I'm asking questions about weight loss, and are they sleeping more during the day, and is there an acceleration in their decline of function? So, not just asking about where they are, but what's the rate of decline so that I can give people months of hospice as opposed to either them dying in a hospital or just scrambling for hospice in the last few days of their life. Dr Berkowitz: Another important palliative care concept you discussed in this article that was new to me is the concept of total pain, where you talk about aspects of pain beyond the physical and emotional pain we often think of when we hear the word pain. Can you talk a little bit about this concept of total pain, and then in particular how you apply it specifically when caring for patients with Parkinson's disease and related disorders? Dr Kluger: Yeah, absolutely. In the article there's a figure, and this is a- one of the foundational concepts of palliative care is this idea of total pain. Which is that the pain of a serious illness, whether that be cancer or Parkinson's, is not simply physical. There's also emotional components. And that also goes beyond the psychiatric. So, that includes grief and worry and frustration, and it also includes loneliness. And I think with Parkinson's disease, actually, one of one of the quotes that really sticks with me from some of our qualitative interviews was a woman who talked about her Parkinson's as a "flamboyant illness" because her tremor and her dyskinesias were always coming out at inopportune times. And it wasn't something I thought about, but there's this cosmetic aspect of having a movement disorder. There's also a cosmetic aspect of drooling or of using a walker. And so, there is a social stigma associated with Parkinson's, and people also lose a lot of social capital. Part of that is that often times neighbors and friends and family don't feel comfortable being around that person anymore. They don't know what to say. And so, sometimes coaching or connecting them with a chaplain or a counselor can be helpful in maintaining those social networks. There's a social pain. There's a spiritual and existential pain. And when I ask people a question, I ask almost everybody, is, what's the toughest part of this for you? A lot of times things fall into that bucket. And it's my loss of independence. I'm no longer able to do the things that bring me joy. I feel guilty that I'm going to be a burden to my family. My relationships are changing. So those are things that are essentially spiritual and existential. And then the last bucket, there are logistical things. And this can be lost driving and how do I get around, the cost of doctor visits, spending time with doctors, co-pays for medications; in the case of Parkinson's disease, the logistics of taking medication every two to three hours. So those all contribute to the total pain or the multiple dimensions of suffering. And that is something that I think about---in fact, in our assessment and plan, one of the things I like to mark out is sources of suffering. And that could be from any of those parts of the pie chart. Dr Berkowitz: And how do you approach this at the bedside? So, there are different concepts here. Obviously, physical pain, everyone is familiar with probably the concept of emotional pain. But as you get out in these concentric circles into sort of spiritual, existential pain, how do you sort of start these discussions with patients to elicit some of these aspects of their suffering? Dr Kluger: You know, the most common question I ask is, what's the toughest part of this for you? And very often that's going to lead into these existential and spiritual issues. I'll also ask people at the start of visits is, just tell me overall, big picture, how's your quality of life? Sometimes the answer is pretty good. Sometimes it sucks. Sometimes it's I have none. I know we're going to talk a little bit about joy later. But I'll also often times follow that up with, what do you enjoy or look forward to? And sometimes I get a response to that, and sometimes I get there's nothing in my life right now. But foundationally, I feel like those are all, you know, definitely spiritual and existential issues. And I'll ask people, too, where do you find meaning? What are your sources of support? I know for different physicians, people have different comfort with this, but I do find it helpful also to ask people, are you spiritual or religious? Because that can sometimes open up a window to other means of coping. An example of that---I mean, not everybody is going to have access to a chaplain. Some people will. But oftentimes one of the things that I do is encourage people to reconnect with their spiritual community. And so, I've had some very heartwarming winds where somebody would say, you know what, I haven't been to church for a while. And people at churches or synagogues or mosques are often looking for opportunities to help. And so that I think is another, I think, really important message. But I think one of the- my favorite parts of my job is kind of opening up these bridges and opening up these connections. And helping people to recognize, I would kind of put it under a larger practice of grace, is that asking for help can be a gift to another person. And if you're strong enough to ask for help, you're giving, you know, sometimes a really tremendous gift to another individual. If somebody has a strong community that they're connected with, doesn't have to be religious. it could be that they were a high school sports coach, it could be that they were involved in a book club, it could be that they were DJ or ran a restaurant or who knows what. Those all can provide opportunities for bringing people together and bringing together community. And again, thinking about the total pain of having a neurologic illness like Parkinson's, that loss of community, that loss of connection, is one of the things that's most painful. Dr Berkowitz: So, when people think about palliative care, they tend to think about pain and suffering and a lot of the topics we've been talking about. But you also talk about joy in your article, and you alluded to it a moment ago, working with your patients to find what brings them joy, opportunities for joy. As I was reading this, I was trying to imagine sitting across from a patient who has maybe just received the diagnosis of Parkinson's or is in a stage of the disease where, as you mentioned, they might be quite depressed, whether that's capital-D depression or sadness related to their loss of independence and other aspect. Sitting across from a patient who is suffering so much and has come maybe to a palliative care doctor such as yourself to alleviate suffering and have pain and other symptoms addressed, how do you begin a conversation about joy in that context and have the patient feel comfortable to open up? And how do you then use that conversation to help them improve their quality of life? Dr Kluger: Yeah, that's a great question. And it's one that actually comes up every time I talk about joy because it can be daunting. And there certainly are situations where I don't bring it up. You know, if we are deep into a session about grief or we're talking about kind of an unexpected bad turn of events, there's times where it would be insensitive to try to push, you know, an agenda of joy or something like that. And yet I would say that particularly residents and students who work with me, you know, may be surprised at how often I do bring it up. And I would say it's probably 95% of the time or more where I am able to talk about joy. And as an example, you know, we might be talking about grief and loss and changes in independence. And then I would say, you know, I want to make sure that we have time to talk about this, and we'll connect you to our chaplain or counselors so that you can talk about and process your grief. And at the same time, I want to make sure that we don't lose sight that there are still opportunities for joy and love and meaning in your life. And I want to make sure that we make space and time to talk about those things too. So, it's creating that balance. That's a transition that, even when you're on a very heavy subject---in fact, I would say maybe even particularly when you're getting into a heavy subject---that you can talk about joy and love and meaning. I gave a talk at the American Academy of Neurology a few years ago where I referred to them as weapons that you can use against some curable illnesses. One example is, my approach to chronic pain often centers around joy. So, I'll have somebody who comes in with back pain. My goal with that person is not for them to take Percocet four times a day to eliminate their back pain. When I talk to that person, I may find out that their grandson's soccer games and boxing class are the two most important things in their life. So maybe we take Percocet three or four times a week a half-hour before those activities so that you can get that joy back in your life. And so, we kind of use joy as a way and as a goal to reclaim those parts of your life that are most important to you. So, that's a pretty concrete example. Even for people nearing end of life, it could be giving people permission to eat more of their favorite food, often times ice creams, milkshakes---which is great, because we want people to gain weight at that point. Getting out into nature, even if they can't hike or do things the way they used to, that they might be able to go out with their family. Having simple touch, spending time together, really trying to prioritize what's most important. In the article, we talk about the total joy of life or the total enjoyment of living. But I like to be systematic about thinking about opportunities for living and make sure that we're just as systematic about thinking about what are the opportunities for joy as we are about thinking about the sources of suffering. Dr Berkowitz: I'm sure I only sort of scratched the surface of palliative care in general, let alone specifically related to Parkinson's disease and other related disorders. For our listeners who may be interested in learning more about neuropalliative care specifically or getting a little more training in this, any recommendations? Dr Kluger: Yeah, absolutely. Thanks for asking me that. There is a growing community of people interested in neuropalliative care, and so I would really encourage people who are passionate about this and want to get connected to this community to consider joining the International Neuropalliative Care Society. We're a young and growing community. I think you'll find a lot of like-minded individuals. And whether you're thinking about going into neuropalliative care as a specialty or doing a fellowship or just making it more a part of your practice, you'll find a lot of like-minded individuals. And then at the end of the article, there are some websites, but there are opportunities: for example, Vital Talk, the education palliative and end-of-life care neurology curriculum out of Northwestern, where people can dig deeper and kind of do their own mini-fellowship to try to bolster these skills. Dr Berkowitz: Gives, certainly, me a lot to think about. I'm sure it gives our listeners a lot to think about as well in implementing some of the palliative care concepts you tell us about today and discuss in much more detail in your article as we see these patients and, hopefully, can refer them to talented expert colleagues like yourself in palliative care, but don't always have that opportunity. And as you said, there's always opportunities to be practicing palliative care, even though we're not palliative care specialists. So, I encourage all the listeners to read your article, which goes through these concepts and many more as well some sort of key points and strategies for implementing them as you gave us many examples today. So again, today I've been interviewing Dr Benzi Kluger about his article on neuropalliative care in Parkinson disease and related movement disorders, which is found in the December 2025 Continuum issue on neuropalliative care. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues, and thank you again to our listeners for joining us today. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Dementia is often a highly burdensome disease process for patients, their caregivers and families, and the community at large. Palliating symptoms and providing guidance surrounding advance care planning and prognostication are integral components of the management plan. In this episode, Katie Grouse, MD, FAAN, speaks with Neal Weisbrod, MD, an author of the article "Neuropalliative Care in Dementia" in the Continuum® December 2025 Neuropalliative Care issue. Dr. Grouse is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a clinical assistant professor at the University of California San Francisco in San Francisco, California. Dr. Weisbrod is a neurologist at Hartford Healthcare with the Ayer Neuroscience Institute in Mystic, Conneticut. Additional Resources Read the article: Neuropalliative Care in Dementia Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Grouse: This is Dr Katie Grouse. Today I'm interviewing Dr Neal Weisbrod about his article on neuropalliative care in dementia, which appears in the December 2025 Continuum issue on neuropalliative care. Welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to our audience.  Dr Weisbrod: Thank you. I'm really excited to be here. I'm Neal Weisbrod. I'm a neurologist and palliative care physician currently working at Hartford Healthcare in Mystic, Connecticut. Dr Grouse: To start, I'd like to ask why you think it's important that neurologists read your article? Dr Weisbrod: The primary reason I think it's really important to read the article is because these are just really common problems that neurologists run into in clinical practice. So, Alzheimer disease and many other dementias are extremely common, and managing the burdensome symptoms and the complex discussions that we have to have with the patients and their families as they go through the course of dementia is something that is very common in clinical practice. And so my hope is that by reading this article, clinicians will pick up a few tools, a few new ideas for how to make these conversations easier and for how to help these patients get through the disease with a little bit less suffering. Dr Grouse: I learned a lot from reading your article, and I really encourage our listeners to check it out. But I was curious what you feel that you discussing your article would come as the biggest surprise to our listeners? Dr Weisbrod: So, I think that the most surprising thing a lot of people will see reading this article is the section on prognosis. A lot of times it seems families are counseled, when they're talking about the prognosis of Alzheimer disease, that it could be ten years or longer. But really, the data show that for many patients, the median prognosis is closer to three to eight years. And that is a little bit longer for Alzheimer disease than many other types of dementia, but also gets significantly shorter as patients get older. So, we're looking at a closer to three-year median prognosis for patients who are over eighty-five, whereas patients in their sixties are probably closer to the eight or nine-year median prognosis. And so I think that piece will hopefully help people give a little bit more accurate counseling about prognosis.  Dr Grouse: I'm glad you brought that up because I was wondering, why is it so important that we are careful to make sure that we're giving prognostic information for our patients and maybe even updating it as their clinical status changes? Dr Weisbrod: I think first of all, it's a really common thing that patients and families are thinking about and worried about. They don't necessarily always seem to ask as much as they want to know. I think there's a lot of fear around that conversation, even though it's really important. And then there's also often tension between the family and caregivers tend to want to know more than patients do. I think that it really helps people plan for the future as well as possible to know what their future might be. And we have a lot of limitations in predicting the future, but using the best information we can, laying out what we think the likely range is, allows people to make a lot more clear plans for their future. Dr Grouse: I'd imagine it's also pretty helpful for hospice referrals, too, having that data.  Dr Weisbrod: Yeah, definitely. And there's a lot of angst about when to refer patients who have dementia to hospice. The most important thing I think about when I'm making a hospice referral is that I don't have to be right. And I think it takes a lot of that concern off to just say, all I'm doing is making a connection, getting someone who's potentially interested in the hospice, who has a really advanced serious illness connected to a hospice agency. And then they can go through the full evaluation with the hospice and the hospice medical director and determine whether they're eligible. So, I think there are really helpful thresholds to think about that would be a good trigger. Like a patient who we think has advanced dementia, who has a hospitalization for pneumonia or a fracture of the hip or some other really serious acute medical condition, I think is a really good trigger to start to think about hospice. But most importantly, it's just the connection, and I tell the patients that upfront. I tell them that you're going to have a conversation and we'll decide whether you're a good fit, and if not, the hospice will usually just check in with you over time and decide when is the right time in the future. Dr Grouse: That's really helpful. And I think just a really great reminder to our listeners about thinking about hospice sooner or at certain critical points in their patient care rather than waiting, maybe, before it's gone on too long and may be of less use later on. I was wondering, in your own clinical practice, what do you think is the most challenging aspect of providing care to patients with dementia?  Dr Weisbrod: I think this one's easy. I would say managing the time has to be the most difficult part. I think that taking care of patients who have dementia is time-consuming. There's a lot of different priorities that we have to manage the time around. How much time are we going to spend doing cognitive testing? How much time are we going to spend doing counseling? How much time are we going to spend making up a treatment plan and discussing medications? How much time are we going to spend on advanced care planning? And the way I try to combat that is really just trying to think about what I'm going to prioritize in a certain visit and not try to accomplish everything. I'll tell patients and their families, the next time you come in, we're going to have a conversation focusing on advanced care planning. Or, the next time you come in, we're going to sit down and try to talk through all the questions you have about what the future might hold. That way I in that visit, I don't feel like, oh, I have to do updated cognitive testing and I have to review all the next steps in medication, and that allows me to take it in more bite-sized chunks. Dr Grouse: You made some of the great points, and specifically you mentioned advanced care planning. Your article makes a really strong case for the importance of advanced care planning, yet you definitely acknowledge the many barriers to initiating discussions that clinicians face. In your patients with dementia, can you walk us through how you integrate discussions about advanced care planning with your patients and their families?  Dr Weisbrod: Yeah, I think this is still something that is evolving in my practice, and I don't think there's any perfect way of doing it. I think there's a lot of right ways of doing it, and as long as we're thinking about it a lot and bringing it up periodically, that's probably the best. What I try to do, though, is after I discuss what I think is the most likely diagnosis with patients and their families, I try to have a fairly close follow-up visit after that. Allow them to digest that information, to often do a little bit of their own research, to talk about it as a family. And then when they come in for that next appointment, I try to at least lay some groundwork about advanced care planning, asking them what they've completed already, and then based on what they've already done to that point, talking to them about what I think the next step would be. If they have done nothing, usually it's just, hey, I really think you should start to think about who would be making decisions for you if you lose the ability to make your own decisions and counsel them about power of attorney paperwork and establishing a healthcare surrogate. When it's patients who have already done some of that initial prep, I think that it's really important to keep in mind it's a longitudinal discussion and you can take it in small pieces over time. Often that helps because you can really establish that rapport and that trust. And then I like to just keep checking in whenever there's major changes in the patient's health or condition, like admission to the hospital or transfer to an assisted living facility or memory care clinic. Those are good times to remember, hey, I really need to revisit this conversation.  Dr Grouse: It's probably good to also mention another really important point from your article, which was that impairment of decision-making in patients with dementia can actually start significantly even in the phase of mild cognitive impairment. Yet these patients will need to make many medical decisions with their neurologist as they go through this journey. How can we make sure our patients have capacity and make decisions appropriately regarding their care? Dr Weisbrod: Yeah, I think that's a definite challenge of taking care of patients with cognitive disorders of any type, including those with stroke and multiple sclerosis, that have some cognitive impairment. In my opinion, the most important way to help manage that is to make sure when we are making important decisions about the future that we're having a deep exploration of the values and the reasoning behind that. And definitely teach back is the most helpful way that I use to explore those values and the logic behind patients' decisions. So, I think we have to have a really low threshold to move on to a formal evaluation of capacity; if there's any inconsistency between what the patient's saying now and what their families say they've said in the past, or if they're having struggled to come up with a really clear logic behind their decision, then I think we have to have a low threshold to move on to a formal evaluation of capacity. So, I think having the family involved, having other people who know the patient really well, usually helps identify some of those periods where it seems like the patient's not making the decision that really reflects their true wishes. Dr Grouse: Now I wanted to switch gears a little bit and get into the management of neuropsychiatric symptoms, which you spend a lot of time on and I think a lot of neurologists find very challenging. What are some nonpharmacologic approaches that can help patients with significant neuropsychiatric symptoms?  Dr Weisbrod: I really like the DICE paradigm for coming up with nonpharmacologic approaches. The DICE paradigm is an acronym. The D is Describe, I is Investigate, C is Create, and E is Evaluate. The idea is that we're exploring what's happening behind the symptoms, we're creating a plan to intervene, and then we're evaluating the outcome of that plan and creating a sort of feedback loop there. But ultimately, I think, when we're creating a solution, thinking about how we can change the environment is the most important thing. We have very limited ability to change the way that someone who has severe cognitive dysfunction reacts to their environment, but we can often change the environment to not produce that reaction in the first place. One example is with wandering behaviors. Trying to change the environment where you put locks that don't have deadbolts that you can use on the inside of the house, you have to have a key on the inside of the house, and then the family can put that key somewhere safe where the patient is not likely to find it and be able to unlock the door and wander out unsafely. I also think it's really important to acknowledge that as doctors, we are maybe not the best people to always have the answer when it comes to changing a patient's environment. And so, I think we really need to rely on the wisdom of support groups and other people who are going through the challenge of dementia. Our interdisciplinary care teams like social workers and nurses who have experience in managing dementia, and really try to plug the caregivers into as many of these avenues as possible so that they can learn from all of that community of wealth and not always rely on the doctor to have the answer. Dr Grouse: Switching gears to pharmacologic management, which is a lot of what we do for patients as neurologists. Thinking about agitation, pharmacologic management of agitation can be very challenging. And reading your article, it reminds me how disheartening it is to reflect and how modest the effect of the available options are, along with the many potential risks of their use, When nonpharmacologic interventions fail, what should neurologists recommend for their patients with agitation? Dr Weisbrod: Yeah, I definitely agree. It's every time I go back and look at this literature and look at what's new, it is a bit disheartening. But even in the face of all that, I really feel like SSRIs are my first-line therapy for most of these patients. I always try to ask myself what might be causing the patient discomfort that they are then manifesting as agitation because they don't have a better way of expressing themselves. Often, I feel like that's anxiety or depression or some other psychological symptom that we might be able to address with an SSRI. So, I tend to use sertraline and escitalopram, start those early and as long as patients are tolerating it, give it a really good trial. Outside of that, escalating to other pharmacologic approaches, even though there's such controversy in the data about antipsychotics and even though there are very real risks, sometimes I think we essentially do need a chemical sedative. And I think that it's important to have a very frank conversation upfront with the caregivers and the medical decision maker for that patient. Make sure we are counseling them on the risk, the increased risk of mortality, and also to make it a time-limited trial. So, I think that saying we're going to try this medication (if the patient's decision maker agrees, obviously) for a month or two months or three months. But I definitely wouldn't want them to just have an open-ended plan where they're going to stay on it indefinitely. It should have some end point where we say, hey, is this working or not? And if it's working, then we'd make a decision, is the improvement in quality of life worth the risks? And if we're not seeing that improvement, then we definitely need to stop it. Dr Grouse: That seems very reasonable. And then thinking more towards some of the other types of symptoms that can be really challenging, I was really surprised to see how often uncontrolled pain is a significant contributor in patients with dementia. And certainly, both uncontrolled pain and poor sleep can worsen cognitive function and neuropsychiatric symptoms in general. But of course, there's ongoing concerns about side effects of these therapies and how they can also potentially worsen things. How should we be approaching management of pain and insomnia or poor sleep in these patients?  Dr Weisbrod: I think the key is just to start with really low burden treatments and escalate carefully and start with low doses of higher risk medications. So, when I think the low burden treatments for pain, scheduling acetaminophen, 1000 milligrams every eight hours, seems like a trivial thing to do, maybe? But it's actually surprising how much scheduled acetaminophen can take the edge off of pain and might be able to avoid some of these flare-ups of neuropsychiatric symptoms, may be able to really improve that pain a little bit. I do think it really has to be scheduled, though. Trying to rely on patients who have significant cognitive dysfunction to use a PRN medication is going to lead to a lot of problems and undertreatment. And then on the sleep disorder side, I think starting with low-dose Trazodone and gradually increasing the dose of Trazodone as a really safe way of initially approaching the insomnia. And then only when it's a more refractory case do I reach for the high-risk medications. Like for pain, we're talking about opiates. I think there's a lot of very reasonable concern about using opioids in patients who have cognitive dysfunction. But if there is a really good reason to think that they have severe pain, like they have a past pain disorder, I think that just like with antipsychotics, there are definitely real risks to these medications. But at the end of the day, if we are improving someone's quality of life dramatically and the patient's medical decision maker is willing to take on those risks, then we're really doing the patients a favor. Dr Grouse: Now, another issue that you mentioned in your article, which I see a lot and often struggle with myself, is how and when to deprescribe certain types of medications such as cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine. Any tips or tricks to how to approach this?  Dr Weisbrod: My approach to this has also evolved a bit over the years. The new data that cholinesterase inhibitors may have a mortality benefit in patients with Alzheimer disease has changed my thinking a little bit. But there are still lots of situations where it's just too burdensome or patients seem to be having side effects. And so, I think about deprescribing. The most important thing in my mind is really thorough counseling before deprescribing with the patient's family and medical decision maker. I think that letting them know that we might actually be holding things more stable with the medication than we realize, there could be a flare-up, that we can resume the medication if that flare-up happens but we don't always guarantee getting back to the same point. I think having that conversation ahead of time will ward off some of the worst issues that you have afterwards. And then I think doing a taper of cholinesterase inhibitors over two weeks to a month is probably the most prudent because of some of the data about withdrawal and exacerbation of neuropsychiatric symptoms or cognitive worsening. Memantine, I think the data is a lot more shaky on withdrawal. And so, I think it's less important to gradually taper memantine. But I think that once again, just having the conversation upfront and letting the family know these are the things we have to look out for and these are the risks is going to be the most important. Dr Grouse: That's really helpful and a great strategy to take advantage of. Another, I think, really difficult topic that I wanted to ask you about was the discussion around nutrition and whether or not to consider putting in some type of a permanent tube for tube feeds. How do you approach that conversation? Certainly a difficult one.  Dr Weisbrod: Yeah, I think it's easily one of the most difficult conversations to have in the care of patients who have dementia. And there's so much emotion in the families when they're having this discussion. And I think really acknowledging there's a huge emotional piece of the conversation is one key piece. For families and caregivers, they're thinking, I don't want my loved one to starve to death. That's usually the most important thing in their mind. We have to address that concern in the conversation, or they're never going to get to a point of satisfaction with the decision that's being made. So, I think while there is still some controversy in the literature about artificial nutrition for patients who have dementia, the bulk of data indicates that it is not helpful for patients. It may exacerbate dementia, it leads to more restraint. And so, I think unless there's some reversible medical condition that we're just trying to do artificial nutrition to get them through, like, they have a stroke and we're expecting that their dysphasia is going to improve because of the stroke is going to heal. Those situations might be a good reason, but if we really think that the driving factor behind their dysphasia is their dementia, I think we should be guiding the families away from that. And I think that explaining that as dementia gets really advanced, the body is slowly shutting down. The body is not needing as much nutrition, and forcing more nutrition in has not been shown to help people who have dementia. Really putting it in that sort of language is going to help the families understand and be comfortable with that decision. I also think that it's really helpful to consider talking to families about what they can do and not have the entire conversation be about what we're not doing or not putting in a feeding tube for artificial nutrition. So, I think really good counseling about, we can do comfort feeding, we can expand what food we're giving the person who has dementia and really focus on foods that they really enjoy and not worry so much about the health and nutrition anymore. I think that focus on what they can take control of can also help make the decision easier for families.  Dr Grouse: I really like that approach. And I agree, it does seem that it being such an emotional decision with just so much a concern about this underlying feeling of not caring for their family member. I think that is a really great way to look at it  and to kind of start off that conversation. Now, I'd love to hear more about what drew you to this field when you first got into your career as a neurologist. Dr Weisbrod: I had an interesting journey to doing neuropalliative care. Definitely didn't know that's what I was going to do when I started neurology residency. At University of Rochester, we had amazing palliative care physicians that were involved in medical school, and so I got a little bit of exposure to it early on. Then when I was in neurology residency, I first of all realized that I really enjoyed making sure that what we were doing respected a patient's wishes. And so, as other people seemed to run away from those conversations, I was really drawn to them. And so that definitely made me realize that that might be more of the right field for me. But also, as I went through neurology residency, I really discovered that I love so many different things in neurology, and that made me not want to subspecialize and focus on a narrower set of conditions in neurology. So, doing palliative care fellowship was a really good way of getting a specialist tool set and expanding my knowledge in one area, but staying a neurologist, generalist. And I think it also really enhances a lot of the other things I do in neurology. It gives me a lot of additional skills on how to counsel patients and how to prepare for the future in general. I think there's a lot about just good bedside manner in palliative care education. I feel like it helped me become a better neurologist, and I decided that I really loved the palliative care piece as well.  Dr Grouse: Well, we're certainly all grateful that you found this aspect of your career and have been able to share the skills you've honed with us as well. And we really appreciate you taking the time to talk with us about your excellent article today, which I encourage everybody to read.  Dr Weisbrod: Yeah, thank you. It's been wonderful to be on, and I hope that people can take away a few small points from the article. Dr Grouse: Again, today I've been interviewing Dr Neal Weisbrod about his article on neuropalliative care in dementia, which appears in the December 2025 Continuum issue on neuropalliative care. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues, and thank you to our listeners for joining today. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Careful assessment and individualized care, provided by a skilled multidisciplinary care team, are emphasized in the holistic approach to neuropalliative care, which considers physical, psychological, social, spiritual, and existential aspects for people with neuromuscular diseases. In this episode, Gordon Smith, MD, FAAN, speaks with David J. Oliver, PhD, FRCP, FRCGP, FEAN, author of the article "Neuropalliative Care in Neuromuscular Disorders" in the Continuum® December 2025 Neuropalliative Care issue. Dr. Smith is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a professor and chair of neurology at Kenneth and Dianne Wright Distinguished Chair in Clinical and Translational Research at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia. Dr. Oliver is an honorary professor of Tizard Centre at the University of Kent in Canterbury, United Kingdom. Additional Resources Read the article: Neuropalliative Care in Neuromuscular Disorders Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @gordonsmithMD Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Smith: Hello, this is Dr Gordon Smith. Today I've got the great pleasure of interviewing Dr David Oliver about his article on neuropalliative care and neuromuscular disorders, which appears in the December 2025 Continuum issue on neuropalliative care. David, welcome to the Continuum podcast, and please introduce yourself to our audience. Dr Oliver: Thank you. It's a pleasure and a privilege to be here. I'm a retired consultant in palliative medicine in the UK. I worked at the Wisdom Hospice in Rochester for over thirty years, and I'm also an honorary professor at the University of Kent in Canterbury in the UK. I've had a long interest in palliative care in neurological diseases. Hopefully we can talk about a bit later. Dr Smith: I really look forward to learning a little bit more about your path and experiences. But I wonder if, before we get into the meat of neuropalliative care with a focus on neuromuscular, if maybe you can kind of set the stage by just defining palliative care. I mean, my experience is that people think of this in different ways, and a lot of folks think- hear palliative care, and they immediately go to end-of-life care or comfort care. So, what- how should we think about maybe the discipline of palliative care or neuropalliative care? Dr Oliver: I see palliative care as very much responding to people's needs, whether that's physical needs, psychological needs, social or spiritual or existential. So, it can be much earlier in the disease progression. And I think particularly for neurological diseases, early involvement may be very important. Dr Smith: That was actually going to be my first substantive question, really, was when to begin the conversation and what does that look like and how does it evolve over time. You have a really great figure in the article that kind of emphasizes the various stages within a patient's journey that, you know, palliative care can become involved. But I wonder if you could use ALS as a good example and describe what that looks like from when a patient is first diagnosed with ALS through their course? Dr Oliver: I think particularly in ALS at the beginning, soon after diagnosis, someone may have a lot of distress and a lot of questions that they need answering. This is a disease they've not had any contact with before. And they don't understand what's going on, they don't understand the disease. So, there may be a great need to have the opportunity to talk about the disease, what may happen, what is happening, how it's going to affect them and their family. As think time goes on, there may be later they develop swallowing problems, and that will need to be talking about a feeding tube and gastrostomy. And again, there may be a lot of issues for the person and their family. As they deteriorate, they may have respiratory problems and need to have discussion about ventilatory support, either by PAP, noninvasive ventilation, or even tracheostomy. And again, I think that's a big issue that needs wide discussion. And then it may be at the final few months of the disease, where they are deteriorating, that they may have increased needs, and their families may have those needs after the death. And I think often families bereaved from someone with a neurological disease such as ALS need a great deal of support, having many mixed emotions. There may be a feeling of relief that they're not involved in that caring, but then a feeling of guilt that they shouldn't be having those feelings. So, I think that can happen over a period of… what with ALS it may be two, three, four years, but it may be similar changes over time with any patient with a neurological disease. It may be ten or fifteen years with Parkinson's or five to ten years with a progressive supranuclear palsy, but there'll be this similar need to look at palliative care during their disease progression. Dr Smith: So, I'm curious at the time of diagnosis of ALS, how far out in the future do you provide information? So a specific question would be, do you talk about end-of-life management? In my experience, ALS patients are sometimes interested in knowing about that. Or do you really focus on what's in front of you in the next three to six months, for instance? Dr Oliver: I think it's both. Obviously, we need to talk about the next three to six months, but often giving patients the opportunity to talk about what's going to happen in the future, what may happen at the end of life, I think is important. And I think a disease like ALS, if they look it up on the Internet, they may have a lot of very distressing entries there. There's a lot about how distressing dying with ALS is. And actually confront those and discuss those issues early is really important. Dr Smith: So of course, the other thing that comes up immediately with an ALS diagnosis---or, for that matter, with any other neurodegenerative problem---is prognosis. Do you have guidance and how our listeners who are giving a diagnosis of ALS or similar disorder should approach the prognostication discussion? Dr Oliver: It's often very difficult. Certainly in the UK, people may have- be a year into their disease from their first symptoms before they're diagnosed, and I've seen figures, that's similar across the world. So, people may be actually quite way through their disease progression, but I do think we have to remember that the figures show that at five years, 25% of people are still alive, and 5 to 10% are still alive at ten years. We mustn't say you are going to die in the next two or three years, because that may not be so. And I think to have the vagueness but also the opportunity to talk, that we are talking of a deterioration over time and we don't know how that will be for you. I always stress how individual I think ALS is for patients. Dr Smith: One of the other concepts that is familiar with anyone who does ALS and clearly comes through in your article---which is really outstanding, by the way. So, thank you and congratulations for that---is the importance of multidisciplinary teams. Can you talk a little bit about how neuropalliative care sits within a multidisciplinary care model? Dr Oliver: I think the care should be multidisciplinary. Certainly in the UK, we recommended multidisciplinary team care for ALS in particular, from the time of diagnosis. And I think palliative care should be part of that multidisciplinary team. It may be a member of the team who has that palliative care experience or someone with specialist experience. Because I think the important thing is that everyone caring for someone with ALS or other neuromuscular diseases should be providing palliative care to some extent: listening to people, discussing their goals, managing their symptoms. And a specialist may only be needed if those are more complicated or particularly difficult. So, I think it is that the team needs to work together to support people and their families. So, looking at the physical aspects where the physiotherapist or occupational therapist may be very important, the psychologicals are a counsellor or psychologist. The social aspects, most of our patients are part of wider families, and we need to be looking at supporting their carers and within their family as well as the person. And so that may involve social work and other professionals. And the spiritual, the why me, their fears about the future, may involve a spiritual counsellor or a chaplain or, if appropriate, a religious leader appropriate to that- for that person. So, I think it is that wider care provided by the team. Dr Smith: I'm just reflecting on, again, your earlier answers about the Continuum of neuropalliative care. Knowing your patient is super valuable here. So, having come to know someone through their disease course must pay dividends as you get to some of these harder questions that come up later during the disease progression. Dr Oliver: I think that's the very important use of palliative care from early on in the diagnosis. It's much easier to talk about, perhaps, the existential fears of someone while they can still talk openly. To do that through a communication aid can be very difficult. To talk about someone's fear of death through a communication aid is really very, very difficult. The multidisciplinary team, I think, works well if all the members are talking together. So that perhaps the speech therapist has been to see someone and has noticed their breathing is more difficult, comes back and talks to the doctor and the physiotherapist. The social worker notices the speech is more difficult and comes back and speaks to the speech therapist. So, I think that sort of team where people are working very closely together can really optimize the care. And as you said, knowing the person, and for them to know you and to trust you, I think that's important. Those first times that people meet is so important in establishing trust. And if you only meet people when they're very disabled and perhaps not able to communicate very easily, that's really difficult. Dr Smith: I think you're reading my mind, actually, because I was really interested in talking about communication. And you mentioned a few times in your article about voice banking, which is likely to be a new concept for many of our listeners. And I would imagine the spectrum of tools that are becoming available for augmented communication for patients who have ALS or other disorders that impair speech must be impressive. I wonder if you could give us an update on what the state of the art is in terms of approaching communication. Dr Oliver: Well, I think we all remember Stephen Hawking, the professor from Cambridge, who had a very robotic voice which wasn't his. Now people may have their own voice on a communication aid. I think the use of whether it's a mobile phone or iPad, other computer systems, can actually turn what someone types into their own voice. And voice banking is much easier than it used to be. Only a few years ago, someone would have to read for an hour or two hours so the computer could pick up all the different aspects of their voice. Now it's a few minutes. And it has been even- I've known that people have taken their answer phone off a telephone and used that to produce a voice that is very, very near to the person. So that when someone does type out, the voice that comes out will be very similar to their own. I remember one video of someone who'd done this and they called their dog, and the dog just jumped into the air when he suddenly heard his master's voice for the first time in several months. So, I think it's very dramatic and very helpful for the person, who no longer feels a robot, but also for their family that can recognize their father, their husband, their wife's speech again. Dr Smith: Very humanizing, isn't it? Dr Oliver: There is a stigma of having the robotic voice. And if we can remove that stigma and someone can feel more normal, that would be our aim. Dr Smith: As you've alluded to, and for the large majority---really all of our ALS patients, barring something unexpected---we end up in preparing for death and preparing for end of life. I wonder what advice you have in that process, managing fear of death and working with our patients as they approach the end of their journey. Dr Oliver: I think the most important thing is listening and trying to find what their particular concerns are. And as I said earlier, they may have understood from what they've read in books or the Internet that the death from ALS is very distressing. However, I think we can say there are several studies now from various countries where people have looked at what happens at the end of life for people with ALS. Choking to death, being very distressed, are very, very rare if the symptoms are managed effectively beforehand, preparations are made so that perhaps medication can be given quickly if someone does develop some distress so that it doesn't become a distressing crisis. So, I think we can say that distress at the end of life with ALS is unusual, and probably no different to any other disease group. It's important to make sure that people realize that with good symptom control, with good palliative care, there is a very small risk of choking or of great distress at the end of life. Dr Smith: Now, I would imagine many patients have multiple different types of fear of death; one, process, what's the pain and experience going to be like? But there's also being dead, you know, fear of the end of life. And then this gets into comments you made earlier about spirituality and psychology. How do you- what's your experience in handling that? Because that's a harder problem, it seems, to really provide concrete advice about. Dr Oliver: Yeah. And so, I think it's always important to know when someone says they're frightened of the future, to check whether it is the dying process or after death. I've got no answer for what's going to happen afterwards, but I can listen to what someone may have in their past, their concerns, their experience. You know, is their experience of someone dying their memories of someone screaming in pain in an upstairs bedroom while they were a child? Was their grandfather died? Trying to find out what particular things may be really a problem to them and that we can try and address. But others, we can't answer what's going to happen after death. If someone is particularly wanting to look at that, I think that may be involving a spiritual advisor or their local spiritual/religious leader. But often I think it's just listening and understanding where they are. Dr Smith: So, you brought up bereavement earlier and you discussed it in the article. In my experience is that oftentimes the families are very, very impacted by the journey of ALS. And while ALS patients are remarkably resilient, it's a huge burden on family, loved ones, and their community. Can you talk a bit about the role of palliative care in the bereavement process, maybe preparing for bereavement and then after the loss of their loved one? Dr Oliver: Throughout the disease progression, we need to be supporting the carers as much as we are the patient. They are very much involved. As you said, the burden of care may be quite profound and very difficult for them. So, it's listening, supporting them, finding out what their particular concerns are. Are they frightened about what's going to happen at the end of life as well? Are they concerned of how they're going to cope or how the person's going to cope? And then after the death, it's allowing them to talk about what's happened and how they are feeling now, cause I think having had that enormous input in care, then suddenly everything stops. And also, the support systems they've had for perhaps months of the carers coming in, the doctor, the nurse, the physiotherapist, everyone coming in, they all stop coming. So, their whole social system suddenly stops and becomes much reduced. And I'm afraid certainly in the UK if someone is bereaved, they may not have the contact with their friends and family because they're afraid to come and see them. So, they may become quite isolated and reduced in what they can do. So, I think it's allowing them to discuss what has happened. And I think that's as important sometimes for members of the multidisciplinary team, because we as doctors, nurses and the wider team will also have some aspects of bereavement as we face not seeing that person who we've looked after for many years and perhaps in quite an intensive way. So, we need to be looking at how we support ourselves. And I think that's another important role of the multidisciplinary team. I always remember in our team, sometimes I would say, I find this person really difficult to cope with. And the rest of the people around the team would go have a sigh of relief because they felt the same, but they didn't like to say. And once we could talk about it, we could support each other and work out what we could do to help us help the patient in the most effective way. Dr Smith: Well, David, I think that's a great point to end on. I think you've done a really great job of capturing why someone would want to be a palliative care specialist or be involved in palliative care, because one of the themes throughout this conversation is the very significant personal and care impact that you have on patients and families. So, I really appreciate your sharing your wisdom. I really encourage all of our listeners to check out the article, it's really outstanding. I wonder if maybe you might just briefly tell us a little bit about how you got into this space? It's obviously one for which you have a great deal of passion and wisdom. How did you end up where you are? Dr Oliver: I became interested in palliative care as a medical student, and actually I trained as a family doctor, but I went to Saint Christopher's Hospice following that. I had actually had contact with them while I was a medical student, so I worked Saint Christopher's Hospice in South London when Dame Cecily Saunders was still working there. And at that time Christopher's had sixty-two beds, and at least eight of those beds were reserved for people with ALS or other neurological diseases. And I became very involved in one or two patients and their care. And Dame Sicily Saunders asked me to write something on ALS for their bookshelf that they had on the education area. So, I wrote, I think, four drafts. I went from sort of C minus to just about passable on the fourth draft. And that became my big interest in particularly ALS, and as time went on, in other neurological diseases. When I went to the Wisdom Hospice as a consultant, I was very keen to carry on looking after people with ALS, and we involved ourselves with other neurological patients. That's how I got started. Having that interest, listening to patients, documenting what we did became important as a way of showing how palliative care could have a big role in neurological disease. And over the years, I've been pressing again and again for the early involvement of palliative care in neurological diseases. And I think that is so important so that there can be a proper holistic assessment of people, that they can build up the trust in their carers and in the multidisciplinary team so that they can live as positively as possible. And as a result of that, that their death will be without distress and with their family with them. Dr Smith: Well, David, you've convinced and inspired me, and I'm confident you have our listeners as well. Thank you so much for a really informative, enjoyable, inspiring conversation. Dr Oliver: Thank you for inviting me. Dr Smith: Again, today I've been interviewing Dr David Oliver about his article on neuropalliative care and neuromuscular disorders, which appears in the December 2025 Continuum issue on neuropalliative care. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues, and thanks to our listeners for joining us today. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Severe acute brain injury presents acute and longitudinal challenges. Addressing total pain involves managing physical symptoms and providing emotional, social, and spiritual support to enhance quality of life for patients and their families. In this episode, Kait Nevel, MD, speaks with Claire J. Creutzfeldt, MD, author of the article "Neuropalliative Care in Severe Acute Brain Injury and Stroke" in the Continuum® December 2025 Neuropalliative Care issue. Dr. Nevel is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a neurologist and neuro-oncologist at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, Indiana. Dr. Liewluck is a professor in the department of neurology at the University of Washington in Seattle, Washington. Additional Resources Read the article: Neuropalliative Care in Severe Acute Brain Injury and Stroke With Dr. Claire Creutzfeldt Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @IUneurodocmom Guest: @cj_creutzfeldt Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Nevel: Hello, this is Dr Kait Nevel. Today I'm interviewing Dr Claire Creutzfeldt about her article on neuropalliative care in severe acute brain injury and stroke, which appears in the December 2025 Continuum issue on neuropalliative care. Claire, welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to the audience. Dr Creutzfeldt: Thanks, thanks for having me. Yeah, I'm an associate professor of neurology at the University of Washington. I'm a stroke neurologist and palliative care researcher and really have focused my career on how we can best integrate palliative care principles into the care of patients with severe stroke and other neurocritical illness. Dr Nevel: Wonderful. Well, I'm looking forward to talking to you today about your excellent article that I really enjoyed reading. To get us started, can you tell us what you feel is the most important takeaway from your article for the practicing neurologist? Dr Creutzfeldt: Yeah. You know, I think one is always a little biased by what one is working on currently. And I think what I'm most excited about or feel more strongly about is this idea that stroke and severe acute brain injury are not an event, but really a chronic illness that people are left with usually for the rest of their lives, that change their life radically. And I think that education, research funding, also the clinical setting, current healthcare models aren't set up for that. And this idea that severe acute brain injury, you know, should be viewed as a lifelong condition that requires support across all ranges of goals of care. So curative, restorative, palliative and end-of-life care. Dr Nevel: Yeah, I love that part of your article, how you really highlighted that concept. And I think obviously that's something that we see in neurology and learn, especially as we transition out of our residency stages. But I think especially for the trainees listening, can sometimes be hospital inpatient-heavy, if you will, that kind of you can lose sight of that, that these acute strokes, severe acute brain injury, it turns into a chronic illness or condition that patients are dealing with lifelong. Dr Creutzfeldt: Often what we do in a very acute setting is like, is really cool and sexy and like, we can cure people from their stroke if they come, you know, at the right time with the right kind of stroke to the right hospital. And often the symptoms that people come in with much later on are harder to treat and address, partly because the focus in education, clinical and research just hasn't been as much on that time. Dr Nevel: Yeah, absolutely. So, can you talk to us about this concept of total pain? What does it mean, and how do we incorporate this concept into the way that we view our approach, our patient care? Dr Creutzfeldt: Total pain is a very old word, but it's sort of coming back into fashion in the palliative care world because it really describes all those sources of suffering or sources of distress, like, beyond what we sort of really think of as sort of the physical symptoms in recovery of stroke. As many of you know, palliative care often thinks in this multidimensional way of the physical distress, physical pain, but also psychological, emotional, social and spiritual, existential. And both- we sort of created sort of a figure that incorporates all of them and also includes both patients and their family members. They share some of these sources of distress, but they also have distinct ones that need to be addressed. And at the core of that total pain is what we need to provide, is sort of optimal communication and goals-of-care prognosis. Dr Nevel: Yeah, I'm thinking about all of those aspects and not just focusing on one. How does the disease trajectory of severe acute brain injury and stroke play a role in the palliative care approach? And how should we kind of going back to that original point of this idea of severe acute brain injury being an acute event and then oftentimes turning into kind of a chronic condition? How does that play a role in how we address palliative care with our patients, or kind of the stages of palliative care with our patients? Dr Creutzfeldt: Yeah, I think several things, especially for neurologists, is the more traditional palliative care illnesses, like cancer or congestive heart failure, illnesses where people are diagnosed when they're still functioning at a relatively high level and tend to have time to consider their prognosis and their goals of care in the end of life wishes and to meet with palliative care and to consider their personhood. Who am I? What's most important for me? And stroke, people with stroke, they not only present at their worst, they meet us at their worst, at a time when the patient themselves usually can't speak for themselves, when their personhood has been stripped from them. And then as providers, we, you know, we often really just get that one opportunity to get the conversation right and to guide people towards, you know, what we would call optimal and goal-concordant care. So, the challenges are many. I do think that the burden of these early conversations is on neurologists and really requires the neurologists to show compassion, to learn communication skills, think really hard about how you want to communicate prognosis and goals of care early on, because it's going to color people's experiences and decisions longitudinally. You asked about, sort of, this trajectory. And I do think it's important to think about, you know, what really happens even after the thrombectomy or even after we discharge people, especially from the ICU. Because for us, often after sort of day five or six, you know, we're sort of done. We're thinking about secondary stroke prevention. And, you know, how do I get the patient to rehab or out of the hospital? For the patients and families, this is when it really all just starts. You know, this is when they- when they're first memories are usually, you know, they hardly remember that acute setting. And so, when they are medically stable, we're done with the acute blood pressure treatment where we've removed the Foley, we've made a decision about nutrition. For us that tends to be a time where we let go a little; for patients and families that tends to actually be the time when they have to think about how am I going to live with this and what are the next several months or years going to look like? And so being there for them is important. Dr Nevel: That's such a, I think, important point, that when we have our plan in place, we know medically what the plan is for that patient and we're starting to step back, think about rehab or discharge. That's when oftentimes more quote-unquote "reality" steps in for patients and families about what their future is going to look like. Dr Creutzfeldt: And medical stability is not even close to neurological stability. And so, they are still in the middle of real prognostic uncertainty, and often waxing and waning symptoms or new symptoms coming up for them. Like pain, you know, post thalamic pain syndrome, just as an example, tends to be something that doesn't develop until later. Dr Nevel: Right, right. Absolutely. And since you touched on this concept of prognostic uncertainty, and, you know, that's something that's so challenging in severe acute brain injury, especially the early days when you talk about this, you know, that things tend to become a little bit more certain as more time passes. But these are really hard conversations because a lot of times feel like big decisions that need to be made early on, you know? Dr Creutzfeldt: Huge! Dr Nevel: Sometimes things like trach and PEG and things like that. How do you approach that conversation? I know you talk about that a little bit in your article. You touch on that, some of the, kind of, strategies or concepts that we use in palliative care to approach this prognostic uncertainty with patients. Dr Creutzfeldt: Yeah, I think the challenge is to balance this acknowledging uncertainty with still being able to guide the families and allow them to trust you. So, there are a few things that I have said in the past, and I have taught in the past, and I don't use anymore. They include sentences like I don't have a crystal ball, for example. Nobody was asking you for one. The other one that I want us to avoid, I think, is the sentence we are terrible at prognosticating. Because what I have seen is that that sentence carries on for families. And families at nine months are still saying, well, you guys are terrible at prognosticating. That's what you told me. First of all, it's all relative, and relative to non-neural providers---even at this time using Google and AI, we're actually quite good at prognosticating. It's just that a wide range early on. So that's how I would change that sentence is, early on after stroke, the range of possible outcomes is still very wide. And so, you've communicated uncertainty without saying I have no idea what I'm doing, which is not true. That is in order to help families be able to trust you and also to trust the person who comes after you, because we all know that a week or two after admission, we do know a lot more. And if we told them on day one that we're terrible at prognosticating, it's hard to sort of build that trust again later. You also asked about, you know, communication strategies. And I think it's this range of possible outcomes that I think is a good guideline for us to work on. And that range, sort of like a confidence interval, is still very wide early on. And as we collect more information over time, both about the clinical scenario that is evolving in front of us and about the patient who we are learning more about over time, this confidence interval becomes smaller. And that's where this idea of the best case/worst case scenario sort of conversation, for example, comes from: that range of possible outcomes. Dr Nevel: So, what to you is most challenging about palliative care for patients with severe acute brain injury and stroke? Dr Creutzfeldt: I think the biggest challenge in stroke care is balancing restorative and curative care with palliative and end-of-life. And that is especially early on when sort of everything is possible, when patients and families want to hear the good news and, I think, are also quite willing to hear the bad news, and probably should. So, I think that that communication is hard when, you know, really we want to provide goal-concordant care. We want to make sure that people get that care that is most important to them and can meet the outcomes that are most important to them. Dr Nevel: Yeah, agree. What is most rewarding? Dr Creutzfeldt: I think these patients and families have enormous needs and are extremely grateful if they can find someone that they can trust and who can guide them and who will stick with them. And when I say someone, I think that can be a team. That always depends on how we communicate. In the ideal world, it would be the same person following someone over time, the patient and the family over time. But in our current healthcare system, we're usually moving on from one place to another and being able to communicate with the people that come after you. Telling the family that you're a team and supporting them through that, I think, is really important. Dr Nevel: Yeah. And like you touched upon, patients and families, I think oftentimes they're looking for, you mentioned, you know, the sharing and communication and they're looking for information. Dr Creutzfeldt: You know, what's really rewarding is working with a team. And health care has really excelled at that. And I think we have a lot done from them is that it's not always the MD that family needs. And we have a lot of people at our side, and I think we need more of them. Chaplains, social workers; psychologists, actually, I think; and nurses or- in an ideal world, would really work together to support these multidisciplinary, multidimensional symptoms. Dr Nevel: Yeah. I think it benefits both the patient and the care team, too. Dr Creutzfeldt: Absolutely! Dr Nevel: It's helpful to be part of a team. You know, there's camaraderie in that and, like, a shared goal, and I think the thought is rewarding, too. Dr Creutzfeldt: If we really try and think about severe stroke as a chronic illness or severe acute brain injury as a chronic illness not unlike cancer, then if you think about the systems that have been built for cancer where an entire team of providers follows the patient and their family member over time, I think we need that, too. Dr Nevel: Yeah, I agree. That point, every member of the team has overlapping things, but has a slightly individual role to a degree too, which is also helpful to the patient and the family. You talked about this a little bit in your article, and I want to hear more from you about what we know about healthcare disparities in this area of medicine and in providing palliative care for patients with severe acute brain injury and stroke. Dr Creutzfeldt: Yeah, I think actually a lot of the huge decisions that we make, especially early on, are highly variable. And can identify people by various things, whether it's their race or ethnicity or sex or age, or even where they live in the United States. But decisions tend to be made differently. And so, just as an example, we know that I think people who identify as black, for sure, are less likely to receive the acute, often life-saving interventions like TNK or thrombectomy and more likely to undergo longer-term, life-prolonging treatment like PEG and trach. That seems true, after adjusting for clinical severity and things like that. And so disparities like that may be based on cultural preferences or well-informed decisions, and then we can support them. But of course, unfortunately there's a clear idea when we see, often, unexplained variability that a lot is due to uninformed decisions and poor communication and possibly racism in certain parts. And that is, of course, something that has to be addressed. Dr Nevel: Yeah, absolutely. What are future areas of research in this area? I know you do a lot of research in this area and I'd love to hear about some of it and what you think is exciting or kind of new and going to change the way we think about things, perhaps. Dr Creutzfeldt: I think every aspect of stroke continues to be exciting and just, you know, our focus of today and my research is on palliative care. I mean, obviously, the things we can do in rehab these days have to be embraced, and the acute stuff. But I think this longitudinal support, an ideally longitudinal multidisciplinary support for patients and families, requires more research. I think it will help us with prognosis. It will help us with communicating things early on and learning more about sort of multidimensional symptoms of these patients over time. That requires more research. And then, how can we change the healthcare system---in a sustainable way, obviously---to maximize quality of life for the survivors and their families? Dr Nevel: Going back to that total pain again, making sure that we're incorporating that longitudinally. Dr Creutzfeldt: I think there are currently 94 million people worldwide living with the aftermath of a stroke. I joined a stroke survivor support group recently. People are supporting each other that have that had their stroke, like, 14 years ago and are still in that just to show that this is not one and done. People are still struggling with symptoms afterwards and want support. Dr Nevel: Before we close out, is there anything else that you'd like to add? Dr Creutzfeldt: Your questions have all been great, and I think one observation is that we've talked a lot about, sort of, new ideas of the need for longitudinal care for patients after severe stroke. There's still a ton for all of us to do to optimize the care we provide in the very acute setting, to optimize the way we communicate in the very acute setting. To make sure we are, for example, providing the same message as our team members and providing truly compassionate goal-concordant care from the time they hit the emergency room throughout. Including time-limited trials, for example. Dr Nevel: Well, thank you so much for chatting with me today about your article on this really important topic. Again, today I've been interviewing Dr Claire Creutzfeldt about her article on neuropalliative care in severe acute brain injury and stroke, which appears in the December 2025 Continuum issue on neuropalliative care. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues. And as always, to our listeners, please check out the article. It's great, highly recommend. And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. And thank you so much, Claire, for sharing your expertise with us today. Dr Creutzfeldt: Thanks for having me. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

