What if you knew the prognosis of your patients with ALS?

Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Other Motor Neuron Diseases

OBJECTIVE

This article reviews the clinical spectrum of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), its variant presentations, and the approach to diagnosis and management. This review includes a detailed discussion of current and emerging disease-modifying therapies and the management of respiratory and bulbar manifestations of disease. An updated review of ALS genetics and pathophysiology is also provided. This article also touches on several other important motor neuron diseases.

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS

A new set of simplified diagnostic criteria may help identify patients at earlier stages of the disease. A coformulation of sodium phenylbutyrate and tauroursodeoxycholic acid has been shown to have a significant benefit on disease progression and survival, leading to approval by regulatory authorities in the United States and Canada. An oral formulation of edaravone and an antisense oligonucleotide to a SOD1 gene variation (tofersen) have also recently been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Phase 3 trials of intrathecal mesenchymal stem cells failed to meet primary end points for efficacy. Updated American Academy of Neurology quality measures for the care of patients with ALS were published in 2023.

ESSENTIAL POINTS

There has been continued progress in ALS genetics, diagnosis, and disease-modifying therapies. However, we still lack a definitive biomarker or a treatment that can halt the progression or reverse the course of disease. The evolving understanding of the genetic and pathophysiologic underpinnings of disease offers promise for more effective and clinically meaningful treatments in the future.

Discussing Personalized Prognosis Empowers Patients with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis to Regain Control over Their Future: A Qualitative Study

The ENCALS survival prediction model offers patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) the opportunity to receive a personalized prognosis of survival at the time of diagnosis. We explored experiences of patients with ALS, caregivers, and physicians with discussing personalized prognosis through interviews with patients and their caregivers, and in a focus group of physicians. Thematic analysis revealed four themes with seven subthemes; these were recognized by the focus group. First, tailored communication: physician’s communication style and information provision mediated emotional impact and increased satisfaction with communication. Second, personal factors: coping style, illness experiences, and information needs affected patient and caregiver coping with the prognosis. Third, emotional impact ranged from happy and reassuring to regret. Fourth, regaining control over the future: participants found it helpful in looking towards the future, and emphasized the importance of quality over quantity of life. Personalized prognosis can be discussed with minimal adverse emotional impact. How it is communicated—i.e., tailored to individual needs—is as important as what is communicated—i.e., a good or poor prognosis. Discussing personalized prognosis may help patients with ALS and their caregivers regain control over the future and facilitate planning of the future (care). For many patients, quality of life matters more than quantity of time remaining.

Discussing personalized prognosis in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: development of a communication guide

BACKGROUND

Personalized ENCALS survival prediction model reliably estimates the personalized prognosis of patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Concerns were raised on discussing personalized prognosis without causing anxiety and destroying hope. Tailoring communication to patient readiness and patient needs mediates the impact of prognostic disclosure. We developed a communication guide to support physicians in discussing personalized prognosis tailored to individual needs and preferences of people with ALS and their families.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary working group of neurologists, rehabilitation physicians, and healthcare researchers A) identified relevant topics for guidance, B) conducted a systematic review on needs of patients regarding prognostic discussion in life-limiting disease, C) drafted recommendations based on evidence and expert opinion, and refined and finalized these recommendations in consensus rounds, based on feedback of an expert advisory panel (patients, family member, ethicist, and spiritual counsellor).

RESULTS

A) Topics identified for guidance were 1) filling in the ENCALS survival model, and interpreting outcomes and uncertainty, and 2) tailoring discussion to individual needs and preferences of patients (information needs, role and needs of family, severe cognitive impairment or frontotemporal dementia, and non-western patients). B) 17 studies were included in the systematic review. C) Consensus procedures on drafted recommendations focused on selection of outcomes, uncertainty about estimated survival, culturally sensitive communication, and lack of decisional capacity. Recommendations for discussing the prognosis include the following: discuss prognosis based on the prognostic groups and their median survival, or, if more precise information is desired, on the interquartile range of the survival probability. Investigate needs and preferences of the patients and their families for prognostic disclosure, regardless of cultural background. If the patient does not want to know their prognosis, with patient permission discuss the prognosis with their family. If the patient is judged to lack decisional capacity, ask the family if they want to discuss the prognosis. Tailor prognostic disclosure step by step, discuss it in terms of time range, and emphasize uncertainty of individual survival time.

CONCLUSION

This communication guide supports physicians in tailoring discussion of personalized prognosis to the individual needs and preferences of people with ALS and their families.

CMS-01 Genetic testing for familial amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS): insights and challenges

Background: Pathogenic variants in ALS genes are known to be present in up to 70% of familial and 10% of apparently sporadic ALS cases, and can be associated with risks for ALS only, or risks for other neurodegenerative diseases (eg. frontotemporal dementia). While there are no changes to medical management for patients confirmed as pathogenic variant carriers, genetic testing may be important for future drug trials. Confirmation of a pathogenic variant also provides relatives with the opportunity to consider predictive and/or reproductive genetic testing. Genetic counselling is an important aspect of testing decision-making as it enables individuals to make informed decisions about genetic testing while minimising adverse psychological, ethical and legal outcomes. Few studies have explored how individuals decide whether to pursue testing, nor the needs and experiences of familial ALS families.Objective: To identify factors that influence patient and family member decision-making about genetic testing for ALS genes, assess the impact of familial disease on the patient and their family, and identify information and support needs.Methods: In-depth, semi-structured interviews with individuals from Australian ALS families with known pathogenic gene variants explored experiences of familial ALS, and factors that influenced genetic testing decision-making. Interviews were analysed using an inductive approach.Results: Thirty-four individuals from 24 families were interviewed and included patients (n = 4), spouses (n = 4), and asymptomatic at-risk relatives (n = 26). Life stage, experience of disease, costs, research opportunities, and attitudes to familial ALS and/or reproductive options influenced decision-making. Some patients and relatives experienced difficulty gaining accurate information from their health professionals about the costs and implications of genetic counselling or testing, resulting in a reluctance to proceed.Discussion and conclusion: This study provides new insight into the Australian experience of genetic testing and counselling for familial ALS. It highlights the need to work together with other health professionals to ensure the complexities of genetic testing decision-making, and referral pathways are better understood.

Riluzole and edaravone: A tale of two amyotrophic lateral sclerosis drugs

Over the past decades, a multitude of experimental drugs have been shown to delay disease progression in preclinical animal models of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) but failed to show efficacy in human clinical trials or are still waiting for approval under Phase I-III trials. Riluzole, a glutamatergic neurotransmission inhibitor, is the only drug approved by the USA Food and Drug Administration for ALS treatment with modest benefits on survival. Recently, an antioxidant drug, edaravone, developed by Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma was found to be effective in halting ALS progression during early stages. The newly approved drug edaravone is a force multiplier for ALS treatment. This short report provides an overview of the two drugs that have been approved for ALS treatment and highlights an update on the timeline of drug development, how clinical trials were done, the outcome of these trials, primary endpoint, mechanism of actions, dosing information, administration, side effects, and storage procedures. Moreover, we also discussed the pressing issues and challenges of ALS clinical trials and drug developments as well as future outlook.