Neurologic manifestations in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Mexico City.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a systemic entity that frequently implies neurologic features at presentation and complications during the disease course. We aimed to describe the characteristics and predictors for developing in-hospital neurologic manifestations in a large cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Mexico City.
METHODS: We analyzed records from consecutive adult patients hospitalized from March 15 to June 30, 2020, with moderate to severe COVID-19 confirmed by reverse transcription real-time polymerase chain reaction (rtRT-PCR) for the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Neurologic syndromes were actively searched by a standardized structured questionnaire and physical examination, confirmed by neuroimaging, neurophysiology of laboratory analyses, as applicable.
RESULTS: We studied 1,072 cases (65% men, mean age 53.2±13 years), 71 patients had pre-existing neurologic diseases (diabetic neuropathy: 17, epilepsy: 15, history of ischemic stroke: eight, migraine: six, multiple sclerosis: one, Parkinson disease: one), and 163 (15.2%) developed a new neurologic complication. Headache (41.7%), myalgia (38.5%), dysgeusia (8%), and anosmia (7%) were the most common neurologic symptoms at hospital presentation. Delirium (13.1%), objective limb weakness (5.1%), and delayed recovery of mental status after sedation withdrawal (2.5%), were the most common new neurologic syndromes. Age, headache at presentation, preexisting neurologic disease, invasive mechanical ventilation, and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio ≥9 were independent predictors of new in-hospital neurologic complications.
CONCLUSIONS: Even after excluding initial clinical features and pre-existing comorbidities, new neurologic complications in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 are frequent and can be predicted from clinical information at hospital admission.

Introduction

In December 2019, an outbreak of pneumonia of unknown etiology emerged in Wuhan City, Hubei Province of China [1]. By January 7, 2020, a new strain of β-coronavirus named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was identified as the etiological agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) [2]. In Mexico, the first official case was reported on February 28, 2020 [3], and on March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a global pandemic [4].

From the initial clinical descriptions of COVID-19, there has been accruing evidence on the potential neurologic involvement of SARS-CoV-2, manifested by symptoms such as anosmia, dysgeusia, muscle pain, and headache during the early course of the disease [5-8]. Although these are non-specific symptoms, the neurologic symptoms have led to many hypotheses on how the virus reaches the nervous system, including its potential entry via the olfactory groove or the bloodstream [9-12]. There are also well-documented cases and case series describing a direct neurologic viral involvement and some post-infectious manifestations [11].

Currently, the Latin American region accounts for most of the currently active cases of COVID-19 [13]. Worldwide, there has been an increasing awareness of the long-term neurologic consequences for the surviving patients [14, 15]. The description of neurologic manifestations in COVID-19 patients is limited to a few series, and to the best of our knowledge [16-19], large series describing this disease’s neurologic implications in Latin America are lacking. We aimed to describe the characteristics and clinical predictors for developing in-hospital neurologic manifestations in a large cohort of hospitalized COVID-19 patients of Mexico City. This is the first cross-sectional report from a large study aimed to characterize neurologic complications of COVID-19 in the long term.

Methods

Study design, patient selection, and setting

This prospective, cross-sectional, observational study was conducted at the Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, a COVID-19-designated tertiary-care referral hospital in Mexico City. Since the very beginning, standardized diagnostic and care protocols were implemented. Signed informed consent was obtained from patients or next-of-kin on admission. Clinical information was captured in a database derived from electronic medical records designed for patients’ care and research. The first patient included in the research database was recorded on March 15, 2020. The Neuro-COVID-19 research team accessed this prospective database first in May 01, 2020. The Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán Research and Ethics Committees approved the study (reference number CAI-3497-20-20-1). For the present report, we analyzed consecutive hospitalized adult (≥18 years) patients hospitalized from March 15 to June 30, 2020, who had confirmed COVID-19 by positive SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription real-time polymerase chain reaction (rtRT-PCR) in respiratory fluids from nasal swabs and chest CT scan. For the purpose of the present analysis, we excluded patients with negative rtRT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2, non-hospitalized ambulatory patients, and those discharged or transferred to other hospitals within the first 24 hours after admission. The present report aimed to describe differences in demographics, clinical presentation, and disease severity in patients who developed new neurologic events diagnosed during their hospital stay with those patients who did not. For these purposes, we defined patients with new neurologic events as those who suffered delirium, delayed recovery from medical sedation, myopathies, peripheral nerve syndromes, seizures, encephalopathy, stroke (either hemorrhagic or ischemic), and any other established new neurologic diagnosis not previously identified at hospital admission.

