Guidelines

AAN and others update practice guidelines for prolonged disorders of consciousness

View on the News

Guidelines offer a new standard of care

The American Academy of Neurology Guideline on Disorders of Consciousness should be lauded for its focus on rehabilitation of this population, but it misses an opportunity to address “the broader ethical implications for patient care and institutional reform,” Joseph J. Fins, MD, and James L. Bernat, MD, wrote in a related editorial.

The authors commended the guidelines for recommending a change in reclassifying permanent vegetative state (VS) as “chronic vegetative state” but noted that the designation may be too broad, considering it encompasses patients who were misdiagnosed, patients who improved after treatment, patients with cognitive-motor disassociation, and patients who have undergone late improvements to achieve some level of consciousness. Defining these patients to clarify their prognoses will be important in determining which patients with VS are able to make late improvements, they said.

“While this redesignation seems warranted on clinical and epidemiologic grounds, it will create repercussions beyond the house of medicine given that the right to refuse life-sustaining treatment initially was predicated upon the irreversibility of the VS,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Fins and Dr. Bernat also acknowledged the seemingly contradictory recommendation of systematizing the care of patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness given that the infrastructure to provide this care is unavailable and unaffordable for many patients.

“Now that the Guideline has stipulated benchmarks for practice, practitioners and institutions need to meet this standard of care, and payers must ensure that these services are covered. It is acceptable neither to plead ignorance of these conditions nor to assert that nothing can be done to help ameliorate the burden of severe brain injury,” the authors wrote. “Given the utility of greater specialized care in diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation, and the equal importance of avoiding medical complications that can impede recovery, our society must provide the infrastructure and resources needed to offer quality care.”

Dr. Fins is with the division of medical ethics and the Consortium for the Advanced Study of Brain Injury at Cornell University, New York. Dr. Bernat is with the departments of neurology and medicine at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth in Hanover, N.H. They receive royalties from several published books that are relevant to the content of the guidelines.


 

FROM NEUROLOGY

In addition, the subcommittee recommended changing the term permanent VS to chronic VS/UWS, citing Level B evidence. “Continued use of the term permanent VS is not justified. Use of this term implies irreversibility, which is not supported by the current research and has implications for family counseling, decision making, and the ethics of the field,” Dr. Giacino and his colleagues wrote.

In a separate summary of the guidelines, Dr. Giacino and his colleagues expressed concern about the lack of moderate or strong evidence for diagnostic assessment procedures in the literature, which they partially attributed to the inclusion of patients out 28 days or less from their injury in the systematic review for the guidelines. They further noted the lack of a gold-standard diagnostic approach for these patients, a lack of masking in diagnostic studies and tracking of recovery milestones and long-term functional outcomes for patients, and the limitations of the mainly retrospective analyses of outcomes in studies that they included. In addition, Dr. Giacino and his colleagues noted a lack of therapeutic studies with patients in inpatient rehabilitation centers and a “tendency by insurers to preferentially authorize rehabilitative care in lower-cost settings.” They excluded studies that had less than 20 patients, no control group, and were not “methodologically sound.”


Shorter lengths of stay in inpatient rehabilitation at academic medical centers have also led to problems in recruiting for placebo-controlled clinical trials, they noted.

“Under these circumstances, family members are often reticent to enroll patients with prolonged DoC in a placebo-controlled trial in view of the 50% likelihood of assignment to the placebo arm, preventing any possibility of active treatment during rehabilitation apart from routine physical, occupational, and speech therapies,” the authors wrote.

Several of the guidelines’ 16 authors disclosed ties to publishing houses and commercial or government entities, and participate in other activities related to the content of the published guidelines. Please see the full study for a complete list of disclosures.

Pages

Recommended Reading

Concerns over CMS E/M payment proposal
MDedge Neurology
Stigma for drug users with HCV
MDedge Neurology
Inducing labor earlier reduced c-section rate
MDedge Neurology
Second-hand smoke sends teens to ED
MDedge Neurology
Mobile contraception app gets FDA approval
MDedge Neurology
French warn of upsurge in pneumococcal meningitis
MDedge Neurology
Variation doesn’t mean quality when it comes to diet
MDedge Neurology
Medicare Advantage pushback
MDedge Neurology
Cardiovascular risk management supported for type 2 diabetes
MDedge Neurology
An epidemic of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease
MDedge Neurology