Optimal Dosing of Levetiracetam for Seizure Prophylaxis in Critically Ill Patients: A Prospective Observational Study.

OBJECTIVES: Critically ill patients eliminate levetiracetam (LEV) more rapidly than healthy controls, yet low doses are commonly used for seizure prophylaxis in the ICU setting. We compared the rates of achievement of target serum levels and new onset seizure (clinical and/or electrographic) among patients who received low (500 mg bid) versus high (750-1,000 mg bid) dose LEV. DESIGN: Prospective, observational study. SETTING: Tertiary care, academic center. PATIENTS: We included patients who received prophylactic LEV following traumatic brain injury, intracerebral hemorrhage, spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage, or supratentorial neurosurgery between 2019 and 2021. Patients with a history of seizure, antiseizure medication use, or renal failure requiring dialysis were excluded. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: LEV levels were obtained at steady state. The impact of low-dose versus high-dose LEV on the primary outcome of target LEV levels (12-46 µg/mL), and the secondary outcome of clinical and/or electrographic seizure, were assessed using multivariable logistic regression analyses adjusting for age, LEV loading dose, BMI, primary diagnosis and creatinine clearance (CrCl). MAIN RESULTS: Of the 205 subjects included in analyses, n = 106 (52%) received LEV 500 mg bid (median 13 mg/kg/d), and n = 99 (48%) received LEV 750-1,000 mg bid (median 25 mg/kg/d). Overall, 111 of 205 patients (54%) achieved target levels: 48 (45%) from the low-dose group versus 63 (64%) from the high-dose group (odds ratio [OR] 2.1; 95% CI, 1.1-3.7; p = 0.009). In multivariable analyses, high-dose LEV predicted target levels (adjusted OR [aOR] 2.23; 95% CI, 1.16-4.27; p = 0.016), and was associated with lower seizure odds (aOR 0.32; 95% CI, 0.13-0.82; p = 0.018) after adjusting for age, loading dose, BMI, diagnosis, and CrCl. CONCLUSIONS: Underdosing of LEV was common, with only 54% of patients achieving target serum levels. Higher doses (750-1,000 mg bid) were more than twice as likely to lead to optimal drug levels and reduced the odds of seizure by 68% compared with low-dose regimens (500 mg bid).

Trajectories of Neurologic Recovery 12 Months After Hospitalization for COVID-19: A Prospective Longitudinal Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Little is known about trajectories of recovery 12 months after hospitalization for severe COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, longitudinal cohort study of patients with and without neurologic complications during index hospitalization for COVID-19 from March 10, 2020, to May 20, 2020. Phone follow-up batteries were performed at 6 and 12 months after COVID-19 onset. The primary 12-month outcome was the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score comparing patients with or without neurologic complications using multivariable ordinal analysis. Secondary outcomes included activities of daily living (Barthel Index), telephone Montreal Cognitive Assessment (t-MoCA), and Quality of Life in Neurologic Disorders (Neuro-QoL) batteries for anxiety, depression, fatigue, and sleep. Changes in outcome scores from 6 to 12 months were compared using nonparametric paired-samples sign test. RESULTS: Twelve-month follow-up was completed in 242 patients (median age 65 years, 64% male, 34% intubated during hospitalization) and 174 completed both 6- and 12-month follow-up. At 12 months, 197/227 (87%) had ≥1 abnormal metric: mRS >0 (75%), Barthel Index <100 (64%), t-MoCA ≤18 (50%), high anxiety (7%), depression (4%), fatigue (9%), or poor sleep (10%). Twelve-month mRS scores did not differ significantly among those with (n = 113) or without (n = 129) neurologic complications during hospitalization after adjusting for age, sex, race, pre-COVID-19 mRS, and intubation status (adjusted OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.8-2.5), although those with neurologic complications had higher fatigue scores (T score 47 vs 44; p = 0.037). Significant improvements in outcome trajectories from 6 to 12 months were observed in t-MoCA scores (56% improved, median difference 1 point; p = 0.002) and Neuro-QoL anxiety scores (45% improved; p = 0.003). Nonsignificant improvements occurred in fatigue, sleep, and depression scores in 48%, 48%, and 38% of patients, respectively. Barthel Index and mRS scores remained unchanged between 6 and 12 months in >50% of patients. DISCUSSION: At 12 months after hospitalization for severe COVID-19, 87% of patients had ongoing abnormalities in functional, cognitive, or Neuro-QoL metrics and abnormal cognition persisted in 50% of patients without a history of dementia/cognitive abnormality. Only fatigue severity differed significantly between patients with or without neurologic complications during index hospitalization. However, significant improvements in cognitive (t-MoCA) and anxiety (Neuro-QoL) scores occurred in 56% and 45% of patients, respectively, between 6 and 12 months. These results may not be generalizable to those with mild or moderate COVID-19.

