Continuum Audio

Primary stroke prevention is a critical opportunity for neurologists, with most stroke risk driven by modifiable factors such as hypertension and lifestyle behaviors. This episode highlights practical tools and strategies, including Life's Essential 8 and contemporary risk calculators, while also exploring evolving approaches to shared decision making and secondary prevention.
In this episode, Katie Grouse, MD, FAAN, speaks with Mitchell S. Elkind, MD, MS, FAAN, author of the article "Stroke Prevention" in the Continuum® June 2026 Cerebrovascular 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. Elkind is the Chief Science Officer for Brain Health and Stroke at the American Heart Association in Dallas, Texas, and a professor of neurology and epidemiology at Columbia University in New York, New York.
Additional Resources
Read the article: Stroke Prevention
Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum
Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME
Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud
More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com
Social Media
facebook.com/continuumcme
@ContinuumAAN
Guest: @MitchElkind
Full episode transcript available here
Dr Grouse: Neurologists have generally been more involved in secondary stroke prevention, but primary stroke prevention is increasingly recognized as an important topic of discussion for neurologists. Today, I have the opportunity to interview Dr. Mitchell Elkind, who wrote the article on stroke prevention in the newest Continuum issue on cerebrovascular disease. 
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. Mitchell Elkind about his article on stroke prevention. This article appears in the June 2026 Continuum issue on cerebrovascular disease. Welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourself to the audience. 
Dr Elkind: Thank you so much, Katie. So, my name is Mitch Elkind, and I'm the Chief Science Officer for Brain Health and Stroke at the American Heart Association and a stroke neurologist by background. 
Dr Grouse: Well, I just want to start by saying that I really enjoyed reading this article. I think this is just a really wonderful article I recommend strongly. Such a high yield, an important topic for a lot of us who see patients who are interested in learning about their stroke risks or need help with, uh, stroke prevention after having a stroke. So, I wanted to start. What's changed in the last couple of years? You know, what are some big highlights that you really want to stress that are different from maybe the last time we reviewed this topic? 
Dr Elkind: Sure. Well, there's been a lot of development in the field of secondary stroke prevention, for one thing. But even beyond that, I think we increasingly appreciate how important it is to control what we call the social drivers of health on the earlier side, primordial or primary prevention. And that has been a big advance, I'd say. And I would also say, I think it's really important for neurologists to understand some of those questions about primordial and primary prevention. You know, we tend to get involved with patients after they've had a stroke or maybe a TIA, some kind of event. But sometimes we find people who are following for, you know, non-stroke related conditions who have risk factors also. And we can really play an important role in identifying those risk factors and helping to prevent a first stroke or vascular event as well. So, I think it's real important for us to be doctors even before we're neurologists. So, you know, Katie, about ninety percent of stroke risk is modifiable, so we can do a great job as neurologists in preventing stroke. And one of the most important things that we can do is to identify and treat high blood pressure. And recently, actually, the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology guidelines on the management of hypertension have said that treatment of high blood pressure not only prevents stroke, but it can also help to prevent cognitive decline and dementia. And this is the first time that we've had a class of recommendation one and level of evidence A, the highest level of recommendation we give for the use of blood pressure treatment to prevent dementia. And that's largely based on the results of some large trials that have come out recently showing that you can prevent dementia with blood pressure control. So that's a really exciting link, I think, between cardiovascular risk factor control and subsequent brain health. It just illustrates the role that neurologists can play in, so many conditions outside of stroke as well. 
Dr Grouse: That's a really great point, and I want to get a little more into the idea of primordial stroke prevention. Can you tell us a little bit more about what that might be? 
Dr Elkind: So primordial prevention refers to addressing how we can prevent risk factors from occurring in the first place, and how can we improve the environments in which people live. You know, we know that only about twenty percent of health outcomes is dependent on what happens between the patient and their doctor in the office. About eighty percent of it is due to what happens in the environments in which we live, work, pray, and play. And so that's what we mean when we refer to the social drivers of health. What is the neighborhood like where somebody lives? Do they have access to healthy food? Do they have places where they can go to exercise? Is there air pollution in the area that may affect their health? You know, one really interesting fact that's become apparent in the last few years is that air pollution is a major risk factor for stroke. Something like a sixth of all strokes can be attributed to the quality of air. And so, what are the things we can do at the broader public policy, community level to reduce the risk of risk factors like high blood pressure and diabetes even before somebody has an event that brings them to the attention of the doctor? So that's what we're thinking about with regard to primordial prevention. It's the earliest stage in prevention. 
Dr Grouse: And that's really fascinating. You know, I think an area that we haven't, as neurologists, really put a lot of our time thinking about, but clearly a very important thing. I really appreciated reading your article about how you incorporated the fact that, you know, a lot of these risk factors overlap very, very closely with all the risk factors for various types of cardiovascular events. And I would imagine that the work you've done as the Chief Clinical Science Officer for the American Heart Association has informed a lot of the way you've thought about-Trying to bring all these risks together and think a little bit more holistically about the whole thing. Could you tell us a little bit more about that and the work that you've done on the American Heart Association's Life's Essential 8 score? 
Dr Elkind: Sure. I can't take credit for it. It's really work that was done by others at the Heart Association, particularly a cardiologist and epidemiologist named Don Lloyd-Jones. But many other volunteers participated. Life's Essential 8 is our approach to primary stroke prevention and cardiovascular prevention more broadly. We say Life's Essential 8 because it includes four health behaviors and four health factors that people can observe to reduce their risk of cardiovascular disease. The four factors are kind of things like know your numbers, your blood pressure, your blood sugar, your body mass index, right, which is a combination of weight and height, and your cholesterol level. So, know those numbers and keep them within the recommended ranges, and talk to your doctor if they're not. And then four lifestyle behaviors. So, one of them is to eat a healthy diet, and typically that means the Mediterranean diet. It means getting regular exercise, and we recommend 150 minutes a week of moderate to vigorous physical activity. Of course, it means abstinence from smoking or other tobacco products. And the last one, the eighth one, which I was so excited about when we added this, is sleep, recommending at least seven hours of sleep a night. So, I was really excited about this because we used to talk about Life's Simple 7, and then the last iteration of our recommendations included this recommendation for adequate sleep because of the mounting evidence of the importance of sleep to cardiovascular health. But sleep is really a brain function, right? And so, it was really the first, in a way, specific brain function that was added to our recommendations. So that's Life's Essential 8. People can read about it online at heart.org and recommend it to your patients as a simple way for people to understand the best approach to reducing their risk of cardiovascular disease, including stroke. 
