Cognitive impact of neuronal antibodies: encephalitis and beyond.

Cognitive dysfunction is a common feature of autoimmune encephalitis. Pathogenic neuronal surface antibodies are thought to mediate distinct profiles of cognitive impairment in both the acute and chronic phases of encephalitis. In this review, we describe the cognitive impairment associated with each antibody-mediated syndrome and, using evidence from imaging and animal studies, examine how the nature of the impairment relates to the underlying neuroimmunological and receptor-based mechanisms. Neuronal surface antibodies, particularly serum NMDA receptor antibodies, are also found outside of encephalitis although the clinical significance of this has yet to be fully determined. We discuss evidence highlighting their prevalence, and association with cognitive outcomes, in a number of common disorders including cancer and schizophrenia. We consider mechanisms, including blood-brain barrier dysfunction, which could determine the impact of these antibodies outside encephalitis and account for much of the clinical heterogeneity observed

Quantitative EEG as a Prognostic Tool in Suspected Anti-N-Methyl-D-Aspartate Receptor Antibody Encephalitis

PURPOSE: Anti-N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (anti-NMDAR) encephalitis is a form of autoimmune encephalitis associated with EEG abnormalities. In view of the potentially severe outcomes, there is a need to develop prognostic tools to inform clinical management. The authors explored whether quantitative EEG was able to predict outcomes in patients with suspected anti-NMDAR encephalitis. METHODS: A retrospective, observational study was conducted of patients admitted to a tertiary clinical neuroscience center with suspected anti-NMDAR encephalitis. Peak power and peak frequency within delta (<4 Hz), theta (4-8 Hz), alpha (8 - 13 Hz), and beta (13-30 Hz) frequency bands were calculated for the first clinical EEG recording. Outcome was based on the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 1 year after hospital discharge. Binomial logistic regression using backward elimination was performed with peak frequency and power, anti-NMDAR Encephalitis One-Year Functional Status score, age, and interval from symptom onset to EEG entered as predictors. RESULTS: Twenty patients were included (mean age 48.6 years, 70% female), of which 7 (35%) had a poor clinical outcome (mRS 2-6) at 1 year. There was no association between reported EEG abnormalities and outcome. The final logistic regression model was significant (χ2(1) = 6.35, P < 0.012) with peak frequency in the delta range (<4 Hz) the only retained predictor. The model explained 38% of the variance (Nagelkerke R2) and correctly classified 85% of cases. Higher peak frequency in the delta range was significantly associated (P = 0.04) with an increased likelihood of poor outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In this exploratory study, it was found that quantitative EEG on routinely collected EEG recordings in patients with suspected anti-NMDAR encephalitis was feasible. A higher peak frequency within the delta range was associated with poorer clinical outcome and may indicate anti-NMDAR-mediated synaptic dysfunction. Quantitative EEG may have clinical utility in predicting outcomes in patients with suspected NMDAR antibody encephalitis, thereby serving as a useful adjunct to qualitative EEG assessment; however, given the small sample size, replication in a larger scale is indicated

Spectrum, risk factors and outcomes of neurological and psychiatric complications of COVID-19: a UK-wide cross-sectional surveillance study

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 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