Demographic and social determinants of cognitive dysfunction following hospitalization for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Persistent cognitive symptoms have been reported following COVID-19 hospitalization. We investigated the relationship between demographics, social determinants of health (SDOH) and cognitive outcomes 6-months after hospitalization for COVID-19. METHODS: We analyzed 6-month follow-up data collected from a multi-center, prospective study of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Demographic and SDOH variables (age, race/ethnicity, education, employment, health insurance status, median income, primary language, living arrangements, and pre-COVID disability) were compared between patients with normal versus abnormal telephone Montreal Cognitive Assessments (t-MOCA; scores<18/22). Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to evaluate predictors of t-MoCA. RESULTS: Of 382 patients available for 6-month follow-up, 215 (56%) completed the t-MoCA (n = 109/215 [51%] had normal and n = 106/215 [49%] abnormal results). 14/215 (7%) patients had a prior history of dementia/cognitive impairment. Significant univariate predictors of abnormal t-MoCA included older age, ≤12 years of education, unemployment pre-COVID, Black race, and a pre-COVID history of cognitive impairment (all p < 0.05). In multivariable analyses, education ≤12 years (adjusted OR 5.21, 95%CI 2.25-12.09), Black race (aOR 5.54, 95%CI 2.25-13.66), and the interaction of baseline functional status and unemployment prior to hospitalization (aOR 3.98, 95%CI 1.23-12.92) were significantly associated with abnormal t-MoCA scores after adjusting for age, history of dementia, language, neurological complications, income and discharge disposition. CONCLUSIONS: Fewer years of education, Black race and unemployment with baseline disability were associated with abnormal t-MoCA scores 6-months post-hospitalization for COVID-19. These associations may be due to undiagnosed baseline cognitive dysfunction, implicit biases of the t-MoCA, other unmeasured SDOH or biological effects of SARS-CoV-2.

Levetiracetam for Seizure Prophylaxis in Neurocritical Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Levetiracetam is commonly used for seizure prophylaxis in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), traumatic brain injury (TBI), supratentorial neurosurgery, and spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). However, its efficacy, optimal dosing, and the adverse events associated with levetiracetam prophylaxis remain unclear. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane central register of controlled trials (CENTRAL) database was conducted from January 1, 2000, to October 30, 2020, including articles addressing treatment with levetiracetam for seizure prophylaxis after SAH, ICH, TBI, and supratentorial neurosurgery. Non-English, pediatric (aged < 18 years), preclinical, reviews, case reports, and articles that included patients with a preexisting seizure condition or epilepsy were excluded. The coprimary meta-analyses examined first seizure events in (1) levetiracetam versus no antiseizure medication and (2) levetiracetam versus other antiseizure medications in all ICH, TBI, SAH, and supratentorial neurosurgery populations. Secondary meta-analyses evaluated the same comparator groups in individual disease populations. Risk of bias in non-randomised studies - of interventions (ROBINS-I) and risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB-2) tools were used to assess risk of bias. RESULTS: A total of 30 studies (n = 6 randomized trials, n = 9 prospective studies, and n = 15 retrospective studies), including 7609 patients (n = 4737 with TBI, n = 701 with SAH, n = 261 with ICH, and n = 1910 with neurosurgical diseases) were included in analyses. Twenty-seven of 30 (90%) studies demonstrated moderate to severe risk of bias, and 11 of 30 (37%) studies used low-dosage levetiracetam (250-500 mg twice daily). In the primary meta-analyses, there were no differences in seizure events for levetiracetam prophylaxis (n = 906) versus no antiseizure medication (n = 2728; odds ratio [OR] 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-1.16, P = 0.23, fixed-effect, I2 = 26%, P = 0.23 for heterogeneity) or levetiracetam (n = 1950) versus other antiseizure prophylaxis (n = 2289; OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.55-1.28, P = 0.41, random-effects, I2 = 49%, P = 0.005 for heterogeneity). Only patients with supratentorial neurosurgical diseases benefited from levetiracetam compared with other antiseizure medications (median 0.70 seizure events per-patient-year with levetiracetam versus 2.20 seizure events per-patient-year for other antiseizure medications, OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.20-0.58, P < 0.001, fixed-effects, I2 = 39%, P = 0.13 for heterogeneity). There were no significant differences in meta-analyses of patients with ICH, SAH, or TBI. Adverse events of any severity were reported in a median of 8% of patients given levetiracetam compared with 21% of patients in comparator groups. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current moderately to seriously biased heterogeneous data, which frequently used low and possibly subtherapeutic doses of levetiracetam, our meta-analyses did not demonstrate significant reductions in seizure incidence and neither supports nor refutes the use of levetiracetam prophylaxis in TBI, SAH, or ICH. Levetiracetam may be preferred post supratentorial neurosurgery. More high-quality randomized trials of prophylactic levetiracetam are warranted.

