홈
본 사이트는 보건의료 전문가를 위한 공간입니다.

ARIA 실무 적용: 치료 경로 전반에 걸친 의사결정 조율 - 모듈 1: ARIA 위험 및 치료 결정에 관한 맞춤형 공동의사결정(SDM) 대화 주도하기

공유

설명

본 활동은 릴리(Lilly)의 독립적인 교육 지원금을 통해 후원됩니다. 이 온라인 교육 프로그램은 영국을 제외한 전 세계 의료 전문가를 대상으로 기획되었습니다.

척 베가(Chuck Vega) 박사와 함께 알츠하이머병을 위해 항아밀로이드 치료를 받고 있는 환자에서 아밀로이드 관련 영상 이상(ARIA)을 식별, 평가 및 관리하는 데 있어 진화하는 접근 방식을 살펴보세요. 개별 환자 요인이 ARIA 위험에 어떤 영향을 미치는지, 치료의 이점과 잠재적 위험을 효과적으로 전달하는 방법, 그리고 모니터링 요건을 맞춤형 치료 계획에 반영하는 방법을 알아보세요. 베가 박사는 실질적인 임상적 고려 사항을 통해 공동 의사 결정과 지속적인 환자 중심 치료의 중요성을 강조할 것입니다.

세션 하이라이트: 시청 대상

  • ARIA 위험의 개인별 맞춤화: APOE 유전자형, 동반 질환 및 병용 약물을 포함한 환자별 요인이 ARIA 위험 및 치료 결정에 어떤 영향을 미치는지 살펴봅니다.
  • 이점과 위험에 대한 소통: 질병 진행 억제 치료의 이점, 잠재적 위험 및 현실적인 기대치를 환자와 논의하기 위한 전략을 알아봅니다.
  • 공동 의사결정 지원: 환자의 선호도, 치료 부담 및 개인 맞춤형 관리 계획을 반영한 대화 구성 방법을 배웁니다.
  • 모니터링 및 지속적인 관리: 모니터링 요건, 치료 중단, 지속적인 재평가를 협력적 치료 경로에 어떻게 통합할 수 있는지 이해합니다.

이 프로그램은 알츠하이머병의 진단, 영상 검사, 치료 및 급성 평가에 관여하는 의료 전문가를 위해 마련되었습니다.

강사진

척 베가(Chuck Vega) 의학박사는 캘리포니아 대학교 어바인 의과대학(University of California, Irvine School of Medicine)의 가정의학과 보건과학 임상교수이자 부학장, 그리고 라틴계 커뮤니티를 위한 의학 교육 프로그램(PRIME-LC)의 사무총장을 맡고 있습니다. 그는 하버드 대학교에서 학사 학위를, 위스콘신-매디슨 대학교에서 의학 학위를 취득한 후, UC 어바인에서 가정의학과 레지던트 수련을 마쳤습니다. 베가 박사는 20년 넘게 오렌지 카운티 최대의 안전망 클리닉인 UC 어바인 산타아나 가족 건강 센터(Family Health Center–Santa Ana)에서 의료 서비스가 부족한 계층에게 따뜻한 진료를 제공하고 차세대 의사를 양성하는 데 임상 활동을 헌신해 왔습니다. 수상 경력이 있는 교육자이자 메이시 교수 장학생(Macy Faculty Scholar)인 그의 학문적 초점은 건강 격차 해소와 지역사회 보건을 위한 혁신적인 교육 프로그램 설계에 있습니다.

공개 사항

임상 교육 발전 파트너스(Partners for Advancing Clinical Education, 이하 ‘파트너스’)는 교육 내용을 통제할 수 있는 위치에 있는 모든 개인에게 지난 24개월 이내에 발생한 부적격 기업과의 모든 재정적 관계를 공개할 것을 요구합니다. 부적격 기업이란 환자에게 사용되거나 환자에게 투여되는 의료 제품을 생산, 마케팅, 판매, 재판매 또는 유통하는 것을 주된 사업으로 하는 조직을 말합니다.

