Albeit primarily a disease of respiratory tract, the 2019 coronavirus infectious disease (COVID-19) has been found to have causal association with a plethora of neurological, neuropsychiatric and psychological effects. This review aims to analyze them with a discussion of evolving therapeutic recommendations.

PubMed and Google Scholar were searched from 1 January 2020 to 30 May 2020 with the following key terms: “COVID-19”, “SARS-CoV-2”, “pandemic”, “neuro-COVID”, “stroke-COVID”, “epilepsy-COVID”, “COVID-encephalopathy”, “SARS-CoV-2-encephalitis”, “SARS-CoV-2-rhabdomyolysis”, “COVID-demyelinating disease”, “neurological manifestations”, “psychosocial manifestations”, “treatment recommendations”, “COVID-19 and therapeutic changes”, “psychiatry”, “marginalised”, “telemedicine”, “mental health”, “quarantine”, “infodemic” and “social media”. A few newspaper reports related to COVID-19 and psychosocial impacts have also been added as per context.

Neurological and neuropsychiatric manifestations of COVID-19 are abundant. Clinical features of both central and peripheral nervous system involvement are evident. These have been categorically analyzed briefly with literature support. Most of the psychological effects are secondary to pandemic-associated regulatory, socioeconomic and psychosocial changes.

Neurological and neuropsychiatric manifestations of this disease are only beginning to unravel. This demands a wide index of suspicion for prompt diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 to prevent further complications and mortality.

We investigated the impact of regionally imposed social and healthcare restrictions due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to the time metrics in the management of acute ischemic stroke patients admitted at the regional stroke referral site for Central South Ontario, Canada.

We compared relevant time metrics between patients with acute ischemic stroke receiving intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) and/or endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) before and after the declared restrictions and state of emergency imposed in our region (March 17, 2020).

We identified a significant increase in the median door-to-CT times for patients receiving intravenous tPA (19 min, interquartile range (IQR): 14–27 min vs. 13 min, IQR: 9–17 min, p = 0.008) and/or EVT (20 min, IQR: 15–33 min vs. 11 min, IQR: 5–20 min, p = 0.035) after the start of social and healthcare restrictions in our region compared to the previous 12 months. For patients receiving intravenous tPA treatment, we also found a significant increase (p = 0.005) in the median door-to-needle time (61 min, IQR: 46–72 min vs. 37 min, IQR: 30–50 min). No delays in the time from symptom onset to hospital presentation were uncovered for patients receiving tPA and/or endovascular reperfusion treatments in the first 1.5 months after the establishment of regional and institutional restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

We detected an increase in our institutional time to treatment metrics for acute ischemic stroke patients receiving tPA and/or endovascular reperfusion therapies, related to delays from hospital presentation to the acquisition of cranial CT imaging for both tPA- and EVT-treated patients, and an added delay to treatment with tPA.

Growing evidence showed that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection may present with neurological manifestations. This review aimed to determine the neurological manifestations and complications in COVID-19.

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis that included cohort and case series/reports involving a population of patients confirmed with COVID-19 infection and their neurologic manifestations. We searched the following electronic databases until April 18, 2020: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and World Health Organization database (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020180658).

From 403 articles identified, 49 studies involving a total of 6,335 confirmed COVID-19 cases were included. The random-effects modeling analysis for each neurological symptom showed the following proportional point estimates with 95% confidence intervals: “headache” (0.12; 0.10–0.14; I2 = 77%), “dizziness” (0.08; 0.05–0.12; I2 = 82%), “headache and dizziness” (0.09; 0.06–0.13; I2 = 0%), “nausea” (0.07; 0.04–0.11; I2 = 79%), “vomiting” (0.05; 0.03–0.08; I2 = 74%), “nausea and vomiting” (0.06; 0.03–0.11; I2 = 83%), “confusion” (0.05; 0.02–0.14; I2 = 86%), and “myalgia” (0.21; 0.18–0.25; I2 = 85%). The most common neurological complication associated with COVID-19 infection was vascular disorders (n = 23); other associated conditions were encephalopathy (n = 3), encephalitis (n = 1), oculomotor nerve palsy (n = 1), isolated sudden-onset anosmia (n = 1), Guillain–Barré syndrome (n = 1), and Miller–Fisher syndrome (n = 2). Most patients with neurological complications survived (n = 14); a considerable number of patients died (n = 7); and the rest had unclear outcomes (n = 12).

This review revealed that neurologic involvement may manifest in COVID-19 infection. What has initially been thought of as a primarily respiratory illness has evolved into a wide-ranging multi-organ disease.

Decisions to treat large-vessel occlusion with endovascular therapy (EVT) or intravenous alteplase depend on how physicians weigh benefits against risks when considering patients’ comorbidities. We explored EVT/alteplase decision-making by stroke experts in the setting of comorbidity/disability.

In an international multi-disciplinary survey, experts chose treatment approaches under current resources and under assumed ideal conditions for 10 of 22 randomly assigned case scenarios. Five included comorbidities (cancer, cardiac/respiratory/renal disease, mild cognitive impairment [MCI], physical dependence). We examined scenario/respondent characteristics associated with EVT/alteplase decisions using multivariable logistic regressions.