Dr Grouse: I checked it out myself after reading the article. It's very accessible to patients. It's a great education tool. And they can, you know, see their own score and use that in their own way to, to think about what their risks are and how they can help mitigate and then rescore themselves down the line. There's also, though, on the kind of more the clinician side, the PREVENT calculator as well. Could you tell us a little bit more about how we could use that in approaching this patient population? 
Dr Elkind: Yeah. So, I think of Life's Essential 8 as being a patient-focused tool that people can use. PREVENT is really more for clinicians. Anybody can look it up online and enter your data into it. There's a risk calculator online. But the basic idea behind PREVENT and other similar risk calculators is that it's a way to estimate somebody's risk of having a cardiovascular event like stroke or a heart attack or even heart failure by entering information about your health. And we used to think, we used to use something called the ASCVD, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk calculator, or the Framingham score. Framingham Heart Score, for example, was another one. PREVENT is the latest version, and it has several advantages over those earlier types of risk predictors. For one thing, it predicts risk at younger ages as well. It goes down to age 30. It predicts risk over a longer duration of time, so over 30, 10 or 30 years. It eliminates the use of race as an item to put into the calculator and substitutes for that socioeconomic status, so it's not a race base, but a measure of social disadvantage. And it also includes kidney elements, kidney measures. It includes renal function, for example, that weren't included in prior measures, and it can also be used to predict heart failure, which was not part of the original calculators. Another major advantage of the PREVENT study is that it was based on real-world data from about three million patients, many, many more than the 50,000 or so that the earlier risk calculators were based on. So, it has a much more robust data set and therefore allows a bit more precision in the ability to predict future risk of events. And typically, primary care doctors would enter their patient's data, calculate a risk, and then based on the results of the risk calculator, they can make recommendations about what type of medications a person should take or what other strategies they could use to reduce their risk. And so that's the role that PREVENT plays, is really being focused more for the clinician than the patient. 
Dr Grouse: Really great tool for us to be aware of. You earlier alluded to the fact that neurologists are in the situation where we sometimes are helping patients with this primary prevention. But you also make a case for why it's in the patient's best interest for us to be involved in, in these conversations when we can, when we have the opportunity. Can you tell us more about that? 
Dr Elkind: Shared decision-making is really important because we know that people aren't going to lead the healthiest possible lives if they're not invested in their care. And so, a doctor telling somebody what to do if the patient doesn't want to do it is gonna have limited benefit.So we emphasize the importance of shared decision-making as much as possible. And I think that where this comes up a lot is actually in the situation of, for example, atrial fibrillation, where patients will often be put on a blood thinner. And many people are fearful of blood thinners. They worry about the risk of bleeding. Maybe they know a relative who's had a bleeding complication from a blood thinner, and so they may be disinclined to try it. And so, it's really important to have these discussions about the risks and the benefits of medication and engage the patient in thinking about this. And there are even tools and visual aids that people can look to to help explain some of these complicated concepts to patients. So, these are the kinds of things that reflect implementation science as a way to improve adherence. We know what works in a clinical trial setting often, but the challenge is translating that into the real world and getting our patients to use the medications that we believe scientifically have been shown to be of benefit. I've actually been surprised sometimes at conversations I've had with people, in some cases, healthcare professionals who resist going on blood thinners because of their fear of the complications. And I feel like the evidence is there. Why don't they believe me? And that's why it's really important to have the conversation. Even our peers and colleagues can sometimes question the evidence, and it's important for us to be aware of that. 
Dr Grouse: Absolutely. I think that sounds very reasonable to me, and hopefully these tools will help us with making some of these decisions with our patients. Now, turning our attention a little bit to secondary prevention. So, you know, someone's already had a stroke or a TIA, sort of thinking about what we can do to optimize their risk factors for further strokes. You know, I think there has been some changes that have happened, I think, in the last few years that might be affecting some of the decisions we're making and some of the advice we're giving our patients. I wanted to talk a little bit about GLP-1 receptor agonist medications. Is the data there to support use of this either in secondary prevention or even in primary prevention in the case of stroke? 
Dr Elkind: There is evidence that supports the use of GLP-1s for stroke prevention. We need more data, though. We need trials that focus only on patients with stroke, for example, there have been studies in patients with cardiovascular disease broadly that include stroke patients. But if you look at the subcategory just of stroke patients alone, the data in that subgroup alone don't always show a benefit. And so, we need more data that's focused on stroke patients alone. So, I think the data are continuing to emerge, but we need more still. 
Dr Grouse: Is there any development in the thought about whether we should be putting patients on antiplatelet therapies for incidental, incidentally identified strokes? For instance, if you got an MRI for migraine or for other reasons and you found one, no history of any stroke-like symptoms. Should we be putting these patients on aspirin or any other types of therapies? 
Dr Elkind: That's a really great question. And again, it's an area where there's some controversy and really, there's really no definitive data that would support using antiplatelet therapy in people with incidentally discovered infarcts or what we call, you know, whispering strokes or silent strokes. Many stroke neurologists will use antiplatelet agents. This is one of those areas where it's so important to identify the risk factors. As we were saying before, patients who have other neurological disorders like migraine or epilepsy may turn out to have cardiovascular risk factors like diabetes and high blood pressure. That's why it's so important for neurologists to be able to treat those patients or refer them to specialists who can. Patients who have incidentally discovered lesions similarly are a group where we should be looking for risk factors. So, I don't think of it only in terms of do we put them on an antiplatelet or not, but really more holistically, can we identify their other risk factors and address those? Should the patient's information be entered into a risk calculator like PREVENT, for example, so that we can come up with a more global or holistic measure of their cardiovascular risk and address that as appropriate? Because if they are at risk for stroke, they're also at risk for cardiac events, including heart attack, heart failure, sudden cardiac arrest, and so forth. So, I think of it as a, as a great kind of teachable moment or an opportunity to catch somebody and bring them into the healthcare system more broadly and address those other potential risk factors. 