본 교육 활동의 내용을 통제할 수 있는 권한을 가진 모든 사람의 관련 재정적 이해관계는 아래에 명시되어 있으며, 파트너스(Partners)의 정책에 따라 적절히 관리되었습니다. 본 활동의 기획에 참여한 다른 관계자들은 관련 재정적 이해관계가 없습니다.

척 베가(Chuck Vega) 박사는 다음과 같은 관련 재정적 이해관계를 가지고 있습니다: 자문위원/고문/강연자: Boehringer Ingelheim, Exact Sciences, GSK.

공동 인증 성명

환자 치료의 질 향상을 지원하기 위해, 본 활동은 Partners for Advancing Clinical Education(Partners)과 MedAll이 기획 및 시행했습니다. Partners는 의료진을 위한 지속 교육 제공을 위해 의학 지속 교육 인증 위원회(ACCME), 약학 교육 인증 위원회(ACPE), 미국 간호사 자격 인증 센터(ANCC)로부터 공동 인증을 받았습니다.

의사 지속 의학 교육

Partners는 본 교육 자료를 최대 0.25 _AMA PRA 카테고리 1 학점_™으로 지정합니다. 의사는 본 활동에 참여한 정도에 상응하는 학점만 신청해야 합니다.

간호사 지속 전문성 개발

본 간호사 지속 전문성 개발 활동에 대해 부여되는 최대 시간은 0.25 ANCC 접촉 시간입니다.

PA(의사 보조원) 지속 의학 교육

파트너스는 미국 의사 보조원 학회(AAPA)로부터 AAPA CME 기준에 따라 기획된 활동에 대해 AAPA 카테고리 1 CME 학점을 부여할 수 있는 승인을 받았습니다. 본 활동은 0.25 AAPA 카테고리 1 CME 학점으로 지정되었습니다. PA는 자신의 참여 정도에 상응하는 학점만 신청해야 합니다.

비승인 용도 공개

본 교육 활동에는 FDA가 승인하지 않은 약제의 발표된 용도 및/또는 임상 시험 중인 용도에 대한 논의가 포함될 수 있습니다. 본 활동의 기획자들은 라벨에 명시된 적응증 이외의 용도로 약제를 사용하는 것을 권장하지 않습니다. 교육 활동에서 표명된 의견은 강사진의 견해이며, 반드시 기획자들의 견해를 대변하는 것은 아닙니다. 승인된 적응증, 금기 사항 및 경고에 대한 논의는 각 제품의 공식 처방 정보를 참조하시기 바랍니다.

면책 조항

참가자는 새로 습득한 정보를 활용하여 환자의 치료 결과를 개선하고 자신의 전문성을 발전시킬 묵시적 책임이 있습니다. 본 활동에서 제시된 정보는 환자 관리에 대한 지침으로 사용될 의도가 없습니다. 본 활동에서 논의되거나 제안된 모든 시술, 약물 또는 기타 진단·치료 과정은 임상의가 환자의 상태와 가능한 금기 사항 및/또는 사용 시 위험을 평가하고, 해당 제조사의 제품 정보를 검토하며, 다른 권위 기관의 권고 사항과 비교한 후에야 사용해야 합니다.

이 지속 교육 활동은 2026년 11월 13일부터 시작되며, 2027년 8월 4일에 만료됩니다.

이 활동을 완료하는 데 소요되는 예상 시간: 15분

유사한 커뮤니티

전체 보기

유사한 이벤트 및 주문형 동영상

Computer generated transcript

Warning!
The following transcript was generated automatically from the content and has not been checked or corrected manually.

