Continuum Audio

Pregnancy and the postpartum period are critical windows of increased stroke risk, driven by physiologic changes such as hypercoagulability and blood pressure fluctuations. This episode highlights key warning signs, including headache and hypertension, along with practical guidance on evaluation, management, and risk reduction to improve outcomes for pregnant and postpartum patients. In this episode, Kait Nevel, MD, speaks with Michelle H. Leppert, MD, author of the article "Pregnancy and Stroke Risk" in the Continuum® June 2026 Cerebrovascular Disease issue. Dr. Nevel is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a neurologist and neuro-oncologist at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, Indiana. Dr. Leppert is an associate professor of neurology at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts. Additional Resources Read the article: Pregnancy and Stroke Risk Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @IUneurodocmom Guest: @humich Full episode transcript available here Dr Nevel: The time during and around pregnancy is often thought of as a very joyful time, full of hope. But for some, medical complications such as stroke can lead to devastating disability and sometimes even death. Today, we're going to learn about pregnancy and postpartum stroke, including stroke risk evaluation and best practices in management and risk reduction to help our pregnant and peripartum patients reduce stroke risk and achieve best possible outcomes. Dr Jones: This is Dr. Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Nevel: Hello, this is Dr. Kait Nevel. Today, I'm interviewing Dr. Michelle Leppert about her article on pregnancy and stroke risk. This article appears in the June 2026 Continuum issue on cerebrovascular disease. Michelle, welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to the audience. Dr Leppert: My name is Michelle Leppert. I'm a stroke neurologist, and I currently work at the Tufts Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr Nevel: Thank you so much for being here, Michelle, and I'm looking forward to talking to you about your article. I always love starting with the question, what's the most important takeaway from your article for the practicing neurologist? Dr Leppert: I think in this article, I'm trying to highlight that during pregnancy and especially postpartum, there's a heightened risk of stroke for women, and that's important for clinical neurologists to understand that this is a particularly vulnerable time for the population that we take care of. I think that one of the few of the things that could be informing this heightened stroke risk are the physiological changes that women undergo during pregnancy. So, that includes coagability, where there's an increased likelihood of clotting, and also the cardiovascular adaptations, including increased cardiac output and having an increased cardiac volume. And all of these mechanisms all contribute to the increased risk of strokes around pregnancy and postpartum. Dr Nevel: Great. Thanks for that. What are some of the unique aspects of stroke types in etiology in pregnancy that we should be aware of? Dr Leppert: When we think of strokes overall, generally the majority of our strokes are ischemic. So, for the overall population, about eighty-seven percent of strokes are ischemic, while the remainder are hemorrhagic. However, interestingly, during pregnancy, what we're seeing is about half of our strokes become hemorrhagic strokes, and now only a half of our strokes are ischemic, and this is in contrast to what we see in the overall population. One of the reasons is because pregnancy is associated with preeclampsia, and preeclampsia increases the risk of hemorrhagic stroke during pregnancy. Dr Nevel: Can you tell us just more about headache in general in pregnancy and association of headache with secondary causes of headache and how that relates to stroke risk in this patient population? It seems like in this patient population that when somebody has a headache, we need to be very careful in our headache questions and evaluation. Dr Leppert: Yeah. And I think the most concerning symptom that we're finding in this population is headaches, and the reason is because headaches is one of the clinical signs of having preeclampsia, which dramatically increases your risk of having a stroke, and especially a hemorrhagic stroke. So just to back up, we can talk about blood pressure for a little bit and some of the pathophysiologic changes during pregnancy. What most people may not know is that there's a dramatic vascular expansion that occurs during pregnancy. And somewhere during the second trimester, your blood pressure is actually the lowest. So, it can drop below pre-pregnancy levels and make your blood pressure appear low for the baseline. However, during the third trimester, as the baby is growing, there is increased vascular volume. The blood pressure starts to increase. We're seeing some of the highest prevalence of blood pressures, which is a sign for preeclampsia, and headaches develop during that third trimester, and particularly during the time around delivery and postpartum. And one of the most concerning signs, the most common sign of preeclampsia is having a headache. So, I think that with any patient that's presenting with a headache, especially during the third trimester or after delivery, that we really need to pay attention and take their blood pressure. That's one of the easiest clinical indicators that something could be going very wrong. Some of the other red flags clinically that we look for in headaches is that acute onset of a severe headache. That headache quality is different from what they