Addressing vaccine-preventable encephalitis in vulnerable populations.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Vaccinations have been pivotal in lowering the global disease burden of vaccine-preventable encephalitides, including Japanese encephalitis, tick-borne encephalitis, measles encephalitis, and rabies encephalitis, among others. RECENT FINDINGS: Populations vulnerable to vaccine-preventable infections that may lead to encephalitis include those living in endemic and rural areas, military members, migrants, refugees, international travelers, younger and older persons, pregnant women, the immunocompromised, outdoor, healthcare and laboratory workers, and the homeless. There is scope for improving the availability and distribution of vaccinations, vaccine equity, surveillance of vaccine-preventable encephalitides, and public education and information. SUMMARY: Addressing these gaps in vaccination strategies will allow for improved vaccination coverage and lead to better health outcomes for those most at risk for vaccine-preventable encephalitis.

How do Healthcare Workers 'Do' Guidelines? Exploring How Policy Decisions Impacted UK Healthcare Workers During the First Phase of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

We describe how COVID-19-related policy decisions and guidelines impacted healthcare workers (HCWs) during the UK's first COVID-19 pandemic phase. Guidelines in healthcare aim to streamline processes, improve quality and manage risk. However, we argue that during this time the guidelines we studied often fell short of these goals in practice. We analysed 74 remote interviews with 14 UK HCWs over 6 months (February-August 2020). Reframing guidelines through Mol's lens of 'enactment', we reveal embodied, relational and material impacts that some guidelines had for HCWs. Beyond guideline 'adherence', we show that enacting guidelines is an ongoing, complex process of negotiating and balancing multilevel tensions. Overall, guidelines: (1) were inconsistently communicated; (2) did not sufficiently accommodate contextual considerations; and (3) were at times in tension with HCWs' values. Healthcare policymakers should produce more agile, acceptable guidelines that frontline HCWs can enact in ways which make sense and are effective in their contexts.

Consensus Clinical Guidance for Diagnosis and Management of Adult COVID-19 Encephalopathy Patients.

Encephalopathy, a common condition among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, can be a challenge to manage and negatively affect prognosis. While encephalopathy may present clinically as delirium, subsyndromal delirium, or coma and may be a result of systemic causes such as hypoxia, COVID-19 has also been associated with more prolonged encephalopathy due to less common but nevertheless severe complications, such as inflammation of the brain parenchyma (with or without cerebrovascular involvement), demyelination, or seizures, which may be disproportionate to COVID-19 severity and require specific management. Given the large number of patients hospitalized with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection, even these relatively unlikely complications are increasingly recognized and are particularly important because they require specific management. Therefore, the aim of this review is to provide pragmatic guidance on the management of COVID-19 encephalopathy through consensus agreement of the Global COVID-19 Neuro Research Coalition. A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, medRxiv, and bioRxiv was conducted between January 1, 2020, and June 21, 2021, with additional review of references cited within the identified bibliographies. A modified Delphi approach was then undertaken to develop recommendations, along with a parallel approach to score the strength of both the recommendations and the supporting evidence. This review presents analysis of contemporaneous evidence for the definition, epidemiology, and pathophysiology of COVID-19 encephalopathy and practical guidance for clinical assessment, investigation, and both acute and long-term management.

Prospective validation of the 4C prognostic models for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 using the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol.

PURPOSE: To prospectively validate two risk scores to predict mortality (4C Mortality) and in-hospital deterioration (4C Deterioration) among adults hospitalised with COVID-19. METHODS: Prospective observational cohort study of adults (age ≥18 years) with confirmed or highly suspected COVID-19 recruited into the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC) WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK (CCP-UK) study in 306 hospitals across England, Scotland and Wales. Patients were recruited between 27 August 2020 and 17 February 2021, with at least 4 weeks follow-up before final data extraction. The main outcome measures were discrimination and calibration of models for in-hospital deterioration (defined as any requirement of ventilatory support or critical care, or death) and mortality, incorporating predefined subgroups. RESULTS: 76 588 participants were included, of whom 27 352 (37.4%) deteriorated and 12 581 (17.4%) died. Both the 4C Mortality (0.78 (0.77 to 0.78)) and 4C Deterioration scores (pooled C-statistic 0.76 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.77)) demonstrated consistent discrimination across all nine National Health Service regions, with similar performance metrics to the original validation cohorts. Calibration remained stable (4C Mortality: pooled slope 1.09, pooled calibration-in-the-large 0.12; 4C Deterioration: 1.00, -0.04), with no need for temporal recalibration during the second UK pandemic wave of hospital admissions. CONCLUSION: Both 4C risk stratification models demonstrate consistent performance to predict clinical deterioration and mortality in a large prospective second wave validation cohort of UK patients. Despite recent advances in the treatment and management of adults hospitalised with COVID-19, both scores can continue to inform clinical decision making. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN66726260.