Antibodies in the Diagnosis, Prognosis, and Prediction of Psychotic Disorders

Blood-based biomarker discovery for psychotic disorders has yet to impact upon routine clinical practice. In physical disorders antibodies have established roles as diagnostic, prognostic and predictive (theranostic) biomarkers, particularly in disorders thought to have a substantial autoimmune or infective aetiology. Two approaches to antibody biomarker identification are distinguished: a "top-down" approach, in which antibodies to specific antigens are sought based on the known function of the antigen and its putative role in the disorder, and emerging "bottom-up" or "omics" approaches that are agnostic as to the significance of any one antigen, using high-throughput arrays to identify distinctive components of the antibody repertoire. Here we review the evidence for antibodies (to self-antigens as well as infectious organism and dietary antigens) as biomarkers of diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment response in psychotic disorders. Neuronal autoantibodies have current, and increasing, clinical utility in the diagnosis of organic or atypical psychosis syndromes. Antibodies to selected infectious agents show some promise in predicting cognitive impairment and possibly other symptom domains (eg, suicidality) within psychotic disorders. Finally, infectious antibodies and neuronal and other autoantibodies have recently emerged as potential biomarkers of response to anti-infective therapies, immunotherapies, or other novel therapeutic strategies in psychotic disorders, and have a clear role in stratifying patients for future clinical trials. As in nonpsychiatric disorders, combining biomarkers and large-scale use of "bottom-up" approaches to biomarker identification are likely to maximize the eventual clinical utility of antibody biomarkers in psychotic disorders

Catatonia: demographic, clinical and laboratory associations

Background: Catatonia, a severe neuropsychiatric syndrome, has few studies of sufficient scale to clarify its epidemiology or pathophysiology. We aimed to characterise demographic associations, peripheral inflammatory markers and outcome of catatonia. / Methods: Electronic healthcare records were searched for validated clinical diagnoses of catatonia. In a case–control study, demographics and inflammatory markers were compared in psychiatric inpatients with and without catatonia. In a cohort study, the two groups were compared in terms of their duration of admission and mortality. / Results: We identified 1456 patients with catatonia (of whom 25.1% had two or more episodes) and 24 956 psychiatric inpatients without catatonia. Incidence was 10.6 episodes of catatonia per 100 000 person-years. Patients with and without catatonia were similar in sex, younger and more likely to be of Black ethnicity. Serum iron was reduced in patients with catatonia [11.6 v. 14.2 μmol/L, odds ratio (OR) 0.65 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45–0.95), p = 0.03] and creatine kinase was raised [2545 v. 459 IU/L, OR 1.53 (95% CI 1.29–1.81), p < 0.001], but there was no difference in C-reactive protein or white cell count. N-Methyl-D-aspartate receptor antibodies were significantly associated with catatonia, but there were small numbers of positive results. Duration of hospitalisation was greater in the catatonia group (median: 43 v. 25 days), but there was no difference in mortality after adjustment. / Conclusions: In the largest clinical study of catatonia, we found catatonia occurred in approximately 1 per 10 000 person-years. Evidence for a proinflammatory state was mixed. Catatonia was associated with prolonged inpatient admission but not with increased mortality

Relationship Between Serum NMDA Receptor Antibodies and Response to Antipsychotic Treatment in First-Episode Psychosis

Background: When psychosis develops in NMDA receptor (NMDAR) antibody encephalitis, it usually has an acute or subacute onset, and antipsychotic treatment may be ineffective and associated with adverse effects. Serum NMDAR antibodies have been reported in a minority of patients with first-episode psychosis (FEP), but their role in psychosis onset and response to antipsychotic treatment is unclear. Methods: Sera from 387 patients with FEP (duration of psychosis <2 years, minimally or never treated with antipsychotics) undergoing initial treatment with amisulpride as part of the OPTiMiSE (Optimization of Treatment and Management of Schizophrenia in Europe) trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01248195) were tested for NMDAR IgG antibodies using a live cell–based assay. Symptom severity was assessed using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and the Clinical Global Impressions Scale at baseline and again after 4 weeks of treatment with amisulpride. Results: At baseline, 15 patients were seropositive for NMDAR antibodies and 372 were seronegative. The seropositive patients had similar symptom profiles and demographic features to seronegative patients but a shorter duration of psychosis (median 1.5 vs. 4.0 months; p =.031). Eleven seropositive and 284 seronegative patients completed 4 weeks of amisulpride treatment: after treatment, there was no between-groups difference in improvement in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale scores or in the frequency of adverse medication effects. Conclusions: These data suggest that in FEP, NMDAR antibody seropositivity alone is not an indication for using immunotherapy instead of antipsychotic medications. Further studies are required to establish what proportion of patients with FEP who are NMDAR antibody seropositive have coexisting cerebrospinal fluid inflammatory changes or other paraclinical evidence suggestive of a likely benefit from immunotherapy