Dr Grouse: Speaking of, of risk factors that we often like to think about and work up when possible, in cases where it seems certainly possible the patient had an embolic stroke, but perhaps we've done a few weeks or four weeks of cardiac monitoring, have not found any evidence of atrial fibrillation. What's new and what's the current recommendations for doing further monitoring when there's high suspicion for cardioembolic stroke? 
Dr Elkind: This is a really active area of investigation, and guidelines suggest that we should do some cardiac monitoring for atrial fibrillation after an unexplained stroke, but it's not clear how much we should do. Studies generally show that the longer you follow somebody on a cardiac monitor after stroke, the more likely you are to detect atrial fibrillation. It could be as high as thirty percent after a few years. And that's great. And if you detect atrial fibrillation, people usually end up being recommended for a blood thinner. But how extensively we should monitor remains unknown. And I think a lot of the investigation recently has been around the question of, are there other ways to get that information rather than waiting six months or a year for the person to develop atrial fibrillation?It's a little bit funny logically to think a person has a stroke today, a year later you discover atrial fibrillation on the monitor, and you say, "Oh, now I know what caused your stroke a year ago." Right? The temporality, the causality perhaps is off in that case. And so, wouldn't it be better if we could tell what somebody's risk of having another cardioembolic stroke is, or the likelihood that they have atrial fibrillation is at the time that you first see them for the stroke, you know, in the hospital, for example. And so, there's some really new technologies that have evolved like AI or artificial intelligence interpretation of EKGs that can give a really good indication of which people are gonna go on to develop atrial fibrillation. And so, I think we need some more trials in that area to demonstrate that we can detect the risk of AFib and treat that even before it appears on one of those delayed monitors. That's an area that I think is very exciting right now. There's also a further question with regard to how to treat these patients, which is that sometimes atrial fibrillation is a consequence of the stroke itself. So, we can think about what people call known AF, meaning atrial fibrillation that's known about before the stroke even occurs, versus AF that's detected after a stroke, or AF-DAS, people will say. Those may have very different implications for the risk of recurrence and what the person's cardiovascular status is. So, I think what we've learned over the last few years is that atrial fibrillation, it used to be like the slam dunk for a stroke neurologist. It was the easy thing. You know, you had a stroke, you have AFib, you should be on a blood thinner. Now we know that there's lots of different kinds of AFib. There's AFib before stroke, there's AFib after stroke, there's burden of atrial fibrillation. So, some people may have 30 seconds of AFib, some people may have several hours, some people may be in it continuously. It comes and goes, and that can make it challenging to manage. So, we have a lot more work to do to understand this problem better. 
Dr Grouse: That also gets me into some other interesting areas that I think there's still some question, you know, how aggressive should you be? How often is it a case of is this correlated or is this causative? For instance, when a patent foramen ovale is, is discovered in patients with cryptogenic stroke. Are there any tools or new developments to help us understand whether these PFOs should be closed in these cases? 
Dr Elkind: PFO and stroke is a great story that's been going on for decades. And again, we've made tremendous progress in the last several years. So, it's true that about 20% or so of people have a PFO, and because of that, it can be really hard to say with any certainty whether an individual patient sitting in front of you, that the PFO was the cause of their stroke. Rarely we can have a really high degree of certainty. You know, if somebody has, uh, a DVT, for example, and shortly after that maybe they have pulmonary embolism and then a stroke, and we can say, "Oh, clearly this was a paradoxical embolism," went to the lungs and then some crossed over and went to the brain. That happens really infrequently. Most of the time you're faced with a patient who has a PFO and a stroke, and they may have some other risk factors. There are some tools that we can use to help figure out the likelihood that a PFO is related to a stroke. One of those is called the ROPE score or the risk of paradoxical embolism score that was developed by David Thaler and, uh, David Kent from Tufts and a group of other investigators as well. That score allows one to say what the likelihood is that the PFO was causative of the stroke, and it's based on a person's risk factors such that the younger you are, the more likely it is the PFO caused the stroke. And the absence of risk factors make it more likely that the PFO caused the stroke. So, the higher your ROPE score indicating the fewer other reasons you have a stroke, the more likely the PFO is to be causative. So that can be helpful in identifying patients who may have had a stroke due to their PFO. There are other features that are identified in something called the PASCAL score, which is a way of assessing the degree of shunting and whether or not there's an atrial septal aneurysm that can be used as additional factors that lead to the likelihood that a PFO was causative rather than just incidental. So, by putting this kind of information together, we can kind of do precision neurology or precision prevention by identifying which patients with a PFO are really the ones we need to worry about and do procedures like closure. 
Dr Grouse: I look forward to hearing more and learning more as more advances are made in these areas.
Dr Elkind: Thank you.  
Dr Grouse: And thank you so much for joining us today to talk about your article.  
Dr Elkind: Oh, I appreciate it. Thank you for giving me the opportunity. I really enjoyed it. 
Dr Grouse: Again, today I've been interviewing Dr. Mitchell Elkind about his article on stroke prevention. 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.

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.

In this episode, Lyell K. Jones Jr, MD, FAAN, speaks with Cheryl Bushnell, MD, MHS, who served as the guest editor of the June 2026 Cerebrovascular Disease issue. They provide a preview of the issue, which publishes on June 3, 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. Bushnell is a Professor of Neurology and Director of the Center for Transformative Stroke Care at Wake Forest University School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
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: @CBushnellMD 
Full episode transcript available here
Dr Jones: One of the core tenets of our field is that we learn neurology one stroke at a time. But what do we have to learn about preventing them altogether? The science of stroke prevention, acute treatment, and recovery are evolving rapidly, and it's hard to keep up. Today, we're speaking with Dr. Cheryl Bushnell, guest editor of our latest Continuum issue on Cerebrovascular Disease, to discuss these topics 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. Cheryl Bushnell, who is Continuum's guest editor for our latest issue on Cerebrovascular Disease. Dr. Bushnell is a professor of neurology and the director of the Center for Transformative Stroke Care at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, where she specializes in the care of stroke patients and their social and functional determinants of recovery and health, and is an internationally recognized expert on those topics. Dr. Bushnell, welcome. Thank you for joining us today. Why don't you introduce yourself to our listeners? 
