Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 52
Filter
1.
Relph, Katharine A.; Russell, Clark D.; Fairfield, Cameron J.; Turtle, Lance, de Silva, Thushan I.; Siggins, Matthew K.; Drake, Thomas M.; Thwaites, Ryan S.; Abrams, Simon, Moore, Shona C.; Hardwick, Hayley E.; Oosthuyzen, Wilna, Harrison, Ewen M.; Docherty, Annemarie B.; Openshaw, Peter J. M.; Baillie, J. Kenneth, Semple, Malcolm G.; Ho, Antonia, Baillie, J. Kenneth, Semple, Malcolm G.; Openshaw, Peter J. M.; Carson, Gail, Alex, Beatrice, Bach, Benjamin, Barclay, Wendy S.; Bogaert, Debby, Chand, Meera, Cooke, Graham S.; Docherty, Annemarie B.; Dunning, Jake, Filipe, Ana da Silva, Fletcher, Tom, Green, Christopher A.; Harrison, Ewen M.; Hiscox, Julian A.; Ho, Antonia Ying Wai, Horby, Peter W.; Ijaz, Samreen, Khoo, Saye, Klenerman, Paul, Law, Andrew, Lim, Wei Shen, Mentzer, Alexander J.; Merson, Laura, Meynert, Alison M.; Noursadeghi, Mahdad, Moore, Shona C.; Palmarini, Massimo, Paxton, William A.; Pollakis, Georgios, Price, Nicholas, Rambaut, Andrew, Robertson, David L.; Russell, Clark D.; Sancho-Shimizu, Vanessa, Scott, Janet T.; de Silva, Thushan, Sigfrid, Louise, Solomon, Tom, Sriskandan, Shiranee, Stuart, David, Summers, Charlotte, Tedder, Richard S.; Thomson, Emma C.; Roger Thompson, A. A.; Thwaites, Ryan S.; Turtle, Lance C. W.; Gupta, Rishi K.; Zambon, Maria, Hardwick, Hayley, Donohue, Chloe, Lyons, Ruth, Griffiths, Fiona, Oosthuyzen, Wilna, Norman, Lisa, Pius, Riinu, Drake, Thomas M.; Fairfield, Cameron J.; Knight, Stephen R.; McLean, Kenneth A.; Murphy, Derek, Shaw, Catherine A.; Dalton, Jo, Girvan, Michelle, Saviciute, Egle, Roberts, Stephanie, Harrison, Janet, Marsh, Laura, Connor, Marie, Halpin, Sophie, Jackson, Clare, Gamble, Carrol, Leeming, Gary, Law, Andrew, Wham, Murray, Clohisey, Sara, Hendry, Ross, Scott-Brown, James, Greenhalf, William, Shaw, Victoria, McDonald, Sara, Keating, Seán, Ahmed, Katie A.; Armstrong, Jane A.; Ashworth, Milton, Asiimwe, Innocent G.; Bakshi, Siddharth, Barlow, Samantha L.; Booth, Laura, Brennan, Benjamin, Bullock, Katie, Catterall, Benjamin W. A.; Clark, Jordan J.; Clarke, Emily A.; Cole, Sarah, Cooper, Louise, Cox, Helen, Davis, Christopher, Dincarslan, Oslem, Dunn, Chris, Dyer, Philip, Elliott, Angela, Evans, Anthony, Finch, Lorna, Fisher, Lewis W. S.; Foster, Terry, Garcia-Dorival, Isabel, Greenhalf, William, Gunning, Philip, Hartley, Catherine, Jensen, Rebecca L.; Jones, Christopher B.; Jones, Trevor R.; Khandaker, Shadia, King, Katharine, Kiy, Robyn T.; Koukorava, Chrysa, Lake, Annette, Lant, Suzannah, Latawiec, Diane, Lavelle-Langham, Lara, Lefteri, Daniella, Lett, Lauren, Livoti, Lucia A.; Mancini, Maria, McDonald, Sarah, McEvoy, Laurence, McLauchlan, John, Metelmann, Soeren, Miah, Nahida S.; Middleton, Joanna, Mitchell, Joyce, Moore, Shona C.; Murphy, Ellen G.; Penrice-Randal, Rebekah, Pilgrim, Jack, Prince, Tessa, Reynolds, Will, Matthew Ridley, P.; Sales, Debby, Shaw, Victoria E.; Shears, Rebecca K.; Small, Benjamin, Subramaniam, Krishanthi S.; Szemiel, Agnieska, Taggart, Aislynn, Tanianis-Hughes, Jolanta, Thomas, Jordan, Trochu, Erwan, van Tonder, Libby, Wilcock, Eve, Eunice Zhang, J.; Flaherty, Lisa, Maziere, Nicole, Cass, Emily, Doce Carracedo, Alejandra, Carlucci, Nicola, Holmes, Anthony, Massey, Hannah, Murphy, Lee, Wrobel, Nicola, McCafferty, Sarah, Morrice, Kirstie, MacLean, Alan, Adeniji, Kayode, Agranoff, Daniel, Agwuh, Ken, Ail, Dhiraj, Aldera, Erin L.; Alegria, Ana, Angus, Brian, Ashish, Abdul, Atkinson, Dougal, Bari, Shahedal, Barlow, Gavin, Barnass, Stella, Barrett, Nicholas, Bassford, Christopher, Basude, Sneha, Baxter, David, Beadsworth, Michael, Bernatoniene, Jolanta, Berridge, John, Best, Nicola, Bothma, Pieter, Chadwick, David, Brittain-Long, Robin, Bulteel, Naomi, Burden, Tom, Burtenshaw, Andrew, Caruth, Vikki, Chadwick, David, Chambler, Duncan, Chee, Nigel, Child, Jenny, Chukkambotla, Srikanth, Clark, Tom, Collini, Paul, Cosgrove, Catherine, Cupitt, Jason, Cutino-Moguel, Maria-Teresa, Dark, Paul, Dawson, Chris, Dervisevic, Samir, Donnison, Phil, Douthwaite, Sam, DuRand, Ingrid, Dushianthan, Ahilanadan, Dyer, Tristan, Evans, Cariad, Eziefula, Chi, Fegan, Christopher, Finn, Adam, Fullerton, Duncan, Garg, Sanjeev, Garg, Sanjeev, Garg, Atul, Gkrania-Klotsas, Effrossyni, Godden, Jo, Goldsmith, Arthur, Graham, Clive, Hardy, Elaine, Hartshorn, Stuart, Harvey, Daniel, Havalda, Peter, Hawcutt, Daniel B.; Hobrok, Maria, Hodgson, Luke, Hormis, Anil, Jacobs, Michael, Jain, Susan, Jennings, Paul, Kaliappan, Agilan, Kasipandian, Vidya, Kegg, Stephen, Kelsey, Michael, Kendall, Jason, Kerrison, Caroline, Kerslake, Ian, Koch, Oliver, Koduri, Gouri, Koshy, George, Laha, Shondipon, Laird, Steven, Larkin, Susan, Leiner, Tamas, Lillie, Patrick, Limb, James, Linnett, Vanessa, Little, Jeff, Lyttle, Mark, MacMahon, Michael, MacNaughton, Emily, Mankregod, Ravish, Masson, Huw, Matovu, Elijah, McCullough, Katherine, McEwen, Ruth, Meda, Manjula, Mills, Gary, Minton, Jane, Mirfenderesky, Mariyam, Mohandas, Kavya, Mok, Quen, Moon, James, Moore, Elinoor, Morgan, Patrick, Morris, Craig, Mortimore, Katherine, Moses, Samuel, Mpenge, Mbiye, Mulla, Rohinton, Murphy, Michael, Nagel, Megan, Nagarajan, Thapas, Nelson, Mark, O’Shea, Matthew K.; Otahal, Igor, Ostermann, Marlies, Pais, Mark, Panchatsharam, Selva, Papakonstantinou, Danai, Paraiso, Hassan, Patel, Brij, Pattison, Natalie, Pepperell, Justin, Peters, Mark, Phull, Mandeep, Pintus, Stefania, Pooni, Jagtur Singh, Post, Frank, Price, David, Prout, Rachel, Rae, Nikolas, Reschreiter, Henrik, Reynolds, Tim, Richardson, Neil, Roberts, Mark, Roberts, Devender, Rose, Alistair, Rousseau, Guy, Ryan, Brendan, Saluja, Taranprit, Shah, Aarti, Shanmuga, Prad, Sharma, Anil, Shawcross, Anna, Sizer, Jeremy, Shankar-Hari, Manu, Smith, Richard, Snelson, Catherine, Spittle, Nick, Staines, Nikki, Stambach, Tom, Stewart, Richard, Subudhi, Pradeep, Szakmany, Tamas, Tatham, Kate, Thomas, Jo, Thompson, Chris, Thompson, Robert, Tridente, Ascanio, Tupper-Carey, Darell, Twagira, Mary, Ustianowski, Andrew, Vallotton, Nick, Vincent-Smith, Lisa, Visuvanathan, Shico, Vuylsteke, Alan, Waddy, Sam, Wake, Rachel, Walden, Andrew, Welters, Ingeborg, Whitehouse, Tony, Whittaker, Paul, Whittington, Ashley, Papineni, Padmasayee, Wijesinghe, Meme, Williams, Martin, Wilson, Lawrence, Cole, Sarah, Winchester, Stephen, Wiselka, Martin, Wolverson, Adam, Wootton, Daniel G.; Workman, Andrew, Yates, Bryan, Young, Peter.
Open Forum Infectious Diseases ; 9(5), 2022.
Article in English | PMC | ID: covidwho-1821760

ABSTRACT

Admission procalcitonin measurements and microbiology results were available for 1040 hospitalized adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (from 48 902 included in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium World Health Organization Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK study). Although procalcitonin was higher in bacterial coinfection, this was neither clinically significant (median [IQR], 0.33 [0.11–1.70] ng/mL vs 0.24 [0.10–0.90] ng/mL) nor diagnostically useful (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.56 [95% confidence interval, .51–.60]).

2.
SSRN; 2022.
Preprint in English | SSRN | ID: ppcovidwho-332147

ABSTRACT

Background The neurological manifestations of COVID-19 have not been well characterized. Our goals were to determine the prevalence of neurological diagnoses among COVID-19 patients hospitalized in intensive care unit (ICU) and non-ICU settings and ascertain differences between adults and children. Methods We analysed the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) database, which collects data from 61 countries and 1507 sites. 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 hospitalisation using generalised linear models. Findings Overall, 161 239 patients (158 267 adults;2972 children) hospitalized with COVID-19 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%). Among adults, rates were significantly higher in the ICU cohort than in the non-ICU cohort for myalgia (19·9% vs. 16·1%, p<0·001) and anosmia (6·3% vs. 5·9%, p=0·01) but lower in the ICU cohort for altered consciousness (10·8% vs. 24%, p<0·001) and seizure (0·8% vs. 1·2%, p<0·001). In children, rates were significantly higher in the ICU cohort than in the non-ICU cohort for fatigue (30·4% vs. 18·7%, p<0·001), myalgia (12·8% vs. 6·7%, p<0·001), and altered consciousness (12% vs. 5·7%, p<0·001). 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 than in non-ICU patients (7·1 vs. 2·3, p<0·001). 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 neurological complications reported during hospitalisation were associated with increased odds of death. Interpretation Adults and children have different neurological manifestations and in-hospital complications associated with COVID-19. Hypertension and previous neurological disease are risk factors for in-hospital neurological complications, which are associated with an increased probability of death in both adults and children.

3.
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry ; 92(9):932-941, 2021.
Article in English | APA PsycInfo | ID: covidwho-1756020

ABSTRACT

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)

4.
Mult Scler Relat Disord ; 60: 103739, 2022 Mar 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1747671

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: ChAdOx1-S (Covishield™/Vaxzervria, AstraZeneca) and BBV152 (Covaxin) SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are proven to be safe and effective, but rare complications have been reported. OBJECTIVE: To describe reports of central nervous system (CNS) demyelination following ChAdOx1-S and BBV152 vaccinations. METHODS & RESULTS: We report 29 (17 female; mean 38 years) cases of CNS demyelination; twenty-seven occurred in temporal association with ChAdOx1-S vaccine; two in association with BBV152 vaccine. Eleven patients had presentation with myelitis, six patients developed optic neuritis, five had acute demyelinating encephalomyelitis, three presented with brainstem demyelination, and four had multiaxial involvement. Myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG) antibodies were positive in ten patients. One patient with ADEM and tumefactive demyelinating lesions died after a prolonged intensive care unit stay and superimposed infection. As compared to the control group (87); the postvaccinial cases were found to have a significantly higher mean age, presence of encephalopathy (p value:0.0007), CSF pleocytosis (p value: 0.0094) and raised CSF protein (p value: 0.0062). CONCLUSIONS: It is difficult to establish a causal relationship between vaccination and neurological adverse events such as demyelination. The temporal association with the vaccination and the presence of MOG antibodies raises the possibility of an immunogenic process triggered by the vaccine in susceptible individuals.

5.
PLoS One ; 17(3): e0264906, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1745315

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Delivery of Health Care/trends , Health Personnel/psychology , COVID-19/psychology , Clinical Competence , Disease Management , Hospitals , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , Qualitative Research , United Kingdom/epidemiology
6.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-323234

ABSTRACT

Background: SARS-CoV-2 is frequently shed in the stool of patients hospitalised with COVID-19. The rate 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. Findings: 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 associated 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 detectable SARS-CoV-2 in stool. There was no demonstrable household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among households containing a participant with faecal shedding. Interpretation: Faecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2 occurred among participants in the community 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 . Funding: NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Gastrointestinal Infections, NIHR HPRU in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections, Centre of Excellence in Infectious Disease Research, and Alder Hey Charity.Declaration of Interest: NF reports research grant support from the Alder Hey Charity. MIG reports other financial or non-financial interests in V-PLEX Th17 Panel 1 Human Kit. LT reports research grant support from NIHR HPRU in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections related to this study. Unrelated to this study LT also reports fees paid to University of Liverpool from Eisai for providing a lecture on COVID-19 and cancer. WS reports scholarship for doctoral study at the University of Liverpool from the Ministry of Finance, Republic of Indonesia through the Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education program. DH, NAC, ERA, TS, KS and NMV have nothing to disclose.Ethical Approval: The study has received approval from the NHS Research Ethics Committee;REC Reference: 20/HRA/2297, IRAS Number: 283464.

7.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-322674

ABSTRACT

Background: Vaccine induced immune medicated thrombocytopenia or VITT, is a recent and rare phenomenon of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia, frequently including cerebral venous thromboses (CVT), that has been described following vaccination with adenovirus vaccines ChAdOx1 nCOV-19 (AstraZeneca) and Ad26.COV2.S Johnson and Johnson (Janssen/J&J). The evaluation and management of suspected cases of CVT post COVID-19 vaccination are critical skills for a broad range of healthcare providers. Methods: A collaborative comprehensive review of literature was conducted among a global group of expert neurologists and hematologists. Findings: Strategies for rapid evaluation and treatment of the CVT in the context of possible VITT exist, including inflammatory marker measurements, PF4 assays, and non-heparin anticoagulation. Interpretation: There are many unanswered questions regarding cases of CVT, possibly in association with VITT. Public health specialists should explore ways to enhance public and professional education, surveillance, and reporting of this syndrome to reduce its impact on health and global vaccination efforts. Funding: None

8.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-321631

ABSTRACT

Background: Neurological COVID-19 disease has been reported widely, but often without using standard case definitions or detailed diagnostic work up. Several meta-analyses, based on such reports, describe the neurological diagnoses but give little information on outcomes and risk factors.Methods: We conducted an individual patient data meta-analysis of hospitalised patients with neurological COVID-19 disease, using standard case definitions. We invited authors of studies from the first pandemic wave, plus clinicians in the Global COVID-Neuro Network with unpublished data, to contribute, and extracted aggregate data from published reports. We analysed features associated with poor outcome (moderate to severe sequelae or death, 3-6, on the modified Rankin scale) using multivariable models. Findings: We identified 381 studies (31 unpublished) describing 4443 patients with COVID-19 and neurological disease: 83 of these provided IPD for 1979 (45%) patients. Encephalopathy (978 [49%]) and cerebrovascular events (506 [26%]), were the most common diagnoses in the IPD database and aggregate data. Respiratory and systemic symptoms preceded neurological features in 93% of patients;one third developed neurological disease after hospital admission. A poor outcome was more common in patients with cerebrovascular events (76% [95% CI 67-82]), than encephalopathy (54% [42-65]). Intensive care use was high (38% [35-41] overall), and also greater in the cerebrovascular patients. In the cerebrovascular, but not encephalopathic patients, risk factors for poor outcome included breathlessness on admission and elevated D-Dimer. Overall, 30-day mortality was 30% (27-32). The hazard of death was reduced for patients in the WHO European region, but increased in low- and lower-middle-income countries. Interpretation: Neurological COVID-19 disease poses a considerable burden in terms of disease outcomes and use of hospital resources. The different risk factors for encephalopathy and stroke suggest different disease mechanisms which may be amenable to intervention, especially in those who develop neurological symptoms after hospital admission. Funding This study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council’s Global Effort on COVID-19 Programme (MR/V033441/1);UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)-funded Global Health Research Group on Acute Brain Infections (17/63/110);and the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections (NIHR200907), at University of Liverpool in partnership with Public Health England (PHE), in collaboration with Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and the University of Oxford (Grant Nos. IS-HPU-1112-10117 and NIHR200907).Declaration of Interests: BS reports a grant from UKRI/DHSC Global Effort on COVID-19 Research (Medical Research Council) and non-financial support from UK National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Group on Brain Infections. SL and TS are supported by a grant from the EU Zika Preparedness Latin American Network consortium (ZikaPLAN). ZikaPLAN has received funding from the EU's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement number 734584. LCG reports non-financial support from Pfizer, non-financial support from Gilead. LB reports grants from GlaxoSmithKline, Research England and Wellcome Trust. AMBM reports grants from Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico CNPq/Brazil, and São Paulo Research Foundation FAPESP/Brazil. AP reports personal fees from ZAMBON, UCB , BIOMARIN, and ABBvie pharma. TS was an adviser to the GlaxoSmithKline Ebola Vaccine programme, chaired a Siemens Diagnostics clinical advisory board, and advises the WHO Brain Health Unit Forum on Neurology and COVID-19;TS has also previously filed a patent for a test for bacterial meningitis based on a blood test (GB 1606537.7, April 14, 2016), and has grants from the UK Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research. All other authors declare no conflict of interest

9.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-308461

ABSTRACT

Background: Pre-existing diseases are considered risk factors for severe COVID-19 and death. However, there is lack of consolidated global data on this risk among individuals with pre-existing neurological disease.Aim: Investigate the impact of pre-existing neurological disease on the clinical course and outcome of COVID-19.Methods: A rapid review of literature from PubMed and the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 database was conducted for articles published between 1st January 2020 and 4th April 2021. The review included individuals with COVID-19 and pre-existing neurological disease using pre-generated search terms to capture chronic neurological diseases in all age-groups. Articles included in the review were systematic reviews and meta-analysis, cohort studies, retrospective studies, case-control studies and case series. From the included studies, demographic data and Odds Ratios (OR) were extracted, and pooled ORs were generated for the outcomes of COVID-19 severity and death.Results: Twenty-six articles from 12 countries across three continents with a total of 379,947 COVID-19 patients was included. The mean age was 57 years (SD 10.93), 51.3% of whom were female. Pre-existing neurological disease, particularly cerebrovascular disease and dementia, was shown to be a risk factor for severe COVID-19 with a pooled OR of 1.99 (1.81 – 2.18). There was also an increased risk of death with a pooled OR for pre-existing neurological disease overall of 1.74 (1.56 – 1.94).Conclusion: The findings suggest that pre-existing neurological disease is a significant risk factor for severe COVID-19 and mortality. Further investigations to consolidate these findings are required through large multi-national cohort studies.

10.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-307528

ABSTRACT

Worldwide SARS-CoV-2 vaccination campaigns for prevention of COVID-19 are currently underway. In clinical trials and in open-label monitoring the vaccines have shown efficacy against COVID-19 and there have been limited and transient side effects. Previous vaccination campaigns have taught us that neurological adverse events to vaccinations can occur. In this review, we summarise what is already known about neurological and neuropsychiatric adverse events of COVID-19 vaccinations, and place this in the context of historical vaccination campaigns. There have been a number of neurological and neuropsychiatric adverse events following immunisation (AEFI) in association with SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations, however in each case there is either no definitive evidence currently to support causality or recognised adverse events are extremely rare. Causality assessment aids such as the Causality Assessment of an Adverse Event Following Immunization from the World Health Organisation and the Bradford Hill criteria may help us better understand potential neurological and neuropsychiatric adverse events to COVID-19 vaccinations. Functional neurological disorder (FND) can be precipitated by the process of vaccination and has previously been noted to potentially spread between individuals, particularly in younger communities. Importantly FND does not implicate the vaccine constituents and therefore should not hamper ongoing vaccination campaigns. Although neurological and neuropsychiatric AEFI may occur after SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations, at present there are no common causally associated neurological adverse events. It is likely that some patients will develop FND in response to vaccination, although this does not implicate vaccine constituents. In cases of future serious neurological or neuropsychiatric AEFIs, judicious and rapid assessment of causality must occur. In general, the benefits of ARS-CoV-2 vaccination at present outweigh the risks from a neurological standpoint, although in specific situations the risk-benefit ratio will vary depending on geographic and demographic factors as well as population risk factors. Ensuring as minimal disruption as possible to ongoing swift worldwide vaccination campaigns is essential to establish the herd immunity required to end the COVID-19 pandemic.

11.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-317002

ABSTRACT

Encephalopathy is a common complication of COVID-19 that can both be a challenge to manage and also negatively impacts prognosis. Whilst encephalopathy may be due to common 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, cerebrovascular involvement and seizures, which may be disproportionate to COVID-19 severity and which require specific management. The aim of this review is to provide pragmatic guidance on the management of COVID-19 encephalopathy through a consensus agreement of the Global COVID-19 Neuro-Research Coalition.A systematic literature search of Medline, MedRxiv, and BioRx was conducted between 1st January 2020 and 11th June 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 recommendation and the supporting evidence.This manuscript presents analysis of contemporaneous evidence for definition, epidemiology, and pathophysiology of COVID-19 encephalopathy and practical guidance for clinical assessment, investigation, and acute and long-term management.

12.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-316540

ABSTRACT

Background: As COVID-19 death rates have risen and health-care systems have experienced increased demand, national testing strategies have come under scrutiny. Utilising qualitative interview data from a larger COVID-19 study, this paper provides insights into influences on and the enactment of national COVID-19 testing strategies for health care workers (HCWs) in English NHS settings during wave one of the COVID-19 pandemic (March-August 2020). We aim to inform COVID-19 learning and future pandemic diagnostic preparedness. Methods: A remote qualitative, semi-structured longitudinal interview method was employed with a purposive snowball sample of senior scientific advisors to the UK Government on COVID-19, and HCWs employed in NHS primary and secondary health care settings in England. 24 interviews from 13 participants were selected from the larger project dataset. Framework analysis was informed by the non-adoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability of patient-facing health and care technologies implementation framework (NASSS) and by normalisation process theory (NPT). Results: Our account highlights tensions between the communication and implementation of national testing developments;scientific advisor and HCW perceptions about infectiousness;and uncertainties about the responsibility for testing and its implications at the local level. Conclusions: Consideration must be given to the implications of mass NHS staff testing, including the accuracy of information communicated to HCWs;how HCWs interpret, manage, and act on testing guidance;and the influence these have on health care organisations and services.

13.
Thorax ; 2021 Nov 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1528562

ABSTRACT

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.

14.
Neurology ; 97(23): e2269-e2281, 2021 12 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1463290

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Delirium/epidemiology , Stroke/epidemiology , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/mortality , Delirium/complications , Delirium/mortality , Humans , Observational Studies as Topic , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Stroke/complications
15.
Humanities & Social Sciences Communications ; 8(1), 2021.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-1440505

ABSTRACT

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.

16.
Lancet ; 398(10306): 1147-1156, 2021 09 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1437625

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Intracranial Thrombosis/epidemiology , Purpura, Thrombocytopenic, Idiopathic/epidemiology , Vaccination/adverse effects , Adult , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , Cohort Studies , Female , Fibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Products , Humans , Intracranial Thrombosis/drug therapy , Intracranial Thrombosis/mortality , Male , Middle Aged , Platelet Count , Purpura, Thrombocytopenic, Idiopathic/drug therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , United Kingdom/epidemiology , Venous Thrombosis/drug therapy , Venous Thrombosis/epidemiology
17.
Front Neurol ; 12: 678924, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1369683

ABSTRACT

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.

18.
Brain Commun ; 3(3): fcab168, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1364745

ABSTRACT

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.

19.
Brain Commun ; 3(3): fcab099, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1358433

ABSTRACT

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.

20.
EClinicalMedicine ; 39: 101070, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1351631

ABSTRACT

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.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL