T he pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has led to >1.5 million infections in the United States (30% of global cases) and >90,000 deaths as of May 20, 2020 (1). Coronavirus disease (COVID-19, the clinical syndrome associated with SARS-Cov-2) is most commonly characterized by respiratory illness and viral pneumonia with fever, cough, and shortness of breath, and progression to acute respiratory distress syndrome in severe cases (2). Although neurologic complications have been noted in previous human coronavirus infections (3-5), there are few in-depth investigations for neurologic syndromes associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection (6). This deficiency can result from the need to reduce unnecessary staff exposure and difficulties in establishing preillness neurologic status without regular family visitors. It is known that neurons and glia express the putative SARS-CoV-2 receptor angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (7), and that the related coronavirus SARS-CoV (responsible for the 2003 SARS outbreak) can inoculate the mouse olfactory bulb (8). If SARS-CoV-2 can enter the central nervous system (CNS) directly or through hematogenous spread, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) changes, including viral RNA, IgM, or cytokine levels, might support CNS infection as a cause for neurologic symptoms. We report clinical, blood, neuroimaging, and CSF findings for 3 patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and a range of neurologic outcomes (neuro-COVID). We also show the presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the blood and CSF of these patients, consistent with CNS penetration of disease. Methods We describe the clinical, laboratory and radiologic findings for 3 patients with respiratory failure and neurologic complications caused by COVID-19. This case series was reviewed and exempted from Emory Institutional Review Board approval. Medical records were reviewed by 4 of the coauthors (K.B., A.A., M.E.M., and W.T.H.). CSF Serologic Analysis, Cytokines, and Molecular Testing We assessed CSF IgM by using an in-house ELISA against SARS-CoV-2 S1 or envelope (E) protein. This ELISA was modified from an in-house blood-based Encephalopathy and Encephalitis Associated with Cerebrospinal Fluid Cytokine Alterations and Coronavirus Disease,

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

No abstract

doi: medRxiv preprint NOTE: This preprint reports new research that has not been certified by peer review and should not be used to guide clinical practice.

BackgroundThe current coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused widespread disease and death. Rapid increases in patient volumes have exposed weaknesses in healthcare systems and challenged our ability to provide optimal patient care and adequate safety measures to healthcare workers (HCWs).ObjectiveTo test the hypothesis that US neurologists were experiencing significant challenges with lack of personal protective equipment (PPE), rapid changes in practice and varying institutional protocols, we conducted this survey study.MethodsA 36-item survey was distributed to neurologists around the US through various media platforms.ResultsOver a one-week period, 567 responses were received. Of these, 56% practiced in academia. A total of 87% had access to PPE with 45% being asked to reuse PPE due to shortages. The pandemic caused rapid changes in practice, most notably a shift towards providing care by teleneurology, although a third experienced challenges in transitioning to this model. Wide variations were noted both in testing and in the guidance provided for the exposed, sick or vulnerable HCWs. Notably, 59% of respondents felt that their practices were doing what they could, although 56% did not feel safe taking care of patients.ConclusionsResults from our survey demonstrate significant variability in preparedness and responsiveness to the COVID-19 pandemic in neurology, impacted by region, health care setting and practice model. Practice guidelines from professional societies and other national entities are needed to improve protection for physicians and their patients, promote recommended practice changes during a pandemic, and optimize future preparedness for public health emergencies.

In the setting of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2, a potential association of this disease with stroke has been suggested. We aimed to describe the characteristics of patients who were admitted with COVID-19 and had an acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Methods This is a case series of PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients with ischemic stroke admitted to an academic health system in metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia (USA) between March 24 th , 2020 and July 17 th , 2020. Demographic, clinical, and radiographic characteristics were described. Results Of 396 ischemic stroke patients admitted during this study period, 13 (2.5%) were also diagnosed with COVID-19. The mean age of patients was 61.6 ± 10.8 years, 10 (76.9%) male, 8 (61.5%) were Black Americans, mean time from last normal was 4.97 ± 5.1 days, and only one received acute reperfusion therapy. All 13 patients had at least one stroke-associated co-morbidity. The predominant pattern of ischemic stroke was embolic with 4 explained by atrial fibrillation. COVID-19 patients had a significantly higher rate of cryptogenic stroke than non-COVID-19 patients during the study period (69% vs 17%, p = 0.0001). Conclusions In our case series, ischemic stroke affected COVID-19 patients with traditional stroke risk factors at an age typically seen in non-COVID populations, and mainly affecting males and Black Americans. We observed a predominantly embolic pattern of stroke with a higher than expected rate of cryptogenic strokes, a prolonged median time to presentation and symptom recognition limiting the use of acute reperfusion treatments. These results highlight the need

