Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Uniform case definitions are required to ensure harmonised reporting of neurological syndromes associated with SARS-CoV-2. Moreover, it is unclear how clinicians perceive the relative importance of SARS-CoV-2 in neurological syndromes, which risks under- or over-reporting. METHODS:We invited clinicians through global networks, including the World Federation of Neurology, to assess ten anonymised vignettes of SARS-CoV-2 neurological syndromes. Using standardised case definitions, clinicians assigned a diagnosis and ranked association with SARS-CoV-2. We compared diagnostic accuracy and assigned association ranks between different settings and specialties and calculated inter-rater agreement for case definitions as "poor" (κ ≤ 0.4), "moderate" or "good" (κ > 0.6). RESULTS:1265 diagnoses were assigned by 146 participants from 45 countries on six continents. The highest correct proportion were cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST, 95.8%), Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS, 92.4%) and headache (91.6%) and the lowest encephalitis (72.8%), psychosis (53.8%) and encephalopathy (43.2%). Diagnostic accuracy was similar between neurologists and non-neurologists (median score 8 vs. 7/10, p = 0.1). Good inter-rater agreement was observed for five diagnoses: cranial neuropathy, headache, myelitis, CVST, and GBS and poor agreement for encephalopathy. In 13% of vignettes, clinicians incorrectly assigned lowest association ranks, regardless of setting and specialty. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The case definitions can help with reporting of neurological complications of SARS-CoV-2, also in settings with few neurologists. However, encephalopathy, encephalitis, and psychosis were often misdiagnosed, and clinicians underestimated the association with SARS-CoV-2. Future work should refine the case definitions and provide training if global reporting of neurological syndromes associated with SARS-CoV-2 is to be robust.

