Seminars in Neurology最新文献

With the rise of the opioid epidemic, the practicing neurologist must recognize the patterns of a growing number of opioid-associated neurological injuries. This is in addition to the classic toxidrome of miosis, altered mental status, and respiratory depression, which must never be overlooked, as it is reversible and potentially lifesaving. Several other idiosyncratic syndromes due to opioid-related nervous system insults are defined by their characteristic imaging findings and portend variable functional recovery. Opioid toxicity can not only lead to brain injury, but also spinal cord and, rarely, peripheral nerve injury. As several newer synthetic opioids are undetectable by most assays, a low threshold to suspect opioid exposure must be maintained.

Cannabinoid use, particularly for recreational purposes, is increasing exponentially across all age groups, especially in younger populations, due to its perceived low risk and legalization. While cannabinoids may be largely considered as safe, there is mounting evidence of increased risk of systemic and neurological complications through their interaction with the poorly understood endocannabinoid receptor network within the central nervous system and other organ systems. Acute cannabinoid exposure can cause neuropsychiatric symptoms in addition to altering cerebral blood flow, leading to cerebrovascular complications such as ischemic stroke, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS). Chronic use, particularly among adolescents, may be associated with increased risk of long-term cognitive deficits, schizophrenia, and other neuropsychiatric effects. Synthetic cannabinoids have increased potency, with reports of causing profound neurological complications including coma, seizures, posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome, and RCVS. Despite increasing evidence, the quality of literature describing neurologic complications with cannabinoids remains limited to case series and retrospective cohort studies, with significant confounding factors such as concomitant use of other illicit drugs, limiting interpretation. In this review, we summarize the effect of cannabinoids on the neurologic system and associated neurological complications.

There is an urgent need to expand access to treatment for persons with opioid use disorder (OUD). As neurologists may frequently encounter patients with chronic pain who have developed OUD, they are in a position to serve as advocates for treatment. Buprenorphine is the most scalable medication for OUD in the United States, yet expansion has plateaued in recent years despite growing treatment needs. Reluctance of providers to establish treatment with new patients, challenges with rural expansion, stigma related to buprenorphine-based care, and pharmacy pressures that incentivize low dispensing and inventories may have stalled expansion. This review introduces these challenges before outlining actionable and evidenced-based strategies that warrant investigation, including methods to improve patient access to care (remotely delivered care, mobile delivery programs, Bridge programs) and provider retention and confidence in prescribing (expert consults, Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes, a telementoring model, hub-and-spoke services), as well as novel innovations (virtual reality, artificial intelligence, wearable technologies). Overall, fortifying existing delivery systems while developing new transformative models may be necessary to achieve more optimal levels of buprenorphine treatment expansion.

Driving the overdose epidemic, a significant proportion of adult and adolescent patients seen in neurology practice and hospital settings has substance use disorder. Fortunately, there are effective treatments available, in particular for opioid addiction. Some elements of treatment can be delivered directly in medical office-based settings, while others are best provided from within specialized addiction treatment facilities. In this article, we review the nature of substance use disorders, and the various treatment approaches that can be utilized to stabilize patients and facilitate their building a strong recovery foundation. Some interventions discussed may be directly provided by a physician identifying the disorder, while others involve collaboration with specialized addiction treatment centers and recovery support entities.

The rates of opioid use and opioid related deaths are escalating in the United States. Despite this, evidence-based treatments for Opioid Use Disorder are underutilized. There are three medications FDA approved for treatment of Opioid Use Disorder: Methadone, Buprenorphine, and Naltrexone. This article reviews the history, criteria, and mechanisms associated with Opioid Use Disorder. Pertinent pharmacology considerations, treatment strategies, efficacy, safety, and challenges of Methadone, Buprenorphine, and Naltrexone are outlined. Lastly, a practical decision making algorithm is discussed to address pertinent psychiatric and medical comorbidities when prescribing pharmacology for Opioid Use Disorder.

In this article, we will discuss the history, pharmacodynamics, and neurotoxicity of psychostimulants and hallucinogens. The drugs discussed are widely used and have characteristic toxidromes and potential for neurological injuries with which the practicing clinician should be familiar. Psychostimulants are a class of drugs that includes cocaine, methamphetamine/amphetamines, and cathinones, among others, which produce a crescendoing euphoric high. Seizures, ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes, rhabdomyolysis, and a variety of movement disorders are commonly encountered in this class. Hallucinogens encompass a broad class of drugs, in which the user experiences hallucinations, altered sensorium, distorted perception, and cognitive dysfunction. The experience can be unpredictable and dysphoric, creating a profound sense of anxiety and panic in some cases. Recognizing the associated neurotoxicities and understanding the appropriate management is critical in caring for these patient populations. Several of these agents are not detectable by standard clinical laboratory analysis, making identification and diagnosis an even greater challenge.

Currently nearly one-quarter of admissions to pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) worldwide are for neurocritical care diagnoses that are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Pediatric neurocritical care is a rapidly evolving field with unique challenges due to not only age-related responses to primary neurologic insults and their treatments but also the rarity of pediatric neurocritical care conditions at any given institution. The structure of pediatric neurocritical care services therefore is most commonly a collaborative model where critical care medicine physicians coordinate care and are supported by a multidisciplinary team of pediatric subspecialists, including neurologists. While pediatric neurocritical care lies at the intersection between critical care and the neurosciences, this narrative review focuses on the most common clinical scenarios encountered by pediatric neurologists as consultants in the PICU and synthesizes the recent evidence, best practices, and ongoing research in these cases. We provide an in-depth review of (1) the evaluation and management of abnormal movements (seizures/status epilepticus and status dystonicus); (2) acute weakness and paralysis (focusing on pediatric stroke and select pediatric neuroimmune conditions); (3) neuromonitoring modalities using a pathophysiology-driven approach; (4) neuroprotective strategies for which there is evidence (e.g., pediatric severe traumatic brain injury, post-cardiac arrest care, and ischemic stroke and hemorrhagic stroke); and (5) best practices for neuroprognostication in pediatric traumatic brain injury, cardiac arrest, and disorders of consciousness, with highlights of the 2023 updates on Brain Death/Death by Neurological Criteria. Our review of the current state of pediatric neurocritical care from the viewpoint of what a pediatric neurologist in the PICU needs to know is intended to improve knowledge for providers at the bedside with the goal of better patient care and outcomes.

Post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) refers to unintended consequences of critical care that manifest as new or worsening impairments in physical functioning, cognitive ability, or mental health. As intensive care unit (ICU) survival continues to improve, PICS is becoming increasingly recognized as a public health problem. Studies that focus on PICS have typically excluded patients with acute brain injuries and chronic neurodegenerative problems. However, patients who require neurocritical care undoubtedly suffer from impairments that overlap substantially with those encompassed by PICS. A major challenge is to distinguish between impairments related to brain injury and those that occur as a consequence of critical care. The general principles for the prevention and management of PICS and multidomain impairments in patients with moderate and severe neurological injuries are similar including the ICU liberation bundle, multidisciplinary team-based care throughout the continuum of care, and increasing awareness regarding the challenges of critical care survivorship among patients, families, and multidisciplinary team members. An extension of this concept, PICS-Family (PICS-F) refers to the mental health consequences of the intensive care experience for families and loved ones of ICU survivors. A dyadic approach to ICU survivorship with an emphasis on recognizing families and caregivers that may be at risk of developing PICS-F after neurocritical care illness can help improve outcomes for ICU survivors. In this review, we will summarize our current understanding of PICS and PICS-F, emerging literature on PICS in severe acute brain injury, strategies for preventing and treating PICS, and share our recommendations for future directions.