Data collection

We reviewed electronic medical records, laboratory findings, and radiologic examinations from all patients. Data collection included baseline demographic characteristics and comorbidities, including the history of a diagnosed cardiovascular, pulmonary, neurologic, or autoimmune disease. We also recorded symptoms at presentation (i.e., fever, rhinorrhea, cough, headache, anosmia, dysgeusia, myalgia, arthralgia, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea); time from symptom onset to hospital presentation; vital signs on admission; laboratory findings including complete blood count, blood chemistry (renal and liver function tests, creatine kinase [CK] and lactate dehydrogenase), inflammatory response biomarkers (serum ferritin, D-dimer, C-reactive protein, and fibrinogen); arterial blood gas analysis; chest CT scan findings; days from admission to development of neurologic events; requirement of intensive care unit (ICU) or requirement of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV); days of in-hospital stay; and hospital outcome. The information was recorded using a standardized case report format. Two physicians reviewed all data, and a third researcher adjudicated any difference in interpretation between the two primary reviewers.

Definitions

We defined an altered mental status using a Glasgow coma score ≤13 points at presentation. Delirium was defined as fluctuation in mental status. Delayed recovery of mental status after sedation was defined as persistent altered mental status lasting more than four half-lives after discontinuation of sedative drugs. Acute ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke was diagnosed by brain CT, MRI, or both. Encephalitis was defined as persistent altered mental status in patients with an abnormal MRI and inflammatory changes in the CSF. Weakness was defined clinically. HyperCKemia was defined as a CK level ≥ 200 U/L, according to our laboratory upper limit of normality. Myopathy was defined as the presence of myalgia at admission and a CK level ≥ 200 U/I. Obesity was defined as a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30. In all patients, a chest CT was performed and evaluated by experienced radiologists. A visual semi-quantitative classification of the severity of lung involvement assessing total pulmonary consolidation/ground-glass opacities as mild (extension of the disease ≤20% of the pulmonary parenchyma), moderate (20–50%), or severe (> 50%) was used. The PaO2/FiO2 ratio was calculated using the estimated fractions of inspired oxygen provided by each oxygen delivery device, according to the oxygen flow rate (L/min), when the first arterial blood gas measurement was obtained. Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was categorized according to the Berlin definition into mild, moderate, and severe [20]. The neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio was categorized as normal/mild (1–9), moderate (9–18), and severe (>18) [21]. On admission, we calculated illness severity according to the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) 2 and the disease progression risk with the comorbidities, age, lymphocytes and lactic dehydrogenase (LDH) (CALL) scoring model [22, 23].

Statistical analyses

Categorical variables are reported as frequencies and proportions, and continuous variables are described as median with interquartile range (IQR) or as mean with standard deviation (SD). Analyses of differences for independent groups between categorical variables were performed with the X or Fisher’s exact tests, and for continuous variables with the Student’s t-test or Mann-Whitney U test, as appropriate. We performed a binary logistic regression analysis to determine predictors for the development of in-hospital neurologic manifestations, including all the independent co-variables based on biological plausibility and those with p ≤ 0.1. The model adjustment was evaluated by the Hosmer-Lemeshow test, which was considered reliable when the p value was ≥ 0.20. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% CI were calculated. All values were two-tailed and considered significant when the p < 0.05. All statistical analyses were performed with IBM SPSS Statistics, version 26 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

Results

During the study period, a total of 1,235 patients with COVID-19 were hospitalized in our center. We excluded 163 cases for the following reasons: 107 had negative (one or multiple) SARS-CoV-2 rtRT-PCR tests results, and 56 were discharged or transferred to other hospitals within the first 24 hours after admission. We studied 1072 cases, 375 (35%) women, and 697 (65%) men, with a mean age of 53.2±13 years (Table 1). There were no demographic differences between patients who developed in-hospital neurologic events and those who did not. The most common comorbidity was obesity (46.5%), followed by hypertension (30.3%) and diabetes (27.9%).

Table 1

Characteristics of the patients hospitalized with moderate to severe COVID-19.

