Faculty Bibliography

One sentence summary: The purpose of this investigation was to expand the evidence base on CITs delivered by telehealth by evaluating CIT use in patients who presented to a large urban tertiary care neurology practice and to examine predictors of CIT use during the pandemic.
Background(s): Patients with neurological disorders may seek treatment options in addition to those recommended by their providers. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, about half of patients from populations that sought care in neurology tried complementary and integrative therapies (CITs). Given the reductions in in-person visits and the increases in teleneurology visits, we sought to determine whether patients increased their use of virtual complementary and integrative therapies.
Method(s): By examining two separate datasets that included cohorts of patients with neurological disorders, we assessed patients' use of virtual (and non-virtual) CITs and determined whether there were clinical characteristics that predicted their use. The two studies that comprised this report included one that examined patient and provider experiences with teleneurology visits, and another that assessed patients with a history of COVID-19 infection who presented for neurologic evaluation.
Result(s): Patients who postponed medical treatment for non-COVID- 19- related problems during the pandemic were more likely to seek CITs. Virtual exercise, virtual psychotherapy and relaxation/meditation smartphone applications were the most frequent types of virtual CITs chosen by patients. In both studies, age was a key demographic factor associated with mobile/ virtual CIT usage.
Conclusion(s): Data from our investigations demonstrated that, in addition to its other roles in teleneurology, CIT-related technologies might be utilized in the treatment of neurologic conditions

BACKGROUND:Post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) includes a heterogeneous group of patients with variable symptomatology, who may respond to different therapeutic interventions. Identifying phenotypes of PASC and therapeutic strategies for different subgroups would be a major step forward in management. METHODS:In a prospective cohort study of patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 12-month symptoms and quantitative outcome metrics were collected. Unsupervised hierarchical cluster analyses were performed to identify patients with: (1) similar symptoms lasting ≥4 weeks after acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, and (2) similar therapeutic interventions. Logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate the association of these symptom and therapy clusters with quantitative 12-month outcome metrics (modified Rankin Scale, Barthel Index, NIH NeuroQoL). RESULTS:Among 242 patients, 122 (50%) reported ≥1 PASC symptom (median 3, IQR 1-5) lasting a median of 12-months (range 1-15) post-COVID diagnosis. Cluster analysis generated three symptom groups: Cluster1 had few symptoms (most commonly headache); Cluster2 had many symptoms including high levels of anxiety and depression; and Cluster3 primarily included shortness of breath, headache and cognitive symptoms. Cluster1 received few therapeutic interventions (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.1-5.9), Cluster2 received several interventions, including antidepressants, anti-anxiety medications and psychological therapy (OR 15.7, 95% CI 4.1-59.7) and Cluster3 primarily received physical and occupational therapy (OR 3.1, 95%CI 1.3-7.1). The most severely affected patients (Symptom Cluster 2) had higher rates of disability (worse modified Rankin scores), worse NeuroQoL measures of anxiety, depression, fatigue and sleep disorder, and a higher number of stressors (all P<0.05). 100% of those who received a treatment strategy that included psychiatric therapies reported symptom improvement, compared to 97% who received primarily physical/occupational therapy, and 83% who received few interventions (P = 0.042). CONCLUSIONS:We identified three clinically relevant PASC symptom-based phenotypes, which received different therapeutic interventions with varying response rates. These data may be helpful in tailoring individual treatment programs.

