Continuum Audio – Details, episodes & analysis

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

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

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

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

Autoimmune cerebellar ataxia and other autoimmune movement disorders encompass a broad spectrum of different clinical syndromes, antibodies, and immunopathophysiologic mechanisms. Given the overlap between phenotypes and antibodies, panel testing in serum and CSF is recommended.

In this episode, Gordon Smith, MD, FAAN, speaks with Bettina Balint, MD, author of the article "Autoimmune Movement Disorders," in the Continuum August 2024 Autoimmune Neurology issue.

Dr. Smith is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and professor and chair of neurology at Kenneth and Dianne Wright Distinguished Chair in Clinical and Translational Research at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia.

Dr. Balint is an assistant professor for clinical research on complex movement disorders and Parkinson's diseases, a consultant neurologist, the head of the Department of Movement Disorders, and co-lead for the Centre for Movement Disorders and Functional Neurosurgery in the Department of Neurology at the University Hospital Zurich in Zurich, Switzerland.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Autoimmune Movement Disorders

Subscribe to Continuum: shop.lww.com/Continuum

Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME

Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud

More about the Academy of Neurology: aan.com

Social Media

facebook.com/continuumcme

@ContinuumAAN

Host: @gordonsmithMD

Full episode transcript available here

Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum, the premier topic-based neurology clinical review and CME journal from the American Academy of Neurology. Thank you for joining us on Continuum Audio, which features conversations with Continuum's guest editors and authors who are the leading experts in their fields. Subscribers to the Continuum journal can read the full article or listen to verbatim recordings of the article and have access to exclusive interviews not featured on the podcast. Please visit the link in the episode notes for more information on the article, subscribing to the journal, and how to get CME.

Dr Smith: This is Dr Gordon Smith. Today, I'm interviewing Dr Bettina Balint about her article on ataxia and other autoimmune movement disorders, which appears in the August 2024 Continuum issue on autoimmune neurology, which is a highly anticipated and exciting issue. Dr Balint, welcome to the podcast, and, perhaps, you can just introduce yourself to our audience and tell us a little bit about your practice and how you became interested in this topic.

Dr Balint: Thank you, Gordon, for having me. I am an assistant professor for clinical research in complex movement disorders and Parkinson's disease at the University of Zurich and the Head of the Movement Disorders Department at the University Hospital in Zurich. So while I'm originally German (from Heidelberg), I have now been to Switzerland since end of 2021.

Dr Smith: So, you know, how many movement disorder chiefs have a focus on autoimmune movement disorders? I found that really interesting. Most of the movement disorder folks I interact with, their primary interest is in neurodegeneration.

Dr Balint: Very good question. Even so, I never asked myself that question, really, but I think I'm the only one with this designated focus as such. Many people come from the neurology angle - most of them. Even so, movement-disorder people really welcome this field and are interested, but I think somebody who has dedicated their interest and time to it? I think I can't actually think of many other people.

Dr Smith: Yeah, I think it's really cool, and, of course, autoimmune neurology is the flavor of the day these days, right? I mean, I remember when I was at the University of Utah, we were recruiting Stacy Clardy (who I think many of our listeners will know). I remember thinking, you know, she's never going to be busy. How many of these autoimmune problems are there, really? And she was, like, deluged when she came. These are really common problems. I guess that was one question I had for you. You know, we think of these as rare disorders, and when we look at the article, you have these tables of these antibodies, and a lot of them are pretty uncommon – but, cumulatively, how common are autoimmune movement disorders?

Dr Balint: It's a very difficult question, because we don't have good epidemiological data. And if you look at series, I mean, most papers addressing this issue come actually from the ataxia field. And then, depending on where you look at, you might find varying numbers, and they might be also influenced by the fact that they come from ataxia centers with own certain biases. Even so, it's very close to my heart, but, I also still think it's overall very rare. So, in my practice, I see all sorts of movement disorders, and overall, they're still quite rare, but the point is that they are treatable and have important management implications, so you want to be sure not to miss any of them.

Dr Smith: Well, maybe we can go to that next. Part of the challenge here, of course, is there's just so many of these different syndromes and antibodies. Are there pearls that you can provide our listeners that would help them guide when they should be thinking about these disorders when they confront a patient with a particular phenotype? Like ataxia, for instance - you know, there are certain aspects of the clinical scenario that should trigger, "Wow, this might be an autoimmune problem".

Dr Balint: So, in general, I would say there are certain scenarios where you would want to think of an autoimmune etiology in your differential. One is a very characteristic phenotype. So, speaking broadly in terms of movement disorders, stiff-person spectrum disorders have a very characteristic phenotype which you need to recognize, and then you will be able to see it when a patient enters. Important phenotypes to know which are very characteristic are faciobrachial dystonic seizures, for example, with anti-GA1 antibodies, or pseudofinalistic movements in non-REM sleep is IgLON5 antibodies, leg myoclonus is CASPR2 antibodies. I don't want to necessarily enumerate all the scenarios. The point here is there are some characteristic phenotypes where you would think of autoimmune neurology. Another scenario where you would think of autoimmune, for example, the context of late-onset paroxysmal movement disorders. So, classically, when we think of paroxysmal dyskinesia, we think of a group of genetic disorders, but if somebody develops a paroxysmal movement disorder later in life in adulthood, then you would think of autoimmune neurology, and this applies also in the context of episodic ataxias. Another red flag might be a propensity to autoimmunity. For example, somebody with type one diabetes and vitiligo coming in for cerebellar ataxia, of course, you would think of anti-GAD ataxia. And, similarly, if somebody has recently been diagnosed with a cancer and develops a rapidly disabling syndrome, of course, then you would think of a paraneoplastic autoimmune disorder. And with autoimmune syndrome, there are some symptoms which are also like tell-tale signs. So, for example, somebody with a stiff-person spectrum disorder, an ataxia with long-lasting diarrhea over months, losing weight - investigations haven't found anything, then you would think of DPPX antibodies or celiac disease. Or, if you have, like, a neuropathic pain which is otherwise not explained, then you might think of CASPR2 antibodies in somebody with a cerebellar ataxia. So, there are some features of some antibodies. (Again, I will not now list all of them which might point you to a diagnosis.) Then, of course, another scenario which is important, I think, is if you have a hemisyndrome without a structural lesion on imaging. Classically, neurologists are trained to think of a hemisyndrome - we look for a lesion on the contralateral side. But if you have, like, for example, a hemichorea without a lesion or a hemiataxia without a lesion, one should also think of an autoimmune disorder with antibodies. And then, more generally, of course, if you have changes on brain MRI or information on CSF, of course, if the clinical cause is more rapidly progressive - and last, but not least, if somebody does not really fit into our categories of the degenerative symptoms or metabolic syndromes or functionality disorders, then, of course, one should just take a step back and think, could it be something autoimmune? Having said that, if I may, I just want to say that, I mentioned that rapid disease course, and on the other hand, it's important to stress that a slowly progressive disease cause does not exclude an autoimmune etiology.

Dr Smith: So, that was a great summary. Thank you. I don't know if you're familiar with the term "Aunt Minnie" (something I learned in medical school and radiology). There are certain findings that are "Aunt Minnie", you know what "Aunt Minnie" looks like, and if you see these particular findings, you should really think about a specific disease - and I think you gave a lot of pearls in that answer, so I appreciate that. This may seem like a bit of a random question, but it's interesting that there are some of these phenotypes that do replicate genetic phenotypes, and you used episodic ataxia, which, in a younger individual, we think of a spectrum of various genetic disorders. Is that random, or are there instances where the underlying mutation in a genetic disorder actually serves as a target for autoimmunity in a later-onset autoimmune problem? Not that the mutation causes autoimmunity, but are there shared targets - in one disease it's the mutation, and another, there's an antibody that binds to the protein, for instance?

Dr Balint: That's an excellent topic, and even though it's not addressed in the Continuum article, I actually covered this in an article in Brain from 2018, where we also discuss parallels (immunogenetic parallels) with targets seen in genetic disease or in autoimmune disease, and there are actually some examples for cerebellar ataxia, and some of the targets are, indeed, the same for the antibodies and mutation. And some targets are a little bit more difficult, because for those, the antibodies would probably not be pathogenic, but it's more like an autoimmune overall target but it's T-cell mediated. But, for example, water-gated, um, calcium channels - we have antibodies and we have mutations. Or, another example would be glycine receptor antibodies give you acquired hyperekplexia, whereas the mutations give you hereditary hyperekplexia. So, there is, indeed, a bit of an overlap between autoimmune and genetic disorders, but often, also, like, the age at onset (because that might be the next question, the age at onset), and maybe family history and associated features, should help to distinguish the two. I think more from the pathophysiological point interesting, rather than clinically too confusing.

Dr Smith: Wow, that's really cool. So, another question I have is regarding antibody panels, right? And so, I think, oftentimes (at least around here), folks confronting an unusual phenotype will send the Mayo panel - they'll send autoimmune encephalitis or a paraneoplastic panel – and, you know, I think one of the challenges I have thinking about the spectrum of phenotypes that you described, I mean, if you recognize "Aunt Minnie", then you know where to go, but it seems to me that there's a lot of these that maybe folks don't recognize "Aunt Minnie". What is the diagnostic utility and pearls and pitfalls of ordering these panels when you're not really certain? In other words, is there a risk of a false positive if the pretest probability is low? So, I guess that's a long question, but do you have guidance about when we should and maybe when we should not be ordering these panels? So, you know, undifferentiated ataxia that's chronically progressive - should we be sending a panel or not? Patients who are later-onset acute, maybe so. So, what's the guidance on when to order the panel?

Dr Balint: It's a tricky topic also for many people in our practice, because, of course, as you said, we don't want to miss something, but, indeed, with any test which you order with a low pretest probability and which is not quite appropriate, you might have false positives, and that might cause much additional trouble in security, or maybe unnecessary and invasive immunotherapy with adverse effects – so, it's really important to think well about antibody testing. And, generally speaking, like always in medicine, we shouldn't order random tests, and antibody panels and neuronal antibodies are not designed as a screening test, so you need to have a phenotype and a reasonable suspicion - and clinical acumen is really key, and that's why also the article is so much focused on the phenotype. It's clearly not that any movement disorder patient who enters the outpatient clinic should get a blood test for antibodies that will likely cause harm, and it has been shown that these antibodies can be falsely positive, both in other diseases but also in healthy controls, and much depends also on which tests you use (but, let's not go into too much detail over here) - so, generally speaking, I would say if you have a suspicion of an autoimmune disease clinically (I mentioned some scenarios where you would think of an autoimmune disorder). And then, ataxias are, of course, a bit tricky, because often, we don't have too many other handles there, and there's still also a significant number of acquired late-onset ataxia where we don't know what the cause is. I think in the ataxia scenario, if I don't have a good answer or explanation, I would order antibody tests a bit more freely - I mean, if you do it properly, you do the serum and the CSF, and that also increases your sensitivity but also the specificities, so I wouldn't then just do the serum, but then go for serum and CSF. In other movement disorders, it depends also a little bit on the phenotype. So, somebody with a phenotype fitting well with Parkinson's disease, I wouldn't do any testing. Somebody with clear PSP phenotype without any red flags or not-fitting features, it is very unlikely to have an antibody finding, and this has been shown also in cohorts. But, if you have something which is not fitting in the phenotypes - for example, you have somebody where you think it might be a PSP phenotype with predominantly axial Parkinsonism falls, but you notice that the oculomotor disturbance is not a vertical gaze palsy, but a horizontal gaze palsy – so, it's not really fitting phenotype as you know it. That's a scenario where would probably think of antibody testing. Then, if you do the testing theorem - and CSF, in general, is gold standard - there are some antibodies where theorem is good enough (like, for example, with aquaporin-4 antibodies), but the reason why we do serum and CSF, as I mentioned, is the increased sensitivity and specificity. And nowadays, in the antibody world, we have something similar to the genetics - we have the variant of unknown significance and in the neurology world, we coin the term "antibody of unknown significance" to also give a name to the problem that, sometimes, we get a test result and it is difficult to interpret. Another handle over there would be to try to confirm the test result in another test method. So for example, if you have a cell-based assay with an antibody finding, you would like to confirm that on immunohistochemistry - the staining pattern is in keeping with that.

Dr Smith: So, Bettina, that was a really great and comprehensive answer to the question with a lot of pearls packed into it, and I think the idea that, you know, oftentimes, it's helpful to do both serum and CSF testing is important - also looking for staining to further confirm the diagnosis. And, I think one of the things that I was struck by in your response was the example of a PSP patient who instead of vertical gaze palsy had horizontal gaze palsy as a red flag, and I think a lot of our listeners are probably familiar with the idea that maybe hyperkinetic movement disorders might be autoimmune, or certainly rapidly progressive ataxia, but at least I don't think of Parkinsonian syndromes as often. I know there are some that we need to consider. Maybe you can give us some pearls about when we should consider antibody testing in a patient who has a Parkinson syndrome?

Dr Balint: So, I will not cover now the paraneoplastic Parkinsonian syndromes (because they typically develop as rapidly that you would anyway think about it, hopefully), but go more into those conditions which might mimic degenerative disease - and one of the most interesting antibodies in this regard is IgLON5, and you will be aware that it has been discovered in 2014 in patients who shared a characteristic sleep movement disorder (non-REM parasomnia). The spectrum has broadened a lot, and one possible manifestation is that it could come into the differential of Parkinsonian syndromes - so, for example, if you have axial Parkinsonism and a gaze palsy, you are in a PSP phenotype, but the red flag would be maybe if the eye movement disorders are not really fitting with the PSP phenotype. Also, in PSP patients, we don't expect parasomnias at night. If the bed partner is, for example, complaining that the patient is moving in his sleep and doing movements, then this would be a red flag, and in this context, you would think of IgLON5. IgLON5 could also give you Parkinsonism and cerebellar ataxia, and they might have dysautonomia, and, of course, with a sleep movement disorder, you are now in the ballpark of MSA phenotypes; however, if there are additional features (like, for example, fasciculations) which you don't expect in MSA, that would be, again, the red flag. So, typically, even in those differentials, there are some red flags on handles which would point you to the diagnosis - it is not that it completely mimics the phenotype of our default degenerative disease, but, sometimes, you need to hunt a little bit for those handles.

Dr Smith: So, Bettina, that's really interesting. I wanted to ask you about IgLON5, and in particular, the sleep phenotype, but, you know, I wonder whether there's a risk of just confusing this with REM sleep behavior disorder and a chronic Parkinsonian syndrome - what's the time course of this, and any other wisdom in terms of how to differentiate it from, you know, a more common neurodegenerative problem?

Dr Balint: So, the spectrum of sleep disorders in IgLON5 is actually a bit broad. The characteristic thing is the non-REM sleep parasomnia with the finalistic fine movements, but classic REM sleep behavior disorder has also been reported in these patients. And one of the tricky things is IgLON5 is a slowly progressive disease (some patients had symptoms for a decade prior to diagnosis), so it's really an important differential of autoimmune disease - but as mentioned, the features not fitting in, and they are typically also the cardinal features. So, gaze palsies are very frequent, ptosis, bulbar symptoms, vocal cord palsy, sleep movement disorders which might not fit to the original phenotype, and breathing problems (for example) so severe that they require a tracheostoma – so, these are some red flags which would alert you to this diagnosis of anti-IgLON5 disease.

Dr Smith: I'm curious, Bettina, how do you keep up on all of this and keep it all straight? Right, there's a lot of information, and as I was reading your article, you've got these wonderful tables - and in fact, this whole issue for our listeners feels that way. I've read several of these articles now, and I'm just curious what your strategy is to stay up to date and stay organized. You have to be very organized to be an autoimmune neurologist, it seems to me.

Dr Balint: And having a little bit of OCD helps clearly, as always, in neurology. I think it is just that I started to be interested in this area for a while and I have in my head the clinical phenotype to most important associated antibodies, and as the field continues, I just add up on that panel. But, I don't want people to be discouraged - you're right, many antibodies, but I think the point is not to know each and every antibody but to know in which scenario to think of an autoimmune syndrome and then to know where to look it up.

Dr Smith: Well, I think that's a great way of ending our conversation, Bettina. I think your article does a great job of that, and one of the things I love about Continuum is these articles serve as point-of-care tools. I think our conversation will also serve as a useful framework, because I think you've talked a lot about how to organize your thinking, and, you know, pearls for when we should be thinking about these disorders which are uncommon, but you certainly don't want to miss one because the therapy can be very effective. So, Bettina, thank you so much for joining me. This has been a really great conversation.

Dr Balint: Thank you so much, Gordon. Thank you very much for your good questions.

Dr Smith: So, again, today, I've had the great pleasure of interviewing Dr Bettina Balint, whose article on ataxia and other autoimmune movement disorders appears in the most recent issue of Continuum, which is on autoimmune neurology. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues. And thanks to our listeners for joining us today.

Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use this link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at Continpub.com/AudioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

The critical care management of spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) is similar to that of other acute brain injuries, with the addition of detecting and treating delayed cerebral ischemia. Recent trials are influencing practice and providing guidance for standardizing management.

In this episode, Kait Nevel, MD speaks with Soojin Park, MD, FAHA, FNCS, author of the article "Emergent Management of Spontaneous Subarachnoid Hemorrhage," in the Continuum June 2024 Neurocritical Care issue.

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

Dr. Park is an associate professor of neurology (in biomedical informatics) at Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University in New York, New York and medical director of critical care data science and artificial intelligence at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital in New York, New York.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Emergent Management of Spontaneous Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

Subscribe to Continuum: shop.lww.com/Continuum

Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME

Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud

More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com

Social Media

facebook.com/continuumcme

@ContinuumAAN

Host: @IUneurodocmom

Guest: @soojin_soojin

Full episode transcript  

Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum, the premier topic-based neurology clinical review and CME journal from the American Academy of Neurology. Thank you for joining us on Continuum Audio, a companion podcast to the journal. Continuum Audio features conversations with the guest editors and authors of Continuum, who are the leading experts in their fields. Subscribers to the Continuum journal can read the full article or listen to verbatim recordings of the article by visiting the link in the show notes. Subscribers also have access to exclusive audio content not featured on the podcast. As an ad-free journal entirely supported by subscriptions, if you're not already a subscriber, we encourage you to become one. For more information on subscribing, please visit the link in the show notes. AAN members, stay tuned after the episode to hear how you can get CME for listening.

Dr Nevel: This is Dr Kait Nevel. Today, I'm interviewing Dr Soojin Park about her article on emergent management of spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage, which is part of the June 2024 Continuum issue on neurocritical care. Welcome to the podcast. It's so great to be talking to you today.

Dr Park: Thank you so much, Kait. Nice to be here.

Dr Nevel: Before we get started, could you introduce yourself for the audience?

Dr Park: Sure. So, I am an Associate Professor of Neurology - also in Biomedical Informatics - at Columbia University here in New York City. I trained in vascular neurology and neurocritical care.

Dr Nevel: Great. And so, I always like to ask at the beginning of these interviews, you know, if we could take away one thing from your article — and this is specifically (I'll direct this) towards the neurologists out there that are covering inpatient consults and ER consults — and so, for our clinical neurologists listening out there, what is the most important thing that you think that they should take away from your article?