Neurological manifestations of COVID-19 in adults and children.

Different neurological manifestations of COVID-19 in adults and children and their impact have not been well characterized. We aimed to determine the prevalence of neurological manifestations and in-hospital complications among hospitalized COVID-19 patients and ascertain differences between adults and children. We conducted a prospective multicenter observational study using the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infection Consortium cohort across 1507 sites worldwide from January/30th/2020 to May/25th/2021. Analyses of neurological manifestations and neurological complications considered unadjusted prevalence estimates for predefined patient subgroups, and adjusted estimates as a function of patient age and time of hospitalization using generalized linear models. Overall, 161,239 patients (158,267 adults; 2,972 children) hospitalized with COVID-19 and assessed for neurological manifestations and complications were included. In adults and children, the most frequent neurological manifestations at admission were fatigue (adults: 37.4%; children: 20.4%), altered consciousness (20.9%; 6.8%), myalgia (16.9%; 7.6%), dysgeusia (7.4%; 1.9%), anosmia (6.0%; 2.2%), and seizure (1.1%; 5.2%). In adults, the most frequent in-hospital neurological complications were stroke (1.5%), seizure (1%), and central nervous system (CNS) infection (0.2%). Each occurred more frequently in ICU than in non-ICU patients. In children, seizure was the only neurological complication to occur more frequently in ICU vs. non-ICU (7.1% vs. 2.3%, P < .001). Stroke prevalence increased with increasing age, while CNS infection and seizure steadily decreased with age. There was a dramatic decrease in stroke over time during the pandemic. Hypertension, chronic neurological disease, and the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation were associated with increased risk of stroke. Altered consciousness was associated with CNS infection, seizure, and stroke. All in-hospital neurological complications were associated with increased odds of death. The likelihood of death rose with increasing age, especially after 25 years of age. In conclusion, adults and children have different neurological manifestations and in-hospital complications associated with COVID-19. Stroke risk increased with increasing age, while CNS infection and seizure risk decreased with age.

Anosmia: Brighton Collaboration case definition and guidelines for data collection, analysis, and presentation of immunization safety data.

This is a Brighton Collaboration case definition of anosmia to be used in the evaluation of adverse events following immunization, and for epidemiologic studies for the assessment of background incidence or hypothesis testing. The case definition was developed by a group of experts convened by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) in the context of active development of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. The case definition format of the Brighton Collaboration was followed to develop a consensus definition and defined levels of certainty, after an exhaustive review of the literature and expert consultation. The document underwent peer review by the Brighton Collaboration Network and by two expert reviewers prior to submission.

How did UK policymaking in the COVID-19 response use science? Evidence from scientific advisers

Background:Responses to COVID-19 have invested heavily in science. How this science was used is therefore important. Our work extends existing knowledge on the use of science in the pandemic by capturing scientific advisers’ experiences in real time.Aims and objectives:Our aim was to present generalisable messages on key qualifications or difficulties involved in speaking of ‘following the science’.Methods:Ninety-three interviews with UK scientific advisors and government officials captured their activities and perceptions during the pandemic in real time. We also examined Parliamentary Select Committee transcripts and government documents. This material was analysed for thematic content.Findings and discussion:(1) Many scientists sought guidance from policymakers about their goals, yet the COVID-19 response demonstrated the absence of a clear steer, and a tendency to change course quickly;(2) many scientists did not want to offer policy advice, but rather to provide evidence;and (3) a range of knowledge informed the UK’s pandemic response: we examine which kinds were privileged, and demonstrate the absence of clarity on how government synthesised the different forms of evidence being used.Conclusions:Understanding the reasons for a lack of clarity about policy goals would help us better understand the use of science in policy. Realisation that policy goals sometimes alter rapidly would help us better understand the logistics of scientific advice. Many scientists want their evidence to inform policy rather than determine the options selected. Since the process by which evidence leads to decisions is obscure, policy cannot be said to be evidence-based.