BACKGROUND:Toxic metabolic encephalopathy (TME) has been reported in 7-31% of hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); however, some reports include sedation-related delirium and few data exist on the etiology of TME. We aimed to identify the prevalence, etiologies, and mortality rates associated with TME in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-positive patients. METHODS:We conducted a retrospective, multicenter, observational cohort study among patients with reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection hospitalized at four New York City hospitals in the same health network between March 1, 2020, and May 20, 2020. TME was diagnosed in patients with altered mental status off sedation or after an adequate sedation washout. Patients with structural brain disease, seizures, or primary neurological diagnoses were excluded. The coprimary outcomes were the prevalence of TME stratified by etiology and in-hospital mortality (excluding comfort care only patients) assessed by using a multivariable time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models with adjustment for age, race, sex, intubation, intensive care unit requirement, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores, hospital location, and date of admission. RESULTS:Among 4491 patients with COVID-19, 559 (12%) were diagnosed with TME, of whom 435 of 559 (78%) developed encephalopathy immediately prior to hospital admission. The most common etiologies were septic encephalopathy (n = 247 of 559 [62%]), hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE) (n = 331 of 559 [59%]), and uremia (n = 156 of 559 [28%]). Multiple etiologies were present in 435 (78%) patients. Compared with those without TME (n = 3932), patients with TME were older (76 vs. 62 years), had dementia (27% vs. 3%) or psychiatric history (20% vs. 10%), were more often intubated (37% vs. 20%), had a longer hospital length of stay (7.9 vs. 6.0 days), and were less often discharged home (25% vs. 66% [all P < 0.001]). Excluding comfort care patients (n = 267 of 4491 [6%]) and after adjustment for confounders, TME remained associated with increased risk of in-hospital death (n = 128 of 425 [30%] patients with TME died, compared with n = 600 of 3799 [16%] patients without TME; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.52, P = 0.031), and TME due to hypoxemia conferred the highest risk (n = 97 of 233 [42%] patients with HIE died, compared with n = 631 of 3991 [16%] patients without HIE; aHR 1.56, 95% CI 1.21-2.00, P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:TME occurred in one in eight hospitalized patients with COVID-19, was typically multifactorial, and was most often due to hypoxemia, sepsis, and uremia. After we adjustment for confounding factors, TME was associated with a 24% increased risk of in-hospital mortality.

(1) Background: The King-Devick (KD) rapid number naming test is sensitive for concussion diagnosis, with increased test time from baseline as the outcome measure. Eye tracking during KD performance in concussed individuals shows an association between inter-saccadic interval (ISI) (the time between saccades) prolongation and prolonged testing time. This pilot study retrospectively assesses the relation between ISI prolongation during KD testing and cognitive performance in persistently-symptomatic individuals post-concussion. (2) Results: Fourteen participants (median age 34 years; 6 women) with prior neuropsychological assessment and KD testing with eye tracking were included. KD test times (72.6 ± 20.7 s) and median ISI (379.1 ± 199.1 msec) were prolonged compared to published normative values. Greater ISI prolongation was associated with lower scores for processing speed (WAIS-IV Coding, r = 0.72, p = 0.0017), attention/working memory (Trails Making A, r = -0.65, p = 0.006) (Digit Span Forward, r = 0.57, p = -0.017) (Digit Span Backward, r= -0.55, p = 0.021) (Digit Span Total, r = -0.74, p = 0.001), and executive function (Stroop Color Word Interference, r = -0.8, p = 0.0003). (3) Conclusions: This pilot study provides preliminary evidence suggesting that cognitive dysfunction may be associated with prolonged ISI and KD test times in concussion.

BACKGROUND:Short-term outcomes of optic neuritis (ON) have been well characterized. Limited data exists on longer-term visual outcomes in patients who present with ON. The large MSBase registry allows for characterization of long-term visual outcomes after ON. METHODS:Via the MSBase Registry, data on patients from 41 centers was collected during routine clinical and research visits. Physical and visual disability were measured using the expanded disability status scale (EDSS) and the visual function score (VFS). Inclusion criteria for this analysis included age ≥ 18 years, clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), ON-onset, baseline visit within 6 months of onset, and at least one follow-up visit. Survival analysis was used to evaluate the association of disease-modifying treatment with time to conversion to clinically definite MS or sustained EDSS/VFS progression. RESULTS:Data from 60,933 patients were obtained from the MSBase registry in July 2019. Of these, 1317 patients met inclusion criteria; 935 were treated at some point in disease course, while 382 were never treated. At baseline, mean age was 32.3 ± 8.8 years, 74% were female, median EDSS was 2 (IQR 1-2), and median VFS was 1 (IQR 0-2). Median follow-up time was 5.2 years (IQR 2.4-9.3). Treatment was associated with reduced risk and delayed conversion to clinically definite MS (HR = 0.70, p < 0.001), sustained EDSS progression (HR = 0.46, p < 0.0001) and sustained VFS (HR = 0.41, p < 0.001) progression. CONCLUSIONS:In the MSBase cohort, treatment after ON was associated with better visual and neurological outcomes compared to no treatment. These results support early treatment for patients presenting with ON as the first manifestation of MS.