Dr Park: So, I guess the most important thing for the general neurologists out there is that it may have been a while since they were aware of some updates that have occurred. There are some recent trials that are influencing practice and will potentially influence practice in the next few years that readers should really know about, and it provides a little bit stronger guidance to drive more standardized management. There have been two recent guidelines published this year. But there remain several gray areas for management where you need to be a bit more nuanced, and so I'm hoping the article gives the readers a framework to deliver more expert care.

Dr Nevel: Yeah, and I really, of course, always urge the listeners to go back and read the article and reference the article, because I do think that you do that really nicely and are clear when there are things where there's more higher-level, evidence-based reasons for things and where there's, kind of, just more expertise and guidelines on certain things. So, could you tell the listeners a little bit more about yourself, what interests you about subarachnoid hemorrhage specifically, and how you approach that interest and clinical background in writing this article?

Dr Park: So, I mentioned that I trained in both vascular neurology and neurocritical care back when many people used to do that. As a result, I've trained or practiced in four different academic medical centers who have specialized neurointensive care units. And the patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage tend to have a substantial ICU length of stay, and the neurointensive care that we provide can have a very large impact on patient outcome. And what I saw, though (practicing across four different centers), was that the management of patients with subarach can be quite variable across institutions and across patients within institutions, and it's reflective of a couple of things. One, there's, like, complexity in detecting ischemia, even when your patient is a captive audience in their ICU room. Second, there's many clinical mimics that occur (the patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage, they have a risk for), such as hydrocephalus, seizure, and things like delirium. And then, finally, there's limitations in the technology that we even have available in terms of monitoring these patients. But, for me, it was this complexity and the variability of management that kind of posed an opportunity, and it really sparked my curiosity early on and has sustained me. So, I'm particularly interested in the role that, kind of, the complex analysis of existing monitoring technologies can play to improve outcome for patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage, and that's where the marriage of both being a neurointensive care physician and a biomedical informatics person comes in.

Dr Nevel: Yeah. That's really interesting, and I could see that, because I always felt, even during my training, that some of the management and, you know, what diagnostics were even ordered to follow patients throughout the ICU was expertise based and seemed to vary without a lot of really solid, again, high-level studies, guiding what was done. So how do you marry the bioinformatics with your interest in SAH?

Dr Park: Right. So, I have two grants on - basically, I guess you would say AI, but really data science - on how we can manage patients with bleeds, specifically ICH and subarachnoid hemorrhage and hydrocephalus. So, we use data that comes from the monitors and we process that in a multimodal fashion and apply signal processing and machine learning and we build predictive analytic tools. So, I'm very interested in this pipeline of developing clinical decision support (information that we don't really have), and we're trying to glean from all the data and turn it into information that clinicians might use. The problem in subarachnoid hemorrhage patients is that a lot of what we're looking for is subclinical - so, it's not quite obvious, either because you can't possibly be in the room to be constantly monitoring for it (and, currently, the best monitor is the human, is examination), but, specifically in patients who have disordered consciousness, even the examination can be somewhat limited, and that's where we rely upon some of our neuromonitors. So, my interest has come in taking those multimodal monitors - but even nonneurologic monitors (stuff about your physiology, like your heart rate and blood pressure, et cetera) - and able to find signals that might tell us that a patient is getting into a dangerous zone. So, that's what my research portfolio has been 100% about - it's about subarachnoid hemorrhage patients and trying to optimize management, both for prevention and intervening in a timely fashion.

Dr Nevel: Wow. That's really interesting and would be so wonderful, it sounds like, for this patient population, if, you know, something was able to be identified that you could easily monitor to kind of predict or catch things early. So, kind of segueing from that, what do you think are the most — and you outline these nicely in your article, and I'm going to reference the listeners to, I believe it's the first table (table 5-1) - but what are, just like in general, the most important initial steps a clinician should take when managing somebody with an aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage?

Dr Park: So, I think it's sort of along the timeline. So, at the time of presentation of a patient with subarachnoid hemorrhage, the focus you should have should be really on differentiating the etiology of the subarachnoid hemorrhage. At the same time, if the patient has any coagulopathies, you should manage that coagulopathy reversal, blood pressure management, and then detection and management and treatment of hydrocephalus. That's first and foremost. But then there is a longer timeline of neurocritical care management, and that's really centered on prevention, detection, and treatment of delayed cerebral ischemia, and that can occur anytime from onset of subarachnoid hemorrhage to two to three weeks out. And then that period of neurocritical care is made challenging because you have early brain injury (which is the period of seventy-two hours after onset), cerebral edema, and then, like we talked about, disordered consciousness. This kind of knowing how to augment your management strategies with monitoring or imaging is really key.

Dr Nevel: Yeah. And you, you know, spend some time in your article really going through delayed cerebral ischemia really nicely. And I would love to hear your take on what is the most challenging aspects of delayed cerebral ischemia in both, you know, diagnosis and management - and you alluded to it a little bit earlier, I think, with some of your research, but I would love to hear you talk about that.

Dr Park: Yeah. And actually, this is probably one of - if there was a controversial area in this topic, it would be about this - because there does not seem to be one best way to operationalize how you either survey for, or monitor for, delayed cerebral ischemia. There has been, historically, a merging of these definitions of vasospasm and delayed cerebral ischemia, which are not the same thing.  And so, if you were to draw a Venn diagram, not all patients who have cerebral vasospasm end up having symptomatic or delayed cerebral ischemia, and not all patients who have delayed cerebral ischemia have any discernable vasospasm - and, so, to use the terms interchangeably leads to a little bit of confusion. I mentioned the clinical mimics - you know, the causes of which are myriad (could be delirium, or hydrocephalus, or early brain injury) - and so that also poses another challenge. And, so, what I always say is that delayed cerebral ischemia, sometimes - when you're thinking about it in the context of subarachnoid hemorrhage - is sometimes a retrospective diagnosis. And it really kind of came from a really earnest attempt to standardize what the community is talking about, so that we can better understand how to define (if you understand how to define it better, then you can tailor treatments, study treatments, you're talking about the same disease) - but we're still not there, and I think that's where a lot of the controversy or confusion comes from. My personal approach is really to focus on the symptomatology, so, if a patient has vasospasm - whether that is, you know, screened for with a transcranial Doppler (if your institution does use transcranial Dopplers, it might be a nice screening tool) - but the fact of the matter is that not all patients can get a transcranial Doppler every single day. You know, most of the institutions that I have worked in offer that technology Monday through Friday and not on holidays, not on weekends, and so you can't fully rely upon something like that. The advantage of it is that it has pretty high sensitivity but it does have a lower specificity (so it overcalls vasospasms), so to treat just based on a TCD would probably be erroneous. Not all people agree, but I think that's the majority of the sentiment - is that you should then be triggered to go look for confirmation with some neuroimaging and really potentially wait for symptoms so that it might be a trigger to optimize the patient in terms of volume and blood pressure, but not necessarily to treat. So, yeah, operationalizing that workflow of how do you trigger, you know, confirmatory neuroimaging, what type of neuroimaging you should then choose? This is where the variability exists. But, in general, I focus on symptomatology. The extra challenge comes in the patients who have disordered consciousness. And so, at an institution like mine, we do rely upon invasive neuromonitoring, and that's now called for in the guidelines as well.

Dr Nevel: And I imagine these are high-intensity situations where also I would suspect decisions, you know, need to be made quickly on some of these things that you're talking about, too.

Dr Park: That's right.

Dr Nevel: What do you think is a misconception - or maybe (I hate to call it a mistake, but for lack of a better term) like an easy mistake that one can make - when treating patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage?

Dr Park: Hmm, an easy mistake. I guess, you know, time is brain, so it's an opportunity to miss ischemia - or actually attribute everything to ischemia and ignore the possibility for things like seizure (so nonconvulsive seizures), a resurgence of more of a delayed hydrocephalus - and so, I think it's important as you're managing a patient not to get kind of pigeonholed into looking for one particular thing (only looking for delayed cerebral ischemia), but being really vigilant that there could be lots of different reasons for a neurological change of a patient. And so, timely monitoring - kind of figuring out the etiology of a change in neurological status - is really important. And then, also, on the flip side of that, is we're really good at being aggressive in both inducing hypertension or managing a patient (trying to prevent ischemia), we're not that great about starting to pull back - and so I think being vigilant about opportunities to reassess your patient's risk for ongoing ischemia and deciding when that period of risk is over and starting to peel back on therapies, because these patients are also at risk for the down sides of inducing hypertension, which is PRES - and we have seen that in patients, and, you know, the phenotype of that will look very much like ischemia.

Dr Nevel: Yeah, it's complicated because you're taking care of patients with often impaired consciousness who have a lot of symptoms that could represent many different diagnoses that you would treat very differently, so I could see that that might be easy to do to kind of fall into the mindset of thinking that it's definitely one thing without fully evaluating for everything. So, caring for patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage obviously can be really, you know, challenging from the medical perspective, but also from the perspective of, you know, communication with families, and families asking questions about prognosis and things like that (and you mentioned this in your article about prognostication a little bit) - and can you talk a little bit about our ability to prognosticate long-term outcomes for patients who are in that acute phase (maybe even early first, you know, couple of days or a week) with a subarachnoid hemorrhage?

Dr Park: I think one of the most rewarding aspects of caring for patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage is that these patients can look, really, very sick in the beginning, and they're quite complex to manage, but you can see some very impressive recovery. And from a neurointensivist perspective, seeing that recovery in kind of a rapid timeline is rare - and we get to see that in subarach patients. We see patients who just have refractory recurrent vasospasm and delayed cerebral ischemia getting all of the tools thrown at them and you're really kind of, you know, concerned that there seems to be no end - but there is this peak of that injury, and then after that window of secondary brain injury risk kind of resolves, the patient can very much recover (so seeing patients who look the sickest be able to leave and go home). I think there is a hidden cost to subarachnoid hemorrhage where, maybe on our gross measures of outcome, patients look great, but there are this hidden cost of social psychological outcome that is unmeasured the way that we are currently measuring it. And I think our field is getting better at adopting some of the ability to measure those kind of hidden costs, and we're able to see that, even a year out, patients are really not back to where they were before (even though on the scales we currently have, they do look great, right, in terms of motor function, and things like that) - so, I think as clinicians, we have to be sensitive to that. So, when we talk to families, we have to remain hopeful that they are going to have a remarkable potential recovery but prepare families that they really should be on the lookout for any opportunity to rehabilitate in all aspects of function.

Dr Nevel: Yeah. And you mentioned in your article that as we're moving into the future  - and even currently - that there is some focus on gathering more patient-reported outcomes for people who are, you know, out of the ICU back in their normal lives after subarachnoid hemorrhage (which speaks to this that you're talking about, that even if their motor function is normal, they may not be back to their normal lives). So, what is something you think that's really important that we've learned in the past ten years - I'll give it ten years, you can go back further, make that time frame shorter if you want, but about the past ten years - about subarachnoid hemorrhage's impact on patient care, and then what do you think we're going to learn in the next ten years that will impact the way we care for these patients?

Dr Park: So, you know, subarach - in terms of the literature that is forming, that has formed - like I said, the guidelines had not been updated for over a decade, and we're fortunate to have not just one, but two sets of guidelines from two professional societies that were published right next to each other this past year in 2023 - but the field is fast moving, so even after the publication of those guidelines, there was one of the first randomized controlled trials in the field to be published maybe a month or two after that (that was the early lumbar drain trial). So, the key areas that I think where the literature has really helped strengthen our practice in terms of bringing standardization is in the antifibrinolytics. And so, in that space, recently, there was a very nicely performed randomized controlled trial for early administration of antifibrinolytics. It's a practice that, even when I was training, was sort of based on old literature back when we used to treat subarachnoid patients very differently - so we were really kind of extrapolating from that literature into our practice, and we were all sort of just giving it uniformly to patients early on with the good intention to try to prevent rebleeding, (which we understood, prior to aneurysm securement, was a high source of morbidity/mortality). So, in trying to reduce that risk of rebleeding (which happens very early) as much as we could, we were giving it. But the length of treatment (you know, who should we give that medication to) was really kind of uncertain - and this recent randomized controlled trial really gave a definitive answer to this, which is that it probably makes no difference. It should be seen with a caveat, though, that the trial (like any trial) was a very specific population. So, it could probably be said that for patients who are secured very early, there's no role for antifibrinolytic therapy, but, potentially, for patients who may be in a lower-middle-income environment or lower-income environment or for whatever reason can't reach aneurysm securement within that seventy two-hour period - you could consider, you know, greater than twenty-four hours you should consider the use of antifibrinolytics - but largely has brought an end to uniform administration of antifibrinolytics. This is where that expert nuanced care comes to, right?

Dr Nevel: Mm-hmm.

Dr Park: Another area is, really, kind of something as basic as blood pressure management. I think we were taught very early on that we should be very rigorous, bring that blood pressure down - and so, I think, across all types of stroke now, we're realizing there is a little bit of nuance, right? You have to think about your patient, about prior existing renal failure, about prior existing chronic hypertension that's poorly controlled - and in subarachnoid hemorrhage, the additional impact of that early brain injury. If you have cerebral edema, you should be considering, do we really want to control our blood pressure that low? Because we might be inducing secondary brain injury from our presumed protective intervention. So, these types of things are being revisited - so, the language around that in the new guidelines is a little bit softer, and it does sort of refer more to, "let's consider the whole patient".

Dr Nevel: Yeah, rather than making a blanket statement that doesn't apply to maybe everybody.

Dr Park: Yeah. And you also asked about future.

Dr Nevel: Yeah. Where do you think things are heading in the future? What's exciting in research, and if you had a crystal ball, what do you think we're going to figure out in the next ten years that's going to impact care?

Dr Park: Well, fortunately, for patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage and for people like me who are treating patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage, there's a lot going on. So, I mentioned lumbar drainage because there was a very nice trial that was published - I think we'll see in the next few years how much of that diffusion of innovation travels across the country in the world about the usage of this. There are some who point to prior studies that may have conflicting results and so want to wait and see it be validated. Others are pretty convinced, you know, by the quality of the study that was done and are trying to incorporate it into their protocols now. I think we're going to see more usage and more study of things like intravenous milrinone, early stellate ganglion blockade, intraventricular nicardipine, and even maybe optimized goals for cerebral perfusion or blood pressure - and this is for looking at a myriad of outcomes, including the prevention and treatment of vasospasm and ischemia, improving outcomes, and preventing infarction. There's also a lot to come about early brain injury (and I kind of talked about that). It's like a seventy-two-hour period window after subarachnoid hemorrhage, and it comprises processes like microcirculatory dysfunction, blood-brain barrier breakdown, and things like oxidative cascades, et cetera. While currently, there doesn't exist any practice besides, like, the nuance and expert determination of blood pressure goals prior to aneurysm securement, I think this will be an area that hopefully will become a target for intervention, because it has an independent and influential impact on poor outcomes for subarachnoid hemorrhage patients. So, watch the space.

Dr Nevel: Yes, absolutely. Looking forward to seeing what comes. Well, thank you so much for talking to me, Dr Park, and joining me on Continuum Audio.

Dr Park: It was my pleasure.

Dr Nevel: Again, today, I've been interviewing Dr Soojin Park, whose article on emergent management of spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage appears in the most recent issue of Continuum in neurocritical care. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues. And thank you to our listeners for joining today.

Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practice - and right now, during our spring special, all subscriptions are 15% off. Go to Continpub.com/Spring2024 or use the link in the episode notes to learn more and take advantage of this great discount. This offer ends June 30, 2024. AAN members, go to the link in the episode notes and complete the evaluation to get CME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Management of stroke due to large vessel occlusion (LVO) has undergone unprecedented change in the past decade. Early identification and aggressive treatment are important in mitigating negative effects on patients' prognoses.

In this episode, Allison Weathers, MD, FAAN, speaks with T. M. Leslie-Mazwi, MD, author of the article "Neurocritical Care for Patients With Ischemic Stroke," in the Continuum June 2024 Neurocritical Care issue.

Dr. Weathers is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and an associate chief medical information officer at Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio.

Dr. Leslie-Mazwi is a professor and chair in the department of neurology at the University of Washington in Seattle, Washington.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Neurocritical Care for Patients With Ischemic Stroke

Subscribe to Continuum: shop.lww.com/Continuum

Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME

Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud

More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com

Social Media

facebook.com/continuumcme

@ContinuumAAN

Transcript

Full transcript available

In neurocritical care, the initial evaluation is often fast paced, and assessment and management go hand in hand. History, clinical examination, and workup should be obtained while considering therapeutic implications and the need for lifesaving interventions.

In this episode, Aaron Berkowitz, MD, PhD FAAN, speaks with Sarah Wahlster, MD, an author of the article "The Neurocritical Care Examination and Workup," in the Continuum June 2024 Neurocritical Care issue.

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

Dr. Wahlster is an associate professor of neurology in the departments of neurology, neurological surgery, and anesthesiology and pain medicine at Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington in Seattle, Washington.

Additional Resources

Read the article: The Neurocritical Care Examination and Workup

Subscribe to Continuum: shop.lww.com/Continuum

Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME

Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud

More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com

Social Media

facebook.com/continuumcme

@ContinuumAAN

Host: @AaronLBerkowitz

Guest: @SWahlster

Full Episode Transcript

Sarah Wahlster, MD

Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum, the premier topic-based neurology clinical review and CME journal from the American Academy of Neurology. Thank you for joining us on Continuum Audio, a companion podcast to the journal. Continuum Audio features conversations with the guest editors and authors of Continuum, who are the leading experts in their fields. Subscribers to the Continuum journal can read the full article or listen to verbatim recordings of the article by clicking on the link in the Show Notes. Subscribers also have access to exclusive audio content not featured on the podcast. As an ad-free journal entirely supported by subscriptions, if you're not already a subscriber, we encourage you to become one. For more information on subscribing, please visit the link in the Show Notes. AAN members: stay tuned after the episode to hear how you can get CME for listening. 

Dr Berkowitz: This is Dr Aaron Berkowitz, and today I'm interviewing Dr Sarah Wahlster about her article on examination and workup of the neurocritical care patient, which is part of the June 2024 Continuum issue on neurocritical care. Welcome to the podcast, Dr Wahlster. Can you please introduce yourself to the audience?

Dr Wahlster: Thank you very much, Aaron. I'm Sarah Wahlster. I'm a neurologist and neurontensivist at Harborview Medical Center at the University of Washington.

Dr Berkowitz: Well, Sarah and I know each other for many, many years. Sarah was my senior resident at Mass General and Brigham and Women's Hospital. Actually, Sarah was at my interview dinner for that program, and I remember meeting her and thinking, "If such brilliant, kind, talented people are in this program, I should try to see if I can find my way here so I can learn from them." So, I learned a lot from Sarah as a resident, I learned a lot from this article, and excited for all of us to learn from Sarah, today, talking about this important topic. So, to start off, let's take a common scenario that we see often. We're called to the emergency room because a patient is found down, unresponsive, and neurology is called to see the patient. So, what's running through your mind? And then, walk us through your approach as you're getting to the bedside and as you're at the bedside.