	All patients (n = 1,072)	Without neurologic events (n = 909)	With neurologic events (n = 163)	p value
Demographics
Age, mean (±SD), years	53.2 (13.7)	53.1 (13.5)	54.1 (14.9)	0.389
Male, n (%)	697 (65)	582 (64)	115 (70.6)	0.108
Comorbidities
Diabetes, n (%)	299 (27.9)	254 (27.9)	45 (27.6)	0.93
Hypertension, n (%)	325 (30.3)	270 (29.7)	55 (33.7)	0.302
Smoking, n (%)	157 (14.6)	137 (15.1)	20 (12.3)	0.352
Obesity*, n (%)	499 (46.5)	428 (47.1)	71 (43.6)	0.406
BMI, mean (±SD)	30.1 (5.8)	30.2 (5.8)	29.6 (5.9)	0.219
HIV infection, n (%)	12 (1.1)	8 (0.9)	4 (2.5)	0.095
Pulmonary disease, n (%)	42 (3.9)	33 (3.6)	9 (5.5)	0.252
Cardiovascular disease, n (%)	57 (5.3)	49 (5.4)	8 (4.9)	0.798
Neurologic disease, n (%)	71 (6.6)	51 (5.6)	20 (12.3)	0.002
Autoimmune disease, n (%)	69 (6.4)	56 (6.2)	13 (8)	0.385
Non-neurologic symptoms
Length from symptoms onset to hospital admission, median (IQR), days	7 (6–10)	8 (6–10.5)	7 (6–10)	0.418
Dyspnea, n (%)	923 (86.1)	770 (84.7)	153 (93.9)	0.004
Fever, n (%)	896 (83.6)	763 (84.3)	133 (79.8)	0.457
Cough, n (%)	834 (77.8)	708 (77.9)	126 (77.3)	0.868
Diarrhea, n (%)	188 (17.5)	154 (16.9)	34 (20.9)	0.226
Rhinorrhea, n (%)	157 (14.6)	129 (14.2)	28 (17.2)	0.321
Chest pain, n (%)	142 (13.2)	124 (13.6)	18 (11)	0.368
Vomiting, n (%)	59 (5.5)	48 (5.3)	11 (6.7)	0.449
Joints pain, n (%)	345 (32.2)	283 (31.1)	62(38)	0.082
Laboratory findings
Hemoglobin, mean (±SD), g/dL	15.2 (1.9)	15.2 (1.9)	14.6 (2.1)	0.01
WBC, median (IQR), 109/L	8.3 (5.9–11.6)	8.1 (5.9–11.1)	9.8 (6.7–13.7)	0.001
Neutrophils, median (IQR), 109/L	6.8 (4.6–10.1)	6.6 (4.5–9.6)	8.7 (5.5–12.2)	< 0.001
Lymphocytes, median (IQR), 109/L	0.75 (0.52–1.02)	0.78 (0.54–1.04)	0.65 (0.45–0.87)	< 0.001
Platelets, median (IQR), 109/L	226 (181–300)	226 (181–296)	228 (181–328)	0.277
Glucose, median (IQR), mg/dL	122 (105–173)	121 (105–173.5)	131 (107–175)	0.202
Creatinine, median (IQR), mg/dL	0.94 (0.77–1.2)	0.93 (0.76–1.17)	1.01 (0.81–1.31)	0.012
Blood urea nitrogen, median (IQR), mg/dL	16.2 (11.8–24.2)	15.7 (11.5–23)	20.4 (13.6–29.2)	< 0.001
Sodium, mean (±SD), mmol/L	135 (4.5)	134.9 (4.4)	135.5 (4.9)	0.097
Potassium, mean (±SD), mmol/L	4.1 (0.67)	4.05 (0.68)	4.08 (0.57)	0.525
ALT, median (IQR), U/L	36.4 (24.1–55.5)	36.3 (24–55.6)	37.8 (24.4–55.1)	0.901
AST, median (IQR), U/L	42.5 (30–62.8)	42 (29.6–62.8)	46.6 (31.4–61.8)	0.459
Albumin, mean (±SD), g/dL	3.6 (0.5)	3.6 (0.5)	3.4 (0.5)	< 0.001
LDH, median (IQR), U/L	385 (298–504)	377 (295–498)	422 (342–554)	0.001
CK, median (IQR), U/L	110 (57–221)	98 (56–216)	125 (63–239)	0.065
HyperCKemia*, n (%)	281 (26.2)	230 (26.6)	51 (31.9)	0.169
C-reactive protein, mean (±SD), mg/dL	16.4 (10)	14.9 (7.2–23)	19.2 (12.5–27.2)	<0.001
Ferritin, median (IQR), ng/dL	629 (327–1,086)	614 (324–1,079)	684 (372–1,189)	0.142
Fibrinogen, mean (±SD), mg/dL	691.9 (212)	685.3 (213.2)	727.3 (202.5)	0.026
D-dimer, median (IQR), ng/dL	829 (524–1323)	811 (508–1,289)	944 (662–1,782)	0.004
Serum lactate, median (IQR), U/L	1.1 (1.1–2.0)	1.4 (1.1–2.0)	1.5 (1.1–2.1)	0.145

ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; BMI, body mass index; CK, creatine kinase; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; IQR, interquartile range; LDH, Lactate dehydrogenase; SD, standard deviation; WBC, white blood cells.