usually have. Any woman with focal neurological symptoms associated with their headache, kind of excessive nausea and vomiting that's not characteristic for them. Not getting any relief with medications, and then lastly, checking that blood pressure is very important. Dr Nevel: And what are the thoughts on blood pressure management in this patient population? I know that there is a little bit of difference in guidance in some of the obstetric societies on how we should manage blood pressure in this patient population. And then, is there anything beyond blood pressure management that we should be thinking about doing for this patient population to reduce their stroke risk? Dr Leppert: I think that's a good question, and I hadn't really understood that this could be an area of controversy, cause my practice is mostly in stroke, and for most of adult population, the guidelines for blood pressure is very clear. We treat everybody over 130/80. If you're elderly, then your blood pressure limit might be a little higher. However, there's disagreement in the OBGYN guidelines from the American guidelines to the European guidelines. So, what the current American guidelines suggests is that if you have a history of chronic hypertension, then we would want your blood pressure treated during pregnancy below 140/90. However, if you don't have a history of chronic hypertension, then we allow the blood pressure to be higher and then it's an acute intervention if it's anything over 160. One of the issues with this strategy that is concerning is we had just mentioned that the pathophysiology of a pregnancy where you have the lowest blood pressure in that second trimester, and so your blood pressure may be abnormally good. [laughs] And it appears that it's better than your baseline. And so, by the OBGYN definition, any gestational blood hypertension is considered at 20 weeks and later. Sometimes these blood pressures are masked in some women who are pregnant. I think regardless of the controversy and what the practice should be, the focus is that most of the strokes are happening actually peripartum and postpartum, right? So, the woman's no longer pregnant. It is these time periods of the highest risk that we wanna make sure that the blood pressure is controlled. So, after the woman delivers the baby, we're no longer, you know, hampered by the whatever is chronic or gestational. We should be treating that blood pressure to 140/90. I think that not focusing on the controversy until the science catches up is probably what we should do. But like, really, the message here is that we should be checking women around the time of delivery and also postpartum, that we can't forget about their blood pressures postpartum, cause it actually doesn't peak until day five after they deliver the baby. Dr Nevel: Does knowing that, that blood pressure peaks around day five, do you think that that should impact how we counsel patients in checking their blood pressure at home? Cause most women at day five are home. They're not still in the hospital. Dr Leppert: Yeah, I think that's a really good point. One of the best interventions has been having a blood pressure at home for pregnant women. So even during their pregnancy and then postpartum, allow them to check their blood pressures, cause there's... Most of the cases, to be honest, that I've seen of preeclampsia and intracranial hemorrhage has happened postpartum. And I think what's unfortunate is that the woman is at home, they're distracted cause they have a newborn baby. They have a headache. They're just taking some Tylenol. And then if you have that blood pressure cuff readily accessible, that's a, a really easy way for them to check and notice that, hey, the blood pressure's too high, they have to go into the hospital. Dr Nevel: Yeah, absolutely, and it's not just like a headache because you're sleep deprived and have a newborn. It's a headache that you need to pay attention to. Okay, maybe we could talk a little bit now about evaluation when we are suspicious of potential stroke. What do we need to know about imaging modalities and safety considerations of imaging in this patient population? Dr Leppert: Yeah, that's a great question. I think when I was training, it was fairly controversial to give a pregnant woman MR contrast with gadolinium during their pregnancy. And as I was researching for this article, actually there's not definitive evidence that that is harmful for the fetus. However, in general, for the acute evaluation of patients during pregnancy, we're recommending using the CAT scan and then a CT angiogram. And then if the acute evaluation is not necessary, then an MRI. And if we need vessel imaging, you can employ an MRA time-of-flight study. That doesn't require the gadolinium contrast. However, one thing that I learned from this article that I thought was really interesting was the use of abdominal shielding. So, you're scanning someone's brain. I always thought, "Hey, doesn't it make sense to put a lead shield over the abdomen?" It turns out the lead shield actually interferes with the automatic calibration of the CT machine, so studies have found that actually increases the dose of radiation that the fetus is exposed to. So, it's much better when we're doing acute evaluations to not shield the abdomen, and really the only thing that can help reduce the radiation dose is the duration of the study. So, what we would recommend is if you want a rapid CT angiogram, rapid CT head, go ahead and obtain it. But if you don't need extra sequences, like a delayed phase of the CT angiogram, then to avoid that and reduce the exposure. Dr Nevel: I'm so glad that you talked about that because I was shocked when