In the hospital setting, neurologists may be responsible for managing common end-of-life symptoms. Comprehensive end-of-life care integrates knowledge of the biomedical aspects of disease with patients' values and preferences for care; psychosocial, cultural, and spiritual needs; and support for patients and their families. In this episode, Teshamae Monteith, MD, FAAN, speaks with Claudia Z. Chou, MD, author of the article "End-of-Life Care and Hospice" in the Continuum® December 2025 Neuropalliative Care issue. Dr. Monteith is the associate editor of Continuum® Audio and an associate professor of clinical neurology at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Miami, Florida. Dr. Chou is an assistant professor of neurology and a consultant in the Division of Community Internal Medicine, Geriatrics and Palliative Care at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Additional Resources Read the article: End-of-Life Care and Hospice Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @headacheMD Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith. Today I'm interviewing Dr Claudia Chou about her article on end-of-life care and hospice, which is found in the December 2025 Continuum issue on neuropalliative care. Welcome to our podcast. How are you? Dr Chou: I'm doing well. Thank you for having me. This is really exciting to be here. Dr Monteith: Absolutely. So, why don't you introduce yourself to our audience? Dr Chou: Sure. My name is Claudia Chou. I am a full time hospice and palliative medicine physician at Mayo Clinic in Rochester. I'm trained in neurology, movement disorders, and hospice and palliative medicine. I'm also passionate about education, and I'm the program director for the Hospice and Palliative Medicine fellowship here. Dr Monteith: Cool. So just learning about your training, I kind of have an idea of how you got into this work, but why don't you tell me what inspired you to get into this area? Dr Chou: It was chance, actually. And really just good luck, being in the right place at the right time. I was in my residency and felt like I was missing something in my training. I was seeing these patients who were suffering strokes and had acute decline in functional status. We were seeing patients with new diagnosis of glioblastoma and knowing what that future looked like for them. And while I went into neurology because of a love of neuroscience, localizing the lesion, all of those things that we all love about neurology, I still felt like I didn't have the skill set to serve patients where they perhaps needed me the most in those difficult times where they were dealing with serious illness and functional decline. And so, the serendipitous thing was that I saw a grand rounds presentation by someone who works in neurology and palliative care for people with Parkinson's disease. And truly, it's not an exaggeration to say that by the end of that lecture, I said, I need to do palliative care, I need to rotate in this, I need to learn more. I think this is what I've been missing. And I had plans to practice both movement disorders neurology and palliative care, but I finished training in 2020… and that was not a long time ago. We can think of all the things that were going on, all the different global forces that were influencing our day-to-day decisions. And the way things worked out, staying in palliative care was really what my family and I needed. Dr Monteith: Wow, so that's really interesting. Must have been a great lecturer. Dr Chou: Yes, like one of the best.  Dr Monteith: So why don't you tell me about the objectives of your article? Dr Chou: The objectives may be to fill in some of the gaps in knowledge that may be present for the general neurologist. We learn so much in neurology training, so much about how to diagnose and treat diseases, and I think I would argue that this really is part and parcel of all we should be doing. We are the experts in these diseases, and just because we're shifting to end-of-life or transitioning to a different type of care doesn't mean that we back out of someone's care entirely or transition over to a hospice or palliative care expert. It is part of our job to be there and guide patients and their care partners through this next phase. You know, I'm not saying we all need to be hospice and palliative care experts, but we need to be able to take those first steps with patients and their care partners. And so, I think objectives are really to focus in on, what are those core pieces of knowledge for end-of-life care and understanding hospice so we can take those first steps with patients and their care partners? Dr Monteith: So, why don't you give us some of those essential points in your article? Dr Chou: Yeah. In one section of the article, I talk about common symptoms that someone might experience at the end of life and how we might manage those. These days, a lot of hospitals have order sets that talk us through those symptoms. We can check things off of a drop-down menu. And yet I think there's a little bit more nuance to that. There may be situations in which we would choose one medication over another. There may be medications that we've never really thought of in terms of symptom management before. Something that I learned in my hospice and palliative medicine fellowship was that haloperidol can be helpful for nausea. I know that's usually not one of our go-tos in neurology for any number of reasons. So, I think that extra knowledge can take us pretty far when we're managing end of life symptoms, particularly in the hospital setting. And then I think the other component is the hospice component. A lot of us may have not had experience talking about hospice, talking about what hospice can provide, and again, knowing how to take those first steps with patients. We may be referring to social work or palliative medicine to start those conversations. But again, I think this is something that's definitely learnable and something that should be part of our skill set in neurology. Dr Monteith: Great. And so, when you speak about symptom management and being more comfortable with the tools that we have, how can we be more efficient and more effective at that? Dr Chou: Think about what the common symptoms are at end of life. We may know this kind of intuitively, but what we commonly see are things like pain, nausea, dyspnea, anxiety, delirium or agitation. And so, I think having a little bit of a checklist in mind can be helpful. You know, how can I systematically think through a differential, almost, for why my patient might be uncomfortable? Why they might be restless? Have I thought through these different symptoms? Can I try a medication from my tool kit? See if that works, and if it does, we can continue on. If not, what's the next thing that I can pivot to? So, I think these are common skills for a little bit of a differential diagnosis, if you will, and how to work through these problems just with the end-of-life lens on it. Dr Monteith: So, are there any, like, validated tools or checklists that are freely available? Dr Chou: I don't think there's been anything particularly validated for end-of-life care in neurologic disease. And so, a lot of our treatments and our approaches are empiric, but I don't think there's been anything validated, per se. Dr Monteith: Great. So, why don't we talk a little bit about the approach to discussions on hospice? We all, as you kind of alluded to, want to be effective neurologists, care for our patients, but we sometimes deal with very debilitating diseases. And so, when we think that or suspect that our patient is kind of terminally ill, how do we approach that to our patients? Of course, our patients come from different backgrounds, different experiences. So, what is your approach? Dr Chou: So, when we talk about hospice and when a patient may be appropriate for hospice, we have to acknowledge that we think that they may be in the last six months of their disease. We as the neurologist are the experts in their disease and the best ones to weigh in on that prognosis. The patient and their care partners then have to accept that the type of care that hospice provides is what makes sense for them. Hospice focuses on comfort and treating a patient's comfort as the primary goal. Hospice is not as interested in treating cancer, say, to prolong life. Hospice is not as interested in life-prolonging measures and treatments that are not focused at comfort and quality of life. And so, when we have that alignment between our understanding of a patient's disease and their prognosis and the patient care partner's goal is to focus on comfort and quality of life above all else, that's when we have a patient who might be appropriate for hospice and ready to hear more about what that actually entails. Dr Monteith: And what are some, maybe, myths that neurologist healthcare professionals may have about hospice that you really want us to kind of have some clarity on? Dr Chou: That's a great question. What we often tell patients is that hospice's goal is to help patients live as well as possible in the time that they have left. Again, our primary objective is not life prolongation, but quality of life. Hospice's goal is also not to speed up or slow down the natural dying process. Sometimes we do get questions about that: can't you make this go faster or we're ready for the end. But really, we are there to help patients along the natural journey that their body is taking them on. And I think hospice care can actually be complex. In the inpatient setting, in particular in neurology, we may be seeing patients who have suffered large strokes and have perhaps only days to a few weeks of life left. But in the outpatient setting and in the home hospice setting, patients can be on hospice for many months, and so they will have new care needs, new urinary tract infections, sometimes new rashes, the need to change their insulin regimens around to avoid extremes of hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia. So, there is a lot of complexity in that care and a lot that can be wrapped up under that quality-of-life and comfort umbrella. Dr Monteith: And to get someone to hospice requires a bit of prognostication, right? Six months of prediction in terms of a terminal illness. I know there's some nuances to that. So how can you make us feel more comfortable about making the recommendations for hospice? Dr Chou: I think this is a big challenge in the field. We're normally guided by Medicare guidelines that say when a patient might be hospice-appropriate. And so, for a neurologic disease, this really only encompasses four conditions: ALS, stroke, coma, and Alzheimer's dementia. And we can think of all the other diseases that are not encompassed in those four. And so, I think we say that we paint the picture of what it means to have a prognosis of six months or less. So, from the neurologic side, that can be, what do you know about this disease and what end-stage might look like? What is the pattern of the patient's functional decline? What are they needing more help with? Are there other factors at play such as heart failure or COPD that may in and of themselves not be a qualifying diagnosis for hospice, but when it's taken together in the whole clinical picture, you have a patient who's very ill and one that you're worried may die in the next six months or less? Dr Monteith: Then you also had some nice charts on kind of disease-specific guidelines. Can you take us a little bit through that? Dr Chou: The article does contain tables about specific criteria that may qualify someone for hospice with these neurologic conditions. And they are pretty dense. I know they're a checklist of a lot of different things. And so, how we practice is by trying to refer patients to hospice based on those guidelines as much as possible and then using our own clinical judgment as well, what we have seen through taking care of patients through the years. So, again, really going back to that decline. What is making you feel uncomfortable about this patient's prognosis? What is making you feel like, gosh, this patient could be well supported by hospice, and they could have six months or less? So, all of that should go into your decision as well. And all of that should go into your discussion with the patient and their care partners. Dr Monteith: Yeah. And reading your article, what stood out was all the services that patients can receive under hospice. So, I think sometimes people think, okay, this is terminal illness, let's get to hospice for whatever reasons, but not necessarily all the lists and lists and lists of benefits of hospice. So, I don't know that everyone's aware of all those benefits. So, can you talk to us a little bit about that? Dr Chou: Yeah, I like that you brought that up because that's also something that I often say to patients and their care partners when we're talking about hospice. When the time is right for a patient to enroll in hospice, they should not feel like they're giving anything up. There should be no more clinical trial that they're hoping to chase down, and so they should just feel like they're gaining all of those good supports: care that comes to their home, a team that knows them well, someone that's available twenty-four hours a day by phone and can actually even come into the home setting if needed to help with symptom management. Hospice comes as well with the psychosocial supports for just coping with what dying looks like. We know that's not easy to be thinking about dying for oneself, or for a family member or care partner to be losing their loved one. So, all of those supports are built into hospice. I did want to make a distinction, too, that hospice does not provide custodial care, which I explain to patients as care of the body, those daily needs for bathing, dressing, eating, etc. Sometimes patients are interested in hospice because they're needing more help at home, and I have to tell them that unfortunately, our healthcare system is not built for that. And if that's the sole reason that someone is interested in hospice, we have to think about a different approach, because that is not part of the hospice benefit.  Dr Monteith: Thank you for that. And then I learned about concurrent care. So why don't you tell us a little bit about that? That's a little bit of a nuance, right? Dr Chou: Yeah, that is a little bit of a nuance. And so, typically when patients are enrolling in hospice, they are transitioning from care the way that it's normally conducted in our healthcare system. So, outpatient visits to all of the specialists and to their primary care providers, the chance to go to the ER or the ICU for higher levels of care. And yet there are a subset of patients who can still have all of those cares alongside hospice care. That really applies to two specific populations: veterans who are receiving care through the Veterans Administration, and then younger patients, so twenty six years old and less, can receive that care through, essentially, a pediatric carve out. Dr Monteith: Great. Well, I mean, you gave so much information in your article, so our listeners are going to have to read it. I don't want you to spill everything, but if you can just kind of give me a sense what you want a neurologist to take away from your article, I think that would be helpful. Dr Chou: I think what I want neurologist to take away is that, again, this is something that is part of what we do as neurologists. This is part of our skill set, and this is part of what it means to take good care of patients. I think what we do in this transition period from kind of usual cares, diagnosis, full treatment to end of life, really can have impact on patients and their care partners. It's not uncommon for me to hear from family members who have had another loved one go through hospice about how that experience was positive or negative. And so, we can think about the influence for years to come, even, because of how well we can handle these transitions. That really can be more than the patient in front of us in their journey. That is really important, but it can also have wide-reaching implications beyond that. Dr Monteith: Excellent. And I know we were talking earlier a little bit about your excitement with the field and where it's going. So why don't you share some of that excitement? Dr Chou: Yeah. And so, I think there is a lot still to come in the field of neuropalliative care, particularly from an evidence base. I know we talked a lot about the soft skills, about presence and communication, but we are clinicians at heart, and we need to practice from an evidence base. I know that's been harder in palliative care, but we have some international work groups that really are trying to come together, see what our approaches look like, see where standardization may need to happen or where our differences are actually our strength. I think there can be a lot of variability in what palliative care looks like. So, my hope is that evidence base is coming through these collaborations. I know it's hard to have a conversation these days without talking about artificial intelligence, but that is certainly a hope. When you look at morbidity, when you look at patients with these complicated disease courses, what is pointing you in the direction of, again, a prognosis of six months or less or a patient who may do better with this disease versus not? And so, I think there's a lot to come from the artificial intelligence and big data realm. For the trainees listening out there, there is no better time to be excited about neuropalliative care and to be thinking about neuropalliative care. I said that I stumbled upon this field, and hopefully someone is inspired as well by listening to these podcasts and reading Continuum to know what this field is really about. And so, it's been exponential growth since I joined this field. We have medical students now who want to come into neuropalliative care as a profession. We have clinicians who are directors of neuropalliative care at their institutions. We have an international neuropalliative care society and neuropalliative care at AAN. And I think we are moving closer to that dream for all of us, which is that patients living with serious neurologic illness can be supported throughout that journey. High-quality, evidence-based palliative care. We're not there yet, but I think it is a possibility that we reach that in my lifetime. Dr Monteith: Well, excellent. I look forward to maybe another revision of this article with some of that work incorporated. And it's been wonderful to talk to you and to reflect on how better to approach patients that are towards the end of life and to help them with that decision-making process. Thank you so much.  Dr Chou: Yeah, thank you for having me. And we're very excited about this issue. Dr Monteith: Today. I've been interviewing Dr Claudia Chou about her article on end-of-life care and hospice, which is found in the December 2025 Continuum issue on neuropalliative care. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues, and thank you to our listeners for joining today. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Neurologists are privileged to act as guides for patients as they navigate the complex course of serious neurologic illnesses. Because of the impact on quality of life, personhood, and prognosis, neurologists must be able to conduct serious-illness conversations to improve rapport, reduce patient anxiety and depression, and increase the likelihood that treatment choices agree with patient goals and values. In this episode, Teshamae Monteith, MD, FAAN speaks with Jessica M. Besbris, MD, author of the article "The Approach to Serious-Illness Conversations" in the Continuum® December 2025 Neuropalliative Care issue. Dr. Monteith is the associate editor of Continuum® Audio and an associate professor of clinical neurology at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Miami, Florida. Dr. Besbris is an assistant professor of neurology and internal medicine and the Director of Neuropalliative Care at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, California. Additional Resources Read the article: The Approach to Serious-Illness Conversations Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @headacheMD Guest: @JessBesbris Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Monteith: Hi, this is Dr Teshamae Monteith. Today I'm interviewing Dr Jessica Besbris about her article on the approach to serious illness conversation, which is found in the December 2025 Continuum issue on neuropalliative care. How are you? Dr Besbris: I'm doing great. Thank you so much for having me here today. Dr Monteith: Well, thank you for being on our podcast. Dr Besbris: My pleasure. Dr Monteith: Why don't we start off with you introducing yourself? Dr Besbris: Sure. So, my name is Jessica Besbris. I am a neurologist with fellowship training in palliative care, and I am currently at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, where I am the director of our neuropalliative care program. Dr Monteith: Excellent. So, how did you get involved in that? Dr Besbris: Like, I think, many neurologists, I always knew I wanted to be a neurologist---or, I should say, from the moment I decided to be a doctor I knew that that was the type of doctor I wanted to be, a neurologist. So, I went into medical school with the aim of becoming a neurologist. And very quickly, when I started my clinical years, I was exposed to patients who were living with very serious illnesses. And I found myself really drawn to opportunities to help, opportunities to make people feel better, opportunities to improve quality of life in situations that on the face of it seemed really challenging, where maybe it seemed like our usual treatments were not necessarily the answer or were not the only answer. And so, I pretty quickly recognized that taking care of patients with serious illness was going to be a big part of my life as a neurologist and that palliative care was the way I wanted to help these patients and families. Dr Monteith: And you mentioned you're leading the group. So, how many colleagues do you have in the program? Dr Besbris: We have a very large palliative care group, but within neuropalliative care, it's myself and one other physician, a nurse practitioner, and a social worker. Dr Monteith: Okay, well, I know you guys are busy. Dr Besbris: Yes, we are very happy to be busy. Dr Monteith: Yes. So, let's talk about the objectives of your article. Dr Besbris: Sure. So, the goal of this article is to impress upon neurologists that it really is all of our jobs as neurologists to be having these conversations with our patients who are affected with serious illness. And then, in most areas of neurology, these conversations will come up. Whether it's giving a life changing diagnosis, or talking about treatment choices, or treatment not going the way that we had hoped, or even sometimes progression of disease or end-of-life care. These topics will come up for most of us in neurology, and really, we're hoping that this article not only makes the case that neurologists can and should be having these conversations, but that there are skills that we can teach in this article and with other resources to improve the skill level and sense of confidence that neurologists have when they enter into these conversations. Dr Monteith: Great. I read that there are some developments in the field, on organizational levels, about really making these skills part of standard of care in terms of education. So, can you speak to that? Dr Besbris: Yes. So, there have been a couple of really landmark papers and changes in the educational landscape that I think have really brought neuropalliative care in general, and serious illness conversation in particular, to the forefront. So, there were the position statements released by the American Academy of Neurology in 1996 and 2022, both of which really said, hey, all neurologists should be doing this and receive training on how to have these conversations and provide this care. And the ACGME, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, also requires neurology residency programs to learn how to communicate with patients and families, assess goals, and talk about end-of-life care. So, there's a real structural imperative now for neurologists to learn early on how to have serious illness conversations with their patients. Dr Monteith: Great. If there's anything for our listeners to get out of this conversation, what are the essential points? Dr Besbris: If you only take away one or two things from this conversation, I hope that they're that this is an awesome responsibility to be in a moment with a patient going through something challenging, to meet them in that moment with thoughtful, honest, empathic conversations about who they are and what's important to them. And that, just like any other procedure, these are skills that can be taught so that you can feel really confident and comfortable being in these moments. Dr Monteith: Excellent. Wow. Okay, I feel your energy and your empathy already. And so, why don't we just talk about skills? What is the best way to deliver tough news? I read this wonderful chart on SPIKES protocol. Dr Besbris: Yeah, the SPIKES protocol is one really well-known way to deliver serious news. And what's nice about SPIKES is it gives a mnemonic. And as neurology learners, we all love a good mnemonic to help you really center yourself when you're entering into these conversations so that you have a structured format to follow, just like with any procedure. So, the SPIKES protocol stands for Setting: so, making sure you have the right environment; Perception, or assessing what your patient or surrogate decision maker knows already so that you know where to begin; receiving an Invitation to deliver serious news. And then K stands for Knowledge, delivering in a clear and concise way the information that you want to make sure the family or patient walk away with. E for exploring Emotion; and S for really Summarizing what's been discussed and Strategizing on next steps. I think that having these kinds of conversations, it's just like being expert in anything. When you first start learning, it's helpful to have a set of very concrete steps you can follow. And you might even think through the mnemonic as you get ready to walk into that room. And as you become more expert, the flow becomes more natural. And maybe what you do before walking in to prepare is just honing what is that headline? What is that concise statement that I'm really going to give? And the rest may start to feel more natural and less protocolized. Dr Monteith: And there are a few other mnemonics. There's the NURSE mnemonic, which I like. You know, there's a balance between saying things and sounding kind of… you know, sometimes they're like, well, how could you understand what I'm going through? Have you been through something like this? And people shy away, and they're afraid to kind of be a part of these conversations. So how do we approach that with this, a NURSE mnemonic in a way that's kind of sincere? Dr Besbris: Absolutely. So, the NURSE mnemonic, unlike SPIKES, is not a step-by-step protocol. So, NURSE is a mnemonic, but you don't go through each letter and sort of give a naming statement and then an understanding statement and then a respecting statement and so on. Nurse is really a toolkit of different types of statements that we can give in response to emotions so that when you find yourself in a situation where a patient or family member is tearful, is scared, is angry, is expressing feelings, you have some phrases ready that feel authentic to you and that you feel are going to meet the moment and allow you to empathically respond to those emotions. Because until we do that, we really can't move further in this conversation with our patients and families feeling heard and respected. So, that NURSE mnemonic, those Naming, Understanding, Respecting, Supporting and Exploring statements, are really examples of statements that we can use to meet that moment with empathy and understanding and without implying that we have walked in their shoes. We want to avoid being presumptuous and really focus on just being present and empathic. Dr Monteith: So, let's just kind of run through, I think it's really important. Let's run through some of these examples. Maybe if someone's crying hysterically, how would we respond to that? Dr Besbris: So, this is an opportunity for Naming. And I made this one, I think, in the chart, a little bit obvious, meaning that we recognize when someone is crying that they are feeling probably very sad. This is an opportunity for us to name and thus normalize that emotion. I just think something as simple as, I think anyone would be really sad hearing this. These responses are not intended to fix this emotion. I'm not trying to get someone to stop crying or to, you know, necessarily not feel sad. It's really just to say, yeah, it's normal that you're feeling sad. It's okay. I'm here with you while you're feeling sad. And I'm going to be with you no matter what you're bringing to the table. Dr Monteith: Yeah. Let's go through just a couple of others. I mean, these are really good. Dr Besbris: Sure. Maybe Respecting. Dr Monteith: Yeah. So, my Dad is a fighter. Only God, not doctors, can know the future. Dr Besbris: Yeah. So, I love giving these examples with our learners because these statements, things like my Dad is a fighter or God will bring me a miracle or you don't know the answer. Only God knows what's going to happen, I think that they give a lot of doctors a feeling of confrontation, a feeling of anxiety. And I think there are a few reasons for that. And I think one of the main ones is that they're statements that imply that we as doctors are not all-powerful and it's our patients or families sort of looking for a different locus of control, whether it's internal fortitude or a higher power. They're looking to something other than us, and maybe that makes us feel a little bit uncomfortable. And I think that sometimes physicians think that these statements imply that someone doesn't even understand what's going on. But maybe they're coming to this from a place of denial. And I would argue that when someone comes to you with a statement like my dad is a fighter or, you know, I'm looking to God to bring me a miracle or to show me the future. I think that what they're really saying is, wow, I'm really hearing that things are serious, so much so that I'm reaching for these other resources to give me strength and hope. I don't think anyone asks for a miracle if they think that a miracle is not needed, if the problem is easy to fix. And so, rather than come to these types of statements from a confrontational place of I'm the doctor and I know best, I think this is a great opportunity to show some respect and give some respecting statements. Your dad is a fighter. I don't think he could have come this far without being a fighter. Or, you know, I am so grateful that you have your faith to lean on during times like these to give you strength. These are also nice opportunities for exploring statements. For example, I'm so grateful to learn more about your dad. Can you tell me what it is that he has been fighting for all of this time? Dr Monteith: I love that. It's like a follow-up, and also validating. Dr Besbris: Yeah, it's validating. And it allows us to learn a little bit more about this person and to learn, well, is he fighting for a life that we can still achieve with our interventions to lead into the next part of a conversation? Or, is God is going to bring me a miracle? Well, tell me what a miracle looks like for you. I can't tell you how many times I thought someone was going to tell me that a miracle would be cure. And sometimes that is what comes up. But other times I hear, a miracle would be, you know, my loved one surviving long enough for the rest of the family to gather. And, you know, that is certainly something we can work towards together. Dr Monteith: So, why don't we talk a little bit about approach to goals of care discussions? They are tough, and let's just put it into perspective to the critical care team. It's time, the person's been in the ICU, the family wants everything thrown at medically. And it's to the point that the assessment is that would be medical futility. Dr Besbris: Lots to unpack there. Dr Monteith: I wanted to make it hard for you. Dr Besbris: No, no, this is good! I mean, this is something- I work in a, you know, almost one thousand-bed hospital with a massive critical care building. And so, these are not unusual circumstances at all. First of all, I would just say that goals of care conversations are not only about end-of-life care. And I make that point a few different times in the article because I think when people imagine goals of care, and one of the reasons that I think clinicians may sometimes shy away from goals of care discussions, is that they think they have to be sad, they have to be scary, they have to be about death and dying. And I would argue that, really, goals of care discussions are about understanding who a person is, how they live their life, what's most important to them. Most of these conversations should be about living. How are we going to together achieve a quality of life that is meaningful for you and treatments that are going to fit your needs and your preferences? But there is a little slice of that pie in the pie chart of goals of care discussions that is in the arena of end-of-life care. For example, ICU care with, really, the highest levels of intensity of care, and having to talk about whether that still is meeting the moment from the perspective of goals as well as the perspective of efficacy. So, from the goals standpoint, I approach these conversations just like any other goals of care conversation. Usually at this point, we're speaking to family members and not our patients because in a neurocritical care unit, if someone is that sick, they probably are incapacitated. And so, it's a moment to really sit down with family and say, please tell me about the human being lying in that bed. They can't introduce themselves. What would they tell me about themselves if they could speak right now? What kinds of things were important to them in the course of their treatment? What kind of a life did they want to live or do they want to live? So that then we can reflect on, well, can our treatment achieve that? And this process is called shared decision making. This is really where we take in data from the family, who are experts in the patient, and then our own expertise in the illness and what our treatments can achieve, and then bring all of that information together to make a recommendation that aligns with what we believe is right for a particular patient.  So, in the example that you gave, the extreme circumstance where someone is receiving maximal intensive care and we're starting to reach the point of futility, I think that we need to first really understand, well, what does futility mean for this particular patient? Is it that we as healthcare providers would not value living in the state this person is in? Or is it that the treatments truly cannot physiologically keep them alive or meet their stated goals? If it's the first one, that I wouldn't want to be on machines unconscious, you know, at the end of my life, well, I have to set that aside. It's really about what this patient wants. and if the family is telling you they valued every breath, every moment, and if we have care that can achieve that, we should continue to offer and recommend that care. And as healthcare providers, it is so important that we do explain when treatments are not going to be able to physiologically meet a patient's needs or achieve their goals. And that's where we can say, I'm going to continue to do everything I can, for example, to, you know, keep your loved one here for these meaningful moments. And we are at a point where performing CPR would no longer be able to restart his heart. And I just wanted to let you know that that's not something that we're going to do because I have an obligation not to provide painful medical treatments that will not work. So, my approach to futility is really different than my approach to shared decision-making because in the context of objective futility, it's not about necessarily- it's not about decision-making, it's not about shared decision-making as much as it is explaining why something is simply not going to work. Does that make sense? Dr Monteith: Absolutely. And what I love in your article is that, you know, you go beyond the skills, but also potential communication challenges---for example, patients' neurologic status, their ability to understand complex communication, or even cultural differences. So, can you speak about that briefly? Dr Besbris: Absolutely. In the world of neurological serious illness, it is incredibly common for our patients to face challenges in communication. That might be because they are aphasic, because they have a motor speech deficit, it might be because they're intubated, it might be because their capacity is diminished or absent. And so, there are a lot of challenges to keeping patients in these conversations. And in the article, I summarize what those challenges can look like and some strategies that we can use to continue to engage our patients in these conversations to the greatest extent possible and also turn to their surrogate decision makers where the patients themselves are no longer able to participate or participate fully. In terms of cultural considerations, I mean, there could be an entire article or an entire Continuum just on cultural considerations in neurology and in serious illness communication. And so, the key points that I really tried to focus on were exploring from a place of cultural humility what the beliefs and practices of a particular patient and family are in their cultural context, to ask questions to help you understand how those cultural differences may impact the way you approach these conversations. And being sensitive to folks with limited English proficiency, to ensure that we are using medical interpreters whenever possible. Dr Monteith: Excellent. Well, there's so much in the article. There's already so much that we just discussed, but our listeners are going to have to go to the article to get the rest of this. I do want to ask you to just kind of reflect on, you know, all the different cases and experiences that you have, and just, if you can give us a final remark? Dr Besbris: I can think of a number of cases that I've seen in my work as both an inpatient and outpatient neuropalliative provider where I've seen patients after strokes in the hospital with uncertain prognosis, whose families were struggling with a decision around feeding tubes. And where we have made a determination based on goals; for example, to pursue what's called a time-limited trial, to say let's place a feeding tube, let's meet again in the clinic in a few months after some rehab and let's just see, is this meeting this patient 's goals and expectations? I have been pleasantly surprised by the number of patients who have walked into my office after a period of rehabilitation who have regained the ability to eat, who are living an acceptable quality of life, and who have expressed gratitude for the work that I did in eliciting their goals, helping support their families. And some of whom have even come in and said, now that I'm doing better, I'd really like to do an advance directive to better guide my family in the future. People asking for more goals of care discussions, having seen how successful and helpful these conversations have been. Dr Monteith: Great. That's really life-altering for that patient, the family, so many people. Thank you so much for the work you do and for writing this great article and sharing all of this that we really need to learn more about. Dr Besbris: It's been a privilege. Thank you so much for talking with me today. Dr Monteith: Today I've been interviewing Dr Jessica Besbris about her article on the approach to serious illness conversation, which is found in the December 2025 Continuum issue on neuropalliative care. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues. And thank you to our listeners for joining today. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

In this episode, Lyell K. Jones Jr, MD, FAAN, speaks with Maisha T. Robinson, MD, MSHPM, FAAN, FAAHPM, who served as the guest editor of the December 2025 Neuropalliative Care issue. They provide a preview of the issue, which publishes on December 2, 2025. Dr. Jones is the editor-in-chief of Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology® and is a professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Dr. Robinson is the Chair of the Division of Palliative Medicine and an assistant professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida. Additional Resources Read the issue: continuum.aan.com Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @LyellJ Guest: @neuropalldoc Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: Most of us who see patients with chronic progressive neurologic disease are aware of the value of palliative care. The focus on symptom management and quality of life is a key aspect of helping these patients. But how many of us are comfortable starting the conversation about palliative care or care at the end of life? Today we have the opportunity to speak with a leading expert on neuropalliative care, Dr Maisha Robinson, about how we can better integrate neuropalliative care into our practices. Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about subscribing to the journal, listening to verbatim recordings of the articles, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology. Today I'm interviewing Dr Maisha Robinson, who is Continuum's Guest Editor for our latest issue of Continuum on neuropalliative care, and our first-ever issue fully dedicated to this topic. Dr Robinson is an assistant professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic in Florida, where she is Chair of the Division of Palliative Medicine, and she also serves on the AAN Board of Directors as Chair of the Member Engagement Committee. Dr Robinson, welcome. Thank you for joining us today. Why don't you introduce yourself to our listeners? Dr Robinson: Well, Dr Jones, thank you for having me. Really a pleasure to be here. I'm Maisha Robinson at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida. I spent my time as a neurohospitalist, a general palliative care physician, and a neuropalliative care physician. Dr Jones: So, this is a topic that at Continuum, we have heard about from subscribers for a long time requesting a fully dedicated issue to palliative care. And we've titled this neuropalliative Care. So, we want to respond to our subscribers and bring them content that they're interested in. I also think that palliative medicine is a big education gap in our specialty of neurology and something that we have room to improve on. So, let's start with the basics, Dr Robinson. Palliative medicine has been around for a long time, but this concept of "neuropalliative care" feels relatively new. What is neuropalliative care? Dr Robinson: That's a great question. Generally, what I would say is palliative care, first of all, is really just a specialty that focuses on trying to improve quality of life for people that have a serious or advanced medical condition. And neuropalliative care is really palliative care for people with neurologic conditions. And you'll see a number of neurologists doing neuropalliative care, but also there are internists as well, and people from other specialties, who focus on patients with neurologic disease and really trying to improve their quality of life. Dr Jones: Got it. And so, it's really the principles of palliative medicine in a specialty-specific context, which I think is important for us given the prevalence of chronic disease in our specialty. And I was obviously reading through these articles in this issue, and in the really wonderful articles, there are some themes that came up multiple times in various different articles. And one of them was obviously the importance of communication with patients and families. I think, and I'm speaking a little bit from personal experience here, many physicians feel uncomfortable bringing up the discussion of palliative care. And I'm sure that is something that reflects on your practice, too. How often do you have a patient who shows up to clinic and they ask you, why am I here? Dr Robinson: It happens all the time, because colleagues who are referring patients are nervous to tell them that they're sending them to palliative care. But we try to tell people it's really just to normalize it, to say that the palliative care team is going to see you, they're going to help with some symptoms, they're going to help you think about big picture, and they're going to be sort of an added layer of support to your team. And I think if people approach it from that standpoint, then patients and family members will say, that sounds great, I need a little extra support. Dr Jones: So, I think most neurologists have a threshold at which they would feel more comfortable having specialty support, having a palliative medicine specialist to help them in symptom management with the patient. For the palliative care that they provide themselves---and we want our subscribers to read this issue and feel more comfortable with delivering some palliative care on their own---how would you encourage them to begin that conversation? How should they initiate that conversation with a patient about working more toward palliative management of symptoms? Dr Robinson: So, one of the things we recommend is really introducing an approach to palliative care very early in the disease process. So, discussions about big picture and goals of care, discussions about who might help make medical decisions if the person can't make them for themselves. Those kinds of things can be discussed very early on. And in fact, that's palliative care. And then they can talk to patients more about the fact that as the disease progresses, there may be an additional team that can help walk along alongside the neurologist in helping you prepare for what's to come. You know, I think it's very important for patients and family members who feel like you're not abandoning them, but you're adding additional resources. And so, I like the way that we often will suggest to people to say partner or collaborate or bring in extra resources with the palliative care team. I think patients and family members will respond to that. Dr Jones: Yeah. So, by talking about it early, you kind of, at least, help to avoid that problem of the patient perceiving the introduction of palliative care as the quote-unquote "giving-up problem." Is that right? Dr Robinson: Correct. Because we also don't want to see people who are just being referred to us for end-of-life care. Palliative care is about much more than that. But if patients will Google palliative care, they may see hospice come up. And so, introducing the concept early and discussing some palliative topics early will allow the patient and family members to think that, okay, this isn't because I'm at the end of life. This is just because my clinician wants to make sure that I have all the bases covered. Dr Jones: This was also mentioned in several of the articles, the studies that have shown how frequently palliative care is initiated very near the end of life, which is usually, I think, perceived as a missed opportunity, right? To not wait so long to take advantage of what palliative care has to offer. Dr Robinson: That's correct. And the benefit of palliative care is that oftentimes we work alongside an interdisciplinary team, a team that could be quite helpful to patients and their support systems throughout the course of the disease. So, we have chaplains, we have nurses, we often have other clinicians, advanced practice providers as well, who work with us. We have spiritual advisors as well. And the patients and family members could benefit from some of those resources throughout the course of the disease. Who they might need to meet with may vary depending on what the disease is and how they're doing. But there's definitely some benefit to having a longitudinal relationship with the palliative care team and not just seeking them out at the end of life. Dr Jones: So- that's very helpful. So, it'll obviously vary according to an individual provider's level of comfort, right, where they're comfortable providing certain palliative management care versus when they need to have some assistance from a specialist. Are there types of care or are there certain thresholds that you say, wow, this patient really should go see a specialist in palliative medicine or neuropalliative care? Dr Robinson: So, I think that if there are, for instance, refractory symptoms, where the neurologist has been working with a patient for a while trying to manage certain symptoms and they're having some challenges, that person may benefit from being referred to palliative care. If patients are being hospitalized multiple times and frequently, that may suggest that a good serious-illness conversation may be necessary. If there are concerns about long-term artificial nutrition, hydration, or functional and cognitive decline, then some of those patients have benefited from palliative care. Not only the patient, but also the caregiver, because our team really focuses on trying to make sure that we're walking through the course of disease with these patients to ensure that all of the needs are managed both for the patient and the family member. Dr Jones: Got it. And that's very helpful. And I know that we talk about a lot of these decisions happening in an ideal environment when there's good access to the neurologist and good access to a palliative medicine specialist or even a neuropalliative medicine expert. In your general sense, I- and maybe we'll talk a little bit here in a minute or two about the growing interest in neuropalliative care. But in terms of access, in terms of availability of really, truly neuropalliative expertise, what is your sense of how widely available that is in the US? Dr Robinson: There's a shortfall of palliative care clinicians in the United States. Everybody who needs a palliative care clinician won't have access to one. And I think your point about the primary palliative care is so important. That's really what we encourage all clinicians, neurologists, neurosurgeons, even, physiatrists, the neurology care team members need to be comfortable with at least initiating some of these conversations. Because, to your point, not everyone's going to have access to a palliative care physician. But by reading issues such as this one, attending some courses---for instance at the American Academy of Neurology meetings---, doing some online trainings, those types of things can be helpful to bring any neurology clinician up to speed who certainly may not have access to a palliative care physician. Dr Jones: So, I know---and this is in part from my own conversations with patients in my own practice---there are a number of fears that patients have when they have a chronic disease, something that's progressive or something that we don't have a curative treatment for. But I think one of, if not the most common fear among patients is pain, and pain that can't be managed adequately during the course of chronic illness or at the end of life. One of the interesting concepts that I saw mentioned in a few of the articles in this issue is this concept of total pain. So, not just the somatic pain that I think we tend to think of as clinicians and patients tend to think of as patients, but a more holistic definition of pain. Walk us through that and how that relates to palliative medicine. Dr Robinson: So, Dame Cicely Saunders, the modern-day founder of palliative medicine, really described this biopsychosocial model for pain. And so, you're right, it's not just physical pain, but it's psychological pain, it's spiritual pain. And oftentimes when we are taking care of patients with neurologic disease, they may have some physical pain, but a lot of them are thinking about, for instance, the things that they will miss, which may cause some internal discomfort. Things that they're grieving, the life they thought they were going to have, the person that they used to be, the life they used to have, and what they anticipated their life as being. And some of that can cause people to have not only the spiritual discomfort, but also some psychological discomfort as well. And so, when we're thinking about how to provide rehensive care to these patients, we have to be thinking about all of these aspects. Dr Jones: It's really helpful. And I guess the more you can identify those, the more you can either help yourself or find the right expert to help the patient. I thought that was an interesting expansion of, of my view of how to think about pain. And another observation that came up in several of the articles was a lack of high-quality clinical trial evidence to inform a lot of the interventions in neuropalliative care. Some of them are common-sense, some of them are based on clinical experience or expert advice. In your own practice, if there was one key knowledge gap to close---in other words, if there was one pivotal trial that we could do to answer one question in helping patients with chronic neurologic disease---what would you say is the main gap? Dr Robinson: I think the real gap is, who needs palliative care and when? That seems very simple. We have tried things such as automatic triggers for palliative care, for instance, in patients with ALS, or we've said that maybe all glioblastoma patients should see palliative care. But is that true? Are we utilizing the resources in the best possible way that we can? We're not sure. And so, you'll see these practices doing things all a little bit different because we don't have a best practice and it's not really standardized about when people should see palliative care, or why, for instance, they should see palliative care, or who should see palliative care. And I think if we could help drill that down, we can provide some better guidance to our colleagues about when and why and who should see palliative care. Dr Jones: It's a really kind of a fundamental, foundational, who needs the service to begin with or who needs to care. Okay, that's- that is a big gap. So, one of the interesting concepts that I read- and it was in Benzi Kluger's article on neuropalliative care for patients who have movement disorders. I think it's a concept that is interesting, really, maybe in the management of patients with a lot of different chronic, progressive neurologic diseases. And it's this idea of stealing victories or bringing joy to patients. In other words, not just managing or trying to minimize some of the negative aspects or symptoms of disease, but looking for opportunities to bring something positive to their experience or improving their quality of life. Tell us a little more about that, because I think that's something patients would appreciate, but I think neurologists would appreciate that, too. Dr Robinson: Dr Kluger loves to talk about sustaining and finding joy in patients who have really serious or advanced neurologic conditions. He likes to talk about stealing victories, which can relate to the fact that patients and their loved ones can find even some benefit despite having a serious or advanced neurologic condition. Neurologists and neurology clinicians also can steal victories in their patients when they notice, for instance, that they've gained a new skill, and they've lost a skill that they used to love because of the advancing disease. And this is just an opportunity for not only the patients and family members, but also the care providers to recognize that in the midst of decline, there are positive things to be found. Dr Jones: I think it gives patients a sense of maybe reclaimed autonomy when they can say, well, there's maybe nothing I can do to cure this disease in the conventional sense, but I can maybe go on this trip with my family, which has been something I've always wanted to do. Or, I can do these things, so I can attend certain events that I want to. And I think that autonomy and independence aspect of that, I think that I think that was really meaningful and something that I'm going to bring back to my own practice in my care of patients who have ALS, for example. When you think about neuropalliative care---and you've been a leader in this area, Dr Robinson---what do you think the biggest change in neuropalliative care has been over the last few years? Dr Robinson: I think there's a growing cohort of people who are recognizing that there is some benefit in having dedicated specialists who focus on palliative care for patients with neurologic disease. When I said I was going to do neuropalliative care, somebody asked me, why would a neurologist be interested in palliative care? Over the last decade and a half, we've seen that shift. And not only are our colleagues recognizing the benefit, but also patients and caregivers are. Some are even asking for palliative care. I think people are recognizing that not only having their primary neurologist or neurology clinician taking care of them, they have this extra layer of support, and this extra team really focused on quality-of-life issues can be beneficial. Dr Jones: So, one of the things that I think you and I have both seen, Dr Robinson, is a growing interest among neurology trainees in palliative medicine. And maybe that's anecdotal, but in my own practice, I've seen more and more trainees express an interest in this. For neurology residents who are interested in this as a component of or maybe a focus of their career, what would you recommend to them? How should they go about this? Dr Robinson: Yes, it used to be that every neurology resident interested in palliative care would call me or email me or send me a message, but now there are so many that I can't keep up. We're excited about the growing number of people interested in neuropalliative care. What I would say to those people is that you can really try to hone your skills by, for instance, doing a rotation with the palliative care team at your hospital, if there is one. If there isn't one, you might even ask to spend some time with the local hospice agency, which may be helpful to you. If you're attending some of the national meetings---for instance, the American Academy of Neurology meeting---you may want to go to a course and learn a little bit about palliative care. There are a couple that are offered every year. There is an education opportunity for education in palliative and end-of-life care as well. And so, there are a number of resources that you can find in addition to this issue of Continuum as well. Dr Jones: I find it gratifying that trainees ask about this. And I'm sorry, I think I've probably sent a bunch of trainees your way for advice about this, and you've been incredibly generous with your time and expertise. So, I find it very gratifying that our neurology trainees are interested in this area, because it's an important area of medicine. It's also probably a challenging practice just from the cognitive load and the emotional load of caring for patients who are moving through a progressive illness. What is your thinking about how to have a sustainable career in palliative medicine? What is your approach to that? Is it for everyone? Dr Robinson: Yeah, the issue with palliative care is that we do see some very challenging situations, and frankly some very sad situations. But I actually love what I do because I think that we're helping patients and their family members during very, very difficult times. I feel like this is why I went to medical school, to try to be there for people when they need me the most. The way that I think about it is, the patients and family members will be going through this anyway. We're trying to help improve their quality of life as they're going through it. And what you might find interesting is that these patients are so grateful. And their loved ones, they're so grateful. Even if they're nearing the end of life, just to have someone who's helping them see that, for instance, the pain could be better, or that they have more resources for the loved ones to be able to take care of them. And so, I think that helps sustain us, realizing that we are really having a positive benefit on the patients and also their family members. Dr Jones: Well, I think that's a great point to end on. And these are patients who need help. Even if we don't have a curative therapy, they do need support. And that's an important service and a function and an important facet of our profession. So, Dr Robinson, I want to thank you for joining us, and I want to thank you for such a great discussion of neuropalliative care. I learned a lot from our conversation today. I've learned a lot reading the articles and the experts that you put together. This is an important topic. I'm really grateful to you to having assembled this team of expert authors and put together an issue that I think will be really important for not only our junior readers, but also our more experienced subscribers as well. Dr Robinson: Thank you, Dr Jones, for the opportunity. Dr Jones: Again, we've been speaking with Dr Maisha Robinson, Guest Editor of Continuum's most recent issue and first issue fully dedicated to neuropalliative care. Please check it out, and thank you to our listeners for joining today. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Dystrophinopathies are heritable muscle disorders caused by pathogenic variants in the DMD gene, leading to progressive muscle breakdown, proximal weakness, cardiomyopathy, and respiratory failure. Diagnosis and management are evolving areas of neuromuscular neurology. In this episode, Kait Nevel, MD, speaks with Divya Jayaraman, MD, PhD, an author of the article "Dystrophinopathies" in the Continuum® October 2025 Muscle and Neuromuscular Junction Disorders issue. Dr. Nevel is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a neurologist and neuro-oncologist at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, Indiana. Dr. Jayaraman is an assistant professor of neurology and pediatrics in the division of child neurology at the Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York, New York. Additional Resources Read the article: Dystrophinopathies Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @IUneurodocmom Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Nevel: Hello, this is Dr Kate Nevel. Today I'm interviewing Dr Divya Jayaraman about her article on dystrophinopathies, which she wrote with Dr Partha Ghosh. This article appears in the October 2025 Continuum issue on muscle and neuromuscular junction disorders. Divya, welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to the audience. Dr Jayaraman: Thank you so much, Dr Nevel. My name is Divya, and I am an assistant professor of Neurology and Pediatrics at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, and also an attending physician in the Pediatric Neuromuscular program there. In that capacity, I see patients with pediatric neuromuscular disorders and also some general pediatric neurology patients and also do research, primarily clinical research and clinical trials on pediatric neuromuscular disorders. Dr Nevel: Wonderful. Thank you for sharing that background with us. To set us on the same page for our discussion, before we get into some more details of the article, perhaps, could you start with some definitions? What comprises the dystrophinopathies? What are some of the core features? Dr Jayaraman: So, the dystrophinopathies, I like that term because it is a smaller subset from the muscular dystrophies. The dystrophinopathies are a spectrum of clinical phenotypes that are all associated with mutations in the DMD gene on chromosome X. So, that includes DMD---or, Duchenne muscular dystrophy---, Becker muscular dystrophy, intermediate muscular dystrophy (which falls in between the two), dilated cardiomyopathy, asymptomatic hyperCKemia, and manifesting female carriers. In terms of the core features of these conditions, so, there's some variability, weakness being prominent in Duchenne and also Becker. The asymptomatic hyperCKemia, on the other hand, may have minimal symptoms and might be found incidentally by just having a high CK on their labs. They all will have some degree of elevated CK. The dilated cardiomyopathy patients, and also the Becker patients to a lesser degree, will have cardiac involvement out of proportion to skeletal muscle involvement, and then the manifesting carriers likewise can have elevated CK and prominent cardiac involvement as well as some milder weakness. Dr Nevel: Now that we have some definitions, for the practicing neurologists out there, what do you think is the most important takeaway from your article about the dystrophinopathies? Dr Jayaraman: I like this question because it suggests that there's something that, really, any neurologist could do to help us pick up these patients sooner. And the big takeaway I want everyone to get from this is to check the CK, or creatine kinase, level. It's a simple, cheap, easy test that anyone can order, and it really helps us a lot in terms of setting the patient on the diagnostic odyssey. And in terms of whom you should be thinking about checking a CK in, obviously patients who present with some of the classic clinical features of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. This would include young boys who have toe walking, as they're presenting, sign; or motor delayed, delayed walking. They may have calf hypertrophy, which is what we say nowadays. You might have seen calf pseudohypertrophy in your neurology textbooks, but we just say calf hypertrophy now. Or patients can often have a Gowers sign or Gowers maneuver, which is named after a person called Gowers who described this phenomenon where the child will basically turn over and use their hands on the floor to stand up, usually with a wide-based gait, and then they'll sort of march their hands up their legs. That's the sort of classic Gowers maneuver. There are modified versions of that as well. So, if anyone presents with this classic presentation, for sure the best first step is to check a CK. But I would also think about checking a CK for some atypical cases. For example, any boy with any kind of motor or speech delay for whom you might not necessarily be thinking about a muscle disorder, it's always good practice to check a CK. Even a boy with autism for whom you may not get a good clinical exam. This patient might present to a general pediatric neurology clinic. I always check a CK in those patients, and you'll pick up a lot of cases that way. For the adult folks in particular, the adult neurologist, a female patient could show up in your clinic with asymptomatic hyperCKemia. And I think it's an important differential to think about for them because this could have implications not just for their own cardiac risks, but also for their family planning. Dr Nevel: So, tell us a little bit more about the timing of diagnosis. Biggest takeaway: check a CK if this is anywhere on your radar, even if somewhat of an atypical case. Why is it so important to get kiddos started on that diagnostic odyssey, as you called it, early? Dr Jayaraman: This is especially important for kids because if they especially get a Duchenne muscular dystrophy diagnosis, you might be making them eligible for treatments that we've had for some time, and also treatments that were not available earlier that hinge on making that diagnosis. So, for example, people may be skeptical about steroids, but there's population data to suggest that initiation and implementation of steroids could delay the onset of loss of ambulation as much as three years. So, you don't want to deprive patients of the chance to get that. And then all the newer emerging therapies---which we'll be talking about later, I'm sure---require a Duchenne muscular dystrophy diagnosis. So, that's why it's so important to check a CK, have this on your radar, and then get them to a good specialist. Dr Nevel: I know that you alluded already, or shared a few of the kind of exam paroles or findings among patients with dystrophinopathy. But could you share with us a little bit more how you approach these patients in the clinic who are presenting with muscle weakness, perhaps? And how do you approach this or think about this in terms of ways to potentially differentiate between a dystrophinopathy versus another cause of motor weakness or delay? Dr Jayaraman: It's helpful to think through the neuraxis and what kinds of disorders can present along that neuraxis. A major differential that I'm always thinking about when I'm seeing a child with proximal weakness is spinal muscular atrophy, which is a genetic anterior horn cell disorder that can also present in this age group. And some of the key differences there would be things like reflexes. So, you should have dropped reflexes in spinal muscular atrophy. In DMD, surprisingly, they might have preserved Achilles reflexes even if their patellar reflexes are lost. It may only be much later that they go on to lose their Achilles reflex. So, if you can get an Achilles reflex, that's quite reassuring, and if you cannot, then you need to be thinking about spinal muscular atrophy. They can both have low muscle tone and can present quite similarly, including with proximal weakness, and can even have neck flexion weakness. So, this is an important distinction to make. The reason for that is, obviously there are treatments for both conditions, but for spinal muscular atrophy, timing is very, very important. Time is motor neurons, so the sooner you make that diagnosis the better. Other considerations would be the congenital muscular dystrophies. So, for those that they tend to present a lot younger, like in infancy or very early on, and they can have much, much higher CKS in that age range than a comparable Duchenne or Becker muscular dystrophy patient. They can also have other involvement of the central nervous system that you wouldn't see in the dystrophinopathies, for example. My mnemonic for the congenital muscular dystrophies is muscle-eye-brain disease, which is one of the subtypes. So, you think about muscle involvement, eye involvement, and brain involvement. So, they need an ophthalmology valve. They can have brain malformations, which you typically don't see in the dystrophinopathies. I think those are some of the major considerations that I have. Obviously, it's always good to think about the rest of the neuraxis as well. Like, could this be a central nervous system process? Do they have upper motor neuron signs? But that's just using all of your exam tools as a neurologist. Dr Nevel: Yeah, absolutely. So, let's say you have a patient in clinic and you suspect they may have a dystrophinopathy. What is your next diagnostic step after your exam? Maybe you have an elevated CK and you've met with the patient. What comes next? Dr Jayaraman: Great question. So, after the CK, my next step is to go to genetics. And this is a bit of a change in practice over time. In the past we would go from the CK to the muscle biopsy before genetic testing was standard. And I think now, especially in kids, we want to try and spare them invasive procedures where possible. So, genetic testing would be the next step. There are a few no-charge, sponsored testing programs for the dystrophinopathies and also for some of the differential diagnosis that I mentioned. And I think we'll be including links to websites for all of these in the final version of the published article. So, those are a good starting point for a genetic workup. It's really important to know that, you know, deletions and duplications are a very common type of mutation in the DMD gene. And so, if you just do a very broad testing, like whole exome, you might miss some of those duplications and deletions. And it's important to include both checking for duplications and deletions, and also making sure that the DMD gene is sequenced. So always look at whatever genetic test you're ordering and making sure that it's actually going to do what you want it to do. After genetics, I think that the sort of natural question is, what if things are not clear after the genetics for some reason? We still use biopsy in this day and age, but we save it for those cases where it's not entirely clear or maybe the phenotype is a little bit discordant from the genotype. So, for mutations that disrupt the reading frame, those tend to cause Duchenne muscular dystrophy, whereas mutations that preserve the reading frame tend to cause Becker muscular dystrophy. There are some important exceptions to this, which is where muscle biopsy can be especially helpful in sorting it out. So, for example, there are some early mutations early in the DMD gene where, basically, they find an alternate start codon or an initiation codon to continue with transcription and translation. So, you end up forming a largely functional, somewhat truncated protein that gives you more of a milder Becker phenotype. On the other hand, you can have some non-frameshift or inframe mutations that preserve the reading frame, but because they disrupt a very key domain in the protein that's really crucial for its function, you can actually end up with a much more severe Duchennelike phenotype. So, for these sorts of cases, you might know a priori you're dealing with them, but might just be a child who is who you think has DMD has a mutation that's showed up on testing. There isn't enough in the literature to point you one way or another, but they look maybe a little milder than you would expect. That would be a good kid to do a biopsy in because there are treatment decisions that hinge on this. There are treatments that are only for Duchenne that someone with a milder phenotype would not be eligible for. Dr Nevel: So, that kind of stepwise approach, but maybe not all kids need a muscle biopsy is what I'm hearing from you. If it's a mutation that's been well-described in the literature to be fitting with Duchenne, for example. Dr Jayaraman: Absolutely. Dr Nevel: So, after you confirm the diagnosis through genetic testing---and let's say, you know, whether or not you do a muscle biopsy or not, after you know the diagnosis is a dystrophinopathy---how do you counsel the families and your patients? What are the most important points to relay to families, especially in that initial phase where the diagnosis is being made? Dr Jayaraman: This is a lot of what we do in pediatric neurology in general, right? So, I actually picked up this approach from the pediatric hematology oncology specialists at Boston Children's. They had this concept of a day-zero conversation, which is the day that you disclose the life-changing diagnosis or potentially, at some point, terminal diagnosis to a family. And some of the key components of that are a not beating around the bush, telling them what the diagnosis is, and then letting them have whatever emotional response they're going to have in the moment. And you may not get much further than that, but honestly, you want them to take away, this is what my child has. I did not do anything to cause this, nor could I have done anything to prevent this. Because often for these genetic conditions, there's a lot of guilt, a lot of parental guilt. So, you want to try and assuage that as much as possible. And then to know that they're not going to be alone on this journey; that, you know, they don't have to have it all figured out right then, but we can always come back and answer any questions they have. There's going to be a whole team of specialists. We're going to help the family and the kid manage this condition. Those are sort of my big takeaways that I want them to get. Dr Nevel: Right. And that segues into my next question, which is, who is part of that team? I know that these teams that help take care of people with dystrophinopathies and other muscle disorders can be very large teams that span multiple specialists. Can you talk a little bit more about that for this group of patients? Dr Jayaraman: Of course. So, the neuromuscular neurologist, really, our role is in coordinating the diagnosis, the initiation of any disease-specific treatments, and coordinating care with a whole group of specialists. So, we're sort of at the center of that, but everyone else is equally important. So, the other specialists include physical therapists; occupational therapists; rehab doctors or physiatrists; orthotists who help with all of the many braces and other devices that they might need, wheelchairs; pulmonology, of course, for managing the respiratory manifestations of this. It becomes increasingly important over time, and they are involved early on to help monitor for impending respiratory problems. Cardiac manifestations, this is huge and something that you should be thinking about even for your female carriers, the mother of the patient you're seeing in the clinic, or your patient who comes to adult clinic with asymptomatic hyperCKemia. if you end up making a diagnosis of DMD carrier for those patients, or if you make a Becker diagnosis, the cardiac surveillance is even more important because the cardiac involvement can be out of proportion to the skeletal muscle weakness. And of course, extremely important for the Duchenne patients as well. Endocrinologists are hugely important because in the course of treating patients with steroids, we end up giving them a lot of iatrogenic endocrinologic complications. Like they might have delayed puberty, they might have loss of growth, of height; and of course metabolic syndrome. So, endocrinology is hugely important. They're also important in managing things like fracture prevention, osteoporosis, prescribing bisphosphonates if necessary. Nutrition and GI are also important, not just later on when they might need assistance to take in nutrition, whether that's through tube feeds, but also earlier on when we're trying to manage the weight. Orthopedics, of course, for the various orthopedic complications that patients develop. And then finally, a word must be said for social work and behavioral and mental health specialists, because a lot of this patient population has a lot of mental health challenges as well. Dr Nevel: After you give the diagnosis, you've counseled the patient and families and you've had those kind of initial phase discussions, the day-zero discussion, when you start getting into discussions or thoughts about management, disease-specific medication. But what are the main categories of the treatment options, and maybe how do you kind of approach deciding between treatment options for your patients? Dr Jayaraman: So, there are two broad categories that I like to think about. So, one is the oral corticosteroids and oral histone deacetylase, or HDAC inhibitors, which share the common characteristic that they are non-mutation specific. And within corticosteroids, patients now have a choice between just Prednisone or Prednisolone, or Deflazacort or Vermilion. The oral HDAC inhibitors are newly FDA-approved as a nonsteroidal therapy in addition to corticosteroids in DMD patients above six years of age. I would say we're in the early phase of adoption of this in clinical practice. And then the other big category of treatment options would be the genetic therapies as a broad bucket, and this would include gene therapy or gene replacement therapy, of which the most famous is the microdystrophin gene therapy that was FDA-approved first on an accelerated approval basis for ages four to eight, and then a full approval in that age group as well as an accelerated approval for all comers, essentially, with DMD. This is obviously controversial. Different centers approach this a bit differently. I think our practice at our site has been to focus on the ambulatory population, just thinking about risk versus benefit, because the risks are not insignificant. So really this is something that should be done by experienced sites that have the bandwidth and the wherewithal to counsel patients through all of this and to manage complications as they arise with regular monitoring. And then another class that falls within this broader category would be the Exon-skipping therapies. So as the name suggests, they are oligonucleotides that cause an Exon to be skipped. The idea is, if there is a mutation in a particular Exon that causes a frame shift, and there's an adjacent Exon that you can force skipping of, then the resulting protein, when you splice the two ends together, will actually allow restoration of the reading frame. I think the picture I want to paint is that there's a wide range of options that we present to families, not all of which everyone will be eligible for. And they all have different risk profiles. And I really think the choice of a particular therapy has to be a risk-benefit decision and a shared decision-making process between the physician and the family. Dr Nevel: What is going on in research in this area? And what do you think will be the next big breakthrough? I know before we started the recording you had mentioned that there's a lot of things going on that are exciting. And so, I'm looking forward to hearing more. Dr Jayaraman: Of course. So, I'll be as quick as I can with this. But I mentioned that next-generation Exon skipping therapies, I think the hope is that they will be better at delivering the Exon skipping to the target tissue and cells and that they might be more efficacious. I'm also excited about next-generation gene therapies that might target muscle more specifically and hopefully reduce the off-target effects, or combination use of gene therapies with other immunosuppressive regimens to improve the safety profile and maybe someday allow redosing, which we cannot do currently. Or potentially targeting the satellite cells, which are the muscle stem cells, again, to improve the long term durability of these genetic therapies. Dr Nevel: That's great, thank you for sharing. Thank you so much for talking to me today about your article. I really enjoyed learning more about the dystrophinopathies. Today I've been interviewing Dr Divya Jayaraman about her article on the dystrophinopathies, which she wrote with Dr Partha Ghosh. This article appears in the October 2025 Continuum issue on muscle and neuromuscular junction disorders. Please be sure to check out the Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues. Also, please read the Continuum articles for more details than what we were able to get to today during our discussion. Thank you, as always, so much to the listeners for joining us today, and thank you, Divya, for sharing all of your knowledge with us today. Dr Jayaraman: Thank you so much for having me on the podcast. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Myotonic dystrophies (DM), in addition to muscle weakness and myotonia, are associated with broad and variable multiorgan involvement. Neurologists need to recognize DM to ensure prompt diagnosis, effective symptom management, and prevention of life-threatening events. In this episode, Casey Albin, MD, speaks with Paloma Gonzalez Perez, MD, PhD, author of the article "Myotonic Dystrophy" in the Continuum® October 2025 Muscle and Neuromuscular Junction Disorders issue. Dr. Albin is a Continuum® Audio interviewer, associate editor of media engagement, and an assistant professor of neurology and neurosurgery at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia. Dr. Gonzalez Perez is an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts. Additional Resources Read the article: Myotonic Dystrophy Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @caseyalbin Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Albin: Hello everyone, this is Dr Casey Albin. Today I'm interviewing Dr Paloma Gonzalez-Perez about her article on myotonic dystrophy, which appears in the October 2025 Continuum issue on muscle and neuromuscular junction disorders. Welcome to the podcast, Dr Gonzalez-Perez. I'd love for you to introduce yourself to our listeners. Dr Gonzalez-Perez: Thank you very much for the invitation. My name is Paloma Gonzalez-Perez. I'm a neuromuscular neurologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston since 2018. And I'm originally from Spain. I did residency there and also here in Iowa City. And then I did the neuromuscular fellowship here at Mass General Brigham, and then I stayed here as a faculty. So, my focus is myopathies, and more specifically muscular dystrophies, and more particularly myotonic dystrophy, which is what we are going to talk today. Dr Albin: Wonderful. And this is a really fantastic tour de force article about myotonic dystrophy. And in reading your article, it really did stand out to me that these myotonic dystrophies are probably under-recognized. And so, I was hoping that, just to start, you could tell us a little bit about, what is a myotonic dystrophy, and how should we sort of situate that within the larger context of all muscular dystrophies? Dr Gonzalez-Perez: Yes, so muscular dystrophies, we have many of them, right? And mostly affecting the skeletal muscle. And basically, the definition of muscular dystrophy is a genetic or inherited muscle disease that causes a progressive muscle weakness. And also, in the muscle biopsies of patients with muscular dystrophies, we see some fractures that are characteristic of this category of muscle diseases, such as, for example, the nuclei of the muscle fibers are in the center---that's what we call internal nuclei---or maybe fat infiltration or increased connective tissue or a variability in the size of the muscle fibers. So, now in the last few years, the genetic testing is more accessible to us. So, we don't need muscle biopsies all the time to diagnose patients with muscular dystrophy. So many times, we go directly to genetic testing. And this is basically the category of muscular dystrophies. Myotonic dystrophy is very fascinating muscular dystrophy in the sense that many times not only affect the skeletal muscle, but other organs can be affected. And it is true that other muscular dystrophies can affect other organs such as, for example, the brain and the heart, which is something that we always have in mind as a clinician to make sure this muscular dystrophy affect the heart or affect the brain, because it is important for patient care. But myotonic dystrophy actually can affect any organ in the body. I think it is one of these muscular dystrophies in which there is a multisystem involvement of the body. So, the immune, immunological system can be affected and the endocrine system can be affected, the GI system can be affected. In addition to, obviously, to the brain, to the heart, to the skeletal muscle. And sometimes that is why it is under-recognized because of course, if there is a very severe phenotype, maybe the patient comes very easily to a neurologist who is very familiar with myotonic dystrophy. But if the phenotype is a little bit milder, and maybe it doesn't affect much the skeletal muscle. So, these patients probably are in the care of other specialists, such as, for example cardiology or GI doctors, and obviously these specialists are not really aware of this muscular dystrophy. So, I think it is a complex disease because it is very variable in phenotype, can affect many organs and can be also mild. Dr Albin: That is fantastic. That is just a wonderful overview of, really, muscular dystrophy. One of the things I was really curious about: the name includes myotonia. Is myotonia, like, always present, or is that a little bit misleading? Dr Gonzalez-Perez: Yeah. I would say that it is a little bit misleading---maybe not too much in myotonic dystrophy type one, because it is true that in adults with myotonic dystrophy type one, many times they have the myotonia, but not many times they complain about the myotonia. This is the thing. So, it is a diagnostic clue that we have at bedside when we ask the patient, for example, to squeeze the hands and then release and we see the myotonia there. And then, obviously, this can actually give you the diagnosis at bedside, but the patients usually don't come to the clinic complaining of this myotonia, which is delaying the relaxation of the muscles. Sometimes they don't- they are not bothered by that. They don't need treatment for that. But it is a very important clue at bedside. I have to say, adults, myotonic dystrophy type one, because the congenital myotonic dystrophy type one you don't see myotonia, clinical myotonia. These babies, right, are born with severe muscle weakness and we don't see myotonia. And then myotonic dystrophy type two, many patients don't have clinical myotonia. And then, you know, the absence of myotonia, the absence of this delay in the muscle relaxation doesn't rule out a myotonic dystrophy, and especially doesn't rule out a myotonic dystrophy type two. Dr Albin: Fantastic. So probably is going to be a feature of the adult-onset type one. May or may not be present in type two. And then the congenital forum where children are presenting as infants, they're not going to tell you that, oh, I have delayed relaxation. That's not going to be part of that. Dr Gonzalez-Perez: Exactly. Dr Albin: This is one of those things that I think, unless you're in neuromuscular clinic, you might not think to ask people about. Maybe the patient isn't actually saying, oh, I have this delayed reaction. How do you get them to give you that history? Like, what are the questions that you ask? Dr Gonzalez-Perez: Sometimes I will say, do your hands get locked? You know, this could be the first question that they noticed something there, and then they can give you maybe the clue. But actually, it's the exam more than the question. I will say it's more do the exam and, you know, intentionally test for myotonia. And you test for spontaneous myotonia and percussion myotonia. So spontaneous myotonia, we tell the patient to squeeze the hands very strongly and then open the hands quickly. And then if they cannot open the hands quickly, this is a delay in muscle relaxation. We call it grip myotonia, spontaneous grip myotonia. Or sometimes close your eyes very, very, very strongly and then open the eyes quickly. And if they have this delay in the eye opening, we call it eyelid myotonia. This eye is spontaneous myotonia, you don't touch the patient and you don't use your hammer yet. And then if we don't find anything, we go to the hammer. We use our reflex hammer, and then we try to test for percussion myotonia. And sometimes we with the reflect hammer, we tap the thinner eminence of the hand, and we can see that you tap, there is a contraction, and then the thumb goes up and then takes a while to go down again. It is a delay in the relaxation of the thinner eminence muscles. Or sometimes in the posterior aspect of the forearm, if we tap the extensor digitorum communis muscle. Again, so, there is a contraction of that muscle, the fingers go up and then take a while to go down. It is also a perfusion myotonia of the extensor digitorum communis muscle. Sometimes people do it even in the tongue. I don't do that because could be very painful. But you can, you know, use a tongue depressor and put it in the tongue, and you tap the tongue depressor and sometimes there is contraction of the tongue, which can be very painful. I don't do it. So- but this is the perfusion myotonia, that can give you also a clue. Dr Albin: That's fantastic. I think this is one of the most memorable things that I saw in pediatric neurology. I remember very distinctly a kid coming in, and then us also examining the mother and having that delayed relaxation. And just one of those really great neurologic exams, those little findings to tuck away to really make a diagnosis, recognizing that not all patients with muscular dystrophy or myotonic dystrophy will have that finding. But so beautiful. And I think that's a really great explanation. And I will also direct our listeners, if you are a Continuum subscriber, she has some really wonderful videos in her article from the EMG sounds of this, which is another layer of being able to appreciate the physical exam finding. One of the things that I was really struck by, and that you've already mentioned, is that there is this really incredible spectrum of disease. That some of the myotonic dystrophy patients may barely have any skeletal involvement, and the ones with congenital myotonic dystrophy may have significant mortality even within the first year of life. Given how many subtypes of this disease there are in that varied presentation, let's just walk through sort of starting with congenital myotonic dystrophy. What are some of the clues to that diagnosis? Dr Gonzalez-Perez: Yes. So, you know, these babies with congenital myotonic dystrophy, actually when they are born, the phenotype is what we call a floppy baby. Floppy baby syndrome right? So, they are very weak. There is generalized weakness, including the swallowing muscles and the respiratory muscles. So sometimes, you know, these patients, these babies have to be intubated---to have a feeling tube, right---to survive. So, that's why the mortality can be so high during the first year of life, because obviously swallowing and breathing is affected because the muscle, those muscles, are also affected. So, one of the clues, actually- you know, sometimes these patients may have, like, a tented mouth, which could be a sign of congenital myotonic dystrophy. The differential diagnosis for a floppy baby syndrome is very broad and can be caused by central nervous system problems or peripheral nervous system problems. So, it's very broad, but maybe the tented mouth can be a clue to suspect the congenital myotonic dystrophy type one. And I will say that also, examine the mom. Because sometimes the mom is not diagnosed with myotonic dystrophy, and as simple as going into the mom who is an adult and can have already the myotonia that we talked about before and maybe, you know, try to do, like, a grip myotonia, eyelid myotonia, or use your reflex hammer and tap a few muscles, and then can give you the diagnosis of potential congenital myotonic dystrophy in the baby. And I have to say that there is no newborn screening for myotonic dystrophy type one yet. Maybe in the future it's going to be, but not at this time. So, I'm pretty sure that pediatricians probably rule out other things before unless there is distinctive mouth or unless the mom is affected. Dr Albin: Great pearls about how to take it to the bedside and try to look for that hereditary nature of this. Let's move up a little bit in sort of the childhood and adolescent onset. What are some of the clues that you're seeing for those children who come to presentation a bit later in life, but still probably more likely to be seen in pediatric clinic? Dr Gonzalez-Perez: Yes. So, the childhood and adolescent onset in myotonic dystrophy type one, it is interesting because the skeletal muscle may not be the organ that is more affected or the organ that impacts the life of the patient and the family of the patient. So, it's- the phenotype is predominantly focused on behavioral and intellectual disabilities. They may develop at some point myotonia, and they may develop also muscle weakness. But for the most part they are ambulatory. They eat by themselves, they breathe okay, and there is not too much problem with the skeletal muscle, but mostly with behavioral problems such as, for example, ADHD or intellectual disability. So, they may need some help in school and things like that. So, it is more, I will say, a central nervous system phenotype at this age. Dr Albin: Yeah, I love that that this is- to me, this was part of the complexity of this was that, while we call it myotonic dystrophy, the muscle part of this disease really may not be the main issue for the patients and their families. And that we're actually looking for something that involves the central nervous system, endocrine system, GI system. And knowing that maybe the muscle is not the main problem here, why is it so important that these patients actually get the correct diagnosis? Dr Gonzalez-Perez: Exactly. So, it is very important. And I always think about the heart. You know, the heart can be affected in the sense like the rhythm of the heart can be abnormal. And sometimes, you know, the patient doesn't have symptoms. But it's important to detect this because, you know, an abnormal rhythm in the heart can cause sudden death. So that's why it's so important. The diagnosis of this muscular dystrophy at this time, and of course in the future when we have a treatment, right, will be very important also to have the diagnosis, the earlier is the better, because probably the treatment is going to be more effective in the earlier stages than in the later stages. But I will say that right now making sure that the heart is in a good shape and the patient has a cardiologist on board if they have myotonic dystrophy. And also, you know, there are consensus-based care recommendations for myotonic dystrophy type one for the pediatric population and the adult population, and also for myotonic dystrophy type two for the adult population, that are published. And I also included in the chapter because they are very important to look for things that maybe the patient it doesn't complain about, but it's important to look for them in the case that we can prevent some future complications. Dr Albin: Absolutely. I really love that. This is a systemic disease that has multiple manifestations, and while the skeletal muscle involvement may or may not be causing problems, we really do have to get the right diagnosis, particularly as it impacts the heart and preventing fatal cardiac arrhythmias. Up to this point, we've mostly been talking about type one myotonic dystrophy. What sets type two apart? Dr Gonzalez-Perez: Yes. So, type two is, I think, even more under-recognized, probably because the phenotype is even more variable than type one and can be much milder in some sense. We are not aware of, you know, like, there are some pediatric cases that have been reported, but for the most part it's an adult muscular dystrophy, type two. So, we diagnose these muscular dystrophies usually in the forties, fifties. The thing is, like, sometimes patients actually may only have muscle pain. And not even muscle weakness. And so… and actually some of these patients may receive a diagnosis of fibromyalgia, for example, just because of the muscle pain. And it is more difficult to obtain myotonia on exam, actually. I think there is a delay in diagnosis in this population, and also the multisystem involvement, which is present but maybe even more variable than that in type one. And we have less patients, so we understand less the phenotype of these patients. But for the most part it is, I think, more under-recognized in the type one. Dr Albin: Fascinating. So again, could have pretty mild skeletal involvement and may just have cramps and muscle pain. So, you have to be really sort of mindful of keeping this on the differential for people with multiple areas of pain in the muscles. When is this suspected? Are you usually sending genetic tests to confirm? How do we get to the diagnosis? Dr Gonzalez-Perez: In the history, in the past medical history, you have probably- sometimes you have the clue. For example, a patient with muscle pain, imagine like for example a forty-eight-year-old male with muscle pain comes to the clinic, and then he tells you that he had cataract surgery at the age of twenty. And then you see a CK that is a little bit more elevated than usual. And then at that time I will go for genetic testing right away, for my myotonic dystrophy type two. Because of the muscle pain is so characteristic of myotonic dystrophy type two, and the multiorgan involvement sometimes includes a very early cataracts, the same as in type one. But the muscle pain is much more typical for type two than for type one. So, that's why I will go, in this specific scenario to type two. If I still think that my alternative dystrophic type two is a possibility, although I'm not totally convinced if it is or not, I usually go for EMG. I mean, if you don't see myotonia at the side, maybe with the EMG and the needle in the muscle, you can see this electrical myotonia that I have some videos in the chapter to see if there is this motorcycle sound of the electrical discharges from the muscle that are consistent with- they can be seen in myotonic dystrophy type two. They are not as specific, but can be seen in myotonic dystrophy type two. So if I have a patient with muscle pain and then I see this electrical myotonia on EMG, so then I will go then next to a genetic testing for myotonic dystrophy type two. Sometimes if there are some family history, it gives you also clues about the possibility of myotonic dystrophy in general, but also myotonic dystrophy type two. Myotonic dystrophy type two, usually the muscle weakness, when it is present, it's more proximal. While in myotonic dystrophy type one it's more distal. So, this also, you know, helps you to differentiate. But specifically in this myotonic dystrophy area, I think the past medical history helps you a lot and the family history helps you too. If you see an autosomal dominant inheritance of muscle or other organ problems, you suspect this type of muscular dystrophy. And I have low threshold to test for this if it is possible because, as we mentioned before, knowing what the patient has helps a lot in their care. Dr Albin: Absolutely. I love that. Spoken like a true neurologist, using the history, the physical, thinking about the family history, using EMG as an extension of our physical to really find and clinch that diagnosis, and then using genetic tests as a confirmation to get to the right answer. I love the mention of early-onset cataract. Are there any other things that pop into your mind or when you're reading the chart and you look at the medical history that, like cataracts, stand out to you as, this really clues me into myotonic dystrophy? Dr Gonzalez-Perez: Yes. So, for example, a pacemaker at early age---in their thirties, in their forties---; a family history of sudden death---for example, having a surgery for whatever reason, having a surgery like for example, surgery for appendicitis and have complications from general anesthesia, like a delay in the awakening from the general anesthesia because patients with melatonin dystrophy are very sensitive to anesthetics and also any sedative medication. So, that gives me a clue that, you know, patients with melatonin dystrophy can have this type of history. I think that those will be the main ones. Sleep apnea is very common, but we know it's also common in the general population. So, maybe sometimes, actually, we may think too much and it is, you know, normal for the general population, more frequent in the general population. But, yeah. And daytime sleepiness that can be caused by the sleep apnea. But sometimes these patients have profound daytime sleepiness. Like, they really complain about that. You know, I need to nap very often during the day because of this. Those features, I think, increase my suspicion for myotonic dystrophy. Dr Albin: Fantastic. So, in the brief time that we have left, I'd love for you to tell us a little bit about what's on the horizon for treatment for these patients. Dr Gonzalez-Perez: Yes, we have exciting preclinical and clinical trials in myotonic dystrophy type one; not yet in myotonic dystrophy type two. And these trials try to target the genetic defect at the level of the DNA or at the level of RNA. So, we have small molecules in clinical trials. We have also some antisense oligonucleotides in clinical trials. We have some small interfering RNAs in clinical trials. And then the CRISPR, which is another new technology, that is trying, you know, to repair this long function that causes myotonic dystrophy type one. And the important thing is, like, once we know what works for myotonic dystrophy type one, we may have good clues also for myotonic dystrophy type two because they share the common pathogenic mechanism. Dr Albin: Fantastic. So, it sounds like there's some genetic therapy in the pipeline. There is some small molecule treatments that are going to be available. So, really an exciting time. There's going to be a lot of changes coming forward to these patients. Again, today I've been interviewing Dr Paloma Gonzalez-Perez about her article on myotonic dystrophy, which appears in the October 2025 Continuum issue on muscle and neuromuscular junction disorders. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues, and thank you so much to our listeners for joining again today. Dr Gonzalez-Perez: Thank you very much for the invitation. My pleasure. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Genetic variants that underlie skeletal muscle channelopathies and rhabdomyolysis can also cause persistent and progressive muscle weakness. The availability and expanded use of genetic testing allows for the identification of new genes causing periodic paralysis and rhabdomyolysis. In this episode, Teshamae Monteith, MD, FAAN speaks with Hani Kushlaf, MD, MS, FAAN, author of the article "Muscle Channelopathies and Rhabdomyolysis" in the Continuum® October 2025 Muscle and Neuromuscular Junction Disorders issue. Dr. Monteith is the associate editor of Continuum® Audio and an associate professor of clinical neurology at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Miami, Florida. Dr. Kushlaf is a professor of neurology and pathology as well as the director of the Neuromuscular Division, director of Neuromuscular Research, and director of the Neuromuscular Medicine Fellowship in the Department of Neurology and Rehabilitation Medicine and the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine in Cincinnati, Ohio. Additional Resources Read the article: Muscle Channelopathies and Rhabdomyolysis Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @headacheMD Guest: @HaniKushlaf Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith. Today I'm interviewing Dr Hani Kushlaf about his article on muscle channelopathies and rhabdomyolysis, which appears in the October 2025 Continuum issue on muscle and neuromuscular junction disorders. Hi, Hani. How are you? Dr Kushlaf: Good. How are you doing? Thank you for having me. Dr Monteith: Well, thank you for coming on our podcast. So why don't you introduce yourself? Dr Kushlaf: So, I'm Hani Kushlaf. I'm a professor of Neurology and Pathology in the Department of Neurology and Rehabilitation Medicine at the University of Cincinnati in Cincinnati, Ohio. Dr Monteith: And what got you interested in muscle disorders? Dr Kushlaf: So, this is a long story. At first in residency, I was interested in epilepsy, but the moment I started doing a rotation in neuromuscular, I became enamored with neuromuscular disorders. I remember seeing the first patient in the rotation who had myofibrillar myopathy, and I found out that there is very little known about muscle disease at the time. So, I became very interested and I immediately changed direction as I started doing nerve conduction studies and EMGs and having that procedure base, I just decided that I want to pursue neuromuscular disorders. Dr Monteith: Well, that doesn't sound like a long story. It sounds like love at first sight. Dr Kushlaf: Yes, I think part of it is not very far from neuromuscular disorders and that it does have some electrophysiology involved. But muscle disease and nerve disorders, they need that detailed neurologic examination, which I love in terms of doing the localization exercise. Dr Monteith: Great. So why don't we talk about the objectives of your article? Dr Kushlaf: This article was written to review muscle channelopathies that include myotonic disorders and periodic paralysis, and also rhabdomyolysis, with emphasis on genetic causes of rhabdomyolysis more than acquired causes. Dr Monteith: So, why was this update so important? Dr Kushlaf: I think this area of muscle disorders hasn't seen a lot of progress in recent years, but there are interesting findings that we're learning that spark, hopefully, more research into the area, because we do have significant gaps that are related to understanding pathophysiology of some of these disorders. For example, in patients with periodic paralysis, it's clearly known now that these patients over time develop muscle weakness, and the muscle weakness is unrelated to how many episodes of weakness they have---basically, the episodic paralysis part of the disease. So, this is an important finding that I think we need to look more into it and understand that these disorders actually progress, even though that they may not have episodes of paralysis. In addition, there are genetic therapies that have been introduced into most of neuromuscular medicine at this time, including muscle disorders, while this specific part of muscle diseases has not had that luxury yet. And I'm hoping over time that there will be an introduction of gene therapies for these diseases. Dr Monteith: Great. So, it sounds like there's some clinical advances, then, as well as genetic advances. Now, you also spoke about rhabdomyolysis and that there's newer ways of thinking about that from perhaps when I was in residency. So why don't you update me on these newer approaches? Dr Kushlaf: The rhabdomyolysis… first, the definition of it is changing. We used to use a cut off, a CK of about a thousand, to call it rhabdomyolysis. And very recently it's clear that that level of CK is not sufficient to call it rhabdomyolysis. So, now the level went up in terms of exertion of rhabdomyolysis, up to ten thousand, has to be more than ten thousand. And in patients who haven't had exercise, the level is up to five thousand. So, it's no longer actually one thousand. And that refinement in the definition is important because there are some patients who exercise all the time and they may exercise at an athletic level and they have very high CK's. And those patients should not be labeled as having rhabdomyolysis. Basically, they are doing strenuous physiologic exercise. In addition, not only the definition of rhabdomyolysis is changing, it is our approach to which disorders to consider first and how we should work up patients with rhabdomyolysis. So, acquired rhabdomyolysis remains the most important etiology to be ruled out first. So, I always tell my fellows and residents that, think about acquired rhabdomyolysis first before you think about the genetic disorder. After you rule out the fact that it is not a toxic or metabolic or medication-induced rhabdomyolysis, then think about a genetic etiology. But when you get that consultation from the hospital that the patient has rhabdomyolysis and we want you to figure it out, always look at the medication list and make sure that there isn't anything on it that causes, actually, a rhabdomyolysis. And in many instances, you find out that it's actually a toxic or metabolic etiology for the rhabdomyolysis. And as part of this article, there's also an acronym that's now being used to identify those patients who would benefit from genetic testing. The acronym is called RHABDO. It's as is the word, RHABDO. R refers to Recurrent exertion of rhabdomyolysis. So, it's not just one episode. And the H refers to HyperCKemia, and the hyperCKemia should persist more than eight weeks after the episodes of rhabdomyolysis. And if it is exertional, then the person has not done an unaccustomed exercise. So, they have changed the way that they do exercise and now they are exercising for two hours instead of one hour or they have introduced a new way of exercise into their exercise regimen. Then that should not be considered. It's not considered necessary to test these patients for a genetic cause. Also, the muscle enzyme typically, in genetic causes of rhabdomyolysis, goes more than fifty times above the upper limit of normal, which is more than a thousand. So that has to be taken into account. And then for the D it's Drugs and medications. This has to be ruled out before you say yes, we need to find the genetic cause of rhabdomyolysis. And then the O, it's basically family history. If you find that there is other family members who are affected or they have a high CK, then of course that would point you toward doing genetic testing. Dr Monteith: Great. So, it sounds like there's some advances there in how we approach these patients. In what way is this practice changing? You mentioned, you know, really important to rule out these potentially reversible causes first. Dr Kushlaf: Yeah. So, once you identify the theology, it becomes easier to manage the patient. So, if it is a statin-induced rhabdomyolysis, you know that you want to stop the statin and you are not going to have this problem again. So, that's quite important. The statins, of course, will have to not be reintroduced in the future for that specific patient who developed statin-induced rhabdomyolysis. But for the genetic causes of rhabdomyolysis, if you go down the path of genetic rhabdomyolysis, of course we have no cures for these disorders. We may have treatments. One of the conditions that I have alluded to as one of the case presentations in the article is a patient who has riboflavin responsive multiple acid CoA dehydrogenase deficiency, and I wanted to highlight this disorder because it's a disorder not to be missed. It does have a treatment, which is riboflavin, and that comes from the name riboflavin-responsive. So that's why I put there in the article as part of the manuscript. However, some of these disorders, once you find the genetic etiology, there may be a way of preventing it in the future generation. Family planning, reproductive medicine technologies, can help in this instance and prevent this disease from occurring in the future generations. Dr Monteith: So, why don't we move on to episodic skeletal disorders? What is your general approach for these types of diseases? Dr Kushlaf: Muscle channelopathies, skeletal muscle channelopathies, are ultra-rare disorders. And part of the issue is not giving them a high index of suspicion in the diagnostic process. So, these patients typically come to us in clinics with very vague symptoms, and they may have lived with these symptoms for a very long time. So, they may have muscle pain, they may have fatigue, they may have muscle stiffness. Even though in most instances they do not tell you that they have muscle stiffness, they will tell you that when I wake up in the morning, I feel like I walk like a robot. My legs feel rigid, something like that. The word stiffness is not usually in the vocabulary of patients. When they come to see you and you examine them and you find out that the muscle strength is normal, you may not think much about the myotonic disorder. And that's where the issue is. You always have to keep these disorders in your differential diagnosis. So, you elicit for myotonia and for paramyotonia on examination, look at the muscle size, see if there is any muscle hypertrophy that happens in fluoride channelopathies, and that will typically guide you toward the diagnosis. And also ask about whether their symptoms get worse in a cold environment. So, sometimes they tell you they don't like winter because during winter everything is not doing well. They may report that they even feel like they cannot move their face because of facial stiffness in wintertime, especially in states where it snows outside and patients will be walking outside. So, these are things, typically, that give you clues about the diagnosis. But in patients who are affected minimally with the disease, sometimes you do not catch them, really, till they come to the EMG lab because of another reason. If they develop a neck pain and someone thinks that they may have a cervical radiculopathy and they want to do an EMG on them, or if they develop carpal tunnel symptoms, they send them to the EMG lab for carpal tunnel. And the moment we see them in the EMG lab, we start doing the needle examination and we find out that there is myotonic discharges in every muscle that we stick with the needle. And we're like, well, this person must have a myotonic disorder. And you ask them more about their symptoms. They may have symptoms, but they will tell you that they have ignored them for too long because it's something that they live with throughout their lives since childhood. They thought this is what is normal for them and this is what normal people might have. They may have aches and pains here and there and that is normal. So, these are clues, typically, for the diagnosis. Once you find the myotonia, your next bet to identify the exact genetic abnormalities to do genetic testing. And nowadays I think the field has benefited from the availability of free genetic testing so we can find out which channel is affected and then move on toward freezing that disorder. Dr Monteith: So, you spoke about nondystrophic myotonia. What are some bedside tips to try and really get at the diagnosis? Dr Kushlaf: So as I said, first is, look at the muscle build of the patient. So, these disorders, chloride channelopathies---so, the autosomal dominant and autosomal recessive chloride channelopathies---can cause muscle hypertrophy. So, these patients can have an athletic appearance even though when you ask them, do you exercise? I don't exercise at all. Do you lift weights? I don't lift weights at all. And they look like bodybuilders, so that's something to think about. Also eliciting the myotonia and typically we elicit the myotonia by using, of course, the reflex hammer. You can either tap on the phenol eminence and notice the myotonia in the thumb as it moves inward and stays in that position for some time. Depending on the severity of the myotonia, you can tap on the extensor digitorum in the forearm and notice the middle finger as it gets up and gets stuck for some time before it goes down. You can also ask patients to squeeze your fingers and then release quickly. Squeeze forcefully, of course, and find out how long does it take them to release their fingers, and that way you can identify the myotonia. Also, you may need to repeat the elicitation of myotonia several times because it can be not myotonia but paramyotonia, which is the opposite of myotonia. It's basically worsening of the myotonia as you keep doing the eliciting activity. So, the more they squeeze your fingers, the more difficult it is for them to improve. While the warm up phenomenon, which is the opposite of paradoxical myotonia, is, for them, as they repeat squeezing, they are able to do it better and better. They would be able to release more quickly with each attempt. In some patients, you can also ask them to close their eyes if they have facial myotonia, to close their eyes forcefully and see how quickly does it take for them to open their eyes. You may see that they do not open their eyes quickly. Or if you repeat in patients with paramyotonia, if you ask them to close and open, close and open, close and open, there will come a point where they really cannot open their eyes anymore, and that tells you there is paramyotonia. Of course, if you find paramyotonia, then you know that this is a sodium channel abnormality, that the genetic testing would just confirm that. Dr Monteith: And what about for periodic paralysis? Is there anything new in the field? Dr Kushlaf: Periodic paralysis… if I can say one thing about periodic paralysis, it's to talk about Andersen Tawil syndrome. It's an ultra-rare disorder also, but the episodes of paralysis that happens in patients with Andersen Tawil syndrome, they occur either with hypokalemia, so it can be hypokalemic---like, exactly hypokalemic periodic paralysis---or with hyperkalemia. So, it's hyperkalemic periodic paralysis. It doesn't really matter whether it's hyperkalemic or hypokalemic. These patients they typically have dysmorphic features. And the most common dysmorphic feature, and I chose a picture for the article, is a patient who has a small mandible. That is the most common dysmorphic feature. There are other dysmorphic features which include short stature, hypertelorism---which is the distance between eyes, the eyes become widened. Also, scoliosis and low-set ears. So, the ears are lower than the level of the eyes. So, these are dysmorphic features one can look for, but they do not exist in every patient with Andersen Tawil syndrome. The problem with Andersen Tawil syndrome is that these patients, as opposed to hyperkalemic and hypokalemic periodic paralysis, they have cardiac involvement. And the cardiac involvement can be deadly. So, it's very important that these patients are identified quickly. And anyone who has episodic weakness should have an EKG and should have halter monitoring to recognize if there are any arrhythmias or EKG abnormalities. So, one can identify anything that needs to be corrected from the cardiac standpoint. I think that is the most important point about periodic paralysis. Overall, these disorders… I mean, they are disabling and they can have huge effect on patient's life in terms of productivity and employment. And the diagnosis can be very difficult, especially that we do not know all the genes that are associated with periodic paralysis. Right now, the genetic testing that's available to us includes five genes that are associated with periodic paralysis. But I think we need to know more. There's a proportion of patients who do not have an identifiable abnormality at this time. So, I think as time goes on, we'll recognize more causes for periodic paralysis. Dr Monteith: I'm just reading your really great article, and it sounds like there's a lot of variability in presentation from I'm not feeling that well or I'm not feeling my best for mild disease, and then very severe disease where the whole body can be weak without alteration in consciousness. Dr Kushlaf: That's correct. So, my patients tell me that you never know when you're going to develop episodes of weakness. And sometimes they can recognize the precipitant, sometimes they cannot. Stress, sometimes, is a precipitant. At times, they really cannot tell what happened. And the weakness can be affecting one limb or more than one limb. It can be isolated to an arm or isolated to one leg. And that is the issue with the diagnosis, is that for those who do not suspect periodic paralysis, they are labeled as a functional neurologic disorder and they do not get the care that they need. I'm hoping that this article will shed a light on how to think about these disorders and how to diagnose them because treating them can have a significant impact on patient's life. Dr Monteith: How useful are these laboratory tests? Dr Kushlaf: So, in any patients where I suspect periodic paralysis, I would always do thyroid function testing to rule out hyperthyroidism because it can cause episodes of paralysis similar to hyperkalemic and hypokalemic paralysis. And I also do EKG and halter monitoring to make sure that I'm not missing the cardiac manifestations of Andersen Tawil syndrome. On top of that, then I would do genetic testing. And the genetic testing, as I said, at this time includes five genes. So, we will recognize any genetic abnormality that comes on that genetic testing. And if it is negative and I still have a high suspicion for the disease, I will do a long exercise test. The long exercise testing is, we record from a muscle in the hand---it's called the productive digit minimi---and stimulate the unknown nerve. We record, typically, baseline responses and then exercise the muscle for five minutes and keep recording after five minutes of exercise for up to forty minutes after. We're looking for a change in the amplitude of the motor response that typically happens over time. Dr Monteith: Great. Well, thank you so much for being on our podcast. Dr Kushlaf: I appreciate it. Thank you very much. Dr Monteith: Again, today I've been interviewing Dr Hani Kushlaf, whose article on episodic skeletal muscle disorders, muscle channelopathies, and rhabdomyolysis appears in the most recent issue of Continuum on muscle disease. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues, and thank you to our listeners for joining today. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Inflammatory myopathies are a large group of disorders associated with an inflammatory response targeting skeletal muscle. Treatment hinges on the use of evolving immunotherapies and diagnostic tools to quickly identify inflammatory myopathy, initiate appropriate therapy, and exclude underlying malignancy or infection of other organs. In this episode, Katie Grouse, MD, FAAN speaks with Anthony A. Amato, MD, an author of the article "Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathies" in the Continuum® October 2025 Muscle and Neuromuscular Junction Disorders issue. Dr. Grouse is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a clinical assistant professor at the University of California San Francisco in San Francisco, California. Dr. Amato is the Brigham and Women's Hospital Distinguished Chair in Neurology and the director of neuromuscular research at Mass General Brigham, and is a professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts. Additional Resources Read the article: Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathies Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Grouse: This is Dr Katie Grouse. Today I'm interviewing Dr Anthony Amato about his article on idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, which he wrote with Dr Kian Salajegheh. This article appears in the October 2025 Continuum issue on muscle and neuromuscular junction disorders. Welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to our audience. Dr Amato: Thank you. And I am Tony Amato. I'm in Boston at Mass General Brigham. Dr Grouse: It is a distinct pleasure to have you here with us today, and I'm really excited to talk with you about your article. I thought it was a fantastic overview of the subject. And I'd like to start by asking what you hope will be the key takeaway for those who are reading this article. Dr Amato: I think it's kind of basic: how to make a diagnosis, describe about the inflammatory myopathy as approach to, again, diagnosis, and then a little bit on pathogenesis, which… and kind of leading to the treatments, and hopefully we'll have more treatments based on the distinct pathogenesis in the future. Dr Grouse: Can you give a brief overview of the categories of inflammatory myopathies you reviewed in your article? Dr Amato: So, I mean, the major inflammatory myopathies, radiopathic inflammatory myopathies, are dermatomyositis, antisynthetase syndrome, immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy, inclusion body myositis, and polymyositis. Now, that's been a big change, as you know. I mean it used to be, you know, we all started off it was dermato or poly. But I've kind of made a name for myself- a bad name for myself in the early 2000s saying, I'm not sure there's much of a thing called polymyositis. I think it's a hodgepodge and it's not distinct. And that's come to be, now most of those cases are- now we find out having antisynthetase syndrome or necrotizing myositis or IBM. Dr Grouse: Could you walk us through your diagnostic approach with a patient in your clinic presenting with symptoms that are suspicious for inflammatory myopathy? Dr Amato: So, you want to really make sure that they have inflammatory myopathy as opposed to some other kind of myopathy, a muscular dystrophy, for example. Taking family history first is going to be important, clueing in are they really weak or what they're complaining of is fatigue or muscle pain? Are they feel weak but what they really are complaining of is stiffness and rigidity from parkinsonism, or they have a sensory ataxia so they can't modulate? I want to know about other organ system involvement. Do they have a rash? Do they have joint swelling and pain that you might see with arthritis? Do they have shortness of breath that you might see with interstitial lung disease or ventilatory muscle weakness? Or do they have a cardiomyopathy? What kind of weakness do they have? Is it proximal weakness in the arms or legs? Getting out of a chair, climbing stairs. Do they have problems lifting their arms over their head---so, proximal weakness---or do they have more problems with grip, finger flexion, holding a pen, tripping? Do they have swallowing problems? Do they have ocular problems? So that's the big history on the exam. Again, I'm looking for pattern of involvement. So, on my exam, is there atrophy or weakness in muscles---you know, fasciculations---which would take it out of the motor? Is it mainly proximal? Is it distal? Again, is there ocular bulbar involvement? Is it symmetric, particularly in, like, the IBM? Most of the other inflammatory myopathies are going to be mainly and proximal and mainly symmetric. IBM is different, and that the- at least in the hands it's more distal, and it's finger flexors. So, you're looking at flexing the tips of the fingers, you're looking at the forearms, best looked at in a semipronated position to see if it's atrophied. And that leads you to an IBM if you see that. So that's the main things on exam. Dr Grouse: That's a really helpful overview. I was wondering, in earlier training days, the convention was you- once you've suspected myopathy, you get your CK, you get your EMG, then that may give you the information you need for your diagnosis. It seems that things have been turned a little on their head. We're often skipping those things to go straight to the antibody testing. When should we be going for the myositis-specific antibodies before considering other things like EMG or muscle biopsy? Dr Amato: I would always get a CK first. You know, in somebody who's weak. You know, the EMG, I don't need an EMG if the CK is two or three thousand. I mean, EMG is- localize it to, is it muscle, nerve, neuromuscular junction. If it's very elevated CK, it really doesn't help me there.  Sometimes if I have myotonic discharges or something that might make me think of a myotonic dystrophy or something else like that. But you can see that with the inflammatory myopathy. So, if I'm pretty sure of a myositis, I don't always do an EMG, or- unless I really need it to help guide what muscle biopsies I do. if I'm suspicious then on my exam and I see the CK---or they come to me already with the CK, which often happens, and it's very elevated---that's when I'll do the myositis-specific antibody panels if I'm really thinking that. And the important thing to know from that is, you have antibodies for dermatomyositis and antisynthetase that are on the panel that are available, and even signal recognition particle, which is a necrotizing myositis. But what's not on the panel is HMGCR antibodies, which is important because that's 70% of the necrotizing myocidites are HMGCR, and then the IBM antibody and T5-C1A is not on that. So, you need to order those separately. If somebody doesn't know, they order a myositis-specific antibody and think that it's all-inclusive, but it doesn't have IBM or the HMGCR antibody. And the other test that I sometimes will do is a skeletal-muscle MRI to help in the evaluation. Sometimes, not all the time, but I'm not sure it's a dystrophy, is it a myositis when I see a lot of STIR signal, which is edema. And you can still see STIR signal in a dystrophy and toxic. But sometimes I'll do it depending on whether I need a biopsy or not. Dr Grouse: What is the benefit of an open biopsy versus a needle biopsy, and when should we be considering using one over the other? Dr Amato: So, it really is not our decision. It's the pass lab. So, it's the technicians and the pathologists who read the biopsies need to be able to process a needle biopsy, which might be much smaller. Needle biopsies show to be fairly accurate in a lot of the hereditary disorders where you might just look for central nuclear core, and they might be- so, mainly in kids, but in the inflammatory myopathies, it's really patchy. So, if I'm thinking of an inflammatory, I like an open biopsy. I think it's hit and miss. And so, I like open biopsies for the adults that I'm thinking of inflammatory. Dr Grouse: Do you have any other tips or tricks in the diagnosis of inflammatory myopathies that you could share with our listeners? Dr Amato: I would say first, in terms of what muscle to biopsy, you're not doing them yourself, but you're referring to a surgeon. You have to tell them what to do with the biopsy. And you want to pick a muscle that's about an MRC grade 4 because if it's a normal muscle, the muscle strength, the biopsy, is likely to be normal. If it's less than a 4, you might just have end-stage muscle. And saying you can't tell end-stage muscle from a bad myositis, from a dystrophy, from a severe end-stage neurogenic. If I don't have a muscle that I would typically biopsy that's an MRC grade 4---for example, somebody with an early weakness and they're only weak, say, in their in their hip girdle. So hip flexors, abductors, extensors, and we're usually not biopsying the iliopsoas or the gluteal muscles. Then what do you pick? That's when I like to do an EMG on one side of the body and look at proximal and distal muscles and select one that's irritable, you know, some fibs and positive sharp waves that I might biopsy. And then maybe consider doing a skeletal muscle MRI to go from muscle that's abnormal, that has a lot of edema in it, to increase the yield. Dr Grouse: That's really helpful. And then, I think, jumping from that, what are pitfalls that you've seen neurologists fall into in this diagnosis or other challenging aspects of the diagnosis that you could review with us? Dr Amato: Some of the things that we see are hard to pick up. It might be hard to pick up a rim vacuole. They're very rare, too. And so, you might miss it, particularly if you don't see a lot. Sometimes, like looking at the dermato and that's the, on the exam question, perifascicular atrophy, but that's a late stage, usually. And so, if you're really attuned and you're a good clinician, you make that diagnosis really quick. You do a biopsy, you might not see that paraphysical atrophy. So, they don't know that in a necrotizing myopathy, the pathologists often think of what they see in a toxic myopathy or a metabolic where there's a lot of necrotic fibers. But in most of the autoimmune necrotizing, it's not. It's actually what you see is more regenerating fibers, a few necrotic fibers. It's because it's usually been smoldering along for a while, and so you have many more regenerating fibers than ones that are actively, and that can fool a lot of people. So, that's a pitfall from that end of things. Some of these myositis specific antibodies aren't specific and at a low titer, particularly if you have more than one antibody being positive, that would be a red flag that it could be false. That's another pitfall. I think a lot of people don't, when they're examining people, really look at the finger flexors and stuff. And again, if I have somebody over the age of fifty, the most common muscle disease is IBM. Number two is IBM, number three is IBM. If you don't- and you have to think about that, and you need to examine the distal finger flexors because it doesn't get better with immunotherapy. You don't want to put people at the risk of immunotherapy when they're not going to get better. I talked a lot about the biopsies, and biopsy, biopsy, biopsy. But you know, sometimes you can make the diagnosis without a biopsy. So, if somebody's like a classic dermato rash and they have a dermato antibody, do they need a biopsy? No. If they have, you know, CKs of ten thousand proximal weakness, they're on a statin and they have HMGCR antibody, do they need us have a biopsy to confirm? Probably not. Dr Grouse: Those are some really great pearls that you've shared with us, and I think will be very helpful to many of our listeners. Now, you mentioned earlier about the diminishing category of polymyositis as other types of myosidites have been discovered and better described. Do you think that is the most controversial aspect of this field currently, or are there other controversial areas or areas of ongoing debate that exist? Dr Amato: It was very controversial twenty years ago, or maybe ten years ago. So, the rheumatology guidelines, they're the ones that are often saying, oh yeah, we were right. Polymyositis, it's just hodgepodge, and it's ever-shrinking. So that's not so controversial anymore. I mean, the controversies that we have, what's the pathogenesis of dermato? It's still a little debated, some- the old theory was that it was a complement-mediated microangiopathy and the damage was caused by ischemia. That's probably not the case. It looks more and more like it's a type 1 interferonopathy, and that's toxic to the vessels in the muscle. There's still a little bit of a debate about that or, you know, you have complement might be on it, but how much that might be damaging, or it's just a secondary phenomenon. I think in the antisynthetase things, I think there's some interesting things also with that these antibodies. We used to think of that they're just diagnostic biomarkers. But there's some recent studies suggesting that these antibodies which are directed against intracellular targets, which is interesting and applies to other autoimmune diseases and that are in the brain too. And we would think that, oh, if it's a intracellular target, it it's secondary. But there's suggestion now that- again, it did demonstrate that the antibodies actually get into muscle fibers. And they bind to these targets. So maybe they're just not epiphenomenon, but they might be binding to a target and causing pathology. And that's what there's some preliminary studies that are impressed, I will say, that have antibodies, anti-HMGCR, that actually go into the cell and they inhibit the enzyme. And that might be causing the pathology. And so that's interesting. And then IBM is a big field. Is this a primary autoimmune disease that has these other kinds of degenerative features like REM vacuoles, or is it a primary degenerative that has secondary inflammation, or is it a combination of both? So, that's probably the biggest controversy these days. It is probably with IBM. What the heck is causing it? Dr Grouse: Sounds like a lot that we still have to understand about these diseases. This does lead me to wonder, though, have some of these new discoveries and ideas led to or will lead to any new breakthroughs, either in diagnostics or in therapeutics? Dr Amato: So, certainly in therapeutics. So, the discovery of dermato being an interferonopathy, probably a beta-interferonopathy, has led to development of monoclonal antibodies that target interferon, and there's trials underway. And in phase 2 studies, I can tell you from talking to colleagues that participate just melted away the rash of dermato. So, I think that's going to be a very, very good drug in the future for dermato. There's others, like JAK. JAK inhibitors work on that interferon pathway too. So, I think we'll be going towards, like, less broad-spectrum steroids, IVIG, to going, let's go to the target. Certainly, in dermato, I mean, IBM, we don't know. There is an inflammatory cell that we see in IBM that has a receptor, KCRRN receptor, and there's a monoclonal antibody that targets that in IBM, and that's a phase 3 trial right now. Hopefully that study should be ending in December, and so early next year we'll have results about that. The fact that these antibodies might be pathogenic of themselves is other ways to get rid of the antibodies. So, getting rid of plasma cells and B cells, and FCRN receptors which have been approved or antagonists that are approved for myasthenia. Now CIDP might work in some of the inflammatory myopathies where we think the antibodies might be pathogenic. So, FCRN receptor antagonist and they're in trial now as well. And there's CAR-T therapies to knock out the antibody-producing lymphocytes and plasma cell. So, I think we're going to move into the field of individualized therapies as we find the distinct pathogenesis of these disorders. Dr Grouse: That's really exciting to hear and I can't wait to see what's coming down the pipeline as more of these discoveries are made and the clinical trials advance. It has been such a pleasure. I've learned so much. So much is packed into the article. So again, I can't stress enough, please take the time to check out this article. I think you'll learn a lot, and it'll really help you fine-tune your diagnostic pathway in relation to myopathies. Dr Amato: Oh, my pleasure. Thank you. Anybody has questions, please feel free to send me an email. Dr Grouse: We may just take you up on that. Again, today I've been interviewing Dr Anthony Amato about his article on idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, which he wrote with Dr Kian Salajegheh. This article appears in the October 2025 Continuum issue on muscle and neuromuscular junction disorders. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues, and thank you to our listeners for joining today. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Inclusion body myositis (IBM), the most common myopathy in adults, is a disease of aging characterized by slowly progressive weakness. Diagnosis of IBM requires the integration of historical, clinical, and laboratory data, while management consists of a multidisciplinary approach to address comorbidities and potential complications. In this episode, Aaron Berkowitz, MD, PhD, FAAN speaks with Elie Naddaf, MD, author of the article "Inclusion Body Myositis" in the Continuum® October 2025 Muscle and Neuromuscular Junction Disorders issue. Dr. Berkowitz is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a professor of neurology at the University of California San Francisco in the Department of Neurology in San Francisco, California. Dr. Naddaf is an associate professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine in Rochester, Minnesota. Additional Resources Read the article: Inclusion Body Myositis Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @AaronLBerkowitz Guest: @ElieNaddaf3 Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Berkowitz: This is Dr Aaron Berkowitz, and today I'm interviewing Dr Elie Naddaf about his article on inclusion body myositis, which appears in the October 2025 Continuum issue on muscle and neuromuscular junction disorders. Welcome to the podcast, Dr Naddaf, and would you please introduce yourself to our audience? Dr Naddaf: Thank you for having me. I am Elie Naddaf, a neuromuscular neurologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, and one of my main focus research-wise is about inclusion body myositis. Dr Berkowitz: Fantastic. Well, this is a great article on inclusion body myositis, or IBM, as we may refer to it today. It has a lot of clinically practical tips for examining patients at the bedside and a lot of important updates for us on how to diagnose this condition. So, I encourage our listeners to check out the article, and I look forward to discussing some of the key aspects here and learning from your expertise. First, tell us about the classic presentation of IBM, when the disease is pretty easy to recognize at the bedside based on the history and exam. Dr Naddaf: Luckily, IBM is one of those diseases that has a very particular pattern of weakness that makes it easier to diagnose. However, in real life it can be very challenging for several reasons, which we will cover in this podcast and in the article. However, a typical presentation of IBM is that of an older patient, more likely to be a male---twice more likely to be a male---,presenting with slowly progressive weakness over a couple years or so. And the weakness predominantly affects the deep finger flexors in the hand. So, they most commonly present with hand grip weakness, or the quadriceps muscle presenting with some lower limb weakness. However, some patients can present with one or the other, not necessarily with both at the same time. It is usually a painless disease,, and because of the lingering course, patients tend to present within two to three years from their symptom onset. So, with that, on examination, if the patient is presenting with the hand weakness, they would demonstrate weakness in the deep finger flexors, which are the muscles that we use to flex the distal intralaryngeal joints. This weakness is often asymmetric and can be in only one hand; and also, even within the same hand, you can have a variable severity from one finger to the other. And that's one reason, although it sounds a classic phenotype, if you can imagine a patient just presenting with hand weakness, a lot of other things come to mind, whether it's a compressive neuropathy or whether it's a radiculopathy or motor neuron disease. Similarly, in the leg, the quadriceps is a big and strong muscle. So, it's often that patients' symptoms originally or in the beginning get dismissed because the physician did not demonstrate any weakness on manual motor testing. Because it's a strong muscle, it needs to lose a certain amount of strength to be able to demonstrate that weakness by just pushing against the patient trying to extend their knee from about a 90 degree or so. That's why another way in those cases would be to examine them more functionally whether they're kneeling or squatting. It is usually a pure motor disease, although patients can commonly have a peripheral neuropathy. But typically, on exam, you mainly see muscle weakness. Dr Berkowitz: Perfect. So, if we see a patient who's an older man with progressive painless weakness of the finger flexors, quadriceps, this is sort of the classic presentation where we would consider IBM. But you mentioned in your article that some patients can present somewhat atypically when we might not immediately think of this diagnosis. What are some of the atypical presentations we should be aware of that should lead us to think about IBM as a possible etiology for the patient's pattern of weakness? Dr Naddaf: So, IBM indeed can present in any muscle group. That's why about 14% of patients may have the weakness onset beyond the finger flexors or knee extensions. And there are very particular phenotypes that stand out. Especially the most common in that scenario would be patients presenting with pure difficulty swallowing, isolated dysphasia that can sometimes precede the limb weakness by several years, and that's especially common in females. Other phenotypes including just a proximal weakness, like a limb-girdle weakness; an axial weakness, for example, head drop or camptocormia or a foot drop. And because it's an asymmetric disease, you can see the challenge there---if someone just presenting with a foot drop on one side, that it could be challenging to just think of IBM. So, those are the main phenotype. One particular phenotype that is super interesting is, patients present with severe facial weakness as if they have severe bilateral Bell's palsy. And that's the, usually, the most common first misdiagnosis. And all these patients reported so far in the literature are only females. This has not been reported in any male patients. So yes, the finger flexor quadriceps weakness is the most common typical presentation. However, IBM can present, technically, in any other muscle in the body. Dr Berkowitz: Great. Well that's very helpful information that especially comes from experts like you who see a lot of these patients and are able to make these diagnoses of these rare phenotypes. Whereas many of us general neurologists, like myself, might think of IBM only with finger flexor weakness and quadriceps weakness, perhaps with some foot drop dysphagia associated. Sounds like this is a diagnosis to consider in atypical presentations or atypical presentations of myopathy that aren't fitting other phenotypes or aren't yielding diagnostic results for other phenotypes. And you have in your article a very helpful table that goes through some of the common sites of weakness in IBM and the differential diagnosis for myopathies and other conditions to consider in patients who have the classic and less typical presenting features. So, let's say that we see a patient with clinical features suggestive of IBM. How do we go about confirming the diagnosis? What are the main diagnostic tests we would use to try to make a firm diagnosis here? Dr Naddaf: So, the gold standard so far for diagnosis for inclusion body myositis, as it is an acquired disease, has been a muscle biopsy. So, muscle biopsy is the probably most important tool in the diagnostic approach to IBM. Even in patients with a classical phenotype, that all like in any other test, it depends on your pretest probability and how sure you are the patient has IBM. But even with the classic phenotype, it is characteristic of IBM, but not pathognomic of IBM. Because if we see a high number of patients with similar phenotypes, we will run into a lot of other disorder that present similarly. And some patients---especially for instance, with myotonic dystrophies, specially type two---may be very difficult to distinguish from IBM, especially those that present in adulthood that they don't have the classic picture of a myotonic dystrophy patient you would think of. And some of them may not even have percussion myotonia. Because of that, the biopsy is very important to confirm your diagnosis in that regard. And on the biopsy, you want to see evidence of inflammation, basically, and the mesial inflammation, without going into a lot of details, to set it apart from those genetic ones. But in IBM it's not a pure inflammatory disease. There are other features on the biopsy that are very particular to IBM, two main other things we need to find. One is that of the accumulation of autophagic vacuole and protein aggregates and that of mitochondrial dysfunction. So, the other test for patients, presenting with weakness---again that depends on your clinical suspicion---would be first to establish that the underlying process is a myopathy; and hence, the EMG. And also, that's particularly important in patient with symptoms in one limb to differentiate it from compressive neuropathies or from a motor neuron disorder or other. So, the EMG tells you it's a myopathy with fibrillation potential, helps you also choose a muscle for biopsy. So as far as blood tests, the main blood test is that of the cytosolic nucleosidase 1A, or people call them IBM antibody. That's present in about half of the patients with IBM, 50%. Specificity originally reported to be high in the 90s, but in real-life practice with commercial lab it's probably lower in the 70s. There is a growing interest in the use of muscle imaging as well and IBM is one of those diseases similar to the clinical phenotype that has some distinctive pattern on imaging on MRI. But again, like the clinical phenotype, it is helpful, it is characteristic. It's not diagnostic on its own. Other blood tests in IBM include creatine kinase level. As long as you're not seeing creatine kinase in the 10,000 or 20,000, that would be very unusual in IBM and other routine blood tests that are discussed in the article. Dr Berkowitz: Right. That's a very helpful overview of the testing we would consider when we're trying to make this diagnosis that can include, as you mentioned, EMG, muscle MRI, and this five-prime cytosolic nucleosidase 1A antibody. As you said, many of these have variable sensitivity and specificity. We can diagnose a myopathy generally, or muscle inflammation more specifically, using EMG and muscle MRI respectively. It's interesting to hear that that antibody, I know there was a lot of excitement about that originally. Sounds like less sensitive and less specific than one would have hoped. In your article, you discussed sort of how to use some of these tools to try to meet the diagnostic criteria that were updated in 2024 for diagnosing IBM. And correct me if I'm wrong, this is my first time reading about these. I want to make sure I understand that essentially, you always require a biopsy for definitive diagnosis of this disease. Is that right? Dr Naddaf: That's correct. That's because of the issues that you raised with the antibody and because, even with people with the classic phenotype, you still could have other diseases that can mimic IBM that are associated with different complications, comorbidity profiles. For instance, myotonic dystrophy requires very close monitoring of cardiac rhythm, which is usually not affected in IBM. Hence, there is still the need for a biopsy, as we don't have a better test so far. The antibody has its own challenging, but I still find it very helpful in certain situations, and that's also reflected in the new criteria. It's definitely not a standalone diagnostic test. I don't think you can just draw the antibody, if it's positive, tell the patient they have IBM. To me, it's helpful in two ways, at least in my practice. One way is, it makes me think of IBM in situations where I was not considering IBM. In the end IBM is the most common disease in adulthood, so it's not a bad habit to just check the antibodies in any unusual case. Or where inconclusive case, it's just me saying, huh, that could be IBM that I missed. Then I go and try to confirm it. The other scenario that it helps me, there are a lot of cases that remain inconclusive. For instance, you just saw inflammation on biopsy, you have some pattern on MRI. You just need another piece of information to further make the case for the diagnosis. And that's where I find the antibodies helpful. And that's reflected in the new criteria. Dr Berkowitz: I see. So, if you- Yeah, so just to pick up on the antibody here, since I'm sure people be interested in when or whether to send this. You sort of use this in atypical cases where you know it's a myopathy or not. You haven't yet made a diagnosis. And you think, well, if I send this and it's positive, that's not 100% specific, but going to tip me a little more towards thinking this could be an atypical IBM case. But if it's negative, it doesn't sort of tell you either way, since you said it's only about 50% sensitive, right? Am I understanding correctly how you use the antibody? Dr Naddaf: Yes, this is correct. So basically, you don't have to check it if you think it is IBM; that also depends on your style of practice. To me, I think at some stage, with all the progress we're seeing in research in systems biology, so far there's no indication that the antibody predicts severity, and I don't think it does. But there could be at some time down the road that there are different underlying pathways or disease mechanisms that are associated with people that have the antibodies. So, it's more like for the future, it's good to know if the patient is positive or not. Dr Berkowitz: Okay. So, if biopsy is really necessary to make this diagnosis, if you see a classic presentation with an older man, as we've said before, with slowly progressive painless finger flexor weakness and quadriceps weakness, do we even need EMG or muscle MRI or this antibody or do you just go straight to biopsy in those cases when the clinical phenotype looks relatively certain? Do you still think one or more of those tests are helpful in the classic presentation? Or are those EMG, muscle MRI, and the antibody ones used more when you think, this looks sort of like IBM but it's either it's maybe early and it's not sort of fully kind of developed into the classic phenotype or it's very asymmetric, which you can see in IBM, or whether it's sort of has more atypical features or only one of the classic features? How do you use EMG muscle MRI in the antibodies when you know you're going to need biopsy ultimately, if this is the diagnosis you have in mind? Dr Naddaf: That's a great question. And all of the above would be correct depending on the setting you practice in. If I were practicing in a community where I have the privilege to do things step by step, I might approach it a little bit differently. Being at the referral center with many patients coming with a one-stop shop and they need to do everything possible rather than returning, that's also another different practice scenario. But in general, you want the EMG if you're not sure it's a myopathy, especially that these patients are asymmetric and sometimes the findings are in a single limb. So, you would want the EMG when you're not sure it's a myopathy, or also you need a little bit more information on what muscle to biopsy, you could use the EMG. If those questions have already been answered, you don't have to do the EMG. Now regarding the biopsy, if it is the classic phenotype and you think it's going to be a bingo with the biopsy, you might not need to do any antibody or MRI or any further testing. Now with one caveat that the biopsy might not give you the full picture or all the features, then you could go back and do the rest. And that's actually all integrated in the new criteria. So, in the new 2024 revised European Neuromuscular Center diagnostic criteria for IBM, the main differences are the following: now you can use additional test measures to support the diagnosis in addition to the biopsy. So that will probably reduce the need to have a repeated muscle biopsy. Two, you could have an atypical form and still have the diagnosis. You don't have to wait until your finger flexor or knee extensors are involved. And that's very important also, because criteria generally are made for clinical trials where you want to know for sure who you are treating. But at the same time, you don't want to wait till advanced stages of the disease where treatments might not work. Diagnostic criteria are not made to be used in clinical practice, but at the same time they offer a good framework, a good suggestion for people to use in their clinical practice. And just always remember to tailor it to your particular patients that you're seeing. In those criteria, basically, we go by scenario depending on your level of suspicion. There is no possible probable. You either make the diagnosis or you don't make it. And as you said, if you have a classic phenotype patient with deep finger flexor weakness in the upper limb and knee extends her weakness in the lower limb, your pretest probability is very high, and the chances that you're wrong are low. They're not zero, they're low. That's why I was just showing in the mesial inflammation on the biopsy, which would rule out your genetic mimicor. You're pretty confident of the diagnosis. And the other scenarios, then let's say you have only one limb, then you need a little bit more support. And you have an atypical form where the differential is very wide. You want to provide more supportive criteria, and the supportive criteria could be other features in the biopsy, whether it's the CCO negative fibers or derma vacuoles, or you could use MRI and antibodies if they're available to you. In many countries, these are still not available, but if they're available, that's good. You could use them as supportive criteria. That was the logic behind those revised criteria that are discussed by scenario in detail in the article. Dr Berkowitz: Fantastic. That's very helpful. Yeah, as you mentioned this- the criteria reviewed in the article, you have a very helpful figure there with all the branch points of how to get to the diagnosis, but very helpful to hear how you think about combining these tests in practice in different scenarios to get to the final diagnosis. So, IBM is considered an inflammatory myopathy, right? Like dermatomyositis and antisynthetase syndrome and immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy. And yet it gets its own separate article each time we do a Continuum issue on muscle disorders, right? Because it's unique in that it doesn't respond to any immune- immunomodulatory or immunosuppressive therapy like these other inflammatory myopathies. So why do you think, or why is it thought by experts in the field like yourself, that this is an inflammatory myopathy but it, at least from a treatment perspective, appears to behave so differently from the other inflammatory myopathies and doesn't respond to immunomodulatory therapy---or at least we haven't found the right key in the right block of immunomodulatory therapy to treat this disease? Dr Naddaf: That's a great question, and it's an area that I'm particularly interested in from a research standpoint. So, all these entities were classified as idiopathic inflammatory myopathies because they had inflammation on muscle biopsy. And IBM does have inflammation on muscle biopsy. Even when we study gene expression, all the immunoglobulin, interferon-related genes, the data are very, very highly expressed in IBM. However, IBM histopathology is not just inflammation. There are other features of IBM that are shared with other diseases of aging, and IBM only affects the aging population. So, by definition it is a disease of aging, and it shares a lot of similarities with other diseases of aging such as Alzheimer's disease or Parkinson's disease or those others that occur with aging. And IBM, unlike any other idiopathic inflammatory myopathy, it is twice more common in males and does not have a juvenile form. Taking all of this together, we could argue that IBM is a disease of aging, and those diseases usually are very complex and have involvement of different pathways---including but not restricted to inflammatory pathways, disrupted protein homeostasis, mitochondrial abnormalities and so on and so forth. And that's why so far we have not had any luck with any immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory therapy in IBM. Now the type of inflammation in IBM is also different, that's mediated by highly differentiated cytotoxic CD8 cells that may not respond to the other treatment. But again, IBM is not just inflammation, and unfortunately in these complicated disorders, we're still at early stages of understanding them, let alone intervene on them. There have been a lot of progress in the last few years in the area of aging in general, and hopefully we would see some new developments in IBM and in other diseases that would help at least slow down the progression. Dr Berkowitz: Fantastic. Well, we've only gotten an opportunity to scratch the surface of your article today talking about the clinical presentation, diagnosis, and a little bit about some of the challenges in treatment. But there's a lot more for our listeners to refer to in your article related to some of the aspects of management, not yet a disease-modifying therapy, but other important aspects of management and many other clinical pearls in this article. So, I encourage our listeners to take a look at your article in this issue. Dr Naddaf: Thanks a lot. Dr Berkowitz: Again, today I've been interviewing Dr Elie Naddaf about his article on inclusion body myositis, which appears in the October 2025 Continuum issue on muscle and neuromuscular junction disorders. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues, and thank you again to our listeners for joining us today. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Limb-girdle muscular dystrophies (LGMDs) encompass a group of genetically heterogeneous skeletal muscle disorders. There has been an explosion of newly identified LGMD subtypes in the past decade, and results from preclinical studies and early-stage clinical trials of genetic therapies are promising for future disease-specific treatments. In this episode, Gordon Smith, MD, FAAN, speaks with Teerin Liewluck, MD, FAAN, FANA, author of the article "Limb-Girdle Muscular Dystrophies" in the Continuum® October 2025 Muscle and Neuromuscular Junction Disorders issue. Dr. Smith is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a professor and chair of neurology at Kenneth and Dianne Wright Distinguished Chair in Clinical and Translational Research at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia. Dr. Liewluck is a professor of neurology at the Division of Neuromuscular Medicine and Muscle Pathology Laboratory at Mayo Clinic College of Medicine in Rochester, Minnesota. Additional Resources Read the article: Limb-Girdle Muscular Dystrophies Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @gordonsmithMD Guest: @TLiewluck Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Smith: This is Dr Gordon Smith with Continuum Audio. Today I'm interviewing Dr Teerin Liewluck, a good friend of mine at the Mayo Clinic, about his article on the limb girdle muscular dystrophies. This article appears in the October 2025 Continuum issue on muscle and neuromuscular junction disorders, a topic that is near and dear to my heart. Teerin, welcome to the podcast, and maybe you can introduce yourself to our listeners. Dr Liewluck: Thank you very much, Gordon, and I want to say hi to all the Continuum fans. So, I'm Dr Teerin Liewluck, I'm the professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. So, my practice focus on all aspects of muscle diseases, both acquired and genetic myopathies. Glad to be here. Dr Smith: I just had the great pleasure of seeing you at a seminar in Houston where you talked about this topic. And so, I'm really primed for this conversation, which I'm very excited about. I find this topic a little hard, and I'm hoping I can learn more from you. And I wonder if, as we get started, recognizing many of our listeners are not in practices focused purely on muscle disease, maybe you can provide some context about why this is important for folks doing general neurology or even general neuromuscular medicine? Why do they need to know about this? Dr Liewluck: Yes, certainly. So, I would say limb girdle muscular dystrophy probably the most complex category of subgroup of muscle diseases because, by itself, it includes thirty-four different subtypes, and the number's still expanding. So, each subtype is very rare. But if you group together, it really have significant number of patients, and these patients present with proximal weakness, very high CK, and these are common patients that can show up in the neurology clinic. So, I think it's very important even for general neurologists to pick up what subtle clues that may lead to the diagnosis because if we are able to provide correct diagnosis for the patients, that's very important for patient management. Dr Smith: So, I wonder if maybe we can talk a little bit about the phenotype, Terran. I mean, your article does a great job of going over the great diversity. And you know, I think many of us here, you know, limb girdle muscular dystrophy and we think of limb girdle weakness, but the phenotypic spectrum is bananas, right? Rhabdomyolysis, limb girdle distal myopathy. I mean, when should our listeners suspect LGMD? Dr Liewluck: Yes, I think by the definition to all the LGMD patients will have limb girdle of proximal weakness and very high CK. So, these are common phenotypes among thirty-four different subtypes. But if it did take into details, they have some subtle differences. In the article, what I try to simplify all these different subtypes that we can categorize at least half of them into three main group that each group the underlying defect sharing among those subtypes and also translate into similar muscles and extra muscular manifestations. You will learn that some of the limb girdle muscular dystrophy may present with rhabdomyolysis. And we typically think of this as metabolic myopathies. But if you have a rhabdomyolysis patient, the CK remain elevated even after the acute episode, that's the key that we need to think this could be LGMD. That's for an example. Dr Smith: So, I wonder if maybe we can start there. I was going to go in a different direction, but this is a good transition. It's easy to see the opportunity to get confused between LGMD or, in that case, a metabolic myopathy or other acquired myopathies. And I think particularly adult neurologists are more accustomed to seeing acquired muscle disease. Are there particular clues that, or pearls that adult neurologists seeing patients with muscle disease can use to recognize when they should be thinking about LGMD given the diverse phenotype? Dr Liewluck: Yes. What I always tell the patient is that there are more than a hundred different types of muscle diseases, but we can easily divide into groups: acquired and genetic or hereditary. So, the acquired disease is when you encounter the patients who present with acute or subacute cause of the weakness, relatively rapidly progressive. But on the opposite, if you encounter the patient who present with a much more slowly progressive cause of weakness over several months or years, you may need to think about genetic disease of the muscle with also including limb-girdle muscular dystrophy. The detailed exam to be able to distinguish between each type of muscular dystrophy. For example, if proximal weakness, certainly limb girdle muscular dystrophy. If a patient has facial weakness, scapular winking, so you would think about facial scapular hematoma dystrophy. So, the slowly progressive cause of weakness, proximal pattern of weakness, CK elevation, should be the point when you think about LGMD. Dr Smith: So, I have a question about diagnostic evaluation. I had a meeting with one of my colleagues, Qihua Fan, who's a great peripheral nerve expert, who also does neuromuscular pathology. And we were talking about how the pathology field has changed so much over the last ten years, and we're doing obviously fewer muscle biopsies. Our way of diagnosing them has changed a lot with the evolution of genetic testing. What's your diagnostic approach? Do you go right to genetic testing? Do you do targeted testing based on phenotype? What words of wisdom do you have there? Dr Liewluck: Yes, so, I mean, being a muscle pathologist myself, it is fair to say that the utility of muscle biopsies when you encounter a patient with suspects that limb girdle muscular dystrophy have reduced over the year. For example, we used to have like fifteen, seventeen hundred muscle biopsies a year; now we do only thirteen hundred biopsies a year. Yes, as you pointed out, the first step in my practice if I suspect LGMD is to go with genetic testing. And I would prefer the last gene panel that not only include the LGMD, but also include all other genetic muscle disease as well as the conjunctive myopic syndrome, because the phenotype can be somehow difficult to distinguish in certain patients. Dr Smith: So, do you ever get a muscle biopsy, Teerin? I mean you obviously do; only thirteen hundred. Holy cow, that's a lot. So, let me reframe my question. When do you get a muscle biopsy in these patients? Dr Liewluck: Muscle biopsy still is present in LGMD patients, it's just we don't use it at the first-tier diagnostic test anymore. So, we typically do it in selected cases after the genetic testing in those that came back inconclusive. As you know, you may run into the variant of unknown significance. You may use the muscle biopsy to see, is there any histopathology or abnormal protein Western blot that may further support the heterogenicity of the VUS. So, we still do it, but it typically comes after genetic testing and only in the selected cases that have inconclusive results or negative genetic testing. Dr Smith: I'd like to ask a question regarding serologic testing for autoantibodies. I refer to a really great case in your article. There are several of them, but this is a patient, a FKRP patient, who was originally thought to have dermatomyositis based on a low-titer ME2 antibody. You guys figured out the correct diagnosis. We send a lot of antibody panels out. Wonder if you have any wisdom, pearls, pitfalls, for how to interpret antibody tests in patients with chronic myopathies? We send a lot of them. And that's the sort of population where we need to be thinking about limb-girdle muscular dystrophies. It's a great case for those, which I hope is everyone who read your article in detail. What do you have to say about that? Dr Liewluck: Yes, so myositis antibodies, we already revolutionized a few of muscle diseases. I recall when I finished my fellowship thirteen years ago, so we don't really have much muscle myositis antibodies to check. But now the panel is expanded. But again, the antibodies alone cannot lead to diagnosis. You need to go back to your clinical. You need to make sure the clinical antibodies findings are matched. For example, if the key that- if the myocytes specific antibodies present only at the low positive title, it's more often to be false positive. So, you need to look carefully back in the patient, the group of phenotypes, and when in doubt we need to do muscle biopsies. Now on the opposite end, the other group of the antibody is the one for necrotizing autoimmune myopathy; or, the other name, immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy. This is the new group that we have learned only just recently that some patients may present as a typical presentation. I mean, when even thinking about the whole testing autoimmune myopathy, we think about those that present with some acute rapidly progressive weakness, maybe has history of sudden exposures. But we have some patients that present with very slowly progressive weakness like muscular dystrophies. So now in my practice, if I encounter a patient I suspect LGMD, in addition to doing genetic testing for LGMD, I also test for necrotizing doing with myopathy antibodies at the same time. And we typically get antibody back within what, a week or two, but projected testing would take a few months. Dr Smith: Yeah. And I guess maybe you could talk a little bit about pitfalls and interpretation of genetic tests, right? I think you have another case in your article, and I've certainly seen this, where a patient is misdiagnosed as having a genetic myopathy, LGMD, based on, let's say, just a misinterpretation of the genetic testing, right? So, I think we need to think of it on both sides. And I like the fact that the clinical aspects of diagnosis really are first and foremost most important. But maybe you can talk about wisdom in terms of interpretation of the genetic panel?  Dr Liewluck:Yes. So genetic testing, I think, is a complex issue, particularly for interpretation. And if you're not familiar with this, it's probably best to have your colleagues in genetics that help looking at this together. So, I think the common scenario we encounter is that in those dystrophies that are autosomal recessive, so we expect that the patient needs to have two abnormal copies of the genes to cause the disease. And if patients have only one abnormal copy, they are just a carrier. And commonly we see patients refer to us as much as dystrophy is by having only one abnormal copy. If they are a carrier, they should not have the weakness from that gene abnormality. So, this would be the principle that we really need to adhere. And if you run into those cases, then maybe you need to broaden your differential diagnosis. Dr Smith: I want to go back to the clinical phenomenology, and I've got a admission to make to you, Teerin. And I find it really hard to keep track of these disorders at, you know, thirty-four and climbing a lot of overlap, and it's hard to remember them. And I'm glad that I'm now going to have a Continuum article I can go to and look at the really great tables to sort things out. I'm curious whether you have all these top of mind? Do you have to look at the table too? And how should people who are seeing these patients organize their thoughts about it? I mean, is it important that you memorize all thirty-four plus disorders? How can you group them? What's your overall approach to that? Dr Liewluck: I need to admit that I've not memorize all twenty-four different subtypes, but I think what I triy to do even in my real-life practice is group it all together if you can. For example, I think that the biggest group of these LGMD is what we call alpha-dystroglycanopathies. So, this include already ten different subtypes of recessive LGMD. So alpha-dystroglycan is the core of the dystrophin-associated glycoprotein complex. And it's heavy glycosylated protein. So, the effect in ten different genes can affect the glycosylation or the process of adding sugar chain to this alpha-dystroglycan. And they have similar features in terms of the phenotype. They present with proximal weakness, calf pseudohypertrophy, very high CK, some may have recurrent rhabdomyolysis, and cardiac and rhythmic involvement are very common. This is one major group. Now the second group is the limb-girdle muscular dystrophy due to defective membrane repair, which includes two subtypes is the different and on dopamine five. The common feature in this group is that the weakness can be asymmetric and despite proximal weakness, they can have calf atrophy. On muscle biopsy sometimes you can see a myeloid on the muscle tissues. And the third group is the sarcoglycanopathy, which includes four different subtypes, and the presentation can look like we share. For the rest, sometimes go back to the table. Dr Smith: Thank you for that. And it prompts another question that I always wonder about. Do you have any theories about why such variability in the muscle groups that are involved? I mean, you just brought up dystroglycanopathy, for instance, as something that can cause a very distal predominant myopathy; others do not. Do we at this point now have an understanding given the better genetics that we have on this and work going on in therapeutic development, which I want to get to in a minute, that provides any insight why certain muscle groups are more affected? Dr Liewluck: Very good question, Gordon. And I would say the first question that led me interested in muscle disease---and this happened probably back in 2000 when I just finished medical school---is why, why, why? Why does muscle disease tend to affect proximal muscles? I thought by now, twenty-five years later, we'd have the answer. I don't. I think this, you don't know clearly why muscle diseases, some affect proximal, some affect distal. But the hypothesis is, and probably my personal hypothesis is, that maybe certain proteins may express more in certain muscles and that may affect different phenotypes. But, I mean, dysferlin has very good examples that can confuse us because some patients present with distal weakness, some patients present with proximal weakness, that's by the same gene defect. And in this patient, when we look at the MRI in detail, actually the patterns of fatty replacements in muscle are the same. Even patient who present clinically as a proximal or distal weakness, the imaging studies show the same finding. Bottom line, we don't know. Dr Smith: Yeah, who knew it could be so complex? Teerin, you brought up a really great point that I wanted to ask about, which is muscle MRI scan, right? We're now seeing studies that are doing very broad MR imaging. Do you use some muscle MRI very frequently in your clinical evaluation of these patients? And if so, how? Dr Liewluck: Maybe I don't use it as much as I could, but the most common scenario I use in this setting is when I have the genetic testing come back with the VUS. So, we look at each VUS, each gene in detail. And if anything is suspicious, what I do typically go back to the literature to see if that gene defect in particular has any common pattern of muscle involvement on the MRI. And if there is, I use MRI as one of the two to try to see if I can escalate the pathogenicity of that VUS. Dr Smith: And a VUS is a "Variant of Unknown Significance," for our listeners. I'm proud that I remember that as a geneticist. These are exciting times in neurology in general, but particularly in an inherited muscle disease. And we're seeing a lot of therapeutic development, a lot going on in Duchenne now. What's the latest in terms of disease-modifying therapeutics and gene therapies in LGMD? Dr Liewluck: Yes. So, there are several precritical and early-phase critical trials for gene therapy for the common lymphoma of muscular dystrophies. For example, the sarcoglycanopathies, and they also have some biochemical therapy that arepossible for the LGMD to FKRP. But there are many things that I expect probably will come into the picture broader or later phase of critical tryouts, and hopefully we have something to offer for the patients similar to patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Dr Smith: What haven't we talked about, I mean, holy cow? There's so much in your article. What's one thing we haven't talked about that our listeners need to hear? Dr Liewluck: Good questions. So, I think we covered all, but often we get patients with proximal weakness and high CK, and they all got labeled as having limb-girdlemuscular dystrophy. What I want to stress is that proximal weakness and high CK is a common feature for muscle diseases, so they need to think broad, need to think about all possibilities. Particularly don't want to miss something treatable. Chronic, slowly progressive cause, as I mentioned earlier, we think more about muscle dystrophy, but at the cranial range, we know that rare patients with necrotic autonomyopathy and present with limb good of weakness at a slowly progressive cost. So, make sure you think about these two when suspecting that LGMD patient diabetic testing has come back inconclusive. Dr Smith: Well, that's very helpful. And fortunately, there's several other articles in this issue of Continuum that help people think through this issue more broadly. Teerin, you certainly don't disappoint. I enjoyed listening to you about a month ago, and I enjoyed reading your article a great deal and enjoy talking to you even more. Thank you very much. Dr Liewluck: Thank you very much, Gordon. Dr Smith: Again, today I've been interviewing Dr Teerin Liewluck about his article on limb-girdle muscular dystrophy, which appears in the October 2025 Continuum issue on muscle and neuromuscular junction disorders. Please be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes for this and other issues. And thanks to our listeners for joining today. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy (FSHD) is one of the most common forms of muscular dystrophy, affecting individuals across the lifespan with variable severity. Advances in genetic understanding and therapeutic development have led to an era of promising disease-modifying strategies. In this episode, Katie Grouse, MD FAAN, speaks with Renatta N. Knox, MD, PhD, author of the article "Facioscapulohumeral Muscular Dystrophy" in the Continuum® October 2025 Muscle and Neuromuscular Junction Disorders issue. Dr. Grouse is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a clinical assistant professor at the University of California San Francisco in San Francisco, California. Dr. Knox is an assistant professor of neurology in the Division of Pediatric Neurology and Neuromuscular Section at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri. Additional Resources Read the article: Facioscapulohumeral Muscular Dystrophy Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN  Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Grouse: This is Dr Katie Grouse. Today I'm interviewing Dr Renatta Knox about her article on fascioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy, which appears in the October 2025 Continuum issue on muscle and neuromuscular junction disorders. Welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to our audience. Dr Knox: Hi Katie, thank you so much for the invitation for the audio interview. I'm looking forward to our conversation. As she mentioned, my name is Renata Knox. It's a pleasure to be here today. Dr Grouse: I'd like to start by asking, what is the key message that you hope your readers will take from your article? Dr Knox: I would say two things. The first is an appreciation and understanding of the unique genetic mechanism that leads to FSHD. And the second is the really exciting therapy landscape that we find ourselves in. So, we're hopeful that there will actually be disease-modifying therapies for FSHD soon. Dr Grouse: We're really looking forward to learning more about that. Now, before we get to that piece, could you just remind us of the clinical manifestations and features that are specific to FSHD? Dr Knox: So, one of the most unique things about FSHD that we see clinically is the pattern of weakness. So, one of the first features is that it's asymmetric. And then there are certain muscle groups that typically are affected, and that's partly where the name comes from. So, we see effects in the face, the limbs, the trunk; and so, those are some of the unique features that we see clinically. Dr Grouse: I'd love it if you could walk us through how you approach diagnosing a patient who presents with proximal weakness where FSHD is in your differential. Dr Knox: Yeah, it's a really great question. So, I would say it depends. So, I actually focus on FSHD in my clinical practice. So, many times patients are referred to me because there's a very high suspicion or there's a known family history of FSHD. So, that's one category of cases. I would say the other category of case is where it's, as you said, maybe more proximal weakness more broadly. Someone that's before me who has a known family history, they really have some of the characteristic physical features---which I'm pretty attuned to, as this is, you know, part of my subspecialty---I'll actually go directly to FSHD genetic testing. And that is one of the unique features of this disease, that the next-generation sequencing panels that are typically used for some of our other muscle diseases, FSHD is not captured on those. So, we actually have to send targeted testing for FSHD to diagnose it. So, that is one category where, again, I have a very high suspicion either based on their clinical presentation and/or a known family history, then I will actually go directly to FSHD-targeted genetic testing. In the second case, where it is one of the conditions that I'm considering among others, I will do more broad testing. So, I will get a CK level to see if there's evidence of muscle breakdown. I'll likely also do one of the next-generation sequencing panels that we have access to, which will allow us to identify, potentially, one to two hundred potential muscle diseases. And then again, if FSHD is higher on my differential in that second group of patients, then I will also send targeted FSHD-specific testing. Dr Grouse: That's really helpful. And I'm wondering if you have any thoughts about common pitfalls that you've seen when providers are trying to work this up? Dr Knox: I don't know if I would say pitfalls. I think I would acknowledge that it's challenging. My subspecialty training in neuromuscular medicine and also gene therapy. And so FSHD is pretty high on my radar. But I would say in neurology in general---and then, you know, the general medical population---,it really isn't something that many people are seeing. So, I would say what patients will communicate to us sometimes is some frustration that maybe it took time to make the diagnosis, but I just have a deep understanding that it's not something that is on many people's radars. And I think, again, it's tricky because it's not picked up on these next-generation sequencing panels, which many of us can send pretty easily. It will be missed. And I will say the biggest pitfall is, again, if you're not thinking about it and you don't send that testing, you actually- it's very difficult to diagnose it. Dr Grouse: Thank you so much for highlighting that. I think there are many people who are not aware that those different panels really aren't picking that up and that they have to test specifically. So, I think that's a great thing for all of us to keep in mind. Are there any tips or tricks to the diagnosis, other than the genetic issues that you mentioned, that sometimes can really bring this diagnosis to the forefront? Dr Knox: I think things that really tip me off to having a higher suspicion for FSHD is facial weakness that we can detect on our exam. Scapular winging---again, there's a small subset of disorders which can impact that. Someone who's presenting with foot drop, you know, with facial weakness, I think definitely about FSHD more. Also, clinically, kind of the presentation or things that they're beginning to have difficulty with is a tip-off. So, if someone is an athlete, like, they're a volleyball player or basketball player and they say, oh, I'm having difficulties, you know, with movements that require them to elevate their arm, which can be a sign of the shoulder weakness that we classically see. Or someone who says, oh, I'm having a harder time shampooing my hair or combing my hair. So those can be tip-offs again, which are basically referencing the type of weakness that they have. Another feature of FSHD which isn't necessarily as broadly appreciated is that pain and fatigue are very common. So, if someone is coming in and saying, actually, I also have a significant amount of fatigue as well or a lot of pain, that's something that can tip me off to it. Hearing loss is something that we can also see in up to 20% of patients with FSHD. So, if they are having those symptoms or saying they're ringing in their ears, these are some things that will make me begin to think about it more. Dr Grouse: Oh, really helpful. I also found it really fascinating reading some of the very FSHD-specific clinical signs, some interesting- some diagrams and pictures as well, that are very specific to the pattern of weakness that develops in FSHD. So, I encourage our listeners to check that out. But are there any highlights from those little clinical pearls that you'd like to point out? Dr Knox: I think the poly-hill sign---so, these are these literal hills that we can see in the shoulders of patients with FSHD---is pretty classic. Popeye arms, which is this older term that we still use that has to do with which muscle groups are preserved versus those that have atrophy. So that's a common feature. And then I would say, really, the asymmetry is something that is a unique feature in FSHD. And again, we did our best to provide good representative images. So again, as you mentioned, Katie, I would really encourage people to look at those images and then think about cases that they may have seen and how similar they are so they can begin to recognize those signs as well. Dr Grouse: Now going back to the genetic topic, the complex genetic underpinnings of FSHD are really well-explained in your article; and again, worth taking a look at to remind ourselves of everything that's of that pathology. Now, I was wondering though, if you could give us a brief overview of how we should approach genetic testing in a suspected case of FSHD? You mentioned some specific panels, but it does sound like there's some more complexity to it as well. Dr Knox: Yes, and I'll just kind of briefly explain that complexity. Part of the thing that we're detecting in the genetic testing is the repeat number. And so, we're actually looking for a contraction in a repeat number. So, not an expansion, which were typical for some of the diseases that we think about, the trinucleotide repeat disorders. And this is why it's not captured in the next-generation sequencing panels, because they do not currently have the ability to do that. And so, again, what the type of testing that I do really depends on my suspicion. So again, if my suspicion is very high for FSHD---they have a family history, they have the classic features---then I will actually go directly to an FSHD-specific testing, which is available from various sources. If, again, it's among different things that I'm thinking about, I will get a CK lab. I typically will also send a next-generation sequencing panel specific for muscle diseases, perhaps muscular dystrophy; again, depending on what I'm thinking about. And then I will also send in a specific FSHD genetic test as well. People are beginning to use whole-genome sequencing, which is capturing some of our true nucleotide repeat disorders and becoming more comprehensive. So, my hope is that as that becomes more standard of care---like, whole-exome sequencing can be gotten pretty routinely now---that it may be easier for us to make some of these diagnoses. Dr Grouse: Well, that's really helpful, and thanks for that overview. Now another thing that you mentioned that I thought was really interesting in your article was that patients with, you know, history of FSHD, perhaps in the family, who are pregnant and want to screen for this disease would not be able to use sort of the more common screening tests like cell-free DNA testing and may have to go to other means to do that. What is generally their route to this type of testing? Dr Knox: Yeah, great question, and really important question for family planning purposes, and it definitely comes up in clinical practice. And so again, because of the unique genetics of FSHD, you actually have to do invasive genetic testing currently to be able to test it. And so that's, you know, amnio or chorio, and then send it to a lab that can perform, again, FSHD-specific testing on the samples that are presented. And there are obviously labs that are capable of doing that and centers that are capable of doing that, but it is not picked up on the cell-free DNA panels that are being very routinely used. You or your provider has to be thinking about it to send that specific testing, similar to our patients that come into clinic and have not yet been diagnosed. Dr Grouse: Once you have the diagnosis, what are our options for therapy? I think it sounds like at this current time, it looks to be mostly supportive. What are some of the supportive care options we should keep in mind? Dr Knox: Yes, so that is definitely accurate. Care today is supportive, but again, we're very excited about the clinical trial and therapy landscape for FSHD. So, I work very closely with my physical therapy colleagues that are in clinic with me. So, we work very closely with physical and occupational therapists to help with supportive measures, adaptive measures, doing assessments, helping our patients to be able to move and exercise safely and effectively. As I mentioned, pain is very common in FSHD and so we can treat that with medications. The most common medication that we use to treat for pain in FSHD are NSAIDs. And then other than that it's really, you know, supportive measures. Do they need to see other subspecialists? There are some surgical options. Those are used very rarely to help with some of the scapular weakness, but typically it's physical therapy, occupational therapy, supportive devices. We treat the pain as we're able to, and then we work with other subspecialists to screen, monitor and support our patients to the best of our ability. Dr Grouse: Well, without further ado, I'd love to hear more about what's coming down the pipeline in clinical trials. What can we look forward to seeing, hopefully, in future years to treat these patients? Dr Knox: Yes. And so, this is actually what got me interested in the neuromuscle space in general is that, because we now for many years have known the genetic cause of many of these disorders as well as some of the underlying mechanisms, we can actually use advances in therapeutics to do what we call targeted therapies. So, rather than treating symptoms or indirect methods or doing kind of broad drug screens---which, again, still do take place and still do have their place---we actually can target mechanisms directly. And so, we know that the underlying biology of FSHD is due to this protein called DUX4 being expressed when it should not be. So, it's what we call a toxic gain of function. And so, the targeted way to address this is to suppress DUX4 expression. And so, kind of broadly speaking, what we're really excited about are a couple of products that are currently in clinical trials right now that actually caused DUX4 suppression to be suppressed. And again, these are targeted pathways. And so, again, the hope is that by doing that, we can hopefully slow the progression of the disease, potentially stop progression of the disease, and potentially reverse. Again, we don't know if that might be possible, but that is one of the hopes. Dr Grouse: Well, that's really exciting, and I know we're all looking forward to more coming down the pipeline soon, and hopefully more things that can really offer some exciting treatments for our patients with this condition. Now, a little more deep-dive into our patients who are diagnosed. You've reviewed some of the treatments currently available and hopefully may someday soon be available. Are there other things that we should be keeping in mind in this population? For instance, screenings that we should be doing for other extramuscular manifestations that we need to be thinking about? Dr Knox: I will answer that question two ways. I think something that's very important to acknowledge is the impact that these diagnoses and these conditions have on our patient practically, psychologically. One of the other unique features of FSHD is, it's autosomal-dominant. So, if it is in a family, you can have many family members who are affected, but the variability is very high. And so, you can have in the same family someone who is wheelchair-dependent, and someone else in the family with the same underlying genetics who has no signs or symptoms or is very mildly affected. And that is something that is definitely challenging for our families and patients to navigate if they're very different than their family members with the same condition. And just navigating the world with a condition that, you know, can be physically debilitating and cause changes to what they're able to do or not able to do, progression is something that's very difficult to handle. So, I think that's one set of things. And we try our best, you know, with my team and my other colleagues in the space, to support our families and patients in the best way that we can. Secondly, there is very important screening that needs to be done for this condition. So, one of the things- and the current guidelines which are actually being updated, the last update was in 2015 is all patients that undergo pulmonary function testing or PFTs. And so that's something we do at baseline and we do at least annually in my practice. Young kids who are presenting very early or patients with certain genetics that we know are more predisposed to extra muscular manifestations, we recommend screening for hearing, which is one of the manifestations, and ophthalmologic exam to look for retinovascular changes, which is one of the manifestations as well. Those are the more common ones that are typically done. There's also some evidence in pediatric patients with very severe manifestations that there may be some cognitive impacts, learning impacts. And so, that is something we're also thinking about screening and supporting our patients in that way. And again, we typically work with these patients in a multidisciplinary team depending on what manifestations and the degrees to which they're impacted by the disorder. Dr Grouse: Thank you so much for that answer. I think a lot of us forget sometimes when we get really focused on what can we do now, that we forget to kind of stop and reflect on sort of the more holistic approach. How is this affecting the patient? How is this affecting the patient's family dynamic, and what other ways are they going through life with this condition that we need to be thinking about? So, I appreciate you bringing that up. I wanted to ask, sort of based on what you're talking about and what you mentioned already, you happened to mention that what initially drew you that to this work was your interest in some of the really exciting breakthroughs in the field. Well, was there anything else that drew you to, specifically, congenital neuromuscular diseases, and FSHD in particular? Dr Knox: I'm a physician scientist by training, and so I would describe myself also as a molecular biologist. So, I love getting into the nitty gritties of disease mechanisms, what genes are doing in bodies, how they function. And so, as I mentioned earlier, in the neuromuscle space, we've known for many years the genetic cause of many of these disorders and have done great, you know, mechanistic work to kind of define why we see the disease. And then now we're at this intersection of that knowledge marrying with these really novel therapeutic approaches, gene therapy approaches, being able to intersect and then in very creative ways actually target diseases very directly. And so, I would say it really is the combination of those two things. FSHD has a really fascinating unique biology, which again, we encourage everyone to read about more in the article. That really drew me to it. I'm very interested in gene regulation, transcription. This is one of the underlying mechanisms that is gone awry in the disorder, and then that being married to advances in therapeutics. So, you could wed those two pieces of information and actually meaningfully impact patient 's lives. And again, that's the real privilege and honor to witness is how these therapies can transform lives. And I saw it happened with this one case for this one disorder when I was a resident where there was no treatment. Young children, unfortunately, would not survive the disease. And then I saw the therapy come be in development and literally change the trajectory. And this is what we're very hopeful for in the FSHD space, that wedding, this wonderful basic science research, translational research, companies working together to develop these therapies that can transform lives. It is just so beautiful to witness and see, and it's something that I get to do. You know, it's a part of my job, so it's a real privilege. Dr Grouse: Well, I have to say, it's really inspiring hearing you talk about it. And I imagine that many neurologists-in-training who are listening to this may be inspired as well and may be convinced to go into this field for that very reason. So, thank you so much for sharing all of this information with us today. I learned a lot, and I think all of our listeners have too. Dr Knox: Thank you. It's really been a pleasure. Dr Grouse: Again, today I've been interviewing Dr Renatta Knox about her article on fascioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy, which appears in the October 2025 Continuum issue on muscle and neuromuscular junction disorders. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues. And thank you to our listeners for joining today. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

While genetic testing has replaced muscle biopsy in the diagnosis of many genetic myopathies, clinical assessment and the integration of clinical and laboratory findings remain key elements for the diagnosis and treatment of muscle diseases. In this episode, Casey Albin, MD, speaks with Margherita Milone, MD, PhD, FAAN, FANA, author of the article "A Pattern Recognition Approach to Myopathy" in the Continuum® October 2025 Muscle and Neuromuscular Junction Disorders issue. Dr. Albin is a Continuum® Audio interviewer, associate editor of media engagement, and an assistant professor of neurology and neurosurgery at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia. Dr. Milone is a professor of neurology and the director of the Muscle Pathology Laboratory at Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science in Rochester, Minnesota. Additional Resources Read the article: A Pattern Recognition Approach to Myopathy Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @caseyalbin Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Albin: Hello, this is Dr Casey Albin. Today I'm interviewing Dr Margherita Milone on her article on a pattern recognition approach to myopathy, which appears in the October 2025 Continuum issue on muscle and neuromuscular junction disorders. Welcome to the podcast, Dr Milone. Thank you so much for joining us. I'll start off by having you introduce yourself to our listeners. Dr Milone: Hello Casey, thank you so much for this interview and for bringing the attention to the article on muscle diseases. So, I'm Margherita Milone. I'm one of the neuromuscular neurologists at Mayo Clinic in Rochester. I have been interested in muscle disorders since I was a neurology resident many years ago. Muscle diseases are the focus of my clinical practice and research interest. Dr Albin: Wonderful. Thank you so much. When I think about myopathies, I generally tend to think of three large buckets: the genetic myopathy, the inflammatory myopathies, and then the necrotizing myopathies. Is that a reasonable approach to conceptualizing these myopathies? Dr Milone: Yeah, the ideology of the myopathies can be quite broad. And yes, we have a large group of genetic muscle diseases, which are the most common. And then we have immune-mediated muscle diseases, which include inflammatory myopathies as well as some form of necrotizing myopathies. Then we have some metabolic myopathies, which could be acquired or could be genetic. And then there are muscle diseases that are due to toxins as well as to infection. Dr Albin: Wow. So, lots of different etiologies. And that really struck me about your article, is that these can present in really heterogeneous ways, and some of them don't really read the rule book. So, we have to have a really high level of suspicion, for someone who's coming in with weakness, to remember to think about a myopathy. One of the things that I like to do is try to take us through a little bit of a case to sort of walk us through how you would approach if someone comes in. So, let's say you get, you know, a forty-year-old woman, and she's presenting with several months of progressive weakness. And she says that even recently she's noted just a little bit of difficulty swallowing. It feels to her like things are getting stuck. What are some of the things when you are approaching the history that would help you tease this to a myopathy instead of so many other things that can cause a patient to be weak? Dr Milone: Yes. So, as you mentioned, people who have a muscle disease have the muscle weakness often, but the muscle weakness is not just specific for a muscle disease. Because you can have a mass weakness in somebody who has a neurogenic paralysis. The problem with diagnosis of muscle diseases is that patients with these disorders have a limited number of symptom and sign that does not match the large heterogeneity of the etiology. So, in someone who has weakness, that weakness could represent a muscle disease, could represent an anterior horn cell disease, could represent a defect of neuromuscular junction. The clinical history of weakness is not sufficient by itself to make you think about a muscle disease. You have to keep that in the differential diagnosis. But your examination will help in corroborating your suspicion of a muscle disease. Let's say if you have a patient, the patient that you described, with six months' history of progressive weakness, dysphagia, and that patient has normal reflexes, and the patient has no clinical evidence for muscle fatigability and no sensory loss, then the probability that that patient has a myopathy increases. Dr Albin: Ah, that's really helpful. I'm hearing a lot of it is actually the lack of other findings. In some ways it's asking, you know, have you experienced numbness and tingling? And if not, that's sort of eliminating that this might not be a neuropathy problem. And then again, that fatigability- obviously fatigability is not specific to a neuromuscular junction, but knowing that is a hallmark of myasthenia, the most common of neuromuscular disorders. Getting that off the table helps you say, okay, well, it's not a neuromuscular junction problem, perhaps. Now we have to think more about, is this a muscle problem itself? Are there any patterns that the patients describe? I have difficulty getting up from a chair, or I have difficulty brushing my hair. When I think of myopathies, I historically have thought of, sort of, more proximal weakness. Is that always true, or not so much? Dr Milone: Yeah. So, there are muscle diseases that involve predominantly proximal weakness. For example, the patient you mentioned earlier could have, for example, an autoimmune muscle disease, a necrotizing autoimmune myopathy; could have, perhaps, dermatomyositis if there are skin changes. But a patient with muscle disease can also present with a different pattern of weakness. So, myopathies can lead to this weakness, and foot drop myopathies can cause- can manifest with the weakness of the calf muscles. So, you may have a patient presenting to the clinic who has no the inability to stand on tiptoes, or you may have a patient who has just facial weakness, who has noted the difficulty sealing their lips on the glasses when they drink and experiencing some drooling in that setting, plus some hand weakness. So, the muscle involved in muscle diseases can vary depending on the underlying cause of the muscle disease. Dr Albin: That's really helpful. So, it really is really keeping an open mind and looking for some supporting features, whether it's bulbar involvement, extraocular eye muscle involvement; looking, you know, is it proximal, is it distal? And then remembering that any of those patterns can also be a muscle problem, even if sometimes we think of distal being more neuropathy and proximal myopathy. Really, there's a host of ranges for this. I really took that away from your article. This is, unfortunately, not just a neat way to box these. We really have to have that broad differential. Let me ask another question about your history. How often do you find that patients complain of, sort of, muscular cramping or muscle pain? And does that help you in terms of deciding what type of myopathy they may have? Dr Milone: Many patients with muscle disease have muscle pain. The muscle pain could signal a presence of inflammation in skeletal muscle, could be the result of overuse from a muscle that is not functioning normally. People who have myotonia experience muscle stiffness and muscle pain. Patients who have a metabolic myopathy usually have exercise-induced muscle pain. But, as we know, muscle pain is also very nonspecific, so we have to try to find out from the patient in what setting the pain specifically occurs. Dr Albin: That's really helpful. So, it's asking a little bit more details about the type of cramping that they have, the type of pain they may be experiencing, to help you refine that differential. Similarly, one of the things that I historically have always associated with myopathies is an elevation in the CK, or the creatinine kinase. How sensitive and specific is that, and how do you as the expert sort of take into account, you know, what their CK may be? Dr Milone: So, this is a very good point. And the elevation of creatine kinase can provide a clue that the patient has a muscle disease, but it is nonspecific for muscle disease because we know that elevation of creatine kinase can occur in the setting of a neurogenic process. For example, we can see elevation of the creatine kinase in patients who have ALS or in patients who have spinal muscular atrophy. And in these patients---for example, those with spinal muscular atrophy---the CK elevation can be also of significantly elevated up to a couple of thousand. Conversely, we can have muscle diseases where the CK elevation does not occur. Examples of these are some genetic muscle disease, but also some acquired muscle diseases. If we think of, for example, cases where inflammation in the muscle occurs in between muscle fibers, more in the interstitium of the muscle, that disease may not lead to significant elevation of the CK. Dr Albin: That's super helpful. So, I'm hearing you say CK may be helpful, but it's neither completely sensitive nor completely specific when we're thinking about myopathic disorders. Dr Milone: You are correct. Dr Albin: Great. So, coming back to our patients, you know, she says that she has this dysphasia. How do bulbar involvement or extraocular eye movement involvement, how do those help narrow your differential? And what sort of disorders are you thinking of for patients who may have that bulbar or extraocular muscle involvement? Dr Milone: Regarding dysphagia, that can occur in the setting of acquired myopathies relatively frequent; for example, in inclusion body myositis or in other forms of inflammatory myopathy. Your patient, I believe, was in their forties, so it's a little bit too young for inclusion body myositis. Involvement of the extraocular muscles is usually much more common in genetic muscle diseases and much less frequent in hereditary muscle disease. So, if there is involvement of the extraocular muscles, and if there is a dysphagia, and if there is a proximal weakness, you may think about oculopharyngeal muscular dystrophy, for example. But obviously, in a patient who has only six months of history, we have to pay attention of the degree of weakness the patient has developed since the symptom onset. Because if the degree of weakness is mild, yes, it could still be a genetic or could be an acquired disease. But if we have a patient who, in six months, from being normal became unable to climb stairs, then we worry much more about an acquired muscle disease. Dr Albin: That's really helpful. So, the time force of this is really important. And when you're trying to think about, do I put this in sort of a hereditary form of muscle disease, thinking more of an indolent core, something that's going to be slowly progressive versus one of those inflammatory or necrotizing pathologies, that's going to be a much more quick onset, rapidly progressive, Do I have that right? Dr Milone: In general, the statement is correct. They tend, acquired muscle disease, to have a faster course compared to a muscular dystrophy. But there are exceptions. There have been patients with immune mediated necrotizing myopathy who have been misdiagnosed as having limb-girdle muscular dystrophy just because the disease has been very slowly progressive, and vice versa. There may be some genetic muscle diseases that can present in a relatively fast way. And one of these is a lipid storage myopathy, where some patients may develop subacutely weakness, dysphagia, and even respiratory difficulties. Dr Albin: Again, I'm hearing you say that we really have to have an open mind that myopathies can present in a whole bunch of different ways with a bunch of different phenotypes. And so, keeping that in mind, once you suspect someone has a myopathy, looking at the testing from the EMG perspective and then maybe laboratory testing, how do you use that information to guide your work up? Dr Milone: The EMG has a crucial role in the diagnosis of muscle diseases. Because, as we said earlier, weakness could be the result of muscle disease or other form of neuromuscular disease. If the EMG study will show evidence of muscle disease supporting your diagnostic hypothesis, now you have to decide, is this an acquired muscle disease or is this a genetic muscle disease? If you think that, based on clinical history of, perhaps, subacute pores, it is more likely that the patient has an acquired muscle disease, then I would request a muscle biopsy. The muscle biopsy will look for structural abnormalities that could help in narrowing down the type of muscle disease that the patient has. Dr Albin: That's really helpful. When we're sending people to get muscle biopsies, are there any tips that you would give the listeners in terms of what site to biopsy or what site, maybe, not to biopsy? Dr Milone: This is a very important point. A muscle biopsy has the highest diagnostic yield if it's done in a muscle that is weak. And because muscle diseases can result in proximal or distal weakness, if your patient has distal weakness, you should really biopsy a distal muscle. However, we do not wish to biopsy a muscle that is too weak, because otherwise the biopsy sample will result just in fibrous and fatty connected tissue. So, we want to biopsy a muscle that has mild to moderate weakness. Dr Albin: Great. So, a little Goldilocks phenomenon: has to be some weak, but not too weak. You got to get just the right feature there. I love that. That's a really good pearl for our listeners to take. What about on the flip side? Let's say you don't think it's an acquired a muscular disease. How are you handling testing in that situation? Dr Milone: If you think the patient has a genetic muscle disease, you pay a lot of attention to the distribution of the weakness. Ask yourself, what is the best pattern that represent the patient's weakness? So, if I have a patient who has facial weakness, dysphagia, muscle cramping, and then on examination represent myotonia, then at that point we can go straight to a genetic test for myotonic dystrophy type one. Dr Albin: That's super helpful. Dr Milone: So, you request directly that generic test and wait for the result. If positive, you will have proof that your diagnostic hypothesis was correct. Dr Albin: You're using the genetic testing to confirm your hypothesis, not just sending a whole panel of them. You're really informing that testing based on the patient's pattern of weakness and the exam findings, and sometimes even the EMG findings as well. Is that correct? Dr Milone: You are correct, and ideally, yes. And this is true for certain muscle diseases. In addition to myotonic dystrophy type one, for example, if you have a patient who has fascial scapulohumeral muscular weakness, you can directly request a test for FSHD. So, the characterization of the clinical phenotype is crucial before selecting the genetic test for diagnosis. Dr Albin: Wonderful. Dr Milone: However, this is not always possible, because you may have a patient who has just a limb-girdle weakness, and the limb-girdle weakness can be limb-girdle muscular dystrophy. But we know that there are many, many types of limb-girdle muscular dystrophies. Therefore, the phenotype is not sufficient to request specific genetic tests for one specific form of a limb-girdle muscular dystrophy. And in those cases, more complex next-generation sequencing panels have a higher chance of providing the answer. Dr Albin: Got it, that makes sense. So, sometimes we're using a specific genetic test; sometimes, it is unfortunate that we just cannot narrow down to one disease that we might be looking for, and we may need a panel in that situation. Dr Milone: You are correct. Dr Albin: Fantastic. Well, as we wrap up, is there anything on the horizon for muscular disorders that you're really excited about? Dr Milone: Yes, there are a lot of exciting studies ongoing for gene therapy, gene editing. So, these studies are very promising for the treatment of genetic muscle disease, and I'm sure there will be therapists that will improve the patient's quality of life and the disease outcome. Dr Albin: It's really exciting. Well, thank you again. Today I've been interviewing Dr Margarita Malone on her article on a pattern recognition approach to myopathy, which appears in the October 2025 Continuum issue on muscle and neuromuscular junction disorders. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues, and thank you to our listeners for joining us today. And thank you, Dr Milone. Dr Milone: Thank you, Casey. Very nice chatting with you about this. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Functional movement disorders are a common clinical concern for neurologists. The principle of "rule-in" diagnosis, which involves demonstrating the difference between voluntary and automatic movement, can be carried through to explanation, triage, and evidence-based multidisciplinary rehabilitation therapy. In this episode, Gordon Smith, MD, FAAN speaks Jon Stone, PhD, MB, ChB, FRCP, an author of the article "Multidisciplinary Treatment for Functional Movement Disorder" in the Continuum® August 2025 Movement Disorders issue. Dr. Smith is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a professor and chair of neurology at Kenneth and Dianne Wright Distinguished Chair in Clinical and Translational Research at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia. Dr. Stone is a consultant neurologist and honorary professor of neurology at the Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences at the University of Edinburgh in Edinburgh, United Kingdom. Additional Resources Read the article: Multidisciplinary Treatment for Functional Movement Disorder Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @gordonsmithMD Guest: @jonstoneneuro Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. This exclusive Continuum Audio interview is available only to you, our subscribers. We hope you enjoy it. Thank you for listening. Dr Smith: Hello, this is Dr Gordon Smith. Today I've got the great pleasure of interviewing Dr Johnstone about his article on the multidisciplinary treatment for functional neurologic disorder, which he wrote with Dr Alan Carson. This article will appear in the August 2025 Continuum issue on movement disorders. I will say, Jon, that as a Continuum Audio interviewer, I usually take the interviews that come my way, and I'm happy about it. I learn something every time. They're all a lot of fun. But there have been two instances where I go out and actively seek to interview someone, and you are one of them. So, I'm super excited that they allowed me to talk with you today. For those of our listeners who understand or are familiar with FND, Dr Stone is a true luminary and a leader in this, both in clinical care and research. He's also a true humanist. And I have a bit of a bias here, but he was the first awardee of the Ted Burns Humanism in Neurology award, which is a real honor and reflective of your great work. So welcome to the podcast, Jon. Maybe you can introduce yourself to our audience. Dr Stone: Well, thank you so much, Gordon. It was such a pleasure to get that award, the Ted Burns Award, because Ted was such a great character. I think the spirit of his podcasts is seen in the spirit of these podcasts as well. So, I'm a neurologist in Edinburgh in Scotland. I'm from England originally. I'm very much a general neurologist still. I still work full-time. I do general neurology, acute neurology, and I do two FND clinics a week. I have a research group with Alan Carson, who you mentioned; a very clinical research group, and we've been doing that for about 25 years. Dr Smith: I really want to hear more about your clinical approach and how you run the clinic, but I wonder if it would be helpful for you to maybe provide a definition. What's the definition of a functional movement disorder? I mean, I think all of us see these patients, but it's actually nice to have a definition. Dr Stone: You know, that's one of the hardest things to do in any paper on FND. And I'm involved with the FND society, and we're trying to get together a definition. It's very hard to get an overarching definition. But from a movement disorder point of view, I think you're looking at a disorder where there is an impairment of voluntary movement, where you can demonstrate that there is an automatic movement, which is normal in the same movement. I mean, that's a very clumsy way of saying it. Ultimately, it's a disorder that's defined by the clinical features it has; a bit like saying, what is migraine? You know? Or, what is MS? You know, it's very hard to actually say that in a sentence. I think these are disorders of brain function at a very broad level, and particularly with FND disorders, of a sort of higher control of voluntary movement, I would say. Dr Smith: There's so many pearls in this article and others that you've written. One that I really like is that this isn't a diagnosis of exclusion, that this is an affirmative diagnosis that have clear diagnostic signs. And I wonder if you can talk a little bit about the diagnostic process, arriving at an FND diagnosis for a patient. Dr Stone: I think this is probably the most important sort of "switch-around" in the last fifteen, twenty years since I've been involved. It's not new information. You know, all of these diagnostic signs were well known in the 19th century; and in fact, many of them were described then as well. But they were kind of lost knowledge, so that by the time we got to the late nineties, this area---which was called conversion disorder then---it was written down. This is a diagnosis of exclusion that you make when you've ruled everything out. But in fact, we have lots of rule in signs, which I hope most listeners are familiar with. So, if you've got someone with a functional tremor, you would do a tremor entrainment test where you do rhythmic movements of your thumb and forefinger, ask the patient to copy them. It's very important that they copy you rather than make their own movements. And see if their tremor stops briefly, or perhaps entrains to the same rhythm that you're making, or perhaps they just can't make the movement. That might be one example. There's many examples for limb weakness and dystonia. There's a whole lot of stuff to learn there, basically, clinical skills. Dr Smith: You make a really interesting point early on in your article about the importance of the neurological assessment as part of the treatment of the patient. I wonder if you could talk to our listeners about that. Dr Stone: So, I think, you know, there's a perception that- certainly, there was a perception that that the neurologist is there to make a diagnosis. When I was training, the neurologist was there to tell the patient that they didn't have the kind of neurological problem and to go somewhere else. But in fact, that treatment process, when it goes well, I think begins from the moment you greet the patient in the waiting room, shake their hand, look at them. Things like asking the patient about all their symptoms, being the first doctor who's ever been interested in their, you know, horrendous exhaustion or their dizziness. You know, questions that many patients are aware that doctors often aren't very interested in. These are therapeutic opportunities, you know, as well as just taking the history that enable the patient to feel relaxed. They start thinking, oh, this person's actually interested in me. They're more likely to listen to what you've got to say if they get that feeling off you. So, I'd spend a lot of time going through physical symptoms. I go through time asking the patient what they do, and the patients will often tell you what they don't do. They say, I used to do this, I used to go running. Okay, you need to know that, but what do they actually do? Because that's such valuable information for their treatment plan. You know, they list a whole lot of TV shows that they really enjoy, they're probably not depressed. So that's kind of useful information. I also spend a lot of time talking to them about what they think is wrong. Be careful, that they can annoy patients, you know. Well, I've come to you because you're going to tell me what's wrong. But what sort of ideas had you had about what was wrong? I need to know so that I can deal with those ideas that you've had. Is there a particular reason that you're in my clinic today? Were you sent here? Was it your idea? Are there particular treatments that you think would really help you? These all set the scene for what's going to come later in terms of your explanation. And, more importantly, your triaging of the patient. Is this somebody where it's the right time to be embarking on treatment, which is a question we don't always ask yourself, I think. Dr Smith: That's a really great point and kind of segues to my next question, which is- you talked a little bit about this, right? Generally speaking, we have come up with this is a likely diagnosis earlier, midway through the encounter. And you talked a little bit about how to frame the encounter, knowing what's coming up. And then what's coming up is sharing with the patient our opinion. In your article, you point out this should be no different than telling someone they have Parkinson's disease, for instance. What pearls do you have and what pitfalls do you have in how to give the diagnosis? And, you know, a lot of us really weren't trained to do this. What's the right way, and what are the most common land mines that folks step on when they're trying to share this information with patients? Dr Stone: I've been thinking about this for a long time, and I've come to the conclusion that all we need to do with this disorder is stop being weird. What goes wrong? The main pitfall is that people think, oh God, this is FND, this is something a bit weird. It's in a different box to all of the other things and I have to do something weird. And people end up blurting out things like, well, your scan was normal or, you haven't got epilepsy or, you haven't got Parkinson's disease. That's not what you normally do. It's weird. What you normally do is you take a deep breath and you say, I'm sorry to tell you've got Parkinson's disease or, you have this type of dystonia. That's what you normally say. If you follow the normal- what goes wrong is that people don't follow the normal rules. The patient picks up on this. What's going on here? This doctor's telling me what I don't have and then they're starting to talk about some reason why I've got this, like stress, even though I don't- haven't been told what it is yet. You do the normal rules, give it a name, a name that you're comfortable with, preferably as specific as possible: functional tremor, functional dystonia. And then do what you normally do, which is explain to the patient why you think it's this. So, if someone's got Parkinson's, you say, I think you've got Parkinson's because I noticed that you're walking very slowly and you've got a tremor. And these are typical features of Parkinson. And so, you're talking about the features. This is where I think it's the most useful thing that you can do. And the thing that I do when it goes really well and it's gone badly somewhere else, the thing I probably do best, what was most useful, is showing the patient their signs. I don't know if you do that, Gordon, but it's maybe not something that we're used to doing. Dr Smith: Wait, maybe you can talk more about that, and maybe, perhaps, give an example? Talk about how that impacts treatment. I was really impressed about the approach to physical therapy, and treatment of patients really leverages the physical examination findings that we're all well-trained to look for. So maybe explore that a little bit. Dr Stone: Yeah, I think absolutely it does. And I think we've been evolving these thoughts over the last ten or fifteen years. But I started, you know, maybe about twenty years ago, started to show people their tremor entrainment tests. Or their Hoover sign, for example; if you don't know Hoover sign, weakness of hip extension, that comes back to normal when the person's flexing their normal leg, their normal hip. These are sort of diagnostic tricks that we had. Ahen I started writing articles about FND, various senior neurologists said to me, are you sure you should write this stuff down? Patients will find out. I wrote an article with Marc Edwards called "Trick or Treat in Neurology" about fifteen years ago to say that actually, although they're they might seem like tricks, there really are treats for patients because you're bringing the diagnosis into the clinic room. It's not about the normal scan. You can have FND and MS. It's not about the normal scan. It's about what you're seeing in front of you. If you show that patient, yes, you can't move your leg. The more you try, the worse it gets. I can see that. But look, lift up your other leg. Let me show you. Can you see now how strong your leg is? It's such a powerful way of communicating to the patient what's wrong with them diagnostically, giving them that confidence. What it's also doing is showing them the potential for improvement. It's giving them some hope, which they badly need. And, as we'll perhaps talk about, the physio treatment uses that as well because we have to use a different kind of physio for many forms of functional movement disorder, which relies on just glimpsing these little moments of normal function and promoting them, promoting the automatic movement, squashing down that abnormal pattern of voluntary movement that people have got with FND. Dr Smith: So, maybe we can talk about that now. You know, I've got a bunch of other questions to ask you about mechanism and stuff, but let's talk about the approach to physical therapy because it's such a good lead-in and I always worry that our physical therapists aren't knowledgeable about this. So, maybe some examples, you have some really great ones in the article. And then words of wisdom for us as we're engaging physical therapists who may not be familiar with FND, how to kind of build that competency and relationship with the therapist with whom you work. Dr Stone: Some of the stuff is the same. Some of the rehabilitation ideas are similar, thinking about boom and bust activity, which is very common in these patients, or grading activity. That's similar, but some of them are really different. So, if you have a patient with a stroke, the physiotherapist might be very used to getting that person to think and look at their leg to try and help them move, which is part of their rehabilitation. In FND, that makes things worse. That's what's happening in Hoover sign and tremor entrainment sign. Attention towards the limb is making it worse. But if the patient's on board with the diagnosis and understands it, they'll also see what you need to do, then, in the physio is actively use distraction in a very transparent way and say to the patient, look, I think if I get you to do that movement, and I'll film you, I think your movement's going to look better. Wouldn't that be great if we could demonstrate that? And the patient says, yeah, that would be great. We're kind of actively using distraction. We're doing things that would seem a bit strange for someone with other forms of movement disorder. So, the patients, for example, with functional gait disorders who you discover can jog quite well on a treadmill. In fact, that's another diagnostic test. Or they can walk backwards, or they can dance or pretend that they're ice skating, and they have much more fluid movements because their ice skating program in their brain is not corrupted, but their normal walking program is. So, can you then turn ice skating or jogging into normal walking? It's not that complicated, I think. The basic ideas are pretty simple, but it does require some creativity from whoever's doing the therapy because you have to use what the patient's into. So, if the patient used to be a dancer- we had a patient who was a, she was really into ballet dancing. Her ballet was great, but her walking was terrible. So, they used ballet to help her walk again. And that's incredibly satisfying for the therapist as well. So, if you have a therapist who's not sure, there are consensus recommendations. There are videos. One really good success often makes a therapist want to do that again and think, oh, that's interesting. I really helped that patient get better. Dr Smith: For a long time, this has been framed as a mental health issue, conversion disorder, and maybe we can talk a little bit about early life of trauma as a risk factor. But, you know, listening to you talk, it sounds like a brain network problem. Even the word "functional", to me, it seems a little judgmental. I don't know if this is the best term, but is this really a network problem? Dr Stone: The word "functional", for most neurologists, sounds judgmental because of what you associate it with. If you think about what the word actually is, it's- it does what it says on the tin. There's a disordered brain function. I mean, it's not a great word. It's the least worst term, in my view. And yes, of course it's a brain network problem, because what other organ is it going to be? You know, that's gone wrong? When software brains go wrong, they go wrong in networks. But I think we have to be careful not to swing that pendulum too far to the other side because the problem here, when we say asking the question, is this a mental health problem or a neurological one, we're just asking the wrong question. We're asking a question that makes no sense. However you try and answer that, you're going to get a stupid answer because the question doesn't make sense. We shouldn't have those categories. It's one organ. And what's so fascinating about FND---and I hope what can incite your sort of curiosity about it---is this disorder which defies this categorization. You see some patients with it, they say, oh, they've got a brain network disorder. Then you meet another patient who was sexually abused for five years by their uncle when they were nine, between nine and fourteen; they developed an incredibly strong dissociative threat response into that experience. They have crippling anxiety, PTSD, interpersonal problems, and their FND is sort of somehow a part of that; part of that experience that they've had. So, to ignore that or to deny or dismiss psychological, psychiatric aspects, is just as bad and just as much a mistake as to dismiss the kind of neurological aspects as well. Dr Smith: I wonder if this would be a good time to go back and talk a little bit about a concept that I found really interesting, and that is FND as a prodromal syndrome before a different neurological problem. So, for instance, FND prodromal to Parkinson's disease. Can you talk to us a little bit about that? I mean, obviously I was familiar with the fact that patients who have nonepileptic seizurelike events often have epileptic seizures, but the idea of FND ahead of Parkinson's was new to me. Dr Stone: So, this is definitely a thing that happens. It's interesting because previously, perhaps, if you saw someone who was referred with a functional tremor---this has happened to me and my colleagues. They send me some with a functional tremor. By the time I see them, it's obvious they've got Parkinson's because it's been a little gap. But it turns out that the diagnosis of functional tremor was wrong. It was just that they've developed that in the prodrome of Parkinson's disease. And if you think about it, it's what you'd expect, really, especially with Parkinson's disease. We know people develop anxiety in the prodrome of Parkinson's for ten, fifteen years before it's part of the prodrome. Anxiety is a very strong risk factor for FND, and they're already developing abnormalities in their brain predisposing them to tremor. So, you put those two things together, why wouldn't people get FND? It is interesting to think about how that's the opposite of seizures, because most people with comorbidity of functional seizures and epilepsy, 99% of the time the epilepsy came first. They had the experience of an epileptic seizure, which is frightening, which evokes strong threat response and has somehow then led to a recapitulation of that experience in a functional seizure. So yeah, it's really interesting how these disorders overlap. We're seeing something similar in early MS where, I think, there's a slight excess of functional symptoms; but as the disease progresses, they often become less, actually. Dr Smith: What is the prognosis with the types of physical therapy? And we haven't really talked about psychological therapy, but what's the success rate? And then what's the relapse rate or risk? Dr Stone: Well, it does depend who they're seeing, because I think---as you said---you're finding difficult to get people in your institution who you feel are comfortable with this. Well, that's a real problem. You know, you want your therapists to know about this condition, so that matters. But I think with a team with a multidisciplinary approach, which might include psychological therapy, physio, OT, I think the message is you can get really good outcomes. You don't want to oversell this to patients, because these treatments are not that good yet. You can get spectacular outcomes. And of course, people always show the videos of those. But in published studies, what you're seeing is that most studies of- case series of rehabilitation, people generally improve. And I think it's reasonable to say to a patient, that we have these treatments, there's a good chance it's going to help you. I can't guarantee it's going to help you. It's going to take a lot of work and this is something we have to do together. So, this is not something you're going to do to the patient, they're going to do it with you. Which is why it's so important to find out, hey, do they agree with you with the diagnosis? And check they do. And is it the right time? It's like when someone needs to lose weight or change any sort of behavior that they've just become ingrained. It's not easy to do. So, I don't know if that helps answer the question. Dr Smith: No, that's great. And you actually got right where I was wanting to go next, which is the idea of timing and acceptance. You brought this up earlier on, right? So, sometimes patients are excited and accepting of having an affirmative diagnosis, but sometimes there's some resistance. How do you manage the situation where you're making this diagnosis, but a patient's resistant to it? Maybe they're fixating on a different disease they think they have, or for whatever reason. How do you handle that in terms of initiating therapy of the overall diagnostic process? Dr Stone: We should, you know, respect people's rights to have whatever views they want about what's wrong with them. And I don't see my job as- I'm not there to change everyone's mind, but I think my job is to present the information to them in a kind of neutral way and say, look, here it is. This is what I think. My experience is, if you do that, most people are willing to listen. There are a few who are not, but most people are. And most of the time when it goes wrong, I have to say it's us and not the patients. But I think you do need to find out if they can have some hope. You can't do rehabilitation without hope, really. That's what you're looking for. I sometimes say to patients, where are you at with this? You know, I know this is a really hard thing to get your head around, you've never heard of it before. It's your own brain going wrong. I know that's weird. How much do you agree with it on a scale of naught to ten? Are you ten like completely agreeing, zero definitely don't? I might say, are you about a three? You know, just to make it easy for them to say, no, I really don't agree with you. Patients are often reluctant to tell you exactly what they're thinking. So, make it easy for them to disagree and then see where they're at. If they're about seven, say, that's good. But you know, it'd be great if you were nine or ten because this is going to be hard. It's painful and difficult, and you need to know that you're not damaging your body. Those sort of conversations are helpful. And even more importantly, is it the right time? Because again, if you explore that with people, if a single mother with four kids and, you know, huge debts and- you know, it's going to be very difficult for them to engage with rehab. So, you have to be realistic about whether it's the right time, too; but keep that hope going regardless. Dr Smith: So, Jon, there's so many things I want to talk to you about, but maybe rather than let me drive it, let me ask you, what's the most important thing that our listeners need to know that I haven't asked you about? Dr Stone: Oh God. I think when people come and visit me, they sometimes, let's go and see this guy who does a lot of FND, and surely, it'll be so easy for him, you know? And I think some of the feedback I've had from visitors is, it's been helpful to watch, to see that it's difficult for me too. You know, this is quite hard work. Patients have lots of things to talk about. Often you don't have enough time to do it in. It's a complicated scenario that you're unravelling. So, it's okay if you find it difficult work. Personally, I think it's very rewarding work, and it's worth doing. It's worth spending the time. I think you only need to have a few patients where they've improved. And sometimes that encounter with the neurologist made a huge difference. Think about whether that is worth it. You know, if you do that with five patients and one or two of them have that amazing, really good response, well, that's probably worth it. It's worth getting out of bed in the morning. I think reflecting on, is this something you want to do and put time and effort into, is worthwhile because I recognize it is challenging at times, and that's okay. Dr Smith: That's a great number needed to treat, five or six. Dr Stone: Exactly. I think it's probably less than that, but… Dr Smith: You're being conservative. Dr Stone: I think deliberately pessimistic; but I think it's more like two or three, yeah. Dr Smith: Let me ask one other question. There's so much more for our listeners in the article. This should be required reading, in my opinion. I think that of most Continuum, but this, I really truly mean it. But I think you've probably inspired a lot of listeners, right? What's the next step? We have a general or comprehensive neurologist working in a community practice who's inspired and wants to engage in the proactive care of the FND patients they see. What's the next step or advice you have for them as they embark on this? It strikes me, like- and I think you said this in the article, it's hard work and it's hard to do by yourself. So, what's the advice for someone to kind of get started? Dr Stone: Yeah, find some friends pretty quick. Though, yeah, your own enthusiasm can take you a long way, you know, especially with we've got much better resources than we have. But it can only take you so far. It's really particularly important, I think, to find somebody, a psychiatrist or psychologist, you can share patients with and have help with. In Edinburgh, that's been very important. I've done all this work with the neuropsychiatrist, Alan Carson. It might be difficult to do that, but just find someone, send them an easy patient, talk to them, teach them some of this stuff about how to manage FND. It turns out it's not that different to what they're already doing. You know, the management of functional seizures, for example, is- or episodic functional movement disorders is very close to managing panic disorder in terms of the principles. If you know a bit about that, you can encourage people around you. And then therapists just love seeing these patients. So, yeah, you can build up slowly, but don't- try not to do it all on your own, I would say. There's a risk of burnout there. Dr Smith: Well, Dr Stone, thank you. You don't disappoint. This has really been a fantastic conversation. I really very much appreciate it. Dr Stone: That's great, Gordon. Thanks so much for your time, yeah. Dr Smith: Well, listeners, again, today I've had the great pleasure of interviewing Dr Jon Stone about his article on the multidisciplinary treatment for functional neurologic disorder, which he wrote with Dr Alan Carson. This article appears in the August 2025 Continuum issue on movement disorders. Please be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues. And listeners, thank you once again for joining us today. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. We hope you've enjoyed this subscriber-exclusive interview. Thank you for listening.

