Natalia Kurka

This manuscript presents practical recommendations for managing acute attacks and implementing preventive immunotherapies for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD), a rare autoimmune disease that causes severe inflammation in the central nervous system (CNS), primarily affecting the optic nerves, spinal cord, and brainstem. The pillars of NMOSD therapy are attack treatment and attack prevention to minimize the accrual of neurological disability. Aquaporin-4 immunoglobulin G antibodies (AQP4-IgG) are a diagnostic marker of the disease and play a significant role in its pathogenicity. Recent advances in understanding NMOSD have led to the development of new therapies and the completion of randomized controlled trials. Four preventive immunotherapies have now been approved for AQP4-IgG-positive NMOSD in many regions of the world: eculizumab, ravulizumab - most recently-, inebilizumab, and satralizumab. These new drugs may potentially substitute rituximab and classical immunosuppressive therapies, which were as yet the mainstay of treatment for both, AQP4-IgG-positive and -negative NMOSD. Here, the Neuromyelitis Optica Study Group (NEMOS) provides an overview of the current state of knowledge on NMOSD treatments and offers statements and practical recommendations on the therapy management and use of all available immunotherapies for this disease. Unmet needs and AQP4-IgG-negative NMOSD are also discussed. The recommendations were developed using a Delphi-based consensus method among the core author group and at expert discussions at NEMOS meetings.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the STREAM Trial was to evaluate the effect of simulation training on process times in acute stroke care. METHODS: The multicenter prospective interventional STREAM Trial was conducted between 10/2017 and 04/2019 at seven tertiary care neurocenters in Germany with a pre- and post-interventional observation phase. We recorded patient characteristics, acute stroke care process times, stroke team composition and simulation experience for consecutive direct-to-center patients receiving intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and/or endovascular therapy (EVT). The intervention consisted of a composite intervention centered around stroke-specific in situ simulation training. Primary outcome measure was the 'door-to-needle' time (DTN) for IVT. Secondary outcome measures included process times of EVT and measures taken to streamline the pre-existing treatment algorithm. RESULTS: The effect of the STREAM intervention on the process times of all acute stroke operations was neutral. However, secondary analyses showed a DTN reduction of 5 min from 38 min pre-intervention (interquartile range [IQR] 25-43 min) to 33 min (IQR 23-39 min, p = 0.03) post-intervention achieved by simulation-experienced stroke teams. Concerning EVT, we found significantly shorter door-to-groin times in patients who were treated by teams with simulation experience as compared to simulation-naive teams in the post-interventional phase (-21 min, simulation-naive: 95 min, IQR 69-111 vs. simulation-experienced: 74 min, IQR 51-92, p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: An intervention combining workflow refinement and simulation-based stroke team training has the potential to improve process times in acute stroke care.

BACKGROUND: To meet the requirements imposed by the time-dependency of acute stroke therapies, it is necessary 1) to initiate structural and cultural changes in the breadth of stroke-ready hospitals and 2) to find new ways to train the personnel treating patients with acute stroke. We aimed to implement and validate a composite intervention of a stroke team algorithm and simulation-based stroke team training as an effective quality initiative in our regional interdisciplinary neurovascular network consisting of 7 stroke units. METHODS: We recorded door-to-needle times of all consecutive stroke patients receiving thrombolysis at seven stroke units for 3 months before and after a 2 month intervention which included setting up a team-based stroke workflow at each stroke unit, a train-the-trainer seminar for stroke team simulation training and a stroke team simulation training session at each hospital as well as a recommendation to take up regular stroke team trainings. RESULTS: The intervention reduced the network-wide median door-to-needle time by 12 minutes from 43,0 (IQR 29,8-60,0, n = 122) to 31,0 (IQR 24,0-42,0, n = 112) minutes (p < 0.001) and substantially increased the share of patients receiving thrombolysis within 30 minutes of hospital arrival from 41.5% to 59.6% (p < 0.001). Stroke team training participants stated a significant increase in knowledge on the topic of acute stroke care and in the perception of patient safety. The overall course concept was regarded as highly useful by most participants from different professional backgrounds. CONCLUSIONS: The composite intervention of a binding team-based algorithm and stroke team simulation training showed to be well-transferable in our regional stroke network. We provide suggestions and materials for similar campaigns in other stroke networks.