Guillain-Barré syndrome following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in the UK: a prospective surveillance study.

Objective: To investigate features of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) following SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and evaluate for a causal link between the two. Methods: We captured cases of GBS after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination through a national, open-access, online surveillance system. For each case, the certainty of GBS was graded using the Brighton criteria, and the relationship to the vaccine was examined using modified WHO Causality Assessment criteria. We compared age distribution of cases with that of prepandemic GBS cases and clinical features with the International GBS Outcome Study (IGOS). Results: Between 1 January and 30 June 2021, we received 67 reports of GBS following the ChAdOx1 vaccine (65 first doses) and three reports following the BNT162b2 vaccine (all first doses). The causal association with the vaccine was classified as probable for 56 (80%, all ChAdOx1), possible for 12 (17%, 10 ChAdOx1) and unlikely for two (3%, 1 ChAdOx1). A greater proportion of cases occurred in the 50-59 age group in comparison with prepandemic GBS. Most common clinical variants were sensorimotor GBS (n=55; 79%) and facial diplegia with paraesthesias (n=10; 14%). 10% (n=7/69) of patients reported an antecedent infection, compared with 77% (n=502/652) of the IGOS cohort (p<0.00001). Facial weakness (63% (n=44/70) vs 36% (n=220/620); p<0.00001) and sensory dysfunction (93% (n=63/68) vs 69% (n=408/588); p=0.00005) were more common but disease severity and outcomes were similar to the IGOS study. Interpretation: Most reports of GBS followed the first dose of ChAdOx1 vaccine. While our study cannot confirm or refute causation, this observation, together with the absence of alternative aetiologies, different than expected age distribution and the presence of unusual clinical features support a causal link. Clinicians and surveillance bodies should remain vigilant to the possibility of this very rare adverse event and its atypical variants.

Safety of COVID-19 vaccination and acute neurological events: A self-controlled case series in England using the OpenSAFELY platform.

INTRODUCTION: We investigated the potential association of COVID-19 vaccination with three acute neurological events: Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), transverse myelitis and Bell's palsy. METHODS: With the approval of NHS England we analysed primary care data from >17 million patients in England linked to emergency care, hospital admission and mortality records in the OpenSAFELY platform. Separately for each vaccine brand, we used a self-controlled case series design to estimate the incidence rate ratio for each outcome in the period following vaccination (4-42 days for GBS, 4-28 days for transverse myelitis and Bell's palsy) compared to a within-person baseline, using conditional Poisson regression. RESULTS: Among 7,783,441 ChAdOx1 vaccinees, there was an increased rate of GBS (N = 517; incidence rate ratio 2·85; 95% CI2·33-3·47) and Bell's palsy (N = 5,350; 1·39; 1·27-1·53) following a first dose of ChAdOx1 vaccine, corresponding to 11.0 additional cases of GBS and 17.9 cases of Bell's palsy per 1 million vaccinees if causal. For GBS this applied to the first, but not the second, dose. There was no clear evidence of an association of ChAdOx1 vaccination with transverse myelitis (N = 199; 1·51; 0·96-2·37). Among 5,729,152 BNT162b2 vaccinees, there was no evidence of any association with GBS (N = 283; 1·09; 0·75-1·57), transverse myelitis (N = 109; 1·62; 0·86-3·03) or Bell's palsy (N = 3,609; 0·89; 0·76-1·03). Among 255,446 mRNA-1273 vaccine recipients there was no evidence of an association with Bell's palsy (N = 78; 0·88, 0·32-2·42). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccines save lives, but it is important to understand rare adverse events. We observed a short-term increased rate of Guillain-Barré syndrome and Bell's palsy after first dose of ChAdOx1 vaccine. The absolute risk, assuming a causal effect attributable to vaccination, was low.