My name is Doctor Chuck Vega. I'm a clinical professor of family medicine here at the University of California, Irvine and delighted to be here with you today. But our target audience is pretty broad because ARIA is, if you're not familiar with it, uh, can affect a lot of different practices from radio. Theology to emergency medicine to neurology to primary care and so we're gonna cover all those bases and you can read our learning objectives here. I have an outstanding group of faculty that I'm presenting with so uh again we're just gonna get things started today. I'm gonna talk about shared decision making. Uh, when it comes to folks with Alzheimer's disease or mild cognitive impairment who are considering amyloid targeted therapies or ATT, uh, because these therapies are disease-modifying. They're the first disease-modifying agents we have for Alzheimer's disease, but they do come with this rate, this risk of brain edema or even brain hemorrhage. And so we wanna put that in context. So, our pathway today is we're gonna learn how to have this conversation. How to initiate using a case. Um, we certainly wanna make sure that patients' neuroimaging is done. And this is something I do at the outset. Uh, so this is called tier one testing. When I, I have a strong suspicion somebody has cognitive impairment. Um, at this point, I'm not sure if it's Alzheimer's disease or another type of, uh, cognitive disease. Um, I'm going to image them. So I'm gonna get a baseline MRI. That's very important for considering, uh, the risk of amyloid-related. Imaging abnormalities or ARIA. I'm just gonna say ARIA from now on. Um, but, and, and, and you'll see that this, uh, these imaging abnormalities are not uncommon. They can happen during treatment with ATT. And so, therefore, uh, we wanna keep that in mind. We wanna continue to monitor patients and, uh, and then we wanna make sure everybody's on the same page with what to do if we, uh, if we detect a case of ARIA. So let's start with the case. Margaret is 74 years old. She's a former teacher. And she has early symptomatic Alzheimer's disease. So say mild disease, that puts her in the category, uh, ATT or for patients with MCI or mild Alzheimer's disease. Um, we confirmed amyloid pathology, so that's very important to do. That, that's, that means she's set up for ATT. She's an APE 4 heterozygote and APE 4 is important for these patients. This is one time when I have a symptomatic patient with cognitive impairment. I will check APE 4. If we're gonna think about ATT, the more copies of that APE 4 allele you have, the higher risk of aria. Um, and so what we did a good job of talking about what matters to her, not that unusual for, uh, for our patients, wants to be independent as possible, stay involved in activities, but concerned about this possibility of brain bleeding or brain edema, those sound really scary. Um, also, it's a Fairly rigorous schedule in terms of getting um IV infusions, um, particularly, uh, and, and then also getting follow-up MRIs. The 1st 6 months in particular are very busy. So I always wanna check with patients as part of my counseling, hey, you're gonna have a lot of healthcare visits. Is this something you think you can do? So let's start with the polling question. Margaret asked, if treatment can cause swelling or bleeding in my brain, why would I consider it? Good question. Um, which response best opens an informed patient-centered discussion? Is it A, let's first establish whether treatment is clinically appropriate before discussing possible adverse events. Uh, let's compare likely benefit, RA risk, and what matters to most of you personally. C, the specialist can explain RA once the rest of the eligibility assessment is complete. D, the treatment is approved, so it's expected benefits usually justify the monitoring burden, or E, let's arrange the first monitoring MRI before deciding whether the treatment is acceptable. And I think the best answer here is B. And we'll talk about why. You know, so, um, we wanna practice shared decision making. This is a really important one. It's a, it's a big decision. You're, you're having some serious balance of benefits versus risk. There's also a burden on patients and often their loved ones who are bringing them into visits. And, and it really comes down to where are the patient's goals, what are their values? What do they wanna achieve with this treatment? And we know that clinicians can have a very different approach to this process. We're gonna try to standardize it. Of course, you have your own take and you're going to individualize this discussion. But that said, uh, I think it's a very important discussion to have and giving you a little bit of a framework to work with, um, and keeping you in the evidence-based bounds of healthcare is really important as well. So, um, I do talk about the fact that lekanimab and danumab, the two, drugs that are approved as ATT, um, really do have an effect. There's a disease-modifying effect. They don't, there's no cure. They're not curative. And they don't make your cognition better. What they do is they reduce the rate of slowing of, uh, your cognition. So, uh, and one thing I also mentioned is in clinical trials, they have been shown to delay slipping down in terms of, uh, more severe classes of