Francisco, Gerard E.

ObjectiveVagus nerve stimulation (VNS) paired with rehabilitation therapy improved motor status compared to rehabilitation alone in the phase III VNS‐REHAB stroke trial, but treatment response was variable and not associated with any clinical measures acquired at baseline, such as age or side of paresis. We hypothesized that neuroimaging measures would be associated with treatment‐related gains, examining performance of regional injury measures versus global brain health measures in parallel with clinical measures.MethodsBaseline magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans in the VNS‐REHAB trial were used to derive regional injury measures (extent of injury to corticospinal tract, the primary regional measure; plus extent of injury to precentral gyrus and postcentral gyrus; lesion volume; and lesion topography) and global brain health measures (degree of white matter hyperintensities, the primary global brain measure; plus volumes of cerebrospinal fluid, cortical gray matter, white matter, each thalamus, and total brain). Eight clinical measures assessed at baseline were also evaluated (treatment group, age, race, gender, paretic side, pre‐stroke dominant hand, time since stroke, and baseline Fugl‐Meyer upper extremity score). Bivariate analyses compared each measure with the primary trial end point (change in Fugl‐Meyer upper extremity score from baseline to end of 6 weeks of treatment) across all subjects, with secondary analyses examining trial groups separately.ResultsMRIs were available from 80 patients (age = 59.8 ± 9.5 years, 29 women). Across all patients, less white matter hyperintensities (r = −0.25, p = 0.028) at baseline was associated with larger Fugl‐Meyer score change. In the VNS group, less white matter hyperintensities (r = −0.37, p = 0.018) and larger ipsilesional thalamus volume (r = 0.33, p = 0.046) were each associated with larger Fugl‐Meyer score change. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) analyses tested the interaction that each baseline measure had with treatment group and found that the model examining white matter hyperintensities had a significant interaction term, indicating 2.3 less change in Fugl‐Meyer Upper Extremity (FM‐UE) points in the VNS group relative to the control group for each point increase in modified Fazekas scale.InterpretationNeuroimaging measures are associated with extent of gains on the primary endpoint of a phase III stroke recovery trial. Among the neuroimaging measures examined, a measure of global brain health (extent of white matter hyperintensities) was better at explaining the change in arm impairment as compared with measures of regional injury; this was true when examining all study subjects as well as only those in the VNS group and is consistent with the global mechanism of action that VNS has throughout the cerebrum. Future studies can evaluate additional measures that further predict response to VNS therapy. The current findings suggest that individual patient neuroimaging results may be useful for a personalized medicine approach to stroke recovery therapeutics. ANN NEUROL 2025;97:709–719

Abstract Background Physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) is a diverse specialty, growing and evolving over a variety of subspecialty and practice focus areas. Accurate data regarding practice patterns of physiatrists are essential for updating requirements in training and certification, particularly as the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education begins its process to update of the PM&R core residency training requirements. This study analyzes practice trends for nearly 98% of physiatrists in active practice, the largest study to date. Objective To update current demographics of physicians specializing in PM&R, including current areas of practice focus, to analyze the alignment of practice focus with subspecialty certification, and to determine the extent that electromyography is a component of current physiatric practice. Design Retrospective analysis of deidentified responses from American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (ABPMR) board‐certified PM&R physicians (diplomates) on annual enrollment in the ABPMR Continuing Certification program. Participants A total of 9543 ABPMR diplomates. Main Outcome Measures Demographics – age, gender, years in practice, practice setting(s) and area(s). Practice focus, subspecialty certifications. Results The majority of practicing physiatrists are men (62%) although the percentage of women in the field is growing (38%). Nearly 80% of physiatrists report more than one practice focus area, with pain medicine and sports medicine/musculoskeletal practices most commonly reported. Conclusions This study confirms the growth trends in PM&R in pain and sports medicine but also highlights the substantial number of physiatrists focusing their practices in areas related to neurorehabilitation and medical rehabilitation. The large majority of physiatrists incorporate multiple focus areas into their practices. Electromyography is a focus for a declining percentage of practicing physiatrists.

