EFAS/EAN survey on the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on European clinical autonomic education and research

PURPOSE

To understand the influence of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on clinical autonomic education and research in Europe.

METHODS

We invited 84 European autonomic centers to complete an online survey, recorded the pre-pandemic-to-pandemic percentage of junior participants in the annual congresses of the European Federation of Autonomic Societies (EFAS) and European Academy of Neurology (EAN) and the pre-pandemic-to-pandemic number of PubMed publications on neurological disorders.

RESULTS

Forty-six centers answered the survey (55%). Twenty-nine centers were involved in clinical autonomic education and experienced pandemic-related didactic interruptions for 9 (5; 9) months. Ninety percent (n = 26/29) of autonomic educational centers reported a negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on education quality, and 93% (n = 27/29) established e-learning models. Both the 2020 joint EAN-EFAS virtual congress and the 2021 (virtual) and 2022 (hybrid) EFAS and EAN congresses marked higher percentages of junior participants than in 2019. Forty-one respondents (89%) were autonomic researchers, and 29 of them reported pandemic-related trial interruptions for 5 (2; 9) months. Since the pandemic begin, almost half of the respondents had less time for scientific writing. Likewise, the number of PubMed publications on autonomic topics showed the smallest increase compared with other neurological fields in 2020-2021 and the highest drop in 2022. Autonomic research centers that amended their trial protocols for telemedicine (38%, n = 16/41) maintained higher clinical caseloads during the first pandemic year.

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 pandemic had a substantial negative impact on European clinical autonomic education and research. At the same time, it promoted digitalization, favoring more equitable access to autonomic education and improved trial design.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical autonomic practice in Europe A survey of the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) and the European Federation of Autonomic Societies (EFAS)

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the impact of the coronavirus-disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on European clinical autonomic practice.

METHODS

Eighty-four neurology-driven or interdisciplinary autonomic centers in 22 European countries were invited to fill in a web-based survey between September and November 2021.

RESULTS

Forty-six centers completed the survey (55%). During the first pandemic year, the number of performed tilt-table tests, autonomic outpatient and inpatient visits decreased respectively by 50%, 45% and 53%, and every-third center reported major adverse events due to postponed examinations or visits. The most frequent newly-diagnosed or worsened cardiovascular autonomic disorders after COVID-19 infection included postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), orthostatic hypotension, and recurrent vasovagal syncope, deemed likely related to the infection by ≥50% of the responders. Forty-seven percent of the responders also reported about people with new-onset of orthostatic intolerance, but negative tilt-table findings, and 16% about people with psychogenic pseudosyncope after COVID-19. Most patients were treated non-pharmacologically and symptomatic recovery at follow-up was observed in ≥45% of cases. By contrast, low frequencies of newly-diagnosed cardiovascular autonomic disorders following COVID-19 vaccination were reported, most frequently POTS and recurrent vasovagal syncope, and most of the responders judged a causal association unlikely. Non-pharmacological measures were the preferred treatment choice, with 50-100% recovery rates at follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Cardiovascular autonomic disorders may develop or worsen following a COVID-19 infection, while the association with COVID-19 vaccines remains controversial. Despite the severe pandemic impact on European clinical autonomic practice, a specialized diagnostic work-up was pivotal to identify non-autonomic disorders in people with post-COVID-19 orthostatic complaints.

Clinical autonomic nervous system laboratories in Europe: A joint survey of the European Academy of Neurology and the European Federation of Autonomic Societies: A joint survey of the European Academy of Neurology and the European Federation of Autonomic Societies

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Disorders of the autonomic nervous system (ANS) are common conditions, but it is unclear whether access to ANS healthcare provision is homogeneous across European countries. The aim of this study was to identify neurology-driven or interdisciplinary clinical ANS laboratories in Europe, describe their characteristics and explore regional differences.

METHODS

We contacted the European national ANS and neurological societies, as well as members of our professional network, to identify clinical ANS laboratories in each country and invite them to answer a web-based survey.