BACKGROUND:The novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has transformed health care. With the need to limit COVID-19 exposures, telemedicine has become an increasingly important format for clinical care. Compared with other fields, neuro-ophthalmology faces unique challenges, given its dependence on physical examination signs that are difficult to elicit outside the office setting. As such, it is imperative to understand both patient and provider experiences to continue to adapt the technology and tailor its application. The purpose of this study is to analyze both neuro-ophthalmology physician and patient satisfaction with virtual health visits during the time of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS:Across three institutions (NYU Langone Health, Indiana University Health, and Columbia University Medical Center), telemedicine surveys were administered to 159 patients. Neuro-ophthalmologists completed 157 surveys; each of these were linked to a single patient visit. Patient surveys consisted of 5 questions regarding visit preparation, satisfaction, challenges, and comfort. The physician survey included 4 questions that focused on ability to gather specific clinical information by history and examination. RESULTS:Among 159 patients, 104 (65.4%) reported that they were satisfied with the visit, and 149 (93.7%) indicated that they were comfortable asking questions. Sixty-eight (73.9%) patients found the instructions provided before the visit easy to understand. Potential areas for improvement noted by patients included more detailed preparation instructions and better technology (phone positioning, Internet connection, and software). More than 87% (137/157) of neuro-ophthalmologists surveyed reported having performed an examination that provided enough information for medical decision-making. Some areas of the neuro-ophthalmologic examination were reported to be easy to conduct (range of eye movements, visual acuity, Amsler grids, Ishihara color plates, and pupillary examination). Other components were more difficult (saccades, red desaturation, visual fields, convergence, oscillations, ocular alignment, and smooth pursuit); some were especially challenging (vestibulo-ocular reflex [VOR], VOR suppression, and optokinetic nystagmus). Clinicians noted that virtual health visits were limited by patient preparation, inability to perform certain parts of the examination (funduscopy and pupils), and technological issues. CONCLUSIONS:Among virtual neuro-ophthalmology visits evaluated, most offer patients with appointments that satisfy their needs. Most physicians in this cohort obtained adequate clinical information for decision-making. Even better technology and instructions may help improve aspects of virtual health visits.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:We reviewed the literature to evaluate cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) results from patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who had neurological symptoms and had an MRI that showed (1) central nervous system (CNS) hyperintense lesions not attributed to ischemia and/or (2) leptomeningeal enhancement. We sought to determine if these findings were associated with a positive CSF severe acute respiratory syndrome associated coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) polymerase chain reaction (PCR). METHODS:We performed a systematic review of Medline and Embase from December 1, 2019 to November 18, 2020. CSF results were evaluated based on the presence/absence of (1) ≥ 1 CNS hyperintense lesion and (2) leptomeningeal enhancement. RESULTS:In 117 publications, we identified 193 patients with COVID-19 who had an MRI of the CNS and CSF testing. There were 125 (65%) patients with CNS hyperintense lesions. Patients with CNS hyperintense lesions were significantly more likely to have a positive CSF SARS-CoV-2 PCR (10% [9/87] vs. 0% [0/43], p = 0.029). Of 75 patients who had a contrast MRI, there were 20 (27%) patients who had leptomeningeal enhancement. Patients with leptomeningeal enhancement were significantly more likely to have a positive CSF SARS-CoV-2 PCR (25% [4/16] vs. 5% [2/42], p = 0.024). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The presence of CNS hyperintense lesions or leptomeningeal enhancement on neuroimaging from patients with COVID-19 is associated with increased likelihood of a positive CSF SARS-CoV-2 PCR. However, a positive CSF SARS-CoV-2 PCR is uncommon in patients with these neuroimaging findings, suggesting they are often related to other etiologies, such as inflammation, hypoxia, or ischemia.