Dr Bushnell: Absolutely. Thank you for the invitation. It's really an honor to be here. So, as you mentioned, I am the director of the Center for Transformative Stroke Care at Wake Forest. It's a really fun transition for me to be involved with different care models for stroke, and I think a lot of the Continuum topics are directly relevant to some of the things that I'm doing now as an administrator and sort of a facilitator of new research. So, thanks again for having me. 
Dr Jones: Yeah, and, and you have a wonderful perspective, and we're gonna pull that out today in our interview questions, and I'm looking forward to sharing that with our listeners. But before we get to the questions, we're gonna start off today's podcast with another Continuum Audio trivia question for our listeners. Anticoagulation has played a critical role in secondary ischemic stroke prevention for a long time now. While direct oral anticoagulants have taken on a greater role in the treatment of prevention of stroke, there are still some use cases for vitamin K antagonists like warfarin. The trivia question for our listeners is this: How was warfarin discovered, and how did it get its name? Stick around and we'll share the answer to that question toward the end of our interview today. So, Dr. Bushnell, let's get right to it. You alluded to your various roles, and your leadership in the field has been exemplary. The interventions for acute ischemic stroke have really exploded over the last decade or so, and they get a lot of attention and discussion, but prevention and recovery are just as important in the care of these patients. Tell us a little more about how you approached this issue, about the article topics you chose, etc. 
Dr Bushnell: Well, once I was chosen to lead the guest editorship, I wanted to come up with a group of topics that were maybe a little bit different from previous issues. So, I kind of looked at the previous issues and saw, as you said, an emphasis on acute stroke, and that's really important because it has been evolving. But my thought was, how about what happens to patients after they get the intervention and they're discharged home? And because a lot of trainees may not get to see these patients ever again, or it's months before they might see them, or if they're readmitted, which is what we don't want to see, but that certainly is a lot of the exposure is in the inpatient setting. So, I thought I would kind of transport the education into the outpatient and transitional setting, as well as prevention, not only secondary, but primary prevention, with an emphasis on brain health. Some of the populations that may not get as much attention. So, sex differences, stroke in women, pregnancy, the transitions of care, and also the emphasis on holistic view of patients and their challenges, which includes the non-medical factors that drive health, otherwise known as social determinants of health. 
Dr Jones: I appreciate that perspective, and obviously th-this is an area of your deep expertise, and it's great to have an issue that really digs into some of those topics a little more deeply. As an educator, I'm really glad you mentioned that about the trainee's perspective. You know, especially junior neurology trainees that are in the hospital all the time. They're seeing patients in the middle of a cerebrovascular catastrophe. But there's a long tail of recovery, right? And they'll get to see that in continuity clinic, but it's a good message to share from an evidence and, um, experiential perspective in the issue. So, appreciate that perspective. You've just read all these articles and edited them. Was there anything that you ran across that was a surprise to you? 
Dr Bushnell: Well, I personally chose a lot of the authors based on my knowledge of their work. So, I wouldn't say that it was completely surprising, but I do think that I was just genuinely impressed with the quality of the writing and the synthesis of information. I just was incredibly proud of the work that these co-authors have put together. I'd say that that was-- it wasn't surprising so much as just a sense of pride that I had with the product that's coming out. But of course, there have been some new trials that had to be incorporated at the last minute, some of which were presented at the International Stroke Conference just a few weeks ago. 
Dr Jones: Yeah. We try to be as up-to-date as we can, and I will completely agree with you. We have some really good writers in our field, and it's really just a pleasure when you read an article that's by an expert, and it's a joy to read. I can tell you it's one of the best parts of this job, and you get to learn a lot. I think one of the more challenging scenarios that I hear about from colleagues in recent years has been optimal management of patients with asymptomatic extracranial atherosclerosis. The pivotal trials that inform how we manage those patients were from a long time ago, decades ago, predating a lot of the more intensive medical management tools that we have today. In that scenario, Dr. Bushnell, what's the latest on that, and what should our listeners know? 
Dr Bushnell: Well, obviously, the CREST 2 trial has been long awaited. It's been going on for over ten years, I believe. Of course, it's, uh, two different trials all in one, the carotid stenting and angioplasty versus intensive medical management. And of course, each of the carotid vascularization arms of the trial also had intensive medical management. And then the other trial is the carotid endarterectomy as the form of revascularization. And it interestingly did not show any benefit of carotid endarterectomy compared to intensive medical management. But of course, the somewhat surprising result was that carotid angioplasty and stenting truly was superior, although it was a small number of events in the trial overall. But that stenting plus intensive medical management was somewhat better than intensive medical management alone. And I think stenting has come a long way in terms of safety, and so I think that's been part of the evolution of the field. I do wanna say that I'm a huge fan of the intensive medical management, and I think that what the protocol does in terms of blood pressure management, cholesterol management is very much above and beyond what's done in private practice even. And the health coaching for all the other things related to diabetes and weight loss and smoking cessation and physical activity, that is what we need to be doing to actually decrease the risk of stroke, and I think that it's very effective. I can't say enough about the design of the study for that reason, that everyone gets the intensive medical management, and then you just layer on the type of revascularization on top of it. So, I wouldn't have been surprised if this was a completely negative trial overall. They just happened to have some better outcomes in the stenting arm. 
Dr Jones: I recall a few years ago when the series of endovascular therapy trials for acute stroke came out, and I think there was a, a period of time where the field had to adapt to that. I wonder what you think about with the CREST 2 findings on stenting. I mean, is that gonna be a big change? Because obviously atherosclerosis is highly prevalent. Is that gonna be a big change? Is the field ready for that? How much adjustment do we have in store? 