Dr Wahlster: Yeah, absolutely. This was a fun topic to write about because I think this initial kind of mystery of a patient and the initial approach is something that is one of the puzzles in neurology. And I think, especially if you're thinking about an emergency, the tricky part is that the evaluation and management go hand in hand. The thinking I've adapted as a neurointensivist is really thinking about "column A" (what is likely?) and "column B" (what are must-not-miss things?). It's actually something I learned from Steve Greenberg, who was a mutual mentor of us - but he always talked me through that. There's always things at the back of your head that you just want to rule out. I do think you evaluate the patient having in mind, "What are time-sensitive, critical interventions that this patient might need?" And so, I think that is usually my approach. Those things are usually anything with elevated intracranial pressure: Is the patient at risk of herniating imminently and would need a neurosurgical intervention, such as an EVD or decompression? Is there a neurovascular emergency, such as an acute ischemic stroke, a large-vessel occlusion, a subarachnoid hemorrhage that needs emergent intervention? And then other things you think about are seizures, convulsive/nonconvulsive status, CNS infection, spinal cord compression. But I think, just thinking about these pathologies somewhere and then really approaching the patient by just, very quickly, trying to gather as much possible information through a combination of exam and history.

Dr Berkowitz: Great. So, you're thinking about all these not-to-miss diagnoses that would be life-threatening for the patient and you're getting to the bedside. So, how do you approach the exam? Often, this is a different scenario than usual, where the patient's not going to be able to give us a history or maybe necessarily even participate in the exam, and yet, as you said, the stakes are high to determine if there are neurologic conditions playing into this patient's status. So, how do you approach a patient at the bedside?

Dr Wahlster: So, I think first step in an ICU setting (especially if the patient has a breathing tube) is you think about any confounders (especially sedation or metabolic confounders) - you want to remove as soon as possible, if able. I think as you do the exam, you try to kind of incorporate snippets of the history and really try to see - you know, localize the problem. And also kind of see, you know, what is the time course of the deterioration, what is the time course of the presentation. And that is something I actually learned from you. I know you've always had this framework of "what is it, where is it?" But I think in terms of just a clinical exam, I would look at localizing signs. I think, in the absence of being able to do the full head-to-toe neuro exam and interact with the patient, you really try to look at the brainstem findings. I always look at the eyes right away and look at, I think, just things like, you know, the gaze (how is it aligned? is there deviation? is there a skew? what do the pupils look like? [pupillary reactivity]). I think that's usually often a first step - that I just look at the patient's eyes. I think other objective findings, such as brainstem reflexes and motor responses, are also helpful. And then you just look whether there's any kind of focality in terms of - you know, is there any difference in size? But I think those are kind of the imminent things I look at quickly.

Dr Berkowitz: Fantastic. Most of the time, this evaluation is happening kind of en route to the CT scanner or maybe a CT has already happened. So, let's say you're seeing a patient who's found down, the CT has either happened or you asked for it to happen somewhat quickly after you've done your exam, and let's say it's not particularly revealing early on. What are the sort things on your exam that would then push you to think about an MRI, a lumbar puncture, an EEG? You and I both spend time in large community hospitals, right, where "found down" is one of the most common chief concerns. In many cases, there isn't something to see on the CT or something obvious in the initial labs, and the question always comes up, "Who gets an MRI? Who gets an LP? Who gets an EEG?" - and I'm not sure I have a great framework for this. Obviously, you see focality on your exam, you know you need to look further. But, any factors in the history or exam that, even with a normal CT, raise your suspicion that you need to go further?

Dr Wahlster: It's always a challenge, especially at a community hospital, because some of these patients come in at 1 AM where the EEG is not imminently available. But I think - let's say the CT scan is absolutely normal and doesn't give me a cause, but as an acute concerning deterioration, I think both EEG and LP would cross my mind. MRI I kind of see a little bit as a second-day test. I think there's very rare situation where an acute MRI would inform my imminent management. It's very informative, right, because you can see very small-vessel strokes. We had this patient that actually had this really bad vasculitis and we were able to see the small strokes everywhere on the MRI the day later, or sometimes helps you visualize acute brainstem pathology. But I think, even that - if you rule out a large-vessel occlusion on your CTA, there's brainstem pathology that is not imminently visible on the CT - it's nothing you need to go after. So, I do think the CT is a critical part of that initial eval, and whereas I always admire the neurological subspecialties, such as movements, where you just – like, your exam is everything. I think, to determine these acute time-sensitive interventions, the CT is key. And also, seeing a normal CT makes me a little less worried. You always look at these "four H" (they're big hypodensity, hyperdensity, any shift; is there hydrocephalus or herniation). I think if I don't have an explanation, my mind would imminently jump to seizure or CNS infection, or sometimes both. And I think then I would really kind of - to guide those decisions and whether I want to call in the EEG tech at 2 AM - I would, you know, again, look at the history and exam, see if there's any gaze deviation, tongue biting, incontinence - anything leading up towards seizure. I think, though, even if I didn't have any of those, those would strengthen my suspicion. If I really, absolutely don't have an explanation and the patient off sedation is just absolutely altered, I would still advocate for an EEG and maybe, in the meantime, do a small treatment trial. And I think with CNS infection - obviously, there are patients that are high risk for it - I would try to go back and get history about prodromes and, you know, look at things like the white count, fevers, and all of that. But again, I think if there's such a profound alteration in neurologic exam, there's nothing in the CT, and there's no other explanation, I would tend to do these things up front because, again, you don't want to miss them.

Dr Berkowitz: Yeah, perfect. So many pearls in there, but one I just want to highlight because I'm not sure I've heard the mnemonic - can you tell us the four Hs again of sort of neurologic emergencies on CT?

Dr Wahlster: Yeah. So, it's funny; for ages - I'm actually not sure where that's coming from, and I learned it from one of my fellows, one of our neurocritical care fellows - he's a fantastic teacher and he would teach our EM and anesthesia residents about it and his approach to CT. But yeah, the four H - he was always kind of like, "Look at the CT. Do you see any acute hypodensities, any hyperdensities?" And hypodensities would be involving infarct or edema; hyperdensities would be, most likely, hemorrhage (sometimes calcification or other things). Then, "Do you see hydrocephalus?" (because that needs an intervention). And, "Look at the midline structures and the ventricles." And then, "Do you see any signs of herniation?" And he would go through the different types of herniation. But I thought that's a very good framework for looking at the "noncon" and just identifying critical pathology that needs some intervention.

Dr Berkowitz: Yeah – so, hypodensity, hyperdensity, herniation, hydrocephalus. That's a good one – the four Hs; fantastic. Okay. So, a point that comes up a few times in your article - which I thought was very helpful to walk through and I'd love to pick your brain about a little bit – is, which patients need to be intubated for a neurologic indication? So, often we do consultations in medical, surgical ICUs; patients are intubated for medical respiratory reasons, but sometimes patients are intubated for neurologic reasons. So, can you walk us through your thinking on how to decide who needs to be intubated for the concern of depressed level of consciousness?

Dr. Wahlster: It's an excellent question, and I think I would bet there's a lot of variation in practice and difference in opinion. There was actually the 2020 ESICM guidelines kind of commented on it, and those are great guidelines in terms of just intubation, mechanical ventilation of patients, and just acknowledging how there is a lack of really strong evidence. I would say the typical mantra ("GCS 8, intubate") has been proposed in the trauma literature. And at some point, I actually dug into this to look behind the evidence, and there's actually not as much evidence as it's been put forth in guidelines and that kind of surprised me - that was just recently. I was like, "Actually, let me look this up." I would say I didn't find a ton of strong evidence for it. I would say, as neurologist – you know, I'm amazed because GCS, I think is a - in some ways, a good tool to track things because it's so widely used across the board. But I would say, as neurologists, we all know that it sometimes doesn't account for some sort of nuances; you know, if a patient is aphasic, if a patient has an eyelid-opening apraxia - it can always be a little confounded. I'm amazed that GCS is still so widely used, to be frank. But I would say there is some literature - some school of thought - that maybe just blindly going by that mantra could be harmful or could not be ideal. I would say – I mean, I look at the two kind of functional things: oxygenation and ventilation. I think, in a neuro patient, you always think about airway protection or the decreased level of consciousness being a major issue (What is truly airway protection? Probably a mix of things). Then there's the issue of respiratory centers and respiratory drive - I think those are two issues you think about. But ultimately, if it leads to insufficient oxygenation - hypoxia early on is bad and that's been shown in several neurologic acute brain injuries. I think you also want to think about ventilation, especially if the mental status is poor to the point that the PCO2 elevates, that could also augment an ICP or exacerbate an ICP crisis. Or sometimes, I think there's just dysregulation of ventilation and there's hyperventilation to the point that the PCO2 is so low that I worry about cerebral vasoconstriction. So, I worry about these markers. I think, the oxygenation, I usually just kind of initially track on the sats. Sometimes, if the patient is profoundly altered, I do look at an arterial blood gas. And then there are things like breathing sounds (stridor, stertor [the work of breathing]). And I think something that also makes me have a lower threshold to intubate is if I'm worried and I want to scan, and I'm worried that the patient can't tolerate it - I want an imminent scan to just see why the patient is altered, or seizing, or presenting a certain way.

Dr Berkowitz: All great pearls for how to think through this. Yeah - it's hard to think of hard and fast rules, and you can get to eight on the GCS in many different ways, as you said, some of which may not involve the respiratory mechanics at all. So, that's a helpful way of thinking about it that involves both the mental state, kind of the tracheal apparatus and how it's being managed by the neurologic system, and also the oxygen and carbon dioxide (sort of, respiratory parameters) – so, linking all those together; that's very helpful. And, related question – so, that's sort of for that patient with central nervous system pathology, who we're thinking about whether they need to be intubated for a primary neurologic indication. What about from the acute neuromuscular perspective (so, patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome or myasthenic crisis); how do you think about when to intubate those patients?

Dr Wahlster: Yeah, absolutely - I think that's a really important one. And I think especially in a patient that is rapidly progressing, you always kind of think about that, and you want them in a supervised setting, either the ER or the ICU. I mean, there's some scores - I think there's the EGRIS score; there's some kind of models that predict it. I would say, the factors within that model, and based on my experience, often the pace of progression of reflex motor syndrome. I often see things like, kind of, changes in voice. You know, myasthenia, you look at things like head extension, flexion - those are the kind of factors. I would say there's this "20/30/40 rule" about various measures of, like, NIF and vital capacities, which is great. I would say in practice, I sometimes see that sometimes the participation in how the NIF is obtained is a little bit funky, so I wouldn't always blindly go by these numbers but sometimes it's helpful to track them. If you get a reliable kind of sixty and suddenly it drops to twenty, that makes me very concerned. But I would say, in general, it's really a little bit the work of breathing - looking at how the patient looks like. There's also (at some point) ABG abnormalities, but we always say, once those happen, you're kind of later in the game, so you should really - I think anyone that is in respiratory distress, you should think about it and have a low threshold to do it, and, at a minimum, monitor very closely.

Dr Berkowitz: Yeah, we have those numbers, but so often, our patients who are weak, from a neuromuscular perspective, often have facial and other bulbar weakness and can't make a seal on the device that is used to check these numbers, and it can look very concerning when the patient may not, or can be a little bit difficult to interpret. So, I appreciate you giving us sort of the protocol and then the pearls of the caveats of how to interpret them and going sort of back to basics. So, just looking at the patient at the bedside and how hard they are working to breathe, or how difficult it is for them to clear their secretions from bulbar weakness. Moving on to another topic, you have a really wonderful section in your article on detecting clinical deterioration in patients in the neuro ICU. Many patients in the neuro ICU - for example, due to head trauma or large ischemic stroke or intracerebral hemorrhage, subarachnoid hemorrhage, or status epilepticus - they can't communicate with us to tell us something is getting worse, and they can't (in many cases) participate in the examination. They may be intubated, as you said, sedated or maybe even not sedated, and there's not necessarily much to follow on the exam to begin with if the GCS is very low. So, I'd love to hear your thoughts and your pearls, as someone who rounds in the neuro-ICU almost every day. What are you looking for at the bedside to try to detect sort of covert deterioration, if you will, in patients who already have major neurologic deficits, major neurologic injury or disease that we're aware of? I'm trying to see if there is some type of difference at the bedside that would lead you to be concerned for some underlying change and go back to the scanner or repeat EEG, LP, et cetera.

Dr Wahlster: Yeah. I think that's an excellent question because that's a lot of what we do in the neuro ICU, right? And when you read your Clans, your residency, like, "Ah, QNR neuro checks, [IG1]  " right? We often do that in many patients. But I think in the right patient, it can really be life or death a matter, and it is the exam that really then drives a whole cascade of changes in management and detects the need for lifesaving procedure. I would say it depends very much on the process and what you anticipate, right? If you have, for example, someone with a large ischemic stroke, large MCA stroke, especially, right, then there's sometimes conversations about doing a surgical procedure before they herniate. But let's say, kind of watch them and are worried that they will, you do worry about uncal herniation, and you pay attention to the pupil, because often, if the inferior division is infarcted, you know, you can see that kind of temporal tickling the uncus already. And so, I think those are patients that I torture with those NPi checks and checking the pupil very vigilantly. I would say, if it's a cerebellar stroke, for example, right, then you think about, you know, hydrocephalus. And often patients with cerebellar stroke - you know, the beauty of it is that if you detect it early, those patients can do so well, but they can die, and will die if they develop hydrocephalus start swelling. But I think, often something I always like to teach trainees is looking at the eye movements in upgaze and downgaze because, often, as the aqueduct, the third ventricle gets compressed and there's pressure on the colliculi – you kind of see vertical gaze get worse. But I would say I think it's always good to know what the process is and then what deterioration would look like. For example, in subarachnoid hemorrhage, where you talk about vasospasm - it's funny - I think a really good, experienced nurse is actually the best tool in this, but they will sometimes come to you and say, "I see this flavor," and it's actually a constellation of symptoms, especially in the anterior ACA (ACom) aneurysms. You sometimes see patients suddenly, like, making funky jokes or saying really weird things. And then you see that in combination with, sometimes, a sodium drop, a little bit of subfebrile temperature; blood pressure shoot up sometimes, and that is a way the brain is sometimes regulating. But it's often a constellation of things, and I think it depends a little on the process that you're worried about.

Dr Berkowitz: Yeah, that's very helpful. You just gave us some pearls for detecting deterioration related to vasospasm and subarachnoid hemorrhage; some pearls for detecting malignant edema in an MCA stroke or fourth ventricular compression in a large cerebellar stroke. Patients I find often very challenging to get a sense of what's going on and often get scanned over and over and back on EEG, not necessarily find something: patients with large intracerebral hemorrhage (particularly, in my experience, if the thalamus is involved) just can fluctuate a lot, and it's not clear to me actually what the fluctuation is. But you're looking for whether they're developing hydrocephalus from third ventricular compression with a thalamic hemorrhage (probably shouldn't be seizing from the thalamus, but if it's a large hemorrhage and cortical networks are disrupted and it's beyond sort of the subcortical gray matter, or has the hemorrhage expanded or ruptured it into the ventricular system?) And yet, you scan these patients over and over, sometimes, and just see it's the same thalamic hemorrhage and there's some, probably, just fluctuation level of arousal from the thalamic lesion. How do you, as someone who sees a lot of these patients, decide which patients with intracerebral hemorrhage - what are you looking for as far as deterioration? How do you decide who to keep scanning when you're seeing the same fluctuations? I find it so challenging - I'm curious to hear your perspective.

Dr Wahlster: Yeah, no - that is a very tricky one. I mean, unfortunately, in patients with deeper hemorrhages or deeper lesions - you know, thalamic or then affecting brainstem - I think those are the ones that ultimately don't have good, consistent airway protection and do end up needing a trach, just because there's so much fluctuation. But I agree - it's so tricky, and I don't think I can give a perfect answer. I would say, a little bit I lean on the imaging. And for example - let's say there's a thalamic hemorrhage. We recently actually had a patient - I was on service last week - we had a thalamic hemorrhage with a fair amount of edema on it that was also kind of pressing on the aqueduct and didn't have a lot of IVH, right? But it was, like, from the outside pushing on it and where we ended up getting more scans. And I have to say, that patient actually just did fine and actually got the drain out and didn't need a shunt or anything, and actually never drained. We put an EVD and actually drained very little. So, I think we're still bad at gauging those. But I think, in general, my index of suspicion or threshold to scan would be lower if there was something, like, you know, a lot of IVH associated, if, you know, just kind of push on the aqueduct. It's very hard to say, I think. Sometimes, as you get to know your patients, you can get a little bit of a flavor of what is within normal fluctuation. I think it's probably true for every patient, right? - that there's always some fluctuation within the realm of like, "that's what he does," and then there's something more profound. Yeah, sorry - I wish I could give a better answer, but I would say it's very tricky and requires experience and, ideally, you really taking the time to examine the patient yourself (ideally, several times). Sometimes, we see the patient - we get really worried. Or the typical thing we see the ICU is that the neurosurgeons walk around at 5 AM and say, like, "She's altered, she's different, she's changed." And then the nurse will tell you at 8 AM, like, "No, they woke up and they ate their breakfast." So, I think really working with your nurse and examining the patient yourself and just getting a flavor for what the realm of fluctuation is.

Dr Berkowitz: Yeah - that's helpful to hear how challenging it is, even for a neurocritical care expert. I'm often taking care of these patients when they come out of the ICU and I'm thinking, "Am I scanning these patients too much?" Because I just don't sort of see the initial stage, and then, you know, you realize, "If I'm concerned and this is not fitting, then I should get a CT scan," and sometimes you can't sort it out of the bedside. So, far from apologizing for your answer, it's reassuring, right, that sometimes you really can't tell at the bedside, as much as we value our exam. And the stakes are quite high if this patient's developed intraventricular hemorrhage or hydrocephalus, and these would change the management. Sometimes you have these patients the first few days in the ICU (for us, when they come out of the ICU) are getting scanned more often than you would like to. But then you get a sense of, "Oh, yeah - these times of day, they're hard to arouse," or, "They're hard to arouse, but they are arousable this way," and then, "When they are aroused, this is what they can do, and that's kind of what we saw yesterday." And yet, as you said, if anyone on the team (the resident, the nurse, the student, our neurosurgery colleague) says, "I don't think this is how they were yesterday," then, very low threshold to just go back and get a CT and make sure we're not missing something.

Dr. Wahlster: Exactly. Yeah. I would say the other thing is also certain time intervals, right? If I'm seeing a patient that may be in vasospasm kind of around the days seven to ten, for the first fourteen day, I would be a little bit more nervous. Or with swelling - acute ischemic stroke says that could peak swelling, when knowing which [IG2]  , I would just be more anxious or have a lower threshold to scan. Yeah.

Dr Berkowitz: Yeah - very helpful. Well, thank you so much for joining me today on Continuum Audio.

Dr Wahlster: Thank you very much, Aaron.

Dr Berkowitz: Again, today we've been interviewing Dr Sarah Wahlster, whose article, "Examination and Workup of the Neurocritical Care Patient" appears in the most recent issue of Continuum, on neurocritical care. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues. And thank you so much to our listeners for joining us today.

Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practice. And right now, during our Spring Special, all subscriptions are 15% off. Go to Continpub.com/Spring2024 or use the link in the episode notes to learn more and take advantage of this great discount. This offer ends June 30, 2024. AAN members: go to the link in the episode notes and complete the evaluation to get CME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

In this episode, Lyell K. Jones Jr, MD, FAAN, speaks with Ariane Lewis, MD, who served as the guest editor of the Continuum® June 2024 Neurocritical Care issue. They provide a preview of the issue, which published on June 3, 2024.

Dr. Jones is the editor-in-chief of Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology® and is a professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

Dr. Lewis is a professor of neurology and neurosurgery and director of the Division of Neurocritical Care at NYU Langone Medical Center in New York, New York.

Additional Resources

Continuum website: ContinuumJournal.com

Subscribe to Continuum: shop.lww.com/Continuum

More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com

Social Media

facebook.com/continuumcme

@ContinuumAAN

Host: @LyellJ

Full episode transcript 

Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum, the premier topic-based neurology clinical review and CME journal from the American Academy of Neurology. Thank you for joining us on Continuum Audio, a companion podcast to the journal. Continuum Audio features conversations with the guest editors and authors of Continuum, who are the leading experts in their fields. Subscribers to the Continuum journal can read the full article or listen to verbatim recordings of the article by visiting the link in the show notes. Subscribers also have access to exclusive audio content not featured on the podcast. As an ad-free journal entirely supported by subscriptions, if you're not already a subscriber, we encourage you to become one. For more information on subscribing, please visit the link in the Show Notes.

Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology. Today, I'm interviewing Dr Ariane Lewis, who recently served as Continuum's guest editor for our latest issue on neurocritical care. Dr Lewis is a Professor of Neurology and Neurosurgery at NYU, where she serves as the Director of the Division of Neurocritical Care. Dr Lewis, welcome. Thank you for joining us today. Why don't you introduce yourself to our listeners? Tell us a little bit about yourself.

Dr Lewis: Thank you so much for having me, Dr Jones. It was a pleasure to be an editor of this issue, and I'm really excited for it to come out. As you mentioned, I'm a Professor of Neurology and Neurosurgery at NYU. I'm also a fellow of the American Academy of Neurology and a fellow of the Neurocritical Care Society. I serve on the Ethics Law and Humanities Committee for the AAN. I was a past chair of the Ethics Committee for the Neurocritical Care Society and also the past chair of the Ethics Committee at NYU.

Dr Jones: So, pretty diverse professional interests. And I was going to ask you about the ethics - that feels like something that ties in pretty well to neurocritical care. I imagine that expertise comes in handy, right?

Dr Lewis: Yes, absolutely. My area of expertise is related to brain death and ethical, social, and legal complications related to brain death determination.

Dr Jones: Got it. And when we were talking before we started recording here, you're from the New York area and a lifelong Yankees fan, is that right?

Dr Lewis: Yes, that's correct.

Dr Jones: How are they going to do this year?

Dr Lewis: We're hoping we're going all the way.

Dr Jones: Okay.

Dr Lewis: In a while.

Dr Jones: Our listeners heard it here first. So, the issue – let's get into the neurocritical care topics – phenomenal issue, full of detailed diagnosis and management strategies for patients with, you know, all manners of severe neurologic disorders requiring critical level of care. With your perspective (which is a unique perspective) - you've just edited a full issue on neurocritical care, you got to delve into all the topics - what were you most surprised to learn, Dr Lewis?

Dr Lewis: Well, you know, I think that one of the most exciting things about this issue is the fact that, in addition to dealing with the typical topics related to neurocritical care - like hypoxic ischemic brain injury and stroke and intracerebral hemorrhage and subarachnoid hemorrhage, of course - the issue delves into some very unique topics related to neurocritical care. There's an article written by Dr Barry Czeisler that focuses on emergent management of tumefactive and aggressive demyelinating disorders, Dr Casey Albin wrote about neuromuscular emergencies, and doctors Maciel and Busl wrote about neuroonc emergencies – and I think that these areas are really important areas for neurologists and trainees to know about, and they're not talked about all that often. And these topics are often focused on, of course, by other subspecialties, but the perspective of a neurointensivist related to these topics is infrequently addressed. So I think that these are really the most exciting aspects of this issue, because it's something so unique in terms of the spin on these topics.

Dr Jones: Fantastic. And what else can we look for in this issue? What other topics can our listeners and readers expect to find there? 

Dr Lewis: So, the issue starts off with the examination and workup of the neurocritical care patient. Dr Sarah Wahlster and Nick Johnson from the University of Washington did an awesome job really bringing the reader into the topic of neurocritical care as they address an overview of neuroemergencies, red flags related to life-threatening conditions, herniation syndromes, vascular territories, and mechanisms and management of acute neurodeterioration, and they summarize monitoring modalities in neurocritical care and clinical and radiographic scales and scores that are commonly used in neurocritical care – and that's a really nice overview to introduce the reader to this issue. The rest of the issue focuses on a wide range of topics pertaining to the emergent management of neurocritical care issues, including hypoxic ischemic brain injury (which was addressed by Dr Steinberg from the University of Pittsburgh),  management of stroke due to large vessel occlusion (which was addressed by Dr Leslie-Mazwi from the University of Washington), management of ICH (addressed by Dr Murthy from Weill Cornell), and then also management of spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage (addressed by Dr Soojin Park). Dr Clio Rubinos addressed emergent management of status epilepticus. Emergent management of TBI and spinal cord injury was addressed by Dr Podell and Dr Morris from the University of Maryland. And then neuroinfectious emergencies – which, again, is another unique topic in this issue – was  addressed by Dr Reynolds from Mount Sinai. And then the issue concludes with a paper that focuses on prognostication and neurocritical care by Dr Susanne Muehlschlegel from Johns Hopkins University. 

Dr Jones: Yeah. And what a great list of authors and expertise. And really, you know,  having seen these articles, really just phenomenal guidance on a lot of different subtopics. And I imagine – you know, this is a dynamic area, there's a lot of evidence – but, you know, sometimes, there are controversies or debates or unresolved questions in the field. Having just reviewed and edited the issue, what do you think the biggest debate or controversy is in neurocritical care right now? 

Dr Lewis: So there's definitely a lot of controversies that are addressed in each of these individual articles. For example, in the paper on subarachnoid hemorrhage, Dr Soojin Park provides a summary that compares the guidelines on management of subarachnoid hemorrhage that were written by the Neurocritical Care Society and the American Health Association / American Stroke Association in 2023 and really walks through what's similar and what's different between these guidelines. For the most part, they are very similar, but there are areas of differences. Additionally, in terms of management of acute neuroemergencies related to neuromuscular issues (in some cases, it's not clear whether to treat patients with IVIG or with plasmapheresis), Dr Casey Albin creates a nice summary addressing these issues in terms of what are the pluses and minuses associated with each of these medications. Additionally, there are a number of novel therapies that are not traditionally considered for various neuroemergencies that are walked through in each of the individual articles. For example, in the paper that focuses on management of status epilepticus, Dr Rubinos addresses alternative therapies, like immunomodulatory agents or neuromodulation, for management of super-refractory status epilepticus. So, I think, in addition to addressing the more traditional therapies for various neuroemergencies, the issue really goes above and beyond to address novel interventions. 

Dr Jones: That's fantastic. And obviously, it continues to be a rapidly evolving area.  When you look out to the horizon – and the next generation of care for patients with critical neurologic illness – what do you see on the horizon? What should our listeners and readers be aware of to watch out for? 

Dr Lewis: I think one thing that is really important to be aware of related to patients with neuroemergencies is the Curing Coma Campaign (which is organized by the Neurocritical Care Society), which focuses on research in terms of improving the clinical management, the prognostication, and the care of patients and addresses the goals for  improving recovery for patients who are comatose. And obviously, coma can be due to a wide range of different etiologies (many of which are described in this issue), and so I think that their work as we move ahead will be incredibly important and interesting to see how things evolve in that domain.

Dr Jones: We will be on the lookout for the Curing Coma Campaign – sounds like a great initiative. And, I think, medicine is a team endeavor, right? We were talking about the Yankees earlier (baseball) as a team sport – so is medicine. When you think about the importance of teams, it's hard to imagine a setting where it's more critical to have, you know, well-functioning teams than in the neuro ICU. But there's also parts of the team (people on the team) who are outside the neuro ICU – and I'm thinking of other neurologists, our listeners and readers who might work in the inpatient setting, but not in this really specialized environment. When you think about those neurologists, is there a key message for those hospitalist neurologists or inpatient neurologists that you would want to share from your perspective as a neurocritical care specialist? 

Dr Lewis: So, I think it's imperative for all neurologists to have an understanding of the existence of various neuroemergencies and the identification of when a patient is  having a neuroemergency so that they can escalate the management if it's something beyond their skills or expertise to somebody who is capable of appropriately managing the patient. Each of these articles walks through the differential diagnosis, the identification of the neuroemergency, the first steps in terms of management, the laboratory workup, and then the subsequent steps as well. And I think that, you know, for all neurologists, really, the key things to know about (even if you're not specializing in  neurocritical care) is how to identify a neuroemergency and what needs to be done as the first steps in terms of intervening and diagnosing these emergencies.

Dr Jones: Great message, and that's one of the key things we learn in training, right,  is when to recognize that someone's sick and you need to escalate their level of care. What about – you know, I imagine the neurocritical care field is a relatively small community, and you know a lot of these folks – any key message that you would want to share with that audience?

Dr Lewis: So, I think that this issue is still really important for all neurointensivists (in addition to for general neurologists and trainees), because of the fact that every article  really addresses in depth each of these aspects of neurocritical care and provides tidbits of information that not every neurointensivist would know. So, I think that the issue is beneficial both for trainees, general neurologists, and people who have expertise in the field of neurocritical care.

Dr Jones: That's a great point. I think the fact that it is such a rapidly changing and broad field (you mentioned all the different article topics that are in the issue), it's a challenge to stay up to date on everything. And I think that's what this issue really brings  to the neurointensivist – is, you know, this is all (as of what's the latest in 2024) for the care of patients with critical illness. It's all there, right? 

Dr Lewis: Absolutely. I think, you know, the issue is unique because neurocritical care is unique in that our role involves taking care of patients with a wide range of different neurologic disorders. So, the issue touches upon stroke (both ischemic and hemorrhagic). It touches upon seizure management. It touches upon management of traumatic brain injury. It addresses demyelination (so types of aggressive MS and other demyelinating disorders), neuromuscular issues, neuroonc issues – so I think that, really, there are so many subspecialties within neurology that it's important for them to have awareness of the emergencies that can emerge within their individual field.

Dr Jones: So, we know that neurocritical care is pretty specialized work, and I imagine the expertise and the resources are not necessarily going to be available in every community. Are you aware, Dr Lewis, of any disparities in access or outcomes to neurointensivist expertise? 

Dr Lewis: Yeah, absolutely. Unfortunately, as you look internationally, first, there are many places that don't have neurointensivists, so patients with neuroemergencies are being taken care of, in some cases, not even by general neurologists, but by specialists just in medicine. Additionally, the resources are often not available in terms of having an intensive care unit, having nurses with a good ratio to care for neurocritical care patients, having access to therapists who can participate in rehab and promote rehab, for patients having access to medications that are necessary, having access to various interventions (such as access to neurosurgeons who can do neurosurgical procedures or placement of an external ventricular drain), or other monitoring modalities are not available and accessible. So, all of these issues – in terms of resources, in terms of funding, in terms of other issues related to the existence of protocols as to how to  manage patients in the neuro ICU – all impact the outcome for patients in neurocritical care. Additionally, social issues and cultural issues can impact the outcome for patients in the neuro ICU. So, there's a lot of issues pertaining to equity in terms of the management of neurocritical care patients around the world. 

Dr Jones: Those are great points. I know you and I both work with trainees in our field,  and when I talk to residents who are interested in neurocritical care, I think part of what draws them in is when they are exposed to it and they see how much, you know, the value of what their expertise brings to the outcome for that patient. I mean, it really does make a difference to understand the brain when you're caring for people with these critical neurologic disorders – and I think that's part of the appeal, right? 

Dr Lewis: Yeah, absolutely. I think that people who are interested in going into the field of neurocritical care are interested in the more fast-paced aspect of neurology, rapid decision making, dealing with emergencies, also dealing with prognostication,  discussions (unfortunately, at end of life) – so that's really the kind of individual who turns to the field to specialize in.

Dr Jones: And what about you, Dr Lewis? What drew you to this, you know, pretty high-pressure, intense, dynamic environment? 

Dr Lewis: So I think, actually, you know, all the buzzwords you just used are really the things that made me want to go into neurocritical care. I am interested in much more  fast-paced management of patients, and, you know, unfortunately, obviously emergencies happen, and I find them to be exciting to be able to manage patients in that setting. And, you know, as you mentioned earlier, in the neuro ICU, it's a very multidisciplinary team, and I really enjoy being able to work with nursing, social work, care management, therapists, a variety of consultants – and addressing very acute issues with these individuals as a team in the ICU setting is really very rewarding. 

Dr Jones: Yeah, and I hear that from others who are drawn to the field, and I think you really have to have kind of a broad skill set to manage actively, you know, critically ill patients, but also do the communication competencies and other things that are necessary. So, anecdotally, I would say I see more interest among trainees in this field. I don't know if you've seen the same thing in your world.

Dr Lewis: Yeah. I think that, you know, as you mentioned, it's really important to emphasize that being a neurointensivist does not  just require expertise in the medical aspects of care for these patients, but really, also it's very important to ensure that we  promote education related to communication and neuroprognostication. So, our last article on this issue (by Dr Susanne Muehlschlegel) addresses prognostication and includes a variety of different details about how to address uncertainty, how to implement family and patient-centered prognostication and promote shared decision-making – and these topics are so important for everyone to know about when they're communicating with patients and families to address goals of care and to prognosticate.

Dr Jones: Yeah. Thank you. And before we wrap up our discussion here, Dr Lewis, in addition to being a neurointensivist and being an expert on ethics and all of your clinical and research work, you do editorial work. You have editorial responsibilities not only for this issue of Continuum, but also at Seminars in Neurology and at "The Green Journal".  For our listeners who might be interested in that career pathway, how did you get into that? 

Dr Lewis: I very much enjoyed writing, and so I published a lot. And then I think that, you know, making connections is incredibly important and really looking out for those types of opportunities. Once you build a semblance of expertise in an area, then that often tends to lead to opportunities. So, I'm a Deputy Editor for the Disputes and Debate section of the Neurology journal. I'm also a Deputy Editor of Seminars in Neurology. I edited a book with Dr Jim Burnett on advances in neuroethics related to death determination by neurologic criteria, areas of controversy and consensus. And then I've also been a Guest Editor for a number of other journals, like the AMA Journal of Ethics that focused on socially situated brain death, a neurosurgical focus issue on primary and secondary infections of the brain, and a issue of Seminars in Neurology focused on ethics in neurology.

Dr Jones: You must have like a twenty-eight or twenty-nine-hour day, Dr Lewis. I don't know how you do all that. I wasn't even aware of all those things that you do, but I can tell you, having looked at this issue, your editorial skills are off the charts. I really want to thank you not just for a wonderful issue, but for joining us today and for such a thoughtful, fascinating, and thorough discussion on the field of neurocritical care.

Dr Lewis: Thank you so much. I'm so excited for all the readers to look at our issue and learn about all of these different topics. 

Dr Jones: Again, we've been speaking with Dr Ariane Lewis, Guest Editor for Continuum's most recent issue on neurocritical care. Please check it out. And thank you to our listeners for joining today. 

Dr Monteith: This is Dr. Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practice - and right now, during our Spring Special, all subscriptions are 15% off. Go to Continpub.com/Spring2024, or use the link in the episode notes to learn more and take advantage of this great discount. This offer ends June 30, 2024. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Indomethacin-responsive headache disorders are rare conditions whose hallmark is an absolute response to the medicine and include paroxysmal hemicrania and hemicrania continua.

In this episode, Gordon Smith, MD, FAAN, speaks with Peter Goadsby, MD, PhD, FRS, author of the article "Indomethacin-Responsive Headache Disorders," in the Continuum® April 2024 Headache issue.

Dr. Smith is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and professor and chair of neurology at Kenneth and Dianne Wright Distinguished Chair in Clinical and Translational Research at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia.

Dr. Goadsby is a professor of neurology at King's College London in London, United Kingdom and professor emeritus of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles in Los Angeles, California.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Indomethacin-Responsive Headache Disorders

Subscribe to Continuum: continpub.com/Spring2024

Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME

Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud

More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com

Social Media

facebook.com/continuumcme

@ContinuumAAN

Host: @gordonsmithMD

Transcript

Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum, the premier topic-based neurology clinical review and CME journal from the American Academy of Neurology. Thank you for joining us on Continuum Audio, a companion podcast to the journal. Continuum Audio features conversations with the guest editors and authors of Continuum, who are the leading experts in their fields. Subscribers to the Continuum journal can read the full article or listen to verbatim recordings of the article by visiting the link in the Show Notes. Subscribers also have access to exclusive audio content not featured on the podcast. As an ad-free journal entirely supported by subscriptions, if you're not already a subscriber, we encourage you to become one. For more information on subscribing, please visit the link in the Show Notes. AAN members: Stay tuned after the episode to hear how you can get CME for listening.

Dr Smith: This is Dr Gordon Smith. Today, I've got the great pleasure of interviewing Dr Peter Goadsby on indomethacin-responsive headache disorders, which is part of the April 2024 Continuum issue on headache. Dr. Goadsby is a Professor of Neurology at King's College London, in London, United Kingdom and a Professor Emeritus of Neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, which is located in Los Angeles, California. Dr Goadsby, welcome to the podcast. Well Peter, I'm super excited to have the opportunity to talk to you. And I think, before we begin, we probably ought to expand on your introduction. I think there may be three or four neurologists who don't know who you are, and I think they should know who you are because you've got a really amazing story. These are exciting times in headache, right? And a lot of that's because of your work and you've been widely acknowledged for that; you received the appropriately named "Brain Prize," which (if I'm correct) is the largest neuroscience award in the world; got to meet Danish royalty; you're - more recently, the ABF Scientific Breakthrough Award, which is super excited. So, particularly interested in hearing about your Continuum article. But before we get there, I think it would be really great to hear your story. How did you get into this in the beginning, and what's inspired you along the way to the many achievements you've had?