RESULTS

We identified 84 laboratories in 22 countries and 46 (55%) answered the survey. All laboratories perform cardiovascular autonomic function tests, and 83% also perform sweat tests. Testing for catecholamines and autoantibodies are performed in 63% and 56% of laboratories, and epidermal nerve fiber density analysis in 63%. Each laboratory is staffed by a median of two consultants, one resident, one technician and one nurse. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) number of head-up tilt tests/laboratory/year is 105 (49-251). Reflex syncope and neurogenic orthostatic hypotension are the most frequently diagnosed cardiovascular ANS disorders. Thirty-five centers (76%) have an ANS outpatient clinic, with a median (IQR) of 200 (100-360) outpatient visits/year; 42 centers (91%) also offer inpatient care (median 20 [IQR 4-110] inpatient stays/year). Forty-one laboratories (89%) are involved in research activities. We observed a significant difference in the geographical distribution of ANS services among European regions: 11 out of 12 countries from North/West Europe have at least one ANS laboratory versus 11 out of 21 from South/East/Greater Europe (p = 0.021).

CONCLUSIONS

This survey highlights disparities in the availability of healthcare services for people with ANS disorders across European countries, stressing the need for improved access to specialized care in South, East and Greater Europe.

Standards for the diagnosis and management of complex regional pain syndrome: Results of a European Pain Federation task force

Background

Complex regional pain syndrome is a painful and disabling post‐traumatic primary pain disorder. Acute and chronic complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) are major clinical challenges. In Europe, progress is hampered by significant heterogeneity in clinical practice. We sought to establish standards for the diagnosis and management of CRPS.

Methods

The European Pain Federation established a pan‐European task force of experts in CRPS who followed a four‐stage consensus challenge process to produce mandatory quality standards worded as grammatically imperative (must‐do) statements.

Results

We developed 17 standards in 8 areas of care. There are 2 standards in diagnosis, 1 in multidisciplinary care, 1 in assessment, 3 for care pathways, 1 in information and education, 4 in pain management, 3 in physical rehabilitation and 2 on distress management. The standards are presented and summarized, and their generation and consequences were discussed. Also presented are domains of practice for which no agreement on a standard could be reached. Areas of research needed to improve the validity and uptake of these standards are discussed.

Conclusion

The European Pain Federation task force present 17 standards of the diagnosis and management of CRPS for use in Europe. These are considered achievable for most countries and aspirational for a minority of countries depending on their healthcare resource and structures.

Significance

This position statement summarizes expert opinion on acceptable standards for CRPS care in Europe.

Recommendations for a first Core Outcome Measurement set for complex regional PAin syndrome Clinical sTudies (COMPACT)

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a persistent pain condition that remains incompletely understood and challenging to treat. Historically, a wide range of different outcome measures have been used to capture the multidimensional nature of CRPS. This has been a significant limiting factor in the advancement of our understanding of the mechanisms and management of CRPS. In 2013, an international consortium of patients, clinicians, researchers, and industry representatives was established, to develop and agree on a minimum core set of standardised outcome measures for use in future CRPS clinical research, including but not limited to clinical trials within adult populations. The development of a core measurement set was informed through workshops and supplementary work, using an iterative consensus process. "What is the clinical presentation and course of CRPS, and what factors influence it?" was agreed as the most pertinent research question that our standardised set of patient-reported outcome measures should be selected to answer. The domains encompassing the key concepts necessary to answer the research question were agreed as follows: pain, disease severity, participation and physical function, emotional and psychological function, self-efficacy, catastrophizing, and patient's global impression of change. The final core measurement set included the optimum generic or condition-specific patient-reported questionnaire outcome measures, which captured the essence of each domain, and 1 clinician-reported outcome measure to capture the degree of severity of CRPS. The next step is to test the feasibility and acceptability of collecting outcome measure data using the core measurement set in the CRPS population internationally.