Dr Bushnell: I'm not sure it's gonna be a really big change. If you read the editorial that accompanied the trial in the New England Journal, just a few patients in either direction would have changed the outcome. I kind of look at it as an absolute difference that's relatively small. So, I'm not sure that it will have a huge impact on the field. I do think that the specialists who insert the stents may have some differences of opinion of who should be stented and who shouldn't. Because I think, you know, all of the specialists who do procedures were involved with the trial. But I would say there's a larger percentage of vascular surgeons who were involved, and so I'd say they may have a change of their practice. And neurologists may not even get involved at all. 
Dr Jones: Right. 
Dr Bushnell: That was one of the challenges for getting patients in the trial is that, you know, not all of us see the asymptomatic carotid stenosis, that they tend to get referred to vascular surgery. So, I think maybe in a corner of the practices of vascular surgeons is where you might see the differences. 
Dr Jones: Your point about the way the trial was designed or the trials were designed, that intensive medical management is really important, and we have huge gaps in that. In our specialty, it's, you know, we have probably an opportunity in primary care even to address that. And that leads me to my next question. You know, given your perspective and your expertise, what do you think is the biggest practice gap in the care of patients with stroke or with cerebrovascular disease of any kind? 
Dr Bushnell: I think by far the biggest gap is transitions of care and access to follow-up in a specialty clinic after discharge and continuous secondary prevention. We only call it secondary prevention because it happened to come after a stroke, but I really feel like we should just focus on prevention and call it that. There are a lot of people who are trying to kind of, get us away from primary versus secondary prevention. And, and Mitch Elkind is phenomenal and had a beautiful chapter weaving in prevention and brain health. So, I highly recommend that people, if they don't read any other chapters of the Continuum to read his, because I think that it's getting to your point about where the gaps are, and I think prevention is the biggest one. I think we could do so much more in models of care to ensure that there is a pathway once patients are discharged. We have no quality metrics. We have no measurement of how well people are doing after they're discharged. We have all of these fancy things and sophisticated acute treatments, but all of those are for naught if somebody goes home and they fall and they have a severe head injury or hip fracture because they weren't properly supervised or they didn't have the help that they needed at home. So, you got me on my soapbox here for a second, but that is definitely what I see as the gap. 
Dr Jones: That's an important soapbox, an important gap, and obviously, if it was a simple problem, we could solve it. But it's obviously something that education is a valuable tool for that, and that's part of why we are including so much content in this issue of Continuum. So, if we put that aside as a gap that we would love to close, when you look into the near future or distant future, Dr. Bushnell, and what's the next big thing on the horizon? New interventions, new prevention tools, or something else entirely? What do you think? 
Dr Bushnell: There are two things that I would mention. One is sort of the new category of anticoagulants, antithrombotics, the factor XIa inhibitors. We had an amazing presentation of the oceanic stroke trial at the International Stroke Conference, and this is probably going to be a game changer for the arsenal of antithrombotic therapies that we can offer to patients that do not have a reason for anticoagulation. So, they, they don't have atrial fibrillation, for example, or something else that requires anticoagulation. And so, the factor XI, asundexian, is the drug that they used in that trial. The safety profile is pretty amazing. There was very little bleeding complications and a great benefit in those patients with some degree of atherosclerosis, but, you know, of course, not enough to require carotid revascularization, but then also, um, small vessel disease and cryptogenic stroke. I think those are the three categories of patients, and that's a lot of the strokes that we see all benefited from this new drug. So, I think that's gonna be exciting. There, of course, it has to go through the FDA approval process, and so it might take a little bit of time before that's on the market, and we don't know how much it's gonna cost, but I think it is a, a major breakthrough. And of course, there are other similar medications in that category that are coming. And then I think the other thing is the emphasis on brain health and lifestyle factors and the things that we can do to prevent stroke and dementia because they are the same, essentially. Those are really important. And when we have someone in the hospital with a stroke or a TIA in particular, it's a great teaching opportunity for those patients to say, "Hey, here's what you can do to protect your brain." These are things that we always tell people to prevent a stroke, but just think about it as protecting your brain and keeping your brain as healthy as possible. 
Dr Jones: That's a great message, and one that you get to share with patients directly. You're joining us today for this interview. You're on stroke service, so you're actively involved in caring for patients with stroke. What in your practice is the most rewarding aspect of caring for these patients? What is it that you find most rewarding? 
Dr Bushnell: I've been involved in a clinical trial that has focused on managing blood pressure and also coaching and other aspects of stroke recovery. I think that has probably been the most rewarding aspect of my career. Until I was involved with this trial, I didn't necessarily do intensive blood pressure monitoring, but I'm seeing the benefits of having data from home, what those blood pressures are over a span of time. I see the immediate or intermediate effects of the blood pressure medication changes that I've made, and I see how the patients respond. So, I have to say that this is not part of usual practice, but I think it should be. And I think it's been incredible from the perspective of a neurologist who is really intensively trying to make the patients' lives better. And it's not just what I do, it's what the health coaches do as part of this intervention. And again, very similar to intensive medical management. So, I, I feel like I've been living it in a slightly different setting than in the CREST 2 trials. But there are other trials that have used the intensive medical management as approach as well. But I would say that's the most rewarding. I've seen people who've lost weight, who are physically fit, who are able to get off of blood pressure medications practically by the end of six months, and that's amazing. And then they continue doing it because they see the benefits. 
Dr Jones: You've had a front row seat to a lot of that. That's really got to feel rewarding. 
Dr Bushnell: It is, absolutely. 
Dr Jones: You know, when you put it that way, it makes me want to go home and check my blood pressure, which I haven't done in a while. But I think that's a message to all of our listeners that we do have plenty of opportunity for risk factor optimization and following the evidence that has been generated and is being generated. Huge opportunity, not only at the population level, but I think the, um, individual patient level too. Okay, so now we're back to our Continuum Audio trivia question, and I'll repeat it for our listeners. How was warfarin discovered, and how did it get its name? Dr. Bushnell and I were talking about this earlier, so I'll just go ahead and share the answer. So, in the early 20th century in the U.S. Midwest, there were epidemics of a hemorrhagic disease in cattle, of all places, and this was eventually traced to moldy cattle feed that was made from sweet clover. And in 1940, researchers at the University of Wisconsin discovered that the anticoagulant in the sweet clover was a compound that was later synthesized for therapeutic use in 1954 as warfarin. And the name came from, uh, the support for the research. The research support came from the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, or WARF, and the end of the word came from the underlying compound, which was coumarin. So that was a little bit of trivia that I had never heard. It's not in the issue, everyone, so you're getting something extra here on the podcast. But been using the drug forever. It still has its uses, even though it's become less advantageous than some of the newer agents. But-- And of course, Dr. Bushnell already knew that when I brought it up, but I just thought that was an interesting bit of history. Well, Dr. Bushnell, thank you for joining us. Thank you for such a great conversation about the latest in cerebrovascular disease. I learned a lot today. I learned a lot in reading these wonderful articles. I hope our listeners learned a lot today as well. I'm really grateful for your hard work on the issue, which I think will come in handy for junior readers and subscribers, as well as our more experienced neurologists as well. Sometimes it's hard to keep up with a rapidly changing subspecialty of our field. So, thank you for joining us today. 