Dr Goadsby: Why, it's a very kind introduction. People have been nice to me. It has to be said, Danish royalty were very nice, I have to say, and the very jolly chap, the Prince of Denmark. I got into neurology - I guess it's all about mentoring for me. I got into neurology because I got into medical school pretty much by accident. I really wasn't that interested and heard a lecture by James Lance, who was Professor of Neurology, University of New South Wales, at the time. He was talking about a nondominant parietal lobe. I'd seen the case as a medical student; it sort of just seemed weird to me and I wasn't that interested. But he set out this way of thinking about things to try and understand why a clinical presentation is what it is - what he described as a physiological approach to clinical neurology. He described a number of things, but he described that in this lecture and then gave a reference to some work that Mountcastle did on nondominant parietal recordings from awake behaving monkeys in the Journal of Neurophysiology. And I thought to myself, "Wow, this is really interesting - you could really get to the bottom of something," and had that sort of "puzzle-y" thing going on. And I thought Lance was just wonderful, so I became interested in that. And then eventually I asked him about research - actually, I asked him about research after a lecture he gave on migraine, and the explanation of the time was some circulating substance - probably just as silly now. I went up to him afterwards and said to him, I thought the explanation he was giving was wrong. Like, here was a global person - he described Lance-Adams syndrome; this was someone who trained at Mass General, trained at Queen Square; was the first professor of neurology in Australia. I was just – like, it was a stupid thing to do. But I couldn't resist myself - I told him I thought it was wrong. And he's very polite, and he said, "Well, perhaps you could come and help us by doing some research." And I thought, "Okay, that's a very nice response." Interestingly, his daughter described him as unfailingly polite at his funeral. Of the many things you'd say about him, he was a kind person. Whether it's science or just the way you practice - that word (kind) - you can know as much about a subject as you like, but if you're not kind to patients, you're probably in the wrong game. He taught me to be curious about a problem and got me interested in headache, and to be kind in clinical practice - just kind – and I think they were very important lessons. So, I got into it because of excellent mentoring, and I'd like to think I've helped some others along the way.

Dr Smith: Well, you certainly have helped a lot of people, Peter, and what a great story. I'm reflecting - I think the first vignette in The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat was a right parietal syndrome - wasn't it? You've read that book?

Dr Goadsby: Yes, I have. And I've met Sacks. When Sacks came to Australia, he wanted to see Lance, and Lance said, "Fine, but you have to meet me between the morning round and the afternoon clinical meeting." And he got him to come and have lunch with him in the hospital cafeteria at the Prince Henry Hospital and invited me to this lunch. And I sat there and watched them chat. But it was a measure of Lance and how people were interested in him that Oliver Sacks had to get in a taxi and come out to a hospital cafeteria to have lunch if you wanted to have a chat. Because it was - it was a privilege to train with the person. You know, I've done okay, but I only do okay if you've got – you know, you can work with patients, you've got great collaborators, and you've got someone you can get advice from (a great mentor).

Dr Smith: Yeah, that's actually really great words of wisdom for the residents and fellows and junior faculty listening to this. Maybe we should actually talk about your article, which was really great. Your article was on indomethacin-responsive headaches - and we can maybe talk about some specific questions - but what's the main take-home point? If our listeners needed to take or were to take home one point from your article, what would it be, other than it's indomethacin-responsive (that's in the title)?

Dr Goadsby: Yeah, it's what it says on the jar. Well, I think the one thing to take home is that there are forms of headache that seem relatively pedestrian, like one-sided headache that feels like it ought to be migraine that's strictly one-sided, and a small percentage of them respond almost like switching a light off to indomethacin. So, I think you have to have a high index of suspicion. And I'm sure I give indomethacin to ten, twenty times as many people - or thirty - who end up (or even more, probably) who end up having a response. But we do it for a short period of time. For those who get the response - I can tell you, when they come back, they're crying, their partners crying, or the other day I saw one, their child's crying, because all of a sudden, you've basically fixed the problem up. So, the message would be, if you've heard about something and it feels a bit "maybe, could be" - you've heard this indomethacin thing - just do it for a couple of weeks. The worst thing that can happen is nothing (nothing happens). For a couple of weeks, they're not going to have a problem with the tummy (and I'm not advocating taking people with a active gastric ulcer, trying to bump them off). But you cover them properly, you give them a short trial, and occasionally in your practice, you will be so rewarded by that - you will dance home.

Dr Smith: Well, this is going to be my next question. There are very specific criteria, right, for defining cluster, SUNCT, SUNA (and there was a really great Continuum Audio conversation I had with Mark Burish I'll refer our listeners to about cluster, SUNCT, and SUNA), but the indomethacin-responsive headaches - and even migraine - that sounds to me, as someone who's not a headache person, like, that could be challenging to sort out. If you see someone who has consistent, unilateral headache, do you just do an indomethacin trial, or do you select based on other criteria from the classification system?

Dr Goadsby: I'd like to think I was aware of the criteria, and I am. But the longer I practice, the more I'm inclined simply to give the indomethacin and get the question off the table because I don't think there's a sine qua non; there's nothing that will - apart from the indomethacin effect - there's nothing that will convince me 100% to be able to not do it. I've seen enough people who haven't clearly read the classification in detail (patients, I mean) and took indomethacin, and got a response where you wouldn't have predicted it, and they're very happy and the story ends well. So, I would advise people not to worry too much about whether it ought to or not respond, but find out if it does.

Dr Smith: So, the obvious next question is, how does this work? It's pretty unusual in medicine, certainly in neurology, to have something that's so dramatically effective. What's the mechanism?

Dr Goadsby: Well, that's the easiest question - we don't understand it. It is particular to indomethacin - it's weird. Some patients will say, "We'll give you a little bit of a hint by telling you (maybe) that ibuprofen was useful," but most don't give you that much of a hint (some will even say aspirin is useful). But we haven't really gotten to the bottom of it. What are the current thoughts? It must be something that's not simply cyclo-oxygenase because other cyclo-oxygenase inhibitors don't do that – so, that's helpful. The other broad things people think about are whether there's a nitrergic aspect to it. We've got some basic science work that can show that nitrergically induced changes in experimental animal model of these trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias can be modified by indomethacin in one part of the model, where naproxen (for example) can't. So, we think there may be a nitrergic component to it. The other thing is the structure of the molecule makes you think about melatonin, if you put the two up – it's a work in progress. Of the things I would like to do in my life, I'd really like to get to the bottom of it, I have to tell you, because if we could work out what it is that's great about indomethacin and then get rid of the GI thing . . . Then, if you talk about cure - because when people get a response to this (you know, the oldest reported case with a response took it for thirty-seven years; they died of something else) - and continue to respond. It's one of the sort of upsides and downsides when you diagnose it - you can tell a person that they're going to continue to respond (take a breath) until they die basically, because unfortunately, the problem doesn't tend to settle down - at least the treatment stays consistent. If we could get rid of the tummy problem, that would be real progress.

Dr Smith: So, what do you do with the patient who has the tummy problem? Is there another approach?

Dr Goadsby: Well, there's a range of things you try and do; you use PPIs (proton pump inhibitors) and H2 blockers pretty liberally; you try to get the lowest dose, and that's usually best done by the patient. I give them the ordinary-release indomethacin; it's an impression that I have, over the years, that the slow-release indomethacin is not as efficient (just as a recommendation). I let patients - they take it three times a day, or twice - I let them work out what the littlest amount is that they need, having given them a regime to iron it out, because they can work it out for themselves. It's a partnership. It'll be very individual. If someone wants to take two in the morning and one at night and feels happy, have at it. If they want to take one three times a day, if they want to take one at lunchtime - whatever they - let them work out the minimal amount. And the other thing that we found useful - small percentage (maybe one in five) will find the coxibs useful (like celecoxib), but that's not universal at all; it generally takes the edge off. A palpable percentage will find adding melatonin in can be indomethacin sparing. Then the other (probably most important) thing is that the noninvasive vagal nerve stimulator can be very useful in reducing indomethacin dosing or even getting patients entirely off indomethacin dosing. How that works, of course, is as mysterious in the sense of these problems as is indomethacin. But that's something really worth thinking about - can be very, very useful in getting the doses down.

Dr Smith: You've been doing this for a while, right? And you've seen a lot of –

Dr Goadsby: Let's not emphasize that "for a while" side, right, okay?

Dr Smith: For a while – just a little while, Peter.

Dr Goadsby: A little while.

Dr Smith: I'm just thinking - and I'm a neuromuscular guy, so give me a little latitude - but when I was a resident, our concept of headache was pretty simple; it was migraine, classic or common, and we knew a little bit about cluster. And no one talked about SUNCT or SUNA or all these other things, and wow, what an amazing several decades it's been. What's the future look like? And - maybe think big – so, is a cure for migraine in the foreseeable future? What's coming next?

Dr Goadsby: If you think really big (and I'll think really big), if "cure" means that we could control it sufficiently that you wouldn't notice it, I think that's very much - it's almost here, for some. Now, I think of it like cholesterol - someone's got high cholesterol; they take a statin, and if they don't get any problems, the cholesterol normalizes. I'm simplifying things (I'm not a cardiologist), but you take your cholesterol tablet - you take it once a day; everything's fine and dandy. You never get "cured," as such, but the effect is an effective cure from manifestations of the problem - and I am simplifying things a little bit. If I look at it like that, then I think we're getting to a place where some patients, we can treat them so well, and the problem is so suppressed, and they have so few problems with side effects (and some have none), that we're really getting there. We saw a study of the promontory phase of migraine using a gepant (ubrogepant), and we saw the ability (if you recognize the attack early enough) to treat and never have pain. Never have pain. Well, that's pretty close. It might sound crazy to think about it as a cure because someone will say, "Well, they've still got their genes," and so on. Fine. But migraine is about disability, and if you can stop the disability and give a person full function in their life, well, you're pretty much there. And we're getting there, as we understand the disease.

Dr Smith: Really amazing. I have another question that I've actually been really dying to ask you. I'm a peripheral nerve guy, and you may not be aware of this, but those of us who are interested in therapeutic development in peripheral neuropathy, or advocacy, or recognition of neuropathy as a substantive, meaningful entity, are inspired by the work of you and your colleagues in headache. Examples might be advocacy for federal funding or having CDMRP funding - things like this. But an area where - I'm just curious - we spent a lot of effort (and it seems like it's been really transformational for you guys) is having taxonomy, which isn't a particularly sexy topic. But maybe you can talk about the power of having a taxonomic classification and getting towards a cure. Because looking through this Continuum issue - it's really remarkable – it's just all sorts of things that I never would have thought of twenty years ago, and each of them is treated a bit differently.

Dr Goadsby: Yes. As with all things in medicine, if you don't get the diagnosis, you can't get to the base - you've got to be able to get a diagnosis. And our taxonomy, the International Classification of Headache Disorders, has gone through three editions. We're working on the fourth. I have the privilege of being the chairman for the fourth edition (the first three were chaired by Jes Olesen). I do think it's one of the absolute achievements of our field (and Olesen needs to be really feted for doing this) that we have a definition system - it's operational; it's reasonably straightforward; it's been translated into, like, forty languages; that every government on the planet that I know of - and I'm talking about (I think I'd better mention no governments) but every big government you can think of, without exception, has adopted ('cause I'll just get in trouble with the ones I've mentioned) have all adopted this classification; all the health technology assessments (the FDA, for example; the European Medicine, for another example), the Chinese government (People's Republic), Taiwan. Just, all over the world, people use one thing. So, if we do a randomized control trial - there's one recently came out; it doesn't really matter which gepant it is - but you look at the results in North America, and then you look at the results that were done by the Chinese and the South Koreans in a study, and the placebo rates and the active rates are more or less identical. Because what we've been able to do is homogenize who gets into clinical trials and understand what's happening. So, if I get up and talk about whatever we're going to talk about now, like, in rural India, people will know what we're talking about; all the neurologists will be on the same page and so we can make progress. And when we make progress, it's global progress because we sing from the same hymn sheets. I think the taxonomy has been really important for this. And, of course, if you get the diagnosis right, then you can start to begin to get the treatments right and you can bring all the knowledge from randomized controlled trials. There's no point having a whole lot of data if you can't apply it, and what's great about our taxonomy is we can apply it everywhere in the world.

Dr Smith: Wow, what a cool answer. So, I have a follow up question for you, Peter, which has to do with reproducibility. This is a huge issue, right? In reproducibility and clinical trial evidence and in many fields, this has been a big issue - in psychiatry and other areas of neurology, where trials are nonreproducible. To what extent do you think this problem in other fields is a taxonomic problem, or a internal validity problem, in terms of the populations being recruited? I'm really impressed to hear that you don't have that problem in headache.

Dr Goadsby: I do think one of the advantages that the International Classification of Headache Disorders has given us (International Headache Society being the proponent of that) is that there's clinical homogeneity, relatively speaking, in our clinical trial populations. This comes back to the clinic; good clinical trials are as much about the clinicians who are involved and the care they take in recruiting patients, and so on. Which is not to say that psychiatrists are not careful - not at all. But I do think that if you want to just test a question, everyone in the laboratory will tell you that you need to have - say you're doing work with rodents, for example; you want about the same weight, you want the same strain, they're eating about the same, they're up and down at night - everything is about the same. If you want to do good clinical trial work, you have to tidy up as much as you can so the only thing that's really impacting upon the question is the medicine, or the placebo, or whatever that you're testing. So, I think you're right. I think sometimes the pain people struggle with this because, as you say, a painful neuropathy can come from a lot of places. Well, if you just take all of those etiologies, you throw them into one study, and you test it against something, it doesn't surprise me that that's not so useful, compared to taking an individual thing that's really well defined - where you've understood the clinical side, you've understood the pathophysiology as much as you could - and just test that, one at a time. I think that's been a good lesson for us. And that's why there's nothing that's ever failed in a migraine clinical trial (a properly designed one) that ever was useful, and nothing that was ever successful that didn't continue to be successful. Now, some things were successful, and they produced, like, liver enzyme problems - so, that's "no win-no foul" situation. But the homogeneity's been quite important, I think. And it comes back to good clinical practice.

Dr Smith: Well, thank you for the roadmap - that's really, really interesting. I'd like to finish up with another shift in gears, and to talk about workforce. Obviously, we have a national shortage of neurologists in the United States. We're never going to be able to train enough headache neurologists to take care of all headache patients, and we need to think about systems of care, which I guess we could talk about. But my question for you is, what would you say - a lot of residents listen to Continuum Audio, and hopefully, more medical students in the future and now - what do you say to them about a career in headache? Listening to this, I kind of feel like I want to go do a headache fellowship - it's pretty exciting. What's your pitch to them?

Dr Goadsby: I'll tell you one small thing first before I say that; I did do twelve months in clinical neurophysiology, doing nerve conduction, muscle biopsies, evoked potentials. I actually did over ninety muscle biopsies (needle muscle biopsies) when I was training, so I understand your feeling. But I just got the feeling many years earlier than you've had it. What do I say to residents? Well, headache is an area where you can make a diagnosis, you can manage the patient, and you can make them better. I'd say to the resident, "Ask - just look in the mirror and ask yourself, why did you get into medicine?" You got into medicine to help people, and headache is an area where you can really help them. Plus, there's tens of millions of people with the problem, so you will always be in demand. And one of the great things about headache (I think it's probably true of neuromuscular) is it's also a very good lifestyle choice because our problems are generally with primary headache disorders - are not emergent (people don't tend to ring you up at night), and it's not really an on-call issue. You can have a proper balanced existence (work-life balance), and you can do it in a way that's really enjoyable. And then there's an extra bonus: there's all the wonderful neuroscience and neuropharmacology that's going on in headache. I just think if a resident looks in the mirror and says, "Why am I doing this?" most of them are going to look back at themselves and say, "Because I want to do good." And they also want to do good in a way that they can have a proper life themselves. And if they're the two answers you got back when you look in the mirror ("I want to do good" and "I want to have some life myself") - headache - that's the place to go, because there's plenty of room and you can do both.

Dr Smith: Well Peter, that's great - sign me up. And I think people know where to find you to call for a recommendation. What a great conversation and a really great article. And again, I'll refer our listeners to Mark Burish's article on cluster, which is a really great companion to your article 'cause it gives you the full spectrum of trigeminal autonomic cephalgias (which is pretty cool), and the rest of the issue is equally amazing. Peter, you don't disappoint. The next time you see the Danish Crown Prince, say "Hi" from me (I love Denmark - it's a lovely place to be). And thanks again for doing this.

Dr Goadsby: Well, thank you, and thanks for the Academy for organizing. And the other thing about residents - if you want to stay in touch with neurology, stay in touch with the Academy; they're a pretty good bunch.

Dr Smith: Couldn't agree more, couldn't agree more. Again, today we've been interviewing Dr. Peter Goadsby. His article on indomethacin-responsive headache disorders appears in the most recent issue of Continuum, on headache. Be sure to check out our Continuum Audio podcasts from this and other issues. And listeners, thank you very much for joining us today.

Dr. Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practice. Right now, during our Spring Special, all subscriptions are 15% off. Go to Continpub.com/Spring2024, or use the link in the episode notes to learn more and take advantage of this great discount. This offer ends June 30, 2024. AAN members: go to the link in the episode notes and complete the evaluation to get CME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Cranial neuralgias comprise a distinct set of disorders typified by short-lasting attacks of intense pain in the distribution of a particular nerve in the cranium. Cranial neuralgia syndromes are rare but can be debilitating and go undiagnosed or misdiagnosed for years.

In this episode, Lyell Jones, MD, FAAN, speaks with Stephanie J. Nahas, MD, MSEd, FAAN, MD, an author of the article "Cranial Neuralgias," in the Continuum® April 2024 Headache 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. Nahas is an associate professor of neurology at Thomas Jefferson University and assistant director of the Headache Medicine Fellowship Program at Jefferson Headache Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Cranial Neuralgias

Subscribe to Continuum: continpub.com/Spring2024

Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME

Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud

More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com

Social Media

facebook.com/continuumcme

@ContinuumAAN

Host: @ LyellJ

Guest: @stephanieJnahas

Full transcript available here 

Dr Jones: This is Dr. Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum, the premier topic-based neurology clinical review and CME journal from the American Academy of Neurology. Thank you for joining us on Continuum Audio, a companion podcast to the journal. Continuum Audio features conversations with the guest editors and authors of Continuum, who are the leading experts in their fields. Subscribers to the Continuum journal can read the full article or listen to verbatim recordings of the article by visiting the link in the show notes. Subscribers also have access to exclusive audio content not featured on the podcast. As an ad-free journal entirely supported by subscriptions, if you're not already a subscriber, we encourage you to become one. For more information on subscribing, please visit the link in the show notes. AAN members, stay tuned after the episode to hear how you can get CME for listening. 

Dr Jones: This is Dr. Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology. Today, I'm interviewing Dr. Stephanie Nahas, who has recently authored an article on cranial neuralgias in the latest issue of Continuum on headache. Dr. Nahas is a neurologist at Thomas Jefferson University where she is an Associate Professor of Neurology and serves as Assistant Program Director of the Headache Fellowship program there. Dr. Nahas, welcome, and thank you for joining us today.

Dr Nahas: Thanks for having me. Glad to be here.

Dr Jones: So, for our listeners who are new to Continuum, Continuum is a journal dedicated to helping clinicians deliver the highest possible quality neurologic care to their patients, and we do so with high quality and current clinical reviews. Dr. Nahas, your article is a perfect example of that - it's full of really helpful (and I think clinically relevant) recommendations for neurologists who take care of patients with cranial neuralgias. And now that at this moment (during this podcast interview), you have the attention of a huge audience of neurologists - what's the one most important practice change that you would like to see in the care of these patients? 