ImportanceIn patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expanding supra-annular valve was noninferior to surgery for all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 2 years. Comparisons of longer-term clinical and hemodynamic outcomes in these patients are limited.ObjectiveTo report prespecified secondary 5-year outcomes from the Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis in Intermediate Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement (SURTAVI) randomized clinical trial.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsSURTAVI is a prospective randomized, unblinded clinical trial. Randomization was stratified by investigational site and need for revascularization determined by the local heart teams. Patients with severe aortic valve stenosis deemed to be at intermediate risk of 30-day surgical mortality were enrolled at 87 centers from June 19, 2012, to June 30, 2016, in Europe and North America. Analysis took place between August and October 2021.InterventionPatients were randomized to TAVR with a self-expanding, supra-annular transcatheter or a surgical bioprosthesis.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe prespecified secondary end points of death or disabling stroke and other adverse events and hemodynamic findings at 5 years. An independent clinical event committee adjudicated all serious adverse events and an independent echocardiographic core laboratory evaluated all echocardiograms at 5 years.ResultsA total of 1660 individuals underwent an attempted TAVR (n = 864) or surgical (n = 796) procedure. The mean (SD) age was 79.8 (6.2) years, 724 (43.6%) were female, and the mean (SD) Society of Thoracic Surgery Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 4.5% (1.6%). At 5 years, the rates of death or disabling stroke were similar (TAVR, 31.3% vs surgery, 30.8%; hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.85-1.22]; P = .85). Transprosthetic gradients remained lower (mean [SD], 8.6 [5.5] mm Hg vs 11.2 [6.0] mm Hg; P < .001) and aortic valve areas were higher (mean [SD], 2.2 [0.7] cm2 vs 1.8 [0.6] cm2; P < .001) with TAVR vs surgery. More patients had moderate/severe paravalvular leak with TAVR than surgery (11 [3.0%] vs 2 [0.7%]; risk difference, 2.37% [95% CI, 0.17%- 4.85%]; P = .05). New pacemaker implantation rates were higher for TAVR than surgery at 5 years (289 [39.1%] vs 94 [15.1%]; hazard ratio, 3.30 [95% CI, 2.61-4.17]; log-rank P < .001), as were valve reintervention rates (27 [3.5%] vs 11 [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 2.21 [95% CI, 1.10-4.45]; log-rank P = .02), although between 2 and 5 years only 6 patients who underwent TAVR and 7 who underwent surgery required a reintervention.Conclusions and RelevanceAmong intermediate-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, major clinical outcomes at 5 years were similar for TAVR and surgery. TAVR was associated with superior hemodynamic valve performance but also with more paravalvular leak and valve reinterventions.

Background: Accurate serological assays can improve the early diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, but few studies have compared performance characteristics between assays in symptomatic and recovered patients. Methods:We recruited 32 patients who had 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19; 18 hospitalized and actively symptomatic, 14 recovered mild cases), and measured levels of IgM (against the full-length S1 or the highly homologous SARS-CoV E protein) and IgG (against S1 receptor binding domain [RBD]). We performed the same analysis in 103 pre-2020 healthy adult control (HC) participants and 13 participants who had negative molecular testing for SARS-CoV-2.Results: Anti-S1-RBD IgG levels were very elevated within days of symptom onset for hospitalized patients (median 2.04 optical density [OD], vs. 0.12 in HC). People who recovered from milder COVID-19 only reached similar IgG levels 28 days after symptom onset. IgM levels were elevated early in both groups (median 1.91 and 2.12 vs. 1.14 OD in HC for anti-S1 IgM, 2.23 and 2.26 vs 1.52 in HC for anti-E IgM), with downward trends in hospitalized cases having longer disease duration. The combination of the two IgM levels showed similar sensitivity for COVID-19 as IgG but greater specificity, and identified 4/10 people (vs. 3/10 by IgG) with prior symptoms and negative molecular testing to have had COVID- 19.Conclusions: Disease severity and timing both influence levels of IgM and IgG against SARS-CoV-2, with IgG better for early detection of severe cases but IgM more suited for early detection of milder cases.