I read that in your article that we shouldn't be using abdominal shielding in pregnant women. I had no clue. I thought that that was, like, something that we absolutely should do. So, I found that really interesting. Thank you for that. So, any special considerations for acute stroke intervention or management in pregnancy in the postpartum phase, especially things like thrombolysis and thrombectomy? Dr Leppert: Yeah. So, I think that as our evidence is getting better for thrombectomy, I would be more judicious about using IV thrombolysis, especially around the time of delivery, cause there is some evidence that it can be associated with postpartum hemorrhage. Patient selection, I think, is key here. So, women who have disability associated with their stroke, and then women who aren't candidates for thrombectomies are still candidates for IV thrombolysis. But understanding that this is a little bit of an unchartered territory for us, and only using IV thrombolytics when we think that there is a big benefit to be had. Dr Nevel: Can you talk a little bit more about RCVS and PRESS in pregnancy and some of the overlap that we see in this patient population and its relationship to preeclampsia? It seems like there's a lot of interconnections there, and I thought that that was pretty interesting in your article. Dr Leppert: Right now, the thinking is that RCVS and PRESS are on the same spectrum of pathology, and we think that it has something to do with the autoregulation of vascular resistance in the posterior circulation of the brain. We're not sure what triggers this, but there is something about pregnancy that classically we'll see this postpartum RCVS phenomenon. It likely has to do also with blood pressure that we're seeing. So really classically we think of this, like, thunderclap headache. You see vasospasms on imaging that is transient, that are kind of the classical signs of RCVS. But I think that we're still not completely sure what triggers it, but it's a very well-described clinical phenomenon. Dr Nevel: Great. Thank you. Could you share a little bit about migraines in pregnancy and stroke risk? [laughs] I also thought that this also a segment of your article that caught my attention because migraines are so common. What's the association of migraine, pregnancy, and stroke risk? Dr Leppert: Yeah. So that's a very complicated association. So, we know that migraines are associated independently with strokes, and especially people with migraines with aura. However, migraines are also highly associated with PFOs, right? And during pregnancy, what we see is that there is a hypercoagulability state, and so we see lots more DVTs, we see more PEs associated with women during pregnancy. So potentially, because migraineurs also are more likely to have PFOs, they could be presenting with more cardioembolic, kind of paradoxical emboli from these thrombus. But I'm not quite sure that we know why migraines in and of itself, especially with migraines with aura, lead to strokes. And especially during pregnancy, I'm not sure because we have very little understanding about pathophysiology of pregnancy while having migraines with aura also leads to more strokes, or that risk is really just associated with PFOs. So, I think that we need to think about that a lot more. The recommendation is a baby aspirin if you have some of these risk factors for preeclampsia, any vascular risk factors, and including migraines with aura during pregnancy. And we think that baby aspirin is relatively safe, especially starting around the 12 to 16-week period. Dr Nevel: So just to clarify, in a woman who's pregnant, who's 12 weeks or beyond in their pregnancy and who has migraine with aura, is that a patient that we should consider aspirin for them to reduce their stroke risk? Dr Leppert: I think you can. I am not sure that there is a specific recommendation. I think that, like, a conversation with your OBGYN is, you know, a good idea. But we do recommend that baby aspirin for women, um, above 35 years old because it's considered advanced maternal age. And then we recommend baby aspirin with women with a history of hypertension, multiple gestations, diabetes, renal disease, autoimmune disease. So, I definitely think that is something to consider. Dr Nevel: Yeah. Interesting. Okay, great. Thank you for that. When someone has a stroke and they're pregnant again, what are some strategies for secondary stroke prevention? And you mentioned some of the primary risk reduction, but are there any others that you haven't mentioned yet other than aspirin and blood pressure control for primary prevention? Dr Leppert: Yeah, absolutely. So, I think that it's important to plan ahead. So, for women who are thinking about getting pregnant after they've had a stroke, one of the tenets of stroke neurology is trying to figure out why the first stroke happened. So, I feel like before getting pregnant, it's great to have a very thorough stroke workup so that you understand what the risk factors were and that those risk factors are controlled. One of the interventions, one of the only interventions that's, has evidence in young people with strokes is PFO closure. So, if you do have a stroke from a PFO, we recommend you get that closed prior to your pregnancy because then hopefully even given the hypercoagulability of pregnancy, there's some protection against another embolic stroke. Dr Nevel: Another really interesting part of your article that I did not know before I read it was about the risk of cardiovascular disease long term in women who have had stroke during pregnancy. Could you talk a little bit more about that? Dr Leppert: What we understand is that gestational diabetes and gestational