Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:To identify the rates of neurological events following administration of mRNA (Pfizer, Moderna) or adenovirus vector (Janssen) vaccines in the U.S.. METHODS:We utilized publicly available data from the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) collected between January 1, 2021-June 14, 2021. All free text symptoms that were reported within 42 days of vaccine administration were manually reviewed and grouped into 36 individual neurological diagnostic categories. Post-vaccination neurological event rates were compared between vaccine types and to age-matched baseline incidence rates in the U.S. and rates of neurological events following COVID. RESULTS:Of 306,907,697 COVID vaccine doses administered during the study timeframe, 314,610 (0.1%) people reported any adverse event and 105,214 (0.03%) reported neurological adverse events in a median of 1 day (IQR0-3) from inoculation. Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), and cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) occurred in fewer than 1 per 1,000,000 doses. Significantly more neurological adverse events were reported following Janssen (Ad26.COV2.S) vaccination compared to either Pfizer-BioNtech (BNT162b2) or Moderna (mRNA-1273; 0.15% versus 0.03% versus 0.03% of doses, respectively,P<0.0001). The observed-to-expected ratios for GBS, CVT and seizure following Janssen vaccination were ≥1.5-fold higher than background rates. However, the rate of neurological events after acute SARS-CoV-2 infection was up to 617-fold higher than after COVID vaccination. INTERPRETATION/CONCLUSIONS:Reports of serious neurological events following COVID vaccination are rare. GBS, CVT and seizure may occur at higher than background rates following Janssen vaccination. Despite this, rates of neurological complications following acute SARS-CoV-2 infection are up to 617-fold higher than after COVID vaccination. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION: Subarachnoid Hemorrhage (SAH) associated headaches are severe and challenging to manage. The use of sedating, high-dose opioids can cloud neurological assessments, leading to unnecessary testing and potentially increase the risk of dependence. We hypothesized that a tiered opioid sparing pain management protocol favoring NSAIDs and gabapentin for low grade SAH patients would decrease opioid use without adversely affecting headache severity scores.
METHOD(S): We performed a retrospective cohort study pre- and post-implementation of the opioid sparing protocol. Inclusion criteria included admission to NYU Langone-Brooklyn Hospital with Hunt Hess Grade 1 or 2 aneurysmal SAH on Day 3 of hospital admission as most patients received periprocedural sedation and analgesia during the first 2 days. The pre-implementation group (pre) was admitted from 8/2016 to 8/2017 and the post-implementation group (post) was admitted from 4/2019 to 4/2020. The two-year washout period was included because newly hired intensivists integrated elements of opioid-sparing protocols as part of their practice prior to the go-live date. We collected demographics, baseline admission characteristics, hospital complications, and past history of headaches and opioid use. From day 3-7, we tracked total use of morphine milligram equivalents (MME) of all opioids, acetaminophen, NSAIDS, barbiturates, and gabapentin. We recorded the highest (HP) and lowest (LP) visual analogue pain assessment scores in daily quartiles. Data analysis was completed with SPSS.
RESULT(S): 55 patients (n=24 pre and n=31 post) were eligible and enrolled in the study. 85 patients were excluded. Aneurysm location, surgical method, symptomatic vasospasm, and EVD placement were similar between groups. Hydrocephalus was more common in pre; EVD complications were more common in post. There were no documented stress ulcers nor re-hemorrhage attributed to medications. The protocol resulted in a 19% decrease in total average MME compared to baseline use ((21.7 vs 26.9, p=0.77), a 12% decrease in average HP (2.60 vs. 2.96, p=0.41), and a 30% decrease in average LP (0.63 vs. 0.90, p=0.16), although not statistically significant. 14 pre received barbiturates; 0 post.
