3.8 Review

Good practice in the management of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: Clinical guidelines. An evidence-based review with good practice points. EALSC Working Group

Journal

AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS
Volume 8, Issue 4, Pages 195-213

Publisher

INFORMA HEALTHCARE
DOI: 10.1080/17482960701262376

Keywords

ALS/SLA/MND; EALSC; diagnosis; DNA-testing; breaking the diagnosis; drooling; bronchial secretions; nutrition; ventilation; symptomatic treatment; palliative care; terminal care

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The evidence base for diagnosis and management of ALS is still weak, and curative therapy is lacking. Nonetheless, early diagnosis and symptomatic therapy can profoundly influence care and quality of life of the patient and relatives, and may increase survival time. This review addresses the current optimal clinical approach to ALS. The literature search is complete to December 2006. Where there was lack of evidence but consensus was clear we have stated our opinion as good practice points. We conclude that a diagnosis of ALS can be achieved by early examination by an experienced neurologist. The patient should be informed of the diagnosis by the consultant. Following diagnosis, a multi-diciplinary care team should support the patient and relatives. Medication with riluzole should be initiated as early as possible. PEG is associated with improved nutrition and should be inserted early. The operation is hazardous in patients with VC < 50%: RIG may be a better alternative. Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation improves survival and quality of life but is underused in Europe. Maintaining the patient's ability to communicate is essential. During the course of the disease, every effort should be made to maintain patient autonomy. Advance directives for palliative end of life care are important and should be discussed early with the patient and relatives if they so wish.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available