Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:Carotid body tumours (CBTs) and baroreceptor failure (BRF) are two distinct but interrelated conditions, affecting the carotid body and its regulatory mechanisms. We aim to describe and quantify BRF after unilateral and bilateral CBT resections. METHODS:Prospective cohort study. We included all patients with unilateral or bilateral CBT undergoing resection from April 2021 to January 2023. Demographics and CBTs characteristics were analysed; baroreceptor sensitivity assessment was conducted using the Composite Autonomic Severity Score (CASS). Statistical analyses were performed using R. Significance level was set at a 2-tailed α = 0.05. RESULTS:A total of 30 patients with CBT underwent surgical resection, twenty-three were included in the study (18 unilateral and 5 bilateral CBTs). All 23 (100 %) were females, median age of 60 years. Regarding patients with unilateral CBT; preoperatively, 13 had BRF, the most common dysfunction subtype was mixed. Postoperatively, the most common dysfunction subtype was sympathetic failure. With regards to bilateral CBTs; 2 patients did not have autonomic dysfunction preoperatively. After bilateral surgical resection one patient remained without autonomic dysfunction; however, all other patients persisted with BRF. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:BRF was present in 13 patients with unilateral CBT and 3 patients with bilateral tumours preoperatively; most will remain with BRF and will only change the characteristics postoperatively. No associations were found between type, severity of BRF and Shamblin classification or laterality. It is paramount that research in this area continues as many features are yet unknown regarding CBT pathogenesis, hence, BRF may be present yet not affect significantly quality of life.

BACKGROUND:Evidence suggests that adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) predict cognitive dysfunction, possibly through direct (e.g., brain structure/function changes) and indirect (e.g., increased psychopathology risk) pathways. However, extant studies have focused on young and older adults, with limited understanding of how ACEs affect cognitive health in midadulthood. OBJECTIVE:This study compared psychiatric and cognitive differences between adults at high- and low-risk of adverse health outcomes based on the ACE risk classification scheme. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING/METHODS: METHOD/METHODS:Patients were divided into high and low ACE groups based on the number of ACEs endorsed. Subsequently, a series of one-way analyses of variances were conducted to compare high versus low ACE groups on the Test of Premorbid Functioning, Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition Digit Span Test, Trail Making Test-Parts A and B, Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, Beck Depression Inventory-II, and Beck Anxiety Inventory scores. RESULTS:Significant group differences were detected for anxiety and depression with the high ACE group endorsing significantly greater depression and anxiety symptoms relative to the low ACE group. High and low ACE groups did not significantly differ on any cognitive measures. CONCLUSIONS:Results indicate that an individual's psychological health, but not cognitive functioning, is impacted by the level of ACE exposure. Study findings highlight the importance of including ACE measures in neuropsychological evaluations, as it will aid in case conceptualization and tailoring treatment recommendations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

OBJECTIVE:To characterize the experience of people with epilepsy and aligned healthcare workers (HCWs) during the first 18 months of the COVID-19 pandemic and compare experiences in high-income countries (HICs) with non-HICs. METHODS:Separate surveys for people with epilepsy and HCWs were distributed online in April 2020. Responses were collected to September 2021. Data were collected for COVID-19 infections, the effect of COVID-related restrictions, access to specialist help for epilepsy (people with epilepsy), and the impact of the pandemic on work productivity (HCWs). The frequency of responses for non-HICs and HICs were compared using non-parametric Chi-square tests. RESULTS:Two thousand one hundred and  five individuals with epilepsy from 53 countries and 392 HCWs from 26 countries provided data. The same proportion of people with epilepsy in non-HICs and HICs reported COVID-19 infection (7%). Those in HICs were more likely to report that COVID-19 measures had affected their health (32% vs. 23%; p < 0.001). There was no difference between non-HICs and HICs in the proportion who reported difficulty in obtaining help for epilepsy. HCWs in non-HICs were more likely to report COVID-19 infection than those in HICs (18% vs 6%; p = 0.001) and that their clinical work had been affected by concerns about contracting COVID-19, lack of personal protective equipment, and the impact of the pandemic on mental health (all p < 0.001). Compared to pre-pandemic practices, there was a significant shift to remote consultations in both non-HICs and HICs (p < 0.001). SIGNIFICANCE/CONCLUSIONS:While the frequency of COVID-19 infection was relatively low in these data from early in the pandemic, our findings suggest broader health consequences and an increased psychosocial burden, particularly among HCWs in non-HICs. Planning for future pandemics should prioritize mental healthcare alongside ensuring access to essential epilepsy services and expanding and enhancing access to remote consultations. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS:We asked people with epilepsy about the effects of COVID-19 on their health and healthcare. We wanted to compare responses from people in high-income countries and other countries. We found that people in high-income countries and other countries had similar levels of difficulty in getting help for their epilepsy. People in high-income countries were more likely to say that their general health had been affected. Healthcare workers in non-high-income settings were more likely to have contracted COVID-19 and have the care they deliver affected by the pandemic. Across all settings, COVID-19 associated with a large shift to remote consultations.