CONCLUSION(S): Pain control with reduced opioid usage can be achieved with a tiered opioid sparing pain protocol

BACKGROUND:Although coma is commonly encountered in critical care, worldwide variability exists in diagnosis and management practices. We aimed to assess variability in coma definitions, etiologies, treatment strategies, and attitudes toward prognosis. METHODS:As part of the Neurocritical Care Society Curing Coma Campaign, between September 2020 and January 2021, we conducted an anonymous, international, cross-sectional global survey of health care professionals caring for patients with coma and disorders of consciousness in the acute, subacute, or chronic setting. Survey responses were solicited by sequential emails distributed by international neuroscience societies and social media. Fleiss κ values were calculated to assess agreement among respondents. RESULTS:The survey was completed by 258 health care professionals from 41 countries. Respondents predominantly were physicians (n = 213, 83%), were from the United States (n = 141, 55%), and represented academic centers (n = 231, 90%). Among eight predefined items, respondents identified the following cardinal features, in various combinations, that must be present to define coma: absence of wakefulness (81%, κ = 0.764); Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) ≤ 8 (64%, κ = 0.588); failure to respond purposefully to visual, verbal, or tactile stimuli (60%, κ = 0.552); and inability to follow commands (58%, κ = 0.529). Reported etiologies of coma encountered included medically induced coma (24%), traumatic brain injury (24%), intracerebral hemorrhage (21%), and cardiac arrest/hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (11%). The most common clinical assessment tools used for coma included the GCS (94%) and neurological examination (78%). Sixty-six percent of respondents routinely performed sedation interruption, in the absence of contraindications, for clinical coma assessments in the intensive care unit. Advanced neurological assessment techniques in comatose patients included quantitative electroencephalography (EEG)/connectivity analysis (16%), functional magnetic resonance imaging (7%), single-photon emission computerized tomography (6%), positron emission tomography (4%), invasive EEG (4%), and cerebral microdialysis (4%). The most commonly used neurostimulants included amantadine (51%), modafinil (37%), and methylphenidate (28%). The leading determinants for prognostication included etiology of coma, neurological examination findings, and neuroimaging. Fewer than 20% of respondents reported routine follow-up of coma survivors after hospital discharge; however, 86% indicated interest in future research initiatives that include postdischarge outcomes at six (85%) and 12 months (65%). CONCLUSIONS:There is wide heterogeneity among health care professionals regarding the clinical definition of coma and limited routine use of advanced coma assessment techniques in acute care settings. Coma management practices vary across sites, and mechanisms for coordinated and sustained follow-up after acute treatment are inconsistent. There is an urgent need for the development of evidence-based guidelines and a collaborative, coordinated approach to advance both the science and the practice of coma management globally.

BACKGROUND:Persistent cognitive symptoms have been reported following COVID-19 hospitalization. We investigated the relationship between demographics, social determinants of health (SDOH) and cognitive outcomes 6-months after hospitalization for COVID-19. METHODS:We analyzed 6-month follow-up data collected from a multi-center, prospective study of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Demographic and SDOH variables (age, race/ethnicity, education, employment, health insurance status, median income, primary language, living arrangements, and pre-COVID disability) were compared between patients with normal versus abnormal telephone Montreal Cognitive Assessments (t-MOCA; scores<18/22). Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to evaluate predictors of t-MoCA. RESULTS:Of 382 patients available for 6-month follow-up, 215 (56%) completed the t-MoCA (n = 109/215 [51%] had normal and n = 106/215 [49%] abnormal results). 14/215 (7%) patients had a prior history of dementia/cognitive impairment. Significant univariate predictors of abnormal t-MoCA included older age, ≤12 years of education, unemployment pre-COVID, Black race, and a pre-COVID history of cognitive impairment (all p < 0.05). In multivariable analyses, education ≤12 years (adjusted OR 5.21, 95%CI 2.25-12.09), Black race (aOR 5.54, 95%CI 2.25-13.66), and the interaction of baseline functional status and unemployment prior to hospitalization (aOR 3.98, 95%CI 1.23-12.92) were significantly associated with abnormal t-MoCA scores after adjusting for age, history of dementia, language, neurological complications, income and discharge disposition. CONCLUSIONS:Fewer years of education, Black race and unemployment with baseline disability were associated with abnormal t-MoCA scores 6-months post-hospitalization for COVID-19. These associations may be due to undiagnosed baseline cognitive dysfunction, implicit biases of the t-MoCA, other unmeasured SDOH or biological effects of SARS-CoV-2.