Neurocognitive and functional impairment in adult and paediatric tuberculous meningitis

Angharad G Davis; Sam Nightingale; Priscilla E Springer; Regan Solomons; Ana Arenivas; Robert J Wilkinson; Suzanne T Anderson; Felicia C Chow; Tuberculous Meningitis International Research Consortium

doi:10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15516.1

. 2019 Nov 13;4:178. [Version 1] doi: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15516.1

Neurocognitive and functional impairment in adult and paediatric tuberculous meningitis

Angharad G Davis ^1,^2,^3,^a, Sam Nightingale ⁴, Priscilla E Springer ⁵, Regan Solomons ⁵, Ana Arenivas ^6,⁷, Robert J Wilkinson ^2,^8,⁹, Suzanne T Anderson ^10,^11,^#, Felicia C Chow ^12,^#; Tuberculous Meningitis International Research Consortium

¹University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK

²Francis Crick Institute, Midland Road, London, NW1 1AT, UK

³Institute of Infectious Diseases and Molecular Medicine. Department of Medicine, University of Cape Town, Observatory, 7925, South Africa

⁴HIV Mental Health Research Unit, University of Cape Town,, Observatory, 7925, South Africa

⁵Department of Paediatrics and Child Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa

⁶The Institute for Rehabilitation and Research Memorial Hermann, Department of Rehabilitation Psychology and Neuropsychology,, Houston, Texas, USA

⁷Baylor College of Medicine, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Houston, Texas, USA

⁸Department of Infectious Diseases, Imperial College London, London, W2 1PG, UK

⁹Wellcome Centre for Infectious Disease Research in Africa, Institute of Infectious Diseases and Molecular Medicine at Department of Medicine, University of Cape Town, Observatory, 7925, South Africa

¹⁰MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, University College London, London, WC1E 6BT, UK

¹¹Evelina Community, Guys and St Thomas’ NHS Trust, 5 Dugard Way, London, SE11 4TH, UK

¹²Weill Institute of Neurosciences, Department of Neurology and Division of Infectious Diseases, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA

Email: angharadgracedavis@gmail.com

No competing interests were disclosed.

Contributed equally.

Roles

Angharad G Davis: Conceptualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Sam Nightingale: Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Priscilla E Springer: Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Regan Solomons: Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Ana Arenivas: Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Robert J Wilkinson: Writing – Review & Editing

Suzanne T Anderson: Conceptualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Felicia C Chow: Conceptualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

PMCID: PMC6971841 PMID: 31984243

Abstract

In those who survive tuberculous meningitis (TBM), the long-term outcome is uncertain; individuals may suffer neurocognitive, functional and psychiatric impairment, which may significantly affect their ability to lead their lives as they did prior to their diagnosis of TBM. In children who survive, severe illness has occurred at a crucial timepoint in their development, which can lead to behavioural and cognitive delay. The extent and nature of this impairment is poorly understood, particularly in adults. This is in part due to a lack of observational studies in this area but also inconsistent inclusion of outcome measures which can quantify these deficits in clinical studies. This leads to a paucity of appropriate rehabilitative therapies available for these individuals and their caregivers, as well as burden at a socioeconomic level. In this review, we discuss what is known about neurocognitive impairment in TBM, draw on lessons learnt from other neurological infections and discuss currently available and emerging tools to evaluate function and cognition and their value in TBM. We make recommendations on which measures should be used at what timepoints to assess for impairment, with a view to optimising and standardising assessment of neurocognitive and functional impairment in TBM research.

Keywords: Tuberculous Meningitis, Neurocognitive, Functional, Neurobehavioural, Neurodevelopmental, Psychiatric

Introduction

Neurocognitive and functional impairment is a long-term complication of tuberculous meningitis (TBM); however, data on physical, cognitive, and psychiatric sequelae of TBM, which have lasting socioeconomic implications for patients and their families, are limited. Detailed characterization of neurocognitive and functional impairment is critical to research aimed at improving prediction of recovery in TBM and optimization of rehabilitation after acute illness. In addition, cognitive and functional outcome measures can serve as trial endpoints that have reasonable properties for statistical analysis and are clinically meaningful to patients and their families. By standardizing the instruments and battery of tests used to assess these outcomes in TBM and ensuring that they are appropriate for use in diverse cultural and multinational settings, data can be pooled and compared across studies to maximize trial efficiency. Furthermore, a better understanding of the long-term clinical manifestations of TBM, including the characterisation and timeframe of brain injury, will guide the study of pathogenic mechanisms in TBM. In turn, this will enable the development of novel biomarkers and therapeutic interventions to risk stratify and treat neurocognitive impairment in TBM.

What is known about neurocognitive impairment in TBM?

Adult

Few published studies have described neurocognitive outcomes in adult TBM. A retrospective New Zealand study detected cognitive impairment in 12% of adult TBM survivors at a median follow-up of 18 months (range 1–197 months), although how cognition was assessed is unclear ¹. In two cohort studies from India (n=30 and n=65), patients were evaluated with the 30-point Mini Mental State Exam (MMSE) ² at six months ³ and one year ⁴ after TBM diagnosis. Using cut-off scores of 22 to 29, depending on education level, over half of patients (54% and 55%, respectively) were impaired. Only one study in Taiwan has used more in-depth neuropsychological testing to quantify neurocognitive impairment in 17 adult TBM survivors compared with controls, with deficits present in several domains, including speed of information processing and working memory ⁵.

The pathogenesis of neurocognitive impairment in TBM is unclear but likely multifactorial. Potential mechanisms include cerebrovascular complications of TBM and hydrocephalus. When the basal inflammatory process extends into the parenchyma, encephalitis may occur ⁶. Recent studies utilising diffusion tensor imaging ⁷ and voxel-based morphometric MRI ⁵ have demonstrated white and grey matter abnormalities associated with worse neuropsychological outcomes in patients with TBM.

Clinically, stroke in TBM occurs in up to 20% of patients ⁸. Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) however, may reveal cerebral infarctions in a larger proportion of patients (35% and 57% respectively) ⁹. The most common location for infarction is within the ‘tubercular zone’ encompassing the caudate head, anteriomedial thalami, and anterior limb and genu of the internal capsule ¹⁰. Patients with clinically ‘silent’ infarcts may present with neurocognitive and functional impairment even in the absence of occult physical disability.

In addition to cerebrovascular changes, hydrocephalus secondary to TBM affects cognition and is associated with worse outcomes and higher risk of stroke ¹¹. Acutely, hydrocephalus presents with reduced level of consciousness and seizures; however, its effect on long-term neurocognitive outcomes is unknown. Adults with normal pressure hydrocephalus may be impaired in multiple cognitive domains, including memory, learning, psychomotor and executive function. Likewise, chronic hydrocephalus post-TBM may cause similar dysfunction ¹².

Paediatric

By contrast to adult TBM, there is a greater body of knowledge describing neurodevelopmental outcomes following childhood TBM. The largest burden of tuberculosis (TB), and therefore childhood TBM, is borne by low and middle income countries (LMIC) ¹³. TBM causes long-term cognitive, motor, language, and behavioural sequelae ^14–
17. A meta-analysis on treatment outcomes in childhood TBM showed that the risk of neurological sequelae was 54% among survivors ¹⁸.

Most long-term outcome studies (>2 years after completion of treatment) were carried out in the decades following the advent of chemotherapy ^19–
22. In a more recent follow-up study of childhood TBM survivors, the most common impairments were in cognition, learning, emotion, and behaviour, all potentially affecting scholastic ability and future employment. Persistent visual and hearing deficits were uncommon ¹⁶. Poor neurodevelopmental outcome is associated with younger age, delayed presentation and treatment initiation, clinical severity and hydrocephalus ^16,
23,
24.

As with infarction in adult TBM, childhood TBM-associated infarction commonly occurs in the basal ganglia, damage to which has been associated with language delay, spatial neglect, executive dysfunction, autism, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) ²⁵. Multiple, bilateral, and large infarctions have been associated with worse developmental outcomes in survivors of childhood TBM ²⁶. Cognitive deficits can also occur without accompanying physical disability; Schoeman et al. described an 80% prevalence of cognitive delay (median IQ 71.5, range 36–102) in children with TBM, with no significant difference in mean IQ between those with and without motor impairment ¹⁶. In school-age children, up to 43–53% show poor scholastic progress, including grade repetition ^16,
27.

In a behavioural sub-study of childhood TBM survivors, all had symptoms consistent with ADHD, with similar teacher and parent ratings. The TBM survivors were described as more unpopular, compulsive, and aggressive than their unaffected siblings ²⁸. Parents of childhood TBM survivors reported significant social maladjustment and aggression. Mean scores on the Child Behavior Checklist correlated with TBM severity at presentation, indicating emotional disturbance with anxiety, depression, disruptive and rule-breaking behaviour ²⁸.