*Defined as a body mass index ≥30.

** Defined as a creatine kinase ≥200 U/L.

Seventy-one patients had pre-existing neurologic disease: diabetic neuropathy in 17, epilepsy in 15, eight with a history of ischemic stroke (none hemorrhagic), six with migraine, and one with multiple sclerosis, and Parkinson’s disease, respectively. Pre-existing neurologic disorders were more frequent in those who developed neurologic events during hospitalization (12.3% vs. 5.6%; p = 0.002). The median number of days from symptoms onset to admission was seven without differences between groups; the most frequent non-neurologic symptoms were dyspnea in 923 (86.1%), fever in 896 (83.6%), and cough in 834 (77.8%); overall, there were no differences of presenting symptoms within groups.

Hemoglobin and lymphocyte levels were significantly lower in patients who developed in-hospital neurologic manifestations. In contrast, the total neutrophil count was higher in this group. Although there were statistical differences in creatinine and blood urea nitrogen levels, both fell within normal limits. Plasma liver enzymes activity was within normal limits in both groups, but patients with neurologic manifestations had significantly lower albumin levels. C-reactive protein, D-dimer, and fibrinogen levels were significantly higher among patients with in-hospital events. Findings of arterial blood gas analysis were comparable between groups; however, patients with neurologic manifestations had higher oxygen requirements (46.8± 6.2 vs. 39.3±16.7 p < 0.001), breathing rate (32±10 vs. 29±8 p < 0.001), and heart rate 105±18 vs. 102±17 p = 0.021).

On admission, patients who developed in-hospital neurologic manifestations had increased disease severity as evidenced by lower PaO2/FiO2 ratios (164.9±81.4 vs. 207.9±98.6; p < 0.001), higher neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (12.87, IQR: 8.44–20 vs. 8.5 IQR: 5.2–14.92; p < 0.001), and NEWS2 score (7.55±1.77 vs. 6.87±1.87; p < 0.001), compared with those patients who did not develop neurologic complications. Lung damage on admission (measured by chest CT) was also more significant among those patients developing in-hospital neurologic dysfunction (Table 2).

Table 2

Disease severity at hospital admission in patients hospitalized with moderate to severe COVID-19.

	All patients (n = 1,072)	Without neurologic events (n = 909)	With neurologic events (n = 163)	p value
Chest CT severity				< 0.001
Mild, n (%)	92 (8.6)	87 (9.6)	5 (3.1)
Moderate, n (%)	384 (35.9)	346 (38.1)	38 (23.5)
Severe, n (%)	594 (55.5)	475 (52.3)	119 (73.5)
ARDS severity				< 0.001
Without, n (%)	151 (14.3)	139 (15.5)	12 (7.4)
Mild, n (%)	333 (31.5)	299 (33.4)	34 (21)
Moderate, n (%)	411 (38.8)	337 (37.6)	74 (45.7)
Severe, n (%)	163 (15.4)	121 (13.5)	42 (25.9)
Neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio				< 0.001
Normal-Mild, n (%)	522 (48.7)	478 (52.6)	44 (27)
Moderate, n (%)	328 (30.6)	261 (28.7)	67 (41.1)
Severe, n (%)	222 (20.7)	170 (18.7)	52 (31.9)
CALL score				0.016
Low risk, n (%)	379 (35.4)	311 (34.2)	68 (41.7)
Intermediate risk, n (%)	424 (39.6)	376 (41.4)	48 (29.4)
High risk, n (%)	269 (25.1)	222 (24.4)	47 (28.8)
NEWS2 score				0.003
Low risk, n (%)	120 (11.2)	114 (12.5)	6 (3.7)
Medium risk, n (%)	252 (23.5)	215 (23.9)	37 (22.7)
High risk, n (%)	700 (65.3)	580 (63.8)	120 (73.6)

ARDS, acute respiratory distress syndrome; FiO2, fraction of inspired oxygen; IQR, interquartile range; NEWS2, National Early Warning Score 2; PaO2, partial pressure of oxygen; SD, standard deviation.