Among 607 physicians (38 countries), EVT was chosen less often in comorbidity-related scenarios (79.6% under current resources, 82.7% assuming ideal conditions) versus six “level-1A” scenarios for which EVT/alteplase was clearly indicated by current guidelines (91.1% and 95.1%, respectively, odds ratio [OR] [current resources]: 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.31–0.47). However, EVT was chosen more often in comorbidity-related scenarios compared to all other 17 scenarios (79.6% versus 74.4% under current resources, OR: 1.34, 1.17–1.54). Responses favoring alteplase for comorbidity-related scenarios (e.g. 75.0% under current resources) were comparable to level-1A scenarios (72.2%) and higher than all others (60.4%). No comorbidity independently diminished EVT odds when considering all scenarios. MCI and dependence carried higher alteplase odds; cancer and cardiac/respiratory/renal disease had lower odds. Being older/female carried lower EVT odds. Relevant respondent characteristics included performing more EVT cases/year (higher EVT-, lower alteplase odds), practicing in East Asia (higher EVT odds), and in interventional neuroradiology (lower alteplase odds vs neurology).

Moderate-to-severe comorbidities did not consistently deter experts from EVT, suggesting equipoise about withholding EVT based on comorbidities. However, alteplase was often foregone when respondents chose EVT. Differences in decision-making by patient age/sex merit further study.

The study sought to explore the experiences of participants affected by stroke with home video visit (HVV) for follow-up visits in order to understand the determinants, barriers, and benefits associated with HVVs.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with (n = 23) participants to gather insight and descriptive information about patients’ experiences with HVV. Specifically, we sought to collect descriptions about the (1) costs and time associated with in-person visits, (2) facilitators and barriers to in-person and virtual visits, and (3) their values attached to traditional and virtual forms of patient care.

HVVs were perceived to be a mode of healthcare that is time-saving and convenient for both participants and physicians. However, our study also found some participants felt uncomfortable using technology to conduct medical visits while others still supported a positive view of traditional forms of in-person visits because they valued the in-person interactions and safe environment of the hospital.

While HVVs were considered to be useful in addressing geographical barriers to health care, technological and digital health literacy may serve to impede seniors from using the service, with some of them opting to go to the hospital despite geographical barriers. Resultantly, HVVs may serve both to alleviate and exacerbate certain determinants to health care.

Disabilities in physical activity and functional independence affect the early rehabilitation of stroke survivors. Moreover, a good instrument for assessing activity disability allows accurate assessment of physical disability and assists in prognosis determination.

To compare three assessment tools for physical activity in acute-phase stroke survivors.

We conducted this prospective observational study at an affiliated hospital of a Medical University in Shanghai, China, from June 2018 to November 2019. We administered three instruments to all patients during post-stroke days 5–7, including the Modified Barthel Index (MBI), Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL), and modified Rankin scale (mRs). We analyzed correlations among the aforementioned scales and the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) using Spearman’s rank-order correlations test. Univariate analyses were performed using the Mann–Whitney U test. We used a binary logistic regression model to assess the association between the NIHSS (30 days) and patient-related variables. Finally, we used receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves to assess the predictive value of the multivariate regression models.

There was a high correlation among the three instruments; furthermore, the MBI had a higher correlation with the NIHSS (days 5–7). The NIHSS (day 30) was correlated with thrombolysis. ROC analysis revealed that the mRs-measured disability level had the highest predictive value of short-term stroke severity (30 days).

The MBI was the best scale for measuring disability in physical activity, whereas the mRs showed better accuracy in short-term prediction of stroke severity.

The manufacturer of perampanel (PER) suggests an initial adult dose of 2–4 mg/day and an upward dose titration of 2 mg at no more frequently than 1- or 2-week intervals when used with enzyme-enhancing antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) or nonenzyme-enhancing AEDs, respectively. The general practice in our clinic is an initial dose of PER 2 mg/day and titrated by 2 mg/4 weeks to an initial target of 6 mg/day.

Retrospective chart audit of patients starting PER in an adult epilepsy clinic between September 2013 and November 2016 with at least one 6-month follow-up visit was reviewed. Data collection included patient demographics, seizure characteristics, past and concurrent therapy, monthly seizure frequency before PER and at 6-month visit, and characteristics of PER discontinuation. Efficacy of treatment was assessed with the Engel classification and 50% responder rate.

N = 102 patients; mean age = 40 years and 54% females. Focal onset seizures 85%, generalized 13%, and unknown 2%. Median prior AED exposure = 6 (range 3–20); median concomitant AED use = 2 (range 1–5). Follow-up range was 6–37 months. The median seizure frequency/month prePER treatment was 6 (range 0–30) for focal onset seizures and 1 (range 0–6) for generalized seizures. The retention rate amongst all patients at 6 months was 78.4%. At 6-month follow-up, 36% of all patients achieved Engel class I (seizure freedom) (30.7% of patients with focal onset seizures and 63.6% with generalized epilepsy). The 50% responder rate was 52% and 82% for focal and generalized epilepsy, respectively.

PER has a good retention rate when titrated slowly and thus encouraging seizure freedom results in an otherwise medically refractory epilepsy population.