Dr Bushnell: Thank you for having me. It's been my pleasure. 
Dr Jones: Again, today we've been speaking with Dr. Cheryl Bushnell, guest editor of Continuum's most recent issue on cerebrovascular 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.

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

Palliative care in multiple sclerosis spans the disease course, from early screening and support after diagnosis to symptom management and quality‑of‑life optimization in midstage disease, and end‑of‑life care in advanced MS. This episode outlines a staged approach to palliative care, highlights the roles of neurology and primary care teams, and discusses tools such as patient‑reported outcomes and symptom scales to support ongoing assessment of patients and care partners.
In this episode, Katie Grouse, MD, FAAN, speaks with Penelope Smyth, MD, FRCPC and Janis M. Miyasaki, MD, MEd, FRCPC, coauthors of the article "Palliative Care in Multiple Sclerosis" in the Continuum® April 2026 Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders issue.
Dr. Grouse is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a clinical assistant professor at the University of California, San Francisco in San Francisco, California.
Dr. Smyth is the director of the Division of Neurology in the Department of Medicine at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Dr. Miyasaki is a professor in the Division of Neurology in the Department of Medicine at the University of Alberta and the zone clinical department head for Clinical Neurosciences at Alberta Health Services in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Additional Resources
Read the article: Palliative Care in 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
Full episode transcript available here
Dr Grouse: With the new treatments for MS, people might be saying palliative care is not relevant at all. It's about giving up hope and hopelessness. But this article covers why palliative care is important for your patients and families throughout their illness trajectory.
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 Drs Penelope Smyth and Janis Miyasaki about their article on palliative care in multiple sclerosis, which appears in the April 2026 Continuum issue on multiple sclerosis. Welcome to the podcast, and please introduce yourselves to our audience. 
Dr Smyth: Thank you, Katie. I'm Penny Smyth. I am a neurologist at the University of Alberta, a professor in neurology, and a clinical multiple sclerosis specialist. 
Dr Miyasaki: Hi, Katie. Thanks for having us. I'm Janis Miyasaki. I am a movement disorder neurologist primarily who also provides neuropalliative care at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada. 
Dr Grouse: It's so great having you today to talk with us about your article. I thought this article was really a wonderful take on the topic. I learned a lot, and I'm really hoping all of our listeners will take advantage of this article and take advantage of all the learning they can get from reading about this topic. So, I wanted to start with a more general question, which is, what is the key message from this article that you're hoping your readers will take away? 
Dr Smyth: In terms of key takeaways, I think it's our hope that neurologists will come away from reading this article with, really, an expanded understanding of what palliative care is and how that might be applicable to them in their care for their patients with MS along a continuum of treating people with MS, that there can be components of palliative care and strategies that can be integrated early after diagnosis in, really, anywhere along the continuum of caring for people with MS. We've called that kind of mid-stage. And then there are particular needs for people with MS and their care partners in late-stage or severe MS and end of life that might require different palliative care strategies. I think we kind of have maybe a bit of a bias sometimes in thinking of palliative care as more directed towards those that are near end-of-life. But in fact, it's a much expanded concept. 
Dr Miyasaki: And I'll just add that we also discuss a palliative approach, that palliative care skills and philosophies can be used by generalists---in this case, neurologists who are providing care to people with MS---and that adopting certain skills and communication techniques can help us better address our patients' and their families' symptoms. And also to keep in mind that for most people with neurologic illness, the unit of care is not only the patient, but it's the patient and the family, however that family looks. 
Dr Grouse: Now, Penny, I'm curious, how are early-stage and mid-stage multiple sclerosis palliative care strategies different from, say, a typical evaluation and counseling that a neurologist would give, say, an MS specialist or even a general neurologist? 
Dr Smyth: Thank you, Katie. That's a great question, and something that actually I learned in writing this piece with Janice and from her as a neuropalliative care expert. I think in terms of early strategies around palliative care that can be helpful to the general neurologist in their office, palliative care is about holistic support for patients and their care providers spiritually, emotionally, physically. There are components of palliative care and symptom management and making sure that the patient is at the center of the care, as well as support for their care partners with their holistic approach of relief of suffering as well as offering hope. When I started this piece, I was thinking that many of us neurologists, I think, often informally utilize many of these components already when we're dealing with patients early on after diagnosis in terms of communication, counseling, and education; going through their fear of an uncertain future; spiritual well-being; and then connecting them with supports for adaptive coping strategies. And then as well in mid-stage, which is really around what we can do in symptom management and improving quality of life, with screening tools and patient-reported outcome measures. However, I have to say that there are many unmet needs for people with MS and their care partners that they identify that are clearly not being met by us neurologists in this day and age. So even though we may be incorporating some of these strategies, I don't think we're meeting the mark all the time and hitting the target, especially in our busy office practices, in various ways.
Dr Grouse: Given that, at a high level, what are some important early-stage MS palliative care concepts that we should be keeping in mind when we are counseling patients in these stages of the disease?
