The objective of this paper is to evaluate available evidence for each step in autoimmune encephalitis management and provide expert opinion when evidence is lacking. The paper approaches autoimmune encephalitis as a broad category rather than focusing on individual antibody syndromes. Core authors from the Autoimmune Encephalitis Alliance Clinicians Network reviewed literature and developed the first draft. Where evidence was lacking or controversial, an electronic survey was distributed to all members to solicit individual responses. Sixty-eight members from 17 countries answered the survey. Corticosteroids alone or combined with other agents (intravenous IG or plasmapheresis) were selected as a first-line therapy by 84% of responders for patients with a general presentation, 74% for patients presenting with faciobrachial dystonic seizures, 63% for NMDAR-IgG encephalitis and 48.5% for classical paraneoplastic encephalitis. Half the responders indicated they would add a second-line agent only if there was no response to more than one first-line agent, 32% indicated adding a second-line agent if there was no response to one first-line agent, while only 15% indicated using a second-line agent in all patients. As for the preferred second-line agent, 80% of responders chose rituximab while only 10% chose cyclophosphamide in a clinical scenario with unknown antibodies. Detailed survey results are presented in the manuscript and a summary of the diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations is presented at the conclusion.

Campbell, B. C.V. et al. (2019) Penumbral imaging and functional outcome in patients with anterior circulation ischaemic stroke treated with endovascular thrombectomy versus medical therapy: a meta-analysis of individual patient-level data.ABSTRACT Background: CT-perfusion (CTP) and MRI may assist patient selection for endovascular thrombectomy. We aimed to establish whether imaging assessments of ischaemic core and penumbra volumes were associated with functional outcomes and treatment effect.

Campbell, B. C. V. et al. (2018) Effect of general anaesthesia on functional outcome in patients with anterior circulation ischaemic stroke having endovascular thrombectomy versus standard care: a meta-analysis of individual patient data. Lancet Neurology, 17(1), pp. 47-53. (doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30407-6) This is the author's final accepted version.There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher's version if you wish to cite from it.http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/149670/ variables. An alternative approach using propensity-score stratification was also used. To account for between-trial variance we used mixed-effects modeling with a random effect for trial incorporated in all models. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool.Findings: Of 1764 patients in 7 trials, 871 were allocated to endovascular thrombectomy. After exclusion of 74 patients (72 who did not undergo the procedure and 2 with missing data on anaesthetic strategy), 236/797 (30%) of endovascular patients were treated under GA. At baseline, GA patients were younger and had shorter time to randomisation but similar pre-treatment clinical severity compared to non-GA. Endovascular thrombectomy improved functional outcome at 3 months versus standard care in both GA (adjusted common odds ratio (cOR) 1·52, 95%CI 1·09-2·11, p=0·014) and non-GA (adjusted cOR 2·33, 95%CI 1·75-3·10, p<0·001) patients. However, outcomes were significantly better for those treated under non-GA versus GA (covariate-adjusted cOR 1·53, 95%CI 1·14-2·04, p=0·004; propensitystratified cOR 1·44 95%CI 1·08-1·92, p=0·012). The risk of bias and variability among studies was assessed to be low.Interpretation: Worse outcomes after endovascular thrombectomy were associated with GA, after adjustment for baseline prognostic variables. These data support avoidance of GA whenever possible. The procedure did, however, remain effective versus standard care in patients treated under GA, indicating that treatment should not be withheld in those who require anaesthesia for medical reasons. Funding:The HERMES collaboration was funded by an unrestricted grant from Medtronic to the University of Calgary. Research in contextEvidence before this study between abolition of the thrombectomy treatment effect in MR CLEAN and no effect in THRACE. Three single-centre randomised trials of general anaesthesia versus conscious sedation found either no difference in functional outcome between groups or a slight benefit of general anaesthesia. Added value of this studyThese data from contemporary, high quality randomised trials form the largest study to date of the association between general anesthesia and the benefit of endovascular thrombectomy versus standard care. We used two different approaches to adjust for baseline imbalances (multivariable logistic regression and propensity-score stratification). We found that GA for endovascular thrombectomy, as practiced in contemporary clinical care across a wide range of expert centres during the rand...

Background: The coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) emerged as a global pandemic. Historically, the group of human coronaviruses can also affect the central nervous system leading to neurological symptoms; however, the causative mechanisms of the neurological manifestations of COVID-19 disease are not well known. Seizures have not been directly reported as a part of COVID-19 outside of patients with previously known brain injury or epilepsy. We report two cases of acute symptomatic seizures, in non-epileptic patients, associated with severe COVID-19 disease. Case Presentations: Two advanced-age, non-epileptic, male patients presented to our northeast Ohio-based health system with concern for infection in Mid-March 2020. Both had a history of lung disease and during their hospitalization tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. They developed acute encephalopathy days into their hospitalization with clinical and electrographic seizures. Resolution of seizures was achieved with levetiracetam. Discussion: Patients with COVID-19 disease are at an elevated risk for seizures, and the mechanism of these seizures is likely multifactorial. Clinical (motor) seizures may not be readily detected in this population due to the expansive utilization of sedatives and paralytics for respiratory optimization strategies. Many of these patients are also not electrographically monitored for seizures due to limited resources, multifactorial risk for acute encephalopathy, and the risk of cross-contamination. Previously, several neurological symptoms were seen in patients with more advanced COVID-19 disease, and these were thought to be secondary to multi-system organ failure and/or disseminated intravascular coagulopathy-related brain injury. However, these patients may also have an advanced breakdown of the blood-brain barrier precipitated by pro-inflammatory cytokine reactions. The neurotropic effect and neuroinvasiveness of SARS-Coronavirus-2 have not been directly established. Conclusions: Acute symptomatic seizures are possible in patients with COVID-19 disease. These seizures are likely multifactorial in origin, including cortical irritation due to blood-brain barrier breakdown, precipitated by the cytokine reaction as a part of the viral infection. Patients with clinical signs of seizures or otherwise unexplained encephalopathy may benefit from electroencephalography monitoring and/or empiric anti-epileptic therapy. Further studies are needed to elucidate the risk of seizures and benefit of monitoring in this population.

Individual differences in taste perception have been explained in part by variations in peripheral innervation associated with the genetic ability to taste the bitter substances PTC and PROP. In the present study we report evidence of another source of individual differences that is independent of taste stimulus, taste quality, or gustatory nerve. Individuals who perceived taste from thermal stimulation alone (thermal taste) gave significantly higher taste ratings to chemical stimuli--often by a factor of >2:1--than did individuals who perceived no taste from thermal stimulation. This was true for all taste stimuli tested (sucrose, saccharin, sodium chloride, citric acid, quinine sulfate, MSG and PROP), for all three gustatory areas of the mouth (anterior tongue, posterior tongue and soft palate) and for whole-mouth stimulation. Moreover, the same individuals reported stronger sensations from the olfactory stimulus vanillin, particularly when it was sensed retronasally. The generality of the thermal-taster advantage and its extension to an olfactory stimulus suggests that it arises from individual differences in CNS processes that are involved in perception of both taste and flavor.