Neurologic manifestations and in-hospital outcomes can be seen in Table 3. Headache was the most common neurologic symptom on admission (41.7%), followed by myalgia (38.5%), dysgeusia (8%), and anosmia (7%); however, there were no differences in those symptoms between groups. Eighteen patients presented with altered mental status, being more frequent in patients who developed in-hospital neurologic events (6.7% vs. 0.8% p < 0.001). The most common neurologic event during hospitalization was delirium, observed in 140 (13.1%) patients, weakness in 55 (5.1%), and delayed recovery of mental status after sedation withdrawal in 27 (2.5%).

Table 3

Neurologic manifestations and outcomes of the patients hospitalized with moderate to severe COVID-19.

	All patients (n = 1,072)	Without neurologic events (n = 909)	With neurologic events (n = 163)	p value
Neurologic manifestations at admission, n (%)	697 (65)	580 (63.8)	117 (71.8)	0.049
Headache, n (%)	447 (41.7)	371 (40.8)	76 (46.6)	0.166
Muscle pain, n (%)	413 (38.5)	338 (37.2)	75 (46)	0.033
Myopathy, n (%)	106 (9.9)	85 (9.4)	21 (12.9)	0.164
Anosmia, n (%)	75 (7)	64 (7)	11 (6.7)	0.893
Dysgeusia, n (%)	86 (8)	72 (7.9)	14 (8.6)	0.772
Dizziness, n (%)	13 (1.2)	9 (1)	4 (2.5)	0.121
Altered mental status, n (%)	18 (1.7)	7 (0.8)	11 (6.7)	< 0.001
Glasgow coma scale, mean (±SD)	14.92 (0.61)	14.94 (0.56)	14.75 (0.85)	0.007
In-hospital neurologic manifestations	163 (15.2)	-	-	-
Delirium, n (%)	140 (13.1)	-	140 (85.9)	-
Delayed recovery of mental status after sedation, n (%)	27 (2.5)	-	27 (16.6)	-
Seizures, n (%)	9 (0.8)	-	9 (5.5)	-
Stroke, n (%)	9 (0.8)	-	9 (5.5)	-
Ischemic, n (%)	6 (0.6)	-	6 (3.7)	-
Hemorrhagic, n (%)	3 (0.3)	-	3 (1.8)	-
Encephalitis, n (%)	2 (0.2)	-	2 (1.2)	-
Weakness, n (%)	55 (5.1)	-	55 (33.7)	-
Outcomes
ICU admission/IMV, n (%)	250 (23.3)	131 (14.4)	119 (73)	<0.001
Interval from hospital admission to IMV (days), median (IQR)	2 (1–4)	2 (1–3)	2 (1–4)	0.005
Interval from sedation withdrawal to IMV weaning (days), median (IQR)	3 (1–5)	1 (0–3)	3 (1–6)	<0.001
Days of in-hospital stay, median (IQR), days	7 (4–12)	6 (4–9)	23 (14–32)	<0.001
Death, n (%)	264 (24.6)	232 (25.5)	32 (19.6)	0.115

ICU, intensive care unit; IMV, invasive mechanical ventilation; IQR, interquartile range.

Nine patients developed seizures, eight of which were related to metabolic abnormalities. One patient developed myoclonic status epilepticus after an episode of hypoxia-related cardiac arrest with bilateral watershed ischemic lesions in the occipital, parietal and frontal lobes and died 48 hours after the event. Two patients developed encephalitis; both tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 rtRT-PCR in CSF. Nine patients developed stroke events, one of them was diagnosed at presentation; six ischemic, all within the anterior circulation (none within reperfusion therapy timeframe), and three with intracerebral hemorrhage. Four patients developed metabolic-related myoclonic jerks.

Regarding the timing of the events, seizures (median 15 days, IQR 7–27) developed earlier during the hospitalization, followed by delirium (median 16 days, IQR 7.5–21), weakness (median 20 days, IQR 15–25), and stroke (median 24 days, IQR 6–30), delayed recovery of mental status after sedation withdrawal (median 17, IQR 9–27), and encephalitis (median 9.5, IQR 2–17) (Fig 1). Neuroimaging studies were performed in only 19% of patients with neurologic symptoms; CSF analysis and EEG where routinely performed in only 5.5% and 3.7% of cases, respectively. Testing for SARS-COV-2 rtRT-PCR in CSF was negative in all patients. Admission to the ICU and the use of IMV were more frequent in patients with neurologic events, and the length of in-hospital stay was longer in that group. Although patients with neurologic events had increased disease severity and higher IMV requirements, mortality rates were similar between groups (25.5% vs. 19.6%; p = 0.115).