Neurology and neuropsychiatry of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the early literature reveals frequent CNS manifestations and key emerging narratives

There is accumulating evidence of the neurological and neuropsychiatric features of infection with SARS-CoV-2. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to describe the characteristics of the early literature and estimate point prevalences for neurological and neuropsychiatric manifestations. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL up to 18 July 2020 for randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies and case series. Studies reporting prevalences of neurological or neuropsychiatric symptoms were synthesised into meta-analyses to estimate pooled prevalence. 13 292 records were screened by at least two authors to identify 215 included studies, of which there were 37 cohort studies, 15 case-control studies, 80 cross-sectional studies and 83 case series from 30 countries. 147 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The symptoms with the highest prevalence were anosmia (43.1% (95% CI 35.2% to 51.3%), n = 15 975, 63 studies), weakness (40.0% (95% CI 27.9% to 53.5%), n = 221, 3 studies), fatigue (37.8% (95% CI 31.6% to 44.4%), n = 21 101, 67 studies), dysgeusia (37.2% (95% CI 29.8% to 45.3%), n = 13 686, 52 studies), myalgia (25.1% (95% CI 19.8% to 31.3%), n = 66 268, 76 studies), depression (23.0% (95% CI 11.8% to 40.2%), n = 43 128, 10 studies), headache (20.7% (95% CI 16.1% to 26.1%), n = 64 613, 84 studies), anxiety (15.9% (5.6% to 37.7%), n = 42 566, 9 studies) and altered mental status (8.2% (95% CI 4.4% to 14.8%), n = 49 326, 19 studies). Heterogeneity for most clinical manifestations was high.Neurological and neuropsychiatric symptoms of COVID-19 in the pandemic's early phase are varied and common. The neurological and psychiatric academic communities should develop systems to facilitate high-quality methodologies, including more rapid examination of the longitudinal course of neuropsychiatric complications of newly emerging diseases and their relationship to neuroimaging and inflammatory biomarkers. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)

Experiences and concerns of health workers throughout the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: A longitudinal qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the experiences and concerns of health workers (HWs), and how they changed, throughout the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. METHODS: Longitudinal, qualitative study with HWs involved in patient management or delivery of care related to COVID-19 in general practice, emergency departments and hospitals. Participants were identified through snowballing. Semi-structured telephone or video interviews were conducted between February 2020 and February 2021, audio-recorded, summarised, and transcribed. Data were analysed longitudinally using framework and thematic analysis. RESULTS: We conducted 105 interviews with 14 participants and identified three phases corresponding with shifts in HWs' experiences and concerns. (1) Emergency and mobilisation phase (late winter-spring 2020), with significant rapid shifts in responsibilities, required skills, and training, and challenges in patient care. (2) Consolidation and preparation phase (summer-autumn 2020), involving gradual return to usual care and responsibilities, sense of professional development and improvement in care, and focus on learning and preparing for future. (3) Exhaustion and survival phase (autumn 2020-winter 2021), entailing return of changes in responsibilities, focus on balancing COVID-19 and non-COVID care (until becoming overwhelmed with COVID-19 cases), and concerns about longer-term impacts of unceasing pressure on health services. Participants' perceptions of COVID-19 risk and patient/public attitudes changed throughout the year, and tiredness and weariness turned into exhaustion. CONCLUSIONS: Results showed a long-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on UK HWs' experiences and concerns related to changes in their roles, provision of care, and personal wellbeing. Despite mobilisation in the emergency phase, and trying to learn from this, HWs' experiences seemed to be similar or worse in the second wave partly due to many COVID-19 cases. The findings highlight the importance of supporting HWs and strengthening system-level resilience (e.g., with resources, processes) to enable them to respond to current and future demands and emergencies.