Dr Miyasaki: An important concept to keep in mind for neurologists dealing with early-stage MS patients is that for us, we feel successful that we have made a diagnosis. And yet for the patient, it is taking away that hope. Maybe it's not MS. Maybe I just have a numb hand and it's gonna go away. And for us to appreciate that while we make this diagnosis multiple times a week---or, for MS specialists multiple times a day---for this person, it is the first time, the first experience, and it shakes their entire foundation of who they are as a person, how they will perform all the tasks and roles that they have in society, in their professional lives, in their family structures, and in their close, intimate relationships. As physicians, we may be overwhelmed by acknowledging that. I feel that it's important for us to understand the needs that our patients have and to allow them to have their feelings. You know, feelings can feel messy and time-consuming, and yet when we fully see our patients, I feel that this is the best of medicine. And it certainly is, in terms of palliative care, the principle that we seek. We accept all of the patient, the joy and the sorrow, the anger and the frustration. We accept it all, and we try to determine what will serve this person who is suffering in front of us now. 
Dr Smyth: There's another piece to this, which came up as Janice and I were writing together. We were talking about offering a prognosis to a patient as to how they would do, and this was something that I thought deeply about, because I said, we always communicate how uncertain the prognosis is and how we can't predict the future. And then she said to me, well, what about offering a roadmap to a person with MS soon after diagnosis as to how you're gonna determine how they do over the next couple of years? Which are really important years in terms of determining how patients are doing on their disease-modifying therapies, whether they're having progression or not, and things. It's a pivotal time. So, if you can offer a roadmap to a person with MS and say, look, this is when we will be following you up. This is how we will be following you with MRI and biomarkers if you have that available, and this is how we will determine how responsive you are and then how we move forward from there.
Dr Grouse: Really important concepts. And the roadmap certainly makes a lot of sense to me and something that, apart from just being useful to the patient for so many reasons to help set expectations, you know, is useful for us to better partner with the patient so they understand this is sort of how we do things and everyone's sort of expectations are met. So, I think those sound like really great goals and things to keep in mind. Now, we talked about early-stage MS palliative care concepts. How does that change as you get into the mid-stage of the disease? 
Dr Smyth: Yeah. So, this is reflecting the fact that the course of MS is so different and the experience of MS is so different person to person. And so, what do we do as neurologists when we follow these people long-term over years and decades of living with their MS as their needs evolve, as their symptoms evolve, and as their disability evolves? Well, really, this is about the time of getting into, what are the symptoms that they're struggling with, what are the causes of their suffering at various points? And then how do we identify that, maybe with use of patient-reported outcome measures, screening scales, things like that. And then how do we direct symptomatic management to the specific symptoms that are causing distress to the patient? As well as trying to improve their quality of life in various ways, treating their comorbidities, making sure to check on exercise, healthy living, and that kind of thing. 
Dr Grouse: Now getting into, I think, topics that we're more used to thinking about when we think about palliative care: a lot of us, I think, are really unsure of the right time to discuss advanced care directives in the course of multiple sclerosis, and I think that's not helped by the fact that many of us are just, in general, not terribly comfortable talking about those types of things in general. What is your advice to questions like this? 
Dr Smyth: And this is something that, again, Janice and I had to come together on, because there is no universal accepted time for when is the right time in multiple sclerosis to discuss advanced care directives and goals of care. And in fact, when they have looked at it in the literature, different things have come out. It has come out that neurologists can be uncomfortable discussing this. There's unique challenges to people with MS in that they have a diagnosis at a young age with an uncertain trajectory of how their course of disease is going to go. And many of these things lead care providers to be somewhat hesitant as to when is the right time, as well as, there were identified barriers within patients themselves as to when the right time might be to discuss. In that, you know, some of the coping strategies might be, as identified by some of the qualitative studies that have been done on this, around the fact that they would prefer to focus on the present rather than the future. In some studies expressed an ambivalence as to when they thought the right time might be, as well as some negative experiences that they might have had from providers trying to discuss these things in their previous experience. So, I went back to looking at the European guidelines for palliative care in MS, who suggested when a person might have severe MS---which they define as walking with bilateral aids for at least twenty meters or an EDSS of six or higher---or trigger-based, when there has been a change in the patient's status, when there's been a decline in some way or progression. Now, this is a little different, actually, than what we offer other people with neurologic diseases, and I don't know if that's the right answer. And this is where I'm going to turn it over to Janice, because I think we could learn something, as neurologists who treat people with MS, from our palliative care specialists. 
Dr Miyasaki: I think of advanced care planning in a very different way. I think what a lot of the patients were expressing in the studies was that being asked about advanced care planning signaled to them in some way that they have reached this point in their illness where things aren't going so great and I anticipate that you may run into complications. Whereas in our movement disorder clinic, one of our fellows did a study looking at capacity for decision-making. And even in people who scored normally on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, they had impairments in some of the domains of decision-making. And so, our philosophy in movement disorders at least---and some of our patients are quite young who have multiple system atrophy, they could be in their forties---we take the philosophy that everyone over the age of decision-making capacity, which is generally eighteen, should have some goals of care established. And how I introduce it in my clinic is, you know, for the young resident, you want the full-meal deal, because the likelihood of the resident surviving the ICU admission is very high. And then when we look at me, who… I am older, the likelihood of surviving an ICU admission is considerably lower. And so, the appropriate goals of care might be that I am willing to go to the ICU, and if things go well, then they can continue. But if things are not going well, they can have a discussion with my personal directive or power of attorney to talk about what the goals of care should be. And then the other aspect is sometimes having the conversation with family is really important because most of our families in hospital express an uncertainty. Am I doing the right thing? And they want to do the right thing for their loved ones. And most people actually say, if you ask them, I don't want to burden my family with making decisions that are going to tear at their hearts. So, then we can't actually make good informed decisions for our loved ones unless we have clear conversations. I think it does speak to our superstitious beliefs that if we talk about death, it's going to happen. But I hope the listeners will take my word for it, it really doesn't. And someone had a really good saying about the advanced directive. They're kind of like evening clothes. You should take them out every once in a while and make sure they still fit. And so, when you normalize it in this way, it helps people to just say, oh, yeah, it's once a year. Dr. Miyasaki is gonna ask me about how do I feel about those goals of care. And then it doesn't have this portent of, oh, I'm not doing well. Instead, it's just, this is what we should all be doing for our sake and for our family's sake. 
Dr Smyth: Now, one thing that I have to add on to this is that it is important to try to establish advanced care directives before patients experience cognitive decline, because then that can make it a much more challenging conversation and brings nuances of challenge into the interactions, which, you know, are hard. 