Paroxysmal movement disorders refer to a group of highly heterogeneous disorders that present with attacks of involuntary movements without loss of consciousness. These disorders demonstrate considerable and ever-expanding genetic and clinical heterogeneity, so an accurate clinical diagnosis has key therapeutic implications. In this episode, Kait Nevel, MD, speaks with Abhimanyu Mahajan, MD, MHS, FAAN, author of the article "Paroxysmal Movement Disorders" in the Continuum® August 2025 Movement Disorders issue. Dr. Nevel is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a neurologist and neuro-oncologist at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, Indiana. Dr. Mahajan is an assistant professor of neurology and rehabilitation medicine at the James J. and Joan A. Gardner Family Center for Parkinson's Disease and Movement Disorders at the University of Cincinnati in Cincinnati, Ohio. Additional Resources Read the article: Paroxysmal Movement Disorders Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @IUneurodocmom Guest: @MahajanMD Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Doctor Lyell Jones, editor in chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Nevel: Hello, this is Dr Kait Nevel. Today I'm interviewing doctor Abhi Mahajan about his article on diagnosis and management of paroxysmal movement disorders, which appears in the August 2025 Continuum issue on movement disorders. Abhi, welcome to the podcast and please introduce yourself to the audience. Dr Mahajan: Thank you, Kait. Thank you for inviting me. My name is Abhi Mahajan. I'm an assistant professor of neurology and rehabilitation medicine at the University of Cincinnati in Cincinnati, Ohio. I'm happy to be here. Dr Nevel: Wonderful. Well, I'm really excited to talk to you about your article today on this very interesting and unique set of movement disorders. So, before we get into your article a little bit more, I think just kind of the set the stage for the discussion so that we're all on the same page. Could you start us off with some definitions? What are paroxysmal movement disorders? And generally, how do we start to kind of categorize these in our minds? Dr Mahajan: So, the term paroxysmal movement disorders refers to a group of highly heterogeneous disorders. These may present with attacks of involuntary movements, commonly a combination of dystonia and chorea, or ataxia, or both. These movements are typically without loss of consciousness and may follow, may follow, so with or without known triggers. In terms of the classification, these have been classified in a number of ways. Classically, these have been classified based on the trigger. So, if the paroxysmal movement disorder follows activity, these are called kinesigenic, paroxysmal, kinesigenic dyskinesia. If they are not followed by activity, they're called non kinesigenic dyskinesia and then if they've followed prolonged activity or exercise they're called paroxysmal exercise induced dyskinesia. There's a separate but related group of protogynous movement disorders called episodic attacks here that can have their own triggers. Initially this was the classification that was said. Subsequent classifications have placed their focus on the ideology of these attacks that could be familiar or acquired and of course understanding of familiar or genetic causes of paroxysmal movement disorders keeps on expanding and so on and so forth. And more recently, response to pharmacotherapy and specific clinical features have also been introduced into the classification. Dr Nevel: Great, thank you for that. Can you share with us what you think is the most important takeaway from your article for the practicing neurologist? Dr Mahajan: Absolutely. I think it's important to recognize that everything that looks and sounds bizarre should not be dismissed as malingering. Such hyperkinetic and again in quotations, "bizarre movements". They may appear functional to the untrained eye or the lazy eye. These movements can be diagnosed. Paroxysmal movement disorders can be diagnosed with a good clinical history and exam and may be treated with a lot of success with medications that are readily available and cheap. So, you can actually make a huge amount of difference to your patients' lives by practicing old-school neurology. Dr Nevel: That's great, thank you so much for that. I can imagine that scenario does come up where somebody is thought to have a functional neurological disorder but really has a proximal movement disorder. You mentioned that in your article, how it's important to distinguish between these two, how there can be similarities at times. Do you mind giving us a little bit more in terms of how do we differentiate between functional neurologic disorder and paroxysmal movement disorder? Dr Mahajan: So clinical differentiation of functional neurological disorder from paroxysmal movement disorders, of course it's really important as a management is completely different, but it can be quite challenging. There's certainly an overlap. So, there can be an overlap with presentation, with phenomenology. Paroxysmal nature is common to both of them. In addition, FND and PMD's may commonly share triggers, whether they are movement, physical exercise. Other triggers include emotional stimuli, even touch or auditory stimuli. What makes it even more challenging is that FND's may coexist with other neurological disorders, including paroxysmal movement disorders. However, there are certain specific phenom phenotypic differences that have been reported. So specific presentations, for example the paroxysms may look different. Each paroxysm may look different in functional neurological disorders, specific phenotypes like paroxysmal akinesia. So, these are long duration episodes with eyes closed. Certain kinds of paroxysmal hyperkinesia with ataxia and dystonia have been reported. Of course. More commonly we see PNES of paroxysmal nonepileptic spells or seizures that may be considered paroxysmal movement disorders but represent completely different etiology which is FND. Within the world of movement disorders, functional jerks may resemble propiospinal myoclonus which is a completely different entity. Overall, there are certain things that help separate functional movement disorders from paroxysmal movement disorders, such as an acute onset variable and inconsistent phenomenology. They can be suggestibility, distractibility, entrainment, the use of an EMG may show a B-potential (Bereitschaftspotential) preceding the movement in patients with FND. So, all of these cues are really helpful. Dr Nevel: Great, thanks. When you're seeing a patient who's reporting to these paroxysmal uncontrollable movements, what kind of features of their story really tips you off that this might be a proximal movement disorder? Dr Mahajan: Often these patients have been diagnosed with functional neurological disorders and they come to us. But for me, whenever the patient and or the family talk about episodic movements, I think about these. Honestly, we must be aware that there is a possibility that the movements that the patients are reporting that you may not see in clinic. Maybe there are obvious movement disorders. Specifically, there's certain clues that you should always ask for in the history, for example, ask for the age of onset, a description of movements. Patients typically have videos or families have videos. You may not be able to see them in clinic. The regularity of frequency of these movements, how long the attacks are, is there any family history of or not? On the basis of triggers, whether, as I mentioned before, do these follow exercise? Prolonged exercise? Or neither of the above? What is the presentation in between attacks, which I think is a very important clinical clue. Your examination may be limited to videos, but it's important not just to examine the video which represents the patient during an attack, but in between attacks. That is important. And of course, I suspect we'll get to the treatment, but the treatment can follow just this part, the history and physical exam. It may be refined with further testing, including genetic testing. Dr Nevel: Great. On the note of genetic testing, when you do suspect a diagnosis of paroxysmal movement disorder, what are some key points for the provider to be aware of about genetic testing? How do we go about that? I know that there are lots of different options for genetic testing and it gets complicated. What do you suggest? Dr Mahajan: Traditionally, things were a little bit easier, right, because we had a couple of genes that have been associated with the robust movement disorders. So, genetic testing included single gene testing, testing for PRRT2 followed by SLC2A. And if these were negative, you said, well, this is not a genetic ideology for paroxysmal movement disorders. Of course, with time that has changed. There's an increase in known genes and variants. There is increased genetic entropy. So, the same genetic mutation may present with many phenotypes and different genetic mutations may present with the similar phenotype. Single gene testing is not a high yield approach. Overall genetic investigations for paroxysmal movement disorders use next generation sequencing or whole exome sequence panels which allow for sequencing of multiple genes simultaneously. The reported diagnostic yield with let's say next generation sequencing is around 35 to 50 percent. Specific labs at centers have developed their own panels which may improve the yield of course. In children, microarray may be considered, especially the presentation includes epilepsy or intellectual disability because copy number variations may not be detected by a whole exome sequencing or next generation sequencing. Overall, I will tell you that I'm certainly not an expert in genetics, so whenever you're considering genetic testing, if possible, please utilize the expertise of a genetic counsellor. Families want to know, especially as an understanding of the molecular underpinnings and knowledge about associated mutations or variations keeps on expanding. We need to incorporate their expertise. A variant of unknown significance, which is quite a common result with genetic testing, may not be a variant of unknown significance next year may be reclassified as pathogenic. So, this is extremely important. Dr Nevel: Yeah. That's such a good point. Thank you. And you just mentioned that there are some genetic mutations that can lead to multiple different phenotypes. Seemingly similar phenotypes can be associated with various genetic mutations. What's our understanding of that? Do we have an understanding of that? Why there is this seeming disconnect at times between the specific genetic mutation and the phenotype? Dr Mahajan: That is a tough question to answer for all paroxysmal movement disorders because the answer may be specific to a specific mutation. I think a great example is the CACNA1A mutation. It is a common cause of episodic ataxia type 2. Depending on when the patient presents, you can have a whole gamut of clinical presentations. So, if the patient is 1 year old, the patient can present with epileptic encephalopathy. Two to 5 years, it can be benign paroxysmal torticollis of infancy. Five to 10 years, can present with learning difficulties with absence epilepsy and then of course later, greater than 10 years, with episodic ataxia (type) 2 hemiplegic migraine and then a presentation with progressive ataxia and hemiplegic migraines has also been reported. So not just episodic progressive form of ataxia has also been reported. I think overall these disorders are very rare. They are even more infrequently diagnosed than their prevalence. As such, the point that different genetic mutations present with different phenotypes, or the same genetic mutation I may present with different phenotypes could also represent this part. Understanding of the clinical presentation is really incomplete and forever growing. There's a new case report or case series every other month, which makes this a little bit challenging, but that's all the more reason for learning about them and for constant vigilance for patients who show up to our clinic. Dr Nevel: Yeah, absolutely. What is our current understanding of the associated pathophysiology of these conditions and the pathophysiology relating to the genetics? And then how does that relate to the treatment of these conditions? Dr Mahajan: So, a number of different disease mechanisms have been proposed. Traditionally, these were all thought to be ion channelopathies, but a number of different processes have been proposed now. So, depending on the genetic mutation that you talk about. So certain mutations can involve ion channels such as CACMA1A, ATP1A3. It can involve solute carriers, synaptic vesicle fusion, energy metabolism such as ECHS1, synthesis of neurotransmitters such as GCH1. So, there are multiple processes that may be involved. I think overall for the practicing clinician such as me, I think there is a greater need for us to understand the underlying genetics and associated phenotypes and the molecular mechanisms specifically because these can actually influence treatment decisions, right? So, you mentioned that specific genetic testing understanding of the underlying molecular mechanism can influence specific treatments. As an example, a patient presenting with proximal nocturnal dyskinesia with mutation in the ADCY5 gene may respond beautifully to caffeine. Other examples if you have SLC2A1, so gluc-1 (glucose transporter type 1) mutation, a ketogenic diet may work really well. If you have PDHA1 mutation that may respond to thiamine and so on and so forth. There are certain patients where paroxysmal movement disorders are highly disabling and you may consider deep brain stimulation. That's another reason why it may be important to understand genetic mutations because there is literature on response to DBS with certain mutations versus others. Helps like counselling for patients and families, and of course introduces time, effort, and money spent in additional testing. Dr Nevel: Other than genetic testing, what other diagnostic work up do you consider when you're evaluating patients with a suspected paroxysmal movement disorder? Are there specific things in the history or on exam that would prompt you to do certain testing to look for perhaps other things in your differential when you're first evaluating a patient? Dr Mahajan: In this article, I provide a flow chart that helps me assess these patients as well. I think overall the history taking and neurological exam outside of these paroxysms is really important. So, the clinical exam in between these episodic events, for example, for history, specific examples include, well, when do these paroxysms happen? Do they happen or are they precipitated with meals that might indicate that there's something to do with glucose metabolism? Do they follow exercise? So, a specific example is in Moyamoya disease, they can be limb shaking that follows exercise. So, which gives you a clue to what the etiology could be. Of course, family history is important, but again, talking about the exam in between episodes, you know, this is actually a great point because out– we've talked about genetics, we've talked about idiopathic paroxysmal movement disorders, –but a number of these disorders are because of acquired causes. Well, of course it's important because acquired causes such as autoimmune causes, so multiple sclerosis, ADEM, lupus, LGI1, all of these NMDAR, I mentioned Moyamoya disease and metabolic causes. Of course, you can consider FND as under-acquired as well. But all of these causes have very different treatments and they have very different prognosis. So, I think it's extremely important for us to look into the history with a fine comb and then examine these patients in between these episodes and keep our mind open about acquired causes as well. Dr Nevel: When you evaluate these patients, are you routinely ordering vascular imaging and autoimmune kind of serologies and things like that to evaluate for these other acquired causes or it does it really just depend on the clinical presentation of the patient? Dr Mahajan: It mostly depends on the clinical presentation. I mean, if the exam is let's say completely normal, there are no other risk factors in a thirty year old, then you know, with a normal exam, normal history, no other risk factors. I may not order an MRI of the brain. But if the patient is 55 or 60 (years) with vascular risk factors, then you have to be mindful that this could be a TIA. If the patient has let's say in the 30s and in between these episodes too has basically has a sequel of these paroxysms, then you may want to consider autoimmune. I think the understanding of paraneoplastic, even autoimmune disorders, is expanding as well. So, you know the pattern matters. So, if all of this is subacute started a few months ago, then I have a low threshold for ordering testing for autoimmune and paraneoplastic ideology is simply because it makes such a huge difference in terms of how you approach the treatment and the long-term prognosis. Dr Nevel: Yeah, absolutely. What do you find most challenging about the management of patients with paroxysmal movement disorders? And then also what is most rewarding? Dr Mahajan: I think the answer to both those questions is, is the same. The first thing is there's so much advancement in what we know and how we understand these disorders so regularly that it's really hard to keep on track. Even for this article, it took me a few months to write this article, and between the time and I started and when I ended, there were new papers to include new case reports, case series, right? So, these are rare disorders. So most of our understanding for these disorders comes from case reports and case series, and it's in a constant state of advancement. I think that is the most challenging part, but it's also the most interesting part as well. I think the challenging and interesting part is the heterogeneity of presentation as well. These can involve just one part of your body, your entire body can present with paroxysmal events, with multiple different phenomenologies and they might change over time. So overall, it's highly rewarding to diagnose such patients in clinic. As I said before, you can make a sizeable difference with the medication which is usually inexpensive, which is obviously a great point to mention these days in our health system. But with anti-seizure drugs, you can put the right diagnosis, you can make a huge difference. I just wanted to make a point that this is not minimizing in any way the validity or the importance of diagnosing patients with functional neurological disorders correctly. Both of them are as organic. The importance is the treatment is completely different. So, if you're diagnosing somebody with FND and they do have FND and they get cognitive behavioral therapy and they get better, that's fantastic. But if somebody has paroxysmal movement disorders and they undergo cognitive behavioral therapy and they're not doing well, that doesn't help anybody. Dr Nevel: One hundred percent. As providers, obviously we all want to help our patients and having the correct diagnosis, you know, is the first step. What is most interesting to you about paroxysmal movement disorders? Dr Mahajan: So outside of the above, there are some unanswered questions that I find very interesting. Specifically, the overlap with epilepsy is very interesting, including shared genes, the episodic nature, presence of triggers, therapeutic response to anti-seizure drugs. All of this I think deserves further study. In the clinic, you may find that epilepsy and prognosis for movement disorders may occur in the same individual or in a family. Episodic ataxia has been associated with seizures. Traditionally this dichotomy of an ictal focus. If it's cortical then it's epilepsy, if it's subcortical then it's prognosis for movement disorders. This is thought to be overly simplistic. There can be co-occurrence of seizures and paroxysmal movement disorders in the same patient and that has led to this continuum between these two that has been proposed. This is something that needs to be looked into in more detail. Our colleagues in Epilepsy may scoff this, but there's concept of basal ganglia epilepsy manifesting as paroxysmal movement disorders was proposed in the past. And there was this case report that was published out of Italy where there was ictal discharge from the supplementary sensory motor cortex with a concomitant discharge from the ipsilateral coordinate nucleus in a patient with paroxysmal kinesigenic cardioarthidosis. So again, you know, basal ganglia epilepsy, no matter what you call it, the idea is that there is a clear overlap between these two conditions. And I think that is fascinating. Dr Nevel: Really interesting stuff. Well, thank you so much for chatting with me today. Dr Mahajan: Thank you, Kait. And thank you to the Continuum for inviting me to write this article and for this chance to speak about it. I'm excited about how it turned out, and I hope readers enjoy it as well. Dr Nevel: Today again, I've been interviewing doctor Abhi Mahajan about his article on diagnosis and management of paroxysmal movement disorders, which appears in the August 2025 Continuum issue on movement disorders. I encourage all of our listeners to be sure to check out the Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues. As always, please read the Continuum articles where you can find a lot more information than what we were able to cover in our discussion today. And thank you for our listeners for joining today. And thank you, Abhi, so much for sharing your knowledge with us today. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, associate editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Tics are movements or sounds that are quick, recurrent, and nonrhythmic. They fluctuate over time and can be involuntary or semivoluntary. Although behavioral therapy remains the first-line treatment, modifications to comprehensive behavioral intervention have been developed to make treatment more accessible. In this episode, Casey Albin, MD, speaks with Jessica Frey, MD, author of the article "Tourette Syndrome and Tic Disorders" in the Continuum® August 2025 Movement Disorders issue. Dr. Albin is a Continuum® Audio interviewer, associate editor of media engagement, and an assistant professor of neurology and neurosurgery at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia. Dr. Frey is an assistant professor of neurology, Movement Disorders Fellowship Program Director, and Neurology Student Clerkship Director at the Rockefeller Neuroscience Institute in the department of neurology at West Virginia University in Morgantown, West Virginia. Additional Resources Read the article: Tourette Syndrome and Tic Disorders Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @caseyalbin Transcript Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Albin: Hi all, this is Dr Casey Albin. Today I'm interviewing Dr Jessica Frey about her article Tourette Syndrome and Tic Disorders, which appears in the August 2025 Continuum issue on movement disorders. Dr Frey, thank you so much for being here, and welcome to the podcast. I'd love for you to briefly introduce yourself to our audience. Dr Frey: Thank you for having me here today. My name is Jessica Frey, and I am a movement disorder specialist at West Virginia University. I'm also the movement disorder fellowship director, as well as the neurology clerkship student director. Dr Albin: Dr. Frey, I feel like this was one of the things I actually had no exposure to as a resident. For trainees that kind of want to get a better understanding of how these are managed, what kind of counseling you do, what kind of interventions you're using, how can they get a little bit more exposure? Dr Frey: That's a great question, and I actually had a similar experience to you. I did not see that many patients with Tourette syndrome while I was in my residency training. I got a lot more exposure during my fellowship training, and that's when I actually fell in love with that patient population, caring for them, seeing them be successful. I think it depends on the program that you're in. During the pediatric neurology rotation might be your best bet to getting exposure to patients with Tourette syndrome, since a lot of them are going to be diagnosed when they're quite young, and sometimes they'll even continue to follow through young adulthood in the pediatric neurology clinic. However, up to 20% of patients with Tourette syndrome will have persistent tics during adulthood. And so, I think it is important for neurology trainees to understand how to manage them, understand what resources are out there. So, if you have an interest in that, absolutely try to follow either in the pediatric neurology department, or if you have a movement disorder program that has a Tourette clinic or has a movement disorder specialist who has an interest in Tourette syndrome, definitely try to hang out with them. Get to know that patient population, and educate yourself as much as you're able to educate the patients as well. Dr Albin: Yeah, I think that's fantastic advice. You wrote a fantastic article, and it covers a lot of ground. And I think let's start at some of the basics. When I think of Tourette syndrome and tics, I think of Tourette syndrome having tics, but maybe not all patients who have tics have Tourette syndrome. And so, I was wondering, A, if you could confirm that's true; and then could you tell us a little bit about some of the diagnostic criteria for each of these conditions? Dr Frey: Sure. So, a tic is a phenomenological description. So basically, what you're seeing is a description of a motor or phonic tic, which is a particular type of movement disorder. Tourette syndrome is a very specific diagnosis, and the diagnostic criteria for Tourette syndrome at this point in time is that you need to have had at least one phonic tic and two or more motor tics over the course of at least a year before the age of eighteen. Dr Albin: Got it. So, there's certainly more specific and a lot more criteria for having Tourette syndrome. I was struck in reading your article how many myths there are surrounding Tourette syndrome and tic disorders kind of in general. What's known about the pathophysiology of Tourette syndrome, and what are some common misconceptions about patients who have this disorder? Dr Frey: Yeah, so I think that's a really excellent question because for so many years, Tourette syndrome and tic disorders in general were thought to be psychogenic in origin, even dating back to when they were first described. The history of Tourette syndrome is quite interesting in that, when Tourette---who, you know, it's named after---was working with Charcot, a lot of the initial descriptors were of actual case reports of patients who had more psychogenic descriptions, and eventually they became known as tic disorders as well. It wasn't until the discovery of Haldol and using Haldol as a treatment for tic disorders that people started to change their perception and say, okay, maybe there is actually a neurologic basis for Tourette syndrome. So, in terms of the pathophysiology, it's not completely known, but what we do know about it, we think that there is some sort of hyperactivity in the corticostriatal-thalamocortical circuits. And we think that because of this hyperactivity, it leads to the hyperactive movement disorder. We think similar circuitry is involved in conditions like OCD, or obsessive compulsive disorder; as well as ADHD, or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. And because of that, we actually do tend to see an overlap between all three of these conditions in both individuals and families. Dr Albin: And hearing all of that, does this all come back to, sort of, dopamine and, sort of, behavioral motivation, or is it different than that? Dr Frey: It's probably more complex than just dopamine, but there is the thought that dopamine does play a role. And even one of the hypotheses regarding the pathophysiology is actually that these tics might start as habits, and then when the habits become more common, they actually reshape the dopaminergic pathways. And each time a tic occurs, there's a little bit of a dopaminergic reward. And so over time, that reshapes those hyperactive pathways and changes the actual circuitry of the brain, leading it to be not just a habit but part of their neurologic makeup. Dr Albin: It's fascinating to hear how that actually might play into our neural circuitry and, over time, rewire our brain. Fascinating. I mean, this is just so interesting how movement disorders play into such behavioral regulation and some comorbid conditions like ADHD and OCD. I thought it would be really helpful, maybe, to our listeners to kind of think through a case that I suspect is becoming more common. So, if it's okay with you, I'll present sort of a hypothetical. Dr Frey: Absolutely. Dr Albin: This is a father bringing in his seventeen-year-old daughter. She's coming into the clinic because she's been demonstrating, over the past four to six weeks, some jerking movement in her right arm. And it's happened multiple times a day. And it was a pretty sudden onset. She had not had any movement like this before, and then several weeks ago, started moving the right hand. And then it became even more disruptive: her right leg was involved, she had some scrunching her face. This is all happening at a time where she was dealing with some stress, maybe a little bit of applications around college that she was having a lot of anxiety about. How do you sort of approach this case if this is someone who comes to your office? Dr Frey: Sure. So, I think the first thing that you want to get is a good solid history, trying to understand, what is the origin of these abnormal movements and what led to the abnormal movements. Now, a key thing here is that in Tourette syndrome, and most physiologic tic syndromes, there's a pretty early onset. So, in Tourette syndrome, the expected age of onset is between the ages of five and seven years old. So, to have kind of acute new abnormal movements as a seventeen-year-old would be very unusual for a new-onset diagnosis of Tourette syndrome. However, there's a couple of things from the history that could help you. One would be, were there ever tics in the past? Because sometimes, when you think retrospectively, a lot of these patients might have had a simple eye-blinking tic or a coughing tic when they were a child. And perhaps they did have Tourette syndrome, a very mild case of it. But because the tics were never that pronounced, they never went to see anyone about it and it was never known that they had Tourette syndrome in the first place. If there is no history like that and the movements are completely new, out of the blue, of course you want to rule out anything acute that could be going on that could be causing that. Looking at the phenomenology of the movements can also be very helpful. When you're looking at abnormal tic movements, you would expect most cases of something like Tourette syndrome to occur first in the midline and go in a rostrocoidal distribution. So, you mostly see things happening with eye blinking, throat clearing, sniffling, neck snapping. These are some of the immediate tics that start to happen. We also usually start to see simple tics, as opposed to complex tics, at the beginning. Now, over the course of time, many patients do develop more complex tics that might involve the arms or the extremities, but that would be unusual to see this as a presenting feature of new-onset Tourette syndrome. Dr Albin: Got it. So, I'm hearing that the history really matters and that sometimes, like those, like, first-onset seizures, I imagine as a neurointensivist, we see a lot of patients who've had seizures who think that they're presenting the first time. And then we go back and we say, well, actually they have had some abnormal movements at night. Sounds like it's very similar with these movement disorders where you have to really go back and ask, well, was there some sniffling? Did they go through a phase where they were grunting frequently? Because I can imagine that many children make those behaviors, and that it may not have registered as something that was cause for concern. Dr Frey: Absolutely. Dr Albin: And then the other thing I heard from you was that the phenomenology really matters and that there is a typical presentation, starting from sort of the face and working the way down. And that can be really helpful. But in this case, the family is quite clear. No, no, no. She's never had movements like this before. This is- nothing like this. We promise you, did not go through a phase where she was coughing or blinking, or, this is all totally new. And the phenomenology, they say, no, no, she did not start with blinking. It definitely started in the arm and then progressed in its complex movements. So, knowing that about her, how does that sort of shape how you move forward with the diagnosis? Dr Frey: Yeah. So, really good question. And this is something that I think really peaked during the Covid-19 pandemic. We saw an influx of patients, especially teenage girls or young adult girls, who basically would come in and have these new, acute-onset, abnormal movements. We weren't sure what to call them initially. There was some discussion of calling them "explosive tic disorder" and things like that. A lot of these actually looked very similar to psychogenic nonepileptic seizures, where they would come into the emergency department and have many abnormal movements that were so severe, that they were having a "tic attack" and couldn't stop the abnormal movements from occurring. And we saw so many of these cases during the Covid-19 pandemic that it eventually became known as a distinctive diagnostic criteria with the name of "functional ticlike behavior", or FTLB. When we think about functional ticlike behavior, we think that these tics are driven more by anxiety and stress. A lot of times, the backstory of these patients, they were in a very stressful situation, and that's when the abnormal movement started. So, a very similar kind of backstory to patients that might develop psychogenic nonepileptic seizures. These tics were popularized, for lack of a better term, via social media during the Covid-19 pandemic. One article is out there that even has called these functional ticlike behaviors as "a pandemic within a pandemic", because there was such a strong showing of ticlike behavior in the clinics during the Covid-19 pandemic. Although social media was thought to play a big role in these functional ticlike behaviors, we think that there's probably a little bit more complexity and nuance to why these functional ticlike behaviors develop. There is probably a little bit of a genetic predisposition. There's probably some other psychosocial factors at play. And when we see cases like this, the best thing that you can do is educate your patients about the differences between functional ticlike behaviors and tics that we see associated with conditions like Tourette syndrome. And then the best types of treatments that we have seen thus far are treating any underlying stressors, if any of those exist, as well as cognitive behavioral therapy has been shown to be somewhat helpful. As the Covid-19 pandemic has wound down, we have actually seen a lot less cases in our clinic. And one reason we think is less stressors, less uncertainty for the future, which we think was a driving precipitant of some of these cases. But it also is not as popularized in the media as well. There were a lot of TikTok users in particular, which lent itself to the name "TikTok tic". These videos are not as viewed or not as popular as they were during the Covid-19 pandemic. One reason being that because we are not all relegated to our homes, constantly looking to online sources of information---just in general, we have kind of not been on the Internet as much as we were during the Covid-19 pandemic---as a society as a whole. Dr Albin: This is really fascinating how the environmental milieu, for lack of a better word, like, really influenced how patients were experiencing, sort of, functional neurologic disorders. In your article you describe really these three baskets of primary tic---which can then be a part of Tourette syndrome---,functional ticlike behaviors---which really were a unique manifestation of stress and anxiety specifically during the Covid-19 pandemic---, and then tics as a manifestation of some either different underlying etiology or medication side effect. So, when do you get concerned about that secondary etiology? Dr Frey: So secondary tics can occur in a variety of instances. I think some of the more common examples would be in genetic disorders. So, Huntington's disease is a really good example. I think we all associate chorea with Huntington's disease. That's probably the most commonly associated phenomenology that we see with Huntington's disease. But we can see a variety of movement disorders in Huntington's, and one of them is tics. So, when we see tics in association with other types of movement disorders, we should be thinking about a possible genetic etiology. If we see tics in association with other neurologic symptoms, such as seizures or cognitive changes, we should be thinking that this is something besides a primary tic disorder. You also mentioned medication use, and it's really important to think about tardive tics. I know we often think about tardive dyskinesia, and the first kind of phenomenology that jumps into our brain is usually chorea because it's those abnormal lip movements, finger movements, toe movements that we see after a patient has been on, for example, an antipsychotic or an antiemetic that has antidopaminergic properties. However, we can see a variety of abnormal movement disorders that occur secondary to antidopaminergic medications, especially after abrupt withdrawal of these antidopaminergic medications. And tics are one of them. There have been cases reported where people that have tardive tics will still report that they have a premonitory urge, as well as a sense of relief after their tics. So, it actually can seem very similar to Tourette syndrome and the tics that people with Tourette syndrome experience on a regular basis. The key here is that the treatment might differ because if it's due to an antidopaminergic medication or abrupt withdrawal of that antidopaminergic medication, you might need to treat it a little bit differently than you would otherwise. Dr Albin: I love that you bring in, it's not just looking at their specific movement disorder that they may be coming to clinic with, that tic disorder, but are there other movement disorders? Has there been a change in their medication history? Have they had cognitive changes? So really emphasizing the importance of that complete and comprehensive neurologic history, neurologic physical exam, to really get the complete picture so that it's not honing in on, oh, this is a primary tic. That's all there is to it, because it could be so much more. I know we're getting close to sort of the end of our time together, but I really wanted to switch to end on talking about treatment. And your article does such a beautiful job of talking about behavioral interventions and really exciting new medical interventions. But I would like to, if you don't mind, have you focus on, what behavioral counseling and what education do you provide for patients and their families? Because I imagine that the neurologist plays a really important role in educating the patient and their family about these disorders. Dr Frey: Absolutely. When we think about treatment, one of the most important things you can do for patients with Tourette syndrome or other primary tic disorders is educate them. This remains true whether it's a primary tic disorder that we see in Tourette syndrome or the functional ticlike behavior that we've discussed here. A lot of times, because there is such a stigma against people with tic disorders and Tourette syndrome, when they hear that they have Tourette syndrome or they are diagnosed with that, sometimes that can be an upsetting diagnosis. And sometimes you have to take time explaining what exactly that means and debunking a lot of the myths that go along with the stigmas associated with Tourette syndrome. I think a lot of times people are under the false assumption that people with Tourette syndrome cannot lead normal lives and cannot hold down jobs and cannot be productive members of society. None of that is true. Most of my patients have great lives, good quality of life, and are able to go about their day-to-day life without any major issues. And one of the reasons for that is we do have a lot of great treatment options available. Another important stigma to break down is that people with tic disorders are doing this for attention or doing this because they are trying to get something from someone else. That is absolutely false. We do think that the tics themselves are semivolitional because people with Tourette syndrome have some degree of control over their tics. They can suppress them for a period of time. But a lot of people with tic disorders and Tourette syndrome will describe their tics as if you're trying to hold onto a sneeze. And you can imagine how uncomfortable it is to hold in a sneeze. We're all able to do it for a period of time, but it's much easier to just allow that sneeze to occur. And a lot of times that's what they are experiencing, too. So, although there is some degree of control, it's not complete control, and they're certainly not doing these tics on purpose or for attention. So that's another important myth to debunk when you're counseling patients and their families. I think the dynamic between young patients that are presenting with their parents or guardians, sometimes that dynamic is a little bit challenging because another faulty assumption is that parents feel they are responsible for having this happen to their child. There used to be a really strong sense that parents were responsible for the tics that occurred in their children, and that is also absolutely not true. Parenting has nothing to do with having the tics or not. We know that this is a neurodevelopmental disorder. The brain is indeed wired differently and it's important to counsel that with the parents, too, so that they understand what tools they need to be successful for their children as well. Dr Albin: I love that. So, it's a lot of partnership with patients and their families. I really like that this is just a wire different, and I hope over time that working together we as neurologists can help break down some of that stigmatization for these patients. This has been an absolutely phenomenal discussion. I have so enjoyed learning from your article. For the listeners out there, there are some really phenomenal tables that go into sort of how to approach this from the office perspective, how to approach it from the treatment perspective. So, thank you again, Dr Jessica Frey, for your article on Tourette syndrome and tic disorders, which appears in the August 2025 Continuum issue on movement disorders. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues, and thank you so much to our listeners for joining us today. Dr Frey: Thank you for having me. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Ataxia is a neurologic symptom that refers to incoordination of voluntary movement, typically causing gait dysfunction and imbalance. Genetic testing and counseling can be used to identify the type of ataxia and to assess the risk for unaffected family members. In this episode, Katie Grouse, MD, FAAN, speaks with Theresa A. Zesiewicz, MD, FAAN, author of the article "Ataxia" in the Continuum® August 2025 Movement Disorders issue. Dr. Grouse is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a clinical assistant professor at the University of California San Francisco in San Francisco, California. Dr. Zesiewicz is a professor of neurology and director at the University of South Florida Ataxia Research Center, and the medical director at the University of South Florida Movement Disorders Neuromodulation Center at the University of South Florida and at the James A. Haley Veteran's Hospital in Tampa, Florida. Additional Resources Read the article: Ataxia Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Grouse: This is Dr Katie Grouse. Today I'm interviewing Dr Theresa Zesiewicz about her article on ataxia, which appears in the August 2025 Continuum issue on movement disorders. Welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to our audience.  Dr Zesiewicz: Well, thank you, Dr Grouse. I'm Dr Theresa Zesiewicz, otherwise known as Dr Z, and I'm happy to be here. Dr Grouse: I have to say, I really enjoyed reading your article. It was a really great refresher for myself as a general neurologist on the topic of ataxia and a really great reminder on a great framework to approach diagnosis and management. But I wanted to start off by asking what you feel is the key message that you hope our listeners will take away from reading your article. Dr Zesiewicz: Yes, so, thanks. I think one of the key messages is that there has been an explosion and renaissance of genetic testing in the past 10 years that has really revolutionized the field of ataxia and has made diagnosis easier for us, more manageable, and hopefully will lead to treatments in the future. So, I think that's a major step forward for our field in terms of genetic techniques over the last 10 years, and even over the last 30 years. There's just been so many diseases that have been identified genetically. So, I think that's a really important take-home message. The other take-home message is that the first drug to treat Friedreich's ataxia, called omaveloxolone, came about about two years ago. This was also a really landmark discovery. As you know, a lot of these ataxias are very difficult to treat. Dr Grouse: Now pivoting back to thinking about the approach to diagnosis of ataxia, how does the timeline of the onset of ataxia symptoms inform your approach? Dr Zesiewicz: The timeline is important because ataxia can be acute, subacute or chronic in nature. And the timeline is important because, if it's acute, it may mean that the ataxia took place over seconds to hours. This may mean a toxic problem or a hypoxic problem. Whereas a chronic ataxia can occur over many years, and that can inform more of a neurodegenerative or more of a genetic etiology. So, taking a very detailed history on the patient is very important. Sometimes I ask them, what is the last time you remember that you walked normal? And that can be a wedding, that can be a graduation. Just some timeline, some point, that the patient actually walked correctly before they remember having to hold onto a railing or taking extra steps to make sure that they didn't fall down, that they didn't have imbalance. That sometimes that's a good way to ask the patient when is the last time they had a problem. And they can help you to try to figure out how long these symptoms have been going on. Dr Grouse: I really appreciate that advice. I will say that I agree, it can sometimes be really hard to get patients to really think back to when they really started to notice something was different. So, I like the idea of referencing back to a big event that may be more memorable to them. Now, given that framework of, you know, thinking through the timeline, could you walk us through your approach to the evaluation of a patient who presents to your clinic with that balance difficulties once you've established that? Dr Zesiewicz: Sure. So, the first thing is to determine whether the patient truly has ataxia. So, do they have imbalance? Do they have a wide base gait? That's very important because patients come in frequently to your clinic and they'll have balance problems, but they can have knee issues or hip issues, neuropathy, something like that. And sometimes what we say to the residents and the students is, usually ataxia or cerebellar symptoms go together with other problems, like ocular problems are really common in cerebellar syndromes. Or dysmetria, pass pointing, speech disorder like dysarthria. So, not only do you need to look at the gait, but you should look at the other symptoms surrounding the gait to see if you think that the patient actually has a cerebellar syndrome. Or do they have something like a vestibular ataxia which would have more vertigo? Or do they have a sensory ataxia, which would occur if a person closes his eyes or has more ataxia when he or she is in the dark? So, you have to think about what you're looking at is the cerebellar syndrome. And then once we look to see if the patient truly has a cerebellar syndrome, then we look at the age, we look at---as you said before, the timeline. Is this acute, subacute, or chronic? And usually I think of ataxia as falling into three categories. It's either acquired, it's either hereditary, or it's neurodegenerative. It can be hereditary. And if it's not hereditary, is it acquired, or is it something like a multiple system atrophy or a parkinsonism or something like that? So, we try to put that together and start to narrow down on the diagnosis, thinking about those parameters. Dr Grouse: That's really a helpful way to think through it. And it is true, it can get very complex when patients come in with balance difficulties. There's so many things you need to think about, but that is a great way to think about it. Of course, we know that most people who come in to the Movements Disorders clinic are getting MRI scans of their brains. But I'm curious, in which cases of patients with cerebellar ataxia do you find the MRI to be particularly helpful in the diagnosis? Dr Zesiewicz: So, an MRI can be very important. Not always, but- so, something like multiple system atrophy type C where you may see a hot cross bun sign or a pontine hyperintensity on the T2-weighted image, that would be helpful. But of course, that doesn't make the diagnosis. It's something that may help you with the diagnosis. In FXTAS, which is fragile X tremor/ataxia syndrome, the patient may have the middle cerebellar peduncle sign or the symmetric hyperintensity in the middle cerebellar peduncles, which is often visible but not always. Something like Wernicke's, where you see an abnormality of the mammillary bodies. Wilson's disease, which is quite rare, T2-weighted image may show hyperintensities in the putamen in something like Wilson's disease. Those are the main MRI abnormalities, I think, with ataxia. And then we look at the cerebellum itself. I mean, that seems self-evident, but if you look at a sagittal section of the MRI and you see just a really significant atrophy of the cerebellum, that's going to help you determine whether you really have a cerebellar syndrome. Dr Grouse: That's really encouraging to hear a good message for all of us who sometimes feel like maybe we're missing something. It's good to know that information can always come up down the line to make things more clear. Your article does a great review of spinal cerebellar ataxia, but I found it interesting learning about the more recently described syndrome of SCA 27B. Would you mind telling us more about that and other really common forms of SCA that's good to keep in mind? Dr Zesiewicz: Sure. So, there are now 49 types of spinal cerebellar ataxia that have been identified. The most common are the polyglutamine repeat diseases: so, spinocerebellar ataxia type 3 or type 2, type 6, are probably the most common. One of the most recent spinocerebellar ataxias to be genetically identified and clinically identified is spinocerebellar ataxia 27B. This is caused by a GAA expansion repeat in the first intron of the fibroblast growth factor on chromosome 13. And the symptoms do include ataxia, eye problems, downbeat nystagmus, other nystagmus, vertical, and diplopia. It appears to be a more common form of adult-onset ataxia, and probably more common than was originally thought. It may account for a substantial number of ataxias, like, a substantial percentage of ataxias that we didn't know about. So, this was really a amazing discovery on SCA 27B. Dr Grouse: Now a lot of us I think feel a little anxious when we think about genetic testing for ataxia simply because there's so many forms, things are changing quickly. Do you have a rule of thumb or a kind of a framework that we can think of as we approach how we should be thinking about getting genetic testing for the subset of patients? Dr Zesiewicz: Sure. And I think that this is where age comes into play a lot. So, if you have a child who's 10, 11, or 12 who's having balance problems in the schoolyard, does not have a history of ataxia in the family, the teachers are telling you that the child is not running correctly, they're having problems with physical education, that is someone who you would think about testing for Friedreich's ataxia. A preteen or a child, that would be one thing that would be important to test. When you talk to your patient, it's important to really take a detailed family history. Not just mom or dad, but ethnicity, grandparents, etc. And sometimes, once in a while, you come up with a known spinal cerebellar ataxia. Then you can just test for that. So, if a person is from Portugal or has Portugal background and they have ataxia and the parents had ataxia, you would think of spinal cerebellar ataxia type 3. Or if they're Brazilian, or if the person is from a certain area of Cuba and mom and dad had ataxia and that person has ataxia, you would think of spinal cerebellar ataxia type 2. Or if a person has ataxia and their parent had blindness or visual problems, you may be more likely to think of spinal cerebellar ataxia type 7, for example. If they have that---either they have a known genetic cause in in the family, first degree family, or they come from an area of the world in which we can pinpoint what type we think it is---you can go ahead and get those tests. If not, you can take an ataxia comprehensive panel. Many times now, if you take the panel and the panel is negative, it will reflex to the whole exome gene sequencing, where we're finding really unusual and more rare types of ataxia, which are very interesting. Spinal cerebellar ataxia type 32, spinal cerebellar ataxia type 36, I had a spinal cerebellar ataxia type 15. So, I think you should start with the age, then the family history, then where the person is from. And then, if none of those work out, you can get a comprehensive panel, and then go on to whole exome gene sequencing. Dr Grouse: That's really, really useful. Thank you so much for breaking that down in a really simple way that a lot of us can take with us. Pivoting a little bit now back towards different types of acquired ataxias, what are some typical lab tests that you recommend for that type of workup? Dr Zesiewicz: Again, if there's no genetic history and the person does not appear to have a neurodegenerative disease, we do test for acquired ataxias. Acquired ataxias can be complex. Many times, they are in the autoimmune family. So, what we start with are just basic labs like a CBC or a CMP, but then we tried to look at some of the other abnormalities that could cause ataxia. So, celiac disease, stiff person syndrome. So, you would look at anti-glutamic acid decarboxylase antibodies, Hashimoto's---so, antithyroglobulin antibodies or antithyroperoxidase antibodies would be helpful. You know, in a case of where the patients may have an underlying neoplasm, maybe even a paraneoplastic workup, such as an anti-Hu, anti-Yo, anti-Ri. A person has breast cancer, for example, you may want to take a paraneoplastic panel. I've been getting more of the anti-autoimmune encephalitis panels in some cases, that were- that are very interesting. And then, you know, things that sometimes we forget now like the syphilis test, thyroid-stimulating test, take a B12 and folate, for example. That would be important. Those are some of the labs. We just have on our electronic chart a group of acquired labs for ataxia. If we can't find any other reason, we just go ahead and try to get those. Dr Grouse: Now, I'm curious what you think is the most challenging aspect of diagnosing a patient with cerebellar ataxia? Dr Zesiewicz: So, for those of us who see many of these patients a day, some of the hardest patients are the ones that---regardless of the workup that we do, we've narrowed it down, it's not hereditary. You know, they've been through the whole exome gene sequencing and we've done the acquired ataxia workup. It doesn't appear to be that. And then we've looked for parkinsonism and neurodegenerative diseases, and it doesn't appear to be that either; like, the alpha-synuclein will be negative. Those are the toughest patients, where we think we've done everything and we still don't have the answer. So, I've had patients in whom I've taken care of family members years and years ago, they had a presumed diagnosis, and later on I've seen their children or other family members. And with the advent of the genetic tests that we have, like whole exome gene sequencing, we have now been able to give the patient and the family a definitive diagnosis that they didn't have 25 years ago. So, I would say don't give up hope. Retesting is important, and as science continues and we get more information and we make more landmark discoveries in genetics, you may be better able to diagnose the patient. Dr Grouse: I was wondering if you had any recommendations regarding either some tips and tricks, some pearls of wisdom you can impart to us regarding the work of ataxia, or conversely, any big pitfalls that you can help us avoid? I would love to hear about it. Dr Zesiewicz: Yeah, there's no easy way to treat or diagnose ataxia patients. I've always felt that the more patients you see- and sounds easy, but the more patients you see, the better you're going to become at it, and eventually things are going to fall into place. You'll begin to see similarities in patients, etc. I think it's important not only to make sure that a person has ataxia, but again, look at the other signs and symptoms that may point to ataxia that you'll see in a cerebellar syndrome. I think it's important to do a full neuroexam. If a person has spasticity, that may point you more towards a certain type of ataxia than if a person has no reflexes, for example, that we see in Friedreich's ataxia. Some of the ocular findings are very interesting as well. It's important to know if a person has a tremor. I've seen several Wilson's disease cases in my life with ataxia. They're very important. I think a full neuroexam and also a very detailed history would be very helpful. Dr Grouse: Tell us about some promising developments in the diagnosis and management of ataxia that we should be on the lookout for. Dr Zesiewicz: The first drug for Friedreich's ataxia was FDA-approved two years ago, which was an NRF2 activator, which was extremely exciting and promising. There are also several medications that are now in front of the FDA that may also be very promising and have gone through long clinical trials. There's a medication that's related to riluzole, which is a medication used for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, that has been through about seven years of testing. That is before the FDA as well for spinal cerebellar ataxia. Friedreich's ataxia has now completed the first cardiac gene therapy program with AAV vectors, which- we're waiting for full results, but that's a cardiac test. But I would assume that in the future, neurological gene therapy is not far behind if we've already done cardiac gene therapy and Friedreich's ataxia. So, you know, some of these AAV vector-based genetic therapies may be very helpful, as well as ASO, antisense oligonucleotides, for example. And I think in the future, other things to think about are the CRISPR/Cas9 technology for potential treatment of ataxia. It is a very exciting time, and some major promising therapies have been realized in the past 2 to 3 years. Dr Grouse: Well, that's really exciting, and we'll all look forward to seeing these becoming more clinically applicable in the future. So, thank you so much for coming to talk with us today. Dr Zesiewicz: Thank you. Dr Grouse: Again, today I've been interviewing Dr Theresa Zesiewicz about her article on ataxia, which appears in the August 2025 Continuum issue on movement disorders. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues, and thank you to our listeners for joining today. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Chorea describes involuntary movements that are random, abrupt, and unpredictable, flowing from one body part to another. The most common cause of genetic chorea in adults is Huntington disease, which requires comprehensive, multidisciplinary care as well as support for care partners, who may themselves be diagnosed with the disease. In this episode, Aaron Berkowitz, MD, PhD FAAN speaks with Kathryn P. L. Moore, MD, MSc, author of the article "Huntington Disease and Chorea" in the Continuum® August 2025 Movement Disorders issue. Dr. Berkowitz is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a professor of neurology at the University of California San Francisco in the Department of Neurology in San Francisco, California. Dr. Moore is an assistant professor and director of the Parkinson's Disease and Movement Disorders Fellowship in the department of neurology at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. Additional Resources Read the article: Huntington Disease and Chorea Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @AaronLBerkowitz Guest: @KatiePMooreMD Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Berkowitz: This is Dr Aaron Berkowitz with Continuum Audio, and today I'm interviewing Dr Kathryn Moore about her article on diagnosis and management of Huntington disease and chorea, which appears in the August 2025 Continuum issue on movement disorders. Welcome to the podcast, Dr Moore. Could you please introduce yourself to our audience? Dr Moore: Yeah, thank you so much. I'm so excited to be here. I'm Dr Moore. I'm an assistant professor of neurology at Duke University, where I work as a movement disorder specialist. I run our fellowship there and help with our residency program as well. So, I'm excited to speak with our listeners about chorea today. Dr Berkowitz: Fantastic. And we're excited to talk to you about chorea. So, as a general neurologist myself, I only see chorea pretty rarely compared to other movement disorders like tremor, myoclonus, maybe the occasional tic disorder. And like anything I don't see very often, I always have to look up the differential diagnosis and how to evaluate a patient with chorea. So, I was so glad to read your article. And next time I see a patient with chorea, I know I'll be referring to your article as a great reference to have a framework for how to approach it. I hope our readers will look at all these helpful tables on differential diagnosis based on distribution of chorea in the body, potential etiologies, time course of onset and evolution, associated drug-induced causes, what tests to send. So, I highly recommend our listeners read the article. Keep those tables handy for when a patient comes in with chorea. I'm excited to pick your brain about some of these topics today. First, how do you go about distinguishing chorea from other hyperkinetic movement disorders when you see a patient that you think might have chorea? Dr Moore: One of the wonderful things about being a movement disorder specialist is we spend a lot of time looking at movements and training our brain to make these distinctions. The things that I would be looking out for chorea is involuntary, uncontrolled movements that appear to be brief and flowing from one part of the body to another. So, if you can watch a patient and predict what movements they're going to do, this probably isn't chorea. And it should be flowing from one part of the body to another. So, not staying just in one part of the body or having sustained movements. It can be difficult to distinguish between a tic or dystonia or myoclonus. Those things tend to be more predictable and repetitive than the chorea, which tends to be really random and can look like dancing. Dr Berkowitz: That's very helpful. So, once you've decided the patient has chorea, what's your framework for thinking about the differential diagnosis of the cause of the patient's chorea? Dr Moore: Well, that could be really challenging. The differential for chorea is very broad, and so the two things that I tend to use are age of the patient and acuity of onset. And so, if you're thinking about acute onset of chorea, you're really looking at a structural lesion like a stroke or a systemic issue like infection, hyperglycemia, etc. Where a gradually progressive chorea tends to be genetic in nature. When you're thinking about the difference between a child and an adult, the most common cause of chorea in a child is Sydenham's chorea. And actually, the most common cause of chorea that I tend to see is Parkinson's disease medication. So, if anybody's seen dyskinesia in Parkinson's disease, you've seen chorea. But it's those two things that I'm using, the age of the patient and the acuity. Somewhere in the middle, though---so, if you have subacute onset of chorea---it's important to remember to think about autoimmune conditions or paraneoplastic conditions because these are treatable. Dr Berkowitz: That's very helpful. So, like in any chief concern in neurology, we're using the context like the age and then the time course. And then a number of other helpful points in your article about the distribution of chorea in the body. Any comments you'd like to make about- we have this very helpful table that I thought was very interesting. So, you really get deep into the nuances of chorea and the movement disorder specialist expert level. Are there any aspects of parts of the body affected by chorea or distribution of chorea across the body that help you hone your differential diagnosis? Dr Moore: Certainly. I think where the chorea is located in the body can be helpful, but not as helpful as other conditions where you're localizing a lesion or that sort of thing. Because you can have a systemic cause of chorea that causes a hemichorea; that you can have hyperglycemia causing a hemichorea, or even Sydenham's chorea being a hemichorea. But things that we think about, if the forehead is involved, I would think about Huntington's disease, although this is not pathognomonic. And if it's involving the face or the mouth, you can think about neuroacanthocytosis or, more commonly, tardive dyskinesia. Hemichorea would make me think about some of those systemic issues like hyperglycemia, Sydenham's chorea, those sorts of things, but I would rely more on the historical context and the acuity of presentation than the distribution itself. Dr Berkowitz: Got it. That's very helpful. So those can be helpful features, but not sort of specific for any particular condition. Dr Moore: Exactly. Dr Berkowitz: Yeah, I often see forehead chorea mentioned as sort of specific to Huntington's disease. Since I don't see much Huntington's disease myself, what does forehead chorea look like? What is the forehead doing? How do you recognize that there is chorea of the forehead? It's just sort of hard for me to imagine what it would look like. Dr Moore: It's really tricky. I think seeing the eyebrows go up and down or the brows furrow in an unpredictable way is really what we're looking for. And that can be hard if you're having a conversation. My forehead is certainly animated as we're talking about one of my favorite topics here. One of the tricks that I use with the fellows is to observe the forehead from the side, and there you can see the undulation of the forehead muscles. And that can be helpful as you're looking for these things. I think where it's most helpful to use the forehead is if you're trying to determine if someone with a psychiatric history has tardive dyskinesia or Huntington's disease, because there can be quite a lot of overlap there. And unfortunately, patients can have both conditions. And so, using the forehead movement can be helpful to maybe direct further testing for Huntington's disease. Dr Berkowitz: Oh, wow, that's a very helpful pearl. So, if you see, sort of, diffuse chorea throughout the body and the forehead is involved, to my understanding it may be less specific. But in the context of wondering, is the neuropsychiatric condition and movement disorder related by an underlying cause in the case of seeing orofacial dyskinesias, is the relationship a drug having caused a tardive dyskinesia or is the whole underlying process Huntington's, the absence of forehead might push you a little more towards tardive dyskinesia, presuming there is an appropriate implicated drug and the presence of forehead chorea would really clue you in more to Huntington's. Did I understand that pearl? Dr Moore: That's exactly right, and I'm glad you brought up the point about making sure, if you're considering tardive dyskinesia, that there has been an appropriate drug exposure. Because without that you can't make that diagnosis. Dr Berkowitz: That's a very helpful and interesting pearl, looking at the forehead from the side. That is a movement disorders pearl for sure. Sort of not just looking at the forehead from one angle and trying to figure out what it's doing, but going to look at the patient in profile and trying to sort it out. I love that. Okay. So, based on the differential diagnosis you would have crafted based on whether this is sort of acute, subacute, chronic, the age of the patient, whether it's unilateral, bilateral, which parts of the body. How do you go about the initial evaluation in terms of laboratory testing, imaging, etc.? Dr Moore: Well, certainly in an acute-onset patient, you're going to get a number of labs---and that's listed out for you in the paper---and consider imaging as well, looking for an infarct. One thing our learners will know is that sort of the typical answer to what's the infarct causing hemichorea would be the subthalamic nucleus. But really, those infarcts can be almost anywhere. There are case reports for infarcts in a wide variety of places in the brain leading to hemichorea. So, I think some general blood work and an MRI of the brain is a good place to start. For someone who has a more chronic course of the development of chorea, there are certain labs that I would get---and an MRI, because if you get an MRI and there's heavy metal deposition or other disease, structurally, that indicates a certain condition, that can help you pretty considerably. But otherwise, I'm looking for inflammatory markers, heavy metals, HIV, some general other things that are outlined, to help make sure that I'm not missing something that's treatable before I go down the route of genetic testing. And we may talk about this in a little bit, but if you start out with genetic testing and then you sort of have to back up and do more systemic testing, that can be very disjointed when it comes to good patient care. Dr Berkowitz: That's very helpful. So yeah, if it's acute, obviously this is the most straightforward scenario, acute and unilateral. We're imagining something lesional, as you said, either a stroke or---not sort of sudden, but fast, but not sudden---you might think of another structural lesion. Toxoplasmosis, right, has an affinity for the basal ganglia if you were seeing this in a patient who is immunocompromised. But in a case that, probably as you alluded to, sort of what we would see most commonly in practice, those still relatively rare, sort of subacute to chronic symmetric chorea. There's a long list of tests that are recommended. In your article and in other texts, I've read lupus testing, anti-phospholipid antibodies… but the list is long. I'll refer readers to your article. Out of curiosity as a specialist, how often do you see any of these labs come back revealing any underlying diagnosis in a patient who's otherwise healthy and just has developed chorea and comes to you with that chief concern? I feel like I've sent that mega-workup a few times; I'm obviously a general neurologist, but not nearly as many times as you have been. It's- I can't remember a time where something has come up, maybe an ANA one to forty or something like this that we don't think is relevant. But in your practice, how often do you end up finding a reversible cause in the laboratory testing versus ending up starting to go down the genetic testing route, which we'll talk about in a moment? Dr Moore: It's not common, but it is important that we capture these things. Because for a lot of those laboratory tests, there are treatments that are available, or other health implications if those come back positive. So, the case I think of is a polycythemia vera patient who had diffused subacute onset chorea and was able to be treated, was temporarily managed with medication for her chorea, and as her PV improved, she was able to come off those medications. As I was alluding to before---and I'm sure we'll talk about genetic testing---if you test for HD and it's negative, do you go down the route of additional expensive genetic testing, or do you then circle back and go, oops, I missed this treatable condition? As we talk about genetic testing as well, getting HD testing is a pretty involved process. And so, we want to make sure we are checking all those boxes before we move forward. So, it's not common, but we do catch some treatable conditions, and that's really important not to miss. Dr Berkowitz: That's very interesting. So, you diagnosed that polycythemia vera by blood smear, is that how you make the diagnosis? Dr Moore: Yes. Dr Berkowitz: And is that a once-in-a-career-so-far type of thing, or does that happen time to time? Dr Moore: For me, that's a once-so-far, but I don't doubt that I'll see it again. Dr Berkowitz: Great. And how about lupus and some of these other things we look for in the absence of other systemic features? Have you picked up any of these or heard of colleagues picking up something on laboratory testing? They said, oh, this patient came in for a referral for genetic testing, negative Huntington's disease. And good news, we found polycythemia vera; good news, we found undiagnosed lupus and we reversed it. I'm just curious, epidemiologically, seeing these long lists and not having the subspecialty practice that you do, how often you find a reversible cause like we do for neuropathy all the time, right? Oh, it's diabetes, it's B12---maybe not reversible, but preventing progression---or reversible dementia work up. You get so excited when you find low B12 and you replete the patient's B12, and they get better when they had been concerned they were developing an irreversible condition. How often does one in your subspecialty find a reversible cause on that initial mega-lab screen? Dr Moore: I think it's really uncommon, and maybe the folks that do are caught by someone else that never make it to Huntington's clinic, but I don't tend to see those cases. There are, of course, case reports and well-described in the literature about lupus and movement disorders and things of that nature, but that doesn't come to our clinic on a regular basis for sure. Dr Berkowitz: Got it. That's helpful to hear. Well, we've alluded to genetic testing a number of times now, so let's go ahead and talk about it. A lot of your article focuses on Huntington disease, and I was thinking about---in the course of our medical training in medical school, and then neurology residency, for those of us who don't become movement disorder experts like yourself---we learn a lot about Huntington disease. That's sort of the disease that causes chorea, until we later learned there are a whole number of diseases, not just the reversible causes we've been talking about, but a number of genetic diseases which you expertly reviewing your article. So, what are some of the red flags that suggest to you that a patient with chronically progressive chorea---and whom you're concerned for Huntington's or another genetic cause---what are some things you notice about the history, about the exam, the symptoms, the signs, the syndrome, that suggest to you that, actually, this one looks like it might not turn out to be HD. I think this patient might have something else. And as you have alluded to, how do you approach this? Do you send HD testing, wait for it to come back, and then go forward? Are there genetic panels for certain genetic causes of chorea? Do you skip just a whole exome sequencing, or will you miss some of the trinucleotide repeat conditions? How do you approach this in practice? Dr Moore: I'll try to tackle all that. One thing I will say is that a lot of patients with chorea, regardless of the cause, can look very similar to one another. So, if you're looking at chronic onset chorea, perhaps with some neuropsychiatric features, I'm going to most often think about HD because that's the most common cause. Certainly, as we mentioned before, if there's a lot of tongue protrusion, I would think about the acanthocytic conditions, neurocanthocytosis and McCloud syndrome. But generally in those conditions, we're looking at HD as the most likely cause. Certainly, if there is epilepsy or some other syndromic types of things going on, I may think more broadly. But it's important to know that while HD, as you mentioned, is the cause of chorea, many of our patients will have parkinsonism, tics, dystonia, a whole host of other movement phenomenologies. So, that wouldn't dissuade me from thinking about HD. When we think about the kind of patients that you're describing, upwards of 95% of those people will have Huntington's disease. And the process for genetic testing is fairly involved. The Huntington's Disease Society of America has organized a set of recommendations for providers to go about the process of genetic testing in a safe and supportive way for patients and their families. And so that's referred to in the article because it really is important and was devised by patients and families that are affected by this disease. And so, when we're thinking about genetic testing for HD, if I reveal that you have HD, this potentially affects your children and your parents and your siblings. You can have a lot of implications for the lives and health and finances of your family members. We also know that there is high suicidality in patients with HD, in patients who are at risk for HD; and there's even a higher risk of suicidality in patients who are at risk but test negative for HD. So, we do recommend a supportive environment for these patients and their families. And so, for presymptomatic patients or patients who are at risk and don't have chorea, this involves making sure we have, sort of, our ducks in a row, as it were, when we think about life insurance, and, do you have somebody supportive to be with you through this journey of genetic testing, no matter what the results are? So, oftentimes I'll say to folks, you know, there's this 20-page policy that I encourage you to look at, but there are Huntington's Disease Centers of Excellence across the country that are happy to help you with that process, to make sure that the patients are well supported. This is an individual genetic test because, as you mentioned, it is a CAG repeat disorder. And unfortunately, there is no chorea panel. So, if an HD test comes back negative, what we'll do then is think about what's called the HD phenocopies. As I mentioned before, some of these patients who look like they have HD will have a negative HD test. And so, what do you do then? Well, there's a handful of phenocopies---so, other genetic mutations that cause a very similar presentation. And so, we try to be smart, since there's not a panel, we try to be smart about how we choose which test to do next. So, for instance, there's a condition called DRPLA that is present in an African-American family here in my area, in North Carolina, as well as in Japan. And so, if someone comes from those backgrounds, we may decide that that's the next test that we're going to do. If they are white European descent, we may consider a different genetic test; or if they're sub-Saharan African, we may choose a different one from that. However, even if you do a really thorough job, all those blood tests, all those genetic tests, you will occasionally get patients that you can't find a diagnosis for. And so, it's important to know even when you do a good job, you may still not find the answer. And so, I think trying to do things with this complex of the presentation in a systematic way for yourself so you're not missing something. So, going back to our answer about, how do I look at lupus and polycythemia vera and all of that, to think about it in a systematic way. That when you get to the end and you say, well, I don't have an answer, you know you've tried. Dr Berkowitz: That's very helpful to hear your approach to these challenging scenarios, and also how to approach the potential challenging diagnosis for patients and their families getting this diagnosis, particularly in the presymptomatic phase. And your article touches on this with a lot of nuance and thoughtfulness. So, I encourage our listeners to have a read of that section as well. So, last here, just briefly in our final moments, you discuss in your article the various symptomatic treatments for chorea. We won't have time to go into all the details of all the many treatments you discussed, but just briefly, how do you decide which medication to start in an individual patient with chorea for symptomatic management? What are some of the considerations related to the underlying condition, potential side effect profiles of the particular medications, or any other considerations just broadly, generally, as you think about choosing one of the many medications that can be used to treat chorea? Dr Moore: Certainly. So, there is a group of FDA-approved medications, VMAT2 inhibitors, that we can choose from, or the off-label use of neuroleptics. And so, there's a lot of things that go into that. Some of that is insurance and cost and that sort of thing, and that can play a role. Others are side effects. So, for the VMAT2 inhibitors, they all do have a black box warning from the FDA about suicidality. And so, if a patient does struggle with mental health, has a history of suicidality, psychiatric admissions for that sort of thing, then I would be more cautious about using that medication. All patients are counseled about that, as are their families, to help us give them good support. So, the neuroleptics do not tend to have that side effect and can help with mood as well as the chorea and can be helpful in that way. And some of them, of course, will have beneficial side effects. So, olanzapine may help with appetite, which can be important in this disease. So, the big considerations would be the black box warning and suicidality, as well as, are we trying to just treat chorea or are we treating chorea and neuropsychiatric issues? Dr Berkowitz: Fantastic. Thank you for that overview. And again, for our listeners, there's a lot more detail about all of these medications, how they work, how they're used in different patient populations, their side effects, etc, to be reviewed in your excellent article. Again, today, I've been interviewing Dr Kathryn Moore about her article on diagnosis and management of Huntington's disease in chorea, which appears in the August 2025 Continuum issue on movement disorders. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues. And thank you so much to our listeners for joining today. And thank you again, Dr Moore. Dr Moore: Thanks for having me. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, associate editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Progressive supranuclear palsy and corticobasal syndrome are closely related neurodegenerative disorders that present with progressive parkinsonism and multiple other features that overlap clinically and neuropathologically. Early recognition is critical to provide appropriate treatment and supportive care. In this episode, Teshamae Monteith, MD, FAAN speaks with Nikolaus R. McFarland, MD, PhD, FAAN, author of the article "Progressive Supranuclear Palsy and Corticobasal Syndrome" in the Continuum® August 2025 Movement Disorders issue. Dr. Monteith is the associate editor of Continuum® Audio and an associate professor of clinical neurology at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Miami, Florida. Dr. McFarland is an associate professor of neurology at the University of Florida College of Medicine at the Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases in Gainesville, Florida. Additional Resources  Read the article: Progressive Supranuclear Palsy and Corticobasal Syndrome Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @headacheMD Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Monteith: Hi, this is Dr Teshamae Monteith. Today I'm interviewing Dr Nikolaus McFarland about his article on progressive supranuclear palsy and cortical basilar syndrome, which appears in the August 2025 Continuum issue on movement disorders. Welcome, how are you? Dr Farland: I'm great. Thank you for inviting me to do this. This is a great opportunity. I had fun putting this article together, and it's part of my passion. Dr Monteith: Yes, I know that. You sit on the board with me in the Florida Society of Neurology and I've seen your lectures. You're very passionate about this. And so why don't you first start off with introducing yourself, and then tell us just a little bit about what got you interested in this field. Dr Farland: I'm Dr Nicholas McFarlane. I'm an associate professor at the University of Florida, and I work at the Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases. I am a director of a number of different centers. So, I actually direct the cure PSP Center of Care and the MSA Center of Excellence at the University of Florida; I also direct the Huntington's clinic there as well. But for many years my focus has been on atypical parkinsonisms. And, you know, I've treated these patients for years, and one of my focuses is actually these patients who suffer from progressive supranuclear palsy and corticobasal syndrome. So that's kind of what this review is all about. Dr Monteith: You probably were born excited, but I want to know what got you interested in this in particular? Dr Farland: So, what got me interested in this in particular was really the disease and the challenges that's involved in it. So, Parkinson's disease is pretty common, and we see a lot of that in our clinic. Yet many times, roughly about 10 to 15% of my patients present with these atypical disorders. And they're quite fascinating. They present in different ways. They're fairly uncommon. They're complex disorders that progress fairly rapidly, and they have multiple different features. They're sort of exciting to see clinically as a neurologist. I think they're really interesting from an academic standpoint, but also in the standpoint of really trying to bring together sort of a team. We have built a multidisciplinary team here at the University of Florida to take care of these patients. They require a number of folks on that team to take care of them. And so, what's exciting, really, is the challenge of treating these patients. There are very limited numbers of therapies that are available, and the current therapies that we have often really aren't great and over time they fail. And so, part of the challenge is actually doing research. And so, there's actually a lot of new research that's been going on in this field. Recently, there's been some revisions to the clinical criteria to help diagnose these disorders. So, that's really what's exciting. The field is really moving forward fairly rapidly with a number of new diagnostics, therapeutics coming out. And hopefully we can make a real difference for these patients. And so that's what really got me into this field, the challenge of trying to treat these patients, help them, advocate for them and make them better. Dr Monteith: And so, tell me what the essential points of this article. Dr Farland: So, the essential points, really, of this article is: number one, you know, just to recognize the new clinical criteria for both PSP and corticobasal syndrome, the diagnosis for these disorders or the phenotypic spectrum has really expanded over the years. So, we now recognize many different phenotypes of these disorders, and the diagnosis has gotten fairly complicated. And so, one of the goals of this article was to review those new diagnostic criteria and the different phenotypic ways these diseases present. I wanted to discuss, also, some of the neuropathology and clinicopathological overlap that's occurred in these diseases as well as some of the new diagnostic tests that are available. That's definitely growing. Some of the new studies that are out, in terms of research and clinical trials. And then wanted to review some of the approaches for treatment for neurologists. Particularly, we're hoping that, you know, this article educates folks. If you're a general neurologist, we're hoping that recognizing these diseases early on will prompt you to refer these patients to specialty clinics or movement disorder specialists early on so they can get appropriate care, confirm your diagnosis, as well as get them involved in trials if they are available. Dr Monteith: And how has the clinical criteria for PSP and cortical basilar syndrome changed? Dr Farland: I think I already mentioned there's been an evolution of the clinical criteria for PSP. There's new diagnostic criteria that were recently published, and it recognizes the multiple clinical phenotypes and the spectrum of the disease that's out there, which is much broader than we thought about. Corticobasal clinical criteria are the Dr Armstrong criteria from 2013. They have not been updated, but they are in the works of being updated. But it does recognize the classic presentation of corticobasal syndrome, plus a frontal executive predominant and then a variant that actually overlaps with PSP. So, there's a lot more overlap in these two diseases than we originally recognized. Dr Monteith: And so, you spoke a bit about FTD spectrum. So why don't you tell us a little bit about what that is? I know you mentioned multiple phenotypes. Dr Farland: What I really want to say is that both PSP and corticobasal syndrome, they're relatively rare, and what- sort of as to common features, they both are progressive Parkinson disorders, but they have variable features. While they're commonly associated with Parkinson's, they also fit within this frontotemporal lobar spectrum, having features that overlap both clinically and neuropathologically. I just want folks to understand that overlap. One of this pathological overlap here is the predominant Tau pathology in the brain, an increasing recognology- recognition of sort of the pathological heterogeneity within these disorders. So, there's an initial description, a classic of PSP, as Richardson syndrome. But now we recognize there are lots of different features to it and there are different ways it presents, and there's definitely a lot of clinical pathological overlap. Dr Monteith: Why don't we just talk about some red flags for PSP? Dr Farland: Yeah, sure. So, some of the red flags for PSP and even corticobasal syndrome are: number one is rapid progression with early onset of falls, gait difficulty, falling typically backwards, early speech and swallow problems that are more prominent than you see in Parkinson's disease, as well as eye gaze issues. So, ocular motor features, particularly vertical gaze palsy. In particular what we talk about is the supranuclear gaze palsy, and one of the most sensitive features that we've seen with these is downgaze limitation or slowed downgaze, and eventually a full vertical gaze palsy and followed supranuclear gaze palsy. So, there's some of the red flags that we see. So, while we think about the lack of response to levodopa frequently as something that's a red flag for Parkinson's, there are many times that we see Parkinson's patients, and about a quarter of them don't really respond. There's some features that don't respond to levodopa that may not be so specific, but also can be helpful in this disease. Dr Monteith: And what about the red flags for cortical basilar syndrome? Dr Farland: So, for cortical basilar syndrome, some of the red flags again are this rapidly depressive syndrome tends to be, at least in its classical present presentation, more asymmetric in its presentation of parkinsonism, with features including things like dystonic features, okay? For limb dystonia and apraxias---so, inability to do a learned behavior. One of those red flags is a patient who comes in and says, my hand doesn't work anymore, which is something extremely uncommon that you hear in Parkinson's disease. Most of those patients will present, say, I might have a tremor, but they very rarely will tell you that I can't use my hand. So look out for that sign. Dr Monteith: And let's talk a little bit about some of the advances in the fields you mentioned, evolving biomarker and imaging capacities. So, how are these advances useful in helping us understand these conditions, especially when there's so much heterogeneity? Dr Farland: I might start by talking a little bit about some of the clinical criteria that have advanced. Why don't we start there and just discuss some of the advances? I think in PSP, I think, originally we had both probable and possible diagnoses of PSP, and the diagnostic criteria were basically focused on what was what's called "classical PSP" or "Richardson syndrome". But now we recognize that there are multiple phenotypes. There's an overlap with Parkinsonism that's slower in progression and morphs into PSP, the classical form. There's a frontal behavioral variant where patients present with that frontal behavioral kind of thing. There's a speech-language variant that can overlap with PSP. So they have prominent speech language, potentially even apraxia speech. So, recognition of these different phenotypes is sort of a new thing in this field. There's even overlap with cortical basal syndrome and PSP, and we note that the pathology can overlap as well. So, I think that's one of the things that have changed over time. And these were- recently came out in 2017 in a new publication in the Movement Disorders Society. So, in terms of diagnostic tests as well---and there's been quite a bit of evolution---really still to date, our best diagnostic test is imaging. MRI is really one of our best tests currently. Currently blood tests, spinal fluid, there's new biomarkers in terms of skin… they're still in the research phase and not necessarily very specific yet. So, we rely heavily on imaging still; and for PSP, what we're looking for largely are changes in the brain stem, and particularly focused on the midbrain. So disproportionate midbrain atrophy compared to the pons and the rest of the midbrain is a fairly specific intensive sign for PSP. Whereas in MSA we see more of a pontine atrophy compared to the midbrain. So that can be really helpful, and there are lots of different new measurements that can be done. PET scans are also being used as well. And there are new PET markers, but they still remain kind of research-based, but are becoming more and more prevalent and may be available soon for potential use. Although there's some overlap with PET tracers with Alzheimer's disease and different Tau isoforms. So, something to be wary about, but we will be seeing some of these soon coming out as well. More kind of up-to-date things include things like the spinal fluid as well as even some of the skin biopsies. And I think we've heard some word of recent studies that have come out that potentially in the very near future we might actually have some Tau protein tests that we can look at Tau either in spinal fluid or even in a skin biopsy. But again, still remains research-based and, we still need more information as to whether these tests can be reproducible and how sensitive or specific they are. Dr Monteith: It sounds like, when really approaching these patients, still, it's a lot of back to the history, back to the clinical and some basic imaging that we should be able to identify to distinguish these types of patients, and we're not quite where we need to be yet for biomarker. Dr Farland: I totally agree with you. I think it starts, really, with the clinical exam and that's our main focus here; and understanding some of the new clinical criteria which are more sensitive, but also specific, too. And they're really useful to look at. So, I think reviewing those; patients do progress, following them over time can be really useful. And then for diagnosis, getting imaging if you suspect a patient has an atypical presentation of parkinsonism, to look for signs or features that might be specific for these different disorders. Dr Monteith: Why don't we take a typical case, a typical patient that you would see in clinic, and walk us through the thought process---especially, maybe they presented somewhat early---and the different treatment approaches to helping the patient, and of course their family. Dr Farland: Yeah, sure. So, a typical patient might be someone who comes in with, like, a three year history of progressive gait problems and falling. And let's say the patient says, I'm falling backwards frequently. They may have had, like, a rib fracture, or they hit their head once, and they're describing some speech issues as well. Now they're relying on a walker and family members saying they rarely let them be by themselves. And there may be some slowing of their cognitive function and maybe a bit of withdrawal. So that's a typical patient. So, the approach here is really, what are some of the red flags? I think already you hear a red flag of a rapidly progressive disease. So, Parkinson's disease patients rarely have frequent falls within the first five years. So, this is within three years or less. You're already hearing early onset of gait problems and falling, and particularly falling backwards rather than forwards as often Parkinson's disease patients do. You're hearing early speech problems and maybe a subtle hint of cognitive slowing and some withdrawal. So, a lot of things that sort of are red flags. So, our approach really would be examining this patient really closely. Okay? We'd be listening to the history, looking at the patient. One thing is that some of these patients come in, they may be in a wheelchair already. That's a red flag for us. If they're wearing sunglasses---sometimes we see that patients, they have photosensitivity and they're in a chair and they're wearing sunglasses---you take the glasses off and you look at their face and they have that sort of a facial stare to them---not just the masked face, but the stare---and their eyes really aren't moving. So, another kind of clue, maybe this is probably something atypical, particularly PSP is what I'm thinking about. So, the approach is really, do a thorough exam. I always recommend looking at eye movements and starting with volitional saccades, not giving them a target necessarily, but asking them to look up and then look down. And then particularly look at the speed of downgaze and whether they actually have full versions down, are able to do that. That's probably your most sensitive test for a patient who has PSP. Not the upgaze, which can be- upgaze impairment in older patients can be nonspecific. So, look for that down gaze. So, if I can get out one message, that's one thing that can be easily done and examined fairly quickly for diagnosis of these patients. And then just look for signs of rigidity, bradykinesia, maybe even some myelopraxia, and then look at their gait carefully so that there's a high suspicion. Again, if there's some atypical features, imaging is really important. So, my next step would be probably getting an MRI to evaluate whether- do they have brain somatrophy or other widespread atrophy or other signs? You need to think about your differential diagnosis for some of these patients as well. So, common things are common; vascular disease, you can't have vascular parkinsonism or even signs of NPH. Both of those can present with progressive gait difficulty and falls. So, the gait may look more like Parkinson's rather than ataxic gait that we see in classic PSP, but still they have early gait issues, and that can be a mimicker of PSP, So looking for both of those things in your imaging. Think about sort of autoimmune potentially causes. So, if they have a really rapid progressive cause, there are some rare autoimmune things. There have been recent reports of things like IgLON5, although there's limited cases, but we're doing more screening for some of those autoimmune causes. And then even some infectious causes like Whipples, that are rarely present like this. Okay? And have other signs and features. Dr Monteith: So, let's say you diagnose this patient with PSP and you're assessing the patients to see how you can improve their quality of life. So, what are some potential symptomatic managements that will help our patient? Dr Farland: I recommend for most all of these patients… while the literature indicates that many patients with PSP, and especially corticobasal syndrome, don't respond well to levodopa. So, the classic treatment for parkinsonism. However, we all recommend a trial of levodopa. These patients may respond partially to doses of levodopa, and we try to push the doses a bit higher. So, the recommended trial is usually a dose up to roughly 1000 milligrams of levodopa per day. And give it some time, at least two, if not actually three months of a trial. If not well-tolerated, you can back off. If there's no response at all or no improvement, then slowly back off and taper patients off and ask them to tell you whether they feel like they're actually worsening. So, many patients, sometimes, don't recognize the improvements, or family members don't recognize it until we actually taper them back off. And they may end up saying there are some other things that even recognize. Even some nonmotor benefits can be seen with levodopa. In some cases, we do keep them on levodopa, but levodopa's our best therapy for this. Dopamine agonists, MAO inhibitors, have all been sort of tried and they've been studied, but often don't really help or fail to help benefit these patients and could be fraught with some other side effects. I think many people do also turn to Amantadine as a treatment for Parkinson's, gait problems, freezing, if you see it in these disorders. Yet Amantadine is fraught with issues of side effects, including cognitive issues, and I think is not well-tolerated. But there are the rare patient who actually does respond to this or claims they respond to this. By and large, these patients relentlessly progress, unfortunately. So, beside treatment of other symptoms, I think it's really important to recognize that they require supportive cares and therapy. So, starting those early on and getting your allied healthcares kind of involved. So that includes people like physical, occupational therapy for the gait issues, the falls, occupational therapy for doing daily activities. Speech language pathology can be really a critical player for these because of the early speech and language issues, as well as swallow difficulties. Swallow is compared quickly in these patients. And so, we do recommend the screening evaluation, then often following patients either every six- or even annually, at least, with a swallow evaluation. And we recommend the fluoroscopic-guided kind of modified barium swallow for these patients.  Dr Monteith: And how does that differ if, let's say, the patient had cortical basilar syndrome? What are some of the symptomatic treatments that would be high on your consideration? Dr Farland: So actually, these patients also have a very similar approach, and they often have some overlapping features. Maybe a little bit of difference in terms of the level of apraxia and some dystonic features that you see in corticobasal syndrome. So, as I mentioned earlier that these patients have a more typ- when they present, typically have a more asymmetric presentation. And one of the biggest issues is this limb apraxia. They may have abnormal movements as well as, like, the alien limb-type phenomena as well. So, the focus of therapy, while similar in the sense we focus on the parkinsonism, I do always try levodopa and try to ramp up the doses to see if it benefits. It does often fail, but it's definitely worth trying. The other focus of these patients is trying to treat symptoms. Dystonia, those features… in some cases, we can help; if it's painful or uncomfortable, muscle relaxants can be used. If it's vocal, things like Botox can be really helpful. Often times it is more palliative than actually restorative in terms of function, but still can be really helpful for patients who ask about pain and discomfort and trying to treat. And then of course, again, the focus on our supportive care. We need to build that network and build that team of folks, the therapists, the physical, occupational, and the speech therapist to help them. If they have language problems---like either in PSP or corticobasal---I'll also include my request to a speech language pathologist to work on cognitive function. That's a special, additional thing you have to ask for and then specifically request when you make a referral to a speech language pathologist. Dr Monteith: That is so important. I think keeping the simulation, keeping the social support, and I would probably guess that you would also include screening for sleep and mood disorder. Dr Farland: Absolutely. Mood disorders are really big in these diseases. Patients are suffering terribly. You do hear about labile mood in both of these diseases, particularly PSP; and even what's called pseudobulbar palsy, where the mood is not always congruent with the affect. So they may laugh or cry inappropriately, and particularly the crying can be very disturbing to family and caregivers to see that. And so, treating those things can be really important. So always asking about the mood issues. Depression in particular is something that we're very sensitive about, and there is a higher incidence of suicidal ideations. Asking about that and feeling and making sure that they are in a safe environment can be really important. Dr Monteith: Thank you so much. Dr Farland: Thank you. Dr Monteith: Today I've been interviewing Dr Nikolaus McFarland about his article on progressive supranuclear palsy and cortical basilar syndrome, which appears in the August 2025 Continuum issue on movement disorders. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues, and thank you to our listeners for joining today. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Multiple system atrophy is a rare, sporadic, adult-onset, progressive, and fatal neurodegenerative disease. Accurate and early diagnosis remains challenging because it presents with a variable combination of symptoms across the autonomic, extrapyramidal, cerebellar, and pyramidal systems. Advances in brain imaging, molecular biomarker research, and efforts to develop disease-modifying agents have shown promise to improve diagnosis and treatment. In this episode, Casey Albin, MD speaks with Tao Xie, MD, PhD, author of the article "Multiple System Atrophy" in the Continuum® August 2025 Movement Disorders issue. Dr. Albin is a Continuum® Audio interviewer, associate editor of media engagement, and an assistant professor of neurology and neurosurgery at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia. Dr. Xie is director of the Movement Disorder Program, chief of the Neurodegenerative Disease Section in the department of neurology at the University of Chicago Medicine in Chicago, Illinois. Additional Resources Read the article: Multiple System Atrophy Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @caseyalbin Full episode transcript available here Dr. Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Albin: Hello everyone, this is Dr Casey Albin. Today I'm interviewing Dr Tao Xie about his article on diagnosis and management of multiple system atrophy, which appears in the August 2025 Continuum issue on movement disorders. Welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to our audience. Dr Xie: Thank you so much, Dr Albin. My name is Tao Xie, and sometimes people also call me Tao Z. I'm a mood disorder neurologist, professor of neurology at the University of Chicago. I'm also in charge of the mood disorder program here, and I'm the section chief in the neurodegenerative disease in the Department of Neurology at the University of Chicago Medicine. Thank you for having me, Dr Albin and Dr Okun and the American Academy of Neurology. This is a great honor and pleasure to be involved in this education session. Dr Albin: We are delighted to have you, and thank you so much for the thoughtful approach to the diagnosis and management. I really want to encourage our listeners to check out this article. You know, one of the things that you emphasize is multiple system atrophy is a fairly rare condition. And I suspect that clinicians and trainees who even have a fair amount of exposure to movement disorders may not have encountered that many cases. And so, I was hoping that you could just start us off and walk us through what defines multiple system atrophy, and then maybe a little bit about how it's different from some of the more commonly encountered movement disorders. Dr Xie: This is a really good question, Dr Albin. Indeed, MSA---multisystem atrophy----is a rare disease. It is sporadic, adult-onset, progressive, fatal neurodegenerative disease. By the name MSA, multisystem atrophy. Clinically, it will present with multiple symptoms and signs involving multiple systems, including symptoms of autonomic dysfunction and symptoms of parkinsonism, which is polyresponsive to the levodopa treatment; and the symptom of cerebellar ataxia, and symptom of spasticity and other motor and nonmotor symptoms. And you may be wondering, what is the cause- underlying cause of these symptoms? Anatomically, we can find the area in the basal ganglia striatonigral system, particularly in the putamen and also in the cerebellar pontine inferior, all of the nuclear area and the specific area involved in the autonomic system in the brain stem and spinal cord: all become smaller. We call it atrophy. Because of the atrophy in this area, they are responsible for the symptom of parkinsonism if it is involved in the putamen and the cerebral ataxia, if it's involved in the pons and cerebral peduncle and the cerebellum. And all other area, if it's involved in the autonomic system can cause autonomic symptoms as well. So that's why we call it multisystem atrophy. And then what's the underlying cellular and subcellular pathological, a hallmark that is in fact caused by misfolded alpha-synuclein aggregate in the oligodontia site known as GCI---glial cytoplasmic increasing bodies---in the cells, and sometimes it can also be found in the neuronal cell as well in those areas, as mentioned, which causes the symptom. But clinically, the patient may not present all the symptoms at the same time. So, based on the predominant clinical symptom, if it's mainly levodopa, polyresponsive parkinsonism, then we call it MSAP. If it's mainly cerebellar ataxia, then we call it MSAC. But whether we call it MSP or MSC, they all got to have autonomic dysfunction. And also as the disease progresses, they can also present both phenotypes together. We call that mixed cerebellar ataxia and parkinsonism in the advanced stage of the disease. So, it is really a complicated disease. The complexity and the similarity to other mood disorders, including parkinsonism and the cerebellar ataxia, make it really difficult sometimes, particularly at the early stages of disease, to differentiate one from the other. So, that was challenging not only for other professionals, general neurologists and even for some movement disorder specialists, that could be difficult particularly if you aim to make an accurate and early diagnosis. Dr Albin: Absolutely. That is such a wealth of knowledge here. And I'm going to distill it just a little bit just to make sure that I understand this right. There is alpha-synuclein depositions, and it's really more widespread than one would see maybe in just Parkinson's disease. And with this, you are having patients present with maybe one of two subtypes of their clinical manifestations, either with a Parkinson's-predominant movement disorder pattern or a cerebellar ataxia type movement disorder pattern. Or maybe even mixed, which really, you know, we have to make things quite complicated, but they are all unified and having this shared importance of autonomic features to the diagnosis. Have I got that all sort of correct? Dr Xie: Correct. You really summarize well. Dr Albin: Fantastic. I mean, this is quite a complicated disease. I would pose to you sort of a case, and I imagine this is quite common to what you see in your clinic. And let's say, you know, a seventy-year-old woman comes to your clinic because she has had rigidity and poor balance. And she's had several falls already, almost always from ground level. And her family tells you she's quite woozy whenever she gets up from the chair and she tends to kind of fall over. But they noticed that she's been stiff,and they've actually brought her to their primary care doctor and he thought that she had Parkinson's disease. So, she started levodopa, but they're coming to you because they think that she probably needs a higher dose. It's just not working out very well for her. So how would you sort of take that history and sort of comb through some of the features that might make you more concerned that the patient actually has undiagnosed multiple systems atrophy? Dr Xie: This is a great case, because we oftentimes can encounter similar cases like this in the clinic. First of all, based on the history you described, it sounds like an atypical parkinsonism based on the slowness, rigidity, stiffness; and particularly the early onset of falls, which is very unusual for typical Parkinson disease. It occurs too early. If its loss of balance, postural instability, and fall occurred within three years of disease onset---usually the motor symptom onset---then it raises a red flag to suspect this must be some atypical Parkinson disorders, including multiple system atrophy. Particularly, pou also mentioned that the patient is poorly responsive to their levodopa therapy, which is very unusual because for Parkinson disease, idiopathic Parkinson disease, we typically expect patients would have a great response to the levodopa, particularly in the first 5 to 7 years. So to put it all together, this could be atypical parkinsonism, and I could not rule out the possibility of MSA. Then I need to check more about other symptoms including autonomic dysfunction, such as orthostatic hypertension, which is a blood pressure drop when the patient stands up from a lying-down position, or other autonomic dysfunctions such as urinary incontinence or severe urinary retention. So, in the meantime, I also have to put the other atypical Parkinson disorder on the differential diagnosis, such as PSP---progressive supranuclear palsy---and the DLBD---dementia with Lewy body disease.---Bear this in mind. So, I want to get more history and more thorough bedside assessment to rule in or rule out my diagnosis and differential diagnosis. Dr Albin: That's super helpful. So, looking for early falls, the prominence of autonomic dysfunction, and then that poor levodopa responsiveness while continuing to sort of keep a very broad differential diagnosis? Dr Xie: Correct. Dr Albin: One of the things that I just have to ask, because I so taken by this, is that you say in the article that some of these patients actually have preservation of smell. In medical school, we always learn that our Parkinson's disease patients kind of had that early loss of smell. Do you find that to be clinically relevant? Is that- does that anecdotally help? Dr Xie: This is a very interesting point because we know that the loss of smelling function is a risk effect, a prodromal effect, for the future development of Parkinson disease. But it is not the case for MSA. Strange enough, based on the literature and the studies, it is not common for the patient with MSA to present with anosmia. Some of the patients may have mild to moderate hyposmia, but not to the degree of anosmia. So, this is why even in the more recent diagnosis criteria, the MDS criteria published 2022, it even put the presence of anosmia in the exclusion criteria. So, highlight the importance of the smell function, which is well-preserved for the majority in MSA, into that category. So, this is a really interesting point and very important for us, particularly clinicians, to know the difference in the hyposmia, anosmia between the- we call it the PD, and the dementia Lewy bodies versus MSA. Dr Albin: Fascinating. And just such a cool little tidbit to take with us. So, the family, you know, you're talking to them and they say, oh yes, she has had several fainting episodes and we keep taking her to the primary care doctor because she's had urinary incontinence, and they thought maybe she had urinary tract infections. We've been dealing with that. And you're sort of thinking, hm, this is all kind of coming together, but I imagine it is still quite difficult to make this diagnosis based on history and physical alone. Walk our listeners through sort of how you're using MRI and DAT scan and maybe even some other biomarkers to help sort of solidify that diagnosis. Dr Xie: Yeah, that's a wonderful question. Yeah. First of all, UTI is very common for patients with MSA because of urinary retention, which puts them into a high risk of developing frequent UTI. That, for some patients, could be the very initial presentation of symptoms. In this case, if we check, we say UTI is not present or UTI is present but we treat it, then we check the blood pressure and we do find also hypertension---according to new diagnosis criteria, starting drop is 20mm mercury, but that's- the blood pressure drop is ten within three minutes. And also, in the meantime the patients present persistent urinary incontinence even after UTI was treated. And then the suspicion for MS is really high right at this point. But if you want increased certainty and a comfortable level on your diagnosis, then we also need to look at the brain MRI mark. This is a required according to the most recent MDS diagnosis criteria. The presence of the MRI marker typical for MSA is needed for the diagnosis of clinically established MSA, which holds the highest specificity in the clinical diagnosis. So then, we have- we're back to your question. We do need to look at the brain MRI to see whether evidence suggestive of atrophy around the putamen area, around the cerebellar pontine inferior olive area, is present or not. Dr Albin: Absolutely. That's super helpful. And I think clinicians will really take that to sort of helping to build a case and maybe recognizing some of this atypical Parkinson's disease as a different disease entity. Are there any other biomarkers in the pipeline that you're excited about that may give us even more clarity on this diagnosis? Dr Xie: Oh, yeah. This is a very exciting area. In terms of biomarker for the brain imaging, particularly brain MRI, in fact, today there's a landmark paper just published in the Java Neurology using AI, artificial intelligence or machine learning aid, diagnoses a patient with parkinsonism including Parkinson's disease, MSA, and PSP, with very high diagnostic accuracy ranging from 96% to 98%. And some of the cases even were standard for autopsy, with pathological verification at a very high accurate rate of 93.9%. This is quite amazing and can really open new diagnosis tools for us to diagnose this difficult disease; not only in an area with a bunch of mood disorder experts, but also in the rural area, in the area really in need of mood disorder experts. They can provide tremendous help to provide accurate, early diagnosis. Dr Albin: That's fantastic and I love that, increasing the access to this accurate diagnosis. What can't artificial intelligence do for us? That's just incredible. Dr Xie: And also, you know, this is just one example of how the brain biomarker can help us. Theres other---a fluid biomarker, molecular diagnostic tools, is also available. Just to give you an example, one thing we know over the past couple years is skin biopsy. Through the immunofluorescent reaction, we can detect whether the hallmark of abnormally folded, misfolded, and the phosphorate, the alpha-synuclein aggregate can be found just by this little pinch of skin biopsy. Even more advanced, there's another diagnosis tool we call the SAA, we call the seizure amplification assay, that can even help us to differentiate MSA from other alpha-synucleinopathy, including Parkinson disease and dementia with Lewy bodies. If we get a little sample from CSF, spinal cerebral fluids, even though this is probably still at the early stage, a lot of developments still ongoing, but this, this really shows you how exciting this area is now. We're really in a fast forward-moving path now. Dr Albin: It's really incredible. So, lots coming down the track in, sort of, MRI, but also with CSF diagnosis and skin biopsies. Really hoping that we can hone in some of those tools as they become more and more validated to make this diagnosis. Is that right? Dr Xie: Correct. Dr Albin: Amazing. We can talk all day about how you manage these in the clinic, and I really am going to direct our listeners to go and read your fantastic article, because you do such an elegant job talking about how this takes place in a multidisciplinary setting, if at all possible. But as a neurointensivist, I was telling you, we have so much trouble in the hospital. We have A-lines, and we have the ability to get rapid KUBs to look at Ilias, and we can have many people as lots of diagnosis, and we still have a lot of trouble treating autonomiclike symptoms. Really, really difficult. And so, I just wanted to kind of pick your brain, and I'll start with just the one of orthostatic hypotension. What are some of the tips that you have for, you know, clinicians that are dealing with this? Because I imagine that this is quite difficult to do without patients. Dr Xie: Exactly. This is indeed a very difficult symptom to deal with, particularly at an outpatient setting. But nowadays with the availability of more medication---to give an example, to treat patients with orthostatic hypertension, we have not only midodrine for the cortisol, we also have droxidopa and several others as well. And so, we have more tools at hand to treat the patient with orthostatic hypertension. But I think the key thing here, particularly for us to the patient at the outpatient setting: we need to educate the patient's family well about the natural history of the disease course. And we also need to tell them what's the indication and the potential side effect profile of any medication we prescribe to them so that they can understand what to expect and what to watch for. And in the meantime, we also need to keep really effective and timely communication channels, make sure that the treating physician and our team can be reached at any time when the patient and family need us so that we can be closely monitoring, their response, and also monitoring potential side effects as well to keep up the quality of care in that way. Dr Albin: Yeah, I imagine that that open communication plays a huge role in just making sure that patients are adapting to their symptoms, understanding that they can reach out if they have refractory symptoms, and that- I imagine this takes a lot of fine tuning over time. Dr Xie: Correct. Dr Albin: Well, this has just been such a delight to get to talk to you. I really feel like we could dive even deeper, but I know for the sake of time we have to kind of close out. Are there any final points that you wanted to share with our listeners before we end the interview? Dr Xie: I think for the patients, I want them to know that nowadays with advances in science and technology, particularly given a sample of rapid development in the diagnostic tools and the multidisciplinary and multisystemic approach to treatment, nowadays we can make an early and accurate diagnosis of the MSA, and also, we can provide better treatment. Even though so far it is still symptomatically, mainly, but in the near future we hope we can also discover disease-modifying treatment which can slow down, even pause or prevent the disease from happening. And for the treating physician and care team professionals, I just want them to know that you can make a difference and greatly help the patient and the family through your dedicated care and also through your active learning and innovative research. You can make a difference. Dr Albin: That's amazing and lots of hope for these patients. Right now, you can provide really great care to take care of them, make an early and accurate diagnosis; but on the horizon, there are really several things that are going to move the field forward, which is just so exciting. Again today, I've been really greatly honored and privileged to be able to talk to Dr Tao Xie about his article on diagnosis and management of multiple system atrophy, which appears in the August 2025 Continuum issue on movement disorders. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes for this and other issues. And thank you again to our listeners for joining us today. Dr Xie: Thank you so much for having me. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Essential tremor is the most common movement disorder, although it is often misdiagnosed. A careful history and clinical examination for other neurologic findings, such as bradykinesia, dystonia, or evidence of peripheral neuropathy, can reveal potential alternative etiologies. Knowledge about epidemiology and associated health outcomes is important for counseling and monitoring for physical impairment and disability. In this episode, Lyell Jones, MD, FAAN, speaks with Ludy C. Shih, MD, MMSc, FAAN, author of the article "Essential Tremor" in the Continuum® August 2025 Movement Disorders issue. Dr. Jones is the editor-in-chief of Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology® and is a professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Dr. Shih is clinical director of the Parkinson's Disease and Movement Disorders Center at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts. Additional Resources Read the article: Essential Tremor Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @LyellJ Guest: @ludyshihmd Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology. Today, I'm interviewing Dr Ludy Shih, who recently authored an article on essential tremor for our latest issue of Continuum on movement disorders. Dr Shih is an associate professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School and the clinical director of the Parkinson's Disease and Movement Disorder Center at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. Dr Shih, welcome, and thank you for joining us today. Why don't you introduce yourself to our listeners? Dr Shih: Thank you, Dr Jones, for having me. It's a real pleasure to be here on the podcast with you. I'm a neurologist, I trained in movement disorders fellowship, and I currently see patients and conduct clinical research. We offer a variety of treatments and diagnostic tests for our patients with movement disorders. And I have developed this interest, a clinical research interest in essential tremor. Dr Jones: And so, as an expert in essential tremor, the perfect person to write such a really spectacular article. And I can't wait for our listeners to hear more about it and our subscribers to read it. And let's get right to it. If you had, Dr Shih, a single most important message for our listeners about caring for patients with essential tremor, what would that message be? Dr Shih: Yeah, I think the takeaway that I've learned over the years is that people with essential tremor do develop quite a few other symptoms. And although we propose that essential tremor is this pure tremor disorder, they can experience a lot of different comorbidities. Now, there is some debate as to whether that is expected for essential tremor or is this some part of another syndrome, which we may talk about later in the interview. But the fact of the matter is, it's not a benign condition and people do experience some disability from it. Dr Jones: And I think that speaks to how the name of this disorder has evolved over time. right? You point out in your article, it used to be called benign essential tremor or benign familial tremor. But it's really not so straightforward as it. And fairly frequently these symptoms, the patient's tremor, can be functionally limiting, correct? Dr Shih: That is correct. In fact, the reason I probably started getting interested in essential tremor was because our center had been doing a lot of deep brain stimulation for essential tremor, which is remarkably effective, especially for tremor that reaches an amplitude that really no oral medication is going to satisfyingly treat. And if you have enough upper limb disability from this very large-amplitude tremor, a surgical option may make a lot of sense for a lot of patients. And yet, how did they get to that point? Do they continue to progress? These were the sort of interesting questions that got raised in my mind as I started to treat these folks. Dr Jones: We'll come back to treatment in just a minute here, because there are many options, and it sounds like the options are expanding. To start with the diagnosis- I mean, this is an extraordinarily common disorder. As you point out, it is the most common movement disorder in the US and maybe the world, and yet it seems to be underrecognized and frequently misdiagnosed. Why do you think that is? Dr Shih: Great question. It's been pretty consistent, with several case series over the decades showing a fairly high rate of quote/unquote "misdiagnosis." And I think it speaks to two things, probably. One is that once someone sees a postural and kinetic tremor of the arms, immediately they think of essential tremor because it is quite common. But there's a whole host of things that it could actually be. And the biggest one that we also have to factor in is also the heterogeneity of the presentation of Parkinson's disease. Many people, and I think increasingly now these days, can present with not a whole lot of the other symptoms, but may present with an atypical tremor. And it becomes actually a little hard to sort out, well, do they have enough of these other symptoms for me to suspect Parkinson's, or is the nature of their tremor suspicious enough that it would just be so unusual that this stays essential tremor and doesn't eventually develop into Parkinson's disease? And I think those are the questions that we all still grapple with from time to time in some of our clinics. Dr Jones: Probably some other things related to it with, you know, our understanding of the pathophysiology and the availability of tests. And I do want to come back to those questions here in just a minute, but, you know, just the nomenclature of this disorder… I think our clinical listeners are familiar with our tendency in medicine to use words like essential or idiopathic to describe disorders or phenomena where we don't understand the precise underlying mechanism. When I'm working with our trainees, I call these "job-security terms" because it sounds less humbling than "you have a tremor and we don't know what causes it," right? So, your article does a really nice job outlining the absence of a clear monogenic or Mendelian mechanism for essential tremor. Do you think we'll ever have a eureka moment in neurology for this disorder and maybe give it a different name? Dr Shih: It's a great question. I think as we're learning with a lot of our neurologic diseases---and including, I would even say, Parkinson's disease, to which ET gets compared to a lot---there's already now so much more known complexity to something that has a very specific idea and concept in people's minds. So, I tend to think we'll still be in an area where we'll have a lot of different causes of tremor, but I'm hopeful that we'll uncover some new mechanisms for which treating or addressing that mechanism would take care of the tremor in a way that we haven't been able to make as much progress on in the last few decades as maybe we would have thought given all the advances in in technology. Dr Jones: That's very helpful, and we'll be hopeful for that series of discoveries that lead us to that point. I think many of our listeners will be familiar with the utility---and, I think, even for most insurance companies, approval---for DAT scans to discriminate between essential tremor and Parkinsonian disorders. What about lab work? Are there any other disorders that you commonly screen for in patients who you suspect may have essential tremor? Dr Shih: Yeah, it's a great question. And I think, you know, I'm always mindful that what I'm seeing in my clinic may not always be representative of what's seen in the community or out in practice. I'll give an example. You know, most of the time when people come to the academic Medical Center, they're thinking, gosh, I've tried this or that. I've been on these medicines for the last ten years. But I've had essential tremor for twenty years. We get to benefit a little bit from all that history that's been laid down. And so, it's not as likely you're going to misdiagnose it. But once in a while, you'll get someone with tremor that just started a month ago or just started, you know, 2 or 3 months ago. And you have to still be thinking, well, I've got to get out of the specialist clinic mindset, and think, well, what else really could this be? And so, while it's true for everybody, moreso in those cases, in those recent onset cases, you really got to be looking for things like medications, electrolyte abnormalities, and new-onset thyroid disorder, for example, thyroid toxicosis. Dr Jones: Very helpful. And your article has a wonderful list of the conditions to consider, including the medications that might be used for those conditions that might result or unmask a tremor of a different cause. And I think being open-minded and not anchoring on essential tremor just because it's common, I think is a is a key point here. And another feature in your article that I really enjoyed was your step-by-step approach to tremor. What are those steps? Dr Shih: Well, I think you know first of all, tremor is such common terminology that even lay people, patients, nonclinicians will use the word "tremor." And so, it can be tempting when the notes on your schedule says referred for tremor to sort of immediately jump to that. I think the first step is, is it tremor? And that's really something that the clinician first has to decide. And I think that's a really important step. A lot of things can look superficially like tremor, and you shouldn't even assume that another clinician knows what tremor looks like as opposed to, say, myoclonus. Or for example a tremor of the mouth; well, it actually could be orolingual or orobuccal dyskinesia, as in tardive dyskinesia. And another one that tremor can look like is ataxia. And so, I think- while they sound obvious to most neurologists, perhaps, I think that---especially in the area of myoclonus, where it can be quite repetitive, quite small amplitude in some conditions---it can really resemble a tremor. And so, there are examples of these where making that first decision of whether it's a tremor or not can really be a good sort of time-out to make sure you're going down the right path to begin with. And I think what's helpful is to think about some of the clinical definitions of a tremor. And tremor is really rhythmic, it's oscillatory. You should see an agonist and antagonist muscle group moving back and forth, to and fro. And then it's involuntary. And so, I think these descriptors can really help; and to help isolate, if you can describe it in your note, you can probably be more convinced that you're dealing with the tremor. The second step that I would encourage people to really consider: you've established it's a tremor. The most important part exam now becomes, really, the nontremor part of the exam. And it should be really comprehensive to think of what else could be accompanying this, because that's really how we make diagnosis of other things besides essential tremor. There really should be a minimum of evidence of parkinsonism, dystonia, neuropathy, ataxia- and the ataxia could be either from a peripheral or central nervous system etiology. Those are the big four or five things that, you know, I'm very keen to look for and will look pretty much in the head, neck, the axial sort of musculature, as well as the limbs. And I think this is very helpful in terms of identifying cases which turn out to have either, say, well, Parkinson's or even a typical Parkinson disorder; or even a genetic disorder, maybe even something like a fragile X tremor ataxia syndrome; or even a spinal cerebellar ataxia. These cases are rare, but I think if you uncover just enough ataxia, for example, that really shouldn't be there in a person, let's say, who's younger and also doesn't have a long history of tremor; you should be more suspicious that this is not essential tremor that you're dealing with. And then the last thing is, once you've identified the tremor and you're trying to establish, well, what should be done about the tremor, you really have to say what kind of tremor it is so that you can follow it, so you can convey to other people really what the disability is coming from the tremor and how severe the tremor is. So, I think an example of this is, often in the clinic, people will have their patients extend their arms and hands and kind of say, oh, it's an essential tremor, and that's kind of the end of the exam. But it doesn't give you the flavor. Sometimes you'll have a patient come in and have a fairly minimal postural tremor, but then you go out, take those extra few seconds to go grab a cup of water or two cups of water and have them pour or drink. And now all of a sudden you see this tremor is quite large-amplitude and very disabling. Now you have a better appreciation of what you really need to do for this patient, and it might not be present with just these very simple maneuvers that you have at bedside without props and items. And then the severity of it; you know, we're so used to saying mild, moderate, severe. I think what we've done in the Tremor Research Group to use and develop the Essential Tremor Rating Assessment Scale is to get people used to trying to estimate what size the tremor is. And you can do that by taking a ruler or developing a sense of what 1 centimeter, 2 centimeters, 3 centimeters looks like. I think it'd be tremendously helpful too, it's very easy and quick to convey severity in a given patient. Dr Jones: I appreciate you, you know, having a patient-centered approach to the- how this is affecting them and being quantitative in the assessment of the tremor. And that's a great segue to a key question that I run into and I think others run into, which is when to initiate therapy? You know, if you see a patient who, let's say they have a mild tremor or, you know, something that quantitatively is on the mild end of the spectrum, and you have, you know, a series of options… from a medication perspective, you have to say, well, when does this across that threshold of being more likely to benefit the patient than to harm the patient? How do you approach that question? What's your threshold for starting medication? Dr Shih: Yeah. You know, sometimes I will ask, because---and I know this sounds like a strange question---because I feel like my patients will come for a couple of different reasons. Sometimes it's usually one over the other. I think people can get concerned about a symptom of a tremor. So, I actually will ask them, was your goal to just get a sense for what this tremor is caused by? I understand that many people who develop tremor might be concerned it might be something like Parkinson's disease. Or is this also a tremor that is bothering you in day-to-day life? And often you will hear the former. No, I just wanted to get checked out and make sure you don't think it's Parkinson's. It doesn't bother me enough that I want to take medication. They're quite happy with that. And then the second scenario is more the, yeah, no, it bothers me and it's embarrassing. And that's a very common answer you may hear, may be embarrassing, people are noticing. It's funny in that many people with essential tremor don't come to see a doctor or even the neurologist for many years. And they will put up with it for a very long time. And they've adopted all sorts of compensatory strategies, and they've just been able to handle themselves very admirably with this, in some cases, very severe tremor. So, for some of them, it'll take a lot to come to the doctor, and then it becomes clear. They said, I think I'm at the point where I need to do something about this tremor. And so, I think those three buckets are often sort of where my patients fall into. And I think asking them directly will give you a sense of that. But you know, it can be a nice time to try some as-needed doses of something like Propranolol, or if it's something that you know that they're going to need something on day-to-day to get control of the tremor over time, there are other options for that as well. Dr Jones: Seems like a perfect scenario for shared decision-making. Is it bothersome enough to the patient to try the therapy? And I like that suggestion. That's a nice pearl that you could start with an a- needed beta blocker, right, with Propranolol. And this is a question that I think many of us struggle with as well. If you've followed a patient with essential tremor for some time and you've tried different medications and they've either lost effectiveness or have intolerable adverse effects, what is your threshold for referring a patient for at least considering a surgical neurostimulator therapy for their essential tremor? Dr Shih: Yeah, so surgical therapies for tremor have been around for a long time now, since 1997, which was when it was approved by the FDA for essential tremor and Parkinson tremor. And then obviously since then, we have a couple more options in the focus ultrasound thalamotomy, which is a lesioning technique. When you have been on several tremor medications, the list gets smaller and smaller. It- and then chance of likely satisfying benefit from some of these medications can be small and small as you pass through the first and second line agents and these would be the Propranolol and the primidone. And as you say, quite a few patients- it's estimated between 30 to 50% of these patients end up not tolerating these first two medications and end up discontinuing them. Some portion of that might also be due to the fact that some of our patients who have been living with essential tremor for decades now, to the point that their tremor is getting worse, are also getting older. And so, polypharmacy and/or some of the potential side effects of beta blockers and anticonvulsants like primidone may be harder to bear in an older adult. And then as you talk about in the article, there's some level of evidence for topiramate, and then from there a number of anticonvulsants or benzos, which have even weaker evidence for them. It's a personal decision. As I tell folks, look, this is not going to likely extend your life or save your life, but it's a quality of life issue. And of course, if there are other things going on in life that need to be taken care of and they need that kind of care and attention, then, you know, you don't need to be adding this to your plate. But if you are in the position where those other things are actually okay, but quality of life is really affected by your being unable to use your upper limbs in the way that you would like to… A lot of people's hobbies and applications are upper limb-based, and enjoying those things is really important. Then I think that this is something- a conversation that we begin and we begin by talking about yes, there are some risks involved, but fortunately this is the data we have on it, which is a fairly extensive experience in terms of this is the risk of, you know, surgery-related side effects. This is the risk of if you're having stimulation from DBS stimulation-related side effects, which can be adjustable. It's interesting, I was talking with colleagues, you know, after focused ultrasound thalamotomy was approved. That really led more people to come to the clinic and start having these discussions, because that seemed like a very the different sort of approach where hardware wasn't needed, but it was still a surgery. And so, it began that conversation again for a bunch of people to say, you know, what could I do? What could I tolerate? What would I accept in terms of risk and potential benefit? Dr Jones: Well, I think that's a great overview of a disorder where, you know, I think the neurologist's role is really indispensable. Right? I mean, you have to have this conversation not just once, this is a conversation that you have over time. And again, I really want to refer our listeners to this article. It's just a fantastic overview of a common disorder, but one where I think there are probably gaps where we can improve care. And Dr Shih, I want to thank you for joining us, and thank you for such a great discussion on essential tremor. I learned a lot from your article, and I learned even more from the interview today. I suspect our readers and listeners will too. Dr Shih: Well, thank you again for the invitation and the opportunity to kind of spread the word on this really common condition. Dr Jones: Again, we've been speaking with Dr Ludy Shih, author of a fantastic article on essential tremor in Continuum's latest issue on movement disorders. Please check it out, and thank you to our listeners for joining today. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Parkinson disease is a neurodegenerative movement disorder that is increasing in prevalence as the population ages. The symptoms and rate of progression are clinically heterogenous, and medical management is focused on the individual needs of the patient. In this episode, Kait Nevel MD, speaks with Ashley Rawls, MD, MS, author of the article "Parkinson Disease" in the Continuum® August 2025 Movement Disorders issue. Dr. Nevel is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a neurologist and neuro-oncologist at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, Indiana. Dr. Rawls is an assistant professor at the University of Florida Health, Department of Neurology at the Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases in Gainesville, Florida Additional Resources Read the article:  Parkinson Disease Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @IUneurodocmom Guest: @DrRawlsMoveMD Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Nevel: Hello, this is Dr Kait Nevel. Today I'm interviewing Dr Ashley Rawls about her article on Parkinson disease, which appears in the August 2025 Continuum issue on movement disorders. Ashley, welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to the audience. Dr Rawls: Thank you, Kait. Hello everyone, my name is Dr Ashley Rawls. I am a movement disorder specialist at the University of Florida Fixel Institute for Neurologic Diseases in Gainesville, Florida. It's a pleasure to be here. Dr Nevel: Awesome. To start us off talking about your article, can you share what you think is the most important takeaway for the practicing neurologist? Dr Rawls: Yes. I would say that my most important takeaway for this article is that Parkinson disease remains a clinical diagnosis. I think the field has really been advancing and trying to find a biomarker to help with diagnosis through ancillary testing. For example, with the dopamine transporter, the DAT scan, an alpha-synuclein skin biopsy, an alpha-synuclein amplification assay that can happen in blood and CSF. However, I think it's so critical to make sure that you have a very strong history and a very thorough physical exam and use those biomarkers or other testing to help with, kind of, bolstering your thoughts on what's going on with the patient. Dr Nevel: Great. And I can't wait to talk a little bit more about the ancillary testing and how you use that. Before we get to that, can you review with us some of the components of the clinical diagnosis of Parkinson disease? Dr Rawls: Yes. So, when I think about a person that comes in that might have a neurodegenerative disease, I think about two different features, mainly: both motor and Manon motor. So, for my motor features, I'm thinking about resting tremor, bradykinesia---which is fullness of movement with decrement over time---rigidity, and then a specific gait disturbance, a Parkinsonian gait, involving stooped posture, decreased arm swing. They can also have reemergent tremor while walking if they do have tremor as part of their disease process, and also in-block turning as they are walking down the hallway. So, those are my motor features that I look for. So now, when we're talking about a specific diagnosis of Parkinson disease, the one motor feature that you need to have is bradykinesia. The reason why I make sure to speak about bradykinesia, which is slowness of movement with decrement over time, is because people can still have Parkinson disease without having tremor, a resting tremor. So even though that's one of the core cardinal features that most of us will be able to notice very readily, you don't have to necessarily have a resting tremor to be diagnosed with Parkinson' disease. When I talk about nonmotor features, those are going to be the three, particularly the prodromal features that can occur even ten years before people have motor features, can be very prominent early on in the disease process. For example, hyposmia or anosmia for decrease or lack of sense of smell. Another one that we really look for is going to be RBD, or rapid eye movement behavior disorder; or REM behavior disorder, the person acting out their dreams, calling out, flailing their limbs, hitting their bed partner. And then the other one is going to be severe constipation. So those three prodromal nonmotor symptoms of hyposmia/anosmia, RBD or REM behavior disorder, and severe constipation can also make me concerned as a red flag that there is a sort of neurodegenerative issue like a Parkinson disease that may be going on with the patient. Dr Nevel: Great, thank you so much for that overview. While we're talking about the diagnosis, do you mind kind of going back to what you mentioned in the beginning and talking about the ancillary tests that sometimes are used to kind of help, again, bolster that diagnosis of Parkinson disease? You know, like the DAT or the alpha-synuclein skin biopsy. When should we be using those? Should we be getting these on everyone? And what scenarios should we really consider doing one of those tests? Dr Rawls: The scenario in which I would order one of the ancillary testing, particularly like a DAT scan or a skin biopsy, looking for alpha-synuclein is going to be when there are potential red flags or a little bit of confusion in regard to the history and physical that I need to have a little bit more clarification on. For example, if I have a patient that has a history of using dopamine blocking agents, for example, for severe depression; or they have a history of cancer diagnosis and they've been on a dopamine agent like metoclopramide; those I want to be mindful because if they're coming in to see me and they're having the symptoms of Parkinsonism---which is going to be resting tremor, bradykinesia rigidity, or gait disturbance---I need to try to figure out is it potentially due to a medication effect, particularly if they're still on the dopamine blockade medication, or is it something where they're actually having a neurodegenerative illness underneath it, like a Parkinson disease? The other situation that would make me order a DAT skin or a skin biopsy is going to be someone who is coming in that maybe has elements of essential tremor, they have more of a postural or an intention tremor that's very flapping and larger amplitude, and maybe have some mild symptoms and Parkinsonism that might be difficult to distinguish between other musculoskeletal things like arthritis, other imbalance issues from, you know, hip problems or knee problems and what have you. Then I might say, okay, let's see if there is some sort of neurodegeneration underneath this; that may be- that there could be, you know, potentially two elements like a central tremor and Parkinson disease going on. Or is this someone who actually really has Parkinson disease, but there's other factors that are kind of playing into that. Dr Nevel: Great, thank you for that. Gosh, things have really changed over the past fifteen years or so where we have this ancillary testing that we're able to use more, because what you read in the textbook isn't always what you see in clinic. And as you described, there are patients who… it's not as clear cut, and these tests can be helpful. Could you tell us more about the levodopa challenge test? How is this useful in clinical practice? And what are some key points that we should know about when utilizing this strategy for patients who we think have Parkinson disease? Dr Rawls: So, before we had all this ancillary testing with the DAT scan, the skin biopsy, the alpha-synuclein amplification assay, many times if you had a suspicion that a person that had Parkinson disease, but you weren't entirely sure, you would say, hey, listen, let us give you back the dopamine that your body may be missing and see if you have an improvement, in particular in your motor symptom. So, when I talk with my patients, I say, listen, I might have a strong suspicion that you have Parkinson disease. Doing a levodopa trial can not only be diagnostic, but also can be therapeutic as well. So, with this levodopa trial, what I end up doing is saying, okay, we're going to start the medication at a low dose because we are looking to see if you have improvement in three of the main cardinal motor symptoms. Obviously, tremor is much easier for us to see if it gets better. It's very obvious on exam, and the patients are more readily able to see it. Whereas stiffness and slowness is much harder to quantify and try to figure out. Am I stiff and slow because of potential muscle tightness from Parkinson disease, or is it something that's more of a musculoskeletal issue? So, I will tell persons, okay, we're looking for improvement in these three cardinal motor symptoms, and things that we're looking for is getting into and out of a car, into and out of a chair, turning over in bed, seeing how do we navigate ourselves in our daily lives? I give people the example of going through the grocery store, going through a busy airport. Are we able to move better and respond better to different changes in our environment which can give us a better clue of if our stiffness and slowness in particular are being improved with the medication? The other part of this is talking about potential side effects of the carbidopa- of the levodopa in particular. One big thing that I think limits people initially is going to be the nausea, vomiting, potential GI upset when starting this medication initially. So, oftentimes I will find people coming in, oh, you know, my outside doctor started me immediately on one tab of carbidopa/levodopa three times per day. I got nauseous, I threw up, and I never took the medication again. So often times I will start low and go slow because once someone throws up my medication, they are not going to want to take it again---with good reason. So, often times I will ask the patient, hey listen, are you very sensitive to medications? If you are very sensitive, we might start one tablet per day for a week, one tablet twice a day, and then go up until we get to two tablets three times a day if we're talking about carbidopa/levodopa. If someone is not as sensitive then I might go up a little bit quicker. What do we mean when we talk about 600 milligrams per day? So usually, the amount that I use is carbidopa/levodopa, 25/100; so, 100 milligrams being the levodopa portion. Many people just start off at 1 tab 3 times a day, which gives you 300 milligrams of levodopa, and they say, oh, it didn't work, I must not have Parkinson or something else. Well, it just may have been that we did not give an adequate trial and adequate dose to the person. Now if they're not able to tolerate the medication because of the side effects, that's something different. But if they don't have side effects and don't notice a difference, there is room to increase the carbidopa/levodopa or the levodopa replacement that you are using so that you can give it, you know, a very good try to see, is it actually improving resting tremor, bradykinesia and rigidity? Dr Nevel: Yeah, great. Thanks for that. When you diagnose a patient with Parkinson disease, how do you counsel that patient? How do you break that difficult news? And how do you counsel them on what to expect in the future and goals of treatment? I know that's a lot in that question, but it also is a lot that you do in one visit, oftentimes, or at least introduce these kind of concepts to patients in a single visit. Dr Rawls: One thing that I think is helpful for me is trying to understand where the patients and their families are when they come in. Because some of the patients come in and have no prior inkling that they may have a neurodegenerative illness like Parkinson disease. Some of my patients come in and say, I'm here for a second opinion for Parkinson disease. So, then I have an idea of where we are in regard to potential understanding of how to start the conversation going forward. If it is someone who is coming in and has not heard about Parkinson disease, or their family has not been made aware that that's the one reason why they're coming to see a movement disorder specialist, then I will start at the beginning After we finish our history, do a very thorough physical exam, I will talk about things that I heard in the history and that I see on the physical exam that make me concerned for a disease like Parkinson disease. I make sure to tell them where I'm getting my criteria from and not just start off, I think you have Parkinson, here's your medication. I think that's very jarring when you're talking with patients and their families, particularly if they had no idea that this could be a potential diagnosis on the table. Like I said, I will start off with recounting, this is what I've heard in your history that makes me concerned. This is what I've seen on your physical exam that makes me concerned. And I think you have Parkinson disease and here is why. And I'll tell them about the tenants like we discussed about Parkinson disease, both the motor and nonmotor symptoms that we see. So that's kind of the first part is, I make sure to lay it out and then open the room up for some questions and clarification. The other portion of this is that, when I'm talking about counseling the patient, I say, we do not expect Parkinson disease to decrease your lifespan. However, over time, our persons, because it is a neurodegenerative illnesses will accumulate deficits over time. So, more stiffness, more slowness, more walking problems. They may, if they have tremor, the tremor may become worse. If they don't have tremor, they might develop tremor in the future. If we're talking about the nonmotor symptoms that we talk about, the main ones are going to be issues with urinary problems, issues with bowels, and then the other thing is going to be neuropsychiatric issues like anxiety and depression. And those things become more prominent, usually, the nonmotor symptoms later on in the disease process, and then also cognitive impairment as well. I really want to make sure that they have the information that I'm seeing, and if there's anything that they want to correct on their end, as in they're saying, oh wait, well, actually I noticed something else, then that's usually when that comes out around kind of the wrapping-up portion of the visit. So, I think that's really important to, one, be very clear in what I am seeing and if there's red flags, and then tell them, okay this is not going to shorten your lifespan. However, over time, we do have other issues and problems that will arise and we can support you as best as we can through that. The one thing I also been very open with people about is- because our patients will say, is there anything I can do? What can be done? Is there any medication to slow down or stop things? And I let people know that unfortunately, right now there's not an intervention that slows down, stops, or reverses disease progression, with the exception of exercise. Consistent exercise has been found to help to slow down disease progression, okay? And also, it can help to release the dopamine already being made innately in the brain. And also, it can help with our cardiovascular health in the big thing: being balanced. Core strength, quadricep strength. So that's also something that people can work on that they should. And I let people know that exercise is as important as the medications themselves. Dr Nevel: Absolutely. And it's incredible how much they incorporate exercise into their daily lives and get active, people who weren't active before their diagnosis, and how much that can help. One question that I think patients sometimes ask is, when they understand how carbidopa/levodopa works and what the expectations are for that medication, that it's not a disease-modifying medication, but that it can help with their symptoms. And then they kind of hear, well as time goes on, they need higher doses or, you know, it doesn't control their motor symptoms as well. They'll say, okay well, is it better to wait then? Should I wait to start carbidopa/levodopa? Like in my mind, I'm only maybe going to get X amount of time from carbidopa/levodopa. So, I'd rather wait to start it than start it now. What do you say to them and how do you counsel them through that? Dr Rawls: So that is a common question that I do get with my patients. So, I tell people, I'm here for you. And it really depends on how you feel at this time. Because you have to weigh the risks and benefits of the medication itself. If someone who's very, very mild decides to take the medication, they feel nauseous, they're just going to say, hey, listen, it's not for me right now. I don't feel like I need it, and then stop, which is with definitely within their right. But what I always counsel patients as well is to say, the dopamine-producing neurons in the substantia nigra are starting to die over time. That is why we are getting the signs and symptoms of Parkinson disease. At some point, your brain is not going to produce enough dopamine that is needed for you to move when you want to move and not move when you don't want to move. Okay? Giving you at least the motor symptoms of Parkinson disease. With this, it's not that the medication stops working, it's just that you need more dopamine to help replace the dopamine that's being lost. However, the dopamine that you are taking or levodopa that you're taking orally is not going to be released as consistently as it is in your brain on demand and shut off when you don't need it. Hence the reason we get more motor fluctuations. Also, potential side effects in the medication like orthostatic hypertension, hallucinations, impulse control disorders. Because you're having to take more escalating doses, those side effects can become more prominent and also lead us to have to balance between the side effects and the medication itself. So, it's not that the medication does not work, your body needs more of it. Some people will say, oh, well, I want to wait, and I say, that's completely fine. However, my cutoff is basically saying, if you are finding that you, as the person who's afflicted is not able to get up in the morning like you want to, you're avoiding going to walk your dog or working in your garden, you know, because you feel stiff and feel slow; you're avoiding, you know, going out to the community, having lunch with your friends or your family because you're embarrassed by your tremor; this is something that is keeping you from living your life. And that's the time that we need to strongly consider starting the medications. So, a person afflicted will accumulate deficits. However, it's how much the deficits are going to affect you. So, if it's really affecting your life, we have tools and ways to help mitigate that. Dr Nevel: Yeah, absolutely. Are there any aspects of Parkinson disease management that you feel are maybe underrecognized or perhaps underutilized? In other words, you know, are there things that we the listeners should be maybe more aware of or think about offering or recommending to our patients that you think maybe aren't as much as they could be? Dr Rawls: I will say the nonmotor symptoms---in particular the neuropsychiatric symptoms with the anxiety and depression, usually later on disease process but also can be earlier as well---I think that is going to be something that is recognized but maybe undertreated in a lot of our patient population. I think part of that is also the fluctuations in dopamine that are occurring naturally in the person, but also, our patients, oftentimes with their medication regimen, really have to be on the ball taking the medication. If they're even 15 minutes late, 10 minutes late, 5 minutes late, we're now off, and now we're waiting for it to kick in. And so that can cause a lot of anxiousness even throughout the day. And then knowing that slowly over time that they're going to accumulate these motor and nonmotor deficits can definitely be problematic as well. There is obvious reason for this underlying potential anxiety and depression. And while we do talk about that and bring that up, sometimes patients will say, oh well, I don't think it's a problem right now. I don't have to mess with this. But usually at some point it does become an issue that usually the family members will bring up and saying, hey, you know, my loved one is very anxious. Or I've noticed that they're just really disengaged from what's going on in their lives and they are not talking as much, they're not going out as much. Again, that could be a combination of depression/anxiety, but it also can be a physical- a combination of, I'm not physically able to do these things, or, they're much more difficult for me to initiate doing these activities. I always want to be mindful. If my patients come in and they already have a diagnosis of depression or anxiety and they're already being treated by a mental health counselor, provider, or a psychiatrist, then I will work with providers so that we can try to optimize their medication regimen. The other thing is, well, if this is the first time that they're really being seen by someone and talking about their anxiety and depression, then oftentimes I will have them go back to their primary care and see if maybe an SSRI or SNRI will be helpful to try to help with the neuropsychiatric symptoms they may be experiencing. So that's one big one. Another one that I think that might be a little bit underappreciated is going to be drooling. Sometimes I'll come in and see my patients and notice some drooling that's happening with the mouth being open, not being able to initiate the swallowing reflex consistently throughout the day. Or they may be patting their face a lot with a napkin or a towel and then bringing that up and bringing it to light. Oh yeah. I have a lot of drooling while I'm awake. It's on my shirt. It's embarrassing. I feel like it's a little bit too much for me or my family. We have to put a bib on because I'm just drooling all throughout the day. That can really be uncomfortable and cause skin breakdown. It can also be socially embarrassing. So, there are some tools that I talk to people about with drooling. One thing I start with is going to be using sugar-free gum or candy while the person is awake to help initiate the swallow reflex, and sometimes that's all that's needed. There are other agents that can be used---like glycopyrrolate, sublingual atropine drops, and scopolamine patches---that can help with decreasing saliva production. But there can be side effects of making the entire body feel dry, and then also potential cardiac arrhythmias. If those are not helpful or they're contraindicated with the patient, another thing is going to be botulinum toxin injections. So those can be done on the parotid and salivary glands to decrease the amount of saliva that's being produced. So oftentimes people will come to me, because I'm also a botulinum toxin injector. I've been sent by some of my colleagues to inject our persons that have significant sialorrhea. Dr Nevel: Wonderful. Well, thank you so much for chatting with me today about your article. Again, today I've been interviewing Dr Ashley Rawls about her article on Parkinson disease, which appears in the August 2025 Continuum issue on movement disorders. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues. And thank you to our listeners for joining today. And thank you, Ashley, for sharing all your knowledge with us today. Dr Rawls: Thank you, Kate, I appreciate your time. And have a great day, everyone. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshmae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