BACKGROUND:Limited data exists evaluating predictors of long-term outcomes after hospitalization for COVID-19. METHODS:We conducted a prospective, longitudinal cohort study of patients hospitalized for COVID-19. The following outcomes were collected at 6 and 12-months post-diagnosis: disability using the modified Rankin Scale (mRS), activities of daily living assessed with the Barthel Index, cognition assessed with the telephone Montreal Cognitive Assessment (t-MoCA), Neuro-QoL batteries for anxiety, depression, fatigue and sleep, and post-acute symptoms of COVID-19. Predictors of these outcomes, including demographics, pre-COVID-19 comorbidities, index COVID-19 hospitalization metrics, and life stressors, were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS:Of 790 COVID-19 patients who survived hospitalization, 451(57%) completed 6-month (N = 383) and/or 12-month (N = 242) follow-up, and 77/451 (17%) died between discharge and 12-month follow-up. Significant life stressors were reported in 121/239 (51%) at 12-months. In multivariable analyses, life stressors including financial insecurity, food insecurity, death of a close contact and new disability were the strongest independent predictors of worse mRS, Barthel Index, depression, fatigue, and sleep scores, and prolonged symptoms, with adjusted odds ratios ranging from 2.5 to 20.8. Other predictors of poor outcome included older age (associated with worse mRS, Barthel, t-MoCA, depression scores), baseline disability (associated with worse mRS, fatigue, Barthel scores), female sex (associated with worse Barthel, anxiety scores) and index COVID-19 severity (associated with worse Barthel index, prolonged symptoms). CONCLUSIONS:Life stressors contribute substantially to worse functional, cognitive and neuropsychiatric outcomes 12-months after COVID-19 hospitalization. Other predictors of poor outcome include older age, female sex, baseline disability and severity of index COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE:We explored the relationship between markers of infection and inflammation and mortality in patients with acute ischemic stroke who underwent thrombectomy. METHODS:We performed retrospective chart review of stroke patients who underwent thrombectomy at two tertiary academic centers between December 2018 and November 2020. Associations between discharge mortality, WBC count, neutrophil percentage, fever, culture data, and antibiotic treatment were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test, Student's t-test, and Fisher's exact test. Independent predictors of mortality were identified with multivariable analysis. Analyses were repeated excluding COVID-positive patients. RESULTS:Of 248 patients who underwent thrombectomy, 41 (17 %) died prior to discharge. Mortality was associated with admission WBC count (11 [8-14] vs. 9 [7-12], p = 0.0093), admission neutrophil percentage (78 % ± 11 vs. 71 % ± 14, p = 0.0003), peak WBC count (17 [13-22] vs. 12 [9-15], p < 0.0001), fever (71 % vs. 27 %, p < 0.0001), positive culture (44 % vs. 15 %, p < 0.0001), and days treated with antibiotics (3 [1-7] vs. 1 [0-4], p < 0.0001). After controlling for age, admission NIHSS and post-thrombectomy ASPECTS score, mortality was associated with admission WBC count (OR 13, CI 1.32-142, p = 0.027), neutrophil percentage (OR 1.03, CI 1.0-1.07, p = 0.045), peak WBC count (OR 301, CI 24-5008, p < 0.0001), fever (OR 24.2, CI 1.77-332, p < 0.0001), and positive cultures (OR 4.24, CI 1.87-9.62, p = 0.0006). After excluding COVID-positive patients (n = 14), peak WBC count, fever and positive culture remained independent predictors of mortality. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Markers of infection and inflammation are associated with discharge mortality after thrombectomy. Further study is warranted to investigate the causal relationship of these markers with clinical outcome.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:Neuropsychiatric symptoms have been reported as a prominent feature of postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC), with common symptoms that include cognitive impairment, sleep difficulties, depression, posttraumatic stress, and substance use disorders. A primary challenge of parsing PASC epidemiology and pathophysiology is the lack of a standard definition of the syndrome, and little is known regarding mechanisms of neuropsychiatric PASC. Observations/UNASSIGNED:Rates of symptom prevalence vary, but at least 1 PASC neuropsychiatric symptom has been reported in as many as 90% of patients 6 months after COVID-19 hospitalization and in approximately 25% of nonhospitalized adults with COVID-19. Mechanisms of neuropsychiatric sequelae of COVID-19 are still being elucidated. They may include static brain injury accrued during acute COVID-19, neurodegeneration triggered by secondary effects of acute COVID-19, autoimmune mechanisms with chronic inflammation, viral persistence in tissue reservoirs, or reactivation of other latent viruses. Despite rapidly emerging data, many gaps in knowledge persist related to the variable definitions of PASC, lack of standardized phenotyping or biomarkers, variability in virus genotypes, ascertainment biases, and limited accounting for social determinants of health and pandemic-related stressors. Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:Growing data support a high prevalence of PASC neuropsychiatric symptoms, but the current literature is heterogeneous with variable assessments of critical epidemiological factors. By enrolling large patient samples and conducting state-of-the-art assessments, the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER), a multicenter research initiative funded by the National Institutes of Health, will help clarify PASC epidemiology, pathophysiology, and mechanisms of injury, as well as identify targets for therapeutic intervention.

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.

This proceedings article presents actionable research targets on the basis of the presentations and discussions at the 2nd Curing Coma National Institutes of Health (NIH) symposium held from May 3 to May 5, 2021. Here, we summarize the background, research priorities, panel discussions, and deliverables discussed during the symposium across six major domains related to disorders of consciousness. The six domains include (1) Biology of Coma, (2) Coma Database, (3) Neuroprognostication, (4) Care of Comatose Patients, (5) Early Clinical Trials, and (6) Long-term Recovery. Following the 1st Curing Coma NIH virtual symposium held on September 9 to September 10, 2020, six workgroups, each consisting of field experts in respective domains, were formed and tasked with identifying gaps and developing key priorities and deliverables to advance the mission of the Curing Coma Campaign. The highly interactive and inspiring presentations and panel discussions during the 3-day virtual NIH symposium identified several action items for the Curing Coma Campaign mission, which we summarize in this article.