A prospective study of long-term outcomes among hospitalized COVID-19 patients with and without neurological complications.

BACKGROUND: Little is known regarding long-term outcomes of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study of 6-month outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Patients with new neurological complications during hospitalization who survived were propensity score-matched to COVID-19 survivors without neurological complications hospitalized during the same period. The primary 6-month outcome was multivariable ordinal analysis of the modified Rankin Scale(mRS) comparing patients with or without neurological complications. Secondary outcomes included: activities of daily living (ADLs;Barthel Index), telephone Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Neuro-QoL batteries for anxiety, depression, fatigue and sleep. RESULTS: Of 606 COVID-19 patients with neurological complications, 395 survived hospitalization and were matched to 395 controls; N = 196 neurological patients and N = 186 controls completed follow-up. Overall, 346/382 (91%) patients had at least one abnormal outcome: 56% had limited ADLs, 50% impaired cognition, 47% could not return to work and 62% scored worse than average on ≥1 Neuro-QoL scale (worse anxiety 46%, sleep 38%, fatigue 36%, and depression 25%). In multivariable analysis, patients with neurological complications had worse 6-month mRS (median 4 vs. 3 among controls, adjusted OR 1.98, 95%CI 1.23-3.48, P = 0.02), worse ADLs (aOR 0.38, 95%CI 0.29-0.74, P = 0.01) and were less likely to return to work than controls (41% versus 64%, P = 0.04). Cognitive and Neuro-QOL metrics were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Abnormalities in functional outcomes, ADLs, anxiety, depression and sleep occurred in over 90% of patients 6-months after hospitalization for COVID-19. In multivariable analysis, patients with neurological complications during index hospitalization had significantly worse 6-month functional outcomes than those without.

A Prospective Study of Neurologic Disorders in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 in New York City.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence and associated mortality of well-defined neurologic diagnoses among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), we prospectively followed hospitalized severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-positive patients and recorded new neurologic disorders and hospital outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multicenter, observational study of consecutive hospitalized adults in the New York City metropolitan area with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. The prevalence of new neurologic disorders (as diagnosed by a neurologist) was recorded and in-hospital mortality and discharge disposition were compared between patients with COVID-19 with and without neurologic disorders. RESULTS: Of 4,491 patients with COVID-19 hospitalized during the study timeframe, 606 (13.5%) developed a new neurologic disorder in a median of 2 days from COVID-19 symptom onset. The most common diagnoses were toxic/metabolic encephalopathy (6.8%), seizure (1.6%), stroke (1.9%), and hypoxic/ischemic injury (1.4%). No patient had meningitis/encephalitis or myelopathy/myelitis referable to SARS-CoV-2 infection and 18/18 CSF specimens were reverse transcriptase PCR negative for SARS-CoV-2. Patients with neurologic disorders were more often older, male, white, hypertensive, diabetic, intubated, and had higher sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores (all p < 0.05). After adjusting for age, sex, SOFA scores, intubation, history, medical complications, medications, and comfort care status, patients with COVID-19 with neurologic disorders had increased risk of in-hospital mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17-1.62, p < 0.001) and decreased likelihood of discharge home (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63-0.85, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Neurologic disorders were detected in 13.5% of patients with COVID-19 and were associated with increased risk of in-hospital mortality and decreased likelihood of discharge home. Many observed neurologic disorders may be sequelae of severe systemic illness.