In this episode, Lyell K. Jones Jr, MD, FAAN, speaks with Michael S. Okun, MD, FAAN, who served as the guest editor of the August 2025 Movement Disorders issue. They provide a preview of the issue, which publishes on August 1, 2025. Dr. Jones is the editor-in-chief of Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology® and is a professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Dr. Okun is the director at Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases and distinguished professor of neurology at University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida. Additional Resources Read the issue: continuum.aan.com Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @LyellJ Guest: @MichaelOkun Full episode transcript available here: Dr Jones: Our ability to move through the world is one of the essential functions of our nervous system. Gross movements like walking ranging down to fine movements with our eyes and our hands, our ability to create and coordinate movement is something many of us take for granted. So what do we do when those movements stop working as we intend? Today I have the opportunity to speak with one of the world's leading experts on movement disorders, Dr Michael Okun, about the latest issue of Continuum on Movement Disorders. Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about subscribing to the journal, listening to verbatim recordings of the articles, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyle Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology. Today, I'm interviewing Dr Michael Okun, who is Continuum's guest editor for our latest issue on movement disorders. Dr Okun is the Adelaide Lackner Distinguished Professor of Neurology at the University of Florida in Gainesville, where he's also the director of the Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases. Dr Okun, welcome, and thank you for joining us today. Why don't you introduce yourselves to our listeners?  Dr Okun: It's great to be here today. And I'm a neurologist. Everybody who knows me knows I'm pretty simple. I believe the patient's the sun and we should always orbit around the person with disease, and so that's how I look at my practice. And I know we always participate in a lot of research, and I've got a research lab and all those things. But to me, it's always the patients and the families first. So, it'll be great to have that discussion today.  Dr Jones: Yeah, thank you for that, Dr Oaken. Obviously, movement disorders is a huge part of our field of neurology. There are many highly prevalent conditions that fit into this category that most of our listeners will be familiar with: idiopathic Parkinson's disease, essential tremor, tic disorders and so on. And having worked with trainees for a long time, it's one of the areas that I see a lot of trainees gravitate to movement disorders. And I think it's in part because of the prevalence; I think it's in part because of the diversity of the specialty with treatment options and DBS and Botox. But it's also the centrality of the neurologic exam, right? That's- the clinical examination of the patient is so fundamental. And we'll cover a lot of topics today with some questions that I have for you about biomarkers and new developments in the field. But is that your sense too, that people are drawn to just the old-fashioned, essential focus on the neurologic encounter and the neurologic exam? Dr Okun: I believe that is one of the draws to the field of movement. I think that you have neurologists from all over the world that are really interested and fascinated with what things look like. And when you see something that's a little bit, you know, off the normal road or off the normal beaten path… and we are always curious. And so, I got into movement disorders, I think, accidentally; I think even as a child, I was looking at people who had abnormal movements and tremors and I was very fascinated as to why those things happened and what's going on in the brain. And, you know, what are the symptoms and the signs. And then later on, even as my own career developed, that black bag was so great as a neurologist. I mean, it makes us so much more powerful than any of the other clinicians---at least in my biased opinion---out on the wards and out in the clinic. And, you know, knowing the signs and the symptoms, knowing how to do a neurological examination and really walking through the phenomenology, what people look like, you know, which is different than the geno- you know, the genotypes, what the genes are. What people look like is so much more important as clinicians. And so, I think that movement disorders is just the specialty for that, at least in my opinion. Dr Jones: And it helps bring it back to the patient. And that's something that I saw coming through the articles in this issue. And let's get right to it. You've had a chance to review all these articles on all these different topics across the entire field of movement disorders. As you look at that survey of the field, Dr Okun, what do you think is the most exciting recent development for patients with movement disorders?  Dr Okun: I think that when you look across all of the different specialties, what you're seeing is a shift. And the shift is that, you know, a lot of people used to talk in our generation about neurology being one of these "diagnose and adios" specialties. You make the diagnosis and there's nothing that you can do, you know, about these diseases. And boy, that has changed. I mean, we have really blown it out of the water. And when you look at the topics and what people are writing about now and the Continuum issue, and we compare that the last several Continuum issues on movement disorders, we just keep accumulating a knowledge base about what these things look like and how we can treat them. And when we start thinking about, you know, all of the emergence of the autoimmune disorders and identifying the right one and getting something that's quite treatable. Back in my day, and in your day, Lyle, we saw these things and we didn't know what they were. And now we have antibodies, now we can identify them, we can pin them down, and we can treat many of them and really change people's lives. And so, I'm really impressed at what I see in changes in identification of autoimmune disorders, of channelopathies and some of the more rare things, but I'm also impressed with just the fundamental principles of how we're teaching people to be better clinicians in diseases like Parkinson's, Huntington's, ataxia, and Tourette. And so, my enthusiasm for this issue of Continuum is both on, you know, the cutting edge of what we're seeing based on the identification on our exams, what we can do for these people, but also the emergence of how we're shifting and providing much better care across a continuum for folks with basal ganglia diseases. Dr Jones: Yeah, I appreciate that perspective, Dr Okun. One of the common themes that I saw in the issue was with these new developments, right, when you have new tools like new diagnostic biomarker tools, is the question of if and when and how to integrate those into daily clinical practice, right? So, we've had imaging biomarkers for a while, DAT scans, etc. For patients with idiopathic Parkinson disease, one of the things that I hear a lot of discussion and controversy about are the seed amplification assays as diagnostic biomarkers. What can you tell us about those? Are those ready for routine clinical use yet?  Dr Okun: I think the main bottom-line point for folks that are out there trying to practice neurology, either in general clinics or even in specialty clinics, is to know that there is this movement toward, can we biologically classify a disease? One of the things that has, you know, really accelerated that effort has been the development of these seed amplification assays, which---in short for people who are listening---are basically, we "shake and bake" these things. You know? We shake them for like 20 hours and we use these prionlike proteins, and we learn from diseases like prion disease how to kind of tag these things and then see, do they have degenerative properties? And in the case of Parkinson's disease, we're able to do this with synuclein. That is the idea of a seed amplification assay. We're able to use this to see, hey, is there synuclein present or not in this sample? And people are looking at things like cerebrospinal fluid, they're looking at things like blood and saliva, and they're finding it. The challenge here is that, remember- and one of the things that's great about this issue of Continuum is, remember, there are a whole bunch of different synucleinopathies. So, Dr Jones, it isn't just Parkinson's disease. So, you've got Parkinson's disease, you've got Lewy body, you know, and dementia with Lewy bodies. You've got, you know, multiple system atrophy is within that synucleinopathy, you know, group primary autonomic failure… so not just Parkinson's disease. And so, I think we have to tap the brakes as clinicians and just say, we are where we are. We are moving in that direction. And remember that a seed amplification assay gives you some information, but it doesn't give you all the information. It doesn't forgive you looking at a person over time, examining them in your clinic, seeing how they progress, seeing their response to dopamine- and by the way, several of these genes that are associated with Parkinson; and there's, you know, less than 20% of Parkinson is genetic, but several of these genes, in a solid third---and in some cases, in some series, even more---miss the synuclein assay, misses, you know, the presence of a disease like Parkinson's disease. And so, we have to be careful in how we interpret it. And I think we're more likely to see over time a gemish: we're going to smush together all this information. We're going to get better with MRIs. And so, we're actually doing much better with MRIs and AI-based intelligence. We've got DAT scans, we've got synuclein assays. But more than anything, everybody listening out there, you can still examine the person and examine them over time and see how they do over time and see how they do with dopamine. And that is still a really, really solid way to do this. The synuclein assays are probably going to be ready for prime time more in choosing and enriching clinical trials populations first. And you know, we're probably 5, 10 years behind where Alzheimer's is right now. So, we'll get there at some point, but it's not going to be a silver bullet. I think we're looking at these are going to be things that are going to be interpreted in the context for a clinician of our examination and in the context of where the field is and what you're trying to use the information for. Dr Jones: Thank you for that. And I think that's the general gestalt I got from the articles and what I hear from my colleagues. And I think we've seen this in other domains of neurology, right? We have the specificity and sensitivity issues with the biomarkers, but we also have the high prevalence of copathology, right? People can have multiple different neurodegenerative problems, and I think it gets back to that clinical context, like you said, following the patient longitudinally. That was a theme that came out in the idiopathic Parkinson disease article. And while we're on Parkinson disease, you know, the first description of that was what, more than two hundred years ago. And I think we're still thinking about the pathophysiology of that disorder. We understand risk factors, and I think many of our listeners would be familiar with those. But as far as the actual cause, you know, there's been discussion in recent years about, is there a role of the gut microbiome? Is this a prionopathic disorder? What's your take on all of that?  Dr Okun: Yeah, so it's a great question. It's a super-hot area right now of Parkinson. And I kind of take this, you know, apart in a couple of different ways. First of all, when we think about Parkinson disease, we have to think upstream. Like, what are the cause and causes? Okay? So, Parkinson is not one disease, okay? And even within the genes, there's a bunch of different genes that cause it. But then we have to look and say, well, if that's less than 20% depending on who's counting, then 80% don't have a single piece of DNA that's closely associated with this syndrome. And so, what are we missing with environment and other factors? We need to understand not what happens at the end of the process, not necessarily when synuclein is clumping- and by the way, there's a lot of synuclein in the brains normally, and there's a lot of Tau in people's brains who have Parkinson as well. We don't know what we don't know, Dr Jones. And so when we begin to think about this disease, we've got to look upstream. We've got to start to think, where do things really start? Okay? We've got to stop looking at it as probably a single disease or disorder, and it's a circuit disorder. And then as we begin to develop and follow people along that pathway and continuum, we're going to realize that it's not a one-size-fits-all equation when we're trying to look at Parkinson. By the way, for people listening, we only spend two to three cents out of every dollar on prevention. Wouldn't prevention be the best cure, right? Like, if we were thinking about this disease. And so that's something that we should be, you know, thinking about. And then the other is the Global Burden of Disease study. You know, when we wrote about this in a book called Ending Parkinson's Disease, it looked like Parkinson's was going to double by 2035. The new numbers tell us it's almost double to the level that we expected in 2035 in this last series of numbers. So, it's actually growing much faster. We have to ask why? Why is it growing faster? And then we have lots of folks, and even within these issues here within Continuum, people are beginning to talk about maybe these environmental things that might be blind spots. Is it starting in our nose? Is it starting in our gut? And then we get to the gut question. And the gut question is, if we look at the microbiomes of people with Parkinson, there does seem to be, in a group of folks with Parkinson, a Parkinson microbiome. Not in everyone, but if you look at it in composite, there seems to be some clues there. We see changes in Lactobacillus, we see some bacteria going up that are good, some bacteria going down, you know, that are bad. And we see flipping around, and that can change as we put people on probiotics and we try to do fecal microbiota transplantations- which, by the way, the data so far has not been positive in Parkinson's. Doesn't mean we might not get there at some point, but I think the main point here is that as we move into the AI generation, there are just millions and millions and millions of organisms within your gut. And it's going to take more than just our eyes and just our regular arithmetic. You and I probably know how to do arithmetic really well, but this is, like, going to be a much bigger problem for computers that are way smarter than our brains to start to look and say, well, we see the bacteria is up here. That's a good bacteria, that's a good thing or it's down with this bacteria or this phage or there's a relationship or proportion that's changing. And so, we're not quite there. And so, I always tell people---and you know, we talk about the sum in the issue---microbiomes aren't quite ready for prime time yet. And so be careful, because you could tweak the system and you might actually end up worse than before you started. So, we don't know what we don't know on this issue.  Dr Jones: And that's a great point. And one of the themes they're reading between the lines is, we will continue to work on understanding the bio-pathophysiology, but we can't wait until that day to start managing the risk factors and treating patients, which I think is a good point. And if we pivot to treatment here a little bit, you know, one of the exciting areas of movement disorders---and really neurology broadly, I think movement disorders has led the field in many ways---is bioelectronic therapy, or what one of my colleagues taught me is "electroceutical therapy", which I think is a wonderful term. Dr Okun, when our listeners are hearing about the latest in deep brain stimulation in patients who have movement disorders, what should they know? What are the latest developments in that area with devices? Dr Okun: Yeah. So, they should know that things are moving rapidly in the field of putting electricity into the brain. And we're way past the era where we thought putting a little bit of electricity was snake oil. We know we can actually drive these circuits, and we know that many of these disorders---and actually, probably all of the disorders within this issue of Continuum---are all circuit disorders. And so, you can drive the circuit by modulating the circuit. And it's turned out to be quite robust with therapies like deep brain stimulation. Now, we're seeing uses of deep brain stimulation across multiple of these disorders now. So, for example, you may think of it in Parkinson's disease, but now we're also seeing people use it to help in cases where you need to palliate very severe and bothersome chorea and Huntington's disease, we're seeing it move along in Tourette syndrome. We of course have seen this for various hyperkinetic disorders and dystonias. And so, the main thing for clinicians to realize when dealing with neuromodulation is, take a deep breath because it can be overwhelming. We have a lot of different devices in the marketplace and no matter how many different devices we have in the marketplace, the most important thing is that we get the leads. You know, where we're stimulating into the right location. It's like real estate: location, location, location, whether you've got a lead that can steer left, right, up, down and do all of these things. Second, if you're feeling overwhelmed because there are so many devices and so many settings, especially as we put these leads in and they have all sorts of different, you know, nodes on them and you can steer this way and that way, you are not alone. Everybody is feeling that way now. And we're beginning to see AI solutions to that that are going to merge together with imaging, and then we're moving toward an era of, you know, should I say things like robotic programming, where it's going to be actually so complicated as we move forward that we're going to have to automate these systems. There's no way to get this and scale this for all of the locales within the United States, but within the entire world of people that need these types of devices and these therapies. And so, it's moving rapidly. It's overwhelming. The most important thing is choosing the right person. Okay? For this, with multidisciplinary teams, getting the lead in the right place. And then all these other little bells and whistles, they're like sculpting. So, if you think of a sculpture, you kind of get that sculpture almost there. You know, those little adds are helping to maybe make the eyes come out a little more or the facial expression a little bit better. There's little bits of sculpting. But if you're feeling overwhelmed by it, everybody is. And then also remember that we're starting to move towards some trials here that are in their early stages. And a lot of times when we start, we need more failures to get to our successes. So, we're seeing trials of people looking at, like, oligo therapies and protein therapies. We're seeing CRISPR gene therapies in the laboratory. And we should have a zero tolerance for errors with CRISPR, okay? we still have issues with CRISPR in the laboratory and which ones we apply it to and with animals. But it's still pretty exciting when we're starting to see some of these therapies move forward. We're going to see gene therapies, and then the other thing we're going to see are nano-therapies. And remember, smaller can be better. It can slip across the blood brain barrier, you have very good surface area-to-volume ratios, and we can uncage drugs by shining things like focused ultrasound beams or magnets or heat onto these particles to turn them on or off. And so, we're seeing a great change in the field there. And then also, I should mention: pumps are coming and they're here. We're getting pumps like we have for diabetes and neurology. It's very exciting. It's going to be overwhelming as everybody tries to learn how to do this. So again, if you're feeling overwhelmed, so am I. Okay? But you know, pumps underneath the skin for dopamine, pumps underneath the skin for apomorphine. And that may apply to other disorders and not just Parkinson as we move along, what we put into those therapies. So, we're seeing that age come forward. And then making lesions from outside the brain with focused ultrasound, we're starting to get better at that. Precision is less coming from outside the brain; complications are also less. And as we learn how to do that better, that also can provide more options for folks. So, a lot of things to read about in this issue of Continuum and a lot of really interesting and beyond, I would say, you know, the horizon as to where we're headed.  Dr Jones: Thank you for that. And it is a lot. It can be overwhelming, which I guess is maybe a good reason to read the issue, right? I think that's a great place to end and encourage our listeners to pick up the issue. And Dr Okun, I want to thank you for joining us today. Thank you for such a great discussion on movement disorders. I learned a lot. I'm sure our listeners will as well, given the importance of the topic, your leadership in the field over many years. I'm grateful that you have put this issue together. So, thank you. And you're a busy person. I don't know how we talked you into doing this, but I'm really glad that we did.  Dr Okun: Well, it's been my honor. And I just want to point out that the whole authorship panel that agreed to write these articles, they did all the work. I'm just a talking head here, you know, telling you what they did, but they're writing, and the people that are in the field are really, you know, leading and helping us to understand, and have really put it together in a way that's kind of helped us to be better clinicians and to impact more lives. So, I want to thank the group of authors, and thank you, Dr Jones. Dr Jones: Again, we've been speaking with Dr Michael Okun, guest editor of Continuum's most recent issue on movement disorders. Please check it out. And thank you to our listeners for joining today. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

With the increase in the public's attention to all aspects of brain health, neurologists need to understand their role in raising awareness, advocating for preventive strategies, and promoting brain health for all. To achieve brain health equity, neurologists must integrate culturally sensitive care approaches, develop adapted assessment tools, improve professional and public educational materials, and continually innovate interventions to meet the diverse needs of our communities. In this BONUS episode, Casey Albin, MD, speaks with Daniel José Correa, MD, MSc, FAAN and Rana R. Said, MD, FAAN, coauthors of the article "Bridging the Gap Between Brain Health Guidelines and Real-world Implementation" in the Continuum® June 2025 Disorders of CSF Dynamics issue. Dr. Albin is a Continuum® Audio interviewer, associate editor of media engagement, and an assistant professor of neurology and neurosurgery at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia. Dr. Correa is the associate dean for community engagement and outreach and an associate professor of neurology at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine Division of Clinical Neurophysiology in the Saul Korey Department of Neurology at the Montefiore Medical Center, New York, New York. Dr. Said is a professor of pediatrics and neurology, the director of education, and an associate clinical chief in the division of pediatric neurology at the University of Texas Southwest Medical Center in Dallas, Texas. Additional Resources Read the article: Bridging the Gap Between Brain Health Guidelines and Real-world Implementation Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @caseyalbin Guests: @NeuroDrCorrea, @RanaSaidMD Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. This exclusive Continuum Audio interview is available only to you, our subscribers. We hope you enjoy it. Thank you for listening. Dr Albin: Hi all, this is Dr Casey Albin. Today I'm interviewing Dr Daniel Correa and Dr Rana Said about their article on bridging the gap between brain health guidelines and real-world implementation, which they wrote with Dr Justin Jordan. This article appears in the June 2025 Continuum issue on disorders of CSF dynamics. Thank you both so much for joining us. I'd love to just start by having you guys introduce yourselves to our listeners. Rana, do you mind going first? Dr Said: Yeah, sure. Thanks, Casey. So, my name is Rana Said. I'm a professor of pediatrics and neurology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. Most of my practice is pediatric epilepsy. I'm also the associate clinical chief and the director of education for our division. And in my newer role, I am the vice chair of the Brain Health Committee for the American Academy of Neurology. Dr Albin: Absolutely. So just the right person to talk about this. And Daniel, some of our listeners may know you already from the Brain and Life podcast, but please introduce yourself again. Dr Correa: Thank you so much, Casey for including us and then highlighting this article. So yes, as you said, I'm the editor and the cohost for the Brain and Life podcast. I do also work with Rana and all the great members of the Brain Health Initiative and committee within the AAN, but in my day-to-day at my institution, I'm an associate professor of neurology at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Montefiore Health System. I do a mix of general neurology and epilepsy and with a portion of my time, I also work as an associate Dean at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, supporting students and trainees with community engagement and outreach activities. Dr Albin: Excellent. Thank you guys both so much for taking the time to be here. You know, brain health has really become this core mission of the AAN. Many listeners probably know that it's actually even part of the AAN's mission statement, which is to enhance member career fulfillment and promote brain health for all. And I think a lot of us have this kind of, like, vague idea about what brain health is, but I'd love to just start by having a shared mental model. So, Rana, can you tell us what do you mean when you talk about brain health? Dr Said: Yeah, thanks for asking that question. And, you know, even as a group, we really took quite a while to solidify, like, what does that even mean? Really, the concept is that we're shifting from a disease-focused model, which we see whatever disorder comes in our doors, to a preventative approach, recognizing that there's a tremendous interconnectedness between our physical health, our mental health, cognitive and social health, you know, maintaining our optimal brain function. And another very important part of this is that it's across the entire lifespan. So hopefully that sort of solidifies how we are thinking about brain health. Dr Albin: Right. Daniel, anything else to add to that? Dr Correa: One thing I've really liked about this, you know, the evolution of the 2023 definition from the AAN is its highlight on it being a continuous state. We're not only just talking about prevention of injury and a neurologic condition, but then really optimizing our own health and our ability to engage in our communities afterwards, and that there's always an opportunity for improvement of our brain health. Dr Albin: I love that. And I really felt like in this article, you walked us through some tangible pillars that support the development and maintenance of this lifelong process of maintaining and developing brain health. And so, Daniel, I was wondering, you know, we could take probably the entire time just to talk about the five pillars that support brain health. But can you give us a pretty brief overview of what those are that you outlined in this article? Dr Correa: I mean, this was one of the biggest challenges and really bundling all the possibilities and the evidence that's out there and just getting a sense of practical movement forward. So, there are many organizations and groups out there that have formed pillars, whether we're calling them seven or eight, you know, the exact number can vary, but just to have something to stand on and move forward. We've bundled one of them as physical and sleep health. So really encouraging towards levels of activity and not taking it as, oh, that there's a set- you know, there are recommendations out there for amount of activity, but really looking at, can we challenge people to just start growing and moving forward at their current ability? Can we challenge people to look at their sleep health, see if there's an aspect to improve, and then reassess with time? We particularly highlight the importance of mental health, whether it's before a neurologic condition or a brain injury occurs or addressing the mental health comorbidities that may come along with neurologic conditions. Then there's of course the thing that everyone thinks about, I think, with brain health in terms of is cognitive health. And you know, I think that's the first place that really enters either our own minds or as we are observers of our elder individuals in our family. And more and more there has been the highlight on the need for social interconnectedness, community purpose. And this is what we include as a pillar of social health. And then across all types of neurologic potential injuries is really focusing on the area of brain injury. And so, I think the area that we've often been focused as neurologists, but also thinking of both the prevention along with the management of the condition or the injury after it occurs. Dr Albin: Rana, anything else to add to that? That's a fantastic overview. Dr Said: Daniel, thank you for- I mean, you just set it up so beautifully. I think the other thing that maybe would be important for people to understand is that as we're talking through a lot of these, these are individual. These sound like very individual-basis factors. But as part of the full conversation, we also have to understand that there are some factors that are not based on the individual, and then that leads to some of the other initiatives that we'll be talking about at the community and policy levels. So, for example, if an individual is living in an area with high air pollution. Yes, we want them to be healthy and exercise and sleep, but how do we modify those factors? What about lead leaching from our aging pipes or even infectious diseases? So, I think that outside of our pillars, this is sort of the next step is to understand what is also at large in our communities. Dr Albin: That's a really awesome point. I love that the article really does shine through and that there are these individual factors, and then there there's social factors, there's policy factors. I want to start just with that individual because I think so many of our patients probably know, like, stress management, exercise, sleep, all of that stuff is really important. But when I was reading your article, what was not so obvious to me was, what's the role that we as neurologists should play in advocating? And really more importantly, like, how should we do that? And again, it struck me that there are these kind of two issues at play. And one is that what Daniel was saying that, you know, a lot of our patients are coming because they have a problem, right? We are used to operating in this disease-based care, and there's just limited time, competing clinical demands. If they're not coming to talk about prevention, how do we bring that in? And so Rana, maybe I'll start with you just for that question, you know, for the patients who are seeing us with a disease complaint or they're coming for the management of a problem, how are you organizing this at the bedside to kind of factor in a little bit about that preventative brain health? Dr Said: You know, I think the most important thing at the bedside is, one, really identifying the modifiable risk factors. These have been well studied, we understand them. Hypertension, diabetes, smoking, weight management. And we know that these definitely are correlative. So is it our role just to talk about stroke, or should we talk about, how are you managing your blood pressure? Health education, if there was one major cornerstone, is elevating health literacy for everyone and understanding that patients value clear and concise information about brain health, about modifiable risk factors. And the corollary to that, of course, are what are the resources and services? I completely understand---I'm a practicing clinician---the constraints that we have at the bedside, be it in the hospital or in our clinics. And so being the source of information, how are we referring our families and individuals to social workers, community health worker support, and really partnering with them, food banks, injury prevention programs, patient advocacy organizations? I think those are really ways that we can meet the impacts that we're looking at the bedside that can feel very tangible and practical. Dr Albin: That's really excellent advice. And so, I'd like to ask a follow-up question. With your knowledge of this, trying to get more multidisciplinary buy-in from your clinic so that you really have the support to get these services that are so critically important. And how do you do that? Dr Said: Yeah, I think it's, one, being a champion. So, what does a champion mean? It means that somebody has to decide this is really important. And I think we all realize that we're not the only ones in the room who care about this. We're all in this, and we all care about it. But how do we champion it and carry it through? And so that's the first. Second you find your partnerships: your social workers, your case managers, your other colleagues. And then what is the first-level entry thing that you can do? So for example, I'm a pediatric epileptologist. One of the things we know is that in pediatric epilepsy, depression and anxiety are very strong comorbidities. So, before we get to the point where a child is in distress, every single one of our epilepsy patients who walks in the door over the age of twelve has an age-appropriate screener that is given to them in both English and Spanish. And we assess it and we determine stratifying risk. And then we have our social workers on the back end and we decide, is this a child who needs resources? Is this a child who needs to be walked to the emergency room, escorted? And anything in between. And I think that that was a just a very tangible example of, every single person can do this and ask about it. And through the development of dot phrases and clear protocols, it works really well. Dr Albin: I love that, the way that you're just being mindful. At every step of the way, we can help people towards this lifelong brain health. And Daniel, you work with an adult population. So I wonder, what are your tips for bringing this to a different patient population? Dr Correa: Well, I think---adult or child---one thing that we often are aware of with so many of the other things that we're doing in bedside or clinic room counseling, but we don't necessarily think of in this context of brain health, is, remember all the people in the room. So, at the bedside, whether it's in the ICU, discharge counseling, the initial admission, the whole family is often involved and really concerned about the active issue. But you can look for opportunities- we often try to counsel and support families about the importance of their own sleep and rest and highlighting it not just as being there for their family member, but highlighting it to them as a measure of their own improvement of their brain health. So, looking at ways where, one, I try to find, is there something I can do to support and educate the whole family about their brain health? And then- and with an epilepsy, or in many other situations, I try to look for one comorbidity that might be a pillar of brain health to address that maybe I wasn't already thinking. And then I consider, is there an additional thing that they wouldn't naturally connect to their epilepsy or their headaches that I can bring in for them to work on? You know, we can't often give people twelve different things to work on, and they'd just feel like, okay like, you have no realistic understanding of my life. But if we can just highlight on one, and remind them that there can be many more ways to improve their health and to follow up either with us as their neurologist or their future primary care doctors to address those additional needs. Again, I would really highlight the importance of a multidisciplinary approach and looking for opportunities. We've too often, I feel, relied on primary care as being the first line for addressing unmet social health needs. We know that so many people, once they have a neurologic condition or the potential, even, of a neurologic condition, they're concerned about dementia or something, they may view us, as their neurologist, as their most important provider. And if they don't have the resource of time and money to show up at other doctors, we may be the first one they're coming to. And so, tapping into your institution's resources and finding out, are there things that are available to the primary care services that for some reason we're not able to get on the inpatient side or the outpatient side? Referring to social workers and care workers and showing that our patients have an independent need, that they're not somehow getting captured by the primary care doctors. Dr Albin: I really love that. I think that we- just being more invested and just being ready to step into that role is really important. I was noticing in this article, you really call that being a brain health ambassador, being really mindful, and I will direct all of our listeners to Figure 3, which really captures what practitioners can do both at the bedside, within their local community, and even at the professional society level, to really advocate for policies that promote brain wellness. Rana, at the very beginning of this conversation, you noted, you know, this is not just an individual problem. This really is something that is a component of our policy and the structure of our local communities. I really loved in the article, there's a humility that this cannot be just a person-by-person bedside approach, that this is a little bit determined by the social determinants of health. And so, Rana, can you walk us through a little bit of what are the social determinants of health, and why are these so crucially important when we think about brain health for all? Dr Said: Yeah, social determinants of health are a really key factor that it looks at, what are the health factors that are environmental; for example, that are not directly like what your blood pressure is, what, you know, what your BMI is, that definitely impact our health outcomes. So, these include environmental things like where people are born, where they live, where they learn, work, play, worship, and age. It encompasses factors like your socioeconomic status, your education, the neighborhoods where you are living, definitely healthcare access. And then all of this is in a social and community context. We know that the impact of social determinants of health on brain health are profound for the entire lifespan and that- so, for example, if someone is from a disadvantaged background or that leads to chronic stress, they can have limited access to healthcare. They can have greater risk of exposure to, let's say, environmental toxins, and all of that will shape how their brain health is. Violence, for example. And so, as we think about how we're going to target and enhance brain health, we really have to understand that these are vulnerable populations, special high-risk populations, that often have a disproportionate burden of neurologic disorders. And by identifying them and then developing targeted interventions, it promotes health equity. And it really has to be done in looking at culturally- ethnocultural-sensitive healthcare education resources, thinking about culturally sensitive or adaptive assessment tools that work for different populations so that these guidelines that we have, that we've already identified as being so valuable, can be equitably applied, which is one crucial component of reducing brain health risk factors. And lastly, at the neighborhood level, this is where we really rely on our partnerships with community partners who really understand their constituents and they understand how to have the special conversations, how to enhance brain health through resource utilization. And so, this is another plug for policy and resources. Dr Albin: I love that. And thinking about the neighborhood and the policy levels and all the things that we have to do. Daniel, I'd like to ask you, is there anything else you would add? Dr Correa: Yeah, you know, so I really wanted to come back to this thing is that often and unfortunately, in the beginning understanding of social determinants of health, they're thought of as a positive or a negative factor, and often really negative. These are just facts. They're aspects about our community, our society, and some of them may be at the individual level. They're not at fault of any individual or community, or even our society. They're just the realities. And when someone has a factor that may predict a health disparity or an unmet social need---I wanted to come back to that concept and that term---one or two positive factors that are social determinants of health for that individual are unmet social needs. It's a point of promise. It's a potential to be addressed. And seeking ways to connect them with community services, social work, caregivers, these are ways where- that we can remove a barrier to, so that the possibility of the recommendations that we're used to doing, giving recommendations about medications and management, can be fully appreciated for that person. And the other aspect is, like brain health, this is a continuous state. The social determinants of health may be different for the child, the parent, and the elderly family member in the household, and there might be some that are shared across them. And when one of those individuals has a new medical illness or a new condition, a stroke, and now has a mobility limitation, that may change a social determinant of health for that person or for anyone else in the family, the other people now becoming caregivers. We're used to this. And for someone after a stroke or traumatic brain injury, now they have mobility changes. And so, we work on addressing those. But thinking on how those things now become a barrier for engaging with community and accessing things, something as simple as their pharmacy. Dr Albin: I hear a lot of "this is a fluid situation," but there's hope here because these are places that we can intervene and that we can really champion brain health throughout this fluid situation. Which kind of brings me to what we're going to close out with, which is, I'm going to have you do a little thought exercise, which is that you find a magic lamp and a genie comes out. And we'll call this the brain health genie. The genie says that they are going to grant you one wish for the betterment of brain health. Daniel, I'll start with you. What is the one thing that you think could really move the needle on promoting and maintaining brain health? Dr Correa: I will jump on nutrition and food access. If we could somehow get rid of food insecurity and have access to whole and fresh foods for everyone, and people could go back to looking at opportunities from their ancestral and cultural experiences to cook and make whole-food recipes from their own cultures. Using something like the Mediterranean diet and the mind diet as a framework, but not looking at those as cultural barriers that we somehow all have to eat a certain way. So, I think that would really be the place I would go to first that would improve all of our brain health. Dr Albin: I love that. So, wholesome eating. Rana, how about you? One magic wish. Dr Said: I think traumatic brain injury prevention. I think it's so- it feels so within our reach, and it just always is so heart-hurting when you think that wearing helmets, using seatbelts, practicing safety in sports, gun safety---because we know unfortunately that in pediatric patients, firearm injury is the leading cause of traumatic brain injury. In our older patients, fall reduction. If we could figure out how to really disseminate the need for preventative measures, get everyone really on board, I think this is- the genie wouldn't have to work too hard to make that one come true. Dr Albin: I love that. As a neurointensivist, I definitely feel that TBI prevention. We could talk about this all day long. I really wish we had a longer bit of time, but I really would direct all of our listeners to this fantastic article where you give really practical advice. And so again, today I've been interviewing Drs Daniel Correa and Rana Said about their article on bridging the gap between brain health guidelines and real-world implementation, written with Dr Justin Jordan. This article appears in the most recent issue of Continuum on the disorders of CSF dynamics. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues. And thank you so much for our listeners for joining us today. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. We hope you've enjoyed this subscriber-exclusive interview. Thank you for listening.

Childhood-onset hydrocephalus encompasses a wide range of disorders with varying clinical implications. There are numerous causes of symptomatic hydrocephalus in neonates, infants, and children, and each predicts the typical clinical course across the lifespan. Etiology and age of onset impact the lifelong management of individuals living with childhood-onset hydrocephalus. In this episode, Casey Albin, MD, speaks with Shenandoah Robinson, MD, FAANS, FAAP, FACS, author of the article "Childhood-onset Hydrocephalus" in the Continuum® June 2025 Disorders of CSF Dynamics issue. Dr. Albin is a Continuum® Audio interviewer, associate editor of media engagement, and an assistant professor of neurology and neurosurgery at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia. Dr. Robinson is a professor of neurosurgery, neurology, and pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland. Additional Resources Read the article: Childhood-onset Hydrocephalus Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @caseyalbin Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Albin: Hi, this is Dr Casey Albin. Today I'm interviewing Dr Shenandoah Robinson about her article on childhood onset hydrocephalus, which appears in the June 2025 Continuum issue on disorders of CSF dynamics. Dr Robinson, thank you so much for being here. Welcome to the podcast. I'd love to start by just having you briefly introduce yourself to our audience. Dr Robinson: I'm a pediatric neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins, and I'm very fortunate to care for kids and children from the neonatal intensive care unit all the way up through young adulthood. And I have a strong interest in developing better treatments for hydrocephalus. Dr Albin: Absolutely. And this was a great article because I really do think that understanding how children with hydrocephalus are treated really does inform how we can care for them throughout the continuum of their lifespan. You know, I was shocked in reading your article about the scope of the problem for childhood onset hydrocephalus. Can you walk our listeners through what are the most common reasons why CSF diversion is needed in the pediatric population? Dr Robinson: For the United States, and Canada too, the most common reasons are spina bifida---so, a baby that's born with a myelomeningocele and then develops associated hydrocephalus---and then about equally as common is posthemorrhagic hydrocephalus of prematurity, congenital causes such as from aquaductal stenosis, and other genetic causes are less common. And then we also have kids that develop hydrocephalus after trauma or meningitis or tumors or other sort of acquired problems during childhood. Dr Albin: So, it's a really diverse and sort of heterogeneous causes that across sort of the, you know, the neonatal period all the way to, you know, young adulthood. And I'm sure that those etiologies really shift based on sort of the subgroup population that you're talking about. Dr Robinson: Yes, they definitely shift over time. Fortunately for our kids that are born with problems that raise concerns, such as myelomeningocele or if they're born preterm, they sort of declare themselves by the time they're a year old. So, if you're an adult provider, they should have defined themselves and it's unlikely that they will suddenly develop hydrocephalus as a teenager or older adult. Dr Albin: Totally makes sense. I think many of the listeners to this podcast are adult neurologists who are probably very familiar with external ventriculostomies for temporary CSF diversion, and with the more permanent ventricular peritoneal shines or ventricular atrial or plural shines that are needed when there's the need for permanent diversion. But you described in your article two procedures that provide temporary CSF diversion that I think many of our listeners are probably not as familiar with, which is the ventricular access devices and ventriculosubgaleal shunts. Can you briefly describe what those procedures provide? Who are the candidates for them? And then what complications neurologists may need to think about if they're consulted for comanagement in one of these complex patients? Dr Robinson: Well, the good thing is that if as an adult neurologist you encounter someone with, you know, residual tubing from one of these procedures, you are unlikely to need to do anything about it. So, we put in ventricular access device or ventriculosubgaleal shunts, usually in newborns or infants. And sometimes when they no longer need the device, we just leave it in because that saves them an extra surgery. So, if you encounter one later on, it's most likely you won't need to do anything. Often if the baby goes on to show that they need a permanent shunt, we go ahead and put in that permanent shunt. We may or may not go back and take out the reservoir or the subgaleal shunt. The reservoir and subgaleal shunts are often put in the frontal location. Sometimes we'll put the permanent shunt in the occipital location and just leave the residual tubing there. So, you're very unlikely to need to intervene with a reservoir or subgaleal shunt if you encounter an older child or adult with that left in. We use these in the small babies because the external ventricular drains that we're very familiar with have a very high complication rate in this population. In the adult ICU, you often see these, and maybe there's, you know, a few percent risk of infection. It actually heads into 20 to 25% in our preterm infants and other newborns that require one of these devices for drainage. So, we try not to use external ventricular drains like we use in older patients. We use the internalized device: either the ventricular reservoir with a little area for us to tap every day, every other day; or the ventriculosubgaleal shunt, which diverts the spinal fluid to a pocket in the scalp. So, we use these in preterm infants that are too tiny for a permanent shunt. And for some of our babies that are born, for example, with an omphalocele, that we can't use their peritoneal cavity and so we need some temporizing device to manage their CSF. Dr Albin: Totally makes sense. And so just to clarify, I mean, this is a tube that's placed into the ventricles of the brain and then it's tunneled into the subgaleal space and the collection, the CSF, just builds up there, like? Dr Robinson: Yeah. Dr Albin: And over time either, you know, the baby will learn how to account for that extra CSF, and then I guess it's just reabsorbed? Dr Robinson: Yeah. When it's present, though, it looks like maybe, I don't know if you're familiar with like a tissue expander. There is this bubble of fluid under the scalp, but it's prominent, it can be several centimeters in diameter. Dr Albin: Wow, that's just absolutely fascinating. And I don't think I've ever had the opportunity to see this in clinical practice. I've really learned quite a bit about this. I assume that these children are going to go on to get some sort of permanent diversion. And then, you know, over time, those permanent shunts do create a lot of problems. And so, I was hoping you could kind of walk us through, you know, what are some of the things that you're seeing that you're concerned about? And then if you've just inherited a patient who had a shunt placed at, say, a different institution, how do you go about figuring out what kind of shunt it is and if they're still dependent on it? Dr Robinson: There's a few things that, fortunately, technology is helping with. So, it is much easier now for patients to get their images uploaded to image-sharing software, and then we can download their images into our institutional software, which is very helpful. Another option is that we are strongly encouraging our families to use a app such as HydroAssist that's available from the Hydrocephalus Association. So that's an app that goes on your phone, and you can upload the images from an MRI or a CT scan or x-rays from a shunt series. And then that you can take if you're traveling and you have to go to emergency department or you're establishing care with a new provider, you can have your information right there and not be under stress to remember it. It also has areas so you can record the type of valve. And all of our valves have pluses and minuses, they all tend to malfunction a little bit. And they can be particularly helpful with different types of hydrocephalus. I really doubt that we're going to narrow down from the fifteen or so valves we have access to now. And so, recording your valve type, the manufacturer as well as the setting, is very helpful when you're transferring care or if you're traveling and then have to, unfortunately, stop in the emergency department. Dr Albin: Yeah, I thought that was a really great pearl that, like, families now are empowered to sort of take control of understanding sort of the devices that they have, the settings that they're using. And what an incredible thing for providers who are going to care for these patients who, you know, unfortunately do end up in centers that are not their primary center. The other challenge that I find… I practice as a neurointensivist, and sometimes patients come in and they have a history of being shunt dependent and they present with a neurologic change. And I think that we as neurologists can be a little quick to blame the shunt and want the shunt to be tapped. And I was really struck in reading this article about the complexity of shunt taps. And I was hoping, you know, can you kind of walk us through what's involved and maybe why we should have a little bit of a higher threshold before just saying, ah, just have the neurosurgeons tap the shunt. Like, it's not that straightforward. Dr Robinson: And it may depend on the population you're caring for. So, when I was at a different institution, we actually published that there's about a 5% complication rate from shunt taps. And that may be- that was in pediatric patients. And again, that may be population dependent, but you can introduce infection to a perfectly clean shunt by doing a shunt tap. You can also cause an acute shunt malfunction. So that's why we tend to prefer that only neurosurgeons are doing shunt taps for evaluation of a shunt malfunction. There are times that, for example, our patients who are getting intrathecal chemotherapy or something have a CSF access device like an Ommaya reservoir, and other providers may tap that reservoir to instill medicine. But that's different than an evaluation, like, you're talking about somebody with a neurological change. And so, it is possible that if somebody has small ventricles or something, if you tap that shunt, you can take a marginally functioning shunt and turn it into an acute proximal malfunction, which is an emergency. Dr Albin: Absolutely. I think that's a fantastic pearl for us to take away from this. It's just that heightened level. And kind of on the flip side of that, you know, and I really- I do feel for us when we're trying to kind of, you know, make a case that it's, it's not the shunt. Many of our shunted patients also have a lot of neurologic complexity, which I think you really talked upon in this article. I mean, these are patients who have developmental cognitive delays and that they have epilepsy and that they're at risk for, you know, complications from prematurity, since that's a very common reason that patients are getting shunts. But from your experience as a neurosurgeon, what are some of the features that make you particularly concerned about shnut malfunction? And how do you sort of evaluate these patients when they come in with that altered mental status? Dr Robinson: It is challenging, especially for our patients that have, you know, some intellectual delay or other difficulties that make it hard for them to give an accurate history. Problem is, if they're sick and lethargic, they may not remember the symptoms that they had when they were sick. But sometimes there's hopefully there's a family member present that does remember and can say, oh, no, this is what they look like when they have a viral illness. And this is different from when they have the shot malfunction, which was projectile emesis, not associated with a fever. It's rare to have a fever with a shunt malfunction, although shunt infection often presents with malfunction. So, it's not completely exclusionary. We often look at the imaging, but it's taking the whole picture together. Some of the common other diagnoses we see are severe constipation that can decrease the drainage from the shunt and even cause papilledema in some people. So, we look at that as well on the shunt series. It's very important to have the shunt series if you're concerned about shunt malfunction or- the shunt tubing is good. It tends to last maybe 20to 25 years before it starts to degrade. And so, you may have had a functioning shunt for decades and it worked well and you're very dependent on it, and then it breaks and you become ill. But on the flip side, we have patients that have had a broken shunt for years, they just didn't know about it. And we don't want to jump in and operate on them and then cause complexities. And so, it is a challenge to sort out. The simplest thing is obviously if they come in and their ventricles are significantly larger, and that goes along with a several-hour or a couple-day deterioration, that's a little more clear-cut. Dr Albin: Absolutely. And you talked about this shunt series. What other imaging- and, sort of maybe walk us through, what's involved in a shunt series, what are you looking at? And then what other imaging is sort of your preferred method for evaluating these patients? Dr Robinson: In adult patients, the shunt series is the x-ray from the entire shunt. And so, if they have an atrial shunt, that would be skull x-ray plus a chest x-ray; or the shunt ends in the perineal cavity, it goes to the perineum. And we're looking for continuity. We're looking for the- sometimes as people grow and age, the ventricular catheter can pull out of the ventricle. So, we're looking to make sure that the ventricular catheter is in an optimal position relative to the skull. We can also look at the valve setting to see the type of valve. So, that can also be helpful as well. And then in terms of additional imaging, a CT scan or an MRI is helpful. If you don't know what type of valve they have, they should not, ideally, go in the MRI scanner. We like to know what their setting is before they go in the MRI because we're going to have to reset the valve after they come out of the MRI if it's a programmable valve. Dr Albin: This is fantastic. I've heard several pearls. So, one is that with the shunt series, which, am I correct in understanding those are just plain X-rays? Dr Robinson: Yes. Dr Albin: Right. Then we can look for constipation, and that might be actually something really serious in a pediatric patient that could clue us in that they could actually be developing hydrocephalus or increased ICP just because of the abdominal pressure. And then that we need to be mindful of what are the stunt settings before we expose anyone to the MRI machine. Is that two good takeaways from all of this? Dr Robinson: Yes. And it's very rare that there'll be an MRI tech that will allow a patient with a valve in the MRI without knowing what it is. So, they have their job security that way. But yeah, if you're not sure, just go ahead and get the CT. Obviously, in our younger kids, we're trying to avoid CT scans. But if you're weighing off trying to decide if somebody has a shunt malfunction versus, you know, waiting 12 or 24 hours for an MRI, go ahead and get the CT. Dr Albin: Absolutely. I love it. Those are things I'm going to take with me for this. I have one more question about these shunts. So, every now and then, and I think you started to touch on this, we will get a shunt series and we'll see that the catheter is fractured. Do the patients develop little- like, a tract that continues to allow diversion even though the catheter is fractured? Dr Robinson: Yes. So, they can develop scar tissue around, and some people have more scar tissue than others. You'll even see that sometimes, say, the catheter has fractured and we'll take out that old fractured tubing and put in new tubing on the other side. But if you go and palpate their neck or chest, you'll still feel that tract is there because it calcifies along the tract. Some patients drain through that calcified tract for weeks or months without symptoms, and then it can occlude off. So, we don't consider it a reliable pathway. It's also not a reliable pathway if you're positioned prone in the OR. So some of our orthopedic colleagues, for example, if they go to do a spine fusion, we like to confirm that the shunt is working before you undergo that long anesthesia, but also that you're going to be positioned prone and you could potentially- you know, the pressure could occlude that track that normally is open. Dr Albin: This is fantastic. I feel like I've gotten everything I've ever wanted to know about shunts and all of their complications in this, which is, you know, this is really difficult. And I think that because we are not trained to put these in, sometimes we see them and we just say, oh, it's fractured that must be a malfunction. But it's good to know that sometimes those patients can drain through, you know, a sort of scarred-down tract, but that it may not be nearly as reliable as when they have the tubing in place. Another really good thing that I'm going to put in my back pocket for the next time I see a patient with a potential shunt malfunction. Dr Robinson: And we do have some patients that the tubing is fractured years ago and they don't need it repaired, and that totally can be challenging when they then transfer to your practice for follow-up care. We tend to follow those patients very closely, both our clinic visits as well as having them seen by ophthalmology. So, there are teenagers and young adults out there that have… their own system has recovered and they are no longer shunt-dependent; and they may have a broken shunt and not actually be using that track, but they usually have had fairly intensive follow up to prove that they're not shunt-dependent. And we still have a healthy respect there that, you know, if they start to get a headache, we're going to take that quite seriously as opposed to, you know, some of our shunt patients, about 10 to 20%, have chronic headaches that are not shunt-related. So, not everybody who has a headache and has a shunt has a shunt malfunction. It's tough. Dr Albin: This is really tough. That actually brings me to sort of the last clinical scenario that I was hoping we could get your perspective on. And I think this would be of great interest to neurologists, especially in the context that these children may develop headaches that have nothing to do with the shunt. I'd like to sort of give you this hypothetical case that I'm a neurologist seeing a patient in clinic and it's a teenager, maybe a young adult, and they had a shunt placed early in childhood. They've done really well. And they've come to me for management of a new headache. And, you know, as part of this workup, their primary care provider had ordered an MRI. And, you know, I look at the MRI, and I don't think that the ventricles look really enlarged. They don't look overdrained. Is having an MRI that looks pretty okay, is that enough to exonerate the shunt in this situation? Dr Robinson: In most cases it is. The one time that we don't see a substantial change in the ventricles is if we have a pseudocyst in the abdomen. The ventricles cannot enlarge initially, and then later on they might enlarge. So, we see that sometimes that somebody will come in and their ventricles will be stable in size, but we're still a little bit suspicious. They've got this persistent headache. They may have, you know, some emesis or loss of appetite, loss of activity, and a slower presentation than you would get with an acute proximal malfunction. We can check an abdominal ultrasound for them. And sometimes, even though the ventricles haven't changed in size, they still have a malfunction because they have that distal pseudocyst. One of the questions that we ask our patients when we're establishing care, in addition to what valve type they have and what sort of their shunt history or other interventions such as endoscopic third ventriculostomy, is to ask if their ventricles enlarge when they have a shunt malfunction. There is a small fraction where they do not. They kind of have a stiff brain, if you will. And so, it's good to know that. That's one of the key factors is asking somebody, do the ventricles enlarge when they have a malfunction? If they have enlarged in the past, they're likely to enlarge again if they have a malfunction. But again, it's not 100%. So, in peds, 20% of the time the ventricles don't enlarge. So, in adults, I'm not that- you know, I don't know what percentage it is, but it's something to consider that you can have a stable ventricular size and still have a shunt malfunction. So, if your clinical judgment, you're just kind of, like, still uneasy, you know, respect that and maybe do a little more workup. That's why we so much want patients to establish care with somebody, whether it's a neurologist or a neurosurgeon or other provider in some areas that have fewer neurospecialists, but to establish care so that you all know what a change is for that patient. That's really important. Dr Albin: That's fantastic. So, to summarize that, it's really important to understand the patient's baseline and how they presented with prior shunt complications, if they've had some. That if they're coming in with a new headache that we don't have a baseline, so, we should just have a heightened level of awareness that, like, the shunt has a start and it has an end. And even if the start of the shunt in the brain looks okay, there still could be the potential for complications in the abdomen. And maybe the third thing I heard from that is that we should look for GI symptoms and sort of be aware of when there could be a complication in the abdomen as well. Does that all sound about right? Dr Robinson: And especially for our kids with spina bifida and for posthemorrhagic hydrocephalus are now adults, because the preterm infants are prone to necrotizing enterocolitis. And they may not have had surgery for it, but they still may have adhesions and other things that predispose them to develop pseudocysts over time. And then our individuals with spina bifida often have various abdominal surgeries and other procedures to help them manage their bowel and bladder function. And so that can also create adhesions that then predisposes to pseudocysts. So, we do have a healthy respect for that. In addition, it used to be---because we have gotten a little better with shunts over time---it used to be, like, when I was in training that you heard, you know, if you haven't had a shunt malfunction for 10 or 15 years, you must- you may no longer be dependent. And that's not really true. There are some people who outgrow their need for shunt dependence, but not everyone does outgrow it. And so, you can be 15, 20 years without a shunt revision and still be shunt-dependent. Dr Albin: Those are fantastic pearls. I think most of them, walking away with this, like, a very healthy respect for the fact that these are complex patients, which the shunt is one component of sort of the things that can go wrong and that we have to have a really healthy respect and really detailed investigation and sort of take the big picture. I really like that. Dr Robinson: Yeah, I know. I think it's- there's a very strong push amongst pediatric neurosurgery and a lot of the related, our colleagues in other areas, to develop multidisciplinary transition clinics and lifespan programs for these patients to help keep everything else optimized so that they're not coming in, for example, with seizures. But then you have to figure out if this is a seizure or a shunt; you know, if we can keep them on track, if we can keep them healthy in all their other dimensions, it makes it safer for them in terms of their shunt malfunction. Dr Albin: Absolutely. I love that, and just the multidisciplinary preventative aspect of trying to keep these patients well. So important. Dr Robinson, I really would like to thank you for your time. We're getting towards the end of our time together. Are there any other points about the article that you just are anxious that leave the readers with, or should I just direct them back to the fantastic review that you've put together on this topic? Dr Robinson: No, I think that we covered a lot of the high points. I think one of the really exciting things for hydrocephalus is that there's a lot of investigations into other options besides shunts for certain populations. We are seeing less hydrocephalus now with the fetal repair of the myelomeningocele, which is great. And we're trying to make inroads into posthemorrhagic hydrocephalus as well. So, there are a lot of great things on the horizon and, you know, hopefully someday we won't have the need to have these discussions so much for shunts. Dr Albin: I love it. I think that's really important. And all of those points were touched on the article. And so, I really invite our listeners to go and check out the article, where you can see sort of, like, how this is evolving in real time. Thank you, Dr Robinson. Please go and check out the childhood-onset hydrocephalus article, which appears in the most recent issue of Continuum on the disorders of CSF dynamics. And be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues. Thank you again to our listeners for joining us today. And thank you, Dr Robinson. Dr Robinson: Thanks for having me. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Normal pressure hydrocephalus (NPH) is a pathologic condition whereby excess CSF is retained in and around the brain despite normal intracranial pressure. MRI-safe programmable shunt valves allow for fluid drainage adjustment based on patients' symptoms and radiographic images. Approximately 75% of patients with NPH improve after shunt surgery regardless of shunt type or location. In this episode, Aaron Berkowitz, MD, PhD, FAAN, speaks with Kaisorn L. Chaichana, MD, author of the article "Management of Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus" in the Continuum® June 2025 Disorders of CSF Dynamics issue. Dr. Berkowitz is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a professor of neurology at the University of California San Francisco in the Department of Neurology in San Francisco, California. Dr. Chaichana is a professor of neurology in the department of neurological surgery at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida. Additional Resources Read the article: Management of Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @LyellJ Guest: @kchaichanamd Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Berkowitz: This is Dr Aaron Berkowitz, and today I'm interviewing Dr Kaisorn Chaichana about his article on management of normal pressure hydrocephalus, which he wrote with Dr Jeremy Cutsforth-Gregory. The article appears in the June 2025 Continuum issue on disorders of CSF dynamics. Welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to our audience. Dr Chaichana: Yeah, thank you for having me. I'm Kaisorn Chaichana. I'm a neurosurgeon at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida. Part of my practice is doing hydrocephalus care, which includes shunts for patients with normal pressure hydrocephalus. Dr Berkowitz: Fantastic. Well, before we get into shunt considerations and NPH specifically, which I know is the focus of your article, I thought it would be a great opportunity for a neurologist to pick a neurosurgeon's brain a bit about shunts. So, to start, can you lay out for us the different types of shunts and shunt procedures, the advantages, disadvantages of each type of shunt, how you think about which shunt procedure should be used for which patient, that type of thing? Dr Chaichana: Yeah. So, there are different types of shunts, and the most common one that is used is called a ventricular peritoneal shunt. So, it has a ventricular catheter, it has a catheter that tunnels underneath the skin and it goes into the peritoneum where the fluid goes from the ventricular system into the peritoneum. Typically, the shunts are in the ventricle because that is the largest fluid-filled space in the brain. Other terminal areas include the atrium, which is really the jugular vein, and those are called ventricular atrial shunts. You can also have ventricular pleural shunts, which end in the pleural space and drain flui into the pleural space. Those are pretty much the most common ventricular shunts. There's also a lumboperitoneal shunt that drains from the lumbar spine, similar to a lumbar drain into the peritoneum. For the lumbar shunts, we don't typically have a lumbar pleural or lumbar atrial shunt just because of the pressure dynamics, because the lumbar spine is below the lung and as well as the atrium. And so, the drainage pattern is very different than ventricular peritoneal which is top to bottom. The most common shunt, why we use the ventricular peritoneal shunt the most, is because it has the most control. So, the peritoneum is set at a standard pressure in the intraabdominal pressure, whereas the ventricular atrial shunt depends on your venous return or venous pressure and your ventricular pleural shunt varies with inspiration and expiration. So, the easiest way for us to control the fluid, the ventricular system is through the ventricular peritoneal shunt. And that's why that's our most common shunt that we use. Dr Berkowitz: Fantastic. So, as you mention in the article, neurologists may be reluctant to offer a shunt to patients with NPH because many patients may not improve, or they improve only transiently; and out of fear of shunt complications. So, of course, as neurologists, we often only hear about a patient's shunt when there is a problem. So, we have this sort of biased view of seeing a lot of shunt malfunction and shunt infection. Of course, we might not see the patient if their shunt is working just fine. How common are these complications in practice, and how do you as a neurosurgeon weigh the risks against the often uncertain or transient benefits of a shunt in a patient with NPH who may be older and multiple medical comorbidities? How do you think about that and talk about it with patients? Dr Chaichana: When you hear about shunt complications, most of the shunt complications you hear about are typically in patients with congenital hydrocephalus. Those patients often require several shunt revisions just from either growing or the shunt stays in for a long time or the ventricular caliber is a lot less than some with normal pressure hydrocephalus. So, we don't really see a lot of complications with normal pressure hydrocephalus. So that shunt placement in these patients is typically pretty safe. The procedure's a relatively short procedure, around 30 minutes to 45 minutes to place a shunt, and we can control the pressure within the shunt setting so that we don't overdrain---which means too much fluid drains from the ventricular system---which can cause things like a subdural, which is probably the most common complication associated with normal pressure hydrocephalus. So, to obviate those risks, what we do is typically insert the shunt and then keep the shunt setting at a high setting. The higher the setting, the less it drains, and then we bring it slowly down based on the patient's symptoms to try to minimize the risk of this over drainage in the subdural hematoma while at the same time benefiting the patient. So, there's a concern for shunt in patients with normal pressure hydrocephalus. The concern or the complication risks are very low. The problem with normal pressure hydrocephalus, though, is that over time these patients benefit less and less from drainage or their disease process takes over. So, I do recommend placing this shunt as soon as possible just so that we can maximize their quality of life for that period of time. Dr Berkowitz: So, if I'm understanding you, then the risk of complication is more sort of due to the mechanical factors in patients with congenital hydrocephalus or sort of outgrowing the shunt, their pressure dynamics may be changing over time. And in your experience, an older patient with NPH, although they may have more medical comorbidities, the procedure itself is relatively quick and low-risk. And the actual complications due to mechanical factors, my understanding, are just much less common because the patient is obviously fully grown and they're getting one sort of procedure at one point in time and tend to need less revision, have less complication. Is that right? Dr Chaichana: Yeah, that's correct. The complication risk for normal hydrocephalus is a lot less than other types of hydrocephalus. Dr Berkowitz: That's helpful to know. While we're talking about some of these complications, let's say we're following a patient in neurology with NPH who has a shunt. What are some of the symptoms and signs of shunt malfunction or shunt infection? And what are the best studies to order to evaluate for these if we're concerned about them? Dr Chaichana: Yeah. So basically, for shunt malfunction, it's basically broken down into two categories. It's either overdrainage or underdrainage. So, underdrainage is where the shunt doesn't function enough. And so basically, they return to their state before the shunt was placed. So that could be worsening gait function, memory function, urinary incontinence are the typical symptoms we look for in patients with normal pressure hydrocephalus and underdrainage, or the shunt is not working. For patients that are having overdrainage, which is draining too much, the classic sign is typically headaches when they stand up. And the reason behind that is when there's overdrainage, there's less cerebrospinal fluid in their ventricular system, which means less intracranial pressure. So that when they stand up, the pressure differential between their head and the ground is more than when they're lying down. And because of that pressure differential, they usually have worsening headaches when standing up or sitting up. The other thing are severe headaches, which would be a sign of a subdural hematoma or focality in their neurological symptoms that could point to a subdural hematoma, such as weakness, numbness, speaking problems, depending on the hemisphere. How we work this up is, regardless if you're concerned about overdrainage or underdrainage, we usually start with a CAT scan or an MRI scan. Typically, we prefer a CAT scan because it's quicker, but the CAT scan will show us if the ventricular caliber is the same and/or the placement of the proximal catheter. So, what we look for when we see that CAT scan or that MRI to see the location of the proximal catheter to make sure it hasn't changed from any previous settings. And then we see the caliber of the ventricles. If the caliber of the ventricles is smaller, that could be a sign of overdrainage. If the caliber of the ventricles are larger, it could be a sign of underdrainage. The other thing we look for are subdural fluid collections or hydromas or subdural hematomas, which would be another sign of lower endocranial pressure, which would be a sign of overdrainage. So those are the biggest signs we look for, for underdrainage and overdrainage. Other things we can look for if we're concerned of the shunt is fractured, we do a shunt X-ray and what a shunt x-ray is is x-rays of the skull, the neck and the abdomen to see the catheter to make sure it's not kinked or fractured. If you're really concerned, you can't tell from the x-ray, another scan to order is a CT of the chest and abdomen and pelvis to look at the location of the catheter to make sure there's no brakes in the catheter, there's no fluid collections on the distal portion of the catheter, which would be a sign of shunt malfunction as well. Other tests that you can do to really exclude shunt malfunction is a shunt patency test, and what that is a nuclear medicine test where radionucleotide is injected into the valve and then the radionucleotide is traced over time or imaged through time to make sure that it's draining appropriately from the valve into the distal catheter into the peritoneum or the distal site. If there's a shunt malfunction that's not drainage, that radioisotope would remain stagnant either in the valve or in the catheter. There's overdrainage, we can't really tell, but there will be a quick drainage of the radioisotope. For shunt infection, we start with an imaging just to make sure there's not a shunt malfunction, and that usually requires cerebrospinal fluid to test. The cerebrospinal fluid can come from the valve itself, or it can come from other areas like the lumbar spine. If the lumbar spine is showing signs of shunt infection, then that usually means the shunt is infected. If the valve is aspirated with- at the bedside with a butterfly needle into the valve and that shows signs of shunt infection, that also could be a sign of infection. Dr Berkowitz: That's very helpful. You mentioned CT and shunt series. One question that often comes up when obtaining neuroimaging in patients with a shunt, who have NPH or otherwise, is whether we need to call you when we're doing an MRI to reprogram the shunt before or after. Is there a way we can know as a neurologists at the bedside or as patients carry a card, like with some devices where we know whether we have to call and bother our neurosurgery colleagues to get this MRI? Or if the radiology techs ask us, is this safe? And is the patient's shunt going to get turned off? How do we go about determining this? Dr Chaichana: Yeah, so unfortunately, a lot of patients don't carry a card. We typically offer a card when we do the shunt, but that card, there's two problems with it. One is it tells the model, but the second thing is it has to be updated any time the shunt is changed to a different setting. Oftentimes patients don't know that shunt setting, and often times they don't know that company brand that they use. There are different types of shunts with different types of settings. If there's ever concern as to what type of shunt they have, an x-ray is usually the best bet to see with a shunt series, or a skull x-ray. A lateral skull x-ray usually looks at the valve, and the valve has certain radio-dense markers that indicate what type of shunt it is. And that way you can call neurosurgery and we can always tell you what the shunt setting is before the MRI is done. Problem with an MRI scan if you do it without a shunt x-ray before is that you don't know the setting before unless the patient really knows or it's in the patient chart, and the MRI can need to change the setting. It doesn't usually turn it off, but it would change the setting, which would change the fluid dynamics within their ventricular system, which could lead to overdrainage or underdrainage. So, any time a patient needs MRI imaging, whether it's even the brain MRI, a spine MRI, or even abdominal MRI, really a shunt x-ray should be done just to see the shunt setting so that it could be returned to that setting after the MRI is done. Dr Berkowitz: So, the only way to know sort of what type of shunt it would be short of the patient knowing or the patient getting care at the same hospital where the shunt was placed and looking it up in the operative reports would be a skull film. That would then tell us what type of shunt is there and then the marking of the setting. And then we would be able to call our colleagues in neurosurgery and say, this patient is getting an MRI this is the setting, this is the type of shunt. And do we need to call you afterwards to come by and reprogram it? Is that right? Dr Chaichana: That's correct, yeah. Dr Berkowitz: Is there anything we would be able to see on there, or it's best we just- best we just call you and clarify? Dr Chaichana: The easiest thing to do is, when you get the skull x-ray, you can Google different types of shunts or search for different shunts, and they'll have markers that show the type of shunt it is as well as the setting that it's at. And just match it up with the picture. Dr Berkowitz: And as long as it's not a programmable shunt, there's no concern about doing the MRI. Is that right? Dr Chaichana: Correct. So, if it's a programmable shunt, even if it's MRI-compatible, we still like to get the setting before and make sure the setting after the MRI is the same. Nonprogrammable shunts can't be changed with MRI scans, and those don't need neurosurgery after the MRI scan, but it should be confirmed before the scan is done. Dr Berkowitz: Very helpful. Okay, so let's turn to NPH specifically. As you know, there's a lot of debate in the literature, some arguing, even, NPH might not even exist, some saying it's underdiagnosed. I think. I don't know if it was last year at our American Academy of Neurology conference or certainly in recent years, there was a pro and con debate of "we are underdiagnosing NPH" versus "we are overdiagnosing NPH." What's your perspective as a neurosurgeon? What's the perspective in neurosurgery? Is this something we're underdiagnosing, and the times you shunt these patients you see miraculous results? Is this something that we're overdiagnosing, you get a lot of patients sent to that you think maybe won't benefit from a shunt? Or is it just really hard to say and some patients have shunt-responsive noncommunicating hydrocephalus of unclear etiology and either concurrent Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, cervical lumbar stenosis, neuropathy, vestibular problems, and all these other issues that play into multifactorial gait to sort of display a certain amount of the percentage of problem in a given patient or take overtime? What's your perspective if you're open to sharing it, or what's the perspective of neurosurgery? Is this debated as it is in neurology or this is just a standard thing you see and patients respond to shunt to some degree in some proportion of the time? And what are the sort of predictors you see in your experience? Dr Chaichana: Yeah, so, for me, I'd say it's too complicated for a neurosurgeon to evaluate. We rely on neurology to tell us whether or not they need a shunt. But I think the problem is, obviously, a part of the workout for at least the ones that I like to do, is that I want them to have a high-volume lumbar puncture with pre- and postgait analysis to see if there's really an objective measure of them improving. If they have an objective measure of improvement---and what's even better is that they have a subjective measure of improvement on top of the objective measure of improvement---then they benefit from a shunt. The problem is, some patients do benefit even though they don't have objective performance increases after a high-volume shunt. And those are the ones that make me the most worrisome to do the shunt, just because I don't like to do a procedure where there's no benefit for the patient. I do see, according to the literature as well, that there's around a 30 to 40%, even 50%, increase in gait function, even in patients that don't have large improvements following the high-volume lumbar puncture. And those are the most challenging patients for us as neurosurgeons because we'll put the shunt in, they say we're no better in terms of their gait, no better in terms of their urinary incontinence. We try to lower their shunt down to a certain setting and we're kind of stuck after that point. The good thing about NPH, though, is that, from the neurosurgery side, the shunt, like I said, is a pretty benign, low-risk procedure. So, we're not putting the patient through a very severe procedure to see if there's any benefit. So, in cases where we try to improve their quality of life in patients that don't have a benefit from high-volume lumbar puncture, we give them the odds of whether or not it's improving and say it might not improve. But because the procedure's minimally invasive, I think it's a good way to see if we can benefit their quality of life. Dr Berkowitz: Yeah, it's a very helpful perspective. Yeah, those are the most challenging cases on our side as well, right. If the patient- we think they may have NPH, or their gait and/or urinary and/or cognitive problems are- at least have a component of NPH that could be reversible, we certainly want to do the large volume lumbar puncture and/or consider a lumbar drain trial, all discussed in other articles and interviews for this issue of Continuum, But the really tough ones, as you said, there is this literature on patients who don't respond to the large-volume lumbar puncture for some reason but still may be shunt responsive. And despite all the imaging predictors and all the other ways we try to think about this, it's hard to know who's going to benefit. I think that's really a helpful perspective from your end that, as you say in the very beginning of your article, right, maybe there's a little bit too much fear of shunting on the neurology side because when we hear about shunts, it's often in the setting of complication. And so, we're not sort of getting the full spectrum of all the patients you shunt and you see who are doing just fine. They might not improve---the question is related to NPH---but at least they're not harmed by the shunt, and we're maybe overbiased and/or seeing a overly representative sample of negative shunt outcomes when they're actually not that common in practice. Is that a fair summary of your perspective? Dr Chaichana: Yeah, that's correct. So, I mean, complications can occur---and anytime you do a surgery, there are risks of complications---but I think they're relatively low for the benefit that we can help their quality of life. And the procedure's pretty short. So, the risk, it mostly outweighs the benefits in cases with normal pressure hydrocephalus. Dr Berkowitz: Very helpful perspective. So, well, thanks so much again. Today I've been interviewing Dr Kaisorn Chaichana about his article on management of normal pressure hydrocephalus, which he wrote with Dr Jeremy Cutsforth-Gregory. This article appears in the most recent issue of Continuum on disorders of CSF dynamics. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues, and thank you to our listeners for joining us today. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

 Normal pressure hydrocephalus (NPH) is a clinical syndrome of gait abnormality, cognitive impairment, and urinary incontinence. Evaluation of CSF dynamics, patterns of fludeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake, and patterns of brain stiffness may aid in the evaluation of challenging cases that lack typical clinical and structural radiographic features. In this episode, Katie Grouse, MD, FAAN, speaks with Aaron Switzer, MD, MSc, author of the article "Radiographic Evaluation of Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus" in the Continuum® June 2025 Disorders of CSF Dynamics issue. Dr. Grouse is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a clinical assistant professor at the University of California San Francisco in San Francisco, California. Dr. Switzer is a clinical assistant professor of neurology in the department of clinical neurosciences at the University of Calgary in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Additional Resources Read the article: Radiographic Evaluation of Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Grouse: This is Dr Katie Grouse. Today I'm interviewing Dr Aaron Switzer about his article on radiographic evaluation of normal pressure hydrocephalus, which he wrote with Dr Patrice Cogswell. This article appears in the June 2025 Continuum issue on disorders of CSF dynamics. Welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to our audience. Dr. Switzer: Thanks so much for having me, Katie. I'm a neurologist that's working up in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and I have a special interest in normal pressure hydrocephalus. So, I'm very happy to be here today to talk about the radiographic evaluation of NPH. Dr Grouse: I'm so excited to have you here today. It was really wonderful to read your article. I learned a lot on a topic that is not something that I frequently evaluate in my clinic. So, it's really just a pleasure to have you here to talk about this topic. So, I'd love to start by asking, what is the key message that you hope for neurologists who read your article to take away from it? Dr. Switzer: The diagnosis of NPH can be very difficult, just given the clinical heterogeneity in terms of how people present and what their images look like. And so, I'd like readers to know that detailed review of the patient's imaging can be very helpful to identify those that will clinically improve with shunt surgery. Dr Grouse: There's another really great article in this edition of Continuum that does a really great job delving into the clinical history and exam findings of NPH. So, I don't want to get into that topic necessarily today. However, I'd love to hear how you approach a case of a hypothetical patient, say, where you're suspicious of NPH based on the history and exam. I'd love to talk over how you approach the imaging findings when you obtain an MRI of the brain, as well as any follow-up imaging or testing that you generally recommend. Dr. Switzer: So, I break my approach down into three parts. First, I want to try to identify ventriculomegaly and any signs that would support that, and specifically those that are found in NPH. Secondly, I want to look for any alternative pathology or evidence of alternative pathology to explain the patient's symptoms. And then also evaluate any contraindications for shunt surgery. For the first one, usually I start with measuring Evans index to make sure that it's elevated, but then I want to measure one of the other four measurements that are described in the article, such as posterior colossal angle zed-Evans index---or z-Evans index for the American listeners---to see if there's any other features that can support normal pressure hydrocephalus. It's very important to identify whether there are features of disproportionately enlarged subarachnoid space hydrocephalus, or DESH, which can help identify patients who may respond to shunt surgery. And then if it's really a cloudy clinical picture, it's complicated, it's difficult to know, I would usually go through the full evaluation of the iNPH radscale to calculate a score in order to determine the likelihood that this patient has NPH. So, the second part of my evaluation is to rule out evidence of any alternative pathology to suggest another cause for the patient's symptoms, such as neurodegeneration or cerebrovascular disease. And then the third part of my evaluation is to look for any potential contraindications for shunt surgery, the main one being cerebral microbleed count, as a very high count has been associated with the hemorrhagic complications following shunt surgery. Dr Grouse: You mentioned about your use of the various scales to calculate for NPH, and your article does a great job laying them out and where they can be helpful. Are there any of these scales that can be reasonably relied on to predict the presence of NPH and responsiveness to shunt placement? Dr. Switzer: I think the first thing to acknowledge is that predicting shunt response is still a big problem that is not fully solved in NPH. So, there is not one single imaging feature, or even combination of imaging features, that can reliably predict shunt response. But in my view and in my practice, it's identifying DESH, I think, is really important---so, the disproportionately enlarged subarachnoid space hydrocephalus---as well as measuring the posterior colossal angle. I find those two features to be the most specific. Dr Grouse: Now you mentioned the concept of the NPH subtypes, and while this may be something that many of our listeners are familiar with, I suspect that, like myself when I was reading this article, there are many who maybe have not been keeping up to date on these various subtypes. Could you briefly tell us more about these NPH subtypes? Dr. Switzer: Sure. The Japanese guidelines for NPH have subdivided NPH into three different main categories. So that would be idiopathic, delayed onset congenital, and secondary normal pressure hydrocephalus. And so, I think the first to talk about would be the secondary NPH. We're probably all more familiar with that. That's any sort of pathology that could lead to disruption in CSF dynamics. These are things like, you know, a slow-growing tumor that is obstructing CSF flow or a widespread meningeal process that's reducing absorption of CSF, for instance. So, identifying these can be important because it may offer an alternative treatment for what you're seeing in the patient. The second important one is delayed onset congenital. And when you see an image of one of these subtypes, it's going to be pretty different than the NPH because the ventricles are going to be much larger, the sulcal enfacement is going to be more diffuse. Clinically, you may see that the patients have a higher head circumference. So, the second subtype to know about would be the delayed onset congenital normal pressure hydrocephalus. And when you see an image of one of these subtypes, it's going to be a little different than the imaging of NPH because the ventricles are going to be much larger, the sulcal enfacement is going to be more diffuse. And there are two specific subtypes that I'd like you to know about. The first would be long-standing overt ventriculomegaly of adulthood, or LOVA. And the second would be panventriculomegaly with a wide foramen of magendie and large discernomagna, which is quite a mouthful, so we just call it PAVUM. The importance of identifying these subtypes is that they may be amenable to different types of treatment. For instance, LOVA can be associated with aqueductal stenosis. So, these patients can get better when you treat them with an endoscopic third ventriculostomy, and then you don't need to move ahead with a shunt surgery. And then finally with idiopathic, that's mainly what we're talking about in this article with all of the imaging features. I think the important part about this is that you can have the features of DESH, or you can not have the features of DESH. The way to really define that would be how the patient would respond to a large-volume tap or a lumbar drain in order to define whether they have this idiopathic NPH. Dr Grouse: That's really helpful. And for those of our listeners who are so inclined, there is a wonderful diagram that lays out all these subtypes that you can take a look at. I encourage you to familiarize yourself with these different subtypes. Now it was really interesting to read in your article about some of the older techniques that we used quite some time ago for diagnosing normal pressure hydrocephalus that thankfully we're no longer using, including isotope encephalography and radionuclide cisternography. It certainly made me grateful for how we've come in our diagnostic tools for NPH. What do you think the biggest breakthrough in diagnostic tools that are now clinically available are? Dr. Switzer: You know, definitely the advent of structural imaging was very important for the evaluation of NPH, and specifically the identification of disproportionately enlarged subarachnoid space hydrocephalus, or DESH, in the late nineties has been very helpful for increasing the specificity of diagnosis in NPH. But some of the newer technologies that have become available would be phase-contrast MRI to measure the CSF flow rate through the aqueduct has been very helpful, as well as high spatial resolution T2 imaging to actually image the ventricular system and look for any evidence of expansion of the ventricles or obstruction of CSF flow. Dr Grouse: Regarding the scales that you had referenced earlier, do you think that we can look forward to more of these scales being automatically calculated and reported by various software techniques and radiographic interpretation techniques that are available or going to be available? Dr. Switzer: Definitely yes. And some of these techniques are already in development and used in research settings, and most of them are directed towards automatically detecting the features of DESH. So, that's the high convexity tight sulci, the focally enlarged sulci, and the enlarged Sylvian fissures. And separating the CSF from the brain tissue can help you determine where CSF flow is abnormal throughout the brain and give you a more accurate picture of CSF dynamics. And this, of course, is all automated. So, I do think that's something to keep an eye out for in the future. Dr Grouse: I wanted to ask a little more about the CSF flow dynamics, which I think may be new to a lot of our listeners, or certainly something that we've only more recently become familiar with. Can you tell us more about these advances and how we can apply this information to our evaluations for NPH? Dr. Switzer: So currently, only the two-dimensional phase contrast MRI technique is available on a clinical basis in most centers. This will measure the actual flow rate through the cerebral aqueduct. And so, in NPH, this can be elevated. So that can be a good supporting marker for NPH. In the future, we can look forward to other techniques that will actually look at three-dimensional or volume changes over time and this could give us a more accurate picture of aberrations and CSF dynamics. Dr Grouse: Well, definitely something to look forward to. And on the topic of other sort of more cutting-edge or, I think, less commonly-used technologies, you also mentioned some other imaging modalities, including diffusion imaging, intrathecal gadolinium imaging, nuclear medicine studies, MR elastography, for example. Are any of these modalities particularly promising for NPH evaluations, in your opinion? Do you think any of these will become more popularly used? Dr. Switzer: Yes, I think that diffusion tract imaging and MR elastography are probably the ones to keep your eye out for. They're a little more widely applicable because you just need an MR scanner to acquire the images. It's not invasive like the other techniques mentioned. So, I think it's going to be a lot easier to implement into clinical practice on a wide scale. So, those would be the ones that I would look out for in the future. Dr Grouse: Well, that's really exciting to hear about some of these techniques that are coming that may help us even more with our evaluation. Now on that note, I want to talk a little bit more about how we approach the evaluation and, in your opinion, some of the biggest pitfalls in the evaluation of NPH that you've found in your career. Dr. Switzer: I think there are three of note that I'd like to mention. The first would be overinterpreting the Evans index. So, just because an image shows that there's an elevated Evans index does not necessarily mean that NPH is present. So that's where looking for other corroborating evidence and looking for the clinical features is really important in the evaluation. Second would be misidentifying the focally enlarged sulci as atrophy because when you're looking at a brain with these blebs of CSF space in different parts of the brain, you may want to associate that to neurodegeneration, but that's not necessarily the case. And there are ways to distinguish between the two, and I think that's another common pitfall. And then third would be in regards to the CSF flow rate through the aqueduct. And so, an elevated CSF flow is suggestive of NPH, but the absence of that does not necessarily rule NPH out. So that's another one to be mindful of. Dr Grouse: That's really helpful. And then on the flip side, any tips or tricks or clinical pearls you can share with us that you found to be really helpful for the evaluation of NPH? Dr. Switzer: One thing that I found really helpful is to look for previous imaging, to look if there were features of NPH at that time, and if so, have they evolved over time; because we know that in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus, especially in the dash phenotype, the ventricles can become larger and the effacement of the sulci at the convexity can become more striking over time. And this could be a helpful tool to identify how long that's been there and if it fits with the clinical history. So that's something that I find very helpful. Dr Grouse: Absolutely. When I read that point in your article, I thought that was really helpful and, in fact, I'm guessing something that a lot of us probably aren't doing. And yet many of our patients for one reason or other, probably have had imaging five, ten years prior to their time of evaluation that could be really helpful to look back at to see that evolution. Dr. Switzer: Yes, absolutely. Dr Grouse: It's been such a pleasure to read your article and talk with you about this today. Certainly a very important and helpful topic for, I'm sure, many of our listeners. Dr. Switzer: Thank you so much for having me. Dr Grouse: Again, today I've been interviewing Dr Aaron Switzer about his article on radiographic evaluation of normal pressure hydrocephalus, which he wrote with Dr Patrice Cogswell. This article appears in the most recent issue of Continuum on disorders of CSF dynamics. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues, and thank you to our listeners for joining today. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Normal pressure hydrocephalus (NPH) is a clinical syndrome characterized by the triad of gait apraxia, cognitive impairment, and bladder dysfunction in the radiographic context of ventriculomegaly and normal intracranial pressure. Accurate diagnosis requires consideration of clinical and imaging signs, complemented by tests to exclude common mimics. In this episode, Lyell Jones, MD, FAAN speaks with Abhay R. Moghekar, MBBS, author of the article "Clinical Features and Diagnosis of Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus" in the Continuum® June 2025 Disorders of CSF Dynamics issue. Dr. Jones is the editor-in-chief of Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology® and is a professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Dr. Moghekar is an associate professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland. Additional Resources Read the article: Clinical Features and Diagnosis of Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @LyellJ Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology. Today I'm interviewing Dr Abhay Moghekar, who recently authored an article on the clinical features and diagnosis of normal pressure hydrocephalus for our first-ever issue of Continuum dedicated to disorders of CSF dynamics. Dr Moghekar is an associate professor of neurology and the research director of the Cerebrospinal Fluid Center at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. Dr Moghekar, welcome, and thank you for joining us today. Why don't you introduce yourself to our listeners? Dr Moghekar: Thank you, Dr Jones. I'm Abhay Moghekar. I'm a neurologist at Hopkins, and I specialize in seeing patients with CSF disorders, of which normal pressure hydrocephalus happens to be the most common. Dr Jones: And let's get right to it. I think most of our listeners who are neurologists in practice have encountered normal pressure hydrocephalus, or NPH; and it's a challenging disorder for all the reasons that you outline in your really outstanding article. If you were going to think of one single most important message to our listeners about recognizing patients with NPH, what would that be? Dr Moghekar: I think I would say there are two important messages. One is that the triad is not sufficient to make the diagnosis, and the triad is not necessary to make the diagnosis. You know these three elements of the triad: cognitive problems, gait problems, bladder control problems are so common in the elderly that if you pick 10 people out in the community that have this triad, it's unlikely that even one of them has true NPH. On the other hand, you don't need all three elements of the triad to make the diagnosis because the order of symptoms matters. Often patients develop gait dysfunction first, then cognitive dysfunction, and then urinary incontinence. If you wait for all three elements of the triad to be present, it may be too late to offer them any clear benefit. And hence, you know, it's neither sufficient nor necessary to make the diagnosis. Dr Jones: That's a really great point. I think most of our listeners are familiar with the fact that, you know, we're taught these classic triads or pentads or whatever, and they're rarely all present. In a way, it's maybe a useful prompt, but it could be distracting or misleading, even in a way, in terms of recognizing the patient. So what clues do you use, Dr Moghekar, to really think that a patient may have NPH? Dr Moghekar: So, there are two important aspects about gait dysfunction. Say somebody comes in with all three elements of the triad. You want to know two things. Which came first? If gate impairment precedes cognitive impairment, it's still very likely that NPH is in the differential. And of the two, which are more- relatively more affected? So, if somebody has very severe dementia and they have a little bit of gait problems, NPH is not as likely. So, is gait affected earlier than cognitive dysfunction, and is it affected to a more severe degree than cognitive dysfunction? And those two things clue me in to the possibility of NPH. You still obviously need to get imaging to make sure that they have large ventricles. One of the problems with imaging is large ventricles are present in so many different patients. Normal aging causes large ventricles. Obviously, many neurodegenerative disorders because of cerebral atrophy will cause large ventricles. And there's an often-used metric called as the events index, which is the ratio of the bitemporal horns- of the frontal horns of the lateral ventricles compared to the maximum diameter of the skull at that level. And if that ratio is more than 0.3, it's often used as a de facto measure of ventriculomegaly. What we've increasingly realized is that this ratio changes with age. And there's an excellent study that used the ADNI database that looked at how this ratio changes by age and sex. So, in fact, we now know that an 85-year-old woman who has an events index of 0.37 which would be considered ventriculomegaly is actually normal for age and sex. So, we need to start adopting these more modern age- and sex-appropriate age cutoffs of ventriculomegaly so as not to overcall everybody with big ventricles as having possible NPH. Dr Jones: That's very helpful. And I do want to come back to this challenge that we've seen in our field of overdiagnosis and underdiagnosis. But I think most of us are familiar with the concept of how hydrocephalus could cause neurologic deficits. But what's the latest on the mechanism of NPH? Why do some patients get this and others don't? Dr Moghekar: Very good question. I don't think we know for sure. And it for a long time we thought it was a plumbing issue. Right? And that's why shunts work. People thought it was impaired CSF absorption, but multiple studies have shown that not to be true. It's likely a combination of impaired cerebral blood flow, biomechanical factors like compliance, and even congenital factors that play a role in the pathogenesis of NPH. And yes, while putting in shunts likely drains CSF, putting in a shunt also definitely changes the compliance of the brain and affects blood flow to the subcortical regions of the brain. So, there are likely multiple mechanisms by which shunts benefit, and hence it's very likely that there's no single explanation for the pathogenesis of NPH. Dr Jones: We explored this in a recent Continuum issue on dementia. Many patients who have cognitive impairment have co-pathologies, multiple different causes. I was interested to read in your article about the genetic risk profile for NPH. It's not something I'd ever really considered in a disorder that is predominantly seen in older patients. Tell us a little more about those genetic risks. Dr Moghekar: Yeah, everyone is aware of the role genetics plays in congenital hydrocephalus, but until recently we were not aware that certain genetic factors may also be relevant to adult-onset normal pressure hydrocephalus. We've suspected this for a long time because nearly half of our patients who come to us to see us in clinic with NPH have head circumferences that are more than 90th percentile for height. And you know, that clearly indicates that this started shortly at the time after birth or soon afterwards. So, we've suspected for a long time that genetic factors play a role, but for a long time there were not enough large studies or well-conducted studies. But recently studies out of Japan and the US have shown mutations in genes like CF43 and CWH43 are disproportionately increased in patients with NPH. So, we are discovering increasingly that there are genetic factors that underlie even adult onset in patients. There are many more waiting to be discovered. Dr Jones: Really fascinating. And obviously getting more insight into the risk and mechanisms would be helpful in identifying these patients potentially earlier. And another thing that I learned in your article that I thought was really interesting, and maybe you can tell us more about it, is the association between normal pressure hydrocephalus and the observation of cervical spinal stenosis, many of whom require decompression. What's behind that association, do you think? Dr Moghekar: That's a very interesting study that was actually done at your institution, at Mayo Clinic, that showed this association. You know, as we all get older, you know, the incidence of cervical stenosis due to osteoarthritis goes up, but the incidence of significant, clinically significant cervical stenosis in the NPH population was much higher than what we would have expected. Whether this is merely an association in a vulnerable population or is it actually causal is not known and will need further study. Dr Jones: It's interesting to speculate, does that stenosis affect the flow of CSF and somehow predispose to a- again, maybe a partial degree for some patients? Dr Moghekar: Yeah, which goes back to the possible hydrodynamic theory of normal pressure hydrocephalus; you know, if it's obstructing normal CSF flow, you know, are the hydrodynamics affected in the brain that in turn could lead to the development of hydrocephalus. Dr Jones: One of the things I really enjoyed about your article, Abhay, was the very strong clinical focus, right? We can't just take an isolated biomarker or radiographic feature and rely on that, right? We really do need to have clinical suspicion, clinical judgment. And I think most of our listeners who've been in practice are familiar with the use and the importance of the large-volume lumbar puncture to determine who may have, and by exclusion not have, NPH, and then who might respond to CSF diversion. And I think those of us who have been in this situation are also familiar with the scenario where you think someone may have NPH and you do a large-volume lumbar puncture and they feel better, but you can't objectively see a difference. How do you make that test useful and objective in your practice? What do you do? Dr Moghekar: Yeah, it's a huge challenge in getting this objective assessment done carefully because you have to remember, you know, subconsciously you're telling the patients, I think you have NPH. I'm going to do this spinal tap, and if you walk better afterwards, you're going to get a shunt and you're going to be cured. And you can imagine the huge placebo response that can elicit in our subjects. So, we always like to see, definitely, did the patient subjectively feel better? Because yes, that's an important metric to consider because we want them to feel better. But we also wanted to be grounded in objective truths. And for that, we need to do different tests of speed, balance and endurance. Not everyone has the resources to do this, but I think it's important to test different domains. Just like for cognition, you know, we just don't test memory, right? We test executive function, language, visuospatial function. Similarly, walking is not just walking, right? It's gait speed, it's balance, and it's endurance. So, you need to ideally test at least most of these different domains for gait and you need to have some kind of clear criteria as to how are you going to define improvement. You know, is a 5% improvement, is a 10% improvement in gait, enough? Is 20%? Where is that cutoff? And as a field, we've not done a great job of coming up with standardized criteria for this. And it varies currently, the practice varies quite significantly from center to center at the current time. Dr Jones: So, one of the nice things you had in your article was helpful tips to be objective if you're in a lower-resource setting. For you, this isn't a common scenario that someone encounters in their practice as opposed to a center that maybe does a large volume of these. What are some relatively straightforward objective measures that a neurologist or someone else might use to determine if someone is improving after a large-volume LP? Dr Moghekar: Yeah, excellent question, Dr Jones, and very practically relevant too. So, you need to at least assess two of the domains that are most affected. One is speed and one is balance. You know, these patients fall ultimately, right, if you don't treat them correctly. In terms of speed, there are two very simple tests that anybody can do within a couple of minutes. One is the timed "up-and-go" test. It's a test that's even recommended by the CDC. It correlates very well with faults and disability and it can be done in any clinic. You just need about ten feet of space and a chair and a stopwatch, and it takes about a minute or slightly more to do that test. And there are objective age-associated norms for the timed up-and-go test, so it's easy to know if your patient is normal or not. The same thing goes for the 10-meter walk test. You do need a slightly longer walkway, but it's a fairly easy and well-standardized test. So, you can do one of those two; you don't need to do both of them. And for balance, you can do the 30-second "sit-to-stand"; and it's literally, again, 30 seconds. You need a chair, and you need somebody to watch the patient and see how many times they can sit up and stand up from a seated position. Then again, good normative data for that. If you want to be a little more sophisticated, you can do the 4-stage balance test. So, I think these are tests that don't add too much time to your daily assessment and can be done with even trained medical assistants in any clinic. And you don't need a trained physical therapist to do these assessments. Dr Jones: Very practical. And again, something that is pretty easily deployed, something we do before and then after the LP. I did see you mentioned in your article the dual timed up-and-go test where it's a simultaneous gait and executive function test. And I've got to be honest with you, Dr Moghekar, I was a little worried if I would pass that test, but that may be beyond the scope of our time today. Actually, how do you do that? How do you do the simultaneous cognitive assessment? Dr Moghekar: So, we asked them to count back from 100, subtracting 3. And we do it particularly in patients who are mildly impaired right? So, if they're already walking really good, but then you give them a cognitive stressor, you know, that will slow them down. So, we reserve it for patients who are high-performing. Dr Jones: That's fantastic. I'm probably aging myself a little here. I have noticed in my career, a little bit of a pendulum swing in terms of the recognition or acceptance of the prevalence of normal pressure hydrocephalus. I recall when I was a resident, many, many people that we saw in clinic had normal pressure hydrocephalus. Then it seemed for a while that it really faded into the background and was much less discussed and much less recognized and diagnosed, and less treated. And now that pendulum seems to have swung back the other way. What's behind that from your perspective? Dr Moghekar: It's an interesting backstory to all of this. When the first article about NPH was published in the Newman Journal of Medicine, it was actually a combined article with both neurologists and neurosurgeons on it. They did describe it as a treatable dementia. And what that did is it opened up the floodgates so that everybody with any kind of dementia started getting shunts left, right, and center. And back then, shunts were not programmable. There were no antibiotic impregnated catheters. So, the incidence of subdural hematomas and shunt-related infections was very high. In fact, one of our esteemed neurologists back then, Houston Merritt, wrote a scathing editorial that Victor and Adam should lose their professorships for writing such an article because the outcomes of these patients were so bad. So, for a very long period of time, neurologists stopped seeing these patients and stopped believing in NPH as a separate entity. And it became the domain of neurosurgeons for over two or three decades, until more recently when randomized trials started being done early on out of Europe. And now there's a big NIH study going on in the US, and these studies showed, in fact, that NPH exists as a true, distinct entity. And finally, neurologists have started getting more interested in the science and understanding the pathophysiology and taking care of these patients compared to the past. Dr Jones: That's really helpful context. And I guess that maybe isn't rare when you have a disorder that doesn't have a simple, straightforward biomarker and is complex in terms of the tests you need to do to support the diagnosis, and the treatment itself is somewhat invasive. So, when you talk to your patients, Dr Moghekar, and you've established the diagnosis and have recommended them for CSF diversion, what do you tell them? And the reason I ask is that you mentioned before we started recording, you had a patient who had a shunt placed and responded well, but continued to respond over time. Tell us a little bit more about what our patients can expect if they do have CSF diversion? Dr Moghekar: When we do the spinal tap and they meet our criteria for improvement and they go on to have a shunt, we tell them that we expect gait improvement definitely, but cognitive improvement may not happen in everyone depending on what time, you know, they showed up for their assessment and intervention. But we definitely expect gait improvement. And we tell them that the minimum gait improvement we can expect is the same degree of improvement they had after their large-volume lumbar puncture, but it can be even more. And as the brain remodels, as the hydrodynamics adapt to these shunts… so, we have patients who continue to improve one year, two years, and even three years into the course of the intervention. So, we're, you know, hopeful. At the same time, we want to be realistic. This is the same population that's at risk for developing neurodegenerative disorders related to aging. So not a small fraction of our patients will also have Alzheimer's disease, for example, or go on to develop Lewy body dementia. And it's the role of the neurologist to pick up on these comorbid conditions. And that's why it's important for us to keep following these patients and not leave them just to the neurosurgeon to follow up. Dr Jones: And what a great note to end on, Dr Moghekar. And again, I want to thank you for joining us, and thank you for such a wonderful discussion and such a fantastic article on the clinical diagnosis of normal pressure hydrocephalus. I learned a lot reading the article, and I learned a lot more today just in the conversation with you. So, thank you for being with us. Dr Moghekar: Happy to do that, Dr Jones. It was a pleasure. Dr Jones: Again, we've been speaking with Dr Abhay Moghekar, author of a wonderful article on the clinical features and diagnosis of NPH in Continuum's first-ever issue dedicated to disorders of CSF dynamics. Please check it out. And thank you to our listeners for joining today. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH), a condition of increased intracranial pressure (ICP), causes debilitating headaches and, in some, visual loss. The visual defects are often in the periphery and not appreciated by the patient until advanced; therefore, monitoring visual function with serial examinations and visual fields is essential. In this episode, Kait Nevel, MD speaks with John J. Chen, MD, PhD, and Susan P. Mollan, MBChB, PhD, FRCOphth, authors of the article "Treatment and Monitoring of Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension" in the Continuum® June 2025 Disorders of CSF Dynamics issue. Dr. Nevel is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a neurologist and neuro-oncologist at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, Indiana. Dr. Chen is a professor of ophthalmology and neurology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Dr. Mollan is an honorary professor of metabolism and systems science in the department of neuro-ophthalmology at University Hospitals Birmingham in Birmingham, United Kingdom. Additional Resources Read the article: Treatment and Monitoring of Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @IUneurodocmom Guests: @chenmayo, @DrMollan Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Nevel: Hello, this is Dr Kate Nevel. Today, I'm interviewing Drs John Chen and Susan Mollan about their article on treatment and monitoring of idiopathic intracranial hypertension, which appears in the June 2025 Continuum issue on disorders of CSF dynamics. Drs Chen and Mollan, welcome to the podcast. And please, could you introduce yourselves to the audience? Dr Chen: Hello, everyone. I'm John Chen, one of the neuro-ophthalmologists at the Mayo Clinic. Thanks for having us here. Dr Mollan: Yeah, it's great to be with you here. I'm Susan Mollan. I'm a consultant neuro-ophthalmologist in Birmingham, England. Dr Nevel: Wonderful. So great to have you both here today, and our listeners. To start us off, talking about your article, can you share with us what you think is the most important takeaway from your article for the practicing neurologist out there? Dr Chen: Yeah, so our article talked about the treatment and monitoring of IIH. And I think one takeaway point is, IIH is becoming much more prevalent now that there's this worldwide obesity epidemic with obesity having- essentially being the largest risk factor for IIH other than female. It's really important to monitor vision because vision loss is often peripheral vision loss at first, which the patient may be completely unaware of. And so, it's important to pair up with an ophthalmologist so you can monitor the papilledema of the visual fields and make sure they don't get permanent vision loss. And in the article, we also talk about- there's been changes in the treatment of severe IIH, where traditionally, we used VP shunts; but there's been a trend toward using more venous sinus stenting in addition to the traditional surgeries. Dr Nevel: Great, thank you. I think probably most of our listeners or a lot of neurologists out there have a pretty good understanding of kind of the basics of the IIH. But can you kind of just go over a few key characteristics of IIH, and maybe some things that are less commonly known or things that are maybe just been kind of better understood over the past decade, perhaps? Dr Mollan: Yes, certainly. I think, as Dr Chen said, it's because this condition is becoming more prevalent, people recognize it. I think it's- we like to go back to the diagnostic criteria so that we're making a very accurate diagnosis. So, the patients may come in to the emergency room with, say, papilledema that's been identified elsewhere or crashing headaches. And it's important to go through that sort of diagnostic pathway, taking a blood pressure, taking a full blood count to make sure the patient is anemic, and then moving forward with that confirmation of papilledema into urgent neuroimaging, whether it's CT or MRI, but including venography to exclude a venous sinus thrombosis. And then if you have no structural lesion that's causing the raised ICP, it's moving forward with your lumbar puncture and carefully checking those pressures. But the patients may not only have crashing headache, they often have pulsatile tinnitus and neck pain. I think some of the features that we're now recognizing is the systemic metabolic effects that are unique to IIH. And so, there's an increased risk of cardiometabolic disease that's over and above what is conferred by obesity. Also, our patients have a sort of maternal health burden where they get impaired fertility, gestational diabetes and preeclampsia. And there's also an associated mental health burden, amongst other things. So we're really starting to understand the spectrum of the disease a bit more. Dr Nevel: Yeah, thank you for that. And that really struck me in your article, how important it is to be aware of those things so that we're making sure that we're managing our whole patient and connecting them with the appropriate providers for some of those other issues that may be associated. For the practicing neurologist out there without all the neuro-ophthalmology equipment, if you will, what should our bedside exam focus on to help us get maybe an early but accurate picture of the patient's visual function when we suspect IIH to be at play, perhaps before they can get in with the neuro-ophthalmologist? Dr Chen: Yeah, I think at the bedside you can still check visual acuity and confrontational visual fields, you know, with finger counting. Of course, you have to know that those are, kind of, crude kind of ways of screening. With papilledema, oftentimes the visual acuity is intact. And the confrontational visual fields aren't as sensitive as automated perimetry. Another important thing will be to do your direct ophthalmoscope and look at the amount of papilledema. If it's grade one or two papilledema on the more mild side, it's actually not vision threatening. It's the higher degrees of papilledema that can cause rapid vision loss. And so, if you look in and you see grade one papilledema, obviously you need to do the full workup, the MRI, MRV, lumbar puncture. But in terms of rapidly getting to an ophthalmologist to screen for vision loss, it's not going to be as important because you're not going to have vision loss at that low grade. If you look in and you see this rip-roaring papilledema, grade five papilledema, that patient is going to be at very severe risk of vision loss. So, I think that exam, looking at the optic nerve can be very helpful. And of course, talking to the patient about symptoms; is there decreased vision Is there double vision from a sixth nerve palsy? Are there transient visual obscurations which would indicate at least a higher degree of papilledema? That'd be helpful as well. Dr Nevel: Great, thank you. And when the patient does get in with a neuro-ophthalmologist, you talk in your article and, of course, in clinical practice, how OCT testing is important to monitor in this condition. Can you provide for the listeners the definition of OCT and how it plays a role in monitoring patients with IIH? Dr Mollan: Sure. So, OCT is short for optical coherence tomography imaging, and really the eye has been at the forefront of OCT alone. Our sort of cardiology colleagues are catching up on the imaging of blood vessels. But what it allows us to do is give us really good cross-sectional, anatomical-level changes that we can see both in the retina and also at the optic nerve head. And it gives us some really good measurements. It's not so good at sort of saying, is this definitely papilledema or not? That sort of lower end of disc elevation. But it is very good at ruling out what we call the pseudopapilledema. So, things like drusens or these other little masses we find underneath the optic nerve head. But in terms of monitoring, because we can longitudinally take these images and the reproducibility is pretty good at the optic nerve head, it allows us to see whether there's direct changes: either the papilledema getting worse or the papilledema getting better at the optic nerve head. It also gives us some indication of what's going on in the ganglion cell layer complex. And that can be helpful when we're thinking about sort of looking at structure versus function. So, ophthalmologists in general, we love OCT; and we spend much more time nowadays looking at the OCT than we really do the back of the eye. And it's just become critical for patients with papilledema to be able to be very accurate from visit to visit to see what's changing. Dr Nevel: How do you determine how frequently somebody needs to see the neuro-ophthalmologist with IIH and how often they need that OCT evaluation? Dr Chen: Once the diagnosis of IIH is made, how often they need to be seen and how frequent they need to be seen depends on the degree of papilledema. And again, OCT is really nice. You can quantify it and then different providers can actually use the same OCT numbers, which is super helpful. But again, if it's grade three papilledema or higher, or article thickness of 200 or higher, I tend to follow them a little bit more closely, trying to treat them more aggressively. Try to get the papilledema down into a safer zone. If it's grade one or two papilledema, we see them less frequently. So, my first visit might be three months out. They come with grade five papilledema, I'm seeing them within a few days to make sure that's papilledema's come down quickly because we're trying to decide, are they going to need surgery or not? Dr Nevel: Yeah, great. And that's a nice segue into talking a little bit about how we treat patients with IIH after the diagnosis is confirmed. And I'd like to just point out you have a very lovely figure in your article---Figure 5-6,---that I'd like to direct our listeners to read your article and check out that figure, which is kind of an algorithm on how we think about the various treatment options for patients who have IIH, which seems to rely a lot on the degree of presence of papilledema and the presence of vision disturbance. Could you maybe walk us through a little bit about how you think about the different treatment options for patients with IIH and when more urgent surgical intervention might be indicated? Dr Mollan: Yeah, sure. We always find it quite hard in any medical specialty to write these kind of flow diagrams because it's really an individual we're looking at. But these are kind of what we'd say is "broad brushstrokes" into those patients that we worry about, sort of, red disease in those patients, more amber disease. Now obviously, even those patients that may not have severe papilledema, they may have crashing headaches. So, they may be an urgent referral themselves because of that. And so, it's nice to try and work out which end of the spectrum you're working with. If we think of the papilledema, Dr Chen's already laid out the sort of lower end of the prison's scale---our grades one, our grades two---that we're less anxious about. And those patients, we would definitely be having discussions about medical management, which includes acetazolamide therapy; but also thinking about weight management. And it may well be that we talk a little bit further about weight management, but I think it's helpful to sort of coach those conversations after you've made a definite diagnosis. And then laying out the risk that's caused, potentially, the IIH in an individual. And then having a sort of open conversation with them about what changes they can have in their lifestyle alongside thinking about medical therapy. There's some patients with very low levels of papilledema that we decide not to put on medicines initially. As patients progress up that papilledema grade, we're definitely thinking about medical therapy. And our first line from the IIH treatment trial would be using acetazolamide, but we need to be thinking about using appropriate dosing. So, a lot of the patients that I see can be sent to me with very low doses that may be inappropriate for that person. In the IIHTT they used up to four grams daily in a divided dose. And you do need to counsel your patients when you're putting them on acetazolamide because of the side effects. You've got quite a nice table in this article about the side effects. I think if you get the patient on board, that they understand that they will experience side effects, that is helpful because they will expect it, and then possibly tolerate it a bit better. Moving through to that area where we're more anxious, that visual-threatening papilledema. As Dr Chen said, it's sort of like you look in and it's sort of "blood and thunder" in there. And you need to be getting on and encouraging the ophthalmologist to get a formal assessment of the visual field. It's very difficult to determine exactly the level at which- and we talk about the mean deviation in a lot of our research studies. But in general, it's a combination of things: the patient's journey to get to you, their symptoms, what's going on with the visual field, but what's also happening at the OCT. So, we look in and we see that fluid is seeping towards the fovea. We get very anxious, and those patients may not even have enough time for a rapid escalation of acetazolamide. It may well be at the first presentation, which we would term, like, fulminant; that we'd be thinking about surgical intervention. And I think before I stop, the other thing to say is, the surgical landscape is really changing. So, we're having some good studies coming out in terms of stenting. And so, there is a sort of bracket where it may well be that we are thinking about neuroradiological intervention in an earlier case. They may not quite be at that visual-threatening stage, but they may be resistant to medical treatments. Dr Nevel: Thank you for that. What do you think is a potential pitfall or a mistake to avoid, if you will, in the management of patients with IIH? Dr Chen: I think it's- in terms of pitfalls, I think the potential pitfalls I've seen are essentially patients where we don't necessarily create a good patient physician relationship. Where they don't have buy-ins on the treatment, they don't have buy-ins to come back, and they're lost to follow-up. And these patients can be dangerous, because they could have vision threatening papilledema and if not getting the appropriate treatment---and if they're not monitoring the vision---this can lead to poor outcomes. So, I've definitely seen that happen. As Dr Mollan said, you really have to tell them about the side effects from the medications. If you just take acetazolamide, letting them know the paresthesias and the changes in taste and some of these other side effects, they're going to immediately stop the medication. Again, and these medications do work, proven in the IIH treatment trial. So again, I think that patient-physician relationship is very important to make sure they have appropriate follow up. Dr Nevel: The topic of weight loss in this patient population can be tricky, and I know I talked with Susie in a prior interview about how to approach this topic with our patients in a sensitive and compassionate manner. Once this topic is broached, I find many patients are looking for advice on strategies for weight loss, or potentially medications or other interventions. How do you prioritize or think about the different weight loss strategies or treatments with your patients, and how do you think about the way that you recommend these different treatments or not? Dr Mollan: Yeah. I think that's a really great question because we sort of stray here into a specialty that we have not been trained in. One thing I definitely ask my patients: if they've been on a weight loss journey before, and what's worked for them and what's not worked for them. And within our different healthcare systems, we have access to different tiers of weight management approaches. But for the person sitting in front of me, that possibly there may be a long journey to access more professional care, it's about understanding. iIs there things that are free, such as, we have some apps in the National Health Service which are weight management applications where they can actually just start putting in their calories, their daily calorie intake. And those apps can be quite helpful and guiding in terms of targeting areas, but also informing the patient of what types of foods to avoid in their diet and what types of foods to include in their diet. And with some of the programs that are completely complementary, they also sometimes add on things about exercise. But I think it is a really difficult thing to manage as, say, an ophthalmologist or a neurologist, mainly because it's not our area of expertise. And I think we've all got to find, in our local hospitals and healthcare systems, those pathways where the patients may be able to access nutritional support, and sort of behavioral lifestyle therapy support, all the way through to the new medications for weight loss; and also for some people, bariatric surgery pathways. It's a tricky topic. Dr Nevel: So how should we counsel our patients about what to expect in the future in terms of visual outcomes? Dr Chen: I think a lot of that depends on the degree of papilledema when they present. If a patient comes in with grade five papilledema, that fulminant IIH that Dr Mollan had mentioned, these patients can have very severe vision loss. And even if we treat them very aggressively with high-dose medications and urgent surgical interventions, sometimes they can have permanent vision loss. And so, we counsel them that, you know, there's a strong chance that they're going to have a good amount of vision loss. But some patients, we're very surprised and we get a lot of vision back. So, we kind of set expectations, but we're cautiously optimistic that we can get vision back. If a patient presents with more mild papilledema like grade one or two papilledema, they're most likely not going to have any permanent vision loss as long as we're treating them, we're monitoring their vision, they're coming to their follow-ups. They tend to do very well from a vision perspective. Dr Nevel: That's great, thank you. And you know, ties into what you said earlier about really making sure that, you know, we create good- as with any patient, but good physician-patient relationships so that they, you know, trust us and they come to follow up so we can really monitor their vision appropriately. What do you think is going on in research in this area that's exciting? What do you think one of the next breakthroughs or thing that we need to understand the most about treatment and monitoring of IIH? Dr Chen: I think surgically, venous sinus stenting is going to probably take over the bulk of surgeries. We still need that randomized clinical trial, but we have some amazing outcomes with venous sinus stenting. And there's many efforts on randomized clinical trials for venous sinus stenting. So we'll have those results soon. From a medical standpoint, Dr Mollan can actually say, actually, more about this. Dr Mollan: I completely agree. The GLP-1 receptor agonists, the twofold prong approach: one is the weight loss where these patients, you know, have significant weight loss to put their disease into remission; and the other side of it is whether certain GLP-1s have the ability to reduce intracranial pressure. So, a phase 2 study that we undertook here in Birmingham did show that we were able to reduce intracranial pressure, but we don't think it's a class effect. So, I think the sort of big breakthrough will be looking at novel therapies like xenotide and other drugs that, say, work on the proximal kidney tubule. Are they able to reduce intracranial pressure directly? And I think we are on the cusp of a real breakthrough for this disease. Dr Nevel: Great. Thank you so much for chatting with me today. And I really learned a lot, appreciated the opportunity. I hope our listeners learned something today, too. So again, today I've been interviewing Drs John Chen and Susan Mollan about their article on treatment and monitoring of idiopathic intracranial hypertension, which appears in the most recent issue of Continuum on disorders of CSF dynamics. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues. And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) is characterized by symptoms and signs of unexplained elevated intracranial pressure (ICP) in an alert and awake patient. The condition has potentially devastating effects on vision, headache burden, increased cardiovascular disease risk, sleep disturbance, and depression.  In this episode, Teshamae Monteith, MD, FAAN speaks with Aileen A. Antonio, MD, FAAN, author of the article "Clinical Features and Diagnosis of Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension" in the Continuum® June 2025 Disorders of CSF Dynamics issue. Dr. Monteith is the associate editor of Continuum® Audio and an associate professor of clinical neurology at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Miami, Florida. Dr. Antonio is an associate program director of the Hauenstein Neurosciences Residency Program at Trinity Health Grand Rapids and an assistant clinical professor at the Michigan State University College of Osteopathic Medicine in Lansang, Michigan. Additional Resources Read the article: Clinical Features and Diagnosis of Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @headacheMD Guest: @aiee_antonio Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Monteith: Hi, this is Dr Teshamae Monteith. Today I'm interviewing Dr Aileen Antonio about her article on clinical features and diagnosis of idiopathic intracranial hypertension, which appears in the June 2025 Continuum issue on disorders of CSF dynamics.  Hi, how are you? Dr Antonio: Hi, good afternoon. Dr Monteith: Thank you for being on the podcast. Dr Antonio: Thank you for inviting me, and it's such an honor to write for the Continuum. Dr Monteith: So why don't you start off with introducing yourself? Dr Antonio: So as mentioned, I'm Aileen Antonio. I am a neuro-ophthalmologist, dually trained in both ophthalmology and neurology. I'm practicing in Grand Rapids, Michigan Trinity Health, and I'm also the associate program director for our neurology residency program. Dr Monteith: So, it sounds like the residents get a lot of neuro-ophthalmology by chance in your curriculum. Dr Antonio: For sure. They do get fed that a lot. Dr Monteith: So why don't you tell me what the objective of your article was? Dr Antonio: Yes. So idiopathic intracranial hypertension, or IIH, is a condition where there's increased intracranial pressure, but without an obvious cause. And with this article, we want our readers---and our listeners right now---to recognize that the typical symptoms and learning about the IIH diagnostic criteria are key to avoiding errors, overdiagnosis, or sometimes even misdiagnosis or underdiagnosis. Thus, we help make the most of our healthcare resources. Early diagnosis and management are crucial to prevent disability from intractable headaches or even vision loss, and it's also important to know when to refer the patients to the appropriate specialists early on. Dr Monteith: So, it sounds like your central points are really getting that diagnosis early and managing the patients and knowing how to triage patients to reduce morbidity and complications. Is that correct? Dr Antonio: That is correct and very succinct, yes. Dr Monteith: And so, are there any more recent advances in the diagnosis of IIH? Dr Antonio: Yes. And one of the tools that we've been using is what we call the optical coherence tomography. A lot of people, neurologists, physicians, PCP, ER doctors; how many among those physicians are well-versed in doing an eye exam, looking at the optic disc? And this is a great tool because it is noninvasive, it is high resolution imaging technique that allows us to look at the optic nerve without even dilating the eye. And we can measure that retinal nerve fiber layer, or RNFL; and that helps us quantify the swelling that is visible or inherent in that optic nerve. And we can even follow that and monitor that over time. So, this gives us another way of looking at their vision and getting that insight as to how healthy is their vision still, along with the other formal visual tests that we do, including perimetry or visual field testing. And then all of these help in catching potentially early changes, early worsening, that may happen; and then we can intervene more easily. Dr Monteith: Great. So, it sounds like there's a lot of benefits to this newer technology for our patients. Dr Antonio: That is correct. Dr Monteith: So, I read in the article about the increased incidence of IIH, and I have to say that I completely agree with you because I'm seeing so much of it in my clinic, even as a headache specialist. And I had a talk with a colleague who said that the incidence of SIH and IIH are similar. And I was like, there's no way. Because I see, I can see several people with IIH just in one day. That's not uncommon. So, tell me what your thoughts are on the incidence, the rising incidence of IIH; and we understand that it's the condition associated with obesity, but it sounds like you have some other underlying drivers of this problem. Dr Antonio: Yes, that is correct. So, as you mentioned, IIH tends to affect women of childbearing age with obesity. And it's interesting because as you've seen that trend, we see more of these IIH cases recently, which seem to correlate with that rising rate of obesity. And the other thing, too, is that this trend can readily add to the burden of managing IIH, because not only are we dealing with the headaches or the potential loss of vision, but also it adds to the burden of healthcare costs because of the other potential comorbidities that may come with it, like cardiovascular risk factors, PCOS, and sleep apnea. Dr Monteith: So why don't we just talk about the diagnosis of IIH? Dr Antonio: IIH, idiopathic intracranial hypertension, is also called pseudotumor cerebri.  It's essentially a condition where a person experiences increased intracranial pressure, but without any obvious cause. And the tricky part is that the patients, they're usually fully awake and alert. So, there's no obvious tumor, brain tumor or injury that causes the increased ICP. It's really, really important to rule out other conditions that might cause these similar symptoms; again, like brain tumors or even the cerebral venous sinus thrombosis. Many patients will have headaches or visual disturbances like transient visual obscurations---we call them TVOs---or double vision or diplopia. The diplopia is usually related to a sixth nerve palsy or an abducens palsy. Some may also experience some back pain or what we call pulsatile tinnitus, which is that pulse synchronous ringing in their ears. The biggest sign that we see in the clinic would be that papilledema; and papilledema is a term that we only use, specifically use, for those optic nerve edema changes that is only associated with increased intracranial pressure. So, performing of endoscopy and good eye exam is crucial in these patients. We usually use the modified Dandy criteria to diagnose IIH. And again, I cannot emphasize too much that it's really important to rule out other secondary causes to that increased intracranial pressure. So, after that thorough neurologic and eye evaluation with neuroimaging, we do a lumbar puncture to measure the opening pressure and to analyze the cerebrospinal fluid. Dr Monteith: One thing I learned from your article, really just kind of seeing all of the symptoms that you mentioned, the radicular pain, but also- and I think I've seen some papers on this, the cognitive dysfunction associated with IIH. So, it's a broader symptom complex I think than people realize. Dr Antonio: That is correct. Dr Monteith: So, you mentioned TVOs. Tell me, you know, if I was a patient, how would you try and elicit that from me? Dr Antonio: So, I would usually just ask the patient, while you're sitting down just watching TV---some of my patients are even driving as this happens---they would suddenly have these episodes of blacking out of vision, graying out of vision, vision loss, or blurred vision that would just happen, from seconds to less than a minute, usually. And they can happen in one eye or the other eye or both eyes, and even multiple times a day. I had a patient, it was happening 50 times a day for her. It's important to note that there is no pain associated with it most of the time. The other thing too is that it's different from the aura that patients with migraines would have, because those auras are usually scintillating and would have what we call the positive phenomena: the flashing lights, the iridescence, and even the fortification that they see in their vision. So definitely TVOs are not the migraine auras. Sometimes the TVOs can also be triggered by sudden changes in head positions or even a change in posture, like standing up quickly. The difference, though, between that and, like, the graying out of vision or the tunneling vision associated with orthostatic hypotension, is that the orthostatic hypotension would also have that feeling of lightheadedness and dizziness that would come with it. Dr Monteith: Great. So, if someone feels lightheaded, less likely to be a TVO if they're bending down and they have that grain of vision. Dr Antonio: That is correct. Dr Monteith: Definitely see patients like that in clinic. And if they have fluoride IIH, I'm like, I'll call it a TVO; if they don't, I'm like, it's probably more likely to be dizziness-related. And then we also have patient migraines that have blurriness that's nonspecific, not necessarily associated with aura. But I think in those patients, it's usually not seconds long, it's usually probably longer episodes of blurriness. Would you agree there, or…? Dr Antonio: I would agree there, and usually the visual aura would precede the headache that is very characteristic of their migraine, very stereotypical for their migraines. And then it would dissipate slowly over time as well. With TVOs, they're brisk and would not last, usually, more than a minute. Dr Monteith: So, why don't we talk about routine imaging? Obviously, ordering an MRI, and I read also getting an MRV is important. Dr Antonio: It is very important because, one: I would say IIH is also a diagnosis of exclusion. We need to make sure that the increased ICP is not because of a brain tumor or not because of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis. So, it's important to get the MRI of the brain as well as the MRV of the head. Dr Monteith: Do you do that for all patients' MRV, and how often do you add on an orbital study? Dr Antonio: I usually do not add on an orbital study because it's not really going to change my management at that point. I really get that MRI of the brain. Now the MRV, for most of my patients, I would order it already just because the population that I see, I don't want to lose them. And sometimes it's that follow-up, and that is the difficult part; and it's an easy add on to the study that I'm going to order. Again, it depends with the patient population that you have as well, and of course the other symptoms that may come with it. Dr Monteith: So, why don't we talk a little bit about CSF reading and how these set values, because we get people that have readings of 250 millimeters of water quite frequently and very nonspecific, questionable IIH. And so, talk to me about the set value. Dr Antonio: Right. So, the modified Dandy criteria has shown that, again, we consider intracranial pressure to be elevated for adults if it's above 250 millimeters water; and then for kids if it's above 280 millimeters of water. Knowing that these are taken in the left lateral decubitus position, and assuming also that the patients were awake and not sedated during the measurement of the CSF pressure. The important thing to know about that is, sometimes when we get LPs under fluoroscopy or under sedation, then these can cause false elevation because of the hypercapnia that elevated carbon dioxide, and then the hypoventilation that happens when a patient is under sedation. Dr Monteith: You know, sometimes you see people with opening pressures a little bit higher than 25 and they're asymptomatic. Well, the problem with these opening pressure values is that they can vary somewhat even across the day. People around 25, you can be normal, have no symptoms, and have opening pressure around 25- or 250; and so, I'm just asking about your approach to the CSF values. Dr Antonio: So again, at the end of the day, what's important is putting everything together. It's the gestalt of how we look at the patient. I actually had an attending tell me that there is no patient that read the medical textbook. So, the, the important thing, again, is putting everything together. And what I've also seen is that some patients would tell me, oh, I had an opening pressure of 50. Does that mean I'm in a dire situation? And they're so worried and they just attach to numbers. And for me, what's important would be, what are your symptoms? Is your headache, right, really bad, intractable? Number two: are you losing vision, or are you at that cusp where your optic nerve swelling or papilledema is so severe that it may soon lead to vision loss? So, putting all of these together and then getting the neuroimaging, getting the LP. I tell my residents it's like icing on the cake. We know already what we're dealing with, but then when we get that confirmation of that number… and sometimes it's borderline, but this is the art of neurology. This is the art of medicine and putting everything together and making sure that we care and manage it accordingly. Dr Monteith: Let's talk a little bit about IIH without papilledema. Dr Antonio: So, let's backtrack. So, when a patient will fit most of the modified Dandy criteria for IIH, but they don't have the papilledema or they don't have abducens palsy, the diagnosis then becomes tricky. And in these kinds of cases, Dr Friedman and her colleagues, when they did research on this, suggested that we might consider the diagnosis of IIH. And she calls this idiopathic intracranial hypertension without papilledema, IIHWOP. They say that if they meet the other criteria for modified Dandy but show at least three typical findings on MRI---so that flattening of the posterior globe, the tortuosity of the optic nerves, the empty sella or the partially empty sella, and even the narrowing of the transverse venous sinuses---so if you have three of these, then potentially you can call these cases as idiopathic intracranial hypertension without papilledema. Dr Monteith: Plus, the opening pressure elevation. I think that's key, right? Getting that as well. Dr Antonio: Yes. Sometimes IIHWOP may still be a gray area. It's a debate even among neuro-ophthalmologists, and I bet even among the headache specialists. Dr Monteith: Well, I know that I've had some of these conversations, and it's clear that people think this is very much overdiagnosed. So, that's why I wanted to plug in the LP with that as well. Dr Antonio: Right. And again, we have not seen yet whether is, this a spectrum, right? Of that same disease just manifesting differently, or are they just sharing a same pathway and then diverging? But what I want to emphasize also is that the treatment trials that we've had for IIH do not include IIHWOP patients. Dr Monteith: That is an important one. So why don't you wrap this up and tell our listeners what you want them to know? Now's the time. Dr Antonio: So, the- again, with IIH, with idiopathic intracranial hypertension, what is important is that we diagnose these patients early. And I think that some of the issues that come into play in dealing with these patients with IIH is that, one: we may have anchoring bias. Just because we see a female with obesity, of reproductive age, with intractable headaches, it does not always mean that what we're dealing with is IIH. The other thing, too, is that your tools are already available to you in your clinic in diagnosing IIH, short of the opening pressure when you get the lumbar puncture. And I need to emphasize the importance of doing your own fundoscopy and looking for that papilledema in these patients who present to you with intractable headaches or abducens palsy. What I want people to remember is that idiopathic intracranial hypertension is not optic nerve sheath distension. So, these are the stuff that you see on neuroimaging incidentally, not because you sent them, because they have papilledema, or because they have new headaches and other symptoms like that. And the important thing is doing your exam and looking at your patients. Dr Monteith: Today, I've been interviewing Dr Aileen Antonio about her article on clinical features and diagnosis of idiopathic intracranial hypertension, which appears in the most recent issue of Continuum on disorders of CSF dynamics. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues, and thank you to our listeners for joining today. Thank you again. Dr Antonio: Thank you. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Recently, sophisticated myelographic techniques to precisely subtype and localize CSF leaks have been developed and refined. These techniques improve the detection of various types of CSF leaks thereby enabling targeted therapies. In this episode, Katie Grouse, MD, FAAN, speaks with Ajay A. Madhavan, MD, author of the article "Radiographic Evaluation of Spontaneous Intracranial Hypotension" in the Continuum® June 2025 Disorders of CSF Dynamics issue. Dr. Grouse is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a clinical assistant professor at the University of California San Francisco in San Francisco, California. Dr. Madhavan is assistant professor of radiology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Additional Resources Read the article: Radiographic Evaluation of Spontaneous Intracranial Hypotension Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones:  This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Grouse:  This is Dr Katie Grouse. Today I'm interviewing Dr Ajay Madhavan about his article on Radiographic Evaluation of Spontaneous Intracranial Hypotension, which he wrote with Dr Levi Chazen. This article appears in the June 2025 Continuum issue on disorders of CSF dynamics. Welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to our audience. Dr Madhavan:  Hi, thanks a lot, Katie. Yeah, so I'm Ajay Madhaven. I'm a neuroradiologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. I did all my training here, so, I've been here for a long time. And I have a lot of interest in spinal CSF leaks, and I do a lot of that work. And so I'm really excited to be talking about this article with you. Dr Grouse:  I'm really excited too. And in fact, it's such a pleasure to have you here talking today on this topic. I know a lot's changed in this field, and I'm sure many of our listeners are really interested in learning about the developments and imaging techniques to improve detection and treatment of CSF leaks, especially since maybe we've learned about this in training. I want to start by asking you what you think is the most important takeaway from your article. Dr Madhavan:  Yeah, that's a great question. I think---and you kind of already alluded to it---I think the main thing is, I hope people recognize that this field has really changed a lot in the last five to ten years, through a lot of multi-institutional collaboration and also collaboration between different specialties. We've learned a lot about different types of spinal CSF leaks, how we can recognize the disease, particularly the types of myelography that we need to be using to accurately localize and treat these leaks. Those are the things that have really evolved in the last five to ten years, and they've really helped us improve these patients' lives. Dr Grouse:  Can you remind us of the different common types of spinal leaks that can cause spontaneous intracranial hypotension? Dr Madhavan:  Yeah, so there are a number of different spinal CSF leaks, types, and I would say the three most common ones that really most people should try to be aware of and cognizant of are: first, ventral dural tears. So those are, like, just physical holes in the dura. And they're usually caused by little bone spurs that come from the vertebral columns. So, they're often patients who have some degenerative changes in their spine. And those are really very common. Another type of spinal CSF leak that we commonly see is a lateral dural tear. So that's like the same thing in a slightly different location. So instead of being in the front, it's off to the side of the dura laterally. And so, it's also just a hole in the dura. And then the third and most recently discovered type of spinal CSF leak is a CSF-venous fistula. So those are direct connections between the subarachnoid space and little paraspinal vein. And it took us a long time to even realize that this was a real pathology. But now that it's been recognized, we've found that this is actually quite common. So those three types of leaks are probably the three most common that we see. And there's certainly others out there, but I would say over 90% of them fall into one of those three categories. Dr Grouse:  That's a great review, thank you. Just as another quick review, as we talk more about this topic, can you remind us of some of the most common or typical brain imaging findings that you'll see in cases of spontaneous intracranial hypotension? Dr Madhavan:  Yeah, absolutely. So, when you do a brain MRI in a patient who has spontaneous intracranial hypotension, you will usually, though not always, see typical brain MRI abnormalities. And I kind of think of those as falling into three different categories. So, the first one I think of is dural enhancement or thickening. So that's enlargement or engorgement of the dura, the pachymeninges, and enhancement on postgadolinium imaging. So, that's kind of the first category. The second is that, when you lose spinal fluid volume, other things often expand to take up the space. So, for example, you can get distension or enlargement of the dural venous sinuses, and sometimes you can also get subdural food collections or hematomas. They can arise spontaneously. And I kind of think of those as, you know, you, you've lost the cerebrospinal fluid volume and something else is kind of filling up the space. And then the third category is called brain sagging. And that's a constellation of findings where the posterior fossa structures and the pituitary gland in the cell have become abnormal because you've lost the fluid that normally cushions those structures and causes them to float up. For example, the brain stem will sag down, the distance between the mammillary body and the ponds may become reduced. The suprasellar cistern space may be reduced such that the optic chiasm becomes very close to the pituitary gland, and the prepontine cistern may also become reduced in size. And there are various measurements that can be used to determine whether something is subtly abnormal. But just generally speaking, those are really the three categories of brain MRI abnormalities you'll see. Dr Grouse:  That was a great review. And of course, I think in many times when we are thinking about or suspecting this diagnosis, we may be lucky to find those imaging findings to reinforce a diagnosis. Because as it turns out, after reading your article, I was really surprised to find out that in as many as 19% of cases we actually see normal brain imaging, which really was a surprise to me, I have to say. And I think that this really encompasses why spontaneous intercranial hypotension is such a difficult diagnosis to make. I think a lot of us struggle with how far to take the workup when, you know, spontaneous intercranial hypotension is clinically suspected, but multiple imaging studies are normal. Do you have any guidance on how to approach these more difficult cases? Dr Madhavan:  So, that's a really good question. And you know, it's- as you can imagine, that's a topic that comes up in most meetings where people discuss this, and it's been a continued challenge. And so, like you said, about 19 or 20% of patients who have this disease can have a, a normal brain MRI. And we've tried to do some work to figure out why that is and how we can identify patients who still have the disease. And I can just provide, I guess, some tips that have helped me in my clinical practice. One thing is, if I ever see a patient with a normal brain MRI where this disease is clinically suspected---for example, maybe they have orthostatic headaches or other very typical symptoms and we don't know why, but their brain MRI is normal---the first thing I do is I try to look back at their old imaging. So many times, these patients who present to us at Mayo, who, when we do their MRI scan here, their brain MRI looks normal… if you really look back at imaging that they've had done elsewhere---maybe even two to three years prior---at the time their symptoms started, they actually had some abnormalities. So, I might see that a patient, two years ago, had dural enhancement that spontaneously resolved; but now they still have symptoms of SIH and they may still have a CSF leak that we can find and treat, but their brain MRI has, for whatever reason, normalized. So, I always start by looking back at old imaging, and I found that to be very helpful. The other thing is, if you see a patient with a normal brain MRI, it's also important to look at their spine MRI because that can provide clues that might suggest that they could still have a spinal CSF leak. And the two things I look for on the spine MRI: one, if there's any extradural CSF. So, spinal fluid outside of where it's supposed to be within the confines of the subarachnoid space. And you know, really, if you see extradural CSF, you know they probably have a spinal fluid leak somewhere. Even if their brain MRI is normal, that just gives you the information that there is a dural tear probably somewhere. And so, in those patients we'll definitely still proceed to myelography or other testing, even if they have a normal brain MRI. And then the last thing I look for is whether or not they have prominent meningeal diverticula. Patients with CSF venous fistulas almost always have one or more prominent diverticula on their spine along the nerve root sleeves. And that's probably because most of these fistulas come from nerve root sleeve diverticula. We don't completely understand the pathogenesis of CSF venous fistulas, but they're clearly associated with meningeal diverticula. So, if I see a patient who has a normal brain MRI, but I see on their spine MRI that they have many meningeal diverticula that are relatively prominent, that makes me more inclined to be a little bit more aggressive in doing myelography to find a CSF leak. And then I look at other demographic features, too. So, for example, elevated BMI and older age are associated with CSF venous fistulas. So, that can help you determine whether or not it's warranted to go on to more advanced imaging, too. So those are all just a variety of different things that we've used to help us. Dr Grouse:  Thank you for sharing that. I wanted to go on to say that, you know, reading your article, of course, as you mentioned, you alluded to the fact there's lots of new imaging modalities out there. It was very illuminating and just an excellent resource for the options that exist and when they're useful. You did a great job summarizing it. And I encourage our readers to check out your article, to refresh themselves, update themselves on what's happened in this space. And of course, we can't summarize them all today, but I was wondering if you could possibly walk us through a hypothetical case of a patient who comes in with a history very suspicious for SIH? How would you approach this patient? Say you have gotten imaging that suggested that there is a spinal fluid leak and now you have to figure out where it is. Dr Madhavan:  Yeah. So, you know, I think the most typical scenario it'll be a patient who has been seen by one of my excellent neurology colleagues and they've done a brain MRI and they've made the diagnosis through a combination of clinical information and brain MRI finding. And then the next thing we'll do always is, we'll obtain a spine MRI. So, I think of the purpose of the spine MRI as to determine what type of spinal fluid leak they have. On the spine MRI, if you see extradural CSF, those patients essentially always will have a dural tear. And it may be a ventral dural tear or a lateral dural tear. But if you see extradural CSF, that is pretty much what they have. And conversely, if you don't see extradural CSF---if you just see, for example, many meningeal diverticula, but you don't see anything else particularly abnormal---most of those patients have a CSF venous fistula, just common things being common. So I use the spine MRI to determine what type of leak they have. And then the next thing I think about is, okay, I'm going to do a myelogram on this patient. How do I want to position them? Because it turns out that positioning is probably the most important factor for finding these spinal fluid leaks. You have to have the patient positioned correctly to find the leak that you're trying to localize. And so, if I suspect they have a ventral dural tear, I will always position those patients prone for their myelogram. And I might do one of many different types of myelograms. And, you know, the article talks about things like digital subtraction myelography and dynamic CT myelography. And you can find any of these leaks with any of those techniques, but you just have to have the patient positioned correctly. So, if I think I have a ventral dural tear, I'll put them prone for the myelogram. If I think they have a lateral dural tear, I'll put them in the cubitus position for the myelogram. And also, if they- if I think they have a CSF-venous fistula, I'll also put them in the decubitus position. Obviously if you're putting them in the decubitus position, you have to decide whether it's going to be left or right side down. So that may require a two-day exam. Sometimes you don't have to; in many cases, we're able to just do everything in one day. But those are all the different factors I think about when I'm trying to determine how I'm going to work those patients up further. So, I really use the spine MRI chiefly to think about what type of leak they're going to have and how I'm going to plan the myelogram. Dr Grouse:  That's really great. And it's, I think, really nice to emphasize how much the positioning matters in all this, which I think is not something we've been classically taught as far as the diagnosis of spinal leaks. Another thing I'm really interested in your opinion on is, you talked a lot about how to optimize and what can make you successful at diagnosis. I'm curious what you think one of the easiest mistakes to make or, you know, that we should hopefully avoid when treating patients with this disease. Dr Madhavan:  Yeah. And I think, you know, one other thing that's been discussed a lot in this topic… you know, we've talked about the patients with a normal brain MRI. Another barrier or challenge particularly with CSF-venous fistulas is, sometimes they can be very subtle on imaging. So, it's not always you see it very definitive CSF-venous fistula where you can say, like, there's no question, that's a fistula. There are many times where we do a good-quality myelogram and we see something that looks, like, possible for a CSF venous fistula, or probable. If I had to put a number on it, maybe there's a 50 to 70% chance of real. So, in those cases, we end up wondering, like, should we treat this suspected leak? And I think one common mistake  or one thing that needs to be looked at further is, how do we handle these patients where we don't know whether the fistula is real or not? That's usually something where I will have a discussion with the patient, and I'm usually just very upfront with him about my interpretation of the imaging. I'll just tell them, we did a good-quality myelogram. You did a great job. We got good images. I don't see anything definitive, but I see this thing that I think has maybe a 60% chance of being real. And then I'll confer with one of my neurology colleagues and we'll decide whether it's worth treating that or not. And we'll just be very upfront with a patient about whether- about the likelihood of its success and what their long-term prognosis is. And oftentimes we let them make the decision. But I think that remains to be one of the big challenges is, how do we treat these patients who have suspected leaks that are not definitive on imaging. Dr Grouse:  That sounds absolutely like an important area where there can be problems, so I appreciate that insight. I'm interested what you think in your article would come as the biggest surprise to our listeners who may not have kept up as much with all of the changes that have happened in recent years? Dr Madhavan:  One of the things that was certainly, at least, a surprise to me as I was going through my training and learning about this topic is how diverse myelography has really become. You know, when I was a radiology resident, I learned about myelography as this thing that we've been doing for 30 to 40 years. And historically we've used myelograms just to look for degenerative changes: disc bulges, you know, disc herniations and things like that. Now that MRI is more prevalent, we don't use it as much, but it has turned out that it has a very big role in patients with spinal fluid leaks. Furthermore, something that I've learned is just how diverse these different types of myelograms have become. It used to kind of be just that a myelogram is a myelogram is a myelogram, but now we have different types of positioning, different types of equipment that we use. We vary the timing between contrast injection and imaging to optimize success for finding spinal fluid leaks. So, I think many times I talk to people who may not be as familiar with this field and they're surprised at just how diverse that has become and how sophisticated some of the various myelographic techniques have become and how much that really makes a difference in being able to accurately diagnose these patients. Dr Grouse:  Well, I can say it was a surprise to me. Even as someone who does treat quite a few patients with this condition, I was surprised to see the breadth of different options that have become available. And then kind of a follow-up to that, what do you think the current area of controversy is in this area of diagnosis and treatment? Dr Madhavan:  The biggest ones are ones you've sort of already alluded to. So, one big one is, how far do we go in patients who have a normal brain MRI who still have a clinical suspicion of the disease? And sometimes it's really hard, because sometimes you will find patients who clinically have a very strong case for having spontaneous intracranial hypotension. You look at them, they have very acute-onset orthostatic headaches. There's no better explanation for their symptoms that we know of. And it's hard to know what to do with those patients, because some of them want to continue to undergo diagnostic workup, but you can only do so many myelograms and you can only do so much with this diagnostic workup that requires some radiation dose before it becomes very challenging. That's a major point of just, I guess, ongoing research as to what can we do better for that subset of patients. Fortunately, it's not all of them, it's a subset of them, but I think we could help those patients better in the future as we learn more about the disease. So that's one. And the other one is treating these equivocal findings, like I discussed.  And where should our threshold be to treat a patient, and what type of treatment should we do in patients where we don't know whether a leak is real? Should we just do a very noninvasive- relatively noninvasive blood patch? Do we do an embolization where we're leaving a foreign body there? Is it worth sending those patients to surgery? Those are all unanswered questions and things that continue to spark ongoing debate. Dr Grouse:  Do you think that there's going to be any new big breakthroughs, or even, do you know of any big developments on the horizon that we should be keeping our eyes out for? Dr Madhavan:  You know, I think for me the biggest thing is, imaging is dramatically improving. We talked a little bit about photon counting detector CT in our article, and that's one of the newest and best techniques for imaging these patients because it has very, very high resolution, it has a lower radiation dose, it has allowed us to find leaks that we were not able to find before. And there are other high-resolution modalities that are emerging and becoming more accessible to things like cone beam CT which we do in addition to digital subtraction myelography. And on top of that, we've started to use AI-based tools to make images look a lot better. So, there are various AI algorithms that have come out that allow us to remove artifacts from imaging. They help us image patients with a bigger body habitus better without running into a lot of imaging artifacts. They help us reduce noise in imaging. They can just give us better-quality images and aid us in the diagnosis. For me as a radiologist, those are some of the most exciting things. We're finding less invasive ways with less radiation to better diagnose these patients with just better-quality imaging. Dr Grouse:  Well, that is definitely something to be excited about. So, I just want to thank you so much for talking with us today. It's been such an interesting, informative discussion and a real privilege to talk with you about this important topic. Dr Madhavan:  Yeah, thanks so much. I really appreciate the time to talk with you, and I look forward to seeing the article out there and hopefully getting some interesting questions. Dr Grouse:  Again, today I've been interviewing Dr Ajay Madhavan about his article on Radiographic Evaluation of Spontaneous Intracranial Hypotension, which he wrote with Dr Levi Chasen. This article appears in the most recent issue of Continuum on disorders of CSF dynamics. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues, and thank you to our listeners for joining today. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.