A Proposed Brain-, Spine-, and Mental- Health Screening Methodology (NEUROSCREEN) for Healthcare Systems: Position of the Society for Brain Mapping and Therapeutics

Shared genetic architecture of COVID-19 and Alzheimer's disease

The severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the сoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have become a global health threat. At the height of the pandemic, major efforts were focused on reducing COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality. Now is the time to study the long-term effects of the pandemic, particularly cognitive impairment associated with long COVID. In recent years much attention has been paid to the possible relationship between COVID-19 and Alzheimer's disease, which is considered a main cause of age-related cognitive impairment. Genetic predisposition was shown for both COVID-19 and Alzheimer's disease. However, the analysis of the similarity of the genetic architecture of these diseases is usually limited to indicating a positive genetic correlation between them. In this review, we have described intrinsic linkages between COVID-19 and Alzheimer's disease, pointed out shared susceptibility genes that were previously identified in genome-wide association studies of both COVID-19 and Alzheimer's disease, and highlighted a panel of SNPs that includes candidate genetic risk markers of the long COVID-associated cognitive impairment.

Positive Clinical Outcomes for Severe Reported Pain Using Robust Non-Addictive Home Electrotherapy-A Case-Series

The North American opioid epidemic has resulted in over 800,000 related premature overdose fatalities since 2000, with the United States leading the world in highest opioid deaths per capita. Despite increased federal funding in recent years, intended to address this crisis, opioid overdose mortality has continued to increase. Legally prescribed opioids also chronically induce a problematic reduction in affect. While an ideal analgesic has yet to be developed, some effective multimodal non-opioid pharmacological regimens for acute pain management are being more widely utilized. Some investigators have suggested that a safer and more scientifically sound approach might be to induce "dopamine homeostasis" through non-pharmacological approaches, since opioid use even for acute pain of short duration is now being strongly questioned. There is also increasing evidence suggesting that some more robust forms of electrotherapy could be applied as an effective adjunct to avoid the problems associated with opioids. This 4-patient case-series presents such an approach to treatment of severe pain. All 4 of these chiropractic treatment cases involved a component of knee osteoarthritis, in addition to other reported areas of pain. Each patient engaged in a home recovery strategy using H-Wave® device stimulation (HWDS) to address residual extremity issues following treatment of spinal subluxation and other standard treatments. A simple statistical analysis was conducted to determine the change in pain scores (Visual Analogue Scale) of pre and post electrotherapy treatments, resulting in significant reductions in self-reported pain (p-value = 0.0002). Three of the four patients continued using the home therapy device long-term as determined by a post-analysis questionnaire. This small case-series demonstrated notably positive outcomes, suggesting consideration of home use of HWDS for safe, non-pharmacological and non-addictive treatment of severe pain.

A Proposed Personalized Spine Care Protocol (SpineScreen) to Treat Visualized Pain Generators: An Illustrative Study Comparing Clinical Outcomes and Postoperative Reoperations between Targeted Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression Surgery, Minimally Invasive TLIF and Open Laminectomy