dementia. So they, they keep you more time in that mild stage of dementia versus slipping into to moderate dementia, for example. But you wanna stay away from statements like, oh, it'll make you a lot better, uh, because they don't. They, they slow the rate of progress of Alzheimer's disease. That's what they do. And the risk of RA is quite real. In the main, uh, study of leanimab, you can see rates of RAH, which is hemorrhage, uh, 17%, RAE edema, about 13%, and even higher with, uh, denanimab, uh, RAH 19% and RAE 24%. Although with a modified dosing schedule with denanimab, especially the rates of RAE are significantly lower. Particularly, uh, for patients like Margaret with an APOE 4 allele. So, um, so we want to think about patients' risk before we see them. Um, a lot of that comes down to the baseline MRI. So patients with, uh, cirrhosis, you know, evidence of previous bleeds or more than 4 microhemorrhages or existing edema or other, uh, say they have an aneurysm. Many times those patients will not qualify right off the bat, uh, for ATT. I mentioned AP 4 status. If you carry two copies, it's worse than one copy and one copy is worse than no copies in terms of the risk of RA. And there's not much in terms of modifiable risk factors we can, we can use. Uh, so for patients with anticoagulants, that, you know, that's a risk factor. But antiplatelet agents don't seem to be a major risk factor. In one, review analysis that they found was that, uh, uncontrolled hypertension was another risk factor. That's the one modifiable risk factor that I know of for RA. So you wanna pay attention and make sure BP is treating, uh, treated appropriately. And then, uh, it is going to be many visits, oh, especially in those 1st 6 months of therapy where we're not only, uh, getting infusions, um, and with, uh, leanumab there is the option for subcutaneous administration, so that's relatively new, uh, that can take away some of the burden, but still MRIs, we're, we're looking at multiple MRIs during that first month, so. Lots of clinic time. So we wanna make sure patients can actually achieve, uh, that schedule. And after the 1st 6 months, it's less rigorous and, and, uh, and much more doable. Um, but so this has a lot to do with the support around them, the travel that they have in them, and, and what they, what they want out of this short-term period for the longer term benefit, uh, with ATT over time. It's also important, uh, that patients understand the concept of what happens if during a monitoring MRI or if the patient develops symptoms, what is the plan of action. So, symptoms, uh, things like headache or confusion or neur or other focal neurological deficits, um, are very concerning while on treatment. So, uh, if they are new and, uh, and persistent, then, uh, then definitely it's, it's, this could mean a visit to the emergency room. So I wanna make sure Patients are aware of that, um, and they might need urgent MRIs and they might get their treatment pause. Even on screening MRI, um, most patients are not symptomatic with RA. So that's, that's one thing to reassure patients. It's less than 5% of folks actually have symptoms. Um, most of these, uh, RA, uh, do resolve with time, but it may require a pause in treatment. Does not mean the treatment's not working. It just means that there's going to be a pause. Let's make sure that the RA either gets better or stabilizes, and then we can proceed with more treatment. So Margaret Valley, another question for you. Margaret values maintaining everyday function that lives 2 hours from the MRI center. She's worries about that treatment pause would mean treatment had failed. What's the best next step? Is it a recommended against treatment until she can relocate monitoring to a center closer to home? B, proceed if her daughter agrees to provide transport for every scheduled MRI appointment. C, explore her priorities, explain treatment pauses, and agree whether monitoring can work in practice. D, ask the specialist to decide whether the travel burden makes treatment clinically unsuitable. E, delay the the risk discussion until a treatment has been selected and authorized. Uh, please mark your answers now. Um, I think, uh, C is the best answer. It's practical and takes her values, um, and her wishes into account. So we wanna offer a general explanation and explain the benefits and risks of some of the burden associated with ATT, um, and then we wanna personalize it to patients, uh, individual goals, explore any differences we have, check to make sure if we have a plan in place, and then, and then set that plan up. And so, uh, so I, I, these are some good, uh, examples of questions about, uh, getting larger goals. Some patients may wanna go on this trip that they've always been dreaming of. They may wanna mend relationships with, uh, you know, with somebody in their family or another, another loved one whom they've been distanced from for. For years I've seen that as well, um, and then just make sure they understand. Use a little teach back here. So what happened? What does it mean if we find Arya? Well, I guess you might pause treatment, yeah, and then what happens? I'll get more MRI's and we're gonna follow me clinically. Yes, that's exactly right. And could you restart treatment? Yeah, we could if things are stable. So.