UK-Wide Surveillance of Neurological and Neuropsychiatric Complications of COVID-19: The First 153 Patients

Background: Increasingly neurological complications of COVID-19 are identified, mostly in small series. Larger studies have been limited by both geography and specialty.Consequently, the breadth of complications is not represented. Comprehensive characterization of clinical syndromes is critical to rationally select and evaluate potential therapies.Methods: During the exponential pandemic phase, we developed coordinated online portals for rapid notification across the spectrum of major UK neuroscience bodies, representing neurology, stroke, psychiatry, and intensive care. Evidence of infection and clinical case definitions were applied prospectively. Cases were compared to overall Government Public Health COVID-19 reporting.Findings: Within three weeks, 153 cases were notified, both geographically and temporally representative of overall COVID-19 Public Health reports. Median (range) age was 71 (23-94) years. 77 (62%) had a cerebrovascular event: 57 (74%) ischemic strokes, nine (12%) intracerebral hemorrhages, and one CNS vasculitis.The second most common group were 39 (31%) who had altered mental status, including 16 (41%) with encephalopathy of whom seven (44%) had encephalitis. The remaining 23 (59%) had a psychiatric diagnosis of whom 21 (92%) were new diagnoses; including ten (43%) with psychosis, six (26%) neurocognitive (dementia-like) syndrome, and 4 (17%) an affective disorder. Cerebrovascular events predominated in older patients. Conversely, altered mental status, whilst present in all ages, had disproportionate representation in the young.Interpretation: This is the first nationwide, cross-specialty surveillance study of acute complications of COVID-19 in the nervous system. Alteration in mental status was common, reflecting encephalopathy/encephalitis and primary psychiatric diagnoses, often in young patients.These data provide valuable and timely information urgently needed by clinicians, researchers, and funders to inform immediate steps in COVID-19 neuroscience research and health policy throughout the areas of neurology and neuropsychiatry

Use of global coronary heart disease risk assessment in practice: a cross-sectional survey of a sample of U.S. physicians

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Global coronary heart disease (CHD) risk assessment is recommended to guide primary preventive pharmacotherapy. However, little is known about physicians' understanding and use of global CHD risk assessment. Our objective was to examine US physicians' awareness, use, and attitudes regarding global CHD risk assessment in clinical practice, and how these vary by provider specialty.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using a web-based survey of US family physicians, general internists, and cardiologists, we examined awareness of tools available to calculate CHD risk, method and use of CHD risk assessment, attitudes towards CHD risk assessment, and frequency of using CHD risk assessment to guide recommendations of aspirin, lipid-lowering and blood pressure (BP) lowering therapies for primary prevention. Characteristics of physicians indicating they use CHD risk assessments were compared in unadjusted and adjusted analyses.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 952 physicians completed the questionnaire, with 92% reporting awareness of tools available to calculate CHD global risk. Among those aware of such tools, over 80% agreed that CHD risk calculation is useful, improves patient care, and leads to better decisions about recommending preventive therapies. However, only 41% use CHD risk assessment in practice. The most commonly reported barrier to CHD risk assessment is that it is too time consuming. Among respondents who calculate global CHD risk, 69% indicated they use it to guide lipid lowering therapy recommendations; 54% use it to guide aspirin therapy recommendations; and 48% use it to guide BP lowering therapy. Only 40% of respondents who use global CHD risk routinely tell patients their risk. Use of a personal digital assistant or smart phone was associated with reported use of CHD risk assessment (adjusted OR 1.58; 95% CI 1.17-2.12).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Reported awareness of tools to calculate global CHD risk appears high, but the majority of physicians in this sample do not use CHD risk assessments in practice. A minority of physicians in this sample use global CHD risk to guide prescription decisions or to motivate patients. Educational interventions and system improvements to improve physicians' effective use of global CHD risk assessment should be developed and tested.</p

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