Background: Endoscopically visualized spine surgery has become an essential tool that aids in identifying and treating anatomical spine pathologies that are not well demonstrated by traditional advanced imaging, including MRI. These pathologies may be visualized during endoscopic lumbar decompression (ELD) and categorized into primary pain generators (PPG). Identifying these PPGs provides crucial information for a successful outcome with ELD and forms the basis for our proposed personalized spine care protocol (SpineScreen). Methods: a prospective study of 412 patients from 7 endoscopic practices consisting of 207 (50.2%) males and 205 (49.8%) females with an average age of 63.67 years and an average follow-up of 69.27 months was performed to compare the durability of targeted ELD based on validated primary pain generators versus image-based open lumbar laminectomy, and minimally invasive lumbar transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) using Kaplan-Meier median survival calculations. The serial time was determined as the interval between index surgery and when patients were censored for additional interventional and surgical treatments for low back-related symptoms. A control group was recruited from patients referred for a surgical consultation but declined interventional and surgical treatment and continued on medical care. Control group patients were censored when they crossed over into any surgical or interventional treatment group. Results: of the 412 study patients, 206 underwent ELD (50.0%), 61 laminectomy (14.8%), and 78 (18.9%) TLIF. There were 67 patients in the control group (16.3% of 412 patients). The most common surgical levels were L4/5 (41.3%), L5/S1 (25.0%), and L4-S1 (16.3%). At two-year f/u, excellent and good Macnab outcomes were reported by 346 of the 412 study patients (84.0%). The VAS leg pain score reduction was 4.250 ± 1.691 (p < 0.001). No other treatment during the available follow-up was required in 60.7% (125/206) of the ELD, 39.9% (31/78) of the TLIF, and 19.7% (12/61 of the laminectomy patients. In control patients, only 15 of the 67 (22.4%) control patients continued with conservative care until final follow-up, all of which had fair and poor functional Macnab outcomes. In patients with Excellent Macnab outcomes, the median durability was 62 months in ELD, 43 in TLIF, and 31 months in laminectomy patients (p < 0.001). The overall survival time in control patients was eight months with a standard error of 0.942, a lower boundary of 6.154, and an upper boundary of 9.846 months. In patients with excellent Macnab outcomes, the median durability was 62 months in ELD, 43 in TLIF, and 31 months in laminectomy patients versus control patients at seven months (p < 0.001). The most common new-onset symptom for censoring was dysesthesia ELD (9.4%; 20/206), axial back pain in TLIF (25.6%;20/78), and recurrent pain in laminectomy (65.6%; 40/61) patients (p < 0.001). Transforaminal epidural steroid injections were tried in 11.7% (24/206) of ELD, 23.1% (18/78) of TLIF, and 36.1% (22/61) of the laminectomy patients. The secondary fusion rate among ELD patients was 8.8% (18/206). Among TLIF patients, the most common additional treatments were revision fusion (19.2%; 15/78) and multilevel rhizotomy (10.3%; 8/78). Common follow-up procedures in laminectomy patients included revision laminectomy (16.4%; 10/61), revision ELD (11.5%; 7/61), and multilevel rhizotomy (11.5%; 7/61). Control patients crossed over into ELD (13.4%), TLIF (13.4%), laminectomy (10.4%) and interventional treatment (40.3%) arms at high rates. Most control patients treated with spinal injections (55.5%) had excellent and good functional outcomes versus 40.7% with fair and poor (3.7%), respectively. The control patients (93.3%) who remained in medical management without surgery or interventional care (14/67) had the worst functional outcomes and were rated as fair and poor. Conclusions: clinical outcomes were more favorable with lumbar surgeries than with non-surgical control groups. Of the control patients, the crossover rate into interventional and surgical care was 40.3% and 37.2%, respectively. There are longer symptom-free intervals after targeted ELD than with TLIF or laminectomy. Additional intervention and surgical treatments are more often needed to manage new-onset postoperative symptoms in TLIF- and laminectomy compared to ELD patients. Few ELD patients will require fusion in the future. Considering the rising cost of surgical spine care, we offer SpineScreen as a simplified and less costly alternative to traditional image-based care models by focusing on primary pain generators rather than image-based criteria derived from the preoperative lumbar MRI scan.

Now is the Time to Improve Cognitive Screening and Assessment for Clinical and Research Advancement

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the only cause of death ranked in the top ten globally without precise early diagnosis or effective means of prevention or treatment. Further, AD was identified as a pandemic [1] well before COVID-19 was dubbed a 21st century pandemic [2]. And now, with the realization of the prominent secondary impacts of pandemics, there is a growing, widespread recognition of the tremendous magnitude of the impending burden from AD in an aging world population in the coming decades [3]. This appreciation has amplified the growing and pressing need for a new, efficacious, and practical platform to detect and track cognitive decline, beginning in the preliminary (prodromal) phases of the disease, sensitively, accurately, effectively, reliably, efficiently, and remotely [4–7]. Moreover, the parallel necessity of clarifying and understanding risk factors, developing successful prevention strategies [8–17], and discovering and monitoring viable and effective treatments could all benefit from accurate and efficient screening and assessment platforms. Modern recognition of AD [18] as a common affliction of the elderly began in 1968 with a paper by Blessed, Tomlinson, & Roth [19] in which two tests, one a brief assessment of cognitive function and the other a measure of daily function, demonstrated impairment which was associated with the postmortem counts of neurofibrillary tangles, composed mainly of microtubule-associated protein-tau (tau), in the brain, though not to senile plaques, composed mainly of amyloid-β (Aβ). Even in more recent analyses, the tangles correspond with the severity of dementia more than the plaques [20, 21]. Since 1960, a plethora of cognitive tests, paper and pencil [22, 23], simple screening models [24], and computerized [25–27], have been developed to assess the dysfunction associated with AD. However, there has been limited application of Modern Test Theory, which includes Item Characteristic Curve Analysis, used in the technological development of such tools [28–31], along with widespread failure to understand the underlying AD pathological process to guide test development [32, 33]. The lack of such development has likely been a major contributor to the failure of the field to develop timely screening approaches for AD [34, 35], inaccurate assessment of the progression of AD [36], and even now, failure to find an effective approach to stopping AD.