Fig 1

Days from admission to the appearance of neurologic events.

Delayed recovery of consciousness was defined as a persistent altered mental status lasting longer than four half-lives after the withdrawal of sedative drugs.

In a multivariate analysis adjusted for relevant covariables (i.e, chest CT findings, prognosis scores, symptoms at admission, biomarkers, length from symptoms onset to hospital admission, and length of stay): age, headache on admission, preexisting neurologic disease, the need for IMV, and a neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio ≥9 were independent predictive factors for the development of new in-hospital neurologic events that were not present at hospital presentation (Table 4).

Table 4

Predictors for the development of new neurologic events during hospitalization in patients hospitalized with moderate to severe COVID-19*.

Variable	Odds ratio (95% CI)	p value
Age, per year increment	1.024 (1.007–1.040)	0.005
Preexisting neurologic disease	5.188 (2.615–10.294)	< 0.001
Headache at admission	1.532 (1.020–2.301)	0.04
ICU admission	20.591 (13.030–32.540)	< 0.001
Neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio ≥ 9 points	1.952 (1.267–3.010)	0.002

ICU, intensive care unit.

* Model adjusted for sex, chest CT findings, comorbidities, non-neurologic symptoms at admission, anosmia, dysgeusia, D-dimer, and PaO2/FiO2 ratio, length from symptoms onset to hospital admission, and length of stay.

Discussion

This is the largest single-center study describing the in-hospital neurologic manifestations of patients with confirmed COVID-19 in Latin America, a region where the pandemic has been particularly severe [13]. In this cohort, the incidence of hospital neurologic outcomes was 15.2%, a frequency similar to the 13.5% reported in a series of 4,491 hospitalized patients from four New York City hospitals [24] (Table 5). When including non-specific neurologic manifestations such as headache, anosmia, dysgeusia, and myalgia, this frequency increased to 69.3%, which is slightly higher than the reported in similar series with an overall frequency of 56.4% [16-19].

Table 5

Main neurologic manifestations reported among series of hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Neurologic syndromes	Mexico (n = 1,072)	Spain [16] (n = 841)	Turkey [19] (n = 239)	China [17] (n = 214)	Italy [18] (n = 213)	Total, n (%)
Any neurologic symptom, n (%)	743 (69.3)	483 (57.4)	83 (34.7)	78 (36.4)	64 (30)	1445/2559 (56.4)
Central nervous system
Headache, n (%)	447 (41.7)	119 (14.1)	64 (26.7)	28 (13.1)	10 (4.6)	668/2559 (26.1)
Dizziness, n (%)	13 (1.2)	51 (6.1)	16 (6.7)	36 (16.8)	3 (1.4)	119/2559 (4.6)
Altered mental state, n (%)	167 (15.6)	165 (19.6)	23 (9.6)	16 (7.5)	11 (5.1)	386/2559 (15.1)
Seizures, n (%)	9 (0.8)	6 (0.7)	NR	1 (0.5)	6 (2.8)	22/2320 (0.9)
Cerebrovascular disease*, n (%)	9 (0.8)	14 (1.7)	9 (3.8)	6 (2.8)	4 (1.9)	33/2559 (1.29)
Encephalitis, n (%)	2 (0.2)	1 (0.1)	NR	NR	1 (0.5)	4/2106 (0.2)
Movement disorders, n (%)	4 (0.3)	6 (0.7)	NR	NR	NR	10/1893 (0.5)
Peripheral nervous system
Anosmia, n (%)	75 (7)	41 (4.9)	18 (7.5)	11 (5.1)	13 (6.1)	158/2559 (6.2)
Dysgeusia, n (%)	86 (8)	52 (6.2)	16 (6.7)	12 (5.6)	6 (2.8)	172/2559 (6.7)
Muscle pain, n (%)	413 (38.5)	145 (17.2)	36 (15.1)	NR	30 (9.3)	624/2345 (26.6)
Myopathy, n (%)**	106 (9.9)	26 (3.1)***	NR	23 (10.7)	10 (4.7)	165/2320 (7.1)
Weakness, n (%)	55 (5.1)	26 (3.1)	NR	NR	NR	70/1893 (3.7)

CK, creatine kinase; NR, not reported.

*Ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke.