Dr Grouse: And Penny, I'm glad you brought that up, because I was really struck by that point too when reading this article, how easy it is to miss the subtle signs that cognitive changes are happening. I think it's just- it's a good kind of segue into that topic in general, but it is such an important link to, you know, making sure that you get those advanced directives at a time when the patient's really able to express and understand what they're talking to you about. Now, on the topic of the cognitive screenings, what's a good way to do this type of screening, and why is this type of screening so particularly important in the case of multiple sclerosis? 
Dr Smyth: Yeah. Thank you, Katie. I think that it's important for our listeners to think about and recognize when we see our patients with MS because it is one of the invisible symptoms that people with MS can live with and may not be apparent on regular conversation in the office. So, it's important to deliberately ask about subjective challenges in cognition. Ask the partner about how they're doing in terms of their cognition in various ways. As well as asking them and exploring then, how are they doing in their professional roles if they're working or in their surroundings? How are they coping on a daily basis on a cognitive level in addition to a physical level? We know that cognitive issues are actually the biggest contributor for not working and are a huge driver of disability in MS in terms of functioning, even more than physical decline in many ways. So, it is important for us neurologists to keep top of mind and to think about and deliberately attend to. There are screening tests that we can do in the office. The easiest for us, which measures the verbal processing speed, is the SDMT test, which is a ninety-second test matching symbols and numbers. It's easy to do. You can train a MOA to do it before you see the patient and things like that, and it just gives you an idea as to where the patient is at. And usually they're having difficulties if they're greater than two standard deviations below the norm for their age, or if there's a significant drop of four or eight points, and that might signal to you that there might be more going on. You can explore it, and then if you do have this available, the ability to refer for neuropsychological testing if there's questions. But often we can't get it with the MoCA score, unfortunately. 
Dr Grouse: Talking about all these concepts, I think they all sound great. I think a lot of us hearing this will naturally say, "Yes, these are absolutely things we should be incorporating in the care of these patients." What I wondered about was, certainly we're all very busy, it is really hard to find time for a lot of these things. We don't always have access to specialists who can help us with some of these conversations. How can we find time, and how can we work this into the care of our patients effectively and still make time for all the other things we have to talk about, and make sure that we're seeing all of our other patients and staying on time and all of those things? 
Dr Miyasaki: Yes. I think that's the challenges of dealing with people who actually, over time, their care needs increase, is huge in neurology. I can't think of a single subspecialty where care actually gets easier. It's constantly getting harder. You know, having come from private practice, I completely understand my colleagues' challenges in the community. Some of the ways that other groups have managed this when they don't have government or university support in their center is actually to look at not-for-profits. There are a lot of not-for-profits that can help in terms of wayfinding for social services, explaining to the patients and the family what is available to them. And in fact, some of them can also provide some cognitive supports, as well as point them in the way of day programs. And many of them have very established caregiver support groups, as well as patient support groups for various stages of their illness. So, I think it requires for the individual or small or even a large group practice to be inventive, to look in your community and see what resources are available and free for your patients in order to establish that loose team without boundaries to help your patients. Of course, for those in academic centers, I know that times are tight for all of us, and if you haven't established a team, it is a challenge; and then learning how to write a business plan or a briefing note for your institution and to learn how to speak the love language of administrators, is really key to putting forward the needs of our patients. Which, compared to heart attack patients or hips and knees, they are very rare, and yet our patients can result in significant cost to the healthcare system. So, we do have an opportunity to make the case that putting a little bit of investment in the ambulatory setting can result in significant cost savings to the system when it comes to acute care hospitalization. 
Dr Smyth: So, I was thinking, Janis, as you were talking about that, when you were talking about not-for-profit groups, it's really the MS societies in various countries that are very active in this and have a lot of resources available, especially for care partners. 
Dr Grouse: Those are really great tips. Thank you for bringing those up as potential other resources we can take advantage of. I wanted to ask specifically about physician-assisted death and assisted suicide, which certainly does come up, especially in later-stage parts of the disease. How can palliative care specialists be helpful when patients do express interest in these types of interventions? 
Dr Miyasaki: As you know, Katie, in Canada, we've had a legislative right to access to what we call medical assistance in dying. When the legislation passed, one of my other colleagues and I felt that these were the only conversations we were having with our patients. In all this experience, I have sort of developed in my mind a framework of people who are what we call MAID-curious. They want to know what their rights are and how it would look, when they feel the time is close, for them to exercise that right. And then there are those who are fearful of future suffering. And some of them may have a very unrealistic view of what the future will look like. And this may be in particular for multiple sclerosis because many of the public's view is based on what treatment was like thirty years ago. It may not be informed by more recent treatment where patients actually do quite well, and the majority never get to progressive MS. And so, to explore and be open to that request is the first thing that is important. And then if the person has unresolved symptoms that, traditionally, we can't care for, the palliative care specialist can be very helpful because they just have inventive ways of looking at things. They look at it outside the box, and they have a different toolkit available to them. I would not want all neurologists to just send all these patients requesting physician-assisted death to their palliative care colleagues. But I think for those who are having unaddressed symptoms, it can be very helpful. Certainly, if there is an acute event in the hospital, then this is a time of crisis. And often hospitals will have an in-hospital palliative care team who can come and speak to the patient about what is going on and address some of their needs. And I would also like to emphasize the importance of spiritual care, because for many of our patients, they are not just having the physical suffering, they are also having the spiritual suffering of hopelessness or of feeling that they are a burden or that they just are not seen because a lot of the symptoms in MS are invisible. To have that understanding by a spiritual care counselor is really helpful for the people to feel understood and to reduce some of that suffering. 
Dr Grouse: That's a really great point, I think, to end on, and I think it really ties in a lot of the themes that we've been talking about today. Thank you so much for coming to talk with us today. It's been such a pleasure having you both here.
Dr Smyth: Thank you.
Dr Miyasaki: Thank you, Katie.
Dr Grouse: Again, today I've been interviewing Drs Penelope Smyth and Janis Miyasaki about their article on palliative care in multiple sclerosis, which 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.