Frequency of Neurologic Manifestations in COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: One year after the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, we aimed to summarize the frequency of neurologic manifestations reported in patients with COVID-19 and to investigate the association of these manifestations with disease severity and mortality. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Medline, Cochrane library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and EMBASE for studies from December 31, 2019, to December 15, 2020, enrolling consecutive patients with COVID-19 presenting with neurologic manifestations. Risk of bias was examined with the Joanna Briggs Institute scale. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed, and pooled prevalence and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for neurologic manifestations. Odds ratio (ORs) and 95% CIs were calculated to determine the association of neurologic manifestations with disease severity and mortality. Presence of heterogeneity was assessed with I 2, meta-regression, and subgroup analyses. Statistical analyses were conducted in R version 3.6.2. RESULTS: Of 2,455 citations, 350 studies were included in this review, providing data on 145,721 patients with COVID-19, 89% of whom were hospitalized. Forty-one neurologic manifestations (24 symptoms and 17 diagnoses) were identified. Pooled prevalence of the most common neurologic symptoms included fatigue (32%), myalgia (20%), taste impairment (21%), smell impairment (19%), and headache (13%). A low risk of bias was observed in 85% of studies; studies with higher risk of bias yielded higher prevalence estimates. Stroke was the most common neurologic diagnosis (pooled prevalence 2%). In patients with COVID-19 ≥60 years of age, the pooled prevalence of acute confusion/delirium was 34%, and the presence of any neurologic manifestations in this age group was associated with mortality (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.11-2.91). DISCUSSION: Up to one-third of patients with COVID-19 analyzed in this review experienced at least 1 neurologic manifestation. One in 50 patients experienced stroke. In those >60 years of age, more than one-third had acute confusion/delirium; the presence of neurologic manifestations in this group was associated with nearly a doubling of mortality. Results must be interpreted with the limitations of observational studies and associated bias in mind. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020181867.

Learning from the past & present: social science implications for COVID-19 immunity-based documentation

In responding to the widespread impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, countries have proposed and implemented documentation policies that confer varying levels of freedoms or restrictions (e.g., ability to travel) based on individuals’ infection status or potential immunity. Most discussions around immunity- or infection-based documentation policies have focused on scientific plausibility, economic benefit, and challenges relating to ethics and equity. As COVID-19 vaccines are rolled out, attention has turned to confirmation of immunity and how documentation such as vaccine certificates or immunity passports can be implemented. However, the contextual inequities and local variabilities interacting with COVID-19 related documentation policies hinder a one-size-fits-all approach. In this Comment, we argue that social science perspectives can and should provide additional insight into these issues, through a diverse range of current and historical examples. This would enable policymakers and researchers to better understand and mitigate current and longer-term differential impacts of COVID-19 immunity-based documentation policies in different contexts. Furthermore, social science research methods can uniquely provide feedback to inform adjustments to policy implementation in real-time and help to document how these policy measures are felt differently across communities, populations, and countries, potentially for years to come. This Comment, updated as of 15 August 2021, combines precedents established in historical disease outbreaks and current experiences with COVID-19 immunity-based documentation policies to highlight valuable lessons and an acute need for further social science research which should inform effective and context-appropriate future public health policy and action.