Dr Nahas: I would like to see the recognition of these cranial neuralgias and related syndromes as distinct and overlapping with other primary headaches much more often. I think far too often, clinicians will try to pigeonhole these headache and facial pain diagnoses and try to make just one diagnosis the main one, and any other symptomatology that comes along with it – "Oh, that's just a weird part of your primary syndrome, right?" I know I've fallen into this trap a number of times, because mostly what we see in a headache clinic is going to be migraine, so we kind of have a laser focus towards migraine-type symptoms (and we know migraine can do just about anything). So then when we hear a little bit about a facial pain, a little bit about some sort of neuralgia, we just try to wrap it up into migraine - but that's not always necessarily the case. You know, we know that any person on the planet can have as many diseases as they darn well please, so why not ascribe two diagnoses when it's appropriate? That can lead to better treatment outcomes, in fact. If you are focusing your treatment on two distinct, but overlapping, entities, you tend to get better results, because the treatments may not be identical (and they rarely are).

Dr Jones: And that's a great example of it's Occam's razor on one side (there's one problem) versus - what is it, Hickam's Dictum?

Dr Nahas: Something like that.

Dr Jones:  - where you can have as many problems as the patient wants to have, so I think that's a great example of that. And, earlier, in the same issue on headache, we do have a wonderful article by Dr. Deb Friedman, who walks through that really important history component of trying to, you know, determine which headache syndrome the patient is dealing with (which is obviously a prerequisite for the diagnosis and management) - so that's a great point. So that's the one takeaway - recognition of cranial neuralgias as a distinct entity. Keep it in mind – otherwise, we'll miss it. Is that right?

Dr Nahas: You got it.

Dr Jones: Okay, good. If we learn nothing else, we'll take that away. So, speaking of the history, Dr. Nahas, for many pain syndromes (including these), the history is really paramount in establishing the diagnosis for patients, specifically with trigeminal neuralgia. How do they usually describe that pain to you? 

Dr Nahas: The whole spectrum of descriptors for trigeminal neuralgia-form pain is, actually, maybe broader than you would think, and I actually find that, sometimes, patients have a real hard time verbalizing and describing the way it feels, because it's so unusual - it doesn't remind them of anything they've necessarily felt before.  Sometimes, it can. For example, a patient who's no stranger to having lots of dental work - that pain that when they drill in or if they hit an irritated part of the tooth or the gums, that's usually kind of neuralgia form-like. But at the same time, patients will say, "It's still not quite like that. You know, it's really hard for me to explain. It's sharp and it's terrible like that, but it has a different quality." And I think they just don't necessarily have the terminology, but I encourage them to try to be creative. You know, some of my patients will personify the pain - they'll describe as if there's some little creature in there that's clawing, or scraping, or pulling, or stabbing. Or they might use other descriptors, such as burning like a fire (like a blow torch is there). Or they may even use colors. You know, some of my patients are really creative, and I don't know if they actually have synesthesia or they're just bordering on that, but they'll describe different colors for the qualities of pain. ("Is it more red? Is it more like icy blue? Is it black or white?") I don't hear that too often, but I do like to just open the door and let my patients describe for themselves in their own words - and if they can't have any words, I give them some examples and that usually gets the ball rolling.

Dr Jones: So, a combination (like we usually do) with some open-ended questions, and then some directed ones to kind of clarify. That's really interesting, and it gives you some immediate empathy and sympathy for the discomfort these patients have to deal with, right (as when they describe it in those burning, clawing kind of terms)?

Dr Nahas: Exactly, and they'll also put it into context for you - so not just describing what the quality of the pain is like, but they'll give you good examples of when they feel these symptoms, what brings them on, what alleviates them, how the symptoms may change from day to day depending on the situation or circumstance. And again, it just gives them an open door to express themselves, and it really does help to strengthen that alliance you're trying to create and maintain with your patient. You do get useful and valuable information when you just let them go on and describe things.

Dr Jones: So, there are, I think, misconceptions in the popular world and also in the clinical side of care that, you know, folks will have a perception of a disorder that maybe doesn't really match reality. What do you think is a common misconception you've encountered in taking care of patients with cranial neuralgias? 

Dr Nahas: The patients that I see tend not to have the clear-cut textbook descriptions  (like it's almost as if they're reading the criteria when they tell you your symptomatology) - because those cases are a little bit easier, they get identified more readily, they get appropriate treatment sooner, their disease doesn't necessarily progress and become complicated by, you know, any number of things that can happen with unmanaged neuralgia-form craniofacial pain. The ones that I see - they've been around the block several times, because maybe their syndrome isn't quite so typical. Maybe they didn't really have the terminology to be able to describe their symptoms. Maybe nobody really opened that door for them and invited them to just talk about what it is. Perhaps they, or whoever they were seeing, were more focused on diagnostic testing, and so their focus is more on, "Why is my MRI not showing anything? Why is my x-ray completely normal? You know, I have these symptoms. There must be an explanation." Because that's what patients want - they want solutions. They have a problem, they want to know why they have it, and they want a solution to it. And they can get too focused on the hard data and ignore that it's a subjective experience that really guides us to help treat their symptoms, especially when we don't have necessarily an anatomic target to go after. (When we do, that's great.) But again, these straightforward cases tend not to come to me, because they're easier to take care of.

Dr Jones: Still, just as legitimate a diagnosis, even with a normal MRI, right? I do find it's sometimes hard to kind of get around that with a patient, isn't it?

Dr Nahas: Absolutely, it is. You know, they're both relieved and disappointed. I often find if we order imaging for an unusual syndrome (or even a typical syndrome) and they see that, "Well, there's nothing on this report to go for. What does that mean? Does that mean that I'm crazy? Does it mean that this is all in my head, that I'm imagining it, that I'm amplifying my symptoms somehow? Is this my fault?" You know, all this self-doubt comes in, and you have to reassure these patients that, "Yes, your symptoms are real. They are in your head, because your brain is in your head, and your brain is the source of your perception and your experience. So, let's take your symptoms at face value and let's give you treatments that are directed at those symptoms."

Dr Jones: Well said, and that's where we like to keep it, the brain inside the head. I think that was day one of neuroanatomy. I know that the treatment for many of these cranial neuralgias overlaps, right? There's some common approaches to several of these. There are some things that we put in our academic writing, but there are some things that we just kind of learn from experience. Do you have any tips or tricks that you would like to share with our listeners about the management of the cranial neuralgias? 

Dr Nahas: First and foremost (and I think this kind of goes for any of the disorders in the spectrum of headache and facial pain) is you need to be patient, and you need to set up appropriate expectations that, by and large, this is a trial-and-error process where we need to introduce a therapeutic intervention gradually and titrate the dose gently to effect while following for clinical response, but also keeping an eye on what our guardrails are. What do I mean by that? Let's say, for example, we're using oxcarbazepine for some sort of neuralgia-form disorder (I mean, take your pick for any of them – it's fair game for most of these as a good initial trial).

Dr Jones: Sure. Yeah.

Dr Nahas: So, you want to start it at a low dose, start building it up slowly, and in addition to following for their clinical response - which I counsel them it may take a while  (even once we hit a target dose, it may take several more weeks, we've got to give it time) - you can monitor a serum level of oxcarbazepine and certain other antiseizure medicines for that matter. So, that can help guide you to know how high you can go. This is a little bit different from the situation with epilepsy, where you're checking levels to ensure that it's in a therapeutic range to make sure that it's not toxic - maybe to assess for adherence - but here, we're using it as a guide to know how much farther can we push the dose on this drug. And, of course, also, you want to be monitoring for any adverse events that can occur with that drug (such as hyponatremia, or changes in the CBC, et cetera) - so I do monitor these folks a little bit more closely than I otherwise ordinarily would, especially when I have a therapeutic intervention where I can actually monitor the drug level of it and be very, very precise in trying to maximize and optimize their treatment.

Dr Jones: Got it. So, patience with each trial, and then patience that there might be (and I mean patience with a 'c' that there might be) multiple trials – I think that's a good takeaway for all of these cranial neuralgias with pretty much all of the medication treatments, right?

Dr Nahas: Yes, and I do find that in some cases, one treatment is not quite enough. Because most of the treatments we draw from our antiseizure medication category, it can get complex trying to balance two, or even three, antiseizure medicines and finding the optimal dose for each. Do we push all of them to the max? Do we say this one is the undercurrent (we just want to keep it at a low level) and these other two are going to be doing the lion's share of the work? It becomes kind of fun if you like uncertainty and if you like to be creative. If you're the type of person who likes checkboxes and checklists and cut and dried results, you know this is not the game that you want to play - but that's one of the reasons that I enjoy doing this, because I have so much freedom to be creative and really finely tailor and tune the treatment specifically to the individual patient's needs.

Dr Jones: That's fantastic, and in a minute, I think we can come back to maybe what drew you to this - I'm curious to hear that. But before we get to that, you know, when we think about the medications that are available (and again, your article does a phenomenal job summarizing the therapeutic approaches to the cranial neuralgias) - what do you see on the horizon, Dr. Nahas, for the care of these patients? 

Dr Nahas: I want to see a lot more research being done in this population of patients and across this spectrum of disorders. What makes it so hard is because they are somewhat rare, and because they very often co-occur with another primary headache disorder - so that makes it extraordinarily difficult to create a research study on a population that's so heterogeneous, right? That's, I think, the biggest challenge - is that we have so little to guide us other than our own clinical experience. There are not a ton of clinical trials for any of these disorders. I think one in particular that can be both underdiagnosed and overdiagnosed is occipital neuralgia - and I mentioned before that I, myself, have found myself falling into this trap of once I see a signal for migraine, I just call everything migraine, right? And, sure, with migraine, there can be allodynia in the scalp, and oh, sure, we all hear that if you push on something sore, you can have some lancinating pain. Oh, that occipital neuralgia that somebody told you about? No, no, that's just part of your migraine. You don't actually have occipital neuralgia. Well, you know, if you look at clinic-based studies (there's one in particular that I cited), most of the presentations of occipital neuralgia actually co-occurred with another headache diagnosis (either primary or secondary), and very commonly, it was migraine or probable migraine or chronic migraine. And why this is important is because you need to validate for these patients that they do have more than just migraine. They have a separate problem that, yes, it's interrelated, it's interconnected, they can influence each other - but we might have to treat them both differently. So, you have your suite of migraine treatments which might not include an antiseizure medication. Then, for the occipital neuralgia, maybe you are pulling in an antiseizure medication, or maybe you're focusing more on peripheral nerve blockade or physical therapy - or even considering a surgical referral, because as surgical treatments for nerve decompression or ablation or other interventional procedures also continue to evolve, that helps to give us some more hope in giving  these patients more relief with fewer complications. I'd also like to see some more creative solutions, not just more antiseizure medicines, not just more targeted anatomic interventions. But, hey, is there a role for some other peptides or neurotransmitters that we just haven't identified yet? Might some novel treatment approaches actually be useful for some of these patients? And, you know, again, how do we get at those answers? It's going to be challenging, because the patients - while they're out there, they're not really a homogeneous group, and the results from a particular study might not be so generalizable.

Dr Jones: And we've seen such great success in the world of migraine, right (looking for novel targets) And so it would be nice to transport that over to the cranial neuralgias, right?

Dr Nahas: Yes, absolutely.

Dr Jones: Yeah. We should always be mindful of disparities in care of patients who have neurological problems. Are you aware of any literature around the care of these patients related to health care disparities that our listeners should be aware of?

Dr Nahas: Nothing focused specifically on disparities in this population or subpopulations within this population (based, for example, on ethnicity, or race, or socioeconomic status). You're looking for subpopulations within a huge population, almost like a needle in a haystack - not quite that difficult, but again, it takes a lot of effort and diligence to try to find these individuals and then to get them to agree to enroll in some sort of research study, even if it's just a survey study or doing interviews with them trying to understand their symptomatology better. It can be quite challenging. And then again, let alone designing a rigorous clinical trial for these folks - who, again, such a heterogeneous presentation - and the willingness to participate in a placebo-controlled trial for pain that can be so heinous can be very, very challenging. You know, we've seen this as a challenge with cluster headache, too - not just because of the nature of the disease (when the cycles come and go somewhat unpredictably). But these folks aren't necessarily willing to forgo treatment for the purposes of a clinical trial - I mean, many are, and I thank them - this is another one of the reasons that research is really lacking in some of these rarer syndromes.

Dr Jones: So, another part of the rationale for more investigation for these uncommon and probably underserved disorders. So, Dr Nahas, I know caring  for patients with craniofacial pain, I imagine it can be challenging. I can imagine it's also pretty rewarding as well. What drew you to this work, and what do you find most exciting about it? 

Dr Nahas: Well, what brought me to headache to begin with was kind of random chance, and really, it revolves around mentorship. When I very first started as a neurology resident, Dr. Silberstein took me under his wing and wanted to turn me into a headache specialist (that was one of his goals). And, thankfully, he was successful, although he didn't really have an easy job of it, because back then, I didn't really see or understand how studying headache and facial pain could really satisfy that hunger that I have to understand the brain and the nervous system. I mean, that's why I became a neurologist in the first place, right? (I think that's why most of us did.) You know, not only are we drawn to medicine to help people and be altruistic and to study a fascinating topic, but particularly with the brain and the nervous system - I mean, this is what makes us human. This is what's so fascinating to me. And until I started to learn more about headache, I thought the best way to really learn about brain function is through disease (such as stroke or epilepsy, or movement disorders, cognitive disorders, degenerative disorders). This is how we learn, right? This is what I was taught, at least in college and med school. And then you get to the real world of actually practicing medicine or being in training. You start talking with these folks, and you hear their stories and how distinct they are from the textbooks. And again, when you invite them to really describe their experience, you see the human side of it, and you listen to them describe their symptoms - and you start to imagine yourself, what's really going on in their brain and their nervous system for them to experience that? So you start reading a lot of the literature about cortical spreading depolarization and how that can activate the trigeminal system and sensitize it - how that might be linked to the expression of aura (for example) - then, you can actually really parse out the anatomy and understand why somebody experiences those symptoms when you understand the anatomy. And there are just countless examples of this - about how studying the symptoms and what brings them about, what the pathophysiology is, and then what the treatment is, how that really informs our understanding of how the brain functions - that's really what's kept me excited about this. That, and again, forming relationships with patients and sometimes being the first person who ever just sat down and listened to them and let them talk, and they really feel like they're cared about and like they're important - because they are. I think far too often, patients with headache and facial pain disorders are stigmatized, and they're left feeling like it's not worth it trying to get better, that there is no solution. Society has beat them down, the medical system has let them down, and they just want to give up. Then, when we can finally sit and listen and give them some hope, and they see some improvement - the transformation that occurs right before your eyes is extraordinarily gratifying.

Dr Jones: So, it's fascinating, and you can help people - and I can't think of a better advertisement for headache fellowship for all those neurology trainees out there.  Well said, Dr Nahas. So I've got one more question for you before we close. And I know that the headache community, including yourself, are very strong advocates for your patients and for more research (as we've talked about today) into headache disorders, understanding the pathophysiology, developing better treatments. What is it about purple hair? I've seen several headache specialists (and maybe someone on this call) post online some purple hair. What's the story behind that?

Dr Nahas: A number of years ago, as part of advocacy efforts, we recognized there's got to be a way to really improve the awareness of such a common condition, of headache in general. It affects so many people, it almost becomes, again, brushed off. We say headache, it's just a nuisance. Well, no it's not. It's actually fascinating as part of the human condition. One of the things we needed was a color - our signature color - and we chose purple. We know that we share this color with other advocacy groups, but it's a great color, it's eye-catching, and you can utilize it in a number of different ways. One of the early ways was people dressing up in all kinds of purple garb - putting purple makeup on, purple sunglasses, purple tutus, purple T-shirts, and even purple wigs. A lot of us have been donning purple wigs for advocacy and for awareness efforts, particularly for events (such as Miles for Migraine, for example) - but some of us have been so bold as to not just put on a purple wig, but to actually go to a salon, bleach the hair, and dye it bright purple. I have at least one male colleague who also did this to his beard. Last year, we did it together at the same salon, took a bunch of pictures to post about. It really created a big splash online and for our social media efforts and outreach, and it caught on. Lots more people now are thinking about dying their hair purple. One of our current fellows actually did it this year. At our center, we have about 30 different purple wigs that we bought with some funds that we procured, and on the Shades for Migraine Day (June 21), we all went out parading around Center City, Philadelphia wearing our purple T-shirts and our purple wigs, and handing out flyers trying to raise awareness. We got a lot of strange looks, but we also got a lot of good feedback. And I think we actually reached some people who didn't realize that there's such a thing as a headache center that they could actually come and see us and get relief for this problem they thought was just a part of everyday life. That was kind of a long-winded answer, but -

Dr Jones: No, that's great, and it worked. It got me to ask you about it, right? And I will say I admire your commitment and dedication. The best I could do today, Dr Nahas, was wear a purple tie, but I'm sure your patients appreciate that level of investment, too. It's really, really cool. Really impressive.

Dr Nahas: Yeah. A lot of them this past year have asked me, "Where's the purple hair? I thought you were going to do it every year around this time." And, you know, it is a bit of a commitment.

Dr Jones: It's a commitment, yeah.

Dr Nahas: And there's some upkeep that is required and you're kind of stuck with it for a while (unless you want to go to the trouble of reversing the process, but that's really just covering it up). I said, "We've moved beyond dying the hair. We're doing wigs, and we're thinking of the next thing." 

Dr Jones: Good for you. Dr Nahas, thank you so much for joining us, and thank you for such a thorough and fascinating discussion on symptomatic management of cranial neuralgias and such a wonderful article in the latest issue of Continuum.  Really appreciate you being here today.

Dr Nahas: I can't thank you enough. It's been my pleasure.

Dr Jones: Again, we've been speaking with Dr Stephanie Nahas, author of an article on cranial neuralgias in Continuum's most recent issue on headache. 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 practice - and right now, during our Spring Special, all subscriptions are 15% off. Go to Continpub.com/Spring2024, or use the link in the episode notes to learn more and take advantage of this great discount. This offer ends June 30, 2024. AAN members, go to the link in the episode notes and complete the evaluation to get CME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

The majority of children and adolescents experience headache, with pooled estimates suggesting that approximately 60% of youth are affected. Migraine and tension-type headache are the leading cause of neurologic disability among children and adolescents 10 years and older.

In this episode, Allison Weathers, MD, FAAN speaks with Serena Orr, MD, MSc, FRCPC, author of the article "Headache in Children and Adolescents," in the Continuum® April 2024 Headache issue.

Dr. Weathers is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and an associate chief medical information officer at Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio.

Dr. Orr is an assistant professor in the departments of Pediatrics, Community Health Sciences, and Clinical Neurosciences at Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary and a pediatric neurologist at Alberta Children's Hospital in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Additional Resources

Read the article: Headache in Children and Adolescents

Subscribe to Continuum: continpub.com/Spring2024

Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME

Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud

More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com

Social Media

facebook.com/continuumcme

@ContinuumAAN

Guest: @SerenaLOrr

Transcript 

 Dr Jones: This is Dr. Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum, the premier topic-based neurology clinical review and CME journal from the American Academy of Neurology. Thank you for joining us on Continuum Audio, a companion podcast to the journal. Continuum Audio features conversations with the guest editors and authors of Continuum, who are the leading experts in their fields. Subscribers to the Continuum journal can read the full article or listen to verbatim recordings of the article by visiting the link in the show notes. Subscribers also have access to exclusive audio content not featured on the podcast. As an ad-free journal entirely supported by subscriptions, if you're not already a subscriber, we encourage you to become one. For more information on subscribing, please visit the link in the show notes. AAN members, stay tuned after the episode to hear how you can get CME for listening. 