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Neurological complications among hospitalized COVID-19 patients may be associated with elevated neurodegenerative biomarkers. METHODS:Among hospitalized COVID-19 patients without a history of dementia (N = 251), we compared serum total tau (t-tau), phosphorylated tau-181 (p-tau181), glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), neurofilament light chain (NfL), ubiquitin carboxy-terminal hydrolase L1 (UCHL1), and amyloid beta (Aβ40,42) between patients with or without encephalopathy, in-hospital death versus survival, and discharge home versus other dispositions. COVID-19 patient biomarker levels were also compared to non-COVID cognitively normal, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia controls (N = 161). RESULTS:Admission t-tau, p-tau181, GFAP, and NfL were significantly elevated in patients with encephalopathy and in those who died in-hospital, while t-tau, GFAP, and NfL were significantly lower in those discharged home. These markers correlated with severity of COVID illness. NfL, GFAP, and UCHL1 were higher in COVID patients than in non-COVID controls with MCI or AD. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Neurodegenerative biomarkers were elevated to levels observed in AD dementia and associated with encephalopathy and worse outcomes among hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND:The association between race and ethnicity and microvascular disease in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is unclear. We hypothesized that social determinants of health (SDOHs) mediate the relationship between race and ethnicity and severity of white matter hyperintensities (WMHs) and microbleeds in patients with ICH. METHODS:We performed a retrospective observational cohort study of patients with ICH at two tertiary care hospitals between 2013 and 2020 who underwent magnetic resonance imaging of the brain. Magnetic resonance imaging scans were evaluated for the presence of microbleeds and WMH severity (defined by the Fazekas scale; moderate to severe WMH defined as Fazekas scores 3-6). We assessed for associations between sex, race and ethnicity, employment status, median household income, education level, insurance status, and imaging biomarkers of microvascular disease. A mediation analysis was used to investigate the influence of SDOHs on the associations between race and imaging features. We assessed the relationship of all variables with discharge outcomes. RESULTS:We identified 233 patients (mean age 62 [SD 16]; 48% female) with ICH. Of these, 19% were Black non-Hispanic, 32% had a high school education or less, 21% required an interpreter, 11% were unemployed, and 6% were uninsured. Moderate to severe WMH, identified in 114 (50%) patients, was associated with age, Black non-Hispanic race and ethnicity, highest level of education, insurance status, and history of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, or diabetes (p < 0.05). In the mediation analysis, the proportion of the association between Black non-Hispanic race and ethnicity and the Fazekas score that was mediated by highest level of education was 65%. Microbleeds, present in 130 (57%) patients, was associated with age, highest level of education, and history of diabetes or hypertension (p < 0.05). Age, highest level of education, insurance status, and employment status were associated with discharge modified Rankin Scale scores of 3-6, but race and ethnicity was not. CONCLUSIONS:The association between Black non-Hispanic race and ethnicity and moderate to severe WMH lost significance after we adjusted for highest level of education, suggesting that SDOHs may mediate the association between race and ethnicity and microvascular disease.

Acute and post-acute neurological symptoms, signs and diagnoses have been documented in an increasing number of patients infected by the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). In this review, we aimed to summarize the current literature addressing neurological events following SARS-CoV-2 infection, discuss limitations in the existing literature and suggest future directions that would strengthen our understanding of the neurological sequelae of COVID-19. The presence of neurological manifestations (symptoms, signs or diagnoses) both at the onset or during SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with a more severe disease, as demonstrated by a longer hospital stay, higher in-hospital death rate or the continued presence of sequelae at discharge. Although biological mechanisms have been postulated for these findings, evidence-based data are still lacking to clearly define the incidence, range of characteristics and outcomes of these manifestations, particularly in non-hospitalized patients. In addition, data from low- and middle-income countries are scarce, leading to uncertainties in the measure of neurological findings of COVID-19, with reference to geography, ethnicity, socio-cultural settings, and health care arrangements. As a consequence, at present a specific phenotype that would specify a post-COVID (or long-COVID) neurological syndrome has not yet been identified.