Cerebral venous thrombosis after vaccination against COVID-19 in the UK: a multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: A new syndrome of vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) has emerged as a rare side-effect of vaccination against COVID-19. Cerebral venous thrombosis is the most common manifestation of this syndrome but, to our knowledge, has not previously been described in detail. We aimed to document the features of post-vaccination cerebral venous thrombosis with and without VITT and to assess whether VITT is associated with poorer outcomes. METHODS: For this multicentre cohort study, clinicians were asked to submit all cases in which COVID-19 vaccination preceded the onset of cerebral venous thrombosis, regardless of the type of vaccine, interval between vaccine and onset of cerebral venous thrombosis symptoms, or blood test results. We collected clinical characteristics, laboratory results (including the results of tests for anti-platelet factor 4 antibodies where available), and radiological features at hospital admission of patients with cerebral venous thrombosis after vaccination against COVID-19, with no exclusion criteria. We defined cerebral venous thrombosis cases as VITT-associated if the lowest platelet count recorded during admission was below 150 × 109 per L and, if the D-dimer was measured, the highest value recorded was greater than 2000 µg/L. We compared the VITT and non-VITT groups for the proportion of patients who had died or were dependent on others to help them with their activities of daily living (modified Rankin score 3-6) at the end of hospital admission (the primary outcome of the study). The VITT group were also compared with a large cohort of patients with cerebral venous thrombosis described in the International Study on Cerebral Vein and Dural Sinus Thrombosis. FINDINGS: Between April 1 and May 20, 2021, we received data on 99 patients from collaborators in 43 hospitals across the UK. Four patients were excluded because they did not have definitive evidence of cerebral venous thrombosis on imaging. Of the remaining 95 patients, 70 had VITT and 25 did not. The median age of the VITT group (47 years, IQR 32-55) was lower than in the non-VITT group (57 years; 41-62; p=0·0045). Patients with VITT-associated cerebral venous thrombosis had more intracranial veins thrombosed (median three, IQR 2-4) than non-VITT patients (two, 2-3; p=0·041) and more frequently had extracranial thrombosis (31 [44%] of 70 patients) compared with non-VITT patients (one [4%] of 25 patients; p=0·0003). The primary outcome of death or dependency occurred more frequently in patients with VITT-associated cerebral venous thrombosis (33 [47%] of 70 patients) compared with the non-VITT control group (four [16%] of 25 patients; p=0·0061). This adverse outcome was less frequent in patients with VITT who received non-heparin anticoagulants (18 [36%] of 50 patients) compared with those who did not (15 [75%] of 20 patients; p=0·0031), and in those who received intravenous immunoglobulin (22 [40%] of 55 patients) compared with those who did not (11 [73%] of 15 patients; p=0·022). INTERPRETATION: Cerebral venous thrombosis is more severe in the context of VITT. Non-heparin anticoagulants and immunoglobulin treatment might improve outcomes of VITT-associated cerebral venous thrombosis. Since existing criteria excluded some patients with otherwise typical VITT-associated cerebral venous thrombosis, we propose new diagnostic criteria that are more appropriate. FUNDING: None.

Subacute Cognitive Impairment in Individuals With Mild and Moderate COVID-19: A Case Series.

Background: Previous reported neurologic sequelae associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection have mainly been confined to hospital-based patients in which viral detection was restricted to nasal/throat swabs or to IgM/IgG peripheral blood serology. Here we describe seven cases from Brazil of outpatients with previous mild or moderate COVID-19 who developed subacute cognitive disturbances. Methods: From June 1 to August 15, 2020, seven individuals 18 to 60 years old, with confirmed mild/moderate COVID-19 and findings consistent with encephalopathy who were observed >7 days after respiratory symptom initiation, were screened for cognitive dysfunction. Paired sera and CSF were tested for SARS-CoV-2 (IgA, IgG ELISA, and RT-PCR). Serum and intrathecal antibody dynamics were evaluated with oligoclonal bands and IgG index. Cognitive dysfunction was assessed by the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and the Clock Drawing Test (CDT). Results: All but one of our patients were female, and the mean age was 42.6 years. Neurologic symptoms were first reported a median of 16 days (IQR 15-33) after initial COVID-19 symptoms. All patients had headache and altered behavior. Cognitive dysfunction was observed mainly in phonemic verbal fluency (MoCA) with a median of six words/min (IQR 5.25-10.75) and altered visuospatial construction with a median of four points (IQR 4-9) (CDT). CSF pleocytosis was not detected, and only one patient was positive for SARS-Co Conclusions: A subacute cognitive syndrome suggestive of SARS-CoV-2-initiated damage to cortico-subcortical associative pathways that could not be attributed solely to inflammation and hypoxia was present in seven individuals with mild/moderate COVID-19.

Spectrum, risk factors and outcomes of neurological and psychiatric complications of COVID-19: a UK-wide cross-sectional surveillance study.

