Global uncertainty in the diagnosis of neurological complications of SARS-CoV-2 infection by both neurologists and non-neurologists: An international inter-observer variability study.

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

Depression, anxiety and PTSD symptoms before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK.

BACKGROUND: The impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on mental health is still being unravelled. It is important to identify which individuals are at greatest risk of worsening symptoms. This study aimed to examine changes in depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms using prospective and retrospective symptom change assessments, and to find and examine the effect of key risk factors. METHOD: Online questionnaires were administered to 34 465 individuals (aged 16 years or above) in April/May 2020 in the UK, recruited from existing cohorts or via social media. Around one-third (n = 12 718) of included participants had prior diagnoses of depression or anxiety and had completed pre-pandemic mental health assessments (between September 2018 and February 2020), allowing prospective investigation of symptom change. RESULTS: Prospective symptom analyses showed small decreases in depression (PHQ-9: -0.43 points) and anxiety [generalised anxiety disorder scale - 7 items (GAD)-7: -0.33 points] and increases in PTSD (PCL-6: 0.22 points). Conversely, retrospective symptom analyses demonstrated significant large increases (PHQ-9: 2.40; GAD-7 = 1.97), with 55% reported worsening mental health since the beginning of the pandemic on a global change rating. Across both prospective and retrospective measures of symptom change, worsening depression, anxiety and PTSD symptoms were associated with prior mental health diagnoses, female gender, young age and unemployed/student status. CONCLUSIONS: We highlight the effect of prior mental health diagnoses on worsening mental health during the pandemic and confirm previously reported sociodemographic risk factors. Discrepancies between prospective and retrospective measures of changes in mental health may be related to recall bias-related underestimation of prior symptom severity.

Reduced activity in a liaison psychiatry service during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic: Comparison with 2019 data and characterisation of the SARS-COV-2 positive cohort

IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic led to changes in how healthcare was accessed and delivered. It was suggested that COVID-19 will lead to an increased delirium burden in its acute phase, with variable effect on mental health in the longer term. Despite this, there are limited data on the direct effects of the pandemic on psychiatric care.Objectives1) describe the mental health presentations of a diverse acute inpatient population, 2) compare findings with the same period in 2019, 3) characterise the SARS-CoV-2 positive cohort of patients.MethodsWe present a descriptive summary of the referrals to a UK psychiatric liaison department during the exponential phase of the pandemic, and compare this to the same period in 2019.Resultsshow a 40.3% reduction in the number of referrals in 2020, with an increase in the proportion of referrals for delirium and psychosis. One third (28%) of referred patients tested positive for COVID-19 during their admission, with 39.7% of these presenting with delirium as a consequence of their COVID-19 illness. Our data indicate decreased clinical activity for our service during the pandemic’s peak. There was a marked increase in delirium, though in no other psychiatric presentations.ConclusionsIn preparation for further exponential rises in COVID-19 cases, we would expect seamless integration of liaison psychiatry teams in general hospital wards to optimise delirium management in patients with COVID-19. Further consideration should be given to adequate staffing of community and crisis mental health teams to safely manage the potentially increasing number of people reluctant to visit the emergency department.