hypertension sets you up for having diabetes and hypertension later on in life, and it's really developing the actual diabetes to the hypertension that increases your risk of strokes. So, what's really an important takeaway for providers is that after women develop gestational diabetes or they have gestational hypertension or they develop preeclampsia, it's very important for their primary or their neurologist to be very vigilant of these risk factors developing so that they can be modified before the women are at higher risk for strokes. And the reason why we think this happens is because pregnancy is like a stress test for your body. And so, the fact that you've developed the gestational diabetes or the gestational hypertension kind of already suggests that you're more likely and more vulnerable to developing these traditional risk factors later on. Dr Nevel: That makes sense. Thank you for that. What do you think is a common misconception about stroke in pregnancy? Dr Leppert: When I was earlier in my training, it kind of felt like having a stroke during pregnancy was being struck by lightning. It was really random. There was nothing you could do. It just happened to people. And I think as I learned more in my career, and especially researching for this article, I'm kind of shocked and disturbed by how much of the strokes in pregnancy we can actually prevent. Through management and monitoring of blood pressure for women. And so, I do think that it does our patients a disservice if we think that these are rogue events. But really, it might be a sign of the failure of our health system where we're not taking care of women around their delivery and postpartum and being more vigilant about their blood pressure and more vigilant about the clinical signs that they're developing. Dr Nevel: Yeah, I really got that from your article, how important it is to monitor for blood pressure and other risk factors, and that that continues after the baby's born. Thank you so much for that, and thank you for talking with me today about your article about stroke and pregnancy. Again, today I've been interviewing Dr. Michelle Leppert about her article on pregnancy and stroke risk. This article appears in the June 2026 Continuum issue on cerebral vascular disease. Please be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues. And thank you so much to our listeners for joining us today. Dr Monteith: This is Dr. Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal which is full of in depth, and clinically relevant information, important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members– you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Social determinants of health, including housing, food access, insurance status, and structural inequities, significantly influence stroke prevention, recovery, and long term outcomes. These factors affect biological risk, treatment adherence, and disparities in care, even when traditional clinical measures are addressed. This episode highlights practical strategies for integrating screening, leveraging multidisciplinary teams, and identifying opportunities for advocacy to improve patient outcomes. In this episode, Teshamae Monteith, MD, FAAN, speaks with Nneka L. Ifejika, MD, MPH, author of the article "Social Determinants of Health and Their Impacts on Stroke Prevention and Outcomes" in the Continuum® June 2026 Cerebrovascular Disease issue. Dr. Monteith is the associate editor of Continuum® Audio and an associate professor of clinical neurology at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Miami, Florida. Dr. Ifejika is an adjunct professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, Texas, and the chief scientific officer of the Division of Academics at Ochsner Health System in New Orleans, Louisiana. Additional Resources Read the article: Social Determinants of Health and Their Impacts on Stroke Prevention and Outcomes Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @headacheMD Full episode transcript available here Dr Monteith: Two patients have the same stroke, but when they return, they have very different outcomes. We can look into some of their comorbidities, but something we don't spend enough time talking about is the social determinants of health. Stay tuned to this discussion. I promise you, you'll become a better neurologist. Dr Jones: This is Dr. Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast. Dr Monteith: This is Dr. Teshamae Monteith. Today I'm interviewing Dr. Nneka Ifejika about her article on social determinants of health and their impacts on stroke prevention and outcomes. This article appears in the June 2026 Continuum issue on cerebrovascular disease. How are you? Welcome to our podcast. Dr Ifejika: Thanks for having me. I'm doing great. Dr Monteith: Great. So, can you introduce yourself to our audience? Dr Ifejika: Sure. I'm Dr. Nneka Ifejika. I am the Chief Scientific Officer of Ochsner Health System in New Orleans, Louisiana. But I'm also a cerebrovascular rehabilitation doctor. I've been practicing for about nineteen years, and am happy and honored to be a contributor to this Continuum Neurology article. It's a really important topic. Dr Monteith: Great. So, what got you into this field, first of all? Dr Ifejika: Well, I was deciding between PM&R and neurology, and I was putting in both match lists. And I thought about it and I leaned toward PM&R, but stroke still had a grasp on my heart and my mind. And so, after I finished my residency, I joined the UT Houston stroke team, and I did a, thankfully did a two-year fellowship and became cross-trained in stroke as well as physical medicine rehab. So, I am a jack of both trades. Dr Monteith: So, you got your way in a way. Dr Ifejika: I did. Dr Monteith: You know, we have a lot of learners that are listening, so it's always, uh, nice for them to be inspired, I think, by people's career paths. So why don't we talk about the objectives of your article? Dr Ifejika: Sure. So, one of the most important things that we wanted to do was make sure that medical students, residents, faculty, and fellows understood the impact of social determinants of health on stroke recovery and stroke rehabilitation. It's not as simple as you have hypertension, hyperlipidemia, we're going to manage your stroke risk factors. Oh, you had an ischemic stroke. You presented in time for the window. We're going to give you endovascular therapy and then modified Rankin scale at hospital discharge in ninety days. No, no, no. The stroke survivor and their caregivers and their family have a lot more to deal with outside of what we look at during the acute stroke hospitalization and post-acute rehabilitation. Things like, can they afford the medication that we're prescribing? Antiplatelet agents or anticoagulation can be extremely expensive. Do they have housing insecurity? Is there food insecurity? What's going on behind the scenes that we are not addressing that can directly impact the admission rate and the readmission rate after we take care of a stroke survivor? Dr Monteith: I love the article because you took a real deep dive into social determinants of health, what they are, why they matter, and what we can do about them. And so why don't we talk a little bit about the NINDS framework for social determinants of health? I think many of us might not be familiar with the framework per se. Dr Ifejika: So, the framework consists of multiple domains specifically that relate to social determinants of health that were published in Neurology a couple of years ago. So, I do hope that people who are hearing this recording actually read them. There are interpersonal domains, there are classic medical domains, there are indeterminate domains, and there are six total domains. And health domains are the last domain. So, things like when it comes to housing insecurity, food insecurity, that's a domain of social determinants of health. When it comes to chronic racism, when it comes to biases that patients experience, those actually impact outcomes. So, there are six separate indices that we're going to get into in detail and how we address them as clinicians, whether it be at the medical student level, resident level, faculty level, to integrate the social determinants of health in our care plans, because we could be doing a much better job. And I think it'll be really important from the interpersonal perspective when we really relate to our patients and their families that we ask these questions. For example, if we're prescribing someone to have treatment for their diabetes mellitus and ha- and, and be taking insulin, if they have housing insecurity and they're in a homeless shelter, they have to leave the homeless shelter during the day. So, what happens to the insulin that we prescribe? These are variables that we are not considering on a regular basis, but they directly relate to compliance. Dr Monteith: Great. So that was one thing I wanted to bring up. We're very good at measuring blood pressure and trying to determine, uh, the association between stroke outcomes and things that we can measure, glucose, lipids, blood pressure. What is the evidence for social determinants of health and stroke outcome? Dr Ifejika: The evidence is growing, and there have been many publications that have come out that are, are going to be highlighted in this article related to structural determinants of health inequities, like structural racism, as well as disparities related to ethnicity and race. There's geographical disparities. For example, a lot of patients are, are primarily concerned about rural versus urban, whether you have access to different post-acute rehabilitation, whether you have access to secondary stroke prevention because you simply don't have the transportation from a, a rural area to get to a drugstore to get things available to you. Social status. There are actually publication related to socioeconomic status and the concerns when it comes to air pollution. So particulate matter 2.5, we know that that has a direct impact on stroke outcomes and health overall, but we don't really think about it as a structural determinant of health inequity. There's several multiple layers of research that have gone on specifically that have been cited in the literature that relate directly to social determinants of health and how we can address them moving forward. Dr Monteith: And what I found interesting in your article in that you gave at least a few examples where social factors like income, education were controlled for, and maybe in large part it is, but even when you control for some of these very obvious social risk factors, you still have inequities. Dr Ifejika: Absolutely. And I think it was really important to show that we had strong peer review evidence behind this, as it wasn't just something that we were creating or hypothesizing about. There have been studies that have been done over this over decades of time, showing the impacts of social determinants of health on outcomes. But the question and concern that we have is we know this growing body of literature continues to expand. What are we doing about it when it comes to education of the future generations of providers who will be caring for this population? Dr Monteith: Before we get into how, you know, what we're going to do about that, let's just kind of put that link, cause the evidence is there. How does it