SARS-CoV-2 is associated with new-onset neurological and psychiatric conditions. Detailed clinical data, including factors associated with recovery, are lacking, hampering prediction modelling and targeted therapeutic interventions. In a UK-wide cross-sectional surveillance study of adult hospitalized patients during the first COVID-19 wave, with multi-professional input from general and sub-specialty neurologists, psychiatrists, stroke physicians, and intensivists, we captured detailed data on demographics, risk factors, pre-COVID-19 Rockwood frailty score, comorbidities, neurological presentation and outcome. A priori clinical case definitions were used, with cross-specialty independent adjudication for discrepant cases. Multivariable logistic regression was performed using demographic and clinical variables, to determine the factors associated with outcome. A total of 267 cases were included. Cerebrovascular events were most frequently reported (131, 49%), followed by other central disorders (95, 36%) including delirium (28, 11%), central inflammatory (25, 9%), psychiatric (25, 9%), and other encephalopathies (17, 7%), including a severe encephalopathy (n = 13) not meeting delirium criteria; and peripheral nerve disorders (41, 15%). Those with the severe encephalopathy, in comparison to delirium, were younger, had higher rates of admission to intensive care and a longer duration of ventilation. Compared to normative data during the equivalent time period prior to the pandemic, cases of stroke in association with COVID-19 were younger and had a greater number of conventional, modifiable cerebrovascular risk factors. Twenty-seven per cent of strokes occurred in patients <60 years. Relative to those >60 years old, the younger stroke patients presented with delayed onset from respiratory symptoms, higher rates of multi-vessel occlusion (31%) and systemic thrombotic events. Clinical outcomes varied between disease groups, with cerebrovascular disease conferring the worst prognosis, but this effect was less marked than the pre-morbid factors of older age and a higher pre-COVID-19 frailty score, and a high admission white cell count, which were independently associated with a poor outcome. In summary, this study describes the spectrum of neurological and psychiatric conditions associated with COVID-19. In addition, we identify a severe COVID-19 encephalopathy atypical for delirium, and a phenotype of COVID-19 associated stroke in younger adults with a tendency for multiple infarcts and systemic thromboses. These clinical data will be useful to inform mechanistic studies and stratification of patients in clinical trials.

Serum and cerebrospinal fluid biomarker profiles in acute SARS-CoV-2-associated neurological syndromes.

Preliminary pathological and biomarker data suggest that SARS-CoV-2 infection can damage the nervous system. To understand what, where and how damage occurs, we collected serum and CSF from patients with COVID-19 and characterized neurological syndromes involving the PNS and CNS (n = 34). We measured biomarkers of neuronal damage and neuroinflammation, and compared these with non-neurological control groups, which included patients with (n = 94) and without (n = 24) COVID-19. We detected increased concentrations of neurofilament light, a dynamic biomarker of neuronal damage, in the CSF of those with CNS inflammation (encephalitis and acute disseminated encephalomyelitis) [14 800 pg/ml (400, 32 400)], compared to those with encephalopathy [1410 pg/ml (756, 1446)], peripheral syndromes (Guillain-Barré syndrome) [740 pg/ml (507, 881)] and controls [872 pg/ml (654, 1200)]. Serum neurofilament light levels were elevated across patients hospitalized with COVID-19, irrespective of neurological manifestations. There was not the usual close correlation between CSF and serum neurofilament light, suggesting serum neurofilament light elevation in the non-neurological patients may reflect peripheral nerve damage in response to severe illness. We did not find significantly elevated levels of serum neurofilament light in community cases of COVID-19 arguing against significant neurological damage. Glial fibrillary acidic protein, a marker of astrocytic activation, was not elevated in the CSF or serum of any group, suggesting astrocytic activation is not a major mediator of neuronal damage in COVID-19.