A multidisciplinary approach is required to evaluate and manage the neurodevelopmental sequelae of TBM, which are compounded by low socioeconomic status and limited access to educational support ¹⁵. Families of TBM survivors experience an increased financial burden as a result of long-term sequelae. One-third of mothers in a South African study had to terminate employment to care for their children, further worsening their precarious socioeconomic situation ²⁷.

Neurocognitive impairment and functional outcomes in infective meningoencephalitis: what can we learn from other infective causes of brain injury?

Adult

Studies assessing neurocognitive and functional impairment in other infective forms of adult meningitis, although more frequent than for TBM, are still relatively sparse. In a meta-analysis of neurological sequelae post-bacterial meningitis, 61% of studies did not assess cognitive function. Of those where it was assessed, cognitive deficit was one of the most common major sequalae, occurring in 9.1% of people ²⁹. Table 1 summarises findings from published studies where cognition and functional measures have been used to assess impairment following infective forms of meningoencephalitis. This summary demonstrates that tools used in these conditions vary widely, and although not exhaustive provides convincing data to support the presence, and the characteristic features of neurocognitive and functional impairment post infective meningoencephalitis. In the studies listed, a minimum of four cognitive domains are tested, most often to include intelligence, memory, executive function and psychomotor function. Assuming that many of the anticipated cognitive deficits seen in TBM have similarities to other forms of meningitis, studies of TBM should include similar neurocognitive measures to those listed within Table 1. However, only one of these studies was performed in a setting where TBM also predominates (Uganda) ³⁰ using tests previously validated in sub-Saharan populations ^31,
32. The use of neuropsychiatric measures such as the Becks depression scale and POMS (profile of mood states) to detect coexistent depressive mood disorders given their likely impact on neurocognitive functioning highlights the need to consider these outcomes in TBM.

Table 1. Methods used in selected studies assessing neurocognitive and functional impairment in other causes of adult infective meningoencephalitis.

Reference, study design and aetiology	N	STUDY LOCATION and TIMEPOINT	Neurocognitive assessment *		Functional/ psychological assessment
Reference, study design and aetiology	N	STUDY LOCATION and TIMEPOINT	Domain	Measure	Functional/ psychological assessment
Van de Beek et al., JID 2002 ⁴⁵ - Prospective cohort - Bacterial	51	Netherlands Median days discharge to testing 391 and 426 in meningococcal and pneumococcal respectively	Intelligence	Groningen Intelligence Test Dutch Adult Reading Test	RAND-36
			Memory	Rey’s Auditory Verbal Learning Test and Wechsler Memory Scale Revised
			Attention and executive functioning	Trailmaking Test, Stroop Color- Word Test, category fluency, letter fluency, and the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST)
			Reaction speed	Simple and 2-choice reaction time measurements
Hoogman et al., JNNP 2007 ⁴⁶ - Prospective cohort - Bacterial	155	European Dexamethasone Study Time between illness and cognitive testing in months (mean (SD)) 68.8 (meningococcal) and 54.7 (pneumococcal)	Memory	Rey’s Auditory Verbal Learning Test, Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test and Wechsler Memory Scale Revised	RAND-36 POMS
			Attention/executive function	Stroop Test, Groningen Intelligence Test, Trail Making Test part B, Category Fluency, Letter Fluency and Wisconsin Card Sorting Test
			Psychomotor	Trail Making Test part A Stroop Test, simple and two choice reaction tasks.
			Intelligence	Groningen Intelligence Test, Dutch Adult Reading Test
Weisfelt M et al., Ann Neurol 2006 ⁴⁷ - RCT Dexamethasone - Bacterial	87	European Dexamethasone Study Median 99 months between meningitis and testing	Intelligence	Groningen Intelligence Tests, Dutch Adult Reading Test	RAND-36 POMS Grooved Pegboard *
			Memory	Rey’s Auditory Verbal Learning Test River-mead Behavioural Memory Test (RBMT Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised
			Language	Boston Naming Test
			Attention	Trail Making Test, Stroop Color Word Test, Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised Digit Span Test
			Executive function	Category and Letter fluency and the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test
			Psychomotor function	Trail Making Test, Stroop Color Word Test, Simple and 2-choice reaction tasks
Merkelbach et al., Acta Neurol Scand, 2000 ⁴⁸ - Prospective cohort - Bacterial	22	Germany	Intelligence	Multiple Choice Vocabulary Test	BECKS depression inventory
			Memory	Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale
			Visual learning and recall	Benton Visual Retention Test
			Attention and concentration	Aufmerksamkeits Belastungs Test
			Psychomotor	Number connection test
Carlson et al. Metabol Brain Dis, 2014 ³⁰ - Prospective cohort - Cryptococcal	78	Uganda	Verbal learning and memory	World Health Organization- University of California-Los Angeles Auditory Verbal Learning Test
			Attention and working memory	Digit Span Forward and Backward
			Language fluency	Semantic Verbal Fluency
			Speed of information processing, Concentration	WAIS-III Symbol Digit
			Speed of information processing, Attention	Color Trails 1
			Executive function	Color Trails 2
			Timed Gait	Gross Motor
			Grooved Pegboard	Fine Motor
			Finger tapping	Motor Speed
Levine et al. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 2008 ⁴⁹ - Prospective cohort - Cryptococcal, toxoplasmosis encephalitis, progressive multifocal encephalopathy	31	USA	Information processing	Symbol Search, Digit Symbol, Trail Making Test–Form A	Psychiatric Research Interview for Substance and Mental Disorders
			Learning	Hopkins Verbal Learning Test–Revised (Learning Trials 1–3), Brief Visuospatial Memory Test–Revised (Learning Trials 1–3)
			Memory	Hopkins Verbal Learning Test–Revised (Recall Trial), Brief Visuospatial Memory Test– Revised (Recall Trial)
			Abstraction	Wisconsin Card Sorting Test– Perseverative Responses, Trail Making Test–Form B
			Verbal fluency	Controlled Oral Word Association Test
			Attention/working memory	Letter–Number Sequencing, Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test–Trial 1
			Psychomotor	Grooved Pegboard (both hands)
			Visual Memory
			Cognitive Speed

Open in a new tab

*See Table 2 for details and references related to neurocognitive measures

** to delineate whether tests of psychomotor function were impaired due to physical vs cognitive disability

POMS, Profile of mood states to detect depressive mood disorders.

HIV can lead to neurocognitive impairment due to chronic sustained immune activation in the central nervous system (CNS) and direct neurotoxicity from the HIV virus and its proteins ³³. HIV-associated dementia (HAD) is a severe subcortical dementia syndrome associated with significant functional limitation. Prior to widespread use of antiretroviral therapy, HAD was common, occurring in up to 50% of patients prior to death ³⁴. HAD is now uncommon in populations with access to effective antiretroviral therapy and is usually associated with treatment failure or undiagnosed advanced disease ³⁵. Despite the fall in cases of HAD, milder forms of cognitive impairment persist in the antiretroviral therapy era. This milder impairment has a different phenotype to HAD, with more cortical involvement and executive dysfunction. There are many causes for milder impairment, some of which are directly related to HIV, whereas others relate to comorbid conditions or health related behaviours. In practice, many patients with cognitive impairment often have a combination of factors potentially contributing to their cognitive complaints, and the direct effect of HIV on cognition can be difficult to determine. In TB/HIV coinfected patients it can be difficult to separate TBM-related sequelae from impairment due to HIV and other causes, although the former may be due to focal CNS damage, whereas the latter tends to be diffuse. Obtaining normative values for cognition that are appropriate for the diverse socio-economic backgrounds of HIV-positive populations can be difficult, and there has been controversy about the extent to which current cognitive testing paradigms represent the true prevalence of neurocognitive impairment in HIV-positive populations ³⁶. Similar challenges exist obtaining norms for TBM cohorts, particularly as some of the conditions associated with risk of TB and HIV acquisition, such as low socioeconomic status and lack of education, can also be associated with poorer performance on cognitive testing. This highlights the importance of carefully matched, locally derived, normative data.

Paediatric

Similarly, in children, risk of different long-term complications of postnatally acquired CNS infections is not well-studied despite significant impact on quality of life ^29,
37. Furthermore, little information is available from resource-constrained settings ^29,
38. The most common long-term sequelae in CNS infections are cognitive, language, and motor deficits. Studies of neurodevelopmental sequelae have focused on school performance, with few looking at psychopathological impairments ³⁹.