drive biology? Dr Ifejika: It's a great question. So, for example, particulate matter 2.5 in air pollution has been shown to have an existing impact on hypertension, raising your blood pressure. So that's a direct effect of a social determinant of health related to socioeconomic status because people who live in areas with higher air pollution are... They're not green spaces. They live near highways. Those are areas that unfortunately are also impacted by food deserts. Food deserts, if you're not able to get fresh fruits, vegetables, whole foods, increases your risk of developing diabetes, hyperlipidemia, also increases your sodium intake, again, increasing hypertension. These things are all connected to biological determinants. It's just that we're not asking about them necessarily within the social history when we're taking people into the hospital, but they have direct effects. Dr Monteith: Great. Neurologists tend to be busy and, you know, we're... have all of these things that we're being asked to do and chart and click and all of that stuff. And so how can we more readily integrate screening for social determinants of health and that conversation into the work we do? We recognize it's important. We recognize it's an important risk factor. There's a lot of these determinants. So, what is a good way to do so? And I, I know that in the paper you've, you've given different roles to different team players, so I want you to talk about that too, but just kind of even a regular routine office visit. Walk us through a way we can more easily integrate that kind of conversation. Dr Ifejika: It's an excellent question, and what I've recommended that we do in a standard office visit is utilize the time before the visit to send out screeners. So, for example, usually with an electronic medical record, you can send documents before the visit even starts, where people can check off whether they have any concerns regarding housing, food insecurity. They can check out their location of where they live, whether they live near a highway or not near a highway. It's specifically related to socioeconomic status. We can ask about insurance status, whether they have insurance, insured versus uninsured, but then also types of insurance, whether they have Medicaid insurance versus Medicare insurance. Then even drilling even further, type of Medicare insurance, Medicare Advantage versus traditional Medicare, cause all of those things actually play a role in this. Dr Ifejika: And evaluate these things and don't take time during your office visit. Send these screeners out beforehand. Have them be assimilated by your medical staff. Make sure you're utilizing every resource that you have at your disposal to help streamline things, so by the time the person comes in for the visit, you've primed the pump. You have this information already in your hands at your fingertips cause it was sent out in advance, and you have your medical staff already have an understanding of. If they didn't fill it out electronically, give it to them in the lobby. Make sure they have a handwritten copy in the lobby so that when they come into the office visit, you have the information at your fingertips. Dr Monteith: Are there any particular resources that you recommend for those types of screeners? Dr Ifejika: What I've used in the past, if you have patient-reported outcomes, so the PROMIS instruments, that's a good start. It doesn't get into the details of housing insecurity, food insecurity, but it's a good start to help prime questions and to start the conversation during your office visit. In my clinics, I do a PROMIS 27 on every patient, as well as a PHQ-9 for depression on everyone. And then I collect data longitudinally, and I can always drill down on factors that I noticed that could become a problem moving forward. Dr Monteith: Yeah. And then also in your article, you spoke a bit about this impact from the acute presentation in the hospital to rehab. Dr Ifejika: Yeah. Dr Monteith: So why don't you talk about these different entry points where we can really engage our patients and try and help reduce their burden? Dr Ifejika: Sure. So, healthcare can be quite fragmented, and the stroke patient, stroke survivor, and their family member have no grasp of that. They've had a stroke, and they may be going from the ER to the ICU to the stroke unit to the floor to the rehab unit, and we see it as multiple levels of care, multiple types of providers. They see it as one hospital. And the concern that we have is, at those branch points, things get dropped, and we have the opportunity to pick things up at those branch points. So, during the acute care hospitalization-Primarily, that's the establishment of what has happened, how we're gonna treat it, what are the variables that we can control for right now to address those determinants of health moving forward, and to specifically looking at whether they were taking medications before, whether they could afford medications before, what that looks like at hospital discharge. Is there any duplication of medications? If a person is taking Coreg and you prescribe metoprolol, but they still have the Coreg at home, should we have really prescribed the metoprolol? We're just spending money that they may have concerns when it comes to access to care and the cost of these prescriptions. So, it's the responsibility of the acute care physician to kind of look at that. Those are subtle things that we think are subtle, but they add up quickly for the family when it comes to having one group of medications that's the same class and having to buy another type. When it comes to post-acute rehabilitation, it's really an important time to screen for whether