OBJECTIVE:The CDKL5 Clinical Severity Assessment (CCSA) is a comprehensive, content-validated measurement tool capturing the diverse challenges of cyclin-dependent kinase-like 5 (CDKL5) deficiency disorder (CDD), a genetically caused developmental epileptic encephalopathy (DEE). The CCSA is divided into clinician-reported (CCSA-Clinician) and caregiver-reported (CCSA-Caregiver) assessments. The aim of this study was to evaluate the factor structure of these measures through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and evaluate their validity and reliability. METHODS:Participants were recruited from the International CDKL5 Clinical Research Network to take part in an in-clinic CCSA-Clinician evaluation (n = 148) and/or complete the CCSA-Caregiver questionnaire (n = 198). CFA was used to determine domains, and factor loadings and validity were assessed. For the CCSA-Clinician, inter-rater reliability was assessed by nine CDD experienced clinicians via 14 pre-recorded evaluations. Eight clinicians re-viewed and re-scored the videos after 4 weeks to evaluate intra-rater reliability. The CCSA-Caregiver was completed on a second occasion by 34 caregivers after 2-4 weeks to assess test-retest reliability. RESULTS:CFA resulted in three domains for the CCSA-Clinician (motor and movement, communication, vision) and four domains for the CCSA-Caregiver (seizures, behavior, alertness, feeding), with good item loadings across both measures. Structural statistics, internal consistency, discriminant validity, and reliability were satisfactory for both measures, and scores were consistent between known groups. SIGNIFICANCE/CONCLUSIONS:This study provides strong evidence that the CCSA measures are suitable to assess the clinical severity of individuals with CDD, supporting their use in clinical trials. Further evaluation of responsiveness to change in a longitudinal assessment is planned. Use may also be appropriate in similar DEEs but would require validation in those populations.

People with disorders of consciousness (DoC) are characteristically unable to synchronously participate in decision-making about clinical care or research. The inability to self-advocate exacerbates preexisting socioeconomic and geographic disparities, which include the wide variability observed across individuals, hospitals, and countries in access to acute care, expertise, and sophisticated diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic interventions. Concerns about equity for people with DoC are particularly notable when they lack a surrogate decision-maker (legally referred to as "unrepresented" or "unbefriended"). Decisions about both short-term and long-term life-sustaining treatment typically rely on neuroprognostication and individual patient preferences that carry additional ethical considerations for people with DoC, as even individuals with well thought out advance directives cannot anticipate every possible situation to guide such decisions. Further challenges exist with the inclusion of people with DoC in research because consent must be completed (in most circumstances) through a surrogate, which excludes those who are unrepresented and may discourage investigators from exploring questions related to this population. In this article, the Curing Coma Campaign Ethics Working Group reviews equity considerations in clinical care and research involving persons with DoC in the following domains: (1) access to acute care and expertise, (2) access to diagnostics and therapeutics, (3) neuroprognostication, (4) medical decision-making for unrepresented people, (5) end-of-life decision-making, (6) access to postacute rehabilitative care, (7) access to research, (8) inclusion of unrepresented people in research, and (9) remuneration and reciprocity for research participation. The goal of this discussion is to advance equitable, harmonized, guideline-directed, and goal-concordant care for people with DoC of all backgrounds worldwide, prioritizing the ethical standards of respect for autonomy, beneficence, and justice. Although the focus of this evaluation is on people with DoC, much of the discussion can be extrapolated to other critically ill persons worldwide.

Cenobamate has demonstrated efficacy in patients with treatment-resistant epilepsy, including patients who continued to have seizures after epilepsy surgery. This article provides recommendations for cenobamate use in patients referred for epilepsy surgery evaluation. A panel of six senior epileptologists from the United States and Europe with experience in presurgical evaluation of patients with epilepsy and in the use of antiseizure medications (ASMs) was convened to provide consensus recommendations for the use of cenobamate in patients referred for epilepsy surgery evaluation. Many patients referred for surgical evaluation may benefit from ASM optimization; both ASM and surgical treatment should be individualized. Based on previous clinical studies and the authors' clinical experience with cenobamate, a substantial proportion of patients with treatment-resistant epilepsy can become seizure-free with cenobamate. We recommend a cenobamate trial and ASM optimization in parallel with presurgical evaluations. Cenobamate can be started before phase two monitoring, especially in patients who are found to be suboptimal surgery candidates. As neurostimulation therapies are generally palliative, we recommend trying cenobamate before vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), deep brain stimulation, or responsive neurostimulation (RNS). In surgically remediable cases (mesial temporal sclerosis, benign discrete lesion in non-eloquent cortex, cavernous angioma, etc.), cenobamate use should not delay imminent surgery; however, a patient may decide to defer or even cancel surgery should they achieve sustained seizure freedom with cenobamate. This decision should be made on an individual, case-by-case basis based on seizure etiology, patient preferences, potential surgical risks (mortality and morbidity), and likely surgical outcome. The addition of cenobamate after unsuccessful surgery or palliative neuromodulation may also be associated with better outcomes.