**Defined as the presence of myalgia at admission and a creatine kinase level ≥ 200 U/L.

*** Creatine kinase value not defined.

Similar to other series, most of our patients were males, and age was similar to that of the first neurologic series in China reported by Mao et al. [17] but younger than in others [16, 18, 19]. In all reported series, risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, and obesity were high for a relatively young population, and we found these disorders to be slightly less frequent than the New York and Italian populations [18, 24], but similar to the rates reported by Romero-Sánchez et al. in Spain [16]. These contrasting results may be related to the different included age groups among the series. Comparable to the findings reported by Frontera et al. [24], we found that pre-existing neurologic diseases were related to the development of in-hospital neurologic manifestations. Other symptoms that were more frequent among patients with neurologic events in our study included muscle pain and altered mental status upon admission.

We found that factors associated with the development of new in-hospital neurologic events seem to be mostly related to disease severity, both in respiratory parameters (PaO2/FiO2 ratio, ARDS severity, and chest CT findings) and inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein, D-dimer, and neutrophil index/lymphocyte). Interestingly, headache on admission remained a factor associated with this outcome in the multivariate analysis; however, the frequency of headache in our study was higher than in other studies [16–19, 25, 26].

In contrast to the findings reported in New York City [24], despite the differences in disease severity in our population, the development of in-hospital neurologic events was not associated with a high mortality. Notably, these rates were lower than those reported by them (19.6% vs. 35%), but the length of hospitalization was two-fold. This may be directly related to disease severity, where 73% of our patients required IVM compared to 40% of theirs.

It is interesting that despite the younger age of patients, the reported frequency of major neurologic events such as altered mental status, cerebrovascular disease, and seizures remain relatively constant throughout most series. Regarding the timing for developing a neurologic event, we observed they had a wide array of distribution. Weakness and altered mental status had a delayed onset, probably related to disease severity, the length of hospitalization, and the requirement of IMV.

The mechanisms for the development of these neurologic manifestations remain incompletely understood. Since the discovery of SARS-CoV-2, many hypotheses have arisen, including its neuroinvasive potential via the olfactory groove or direct invasion of the nervous system via the bloodstream [9, 10, 12]. Alternatively, these findings may be secondary immunological mechanisms and the severe inflammatory state in response to the infection and severe hypoxemia promoted by critical illness and the comorbid conditions [7, 9–11, 27–31].

There are some limitations of the present study that should be considered, such as the low frequency of confirmatory neurologic studies given the limitations for patients’ mobilization, making a precise neurologic phenotype in all patients partly elusive. Given the global severity of the pandemic and the requirement for available beds for their care, it is possible that the full spectrum of neurologic manifestations during hospitalization, as well as the potential future sequelae in the surviving patients, may not have been identified. We are currently performing a follow-up study on this cohort to complete the clinical evaluations and to characterize the neurologic syndromes in the long term. Some of the present study’s strengths include that this is the first published cohort of Latin America, one of the regions with the highest active cases burden. We only included patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia from various social classes, and the management was given in a hospital dedicated solely to COVID-19 care.

Conclusion

In this study we found a high frequency of neurologic manifestations during hospitalization in COVID-19 patients suggesting a potentially high burden of short and long-term sequelae these for these patients. A precise monitoring strategy for neurologic outcomes in the convalescent stage is needed for all involved population sub-groups. This study represents the cross-sectional analysis of an ongoing longitudinal assessment of neurologic syndromes associated with COVID-19 in the Mexico City.

(SAV)

Click here for additional data file.

Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

14 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-39539

Neurological manifestations in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Mexico City

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chiquete,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 28 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Tai-Heng Chen, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for your ethics statement:

"Institutional Research and Ethics Committees approved the study (reference number

CAI-3497-20-20-1)."

a. Please amend your current ethics statement to include the full name of the ethics committee/institutional review board(s) that approved your specific study.

b. Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research

3. Thank you for providing the date(s) when patient medical information was initially recorded. Please also include the date(s) on which your research team accessed the databases/records to obtain the retrospective data used in your study.

4. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

5. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author Daniel Rebolledo-García.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Overall, a very nice & timely cross-sectional study that provides important insight in to the neurologic manifestations of the COVID-19. The manuscript is well written and precise. It certainly deserves publication.

I see no need for major revisions.

I have 2 suggestions for minor revisions: (1) I would recommend a more explicit statement of the study design be included in the methods section. That the study is a cross-sectional analysis is mentioned in the introduction but should be explicitly stated in the methods. (2) Although the comparison groups are evident from the Tables, it is not clear from the text of the manuscript. The addition of text in the methodology ("The study aims to describe differences in demographics, clinical presentation, and disease severity in those patients who experienced neurologic events and those who did not. For these purposes, we define patients with neurologic events as those who suffered delirium, delayed recovery...") or something similar. This addition will lend more clarity to the text.