the caregiver can handle what's occurring. So specifically, if the caregiver is already burning out and the average length of stay for a stroke patient is five days and they've come to rehab for two weeks, what's gonna happen in the next two years or the next four years? So, during the post-acute rehabilitation phase, it's time to kind of look at that and drill down on those kind of questions. Also, the levels of care, Dr Ifejika: it's really important to look at other levels of rehabilitation, so skilled nursing facilities, making sure people have access to that if they need to, if the caregiver is burned out and they don't have the ability to go straight home. Because acute inpatient rehab, the goal of it afterwards, is to go straight home. It's not to go to another facility. So, you need to have that screener in place when it comes to whether the family can take care of this person, and whether the family can do it in an effective way to prevent them being readmitted. Dr Monteith: Great. I also like that you spoke about kind of the team approach and different roles, both for screening and for intervention, both being very important, especially the intervention. And so why don't you give us a few examples how the team could break up the responsibility and how also for the intervention component that can be done. Dr Ifejika: Sure. So, I broke up the team into several levels. So, the team medically is the medical student, resident, and faculty physician. However, the team also includes the support staff, so your case manager, your social worker, the therapist, physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, the pastoral services, all these members of the team. You know, sometimes as physicians, we don't read those notes. There's a lot of information in the notes from social work, care coordination, and the therapist. They get down to subtleties cause they're asking questions, for example, "What kind of equipment do you have at home? How many stairs do you have at home? What level of house do you have, one story, two story? If you live in an apartment, do you have an elevator access?" That's important for someone with hemiparesis. When it comes to medications, when it comes to insurance status, when it comes to your ability to have the mechanisms to pay for care as an outpatient, social workers are required to ask these questions cause they have to figure out resources for the patient and their family to help facilitate improved outcomes. So, they have to ask questions regarding these tasks. The concerns are, do we read what they're saying? So, it's really important to interact with them, and if it's not something that you're looking at in the chart, cause we're all so tied to our computers, find where they are in the hospital. Walk by their office and have a chat. Run your list with them, especially for people who you're concerned have vulnerabilities, and make sure that you're setting an example for your medical students with your faculty doing so. If you're looking at it from the medical student, resident, faculty perspective, medical students, listen. This is your opportunity to really contribute to the team as well as learn about social determinants of health and research in their fields. You are the boots on the ground for the medical team. You are the ones who should be priming the pump and asking these questions of the family members. We're sending you into the rooms to do a history and physical. Social determinants of health should be a part of your history and physical, and you should be taking what we're saying in this article and asking these questions and tying it into your resident. Now, the resident is the work person of the hospital. We all know this. Things run through the resident. Things run through the fellow. It's really important that they have this information in a manner that is negotiable. The list keeps getting longer, and a resident doesn't need to be overburdened. It needs to be synthesized in a manner that can help facilitate the resident being able to act as well as communicate any concerns to the faculty. And at the faculty level, we are the voices that can affect change. So, if there's any concerns when it comes to advocacy, research, making sure that people are accessing care in a way that makes sense, particularly when it comes to the ability for us to galvanize change on a national level, that's kind of our job. Dr Monteith: Great, and so let's talk about intervention. What are things that, let's say, the neurologist can do to deal with some of these social factors? Dr Ifejika: From the neurology perspective, I think it's really important to identify missed opportunities and making sure that we address them. For example, the conversations around the ability to have access to care related to insurance versus no insurance. There are many, many ways that neurologists are able to advocate for a person being able to get to Medicare insurance, particularly in the outpatient setting. When we see patients in clinic, it takes two years, them, to qualify for Medicare, two years at a minimum. But there's a gap there that can be filled by us making sure that we document what's happened, contact their providers, facilitate communication with their employers, if they're employees, they can get some short-term disability benefits to help bridge that gap prior to receiving Medicare insurance. It behooves us to do this because if we do not, they fall into the gap and they get readmitted and they're back on service anyway. So, what's important is the outpatient that we really kind of focus on things that we can impact and things like insurance and getting people transitioned from having employer-based