BACKGROUND:Early neurorehabilitation improves outcomes in patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC) after brain injury, but its applicability in COVID-19 is unknown. We describe our experience implementing an early neurorehabilitation protocol for patients with COVID-19-associated DoC in the intensive care unit (ICU) and evaluate factors associated with recovery. METHODS:During the initial COVID-19 surge in New York City between March 10 and May 20, 2020, faced with a disproportionately high number of ICU patients with prolonged unresponsiveness, we developed and implemented an early neurorehabilitation protocol, applying standard practices from brain injury rehabilitation care to the ICU setting. Twenty-one patients with delayed recovery of consciousness after severe COVID-19 participated in a pilot early neurorehabilitation program that included serial Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R) assessments, multimodal treatment, and access to clinicians specializing in brain injury medicine. We retrospectively compared clinical features of patients who did and did not recover to the minimally conscious state (MCS) or better, defined as a CRS-R total score (TS) ≥ 8, before discharge. We additionally examined factors associated with best CRS-R TS, last CRS-R TS, hospital length of stay, and time on mechanical ventilation. RESULTS:Patients underwent CRS-R assessments a median of six (interquartile range [IQR] 3-10) times before discharge, beginning a median of 48 days (IQR 40-55) from admission. Twelve (57%) patients recovered to MCS after a median of 8 days (IQR 2-14) off continuous sedation; they had lower body mass index (p = 0.009), lower peak serum C-reactive protein levels (p = 0.023), higher minimum arterial partial pressure of oxygen (p = 0.028), and earlier fentanyl discontinuation (p = 0.018). CRS-R scores fluctuated over time, and the best CRS-R TS was significantly higher than the last CRS-R TS (median 8 [IQR 5-23] vs. 5 [IQR 3-18], p = 0.002). Earlier fentanyl (p = 0.001) and neuromuscular blockade (p = 0.015) discontinuation correlated with a higher last CRS-R TS. CONCLUSIONS:More than half of our cohort of patients with prolonged unresponsiveness following severe COVID-19 recovered to MCS or better before hospital discharge, achieving a clinical benchmark known to have relatively favorable long-term prognostic implications in DoC of other etiologies. Hypoxia, systemic inflammation, sedation, and neuromuscular blockade may impact diagnostic assessment and prognosis, and fluctuations in level of consciousness make serial assessments essential. Early neurorehabilitation of these patients in the ICU can be accomplished but is associated with unique challenges. Further research should evaluate factors associated with longer-term neurologic recovery and benefits of early rehabilitation in patients with severe COVID-19.

BACKGROUND:Levetiracetam is commonly used for seizure prophylaxis in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), traumatic brain injury (TBI), supratentorial neurosurgery, and spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). However, its efficacy, optimal dosing, and the adverse events associated with levetiracetam prophylaxis remain unclear. METHODS:A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane central register of controlled trials (CENTRAL) database was conducted from January 1, 2000, to October 30, 2020, including articles addressing treatment with levetiracetam for seizure prophylaxis after SAH, ICH, TBI, and supratentorial neurosurgery. Non-English, pediatric (aged < 18 years), preclinical, reviews, case reports, and articles that included patients with a preexisting seizure condition or epilepsy were excluded. The coprimary meta-analyses examined first seizure events in (1) levetiracetam versus no antiseizure medication and (2) levetiracetam versus other antiseizure medications in all ICH, TBI, SAH, and supratentorial neurosurgery populations. Secondary meta-analyses evaluated the same comparator groups in individual disease populations. Risk of bias in non-randomised studies - of interventions (ROBINS-I) and risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB-2) tools were used to assess risk of bias. RESULTS: = 39%, P = 0.13 for heterogeneity). There were no significant differences in meta-analyses of patients with ICH, SAH, or TBI. Adverse events of any severity were reported in a median of 8% of patients given levetiracetam compared with 21% of patients in comparator groups. CONCLUSIONS:Based on the current moderately to seriously biased heterogeneous data, which frequently used low and possibly subtherapeutic doses of levetiracetam, our meta-analyses did not demonstrate significant reductions in seizure incidence and neither supports nor refutes the use of levetiracetam prophylaxis in TBI, SAH, or ICH. Levetiracetam may be preferred post supratentorial neurosurgery. More high-quality randomized trials of prophylactic levetiracetam are warranted.