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a devastating, age-associated neurodegenerative disorder and the most common cause of dementia. The clinical continuum of AD spans from preclinical disease to subjective cognitive decline, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia stages (mild, moderate, and severe). Neuropathologically, AD is defined by the accumulation of amyloid β (Aβ) into extracellular plaques in the brain parenchyma and in the cerebral vasculature, and by abnormally phosphorylated tau that accumulates intraneuronally forming neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs). Development of treatment approaches that prevent or even reduce the cognitive decline because of AD has been slow compared to other major causes of death. Recently, the United States Food and Drug Administration gave full approval to 2 different Aβ-targeting monoclonal antibodies. However, this breakthrough disease modifying approach only applies to a limited subset of patients in the AD continuum and there are stringent eligibility criteria. Furthermore, these approaches do not prevent progression of disease, because other AD-related pathologies, such as NFTs, are not directly targeted. A non-mutually exclusive alternative is to address lifestyle interventions that can help reduce the risk of AD and AD-related dementias (ADRD). It is estimated that addressing such modifiable risk factors could potentially delay up to 40% of AD/ADRD cases. In this review, we discuss some of the many modifiable risk factors that may be associated with prevention of AD/ADRD and/or increasing brain resilience, as well as other factors that may interact with these modifiable risk factors to influence AD/ADRD progression. ANN NEUROL 2024.

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is an incurable and progressive neurodegenerative disease with increasing prevalence worldwide. Previous trials of anti-amyloid and anti-tau immunotherapy indicate that additional research needs to be conducted on other mechanisms to find curative or disease-modifying therapy. This review focuses on apolipoprotein E (ApoE), a critical protein in brain lipid metabolism that acts specifically in the clearance and transport of lipids and cholesterol. The ApoE4 allele confers substantial gene dose-dependent risk of developing AD and lowers the age of onset of AD, although the mechanisms of influence remain incompletely understood. The other isoforms bring different levels of AD risk. ApoE2 is protective while ApoE3 is the most common isoform and is considered neutral. An overview is presented of the latest information on the role of ApoE in AD pathogenesis with an emphasis on pathways that are involved in AD development and interactions with crucial processes in different cell types in the brain. Elucidating the key interactions of ApoE with multiple aspects of brain function can be useful for designing novel ApoE-targeted therapeutic approaches.

BACKGROUND:Pain is a frequent yet poorly characterized symptom of multiple system atrophy (MSA). Understanding the factors influencing pain and its burden is crucial for improving the symptomatic treatment and quality of life of MSA individuals. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed at assessing the prevalence, characteristics, and current treatment strategies for pain in MSA. METHODS:A community-based, online survey was conducted from February to May 2023. Invitations were extended to MSA individuals and informal MSA caregivers through patient advocacies and social media. RESULTS:We included 190 persons with MSA and 114 caregivers. Eighty-seven percent of MSA individuals reported pain, which was more prevalent among women (odds ratio [OR]: 6.38 [95% confidence interval, CI: 1.27-32.08], P = 0.025) and low-income groups (OR: 5.02 [95% CI: 1.32-19.08], P = 0.018). Neck and shoulders (58%), back (45%), and legs (45%) were mostly affected. In the neck and shoulders, pain was associated with MSA core features, like orthostatic intolerance (OR: 4.80 [95% CI: 1.92-12.02], P = 0.001) and antecollis (OR: 3.24 [95% CI: 1.54-6.82], P = 0.002). Seventy-six percent of individuals experiencing pain received treatment, mostly nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (47%), acetaminophen (39%), and opioids (28%). Only 53% of respondents reported at least partial satisfaction with their current pain management. Pain mostly impacted work, household activities, and hobbies of MSA individuals, and caregivers' social activities. CONCLUSIONS:Pain is more prevalent than previously reported in MSA and particularly affects women and low-income groups. Despite its frequency, pain management remains suboptimal, highlighting an urgent therapeutic need, likely entailing an optimized management of MSA core motor and non-motor features. © 2024 The Author(s). Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.