insurance versus getting to Medicare is a really important way that we can effect change in a, in a way that's viable and, and replicable. So, in the outpatient setting, neurologists have a wonderful opportunity to effect change in social determinants of health. When it comes to employed persons, who had a stroke transitioning to Medicare, it takes two years to do so. So, in the outpatient clinic, if you have an employed person, make sure that you fill out their short-term disability benefits forms, their long-term disability benefits form. Bridge the gap. Get that information to their employer so they can maintain constant coverage. Because if they do not, if they have to choose between refilling medications and putting food on the table, they're going to choose putting food on the table, and that's going to directly impact their outcomes if they're not taking the medication that we recommend. Dr Monteith: I think that's a great point. I mean, there's a lot that we can do, and in some ways, it may not take that much to document and to be able to ask the questions and to include some of that information into the assessment and plan is really a, a great idea. Dr Ifejika: And you know, if we don't bring these things up and have these conversations, it doesn't get addressed. And that's why I'm very, very thankful that I had the opportunity to do so, cause this is a part of what I do all day. I think that if I wasn't integrating these kind of conversations into my practice, I wouldn't have the ability to share these tips and these abilities to move things forward in a manner that will be constructive for our field overall and for our patients. Dr Monteith: And towards the end of the article, you brought up something I think we don't see in many articles, and that's the role of advocacy and getting involved in health policy. So, can you talk a little bit about that? Dr Ifejika: You know, it's really important to facilitate change when you see that there are things that need to be changed. And the best way to do that is through advocacy at the local or state or federal level. A lot of these variables that we're dealing with can be addressed through legal changes. I'll give you an example. End-stage renal disease, if you have immediate hemodialysis and you have that requirement upon hospital discharge, you qualify for Medicare immediately. Immediately. Before you even leave the hospital. Why wouldn't something be similar for a stroke? Well, the reason why is because there was a level of advocacy that came around end-stage renal disease and a member of Congress's wife had hemodialysis requirements. And so, a law was passed to make sure Medicare covered it immediately after hospital discharge. So, it requires advocacy in some significant ways to get things done, but we have the bandwidth to do this. We take care of a population that has some of the highest rates of preventable disability. That's not going away. We need to make sure that we're effecting change for this group to make sure that they have the best possible outcomes they can experience. Dr Monteith: So, any final messages for our listeners? Dr Ifejika: I look forward to hearing everyone's feedback about our issue. I am thankful for the opportunity to talk about, address, and write about this important topic, and look forward to everyone's feedback. Dr Monteith: Well, thank you so much for being on our podcast. It was a really wonderful summary and we had a very thorough conversation, but you didn't give away too much, so I think they're going to have to read the article. Dr Ifejika: You're going to have to read the article. And we want medical students, residents, fellows, faculty, all of our ancillary staff within the hospitals, please read this article. We really appreciate it. Dr Monteith: Again today, I've been interviewing Dr. Nneka Ifejika about her article on social determinants of health and their impacts on stroke prevention and outcomes. This article appears in the June 2026 Continuum issue on cerebrovascular disease. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues. And thank you to our listeners for joining today. Dr Monteith: This is Dr. Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Balancing disease control with pregnancy and neonatal considerations in people with neuroinflammatory disease throughout the family planning, pregnancy, and postpartum periods is crucial. Modern treatment paradigms enable women to safely become pregnant and breastfeed alongside effective disease management. Shared decision making is an important part of this process. In this episode, Kait Nevel, MD, speaks with Ruth Dobson, MD and Kerstin Hellwig, MD, authors of the article "Family Planning in Neuroinflammatory Disease" in the Continuum® April 2026 Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders issue. Dr. Nevel is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a neurologist and neuro-oncologist at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, Indiana. Dr. Dobson is a professor in the Centre for Preventive Neurology at the Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, and a consultant neurologist in the Department of Neurology at the Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, in London, United Kingdom. Dr. Hellwig is a professor in the Department of Neurology at Katholisches Klinikum, Ruhr‑Universität Bochum, in Bochum, Germany. Additional Resources Read the article: Family Planning in Neuroinflammatory Disease Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @IUneurodocmom Guest: @drruthdobson Full episode transcript available here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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