Special considerations in the assessment of catastrophic brain injury and determination of brain death in patients with SARS-CoV-2.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic has led to challenges in provision of care, clinical assessment and communication with families. The unique considerations associated with evaluation of catastrophic brain injury and death by neurologic criteria in patients with Covid-19 infection have not been examined. METHODS: We describe the evaluation of six patients hospitalized at a health network in New York City in April 2020 who had Covid-19, were comatose and had absent brainstem reflexes. RESULTS: Four males and two females with a median age of 58.5 (IQR 47-68) were evaluated for catastrophic brain injury due to stroke and/or global anoxic injury at a median of 14 days (IQR 13-18) after admission for acute respiratory failure due to Covid-19. All patients had hypotension requiring vasopressors and had been treated with sedative/narcotic drips for ventilator dyssynchrony. Among these patients, 5 had received paralytics. Apnea testing was performed for 1 patient due to the decision to withdraw treatment (n = 2), concern for inability to tolerate testing (n = 2) and observation of spontaneous respirations (n = 1). The apnea test was aborted due to hypoxia and hypotension. After ancillary testing, death was declared in three patients based on neurologic criteria and in three patients based on cardiopulmonary criteria (after withdrawal of support (n = 2) or cardiopulmonary arrest (n = 1)). A family member was able to visit 5/6 patients prior to cardiopulmonary arrest/discontinuation of organ support. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to evaluate patients with catastrophic brain injury and declare brain death despite the Covid-19 pandemic, but this requires unique considerations.

Prevalence and Impact of Hyponatremia in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 in New York City.

OBJECTIVES: Hyponatremia occurs in up to 30% of patients with pneumonia and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The prevalence of hyponatremia associated with coronavirus disease 2019 and the impact on outcome is unknown. We aimed to identify the prevalence, predictors, and impact on outcome of mild, moderate, and severe admission hyponatremia compared with normonatremia among coronavirus disease 2019 patients. DESIGN: Retrospective, multicenter, observational cohort study. SETTING: Four New York City hospitals that are part of the same health network. PATIENTS: Hospitalized, laboratory-confirmed adult coronavirus disease 2019 patients admitted between March 1, 2020, and May 13, 2020. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Hyponatremia was categorized as mild (sodium: 130-134 mmol/L), moderate (sodium: 121-129 mmol/L), or severe (sodium: ≤ 120 mmol/L) versus normonatremia (135-145 mmol/L). The primary outcome was the association of increasing severity of hyponatremia and in-hospital mortality assessed using multivariable logistic regression analysis. Secondary outcomes included encephalopathy, acute renal failure, mechanical ventilation, and discharge home compared across sodium levels using Kruskal-Wallis and chi-square tests. In exploratory analysis, the association of sodium levels and interleukin-6 levels (which has been linked to nonosmotic release of vasopressin) was assessed. Among 4,645 patient encounters, hyponatremia (sodium < 135 mmol/L) occurred in 1,373 (30%) and 374 of 1,373 (27%) required invasive mechanical ventilation. Mild, moderate, and severe hyponatremia occurred in 1,032 (22%), 305 (7%), and 36 (1%) patients, respectively. Each level of worsening hyponatremia conferred 43% increased odds of in-hospital death after adjusting for age, gender, race, body mass index, past medical history, admission laboratory abnormalities, admission Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, renal failure, encephalopathy, and mechanical ventilation (adjusted odds ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.08-1.88; p = 0.012). Increasing severity of hyponatremia was associated with encephalopathy, mechanical ventilation, and decreased probability of discharge home (all p < 0.001). Higher interleukin-6 levels correlated with lower sodium levels (p = 0.017). CONCLUSIONS: Hyponatremia occurred in nearly a third of coronavirus disease 2019 patients, was an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality, and was associated with increased risk of encephalopathy and mechanical ventilation.