The current coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) outbreak, caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2), has raised the possibility of potential neurotropic properties of this virus. Indeed, neurological sequelae of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection have already been reported and highlight the relevance of considering the neurological impact of coronavirus (CoV) from a translational perspective. Animal models of SARS and Middle East respiratory syndrome, caused by structurally similar CoVs during the 2002 and 2012 epidemics, have provided valuable data on nervous system involvement by CoVs and the potential for central nervous system spread of SARS‐CoV‐2. One key finding that may unify these pathogens is that all require angiotensin‐converting enzyme 2 as a cell entry receptor. The CoV spike glycoprotein, by which SARS‐CoV‐2 binds to cell membranes, binds angiotensin‐converting enzyme 2 with a higher affinity compared with SARS‐CoV. The expression of this receptor in neurons and endothelial cells hints that SARS‐CoV‐2 may have higher neuroinvasive potential compared with previous CoVs. However, it remains to be determined how such invasiveness might contribute to respiratory failure or cause direct neurological damage. Both direct and indirect mechanisms may be of relevance. Clinical heterogeneity potentially driven by differential host immune‐mediated responses will require extensive investigation. Development of disease models to anticipate emerging neurological complications and to explore mechanisms of direct or immune‐mediated pathogenicity in the short and medium term is therefore of great importance. In this brief review, we describe the current knowledge from models of previous CoV infections and discuss their potential relevance to COVID‐19.

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 We invited authors of studies from the first pandemic wave, plus clinicians in the Global COVID-Neuro Network with unpublished data, to contribute.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.

No abstract

Background and purpose: COVID-19-related acute neurological phenotypes are being increasingly recognised, with neurological complications reported in more than 30% of hospitalised patients. However, multicentric studies providing a population-based perspective are lacking. Methods:We conducted a retrospective multicentric study at five hospitals in Northern Portugal, representing 45.1% of all hospitalised patients in this region, between 1 March and 30 June 2020.Results: Among 1261 hospitalised COVID-19 patients, 457 (36.2%) presented neurological manifestations, corresponding to a rate of 357 per 1000 in the North Region. Patients with neurologic manifestations were younger (68.0 vs. 71.2 years, p = 0.002), and the most frequent neurological symptoms were headache (13.4%), delirium (10.1%), and impairment of consciousness (9.7%). Acute well-defined central nervous system (CNS) involvement was found in 19.1% of patients, corresponding to a rate of 217 per 1000 hospitalised patients in the whole region. Assuming that all patients with severe neurological events were hospitalised, we extrapolated our results to all COVID-19 patients in the region, estimating that 116 will have a severe neurological event, corresponding to a rate of nine per 1000 (95% CI = 7-11). Overall case fatality in patients presenting neurological manifestations was 19.8%, increasing to 32.6% among those with acute well-defined CNS involvement. Conclusions:We characterised the population of hospitalised COVID-19 patients in Northern Portugal and found that neurological symptoms are common and associated with a high degree of disability at discharge. CNS involvement with criteria for in-hospital admission was observed in a significant proportion of patients. This knowledge provides the tools for adequate health planning and for improving COVID-19 multidisciplinary patient care.

The increased prevalence and severity of academic-related distress is of significant concern on college campuses.  Of particular relevance to instructors is the anxiety relating to classroom teaching and evaluation practices.  Sources of evaluation anxiety include student uncertainty about the nature of the expected demands as well as their ability to meet these demands. This report presents work from a pilot study investigating correlations between evaluation anxiety and perceived evaluation fidelity for different evaluation techniques across four different disciplines.  We also examined the potential mediating role of academic self-efficacy in the relationship between anxiety and expected grade.  Our results provide insight into methods to reduce anxiety and increase performance: should instructors focus their efforts on modifying their evaluation tools or increasing academic self-efficacy?   La prévalence et la gravité accrues de la détresse liée aux études sont une préoccupation importante sur les campus universitaires. L'angoisse liée aux pratiques d'enseignement et d'évaluation en classe est particulièrement importante pour les instructeurs. Les sources d'angoisse de l'évaluation comprennent l'incertitude des étudiants quant à la nature des demandes attendues ainsi que leur capacité à répondre à ces demandes. Ce rapport présente les résultats d'une étude pilote portant sur les corrélations entre l'anxiété de l'évaluation et la fidélité à l'évaluation perçue pour différentes techniques d'évaluation dans quatre disciplines différentes. Nous avons également examiné le rôle médiateur potentiel de l'auto-efficacité académique dans la relation entre l'anxiété et le grade attendu. Nos résultats donnent un aperçu des méthodes permettant de réduire l’anxiété et d’augmenter les performances: les instructeurs devraient-ils concentrer leurs efforts sur la modification de leurs outils d’évaluation ou sur l’amélioration de leur efficacité personnelle?