EFAS/EAN survey on the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on European clinical autonomic education and research.

PURPOSE: To understand the influence of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on clinical autonomic education and research in Europe. METHODS: We invited 84 European autonomic centers to complete an online survey, recorded the pre-pandemic-to-pandemic percentage of junior participants in the annual congresses of the European Federation of Autonomic Societies (EFAS) and European Academy of Neurology (EAN) and the pre-pandemic-to-pandemic number of PubMed publications on neurological disorders. RESULTS: Forty-six centers answered the survey (55%). Twenty-nine centers were involved in clinical autonomic education and experienced pandemic-related didactic interruptions for 9 (5; 9) months. Ninety percent (n = 26/29) of autonomic educational centers reported a negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on education quality, and 93% (n = 27/29) established e-learning models. Both the 2020 joint EAN-EFAS virtual congress and the 2021 (virtual) and 2022 (hybrid) EFAS and EAN congresses marked higher percentages of junior participants than in 2019. Forty-one respondents (89%) were autonomic researchers, and 29 of them reported pandemic-related trial interruptions for 5 (2; 9) months. Since the pandemic begin, almost half of the respondents had less time for scientific writing. Likewise, the number of PubMed publications on autonomic topics showed the smallest increase compared with other neurological fields in 2020-2021 and the highest drop in 2022. Autonomic research centers that amended their trial protocols for telemedicine (38%, n = 16/41) maintained higher clinical caseloads during the first pandemic year. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic had a substantial negative impact on European clinical autonomic education and research. At the same time, it promoted digitalization, favoring more equitable access to autonomic education and improved trial design.

Considerations for patient and public involvement and engagement in health research.

Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) can provide valuable insights into the experiences of those living with and affected by a disease or health condition. Inclusive collaboration between patients, the public and researchers can lead to productive relationships, ensuring that health research addresses patient needs. Guidelines are available to support effective PPIE; however, evaluation of the impact of PPIE strategies in health research is limited. In this Review, we evaluate the impact of PPIE in the 'Therapies for Long COVID in non-hospitalised individuals' (TLC) Study, using a combination of group discussions and interviews with patient partners and researchers. We identify areas of good practice and reflect on areas for improvement. Using these insights and the results of a survey, we synthesize two checklists of considerations for PPIE, and we propose that research teams use these checklists to optimize the impact of PPIE for both patients and researchers in future studies.

Global synergistic actions to improve brain health for human development.

The global burden of neurological disorders is substantial and increasing, especially in low-resource settings. The current increased global interest in brain health and its impact on population wellbeing and economic growth, highlighted in the World Health Organization's new Intersectoral Global Action Plan on Epilepsy and other Neurological Disorders 2022-2031, presents an opportunity to rethink the delivery of neurological services. In this Perspective, we highlight the global burden of neurological disorders and propose pragmatic solutions to enhance neurological health, with an emphasis on building global synergies and fostering a 'neurological revolution' across four key pillars - surveillance, prevention, acute care and rehabilitation - termed the neurological quadrangle. Innovative strategies for achieving this transformation include the recognition and promotion of holistic, spiritual and planetary health. These strategies can be deployed through co-design and co-implementation to create equitable and inclusive access to services for the promotion, protection and recovery of neurological health in all human populations across the life course.

Commentary: Patient Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence; What have We Learned and How Should We Move Forward?

Artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare has now begun to make its contributions to real-world patient care with varying degrees of both public and clinical acceptability around it. The heavy investment from governments, industry and academia needed to reach this point has helped to surface different perspectives on AI. As clinical AI applications become a reality, however, there is an increasing need to harness and integrate patient perspectives, which address the distinct needs of different populations, healthcare systems and clinical problems more closely. Despite this need, patient perspectives on AI implementation have little presence in academic literature and within implementation science and are not sufficiently considered throughout the MedTech and eHealthtech product development cycle, which brings its own challenges and opportunities. This joint patient expert/clinician commentary aims to briefly summarise views on AI. It reflects upon recommendations on how stakeholders such as clinicians and Health & MedTech small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) can make practical usage of these views. The recommendations of the authors centre around how to work better with patients to enable both product centric and patient centric innovation and person-centred care.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical autonomic practice in Europe A survey of the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) and the European Federation of Autonomic Societies (EFAS).