Dr Weathers: This is Dr. Allison Weathers. Today, I'm interviewing Dr. Serena Orr on pediatric headache, which is part of the April 2024 Continuum issue on headache. Dr. Orr is an Assistant Professor at the University of Calgary, and a Pediatric Neurologist at Alberta Children's Hospital in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Welcome to the podcast. So, thank you, Dr. Orr, for taking the time to speak with me about this fantastic article that covers such an important topic – headache in the pediatric population, in children and adolescents. First, I'd love to start by learning a little bit about you. Where do you practice, and how did you get interested in this topic? I love learning more about the authors of these incredible articles and how they became interested in their fields. So, you know, pediatric neurology is already a pretty subspecialized area of medicine – how did you become interested even further subspecializing in headache?

Dr Orr: Well, thank you for the invitation. Nice to meet you, Dr. Weathers. I'm Serena Orr. I'm a clinician-scientist, pediatric neurologist, and headache specialist based in Canada at the Alberta Children's Hospital in Calgary, Alberta, just outside of the Rockies. I'm really passionate about headache medicine. I think I came to it because it allowed me to marry my interests in neurology and psychology together. I did my undergraduate studies at McGill in psychology and really wanted to take a biopsychosocial approach to my practice. The first child neurology patient I ever saw was a child who was experiencing migraine and having a lot of disability from it, with lots of impacts on her life - and I really saw an opportunity to take a holistic approach to the patient and marry my interests in neuroscience, neurology, and psychology together. So, I'm very excited to talk to you today about this topic that I'm really passionate about and that I think is underserved – um, hopefully get more people excited about it.

Dr Weathers: But so great, and I'm sure we will do that just based on how excited I was just reading your article. So, I always like to start, actually, with what you feel is the most important clinical message of your article. What is your biggest takeaway you want to leave our listeners with?

Dr Orr: Yeah, well I think this is a really big topic in neurology. So, if you look at the reasons for consulting a child neurologist, headache falls into the top three. 60% of youth experience headache in youth. If we look at what presents to neurology in terms of headache, the majority is migraine – and so that's a big focus of this article, because anywhere between a half to 88% of headache consultations in neurology are for migraine. And as I kind of alluded to in discussing my interests in this area, you know, it's really important to take a biopsychosocial approach to managing any chronic pain disorder, including migraine and headache disorders. Another big takeaway point from the article is that - specific to pediatric headache - there's really high placebo response rates that we're still trying to understand and grapple with in the field, and I think this underscores the importance in really doing patient-centered care and ensuring that you're educating patients and families about the level of evidence that we have about the placebo response rates and engaging in shared decision-making when you're choosing treatments together. So, I think those would be the main take-home points.

Dr Weathers: I think both really critical. And I think even without – I'll put my plug in – even without the placebo effect, I think that shared decision-making is such an important concept for all of us in neurology to think about - but I think you make such the important point that with it, it becomes absolutely critical. I want to expand on a concept that you were just talking about. Pediatric headaches are so incredibly common, and you make the point in the article so well that they're one of the leading causes of neurological disability in pediatric patients. They have such a significant impact that really touches all aspects of these children's lives - both at school, how they impact their hobbies - pretty much everything that they do, and these long-reaching impacts. But then you go on to say that pediatric headache remains the most underfunded pediatric disease category when you take into account allocated public research dollars, which was just staggering to me. Why do you think this is?

Dr Orr: I think there's a few reasons. So, one of the main reasons, I think, is that headache medicine has been underserved - there haven't been enough people who have gravitated to this field. I think this is rapidly changing as we train more people and show the world how important this topic is and how much exciting translational research is going on. But, historically, this has been a very small subspecialty that's been underserved relative to disease burden (so not enough scientists equals less research funding) - but there's another aspect to this as well. There was a paper published in 2020 by Mirin – who actually looked at research dollars in NIH based on disease burden and whether the diseases were male or female dominant - and found that there's a significant gender bias in research funding. Male-dominant diseases tend to be significantly overfunded relative to female-dominant diseases when you look at disease burden - and if you look at the female-dominant disease table, headache disorders and migraine are in the top three most underfunded disease categories amongst the underfunded female-dominant diseases. That data has been replicated looking at NIH dollars on the pediatric side as well. They didn't look at gender breakdown in the pediatric paper that was published a couple of years ago, but found, actually, that pediatric headache disorders are the most underfunded in terms of NIH research dollars to pediatric diseases – so, top underfunded relative to disease burden. So, yeah, being underserved as a field - and then, I think, gender bias has also played a significant role in what gets funded over time.

Dr Weathers: Wow, that is hard to think about. And I think those are really insightful points and ones we really need to think about as we think about the bias in our research and our funding. Why is access to care and treatment for these children and adolescents so important? I know this seems like a super obvious one, but it feels like the answer is actually really much more complex.

Dr Orr: Well, there's data to show that earlier diagnosis can lead to better long-term outcomes for youth with migraine - and this is really important, because if you look at the incidence curves for migraine, you see that at least a third, if not more, of incident cases occur before adulthood. We also know there's some GWAS data to show that youth-onset migraine has a higher genetic loading when looking at polygenic risk scores than adult-onset migraine, so people who have migraine onset in youth may be more genetically loaded (that may be important). And we also know that early access to diagnosis and treatment gives them a better long-term prognosis. We know that headache disorders and migraine are associated not only with long-term potential for disability on the physical side, but also increase the risk of psychiatric comorbidities developing over time, so there's really a huge opportunity in accessing a diagnosis and treatment early to improve long-term function - both on the medical side, but also potentially avert poor mental health outcomes - and also diagnose and treat a subset of people with the disease that may be more genetically loaded. We don't know if that impacts outcomes, but potentially, it does. So there's lots of reasons, I think, that we can get in there early and make a big impact – and even for those who it takes a while to find effective treatment for, really having access to education early so that they understand their disease and also ways that they can engage in self-management strategies, I think, is really empowering to the patient and really important (even if we're struggling to find the best medical therapy).

Dr Weathers: You laid out a lot of really important reasons, and again, it goes back to the arguments made at the beginning about why it's so important to increase the funding so that this is no longer an area that's underserved, so that we are able to increase the access, and that everybody who needs this kind of care is able to get it. I want to shift a little bit and think about how we diagnose and work up patients who present with a headache. So as a neurologist - and also as a parent - one of the scariest considerations for me is figuring out if a headache is just a headache or if it's a sign of something else (you know, what we think of as a secondary headache disorder). What is your approach to distinguishing between the two?

Dr Orr: We take a very clinical approach to diagnosis. We don't have specific biomarkers for different headache disorders, so we're still, you know, relying on a really detailed history and physical exam in order to sort out the diagnosis. As I discussed in the article, really the key first branch point (like you say) is, is this a primary headache disorder or a secondary headache disorder? There's some tools that we can use in practice to try to get at that, I think the most useful of which is the SNOOP tool - it's an acronym that goes over headache, red and orange flags. Every time I write an article where I discuss this, it's expanded to include more red or orange flags (it's in its probably third or fourth iteration now), but there's a nice table in the article that goes over some of these red and orange flags. It includes things like systemic feature (like headache, nuchal rigidity), if there's a history of cancer, if there's associated, you know, headache waking child up in the morning with vomiting - and a variety of features. I have to say the level of evidence for some of the features is relatively low, and our understanding of some of the red flags has changed over time. As one example, we used to think occipital headaches in youth were almost always associated with a secondary headache disorder, but now there's more emerging data to show that it's actually relatively common for youth with migraine to have an occipital location. So, really, using the tool is about kind of putting the whole picture together to try to risk stratify. In the majority of youth who present with recurrent headaches, who don't have any red or orange flags, and who have an unremarkable neurological examination without focal deficits, it typically is such that we don't have to do further investigation - but any red or orange flags (or a combination of them), any focal deficits on exam, would typically be where we would be considering neuroimaging. It's very unusual that we have an indication to do an EEG or large amounts of blood work in youth with headache, but it is context specific - for example, a case presenting with recurrent hemiplegia (you may have Todd's paralysis on the differential and you may want to do an EEG), or in a youth who also has GI symptoms (I picked up some youth with celiac disorder who have chronic headaches as well). So there are specific circumstances where blood work, EEG may be indicated (or obviously lumbar puncture in the case of suspected infection, et cetera), but for the most part, we're really relying on a very thorough history and physical exam to sort out our pretest probability of a secondary headache disorder and whether we need to do neuroimaging and further investigations.

Dr Weathers: I think keeping in mind that systematic approach and really working through the algorithm is really reassuring and makes sense that, one, you won't miss something kind of worrisome, but on the other hand, that you're also not doing unnecessary testing, either. Along those lines, what do you think is the easiest mistake to make when treating children and adolescents with headache, and how do you avoid it?

Dr Orr: I think the easiest mistake to make is undertreatment. Both for acute and preventive therapies, I often see undertreatment. I think families are often hesitant to give medication to their children, and so I have a lot of families say, "Oh, well, you know we typically wait the attacks out until they get more severe, we try to avoid medication, we use cold compresses, et cetera." So, explaining to families that acute treatment (of course, we don't want to overuse it) and overusing simple analgesics (NSAIDS) more than three days a week can increase the risk of higher frequency of attacks and medication overuse headache - but undertreatment is a risk, too. And the way I like to explain it to families is in the scientific basis of pain chronification - so I'll say to families, "You know, we have these pain pathways in our brain. If we let them go off for long periods of time, they get stronger (and so that's where we want to get medication in quickly to try to shorten the exposure of the attacks). When you don't do that, those pain pathways may start out like a dirt road - and maybe then you have lots of long attacks, and then it gets paved, and then it becomes a highway." I find it's a useful way to help families understand the concept of pain chronification and why we want them to treat attacks. The same thing goes for undertreatment on the preventive side. If you know a youth is having frequent attacks that are impacting their life and their ability to function, we really should be thinking about a daily preventive treatment, because we know that pill-based interventions will result in a significant reduction in headache frequency in at least two-thirds of youth - and again, allowing the youth to have frequent attacks contributes to that pain chronification (and explain it to families in a similar way to what I just explained for acute treatment) - but there can be a lot of hesitancy to engage with pill-based treatments, even though we know that they can be helpful.

Dr Weathers: I think that's a really powerful point - and I think something we also, frankly, probably tend to do on the adult side as well – but, especially, I could see where there's even probably more hesitancy in children and adolescents (this concern that we're going to overtreat them and then end up inadequately treating, which leads to increased problems). And also goes back to the concept you were talking about earlier about the importance of shared decision-making and really engaging with the patient and their families in the discussion early on to help avoid that, as well to have everybody aware of the benefits and the side effects of all of the different options, I think is so critical. I was also really excited to see you (in the article) write about the importance of a trauma-informed care approach. This is an area I'm really passionate about in my work as a clinical informaticist and how we can leverage the electronic health record to support trauma-informed care and raising awareness of what a patient's triggers may be. Can you explain to our listeners who may not be knowledgeable about this approach what it means, and why you think that this might be applicable to children adolescents with headache?

Dr Orr: Thanks for bringing that up. I think it's really important as well. We've done some work in my lab (and many others have as well) to show that there's a relationship between adverse childhood experiences and the development of headache disorders in youth and adults. By adverse childhood experiences, I mean exposure to highly stressful (like toxic stress) environments in early childhood, such as experiencing death of a parent, divorce, abuse, neglect. So, we know that adverse childhood experiences are associated with higher risk of developing migraine and headache disorders, and knowing that and how common these are amongst our patients - really think it's important to advocate for screening all children, adolescents coming in with recurrent headaches for adverse childhood experiences and exposure to trauma, because it really will impact not only how you interact with the patient, but also potentially what you will screen them for on the mental health side. And so providing trauma-informed care, I think - of course we want it to be targeted - but really taking this approach with all patients is actually a good way to think about it, because trauma is very common in our society, and some of the ways that we've measured trauma in the past (like some of the examples that I gave, divorce, death of a parent) are really narrow and don't encompass broader aspects of trauma (like systemic racism and other things that people are experiencing that haven't been adequately measured). So what trauma-informed care is - you know, there's a few core aspects, and one is screening all patients for trauma. The way I do that in clinic is just asking them if they've had any major stressful life events (and then I give a few examples), but there are standardized questionnaires that can be used for this as well. And then really trying to develop a nurturing rapport with the patient - an open listening strategy, asking open-ended questions, being empathic with patients and families - I know we all try to do this, anyway, but really focusing on that, especially in the context of trauma. And then thinking carefully about not only how you're talking to the patient, but how you're approaching them during the physical exam (so, for example, asking permission before touching the patient rather than just diving into the exam to be sensitive to that). And then also recognizing, like I said, that some of the ways that we've conceptualized trauma have been a little bit narrow, and that trauma may occur in context outside of what we traditionally think of.

Dr Weathers: Again, I think that's so important and could be certainly much more broadly applied than even just to this one field, but thrilled to see that you're incorporating it into your work and your research (and again, it was discussed in the article) - and, absolutely, I think that the more that we incorporate it as well here, I think, that the better off for all of our patients and the improved care we provide. Moving on from that, I always like to end my interviews on a positive and hopeful note, and so I'd love to hear from you what you're most excited about in the field of pediatric headache. What breakthroughs do you think are coming, or what's giving you the most hope?

Dr Orr: There's so much, there's so much exciting stuff going on in our field (and so, you know, I'll have to rein in myself in here), but one thing is there's been an explosion of novel treatment options on the adult migraine side in the last five to ten years, including agents targeted at the CGRP pathway, calcitonin gene-related peptide, some monoclonal antibodies, and receptor antagonists. There's been an explosion of neuromodulation options with now five devices that have various levels of FDA clearance for use in adults and/or youth with migraine. And there are, for most of these devices and novel drugs, either published studies or ongoing research into how they may be used in youth, so I'm hopeful that we will have more treatment options that are evidence based for youth going forward. This is in part due to the Pediatric Research Equity Act that came out a couple of decades ago now that has put requirements for pediatric studies when new drugs are approved by the FDA for adults - so I think that has had an impact, and I'm hopeful that we'll have an expanded treatment landscape in the years to come. There's also a lot of really exciting, more kind of fundamental research going on that I think will help us move the pediatric field forward more rapidly. In the past, we have really often borrowed from what the adult neurologists are doing for adults with headache disorders without really understanding some of the fundamental biological and psychosocial differences between headache disorders onset in youth versus adulthood, and so there is more and more research going on to understand the biology of migraine in youth and some of the risk factors at this age and some of the features that may make youth a little bit different, because it's very rare that youth are just little versions of adults for any disease or problem. And then, you know, I've seen a really large expansion in the number of trainees who are interested in headache medicine since I've entered this field (I've even got one of our residents who's going to do a headache fellowship, which is exciting), and seeing the growth and interest in headache medicine and the number of people being trained really gives me a lot of hope for the future, because there's so much work to be done in this area, and, really, that's where we're going to have the largest impact - is in mentoring and fostering the next generation of headache neurologists. So, there's lots of reasons to be excited, and I would say to the trainees listening that if you want an exciting career where there's lots of opportunity to make impact both clinically on your patients and in terms of educating the next generation and spearheading research initiatives, headache medicine is for you.

Dr Weathers: I think that is incredibly inspiring and will hopefully get a lot of our listeners excited about joining this incredible field. Well, thank you for, again, this great article and for all of your time this evening, I've learned so much and really enjoyed speaking with you.

Dr Orr: Thank you. Likewise, it was great to have this opportunity. I really enjoyed it.

Dr Weathers: Again, today, we've been interviewing Dr. Serena Orr whose article on pediatric headache appears in the most recent issue of Continuum on headache. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio podcasts from this and other issues. And thank you to our listeners for joining today.

Dr Monteith: This is Dr. Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practice. And right now, during our Spring Special, all subscriptions are 15% off. Go to Continpub.com/ Spring2024, or use the link in the episode notes, to learn more and take advantage of this great discount. This offer ends June 30, 2024. AAN members: go to the link in the episode notes and complete the evaluation to get CME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

New daily persistent headache is a syndrome characterized by the acute onset of a continuous headache in the absence of any alternative cause. Triggers are commonly reported by patients at headache onset and include an infection or stressful life event.

In this episode, Aaron Berkowitz, MD, PhD, FAAN, speaks with Matthew Robbins, MD, FAAN, FAHS, author of the article "New Daily Persistent Headache," in the Continuum® April 2024 Headache issue.

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

Dr. Robbins is an associate professor of neurology and director of the Neurology Residency Program at New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York, New York.

Additional Resources

Read the article: New Daily Persistent Headache

Subscribe to Continuum: continpub.com/Spring2024

Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME

Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud

More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com

Social Media

facebook.com/continuumcme

@ContinuumAAN

Host: @https://twitter.com/AaronLBerkowitz

Guest: @ @mrobbinsmd

Full Transcript Available:

Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum, the premier topic-based neurology clinical review and CME journal from the American Academy of Neurology. Thank you for joining us on Continuum Audio, a companion podcast to the journal. Continuum Audio features conversations with the guest editors and authors of Continuum, who are the leading experts in their fields. Subscribers to the Continuum journal can read the full article or listen to verbatim recordings of the article by visiting the link in the Show Notes. Subscribers also have access to exclusive audio content not featured on the podcast. As an ad-free journal entirely supported by subscriptions, if you're not already a subscriber, we encourage you to become one. For more information on subscribing, please visit the link in the Show Notes. AAN members: stay tuned after the episode to hear how you can get CME for listening.

Dr Berkowitz: This is Dr Aaron Berkowitz, and today I'm interviewing Dr Matthew Robbins about his article on new daily persistent headache, from the April 2024 Continuum issue on headache. Dr Robbins is an Associate Professor of Neurology and Director of the Neurology Residency Program at New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, in New York. Welcome to the podcast.

Dr Robbins: It's great to be with you, Dr Berkowitz.

Dr Berkowitz: Well, thanks so much for joining us this morning. To start, what is new daily persistent headache? I think it's an entity maybe that might be new to some of our listeners.

Dr Robbins: Yeah - it's an entity that also struck me when I was in training. I didn't hear much of it as a neurology trainee until I did a fellowship in headache, where, all of a sudden, we were seeing patients with this syndrome (and labeled as such) all the time. And that actually inspired me to begin a research project to better characterize it - a clinical project that ended up helping to broaden the diagnostic criteria. New daily persistent headache really is just defined by what it says - it's new; it's every day; it persists; it's a headache. It can't be from some other identifiable cause, which includes both secondary disorders (you know, something that, where headache is a symptom of) or a primary headache disorder; distinguishes itself from, say, migraine or tension-type headache because there's no real headache history and there's an abrupt onset of a daily and continuous headache that has to last for at least three months since onset. And the onset is typically remembered - it's usually acute or abrupt; there may or may not be some circumstances that surrounded the onset that might have some diagnostic or causal or associated implications that we can explore.