BACKGROUND:Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) is a neurodegenerative disease that has been neuropathologically diagnosed in brain donors exposed to repetitive head impacts, including boxers and American football, soccer, ice hockey, and rugby players. CTE cannot yet be diagnosed during life. In December 2015, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke awarded a seven-year grant (U01NS093334) to fund the "Diagnostics, Imaging, and Genetics Network for the Objective Study and Evaluation of Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (DIAGNOSE CTE) Research Project." The objectives of this multicenter project are to: develop in vivo fluid and neuroimaging biomarkers for CTE; characterize its clinical presentation; refine and validate clinical research diagnostic criteria (i.e., traumatic encephalopathy syndrome [TES]); examine repetitive head impact exposure, genetic, and other risk factors; and provide shared resources of anonymized data and biological samples to the research community. In this paper, we provide a detailed overview of the rationale, design, and methods for the DIAGNOSE CTE Research Project. METHODS:The targeted sample and sample size was 240 male participants, ages 45-74, including 120 former professional football players, 60 former collegiate football players, and 60 asymptomatic participants without a history of head trauma or participation in organized contact sports. Participants were evaluated at one of four U.S. sites and underwent the following baseline procedures: neurological and neuropsychological examinations; tau and amyloid positron emission tomography; magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy; lumbar puncture; blood and saliva collection; and standardized self-report measures of neuropsychiatric, cognitive, and daily functioning. Study partners completed similar informant-report measures. Follow-up evaluations were intended to be in-person and at 3 years post-baseline. Multidisciplinary diagnostic consensus conferences are held, and the reliability and validity of TES diagnostic criteria are examined. RESULTS:Participant enrollment and all baseline evaluations were completed in February 2020. Three-year follow-up evaluations began in October 2019. However, in-person evaluation ceased with the COVID-19 pandemic, and resumed as remote, 4-year follow-up evaluations (including telephone-, online-, and videoconference-based cognitive, neuropsychiatric, and neurologic examinations, as well as in-home blood draw) in February 2021. CONCLUSIONS:Findings from the DIAGNOSE CTE Research Project should facilitate detection and diagnosis of CTE during life, and thereby accelerate research on risk factors, mechanisms, epidemiology, treatment, and prevention of CTE. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT02798185.

OBJECTIVE:To update the consensus recommendations for reporting of quantitative optical coherence tomography (OCT) study results, thus revising the previously published Advised Protocol for OCT Study Terminology and Elements (APOSTEL) recommendations. METHODS:To identify studies reporting quantitative OCT results, we performed a PubMed search for the terms "quantitative" and "optical coherence tomography" from 2015 to 2017. Corresponding authors of the identified publications were invited to provide feedback on the initial APOSTEL recommendations via online surveys following the principle of a modified Delphi method. The results were evaluated and discussed by a panel of experts, and changes to the initial recommendations were proposed. A final survey was recirculated among the corresponding authors to obtain a majority vote on the proposed changes. RESULTS:One hundred sixteen authors participated in the surveys, resulting in 15 suggestions, of which 12 were finally accepted and incorporated into an updated 9-point-checklist. We harmonized the nomenclature of the outer retinal layers, added the exact area of measurement to the description of volume scans; we suggested reporting device-specific features. We advised to address potential bias in manual segmentation or manual correction of segmentation errors. References to specific reporting guidelines and room light conditions were removed. The participants' consensus with the recommendations increased from 80% for the previous APOSTEL version to greater than 90%. CONCLUSIONS:The modified Delphi method resulted in an expert-led guideline (evidence class III, GRADE criteria) concerning study protocol, acquisition device, acquisition settings, scanning protocol, fundoscopic imaging, post-acquisition data selection, post-acquisition analysis, nomenclature and abbreviations, and statistical approach. It will still be essential to update these recommendations to new research and practices regularly.