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of the coronavirus-disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on European clinical autonomic practice. METHODS: Eighty-four neurology-driven or interdisciplinary autonomic centers in 22 European countries were invited to fill in a web-based survey between September and November 2021. RESULTS: Forty-six centers completed the survey (55%). During the first pandemic year, the number of performed tilt-table tests, autonomic outpatient and inpatient visits decreased respectively by 50%, 45% and 53%, and every-third center reported major adverse events due to postponed examinations or visits. The most frequent newly-diagnosed or worsened cardiovascular autonomic disorders after COVID-19 infection included postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), orthostatic hypotension, and recurrent vasovagal syncope, deemed likely related to the infection by ≥50% of the responders. Forty-seven percent of the responders also reported about people with new-onset of orthostatic intolerance, but negative tilt-table findings, and 16% about people with psychogenic pseudosyncope after COVID-19. Most patients were treated non-pharmacologically and symptomatic recovery at follow-up was observed in ≥45% of cases. By contrast, low frequencies of newly-diagnosed cardiovascular autonomic disorders following COVID-19 vaccination were reported, most frequently POTS and recurrent vasovagal syncope, and most of the responders judged a causal association unlikely. Non-pharmacological measures were the preferred treatment choice, with 50-100% recovery rates at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiovascular autonomic disorders may develop or worsen following a COVID-19 infection, while the association with COVID-19 vaccines remains controversial. Despite the severe pandemic impact on European clinical autonomic practice, a specialized diagnostic work-up was pivotal to identify non-autonomic disorders in people with post-COVID-19 orthostatic complaints.

Patients' knowledge, preferences, and perspectives about data protection and data control: an exploratory survey.

Background: In the European Union, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) plays a central role in the complex health research legal framework. It aims to protect the fundamental right to the protection of individuals' personal data, while allowing the free movement of such data. However, it has been criticized for challenging the conduct of research. Existing scholarship has paid little attention to the experiences and views of the patient community. The aim of the study was to investigate 1) the awareness and knowledge of patients, carers, and members of patient organizations about the General Data Protection Regulation, 2) their experience with exercising data subject rights, and 3) their understanding of the notion of "data control" and preferences towards various data control tools. Methods: An online survey was disseminated between December 2022 and March 2023. Quantitative data was analyzed descriptively and inferentially. Answers to open-ended questions were analyzed using the thematic analysis method. Results: In total, 220 individuals from 28 European countries participated. The majority were patients (77%). Most participants had previously heard about the GDPR (90%) but had not exercised any of their data subject rights. Individual data control tools appeared to be marginally more important than collective tools. The willingness of participants to share personal data with data altruism organizations increased if patient representatives would be involved in the decision-making processes of such organizations. Conclusion: The results highlighted the importance of providing in-depth education about data protection. Although participants showed a slight preference towards individual control tools, the reflection based on existing scholarship identified that individual control holds risks that could be mitigated through carefully operationalized collective tools. The discussion of results was used to provide a critical view into the proposed European Health Data Space, which has yet to find a productive balance between individual control and allowing the reuse of personal data for research.

Clinical autonomic nervous system laboratories in Europe: A joint survey of the European Academy of Neurology and the European Federation of Autonomic Societies: A joint survey of the European Academy of Neurology and the European Federation of Autonomic Societies.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Disorders of the autonomic nervous system (ANS) are common conditions, but it is unclear whether access to ANS healthcare provision is homogeneous across European countries. The aim of this study was to identify neurology-driven or interdisciplinary clinical ANS laboratories in Europe, describe their characteristics and explore regional differences. METHODS: We contacted the European national ANS and neurological societies, as well as members of our professional network, to identify clinical ANS laboratories in each country and invite them to answer a web-based survey. RESULTS: We identified 84 laboratories in 22 countries and 46 (55%) answered the survey. All laboratories perform cardiovascular autonomic function tests, and 83% also perform sweat tests. Testing for catecholamines and autoantibodies are performed in 63% and 56% of laboratories, and epidermal nerve fiber density analysis in 63%. Each laboratory is staffed by a median of two consultants, one resident, one technician and one nurse. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) number of head-up tilt tests/laboratory/year is 105 (49-251). Reflex syncope and neurogenic orthostatic hypotension are the most frequently diagnosed cardiovascular ANS disorders. Thirty-five centers (76%) have an ANS outpatient clinic, with a median (IQR) of 200 (100-360) outpatient visits/year; 42 centers (91%) also offer inpatient care (median 20 [IQR 4-110] inpatient stays/year). Forty-one laboratories (89%) are involved in research activities. We observed a significant difference in the geographical distribution of ANS services among European regions: 11 out of 12 countries from North/West Europe have at least one ANS laboratory versus 11 out of 21 from South/East/Greater Europe (p = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: This survey highlights disparities in the availability of healthcare services for people with ANS disorders across European countries, stressing the need for improved access to specialized care in South, East and Greater Europe.

Development and validation of the symptom burden questionnaire for long covid (SBQ-LC): Rasch analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the development and validation of a novel patient reported outcome measure for symptom burden from long covid, the symptom burden questionnaire for long covid (SBQ-LC). DESIGN: Multiphase, prospective mixed methods study. SETTING: Remote data collection and social media channels in the United Kingdom, 14 April to 1 August 2021. PARTICIPANTS: 13 adults (aged ≥18 years) with self-reported long covid and 10 clinicians evaluated content validity. 274 adults with long covid field tested the draft questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Published systematic reviews informed development of SBQ-LC's conceptual framework and initial item pool. Thematic analysis of transcripts from cognitive debriefing interviews and online clinician surveys established content validity. Consensus discussions with the patient and public involvement group of the Therapies for Long COVID in non-hospitalised individuals: From symptoms, patient reported outcomes and immunology to targeted therapies (TLC Study) confirmed face validity. Rasch analysis of field test data guided item and scale refinement and provided initial evidence of the SBQ-LC's measurement properties. RESULTS: SBQ-LC (version 1.0) is a modular instrument measuring patient reported outcomes and is composed of 17 independent scales with promising psychometric properties. Respondents rate their symptom burden during the past seven days using a dichotomous response or 4 point rating scale. Each scale provides coverage of a different symptom domain and returns a summed raw score that can be transformed to a linear (0-100) score. Higher scores represent higher symptom burden. After rating scale refinement and item reduction, all scales satisfied the Rasch model requirements for unidimensionality (principal component analysis of residuals: first residual contrast values <2.00 eigenvalue units) and item fit (outfit mean square values within 0.5 -1.5 logits). Rating scale categories were ordered with acceptable category fit statistics (outfit mean square values <2.0 logits). 14 item pairs had evidence of local dependency (residual correlation values >0.4). Across the 17 scales, person reliability ranged from 0.34 to 0.87, person separation ranged from 0.71 to 2.56, item separation ranged from 1.34 to 13.86, and internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha) ranged from 0.56 to 0.91. CONCLUSIONS: SBQ-LC (version 1.0) is a comprehensive patient reported outcome instrument developed using modern psychometric methods. It measures symptoms of long covid important to people with lived experience of the condition and may be used to evaluate the impact of interventions and inform best practice in clinical management.

Therapies for Long COVID in non-hospitalised individuals: from symptoms, patient-reported outcomes and immunology to targeted therapies (The TLC Study).

INTRODUCTION: Individuals with COVID-19 frequently experience symptoms and impaired quality of life beyond 4-12 weeks, commonly referred to as Long COVID. Whether Long COVID is one or several distinct syndromes is unknown. Establishing the evidence base for appropriate therapies is needed. We aim to evaluate the symptom burden and underlying pathophysiology of Long COVID syndromes in non-hospitalised individuals and evaluate potential therapies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A cohort of 4000 non-hospitalised individuals with a past COVID-19 diagnosis and 1000 matched controls will be selected from anonymised primary care records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, and invited by their general practitioners to participate on a digital platform (Atom5). Individuals will report symptoms, quality of life, work capability and patient-reported outcome measures. Data will be collected monthly for 1 year.Statistical clustering methods will be used to identify distinct Long COVID-19 symptom clusters. Individuals from the four most prevalent clusters and two control groups will be invited to participate in the BioWear substudy which will further phenotype Long COVID symptom clusters by measurement of immunological parameters and actigraphy.We will review existing evidence on interventions for postviral syndromes and Long COVID to map and prioritise interventions for each newly characterised Long COVID syndrome. Recommendations will be made using the cumulative evidence in an expert consensus workshop. A virtual supportive intervention will be coproduced with patients and health service providers for future evaluation.Individuals with lived experience of Long COVID will be involved throughout this programme through a patient and public involvement group. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the Solihull Research Ethics Committee, West Midlands (21/WM/0203). Research findings will be presented at international conferences, in peer-reviewed journals, to Long COVID patient support groups and to policymakers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 1567490.