Background Physician burnout is of growing concern. Burnout among physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) physicians has shown a significant increase, positioning PM&R as one of the most “burned out” of specialties. Little has been written about potential factors contributing to physiatrist burnout or potential interventions. Objective To determine the prevalence of burnout among physiatrists and identify risk factors for burnout and potential strategies to decrease burnout among physiatrists. Design Prospective cross‐sectional survey. Setting National survey of board certified physiatrists. Participants: One thousand five hundred thirty‐six physiatrists certified by the American Board of PM&R. Outcome The Mini‐Z Burnout Survey, 1 question from the Maslach Burnout Scale on callousness toward patients, and several potential drivers of burnout. The probability of burnout, identified by question 3 on the Mini‐Z, was the dependent variable. Other questions on the Mini‐Z were explored as independent variables using logistic regression. Results Seven hundred seventy physiatrists (50.7%) fulfilled the definition of burnout. Only 38% of physiatrists reported not becoming more callous toward patients. The top 3 causes of burnout identified by physiatrists were increasing regulatory demands, workload and job demands, and practice inefficiency and lack of resources. Higher burnout rate was associated with high levels of job stress and working more hours per week. Lower burnout rates were associated with higher job satisfaction, control over workload, professional values aligned with those of department leaders, and sufficient time for documentation. There was no significant association between burnout and sex, years in practice, practice focus, or practice area. Conclusion Burnout is a significant problem among PM&R physicians and is pervasive throughout the specialty. Opportunities exist to address major contributing drivers of burnout relating to practice patterns and efficiency of care within PM&R. These opportunities are, to varying degrees, under the control of hospital leaders, practice administrators, and practitioners.

AbstractBackgroundThere is a need to better understand the overall state of sub‐specialization in physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R).ObjectiveTo examine the status and trends in subspecialty certification for each of the seven subspecialties approved for American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (ABPMR) diplomates.Design/SettingRetrospective analysis of deidentified information from the ABPMR database.ParticipantsPhysicians certified by ABPMR through 2019.InterventionsNot applicable.Main Outcome MeasuresFor each subspecialty, we examined: (1) the number of certificates issued to ABPMR diplomates; (2) the recertification rate; (3) the yearly trends for total active, new, and expired certificates; and (4) for ABPMR‐administered subspecialties, recertification rates for those entering the subspecialty through fellowship completion versus a “grandfathered” practice pathway.ResultsOf 11,421 ABPMR diplomates in the United States in 2019, a total of 3560 (31.2%) had 3985 active subspecialty certificates. Pain Medicine (PM) was the most common subspecialty certification (15.5% of all ABPMR diplomates) followed by Sports Medicine (SM, 6.6%), Brain Injury Medicine (BIM, 4.8%), Spinal Cord Injury Medicine (SCIM, 4.2%), Pediatric Rehabilitation Medicine (PRM, 2.5%), Neuromuscular Medicine (NMM, 0.7%), and Hospice and Palliative Medicine (HPM, 0.5%). For diplomates with more than one subspecialty certification, PM and SM was the most frequent combination. Both the recertification rate and the end of practice track eligibility influenced certification trends differently for individual subspecialties. The average number of new certificates added annually for every subspecialty was higher before than after the temporary practice track‐based eligibility ended; the difference was statistically significant (p < .05) for SCIM, PM, SM, and NMM. The recertification rate for all subspecialties combined was 73.4%. For the subspecialties (SCIM, PRM) for which these data were available, fellowship candidates had higher recertification rates than those grandfathered through a practice track.ConclusionThis report informs stakeholders about the state and evolution of subspecialty certification in PM&R over time.

Background and Purpose― We aimed to determine whether low-frequency electric field navigated repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation to noninjured motor cortex versus sham repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation avoiding motor cortex could improve arm motor function in hemiplegic stroke patients when combined with motor training. Methods― Twelve outpatient US rehabilitation centers enrolled participants between May 2014 and December 2015. We delivered 1 Hz active or sham repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation to noninjured motor cortex before each of eighteen 60-minute therapy sessions over a 6-week period, with outcomes measured at 1 week and 1, 3, and 6 months after end of treatment. The primary end point was the percentage of participants improving ≥5 points on upper extremity Fugl-Meyer score 6 months after end of treatment. Secondary analyses assessed changes on the upper extremity Fugl-Meyer and Action Research Arm Test and Wolf Motor Function Test and safety. Results― Of 199 participants, 167 completed treatment and follow-up because of early discontinuation of data collection. Upper extremity Fugl-Meyer gains were significant for experimental ( P <0.001) and sham groups ( P <0.001). Sixty-seven percent of the experimental group (95% CI, 58%–75%) and 65% of sham group (95% CI, 52%–76%) improved ≥5 points on 6-month upper extremity Fugl-Meyer ( P =0.76). There was also no difference between experimental and sham groups in the Action Research Arm Test ( P =0.80) or the Wolf Motor Function Test ( P =0.55). A total of 26 serious adverse events occurred in 18 participants, with none related to the study or device, and with no difference between groups. Conclusions― Among patients 3 to 12 months poststroke, goal-oriented motor rehabilitation improved motor function 6 months after end of treatment. There was no difference between the active and sham repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation trial arms. Clinical Trial Registration― URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02089464.