Antiphospholipid antibodies and neurological manifestations in acute COVID-19: A single-centre cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: A high prevalence of antiphospholipid antibodies has been reported in case series of patients with neurological manifestations and COVID-19; however, the pathogenicity of antiphospholipid antibodies in COVID-19 neurology remains unclear. METHODS: This single-centre cross-sectional study included 106 adult patients: 30 hospitalised COVID-neurological cases, 47 non-neurological COVID-hospitalised controls, and 29 COVID-non-hospitalised controls, recruited between March and July 2020. We evaluated nine antiphospholipid antibodies: anticardiolipin antibodies [aCL] IgA, IgM, IgG; anti-beta-2 glycoprotein-1 [aß2GPI] IgA, IgM, IgG; anti-phosphatidylserine/prothrombin [aPS/PT] IgM, IgG; and anti-domain I ß2GPI (aD1ß2GPI) IgG. FINDINGS: There was a high prevalence of antiphospholipid antibodies in the COVID-neurological (73.3%) and non-neurological COVID-hospitalised controls (76.6%) in contrast to the COVID-non-hospitalised controls (48.2%). aPS/PT IgG titres were significantly higher in the COVID-neurological group compared to both control groups (p < 0.001). Moderate-high titre of aPS/PT IgG was found in 2 out of 3 (67%) patients with acute disseminated encephalomyelitis [ADEM]. aPS/PT IgG titres negatively correlated with oxygen requirement (FiO2 R=-0.15 p = 0.040) and was associated with venous thromboembolism (p = 0.043). In contrast, aCL IgA (p < 0.001) and IgG (p < 0.001) was associated with non-neurological COVID-hospitalised controls compared to the other groups and correlated positively with d-dimer and creatinine but negatively with FiO2. INTERPRETATION: Our findings show that aPS/PT IgG is associated with COVID-19-associated ADEM. In contrast, aCL IgA and IgG are seen much more frequently in non-neurological hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Characterisation of antiphospholipid antibody persistence and potential longitudinal clinical impact are required to guide appropriate management. FUNDING: This work is supported by UCL Queen Square Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) and Moorfields BRC grants (#560441 and #557595). LB is supported by a Wellcome Trust Fellowship (222102/Z/20/Z). RWP is supported by an Alzheimer's Association Clinician Scientist Fellowship (AACSF-20-685780) and the UK Dementia Research Institute. KB is supported by the Swedish Research Council (#2017-00915) and the Swedish state under the agreement between the Swedish government and the County Councils, the ALF-agreement (#ALFGBG-715986). HZ is a Wallenberg Scholar supported by grants from the Swedish Research Council (#2018-02532), the European Research Council (#681712), Swedish State Support for Clinical Research (#ALFGBG-720931), the Alzheimer Drug Discovery Foundation (ADDF), USA (#201809-2016862), and theUK Dementia Research Institute at UCL. BDM is supported by grants from the MRC/UKRI (MR/V007181/1), MRC (MR/T028750/1) and Wellcome (ISSF201902/3). MSZ, MH and RS are supported by the UCL/UCLH NIHR Biomedical Research Centre and MSZ is supported by Queen Square National Brain Appeal.

Investigation of SARS-CoV-2 faecal shedding in the community: a prospective household cohort study (COVID-LIV) in the UK.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 is frequently shed in the stool of patients hospitalised with COVID-19. The extent of faecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2 among individuals in the community, and its potential to contribute to spread of disease, is unknown. METHODS: In this prospective, observational cohort study among households in Liverpool, UK, participants underwent weekly nasal/throat swabbing to detect SARS-CoV-2 virus, over a 12-week period from enrolment starting July 2020. Participants that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were asked to provide a stool sample three and 14 days later. In addition, in October and November 2020, during a period of high community transmission, stool sampling was undertaken to determine the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 faecal shedding among all study participants. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected using Real-Time PCR. RESULTS: A total of 434 participants from 176 households were enrolled. Eighteen participants (4.2%: 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.5-6.5%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 virus on nasal/throat swabs and of these, 3/17 (18%: 95% CI 4-43%) had SARS-CoV-2 detected in stool. Two of three participants demonstrated ongoing faecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2, without gastrointestinal symptoms, after testing negative for SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory samples. Among 165/434 participants without SARS-CoV-2 infection and who took part in the prevalence study, none had SARS-CoV-2 in stool. There was no demonstrable household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among households containing a participant with faecal shedding. CONCLUSIONS: Faecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2 occurred among community participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, during a period of high community transmission, faecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2 was not detected among participants without SARS-CoV-2 infection. It is unlikely that the faecal-oral route plays a significant role in household and community transmission of SARS-CoV-2.