Background The spectrum of neurological and psychiatric complications associated with paediatric SARS-CoV-2 infection is poorly understood. We aimed to analyse the range and prevalence of these complications in hospitalised children and adolescents. MethodsWe did a prospective national cohort study in the UK using an online network of secure rapid-response notification portals established by the CoroNerve study group. Paediatric neurologists were invited to notify any children and adolescents (age <18 years) admitted to hospital with neurological or psychiatric disorders in whom they considered SARS-CoV-2 infection to be relevant to the presentation. Patients were excluded if they did not have a neurological consultation or neurological investigations or both, or did not meet the definition for confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (a positive PCR of respiratory or spinal fluid samples, serology for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG, or both), or the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health criteria for paediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome temporally associated with SARS-CoV-2 (PIMS-TS). Individuals were classified as having either a primary neurological disorder associated with COVID-19 (COVID-19 neurology group) or PIMS-TS with neurological features (PIMS-TS neurology group). The denominator of all hospitalised children and adolescents with COVID-19 was collated from National Health Service England data. Findings Between April 2, 2020, and Feb 1, 2021, 52 cases were identified; in England, there were 51 cases among 1334 children and adolescents hospitalised with COVID-19, giving an estimated prevalence of 3•8 (95% CI 2•9-5•0) cases per 100 paediatric patients. 22 (42%) patients were female and 30 (58%) were male; the median age was 9 years (range 1-17). 36 (69%) patients were Black or Asian, 16 (31%) were White. 27 (52%) of 52 patients were classified into the COVID-19 neurology group and 25 (48%) were classified into the PIMS-TS neurology group. In the COVID-19 neurology group, diagnoses included status epilepticus (n=7), encephalitis (n=5), Guillain-Barré syndrome (n=5), acute demyelinating syndrome (n=3), chorea (n=2), psychosis (n=2), isolated encephalopathy (n=2), and transient ischaemic attack (n=1). The PIMS-TS neurology group more often had multiple features, which included encephalopathy (n=22 [88%]), peripheral nervous system involvement (n=10 [40%]), behavioural change (n=9 [36%]), and hallucinations at presentation (n=6 [24%]). Recognised neuroimmune disorders were more common in the COVID-19 neurology group than in the PIMS-TS neurology group (13 [48%] of 27 patients vs 1 [<1%] of 25 patients, p=0•0003). Compared with the COVID-19 neurology group, more patients in the PIMS-TS neurology group were admitted to intensive care (20 [80%] of 25 patients vs six [22%] of 27 patients, p=0•0001) and received immunomodulatory treatment (22 [88%] patients vs 12 [44%] patients, p=0•045). 17 (33%) patients (10 [37%] in the COVID-19 neurology group and 7 [28%] in the PIMS-TS neurology group) were discharged with disabili...

SummaryThere is a major unmet need for biomarkers of epilepsy. Biofluids such as blood offer a potential source of molecular biomarkers. MicroRNAs (miRNAs) fulfill several key requirements for a blood‐based molecular biomarker being enriched in the brain and dysregulated in epileptic brain tissue, and manipulation of miRNAs can have seizure‐suppressive and disease‐modifying effects in preclinical models. Biofluid miRNAs also possess qualities that are favorable for translation, including stability and easy and cheap assay techniques. Herein we review findings from both clinical and animal models. Studies have featured a mix of unbiased profiling and hypothesis‐driven efforts. Blood levels of several brain‐enriched miRNAs are altered in patients with epilepsy and in patients with drug‐resistant compared to drug‐responsive seizures, with encouraging receiver‐operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses, both in terms of sensitivity and specificity. Both focal and generalized epilepsies are associated with altered blood miRNA profiles, and associations with clinical parameters including seizure burden have been reported. Results remain preliminary, however. There is a need for continued discovery and validation efforts that include multicenter studies and attention to study design, sample collection methodology, and quality control. Studies focused on epileptogenesis as well as associations with covariables such as sex, etiology, and timing of sampling remain limited. We identify 10 knowledge gaps and propose experiments to close these. If adequately addressed, biofluid miRNAs may be an important future source of diagnostic biomarkers that could also support forthcoming trials of antiepileptogenesis or disease‐modifying therapies.

Background Neurological COVID-19 disease has been reported widely, but published studies often lack information on neurological outcomes and prognostic risk factors. We aimed to describe the spectrum of neurological disease in hospitalised COVID-19 patients; characterise clinical outcomes; and investigate factors associated with a poor outcome. Methods We conducted an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of hospitalised patients with neurological COVID-19 disease, using standard case definitions. We invited authors of studies from the first pandemic wave, plus clinicians in the Global COVID-Neuro Network with unpublished data, to contribute. We analysed features associated with poor outcome (moderate to severe disability or death, 3 to 6 on the modified Rankin Scale) using multivariable models. Results We included 83 studies (31 unpublished) providing IPD for 1979 patients with COVID-19 and acute new-onset neurological disease. Encephalopathy (978 [49%] patients) and cerebrovascular events (506 [26%]) were the most common diagnoses. Respiratory and systemic symptoms preceded neurological features in 93% of patients; one third developed neurological disease after hospital admission. A poor outcome was more common in patients with cerebrovascular events (76% [95% CI 67–82]), than encephalopathy (54% [42–65]). Intensive care use was high (38% [35–41]) overall, and also greater in the cerebrovascular patients. In the cerebrovascular, but not encephalopathic patients, risk factors for poor outcome included breathlessness on admission and elevated D-dimer. Overall, 30-day mortality was 30% [27–32]. The hazard of death was comparatively lower for patients in the WHO European region. Interpretation Neurological COVID-19 disease poses a considerable burden in terms of disease outcomes and use of hospital resources from prolonged intensive care and inpatient admission; preliminary data suggest these may differ according to WHO regions and country income levels. The different risk factors for encephalopathy and stroke suggest different disease mechanisms which may be amenable to intervention, especially in those who develop neurological symptoms after hospital admission.

Despite recent advances in both the understanding and treatment of the epilepsies, the rate of refractory epilepsy has remained static for many years. However, given our greater understanding of the aetiology and genetic basis of many paediatric and adult epilepsies, there is now scope to expand treatment. In this review, we discuss the current and potential use of precision medicine in the genetic epilepsies of childhood. We will discuss how optimal control and a reduction in the rate of refractory seizures using targeted therapy could be developed and assessed. We propose a six‐tier approach to defining precision therapeutics in epilepsy and discuss how this can be incorporated into a clinical trial design. The lower tiers (1–2) represent therapies in common usage that we know work for certain epilepsy syndromes but do not precisely target the underlying problem. They work to reduce seizures but do not directly or effectively attenuate the developmental phenotype. The higher tiers (5–6) are currently purely speculative and look to a future with highly disease‐specific therapies based on correction of underlying genomic and proteomic issues. In order to achieve this, scientists will have to embark on a ‘whole‐omic’ approach to understand the underlying pathophysiology in order to design a precision therapy. Epilepsy treatment is classified into six tiers depending on how precisely the mechanism of action addresses the aetiology. Tier 1 treatment is based on the historical response of certain epilepsy phenotypes to specific medication. Tier 6 concerns therapy targeting genes and networks that rescue the whole phenotype. Clinical trial infrastructure and population‐based disease registries are necessary so that patients can participate in trials for novel precision therapies.