Dr Berkowitz: Okay. So, I always find it challenging in headache medicine and some other areas where we don't have a biomarker, per se - an imaging finding, a lab finding; we have an eloquent and detailed clinical description - to know how comfortable to be making a diagnosis like this. In this case, particularly, right - you said it has to be going on for three months. What if I see a patient one month into something I think could be this, but I can't technically say, per the criteria, right (it's three months)? When do you start thinking about this diagnosis in patients, and what are some of the main considerations in confirming the diagnosis, and what needs to be ruled out or excluded for making the diagnosis?

Dr Robbins: I think traditionally, in headache, the term "chronic" has that three-month time period. The reasons are twofold: one is that, typically, if there's some secondary disorder that might have some distinguishing feature (something that really evokes the headache or some other neurological accompaniment that develops in addition to headache), it would pretty much be likely to declare itself by the three-month mark. Or if it was something that was very self-limited, it would probably go away before three months have elapsed. Or if it resolved after some days or weeks but then declared itself as a more episodic disorder, then we might say someone who begins with continuous headache that might, for example, resemble migraine (maybe it presented a status migrainosis but then it devolved into a more episodic disorder that might just be migraine overall). So, I think that's pretty much why the three-month mark has been so prevalent in the International Classification of Headache Disorders, including how new daily persistent headache is diagnosed. But at the same time, there's lots of disorders that might mimic (or might be misdiagnosed as) new daily persistent headache, and they really are a secondary disorder. Probably the most common one that we think about is a disorder of intracranial pressure or volume, mainly because routine MRI features could be normal or could be easily missed if they had subtle abnormalities. The defining symptom of those disorders are also continuous headache, often from onset, with an abrupt and remembered nature. So, that's often the main category of secondary headache that might be misdiagnosed as primary headache. I think, probably, idiopathic intracranial hypertension as the prototypical disorder of high pressure often declares itself with visual symptoms, pulsatile tinnitus, and other abnormalities. And nowadays, there's much more increasing recognition for MRI abnormalities or even MRV abnormalities with such patients. But spontaneous intracranial hypotension (despite increasing recognition of CSF leaks in the spine that lead to intracranial hypotension or hypovolemia) really remains an underdiagnosed entity. I think that's one disorder where - for example, if I'm seeing a patient with new daily persistent headache and there's no orthostatic or positional nature to their headache - I will still do an MRI, with and without contrast, to be sure. But that the chances of them having a spontaneous CSF leak are low if that scan is unremarkable.

Dr Berkowitz: That's very helpful. Yeah. It's interesting; when you talked about the criteria for this condition - that it has an acute onset, which is a red flag, right, and it is persistent for months, which for a new headache would also be a red flag. So, this is a condition - correct me if I'm wrong – that, if you're considering it, there's no way that you're going to make this diagnosis without neuroimaging because there are two red flags, in a way, embedded in the criteria before we get to the other diagnoses being excluded. Is that right? So, this would only be a diagnosis made clinically but after neuroimaging is obtained, given that two red flags are part of the criteria – isn't that right?

Dr Robbins That's absolutely right. So, I can't imagine there's anyone who has new daily persistent headache who hasn't had appropriate neuroimaging, and that typically should include an MRI, with and without contrast, unless there's some compelling reason to avoid that. There's some other workup that could be done that's not universal but - for example, in clinic-based studies of patients who have new daily persistent headache versus those who may have, say, chronic migraine or chronic tension-type headache, you may find more abnormalities. The biggest and more compelling example of that is hypothyroidism, which presumably would be somewhat subclinical if it hadn't been brought to someone's medical attention earlier. It doesn't mean that hypothyroidism is the cause of new daily persistent headache, but it could be some type of triggering or priming factor that leads to headache perpetuation in some patients. Sometimes, if that hasn't been done already, that would be a blood test I might think about sending. And, of course, the context of onset; if someone lived in a place where tick-borne illnesses are endemic, if there are other neurological symptoms, that might prompt looking for serological evidence of Lyme disease, as one example.

Dr Berkowitz: We see a lot of headache. I'm a general neurologist; I know you're a headache specialist; we all see a lot of patients with headache. You and I both work closely with residents. Often, residents will come to present a headache patient to me and they'll say, "The patient seems to have a new daily persistent headache. They haven't been imaged yet. They have a completely normal exam. The history fits." And I always ask them, "Okay, we have to get neuroimaging, right? There's at least one red flag of the chronicity, maybe the red flag of something beginning relatively abruptly. Even though you're looking at the patients - I'm pretty sure that imaging is going to be normal, but we've got to do it." But I always encourage residents, "Try to predict - do you think the imaging is going to be normal (this is a rule out) or do you think you're going to see something (this is a rule in)? - just to sort of work on calibrating your clinical judgment." I'd love to ask you - as a headache specialist, when you're looking at the patient and say, "I know I need to get neuroimaging here to fully make this diagnosis of exclusion," or you've heard something that sounds like a red flag; you know you're obligated to image, but your clinical suspicion of finding anything more than something incidental is pretty low. How often are you surprised in practice in a sort of enriched tertiary headache population?

Dr Robbins: That's a great way to frame such a presentation on how a resident would present to you the case and whether it's a rule in or rule out. I totally agree with your approach. I think much of it depends on the clinical story. I think if it was just a spontaneous onset of headache that kind of resembles migraine that just continued, then likely the MRI is being done to just be sure we're not missing anything else. However, if the headache started – really, say someone coughed vigorously or bent over and the headache started, and there was some clear change that you could perceive in - that was, say, the Valsalva or a transiently raised intracranial pressure, or some other maneuver; then you might really say, "Well, this really could be a spontaneous CSF leak," for example. Even if the MRI of the brain, with and without contrast, is totally normal, I'm not really sure I'm convinced - that you might even take it further. For example, you might do an MRI of the total spine, with a CSF-leak-type protocol, to see if there's some sign of a spontaneous CSF leak or an extradural collection. So, I think in the cases where the preclinical suspicion is higher for a secondary headache, it might not stop at an MRI of the brain (with and without contrast) that's normal. Patients with spontaneous CSF leaks - about eighty percent of them have abnormal brain MRIs, but twenty percent don't. We found, from some observational studies, that a newer cause of intracranial hypotension, such as a CSF venous fistula in the spine, is more likely to present than other causes of CSF leak - with say, Valsalva-associated headache or cough-associated headache. That might prompt us to really take a workup more deeply into that territory, rather than someone where it really just sounds like chronic migraine that switched on. And maybe in those patients, when you dig around, they were carsick as a kid, or they were colicky babies, or they used to get stomachaches and missed school as a teenager here and there, and you think migraine biology is at play.

Dr Berkowitz: So, if you're thinking of this diagnosis before you can make it, these patients are going to get an MRI, with and without contrast. And it sounds like the main things you're looking to make sure you're not missing are idiopathic intracranial hypertension or intracranial hypotension from some type of leak. Any other secondary headaches you worry about potentially missing in these patients or want to rule out with any particular testing?

Dr Robbins: Yeah - I think sometimes we think of other vascular disorders, especially - when these patients come to medical attention, it's often a total change from what they're used to experiencing. They may present to the emergency room. So, it depends on the circumstance. You might need to rule out cerebral venous thrombosis. Or if there was a very abrupt onset or a relapsing nature of abrupt-onset headaches with sort of interictal persistent headache, we might think of other arteriopathies, such as reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome. There's the more common things to rule out - or commonly identified conditions to rule out - like neoplasm and maybe a Chiari malformation in certain circumstances; those usually would declare themselves pretty easily and obviously on scan or even on clinical exam.

Dr Berkowitz: Another question I'd love to ask you as a headache specialist, in your population - sometimes we see this type of new daily persistent headache presentation in older patients, and the teaching is always to rule out giant cell arteritis with an ESR and CRP, in the sense that older patients can present with just headache. Again, my clinical experience as a general neurologist - I wanted to ask you as a headache specialist – is, for the countless times I've done this (older patient has gotten their neuroimaging; we've gotten ESR and CRP), I've never made a diagnosis of giant cell arteritis based on a headache alone, without jaw claudication, scalp tenderness, visual symptoms or signs. Have you picked this up just based on a new headache, older person, ESR, CRP? I'm going to keep doing it either way, but just curious - your experience.

Dr. Robbins: Yeah. We're taught in the textbooks (I'm sure we're taught by past Continuum issues and maybe even in this very issue) about that dictum that's classically in neurology teaching. But I agree - I've never really seen pure daily headache from onset, without any other accompaniments, to end up being giant cell arteritis. Then again, someone like that might walk in tomorrow, and the epidemiology of giant cell arteritis supports doing that in people over the age of fifty. But almost always, it's not the answer; I totally agree with you.

Dr Berkowitz: Good to compare notes on that one. Okay - so let's say you're considering this diagnosis. You've gotten your neuroimaging, you've gotten (if the patient is over fifty) your ESR and CRP, and you ruled out any dangerous secondary causes here. You have a nice discussion in your article about the primary headache differential diagnosis here. So, now we're sort of really getting into pure clinical reasoning, right, where we're looking at descriptions (colleagues like yourself and your colleagues have come up with these descriptions in the International Classification of Headache Disorders). Here again, we're in a "biomarker-free zone," right? We're really going on the history alone. What are some of the other primary headache disorders that would be management changing here, were you to make a diagnosis of a separate primary headache disorder, as compared to new daily persistent headache?

Dr Robbins: I think the two main disorders really are chronic migraine and chronic tension-type headache. Now, what we're taught about chronic migraine and chronic tension-type headache is that they are disorders that begin in their episodic counterparts (episodic migraine, episodic tension-type headache) and then they evolve, over time, to reach or culminate in this daily and continuous headache pattern, typically in the presence of risk factors for that epidemiologic shift we know to exist but that may happen on the individual level, which does include things that we can't modify, like increasing age, women more than men, some social determinants of health (like low socioeconomic status), a head injury (even if it didn't cause a concussion or clear TBI), a stressful life event, medication overuse, having comorbid psychiatric or pain disorders in addition to the headache problem, having sleep apnea that's untreated, and so on. New daily persistent headache - by definition, it should really be kind of "switched on." Many years ago, Dr Bill Young and Dr. Jerry Swanson wrote an editorial where they labeled new daily persistent headache as the "switched-on headache." Then, we're taught in headache pathophysiology that this chronification process happens over time because of, perhaps, markers of central sensitization that might clinically express itself as allodynia in trigeminal or extratrigeminal distributions. So, we're not comfortable with this new daily persistent headache, where we think the biology is like chronic migraine that gets switched on abruptly, but in so many patients, it seems to be so - it behaves like chronic migraine otherwise; the comorbidities might be the same; the treatments might still work similarly for both disorders in parallel. So, I think those are the two that we think about. Obviously, if there's unilateral headache, we might think of a trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia that's continuous, even if it doesn't have associated autonomic signs like ptosis or rhinorrhea (which is hemicrania continua) - and in those patients, we would think about a trial of indomethacin. But otherwise, I think chronic migraine and chronic tension-type headache are the two that phenotypically can look like new daily persistent headache. In patients with new daily persistent headache, about half have migraine-type features and about half have tension-type features. When I was a fellow, the International Headache Society and the classification only allowed for those who have more tension-type features to be diagnosed as new daily persistent headache. But we (and many other groups) have found that migraine-type features are very common in people who fulfill rigorously the criteria for new daily persistent headache otherwise. And then the latest iteration of the classification has allowed for us to apply that diagnosis to those with migraine features.

Dr Berkowitz: That's very helpful. So, we've ruled out secondary causes and now you're really trying to get into the nuances of the history to determine, did this truly have its abrupt onset or did it evolve from an episodic migraine or tension-type headache? But it could be described by the patient as migrainous, be described by the patient as having tension features The key characteristics (as you mentioned a few times) should be abrupt onset and a continuous nature. Let's say, now you (by history) zeroed in on this diagnosis of new daily persistent headache. You've ruled out potential secondary causes. You're pretty convinced, based on the history, that this is the appropriate primary headache designation. How do you treat these patients?

Dr Robbins: Well, that's a great question, Dr Berkowitz, because there's this notoriety to the syndrome that suggests that patients just don't respond to treatments at all. In clinical practice, I can't dispute that to a degree. I think, in general, people who have this syndrome seem to not respond as well, to those who have clear established primary headache disorders. Part of that might be the biology of the disorder; maybe the disorder is turned on by mechanisms that are different to migraine (even though it resembles chronic migraine) and therefore, the medications we know to work for migraine may not be as effective. In some, it could be other factors. There's just a resistance to appreciating that you have this headache disorder that - one day you were normal, the next day you're afflicted by headache that's continuous. And there's almost this nihilism that, "Nothing will work for me, because it's not fair - there's this injustice that I have this continuous headache problem." And often people with new daily persistent headache may be resistant to, say, behavioral therapies that often are really helpful for migraine or tension-type headache because of this sort of difficult with adjustment to it. But at least there's observational studies that suggest that most of the treatments that work for migraine work for new daily persistent headache. There's been studies that show that people can respond to triptans. In my clinical experience, CGRP antagonists that work for the acute treatment of migraine may work. There is evidence that many of the traditional, older medicines (like tricyclic antidepressants, topiramate, valproate, beta-blockers, probably candesartan) and others that we use for migraine may work. There's observational studies specifically for new daily persistent headache that show that anti-CGRP therapies in the form of monoclonal antibodies and botulinum toxin can work for the disorder. Are there anything specific for some of the new daily persistent headache that might work? Not that we really know. There's been some attempts to say, "Well, if you get these people in the hospital early and try to reduce the risk of headache persistence by giving them DHE, or dexamethasone, or lidocaine, or ketamine, will you reduce the chances of headache persistence at that three-month mark or longer?" We don't really know (there's some people who believe that, though). Maybe there's good reason to do some type of elective hospitalization for aggressive treatment because we know that, notoriously, the treatment response is very mixed. There's been specific treatments that people have looked at. There's been some anecdotes about doxycycline as a broad anti-inflammatory type of treatment that might be used in a variety of neurological disorders, but there's really nothing in the peer-reviewed literature that suggests that is effective or safe, necessarily. And I think a lot of people in new daily persistent headache do develop a profile that resembles chronic migraine (they can develop medication overuse very easily). Often, goal setting is really important in the counseling of such patients. You really have to suggest that the goal for them might be difficult to have them pain-free at zero and cured, but we want this to be treated so the peaks of severity flatten out a bit, and then the baseline level of pain diminishes so that it devolves into a much more episodic disorder over time that looks like regular migraine or regular tension-type headache.

Dr Berkowitz: I see. So, in addition to starting a migraine-type prophylactic agent based on the patient's comorbidities and potential benefits of the medication (the same way we would choose a migraine prophylactic), do you do anything, typically, to try to, quote, "break the cycle" - a quick pulse of steroids as an outpatient or a triptan in the office - and see how they do, or do you typically start a prophylactic agent and go from there?

Dr Robbins: I think, like all things, it kind of depends on the distress of the patient and how they are functioning. If it's someone who's just out of work, cannot function - and someone like that might be very amenable to an elective hospitalization or some parenteral therapy, or maybe an earlier threshold to use a preventative treatment than we would be doing otherwise in someone with migraine overall - I think that it really depends on that type of a disability that's apparent early. I think it's compelling that, with new daily persistent headache, about a third of people report some antecedent infection that was around at the time. When new daily persistent headache was first described by this Canadian neurologist, Dr Vanast, in the 1980s, it was described in the context of Epstein-Barr virus infection, or at least a higher rate of serologies that are positive for, perhaps, recent Epstein-Barr exposure. And we know that Epstein-Barr is obviously implicated in lots of neurological diseases, like multiple sclerosis. And I mean, I think about these things all the time, and especially with COVID now. So, it's compelling - as a postinfectious disorder, do we, as neurologists (who are so comfortable with using pulse-dose steroids, IVIG) - do we use these things for a new daily persistent headache? But there's no great evidence that enduring inflammation in the dura that would spill into CSF analyses is really present in such patients. There was one study that looked at markers, such as TNF-alpha, in the CSF, but the rates of seeing that were the same in new daily persistent headache and chronic migraine, so there isn't really a specificity to that. Many people we see with new persistent headaches since 2020 may have it as part of a long COVID syndrome (or postacute COVID syndrome), and in those cases, often it's more like "new daily persistent headache-plus." They might have something that resembles POTS (postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome); they might have something that resembles fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue. Often in those patients, it takes management of the whole collection of neurological syndromes to get them better, not just the headache alone.

Dr Berkowitz: Well, this sounds like such a challenging condition to treat. How do you counsel patients when you've made this diagnosis - what to expect, what the goals are, what this condition is, and how you developed your certainty? It's often challenging (isn't it?) sometimes with patients with headache disorders, when we're not relying on an MRI or lab test to say, "This is the diagnosis"; telling them, it's just our opinion, based on their collection of symptoms and signs. So, how do you give the diagnosis and how do you counsel patients on what it means to them?

Dr Robbins: Yeah, it's a great question because it's high stakes, because people will read online, or on social media, or on support groups that this is a dreadful condition - that no one gets better, that they're going to be afflicted with this forever, and the doctors don't know what they're doing, and, "Just don't bother seeing them." And the truth is not that; there's so many people who can get substantially better. I tell people that it's common; in some epidemiologic studies, one in one thousand people in any given year develop new daily persistent headache, and most of those people get better (they don't seek medical care eventually, or they do, just in the beginning, and then they don't have follow-up because they got all better) - and I think that really happens. I think the people who we see in, say, a headache clinic (or even in general neurology practice) are typically the ones who are the worst of the worst. But even amongst those, we see so many stories of people who get better. So, I really try to reset expectations - like we mentioned before about assessing for treatment response and understanding that improvement will not just mean one day it switches off like it switched on (which seems unfair), but that the spikes will flatten out of pain (first), that the baseline level of intensity will then improve (second); that we turn it into a more manageable day-to-day disorder that really will have less of an impact on someone's quality of life. Sometimes people embrace that and sometimes people have a hard time. But it does require, like many conditions in neurology, incremental care to get people better.

Dr Berkowitz: Fantastic. Well, Dr Robbins, thanks so much for taking the time to speak with us today. I've learned so much from your expertise in talking to you and getting to pick your brain about this and some broader concepts and challenges in headache medicine. And I encourage all our listeners to seek out your article on this condition that has even more clinical pearls on how to diagnose and treat patients with this disorder.

Dr Robbins: Thanks Dr. Berkowitz - great to be with you.

Dr Berkowitz: Again, for our listeners today, I've been interviewing Dr Matthew Robbins, whose article on new daily persistent headache appears in the most recent issue of Continuum, on headache. Be sure to check out other Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues. And thank you to our listeners for joining today.

Dr. Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practice. Right now, during our Spring Special, all subscriptions are 15% off. Go to Continpub.com/Spring2024 or use the link in the episode notes to learn more and take advantage of this great discount. This offer ends June 30, 2024. AAN members: go to the link in the episode notes and complete the evaluation to get CME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.