Also, note that on p.7 of the submission, "Data Collection" section, there is a missing comma between pulmonary and neurological. Neurologic (rather than neurological - meaning pertaining to the study of or discipline of neurology) would be the preferred usage.

Reviewer #2: The authors have done a nice job in describing the neurological manifestations of COVID19 in Mexico City. I have no critiques or suggestions. I'm not sure what the minimum character count is, but i'm pasting in the abstract to fulfill it.

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a systemic entity that

frequently implies neurological features at presentation and complications during the

disease course. We aimed to describe the characteristics and predictors for developing

in-hospital neurological manifestations in a large cohort of hospitalized patients with

COVID-19 in Mexico City. Methods We analyzed records from consecutive adult

patients hospitalized from March 15 to June 30, 2020, with moderate to severe COVID-

19 confirmed by reverse transcription real-time polymerase chain reaction (rtRT-PCR)

for the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Neurological

syndromes were actively searched by a standardized structured questionnaire and

physical examination, confirmed by neuroimaging, neurophysiology of laboratory

analyses, as applicable. Results We studied 1,072 cases (65% men, mean age

53.2±13 years), 71 patients had pre-existing neurological diseases (diabetic

neuropathy: 17, epilepsy: 15, history of ischemic stroke: eight, migraine: six, multiple

sclerosis: one, Parkinson disease: one), and 163 (15.2%) developed a new

neurological complication. Headache (41.7%), myalgia (38.5%), dysgeusia (8%), and

anosmia (7%) were the most common neurological symptoms at hospital presentation.

Delirium (13.1%), objective limb weakness (5.1%), and delayed recovery of mental

status after sedation withdrawal (2.5%), were the most common new neurological

syndromes. Age, headache at presentation, preexisting neurological disease, invasive

mechanical ventilation, and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio ≥9 were independent

predictors of new in-hospital neurological complications. Conclusions Even after

excluding initial clinical features and pre-existing comorbidities, new neurological

complications in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 are frequent and can be

predicted from clinical information at hospital admission.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

19 Jan 2021

AUTHOR’S REVISION LETTER

Revision 1

We have analyzed the reviewers’ suggestions to our previous paper. We completely agree with these observations and have performed the changes in our new manuscript accordingly. Changes that apply in this revised version are highlighted.

We profoundly appreciate the kind attention that the reviewers and the editorial team have given to our manuscript.

Response to reviewers

Editorial team comments

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

Response: We have consulted the Ethics Committee and as long as personal identification data are removed, there is no problem with data sharing.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

Response: We will submit the proper database in the corresponding field.

Reviewer 1

Overall, a very nice & timely cross-sectional study that provides important insight in to the neurologic manifestations of the COVID-19. The manuscript is well written and precise. It certainly deserves publication.

I see no need for major revisions.

I have 2 suggestions for minor revisions: (1) I would recommend a more explicit statement of the study design be included in the methods section. That the study is a cross-sectional analysis is mentioned in the introduction but should be explicitly stated in the methods. (2) Although the comparison groups are evident from the Tables, it is not clear from the text of the manuscript. The addition of text in the methodology ("The study aims to describe differences in demographics, clinical presentation, and disease severity in those patients who experienced neurologic events and those who did not. For these purposes, we define patients with neurologic events as those who suffered delirium, delayed recovery...") or something similar. This addition will lend more clarity to the text.

Response (1): We agree with this suggestion and have made the changes accordingly.

Response (2): We completely agree. This amendment was already made in the new version of the paper

Also, note that on p.7 of the submission, "Data Collection" section, there is a missing comma between pulmonary and neurological. Neurologic (rather than neurological - meaning pertaining to the study of or discipline of neurology) would be the preferred usage.

Response: Thank you very much. We have corrected these errors in our revised paper.

Reviewer 2

The authors have done a nice job in describing the neurological manifestations of COVID19 in Mexico City. I have no critiques or suggestions. I'm not sure what the minimum character count is, but i'm pasting in the abstract to fulfill it.

Response: Thank you. We will check for the words/character count of the Abstract in detail and will make the amendments accordingly.

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.doc

Click here for additional data file.

8 Feb 2021

Neurological manifestations in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Mexico City

PONE-D-20-39539R1

Dear Dr. Chiquete,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Tai-Heng Chen, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I have no further recommendations for revision. I am have no further explanation to provide regarding the questions above.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

29 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-39539R1

Neurologic manifestations in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Mexico City

Dear Dr. Chiquete:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Tai-Heng Chen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE