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.

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.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation for the treatment of epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy is a highly prevalent neurological condition characterised by repeated unprovoked seizures with various aetiologies. Although antiepileptic medications produce clinical improvement in many individuals, nearly a third of individuals have drug-resistant epilepsy that carries significant morbidity and mortality, and even individuals who have clinical improvement from antiepileptic medications often report iatrogenic symptoms. There remains a need for non-invasive and more effective therapies for this population. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) uses electromagnetic coils to excite or inhibit neurons, with repetitive pulses at low-frequency producing an inhibitory effect that could conceivably reduce cortical excitability associated with epilepsy. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2016. OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence for the use of TMS in individuals with drug-resistant epilepsy compared with other available treatments in reducing seizure frequency, improving quality of life, reducing epileptiform discharges, antiepileptic medication use, and side effects. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid 1946 to 2 June 2020). CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the specialised registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Epilepsy. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that were double-blinded, single-blinded, or unblinded, and placebo controlled, no treatment, or active controlled, which used repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) without restriction of frequency, coil, duration or intensity on participants with drug-resistant epilepsy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted information from each trial including methodological data; participant demographics including baseline seizure frequency, type of epileptic drugs taken; intervention details and intervention groups for comparison; potential biases; and outcomes and time points, primarily change in seizure frequency or responder rates, as well as quality of life and epileptiform discharges, adverse effects, and changes in medication use. MAIN RESULTS: The original search revealed 274 records from the databases that after selection provided seven full-text relevant studies for inclusion. The latest search identified 179 new records from the databases that after evaluation against the inclusion and exclusion criteria provided one additional full-text relevant study. The eight included studies (241 participants) were all randomised trials; seven of the studies were blinded. Methodological and design information in the included studies was unclear, particularly relating to randomisation and allocation concealment methods. We were not able to combine the results of the trials in analysis due to differences in the studies' designs. For the current update, two of the eight studies analysed showed a statistically significant reduction in seizure rate from baseline (72% and 78.9% reduction of seizures per week from the baseline rate, respectively), whilst the other six studies showed no statistically significant difference in seizure frequency following rTMS treatment compared with controls (low-certainty evidence). One study assessed quality of life and found that more participants showed improvement in quality of life scores with active treatments compared to the sham treatment, but this only involved seven participants (very low-certainty evidence). Four studies evaluated our secondary endpoint of mean number of epileptic discharges, three of which showed a statistically significant reduction in discharges after active rTMS treatment. Adverse effects were uncommon in the studies and typically involved headache, dizziness, and tinnitus; however increased seizure frequency did occur in a small number of individuals. The included trials reported no significant changes in medication use. Overall the risk of bias was either low or unclear, and the certainty of the evidence was low to very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, we judged the certainty of evidence for the primary outcomes of this review to be low to very low. We found some evidence to suggest that rTMS is safe but some adverse events were experienced. The variability in technique and outcome reporting prevented meta-analysis, and the evidence for efficacy of rTMS for seizure reduction is still lacking, despite reasonable evidence that it is effective at reducing epileptiform discharges.

Antiepileptic drugs for seizure control in people with neurocysticercosis.

BACKGROUND: Neurocysticercosis is the most common parasitic infection of the brain. Epilepsy is the most common clinical presentation, though people may also present with headache, symptoms of raised intracranial pressure, hydrocephalus, and ocular symptoms depending upon the localisation of the parasitic cysts. Anthelmintic drugs, antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), and anti-oedema drugs, such as steroids, form the mainstay of treatment. This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2019. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of AEDs for the primary and secondary prevention of seizures in people with neurocysticercosis. For the question of primary prevention, we examined whether AEDs reduce the likelihood of seizures in people who had neurocysticercosis but had not had a seizure. For the question of secondary prevention, we examined whether AEDs reduce the likelihood of further seizures in people who had had at least one seizure due to neurocysticercosis. As part of primary prevention studies, we also aimed to examine which AED was beneficial in people with neurocysticercosis in terms of duration, dose, and side-effect profile. SEARCH METHODS: For the 2021 update of this review, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), MEDLINE, and LILACS to January 2021. CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised, controlled trials from CENTRAL, the Specialised Registers of Cochrane Review Groups, including Epilepsy, PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We also checked the reference lists of identified studies, and contacted experts and colleagues in the field to search for additional and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials. Single-blind, double-blind, or unblinded studies were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. The primary outcomes of interest were: proportion of individuals experiencing seizures, and time to first seizure post randomisation. Secondary outcomes included: seizure freedom, number of withdrawals, side effects, number of people seizure free with short or long durations of treatment, quality of life, therapy costs, hospitalisations, and mortality. We used an intention-to-treat analysis for the primary analysis. We calculated odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous data (proportion of individuals who experienced seizures, were seizure free for a specific time period (12 or 24 months), withdrew from treatment, developed drug-related side effects or complications, were seizure-free with each treatment policy, mortality), and planned to use mean difference (MD) for continuous data, if any continuous data were identified (quality of life, cost of treatment). We intended to evaluate time to first seizure after randomisation by calculating hazard ratios (HRs). We assessed precision using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We stratified the analysis by treatment comparison. We also considered the duration of drug usage, co-medications, and the length of follow-up. MAIN RESULTS: We did not find any trials that investigated the role of AEDs in preventing seizures among people with neurocysticercosis, presenting with symptoms other than seizures. We did not find any trials that directly compared individual AEDs for primary prevention in people with neurocysticercosis. We included four trials that evaluated the efficacy of short-term versus longer-term AED treatment for people with solitary neurocysticercosis (identified on computed tomography (CT) scan) who presented with seizures. In total, 466 people were enrolled. These studies compared AED treatment durations of 6, 12, and 24 months. The risk of seizure recurrence with six months of treatment compared with 12 to 24 months of treatment was inconclusive (odds ratio (OR) 1.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 2.47; three studies, 360 participants; low-certainty evidence). The risk of seizure recurrence with six to 12 months of treatment compared with 24 months of treatment was inconclusive (OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.57; three studies, 385 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two studies compared seizure recurrence with CT findings, and suggested that persistent and calcified lesions had a higher recurrence risk, and suggest longer duration of treatment with AEDs. One study reported no side effects, while the rest did not comment on side effects of the drugs. None of the studies addressed the quality of life of the participants. These studies had methodological deficiencies, such as small sample sizes, and a possibility of bias due to lack of blinding, which affect the results of the review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite neurocysticercosis being the most common cause of epilepsy worldwide, there is currently no evidence available regarding the use of AEDs as seizure prophylaxis among people presenting with symptoms other than seizures. For those presenting with seizures, there is no reliable evidence regarding the duration of treatment required. Therefore, there is a need for large scale randomised controlled trials to address these questions.

Diaphragmatic flutter.

A 78-year-old woman presented with involuntary movements of her abdomen, which started after a right hemispheric stroke. She had irregular, variable, hyperkinetic predominantly right-sided abdominal wall movements. MR scan of brain confirmed a recent infarct in the right occipitotemporal lobe and the right cerebellum. Diaphragmatic fluoroscopy confirmed high-frequency flutter as the cause of her abdominal movements and confirmed the diagnosis of van Leeuwenhoek's disease. Anthonie van Leeuwenhoek first described this condition in 1723 and had the condition himself. He was a Dutch businessman who is often acknowledged as the first microscopist and microbiologist. He disagreed with his physician who attributed his ailment as being of cardiac origin. Diaphragmatic flutter is a rare disorder that requires a high index of suspicion with symptoms including abnormal abdominal wall movements, dyspnoea and respiratory distress. Despite medical treatment, the patient was still highly symptomatic, so she is currently being considered for a phrenic nerve crush.