In systematic reviews of the risk of disabling sequelae from bacterial meningitis, neurocognitive impairment occurred in 10–25% of children, with a high likelihood of multiple affected domains ²⁹. The risk of sequelae in bacterial meningitis has been shown to increase with younger age ²⁹ and HIV infection ⁴⁰. Verbal, performance, and full-scale IQ, as well as reading accuracy, comprehension and visuo-motor integration were all significantly lower in school-age bacterial meningitis survivors, compared with age-matched, non-meningitis controls ⁴¹. In children recovering from bacterial meningitis, even without obvious neurological deficit, there is a risk of long-term cognitive deficit requiring early recognition and management ⁴². In a systematic review of childhood infective encephalitis, 42% had at least one long-term sequela (with a higher proportion (64%) in herpes simplex virus encephalitis). More than one-third suffered from developmental delay, and 10–18% had behavioural impairment, motor deficit, intellectual disability and/or convulsions ⁴³.

Epidemiological data describing the impact of disability post-CNS infection on daily life can also influence public health policy. Using the Liverpool Outcome Score tool, researchers of Japanese encephalitis (JE), the most important cause of encephalitis in Asia, demonstrated that 10% of survivors had disability incompatible with independent living. Health staff in Cambodia used these results, along with surveillance and cost-effectiveness data, to support the introduction of a JE immunization programme in 2009 ⁴⁴.

What outcome measures are available to assess cognitive and functional outcomes in TBM?

Adult

Neurocognitive outcomes: Targeted assessment of cognitive function in TBM has not been prioritised in most observational and interventional TBM studies. In populations in which TBM is prevalent few screening tests or neurocognitive batteries have been developed or culturally adapted, no normative data is available in order to develop appropriate cut-offs and validation studies have not been performed.

A few studies have used the MMSE, a widely used bedside screening tool for dementia, to evaluate cognitive function in TBM survivors ^3,
4. The MMSE has lower sensitivity for mild cognitive impairment and may be confounded by age and education. The MMSE can also miss impairment in certain cognitive domains, including executive function. Traditionally, a cut-off score of 24 has been used for possible neurocognitive impairment in clinical practice, although in the two aforementioned TBM studies ^3,
4 a cut-off of 22 to 29, depending on education, was used to define impairment. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA) is a screening tool originally designed to detect mild neurocognitive impairment across multiple cognitive domains (executive function, attention/concentration, and memory) in older adults with Alzheimers Disease ⁵⁰, which has been validated for use in other conditions ^42,
51, including HIV-cognitive impairment ⁵². Although designed for North American patients, the tool has been validated in other countries such as Japan ⁵³, Egypt ⁵⁴ and Korea ⁵⁵. However, in countries where TBM is common, the MOCA has not been validated and floor effects (i.e. some questions are likely to not be answered correctly by all responders) are likely to exist which compromise the appropriateness and usefulness of this screening test. In South Africa, a study to assess the utility of the MOCA in HIV-associated cognitive impairment, floor effects in several domains of the tool were observed suggesting that modifications were required before it could be normed and validated in this population ⁵².

More in-depth pen-and-paper neuropsychological testing, which is time-consuming and requires a trained examiner, has not been routinely included in observational studies and clinical trials of TBM ⁵. Even if feasibility allows, pen and paper neuropsychological testing like screening tests have similar limitations in populations where TBM predominates; linguistic, cultural and educational differences between these populations and those within the countries where the measures were designed, normed and validated jeopardise the appropriateness of these tests for use in TBM. To overcome this, studies to assess construct validity (the degree to which the measure assesses the cognitive domain in question) in the population of interest needs to be assessed. Table 2 lists measures which can be used to assess deficits in the domains we hypothesise based on the pathophysiology of TBM and are felt to be culturally neutral to ensure appropriateness to the population, and enable future comparison across studies globally.

Computer-based methods of neurocognitive assessment: Computer-based assessments of cognition are an attractive possible alternative to administration of traditional methods of neurocognitive testing by healthcare professionals trained in neuropsychometric techniques. Response and latency times can be measured with greater precision, and the potential for examiner subjectivity is reduced. In resource-limited settings, computer-based methods may be more scalable, as the basic technology required is often more readily available, and less expensive, than neuropsychology expertise. No computer-based cognitive tool has been validated for use in TBM patients specifically; however, the tools discussed below are of potential use.

Table 2. Selected neurocognitive outcome measures relating to domains which are likely to be affected in adult tuberculous meningitis and felt to be culturally neutral.

DOMAIN	MEASURES
ATTENTION AND WORKING MEMORY	Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale Fourth Edition (WAIS IV) Digit Span, Digit Vigilance Test,
LEARNING AND MEMORY	Brief Visual Memory Test-Revised (BVMT-R) ⁶⁰
EXECUTIVE FUNCTION	Color Trails 2, Design Fluency 1 & 2, Design Fluency Switching
PSYCHOMOTOR	Color Trails 1 ⁶¹, WAIS III ⁶²
VERBAL FLUENCY	Category Fluency Test, Action fluency
VISUOSPATIAL	Judgement of Line Orientation Task
MOTOR SKILLS	Grooved Pegboard ⁶³, Finger Tapping Test

Open in a new tab

Several computer-based tools have been developed to assess cognitive function. Cogstate, which is widely used in HIV research, is designed to be culture and language neutral. It has been shown to function well in clinical trials and is sensitive to subtle impairment and change over time ⁵⁶. However, individual Cogstate tests do not correlate well with domains measured by traditional pen-and-paper methods ^57,
58. The fact that TBM can lead to focal CNS damage (e.g., from infarction or tuberculoma) may limit the usefulness of Cogstate in this condition.

The National Institutes for Health (NIH) have developed a comprehensive set of neuro-behavioural measurements. The cognitive module of the NIH Toolbox is more aligned to the construct of traditional pen-and-paper tests and as such has a stronger correlation with domain-specific cognitive function ⁵⁶. This package has a Spanish translation, but otherwise issues with culture and language specificity may limit its use in LMIC. Other computer or phone-based tools aim to provide a screening test or rapid assessment of cognition in a busy clinic. The CAT-rapid, a brief (5-minute) tool on a smartphone app designed for use in resource-limited settings, has been shown to be sensitive for detecting HIV-associated dementia but, as with most screening tools, is insensitive for milder forms of impairment ⁵⁹.

Novel computerised methods for testing certain cognitive domains need to be tested to ensure construct validity (i.e. do the tasks tap into the domain which they are designed to assess?) and subsequently for convergence validity and divergence validity against standard pen and paper tests which test the same and different to the domain in question. For example, in a study of South African HIV-infected adults Katzef et al. tested the construct validity of a tablet-based application designed to be culturally fair. In this study, specific measures of processing speed (the swiftness with which one is able to complete mental tasks) were compared to results of equivalent pen and paper tests of the same cognitive domain (convergence validity) with tests of a different domain (divergence validity) ⁶⁴. The use of these emerging computerised tools alongside traditional pen and paper tests in a handful of TBM studies will begin to generate much-needed normative data in the populations of interest, and, in future, pave the way for less resource-heavy standardised methods for testing neurocognitive function in studies of TBM.

Functional outcomes: No one test or battery of tests has been specifically developed or validated for evaluation of functional outcomes in patients with TBM. As a result, functional measures designed for stroke or traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients have been appropriated for use in TBM. The Modified Rankin Scale ^65,
66 and Barthel Index ^67,
68, the two most widely used outcome scales in contemporary stroke trials ⁶⁹, are commonly used to assess disability in adult TBM survivors. The Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale ⁷⁰, which has become the standard for measuring functional outcome in individuals with TBI, has been a less popular choice for the assessment of patients with TBM-related brain injury. Other measures, including the Liverpool Outcome Score for children ⁷¹ and World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 ( WHO DAS 2.0) may be optimized for TBM patients but have, up to now, not been used in published TBM studies. Benefits and disadvantages of these outcomes, as well as practical considerations for their use in the context of TBM, are discussed below and in Table 3.

Table 3. Strengths and limitations of Modified Rankin Scale vs Barthels Index in a tuberculous meningitis setting.

FUNCTIONAL OUTCOME MEASURE	STRENGTHS	LIMITATIONS
MODIFIED RANKIN SCALE (MRS)	• Brevity • Captures impairment in multiple domains (e.g., physical, cognitive, psychiatric) and their impact on overall functional independence • Straightforward interpretation for patients and laypersons • More responsive to change specifically in patients with mild to moderate disability compared with the BI (PMID: 12154262 Weimar)	• High interrater variability due to broad and ill- defined grades; use of a structured interview has been shown to improve interrater reliability (PMID 12215594)
BARTHEL INDEX (BI)	• Ease of administration • Comparable reliability if completed by trained observers or proxy (PMID: 3403500 Collin) • Greater interrater reliability compared with mRS (PMID: 1833860 Wolfe) • Overall more responsive to change compared with mRS and other global measures of function (PMID: 15150715 Dromerick, PMID: 14976324 Kwon)	• May not capture impairment in other domains (e.g., cognitive, psychiatric) that are often impacted in TBM survivors due to its focus on ADLs and physical impairment • Limited ability to discriminate among higher functioning individuals due to “ceiling effect,” in which large proportion of patients achieve maximum possible score (PMID: 21372310 Quinn, PMID: 15150715 Dromerick)

Open in a new tab

Modified Rankin Scale: The modified Rankin Scale (mRS) is a clinician-reported outcome scale with 6 grades ranging from no symptoms to severe disability requiring 24-hour care ⁶⁵. The mRS is a global disability rating scale measuring overall functional independence, considering performance of basic and instrumental activities of daily living (ADL) which prompts the clinician to consider the impact of impairment in multiple areas (e.g., physical, cognitive, psychiatric) on perceived disability. Transitions between the different mRS grades are considered to be clinically meaningful ^72,
73 and correlate well with patient-reported outcomes ⁷⁴. Although originally developed to characterize recovery after stroke ⁶⁶, the mRS has been used to assess functional outcomes in other conditions, including meningoencephalitis ^75,
76. The mRS has good validity, at least among stroke survivors in whom most studies assessing its psychometric properties have been performed ⁷⁷. The main criticism of the mRS is that the grades are too broad and ill-defined ⁶⁵, resulting in high interrater variability. Use of a structured interview and assessor training may reduce bias and improve interrater reliability ^70,
73,
77.

The mRS has been used in several observational and interventional studies to assess functional outcome in TBM ^78–
83. In a large, randomized controlled Vietnamese trial of dexamethasone versus placebo for TBM, the mRS was trichotomized as: grade 0 indicating a “good” outcome, grades 1–2 indicating an “intermediate” outcome, and grades 3–5 indicating “severe disability.” In the trial, 38% of participants who received dexamethasone had a good outcome compared with 35% who received placebo. No consensus exists regarding the optimal mRS cut-off to define favourable versus unfavourable outcomes, which is a major barrier to combining data across trials. Some TBM studies have classified grade 3 (moderately disabled) as an unfavourable outcome, whereas others consider grade 3 to be favourable ^78,
82,
84.

Careful definition of an endpoint using the mRS is essential and can make the difference between a significant and non-significant result ⁸⁵. The reductionist approach of dichotomizing the mRS may fail to detect improvement in function by one grade, particularly among individuals with minimal or severe disability. For example, if a patient’s mRS grade improves from 1 to 0 or worsens from 4 to 5, this clinically relevant information is not captured when the mRS is dichotomized. An alternative to using the mRS as a dichotomous outcome is to evaluate the entire distribution of grades via a shift analysis ^72,
73, which may offer a more nuanced view of the effect of an intervention (see Box 1).

Box 1. Benefits and limitations of using shift analysis for the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) in clinical trials.

PROS

Avoids loss of clinically meaningful information that occurs with dichotomizing the mRS outcome
Potential to detect smaller treatment effects compared with dicohotomous approach
May improve power and statistical efficiency ⁸⁶

CONS

Assumes that treatment effects of an intervention are uniform across the range of mRS grades ⁷³
May actually reduce power compared with dichomotous approach if misclassification errors are not uniform across the range of mRS grades ⁷³
May be less reliable in trials with small patient samples

Definition of shift analysis: Analytic approach to the mRS gaining traction in stroke research ⁸⁷ that exploits the full distribution of possible mRS outcomes by assessing its entire ordinal scale range (as opposed to dichotomization).

Barthel Index: In contrast to the mRS, which is a global measure of function, the 10-item Barthel Index (BI) has a narrower scope that focuses on physical constructs and independence in basic ADL. The original BI, scored out of 100, was developed to evaluate disability in patients with stroke and other disorders ⁶⁷. The modified BI ⁶⁸) captures the same content but employs a different scoring system ranging from 0 to 20. The BI has good to excellent internal consistency, test-retest, and interrater reliability ^69,
88,
89.

Although the mRS and BI are highly correlated ⁹⁰, each has strengths and limitations that should be taken into account when selecting the best measure for an observational study or interventional trial ( Table 3). Like the mRS, no consensus exists on the optimal cut-off to distinguish a favourable from unfavourable outcome on the BI. Studies have identified a BI score >90 or >80 (>18 and >16, respectively, on the modified BI) as the critical threshold for independence ^91–
93. A score of <60 on the BI (<12 on the modified BI, is often used to indicate a poor outcome ⁸⁷.

The modified BI has been used in both observational studies and interventional trials in TBM ^4,
94,
95. In a retrospective study evaluating predictors of functional outcome at one year in 65 adults in India with TBM using the modified BI, 51% had no limitations in ADLs, whereas 43% had poor recovery (score<12) ⁴. These results were similar to a Turkish study using the same cut-offs to assess functional outcomes at one year in 61 adults with TBM. Among the 44 survivors, 41% recovered completely compared with 16% with poor recovery ⁹⁵. In two aforementioned interventional trials the modified BI was used to assess functional outcome ^94,
96. No significant difference in functional outcome was detected between groups.

Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale: The Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) is the prevailing functional outcome measure in TBI trials. The original GOS is an ordinal scale with five categories: death, vegetative state, severe disability, moderate disability, and good recovery. In the GOS-Extended (GOSE), the last 3 categories are further divided to improve detection of smaller, clinically meaningful changes ⁷⁰. The application of the GOS(E) in TBM studies has been limited ^1,
97. The open-ended format of the GOS(E) can result in substantial interrater variability. Like the mRS, use of a structured interview and assessor training improves interrater reliability ⁷⁰.

WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (DAS) 2.0: The WHO DAS 2.0 is a generic instrument that assesses health and disability based on the conceptual framework of the WHO International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) ⁹⁸. The WHO-ICF categorizes function in terms of impairment, activity, and participation. Unlike the mRS and BI, which each only address one dimension of the WHO-ICF (participation and activity, respectively), the DAS 2.0 captures information about all three dimensions. The standardized instrument, which was developed for use across cultural contexts and has been translated into 27 languages, evaluates six domains: cognition, mobility, self-care, getting along, life activities, and participation ⁹⁹. The DAS 2.0 has high internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and good validity ⁹⁹. Although it has been validated for use in TBI and other brain injuries, no studies have used it to assess functional outcomes in TBM.

Paediatrics

Numerous instruments have been developed for the assessment of child development based on age, domains tested, and type (performance based, self/caregiver rating). Unlike in adult TBM, these have been extensively reviewed elsewhere in published literature including comparison of available tests and suitability for use in LMIC settings ^100,
101. Although there is no consensus or consistency on the measures used to assess outcome post TBM in infants and children, ideal testing requires wide age-range; the ability to measure floor and ceiling effects as some of the children are left with very low residual function, and needs to assess fine and gross motor ability, receptive and expressive language as well as behavioural, social and adaptive skills. We have made recommendations for testing in paediatric TBM in Table 4.

Table 4. Recommendations for testing neurocognitive and functional impairment in tuberculous meningitis studies.

POPULATION	OUTCOME	MEASURE	TIMING
ADULT	NEUROCOGNITIVE *Trained individual required for test administration	MINIMAL: Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA) using where possible locally derived data to ascertain suitable cut offs for testing population	‘Post-acute’ (6–9 months)
		OPTIMAL: 1. Neurocognitive battery administered in patients first language using culturally neutral measures. as listed in Table 2 2. Measures of potential confounders to cognitive testing – eg. depression, drug use, traumatic brain injury, educational background. 3. Collection of data in well-matched healthy controls to obtain ‘normative’ population data 4. Validation of computerised tests to assess corresponding domains	Initially ‘post-acute’ assessment at 6–9 months plus long term follow up at 2 years
	FUNCTIONAL	MINIMAL: Modified Rankin Scale +/- Barthel Index (see Table 3 on suitability of measure to study design)	Post-acute (6–9 months)
	FUNCTIONAL	OPTIMAL: Modified Rankin Scale +/- Barthel Index (see Table 3 on suitability of measure to study design) plus additional World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0	Post-acute (6–9 months) and long term follow up
PAEDIATRIC **	NEURODEVELOPMENTAL Assessing motor (gross and fine) language, social, reasoning/behaviour +/- vision, hearing. *Specialist training required for test administration	MINIMAL: Ages and Stages Questionnaire ¹⁰² Used in many settings Age range: 0–5 years [Adaptation to local language, collection of data in matched healthy controls to obtain ‘normative’ population data.]	Post-acute – 6–9 months, 2 years and 4 years (age allowing)
		OPTIMAL: Bailey Scale of Infant Development – Third Edition ¹⁰³ Age range 1–42 months Mullen Scale Early Learning ¹⁰⁴ Age range: 0–68 months [Adaptation to local language, collection of data in matched healthy controls to obtain ‘normative’ population data]	Post-acute – 6–9 months, 2 years and 4 years (age allowing)
	NEUROCOGNITIVE *Specialist training and license required for test administration	*Weschler Intelligence Scales for Children ¹⁰⁵ Tested and used in many settings but validity not well established in LMIC Age range: 6–16 years Kauffman Assessment Battery for Children- second edition ¹⁰⁶ Age range: 3–18 years [Adaptation to local language, collection of data in matched healthy controls to obtain ‘normative’ population data.]	Post-acute (6–9 months) and long term follow-up throughout schooling (eg 2 and 5 years minimum)
	FUNCTIONAL	MINIMAL: Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) Age range: 1 year to adult OPTIMAL: Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Scale ¹⁰⁷ Age range: birth – 18 years	Post-acute (6–9 months) and long term follow-up throughout schooling (eg 2 and 5 years minimum)
	NEUROBEHAVIOURAL	MINIMAL: Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire ( http://www.sdqinfo.com) Age range: 4–17 years Child, parent, teacher forms [Adaptation to local language, collection of data in matched healthy controls to obtain ‘normative’ population data.]	Post-acute (6–9 months) and long term follow-up throughout schooling (eg 2 and 5 years minimum)

Open in a new tab

**The above developmental assessment tools have not been formally adapted for use in LMIC nor have locally determined norms been developed. Therefore, interpretation of results requires careful consideration. It is acknowledged that a number of locally developed screening tools, not detailed above, are available for use in specific country settings.

What are the knowledge gaps?

The physical and cognitive disabilities observed in meningitis have long term socioeconomic implications ¹⁰⁸; however, the extent of this in TBM specifically is unknown. In addition, capturing data on patient-centred outcomes, including mood and quality of life, is essential to understanding and intervening on the impact that TBM has on health from the patient perspective. Qualitative research on patients’ and families’ perspectives on the disease and potential barriers to recovery and reintegration is lacking.

Childhood neurodisability is one of the most important precursors of psychopathology, poor adaptive functioning and educational disadvantage. In later life those affected are less likely to be living independently, be in paid employment or have cohabiting relationships compared with controls ¹⁰⁹. There is renewed global commitment to the improvement of early child development outcomes, as evidenced by the focus of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 4. SDG4 highlights the need for reliable, valid measures to evaluate preventive and interventional efforts designed to affect change and mandates the systematic monitoring of the health and well-being of all children to achieve optimal development ¹¹⁰.

While it is known that TBM causes significant neurocognitive, neurodevelopmental and functional impairment in children and adults, there are limited global epidemiological data using well-validated assessment tools that document findings across different ages and populations. To understand and characterise impairment requires appropriately developed tools to assess neurodevelopment, cognition, and functional outcomes for early identification and treatment of disability and to improve opportunities for developmental change and rehabilitation ¹¹¹.

The major challenge, however, is the paucity of robust and standardised assessment measures, developed for and normed across different geographical and cultural settings. Most published data have used a wide range of tools developed for high income countries (HIC). While tests may be translated into local languages, this is often without validation using local norms or adaptation to local culture. Applying Western-based norms to LMIC carries the risk of identifying healthy children as delayed, and adults as cognitively impaired. For example, measures of non-verbal ability in HICs may not evaluate the same construct across cultures such that results cannot be interpreted in the same manner ¹¹². The absence of local or country-specific normed data results in use of statistical strategies to standardise test scores by age ¹¹³. However, a number of researchers have begun to address this challenge in the paediatric population. In a study of rural Beninese children, Bodeau-Livinec et al. evaluated the construct validity of comparing both raw scores and HIC-based standardised scores for two different assessment tools, the Mullen Scales of Early Learning and Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children ¹¹³. Their findings support the use of a local comparison group to allow for adjusted raw score comparisons. Others have reviewed the suitability of well-established neurodevelopmental assessment tests (NDAT) for adaptation to LMIC ¹¹⁴. Gladstone took a different approach with the Malawi Developmental Assessment Tool, producing a culturally relevant NDAT with age-standardised norms for Malawian children ¹¹⁵. More recently, a culturally neutral, caregiver report tool used to monitor pre-school children across multiple LMIC settings has been published. Feasibility testing and piloting across a number of LMIC are planned ¹¹⁶. To fully understand the burden of neurodevelopmental impairment caused by TBM will therefore, require appropriately adapted, as well as new, locally developed measures of neurodevelopment to detect both early developmental and later, emergent speech, behavioral and cognitive difficulties.

Future recommendations

The need to describe better the incidence, severity and character of neurocognitive and functional impairment in TBM is clear, particularly in adults. Given the low-income settings in which TBM predominates, standardised, locally normed functional and neurocognitive assessments that do not require costly or extensive staff are needed. In children these need to vary by age targeting early developmental skills (e.g., language, motor, and visual-receptive) in children under 5, and more domain specific assessment (e.g., attention, emerging executive functioning) in older children. Measurement of emotional and behavioural functioning in the daily setting from complementary parent/teacher sources is also necessary. In adults, these should in the first instance endeavour to estimate degree of cognitive impairment across multiple domains which we anticipate will be most impaired in TBM. Computer-based tests provide the obvious solution; however, construct validity and (lack of) normative data sets limit their use. Whilst these are in development a uniform method for adapting currently available assessment tools, including translation/back-translation of instructions into local languages or adjusting stimuli for cultural differences, is necessary. Further, prospective studies should include a control group for confounding variables (e.g., socioeconomic status, local culture/customs).

To date, no research into long-term outcomes in childhood TBM survivors has evaluated interventions on daily functioning, and therefore measures of adaptive function should be included. Similarly, in adults, the few studies of cognitive and functional impairment post TBM do not consider longer term sequelae in TBM. A recently published study suggested pathways associated with glutamate neurotransmitter release, NMDA-receptor binding and GABA degeneration may play a role in TBM pathogenesis ¹¹⁷. Given that these neurotransmitters are also implicated in the pathogenesis of neurodegenerative conditions such as Alzheimer’s Disease ^118,
119, there is an increasing need to describe the clinical manifestations of long-term sequalae in TBM.

Based on currently available data we have comprised a table of recommendations for testing neurocognitive and functional outcomes in adults and children with TBM ( Table 4). We recommend that investigators designing clinical studies in TBM consider integrating these measures as part of clinical follow-up.

This table includes pragmatic approaches to assessing deficit in low and high functioning individuals. It suggests intervals for testing, including timing of long-term follow up which, where feasible, should be considered in TBM studies. We suggest that efforts to validate computerised methods for cognitive testing in our populations of interest need to be made in order to feasibly develop neurocognitive assessment as a viable biomarker of clinical outcome in the future.

Unlike in adult TBM, paediatric research in this field is sufficient to rationalise a pragmatic treatment approach. We recommend that this should involve rehabilitation (e.g., speech-language, occupational and physical therapies) with consideration for pharmacological intervention (e.g., stimulants for inattention). Early treatment initiation affects functional outcomes in other forms of brain injury ¹²⁰ and therefore where possible these should be offered in the acute phase of TBM. Additionally, post-acute and long-term care studies in these populations demonstrate ongoing need for rehabilitative and psychosocial intervention and, where feasible, this should be considered. Behavioural dysregulation is common in childhood CNS disease; for example, studies in HIV-infected children suggest that interventions targeting caregiver behavioural management improves cognition and behaviour ^121,
122; similar approaches need to be tested in TBM. Universal lessons from other CNS infections indicate that prospective longitudinal studies focused on quality of life and improving health, vocational, and socioemotional adjustment are needed. Collecting high-quality data that demonstrate the disease’s impact will further support advocacy for improved TB prevention programmes and is required to assess the resource burden and effectiveness of treatment interventions ¹²³.

Data availability

No data are associated with this study.

Acknowledgements

Anna Dreyer for her contributions and advice on domain specific measures for testing neurocognitive function in adults.

Tuberculous Meningitis International Research Consortium

Rob E. Aarnoutse; Suzanne T. B. Anderson; Nathan C. Bahr; Nguyen D. Bang; David R. Boulware; Tom Boyles; Lindsey H. M. te Brake; Satish Chandra; Felicia C. Chow; Fiona V. Cresswell; Reinout van Crevel; Angharad G. Davis; Sofiati Dian; Joseph Donovan; Kelly E. Dooley; Anthony Figaji; A. Rizal Ganiem; Ravindra Kumar Garg; Diana M. Gibb; Raph L. Hamers; Nguyen T. T. Hiep; Darma Imran; Akhmad Imron; Sanjay K. Jain; Sunil K. Jain; Byramee Jeejeebhoy; Jayantee Kalita; Rashmi Kumar; Vinod Kumar; Arjan van Laarhoven; Rachel P-J. Lai; Abi Manesh; Suzaan Marais; Vidya Mave; Graeme Meintjes; David B. Meya; Usha K. Misra; Manish Modi; Alvaro A. Ordonez; Nguyen H. Phu; Sunil Pradhan; Kameshwar Prasad; Alize M. Proust; Lalita Ramakrishnan; Ursula Rohlwink; Rovina Ruslami; Johannes F. Schoeman; James A. Seddon; Kusum Sharma; Omar Siddiqi; Regan S. Solomons; Nguyen T. T. Thuong; Guy E. Thwaites; Ronald van Toorn; Elizabeth W. Tucker; Sean A. Wasserman; Robert J. Wilkinson.

Funding Statement

AGD is supported through a UCL Wellcome Trust PhD Programme for Clinicians Fellowship (award number 175479). SN is supported by the Newton Fund Grant for the CONNECT study. RS is supported by the National Research Foundation of South Africa, Grant Number 109437. RJW is supported by Wellcome (104803, 203135); Francis Crick Institute which receives support from Wellcome (FCOO10218), CRUK (FCOO10208); Meningitis Now; and EDCTP. FCC is supported by the National Institutes of Health/Fogarty International Center (R21TW011035). This work was supported by the Wellcome Trust through funding to the Tuberculous Meningitis International Research Consortium.

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

[version 1; peer review: 2 approved]

Contributor Information

Tuberculous Meningitis International Research Consortium:

Rob E. Aarnoutse, Rob E. Aarnoutse, Suzanne T. B. Anderson, Suzanne T. B. Anderson, Nathan C. Bahr, Nguyen D. Bang, David R. Boulware, Tom Boyles, Lindsey H. M. te Brake, Satish Chandra, Felicia C. Chow, Fiona V. Cresswell, Reinout van Crevel, Angharad G. Davis, Sofiati Dian, Joseph Donovan, Kelly E. Dooley, Anthony Figaji, A. Rizal Ganiem, Ravindra Kumar Garg, Diana M. Gibb, Raph L. Hamers, Nguyen T. T. Hiep, Darma Imran, Akhmad Imron, Sanjay K. Jain, Sunil K. Jain, Byramee Jeejeebhoy, Jayantee Kalita, Rashmi Kumar, Vinod Kumar, Arjan van Laarhoven, Rachel P-J. Lai, Abi Manesh, Suzaan Marais, Vidya Mave, Graeme Meintjes, David B. Meya, Usha K. Misra, Manish Modi, Alvaro A. Ordonez, Nguyen H. Phu, Sunil Pradhan, Kameshwar Prasad, Alize M. Proust, Lalita Ramakrishnan, Ursula Rohlwink, Rovina Ruslami, Johannes F. Schoeman, James A. Seddon, Kusum Sharma, Omar Siddiqi, Regan S. Solomons, Nguyen T. T. Thuong, Guy E. Thwaites, Ronald van Toorn, Elizabeth W. Tucker, Sean A. Wasserman, and Robert J. Wilkinson

References

1. Anderson NE, Somaratne J, Mason DF, et al. : Neurological and systemic complications of tuberculous meningitis and its treatment at Auckland City Hospital, New Zealand. J Clin Neurosci. 2010;17(9):1114–1118. 10.1016/j.jocn.2010.01.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR: "Mini-mental state". A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12(3):189–98. 10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. Ranjan P, Kalita J, Misra UK: Serial study of clinical and CT changes in tuberculous meningitis. Neuroradiology. 2003;45(5):277–82. 10.1007/s00234-003-0958-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Kalita J, Misra UK, Ranjan P: Predictors of long-term neurological sequelae of tuberculous meningitis: a multivariate analysis. Eur J Neurol. 2007;14(1):33–7. 10.1111/j.1468-1331.2006.01534.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Chen HL, Lu CH, Chang CD, et al. : Structural deficits and cognitive impairment in tuberculous meningitis. BMC Infect Dis. 2015;15:279. 10.1186/s12879-015-1011-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6. Thwaites G, Chau TT, Mai NT, et al. : Tuberculous meningitis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2000;68(3):289–99. 10.1136/jnnp.68.3.289 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Lin WC, Chen PC, Wang HC, et al. : Diffusion tensor imaging study of white matter damage in chronic meningitis. PLoS One. 2014;9(6):e98210. 10.1371/journal.pone.0098210 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8. Thomas MD, Chopra JS, Walia BN: Tuberculous meningitis (T.B.M.)(a clinical study of 232 cases). J Assoc Physicians India. 1977;25(9):633–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Dastur DK, Lalitha VS, Udani PM, et al. : The brain and meninges in tuberculous meningitis-gross pathology in 100 cases and pathogenesis. Neurol India. 1970;18(2):86–100. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10. Misra UK, Kalita J, Maurya PK: Stroke in tuberculous meningitis. J Neurol Sci. 2011;303(1–2):22–30. 10.1016/j.jns.2010.12.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11. Chan KH, Cheung RT, Fong CY, et al. : Clinical relevance of hydrocephalus as a presenting feature of tuberculous meningitis. QJM. 2003;96(9):643–8. 10.1093/qjmed/hcg108 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. Hellström P, Klinge P, Tans J, et al. : The neuropsychology of iNPH: findings and evaluation of tests in the European multicentre study. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2012;114(2):130–4. 10.1016/j.clineuro.2011.09.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13. Seddon JA, Shingadia D: Epidemiology and disease burden of tuberculosis in children: a global perspective. Infect Drug Resist. 2014;7:153–65. 10.2147/IDR.S45090 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14. Schoeman CJ, Herbst I, Nienkemper DC: The effect of tuberculous meningitis on the cognitive and motor development of children. S Afr Med J. 1997;87(1):70–2. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15. Rohlwink UK, Donald K, Gavine B, et al. : Clinical characteristics and neurodevelopmental outcomes of children with tuberculous meningitis and hydrocephalus. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2016;58(5):461–8. 10.1111/dmcn.13054 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16. Schoeman J, Wait J, Burger M, et al. : Long-term follow up of childhood tuberculous meningitis. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2002;44(8):522–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Wait JW, Stanton L, Schoeman JF: Tuberculosis meningitis and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children. J Trop Pediatr. 2002;48(5):294–9. 10.1093/tropej/48.5.294 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18. Chiang SS, Khan FA, Milstein MB, et al. : Treatment outcomes of childhood tuberculous meningitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2014;14(10):947–957. 10.1016/S1473-3099(14)70852-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. Fitzsimons JM: Tuberculous meningitis: a follow-up study on 198 cases. Tubercle. 1963;44:87–102. 10.1016/s0041-3879(63)80063-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20. Todd RM, Neville JG: The Sequelae of Tuberculous Meningitis. Arch Dis Child. 1964;39:213–25. 10.1136/adc.39.205.213 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Lorber J: Long-term follow-up of 100 children who recovered from tuberculous meningitis. Pediatrics. 1961;28:778–91. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. Ramachandran P, Duraipandian M, Reetha AM, et al. : Long-term status of children treated for tuberculous meningitis in south India. Tubercle. 1989;70(4):235–9. 10.1016/0041-3879(89)90017-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. van Well GT, Paes BF, Terwee CB, et al. : Twenty years of pediatric tuberculous meningitis: a retrospective cohort study in the western cape of South Africa. Pediatrics. 2009;123(1):e1–8. 10.1542/peds.2008-1353 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Humphries MJ, Teoh R, Lau J, et al. : Factors of prognostic significance in Chinese children with tuberculous meningitis. Tubercle. 1990;71(3):161–8. 10.1016/0041-3879(90)90069-k [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Riva D, Taddei M, Ghielmetti F, et al. : Language Cerebro-cerebellar Reorganization in Children After Surgery of Right Cerebellar Astrocytoma: a fMRI Study. Cerebellum. 2019;18(4):791–806. 10.1007/s12311-019-01039-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26. Springer P, Swanevelder S, van Toorn R, et al. : Cerebral infarction and neurodevelopmental outcome in childhood tuberculous meningitis. Eur J Paediatr Neurol. 2009;13(4):343–9. 10.1016/j.ejpn.2008.07.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27. Krauss-Mars AH, Lachman PI: Social factors associated with tuberculous meningitis. A study of children and their families in the western Cape. S Afr Med J. 1992;81(1):16–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28. Wait JW, Schoeman JF: Behaviour profiles after tuberculous meningitis. J Trop Pediatr. 2010;56(3):166–71. 10.1093/tropej/fmp080 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29. Edmond K, Clark A, Korczak VS, et al. : Global and regional risk of disabling sequelae from bacterial meningitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2010;10(5):317–28. 10.1016/S1473-3099(10)70048-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30. Carlson RD, Rolfes MA, Birkenkamp KE, et al. : Predictors of neurocognitive outcomes on antiretroviral therapy after cryptococcal meningitis: a prospective cohort study. Metab Brain Dis. 2014;29(2):269–279. 10.1007/s11011-013-9476-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31. Wong MH, Robertson K, Nakasujja N, et al. : Frequency of and risk factors for HIV dementia in an HIV clinic in sub-Saharan Africa. Neurology. 2007;68(5):350–5. 10.1212/01.wnl.0000252811.48891.6d [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32. Nakasujja N, Skolasky RL, Musisi S, et al. : Depression symptoms and cognitive function among individuals with advanced HIV infection initiating HAART in Uganda. BMC Psychiatry. 2010;10:44. 10.1186/1471-244X-10-44 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33. Valcour V, Sithinamsuwan P, Letendre S, et al. : Pathogenesis of HIV in the central nervous system. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2011;8(1):54–61. 10.1007/s11904-010-0070-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34. Grant I, Atkinson JH, Hesselink JR, et al. : Evidence for early central nervous system involvement in the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and other human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections. Studies with neuropsychologic testing and magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Intern Med. 1987;107(6):828–36. 10.7326/0003-4819-107-6-828 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35. Heaton RK, Clifford DB, Franklin DR, Jr, et al. : HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders persist in the era of potent antiretroviral therapy: CHARTER Study. Neurology. 2010;75(23):2087–96. 10.1212/WNL.0b013e318200d727 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36. Nightingale S, Winston A, Letendre S, et al. : Controversies in HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders. Lancet Neurol. 2014;13(11):1139–1151. 10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70137-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37. Baraff LJ, Lee SI, Schriger DL: Outcomes of bacterial meningitis in children: a meta-analysis. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1993;12(5):389–94. 10.1097/00006454-199305000-00008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38. Carter JA, Neville BG, Newton CR: Neuro-cognitive impairment following acquired central nervous system infections in childhood: a systematic review. Brain Res Brain Res Rev. 2003;43(1):57–69. 10.1016/S0165-0173(03)00192-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39. Bozzola E, Bergonzini P, Bozzola M, et al. : Neuropsychological and internalizing problems in acute central nervous system infections: a 1 year follow-up. Ital J Pediatr. 2017;43(1):96. 10.1186/s13052-017-0416-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40. Molyneux EM, Tembo M, Kayira K, et al. : The effect of HIV infection on paediatric bacterial meningitis in Blantyre, Malawi. Arch Dis Child. 2003;88(12):1112–8. 10.1136/adc.88.12.1112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41. Grimwood K, Anderson VA, Bond L, et al. : Adverse outcomes of bacterial meningitis in school-age survivors. Pediatrics. 1995;95(5):646–56. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42. Bourdeau I, Bard C, Forget H, et al. : Cognitive function and cerebral assessment in patients who have Cushing's syndrome. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am. 2005;34(2):357–69, ix. 10.1016/j.ecl.2005.01.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43. Khandaker G, Jung J, Britton PN, et al. : Long-term outcomes of infective encephalitis in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2016;58(11):1108–1115. 10.1111/dmcn.13197 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44. Hills SL, Van Cuong N, Touch S, et al. : Disability from Japanese encephalitis in Cambodia and Viet Nam. J Trop Pediatr. 2011;57(4):241–4. 10.1093/tropej/fmp133 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45. van de Beek D, Schmand B, de Gans J, et al. : Cognitive impairment in adults with good recovery after bacterial meningitis. J Infect Dis. 2002;186(7):1047–52. 10.1086/344229 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46. Hoogman M, van de Beek D, Weisfelt M, et al. : Cognitive outcome in adults after bacterial meningitis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2007;78(10):1092–6. 10.1136/jnnp.2006.110023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47. Weisfelt M, Hoogman M, van de Beek D, et al. : Dexamethasone and long-term outcome in adults with bacterial meningitis. Ann Neurol. 2006;60(4):456–68. 10.1002/ana.20944 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48. Merkelbach S, Sittinger H, Schweizer I, et al. : Cognitive outcome after bacterial meningitis. Acta Neurol Scand. 2000;102(2):118–23. 10.1034/j.1600-0404.2000.102002118.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49. Levine AJ, Hinkin CH, Ando K, et al. : An exploratory study of long-term neurocognitive outcomes following recovery from opportunistic brain infections in HIV+ adults. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2008;30(7):836–43. 10.1080/13803390701819036 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50. Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, et al. : The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(4):695–9. 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53221.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51. Videnovic A, Bernard B, Fan W, et al. : The Montreal Cognitive Assessment as a screening tool for cognitive dysfunction in Huntington's disease. Mov Disord. 2010;25(3):401–4. 10.1002/mds.22748 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
52. Robbins RN, Joska JA, Thomas KG, et al. : Exploring the utility of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment to detect HIV-associated neurocognitive disorder: the challenge and need for culturally valid screening tests in South Africa. Clin Neuropsychol. 2013;27(3):437–54. 10.1080/13854046.2012.759627 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53. , Fujiwara Y Suzuki H Yasunaga M et al. : Brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment in older Japanese: validation of the Japanese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2010;10(3):225–32. 10.1111/j.1447-0594.2010.00585.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54. Rahman TT, El Gaafary MM: Montreal Cognitive Assessment Arabic version: reliability and validity prevalence of mild cognitive impairment among elderly attending geriatric clubs in Cairo. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2009;9(1):54–61. 10.1111/j.1447-0594.2008.00509.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
55. Lee JY, Dong Woo Lee, Cho SJ, et al. : Brief screening for mild cognitive impairment in elderly outpatient clinic: validation of the Korean version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol. 2008;21(2):104–10. 10.1177/0891988708316855 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
56. Buckley RF, Sparks KP, Papp KV, et al. : Computerized Cognitive Testing for Use in Clinical Trials: A Comparison of the NIH Toolbox and Cogstate C3 Batteries. J Prev Alzheimers Dis. 2017;4(1):3–11. 10.14283/jpad.2017.1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
57. Cysique LA, Maruff P, Darby D, et al. : The assessment of cognitive function in advanced HIV-1 infection and AIDS dementia complex using a new computerised cognitive test battery. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2006;21(2):185–94. 10.1016/j.acn.2005.07.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
58. Overton ET, Kauwe JS, Paul R, et al. : Performances on the CogState and standard neuropsychological batteries among HIV patients without dementia. AIDS Behav. 2011;15(8):1902–9. 10.1007/s10461-011-0033-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
59. Joska JA, Witten J, Thomas K, et al. : A Comparison of Five Brief Screening Tools for HIV-Associated Neurocognitive Disorders in the USA and South Africa. AIDS Behav. 2016;20(8):1621–31. 10.1007/s10461-016-1316-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
60. Benedict RHB, Groninger L, Schretlen D, et al. : Revision of the brief visuospatial memory test: Studies of normal performance, reliability, and, validity. Psychol Assessment. 1996;8(2):145–53. 10.1037/1040-3590.8.2.145 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
61. D’Elia LF SP, Uchiyama CL, White T: Color Trails Test: Professional Manual. Odessa (Florida): Psychological Assessment Resources. Color Trails Test: Professional Manual. Professional Manual Odessa (Florida): Psychological Assessment Resources.1996. [Google Scholar]
62. Wechsler D, III: WAIS-III: Administration and scoring manual: Wechsler adult intelligence scale. Psychological Corporation. San Antonio, TX.1997. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
63. Klove H: Clinical neuropsychology. In: (Ed.) FMF, editor. Med Clin North Am.New York: WB Saunders;1963;47(6):1647–58. 10.1016/S0025-7125(16)33515-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
64. Katzef C, Henry M, Gouse H, et al. : A culturally fair test of processing speed: Construct validity, preliminary normative data, and effects of HIV infection on performance in South African adults. Neuropsychology. 2019;33(5):685–700. 10.1037/neu0000539 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
65. Wilson JT, Hareendran A, Grant M, et al. : Improving the assessment of outcomes in stroke: use of a structured interview to assign grades on the modified Rankin Scale. Stroke. 2002;33(9):2243–6. 10.1161/01.str.0000027437.22450.bd [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
66. Rankin J: Cerebral vascular accidents in patients over the age of 60. III. Diagnosis and treatment. Scott Med J. 1957;2(6):254–68. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
67. Mahoney FI, Barthel DW: Functional Evaluation: The Barthel Index. Md State Med J. 1965;14:61–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
68. Collin C, Wade DT, Davies S, et al. : The Barthel ADL Index: a reliability study. Int Disabil Stud. 1988;10(2):61–3. 10.3109/09638288809164103 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
69. Quinn TJ, Langhorne P, Stott DJ: Barthel index for stroke trials: development, properties, and application. Stroke. 2011;42(4):1146–51. 10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.598540 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
70. Wilson JT, Pettigrew LE, Teasdale GM: Structured interviews for the Glasgow Outcome Scale and the extended Glasgow Outcome Scale: guidelines for their use. J Neurotrauma. 1998;15(8):573–85. 10.1089/neu.1998.15.573 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
71. Lewthwaite P, Begum A, Ooi MH, et al. : Disability after encephalitis: development and validation of a new outcome score. Bull World Health Organ. 2010;88(8):584–92. 10.2471/BLT.09.071357 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
72. Lees KR, Zivin JA, Ashwood T, et al. : NXY-059 for acute ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(6):588–600. 10.1056/NEJMoa052980 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
73. Taylor-Rowan M, Wilson A, Dawson J, et al. : Functional Assessment for Acute Stroke Trials: Properties, Analysis, and Application. Front Neurol. 2018;9:191. 10.3389/fneur.2018.00191 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
74. Weimar C, Kurth T, Kraywinkel K, et al. : Assessment of functioning and disability after ischemic stroke. Stroke. 2002;33(8):2053–9. 10.1161/01.str.0000022808.21776.bf [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
75. Muralidharan R, Mateen FJ, Rabinstein AA: Outcome of fulminant bacterial meningitis in adult patients. Eur J Neurol. 2014;21(3):447–53. 10.1111/ene.12328 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
76. Thakur KT, Motta M, Asemota AO, et al. : Predictors of outcome in acute encephalitis. Neurology. 2013;81(9):793–800. 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182a2cc6d [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
77. Banks JL, Marotta CA: Outcomes validity and reliability of the modified Rankin scale: implications for stroke clinical trials: a literature review and synthesis. Stroke. 2007;38(3):1091–6. 10.1161/01.STR.0000258355.23810.c6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
78. Thwaites GE, Nguyen DB, Nguyen HD, et al. : Dexamethasone for the treatment of tuberculous meningitis in adolescents and adults. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(17):1741–51. 10.1056/NEJMoa040573 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
79. Torok ME, Chau TT, Mai PP, et al. : Clinical and microbiological features of HIV-associated tuberculous meningitis in Vietnamese adults. PLoS One. 2008;3(3):e1772. 10.1371/journal.pone.0001772 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
80. Heemskerk AD, Bang ND, Mai NT, et al. : Intensified Antituberculosis Therapy in Adults with Tuberculous Meningitis. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(2):124–34. 10.1056/NEJMoa1507062 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
81. Dian S, Yunivita V, Ganiem AR, et al. : Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Phase II Dose-Finding Study To Evaluate High-Dose Rifampin for Tuberculous Meningitis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2018;62(12):pii: e01014–18. 10.1128/AAC.01014-18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
82. Wasay M, Khan M, Farooq S, et al. : Frequency and Impact of Cerebral Infarctions in Patients With Tuberculous Meningitis. Stroke. 2018;49(10):2288–2293. 10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.021301 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
83. Cantier M, Morisot A, Guérot E, et al. : Functional outcomes in adults with tuberculous meningitis admitted to the ICU: a multicenter cohort study. Crit Care. 2018;22(1):210. 10.1186/s13054-018-2140-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
84. Anuradha HK, Garg RK, Sinha MK, et al. : Intracranial tuberculomas in patients with tuberculous meningitis: predictors and prognostic significance. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2011;15(2):234–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
85. Hacke W, Kaste M, Fieschi C, et al. : Randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial of thrombolytic therapy with intravenous alteplase in acute ischaemic stroke (ECASS II). Second European-Australasian Acute Stroke Study Investigators. Lancet. 1998;352(9136):1245–51. 10.1016/s0140-6736(98)08020-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
86. Optimising Analysis of Stroke Trials (OAST) Collaboration, Bath PM, Gray LJ, et al. : Can we improve the statistical analysis of stroke trials? Statistical reanalysis of functional outcomes in stroke trials. Stroke. 2007;38(6):1911–5. 10.1161/STROKEAHA.106.474080 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
87. Balu S: Differences in psychometric properties, cut-off scores, and outcomes between the Barthel Index and Modified Rankin Scale in pharmacotherapy-based stroke trials: systematic literature review. Curr Med Res Opin. 2009;25(6):1329–41. 10.1185/03007990902875877 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
88. Duffy L, Gajree S, Langhorne P, et al. : Reliability (inter-rater agreement) of the Barthel Index for assessment of stroke survivors: systematic review and meta-analysis. Stroke. 2013;44(2):462–8. 10.1161/STROKEAHA.112.678615 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
89. Green J, Forster A, Young J: A test-retest reliability study of the Barthel Index, the Rivermead Mobility Index, the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale and the Frenchay Activities Index in stroke patients. Disabil Rehabil. 2001;23(15):670–6. 10.1080/09638280110045382 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
90. Kwon S, Hartzema AG, Duncan PW, et al. : Disability measures in stroke: relationship among the Barthel Index, the Functional Independence Measure, and the Modified Rankin Scale. Stroke. 2004;35(4):918–23. 10.1161/01.STR.0000119385.56094.32 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
91. Celani MG, Cantisani TA, Righetti E, et al. : Different measures for assessing stroke outcome: an analysis from the International Stroke Trial in Italy. Stroke. 2002;33(1):218–23. 10.1161/hs0102.100532 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
92. Kay R, Wong KS, Perez G, et al. : Dichotomizing stroke outcomes based on self-reported dependency. Neurology. 1997;49(6):1694–6. 10.1212/wnl.49.6.1694 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
93. Uyttenboogaart M, Stewart RE, Vroomen PC, et al. : Optimizing cutoff scores for the Barthel index and the modified Rankin scale for defining outcome in acute stroke trials. Stroke. 2005;36(9):1984–7. 10.1161/01.STR.0000177872.87960.61 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
94. Misra UK, Kalita J, Nair PP: Role of aspirin in tuberculous meningitis: a randomized open label placebo controlled trial. J Neurol Sci. 2010;293(1-2):12–7. 10.1016/j.jns.2010.03.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
95. Sutlas PN, Unal A, Forta H, et al. : Tuberculous meningitis in adults: review of 61 cases. Infection. 2003;31(6):387–91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
96. Kalita J, Misra UK, Prasad S, et al. : Safety and efficacy of levofloxacin versus rifampicin in tuberculous meningitis: an open-label randomized controlled trial. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014;69(8):2246–51. 10.1093/jac/dku103 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
97. Chou CH, Lin GM, Ku CH, et al. : Comparison of the APACHE II, GCS and MRC scores in predicting outcomes in patients with tuberculous meningitis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2010;14(1):86–92. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
98. Gomes MS, Amorim WW, Morais RS, et al. : Polypharmacy in older patients at primary care units in Brazil. Int J Clin Pharm. 2019;41(2):516–524. 10.1007/s11096-018-00780-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
99. Ustün TB, Chatterji S, Kostanjsek N, et al. : Developing the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. Bull World Health Organ. 2010;88(11):815–23. 10.2471/BLT.09.067231 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
100. Springer PE, Slogrove AL, Laughton B, et al. : Neurodevelopmental outcome of HIV-exposed but uninfected infants in the Mother and Infants Health Study, Cape Town, South Africa. Trop Med Int Health. 2018;23(1):69–78. 10.1111/tmi.13006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
101. Springer PE, Slogrove AL, Kidd M, et al. : Neurodevelopmental and behavioural outcomes of HIV-exposed uninfected and HIV-unexposed children at 2-3 years of age in Cape Town, South Africa. AIDS Care. 2019;1–9. 10.1080/09540121.2019.1637506 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
102. Squires J: Ages and stages questionnaire (3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.2009. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
103. Bayley N: Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development III (screening test). San Antonio, TX: Pearson.2005. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
104. Mullen EM: Mullen Scales of Early Learning. Torrance, CA: WPS.1995. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
105. Wechsler D: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-IV) (4th ed.). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.2003. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
106. Kaufman AS, Kaufman NL: Kaufman assessment battery for children-2. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.2004. [Google Scholar]
107. Sparrow SS, Cicchetti DV, Balla DA: Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Pearson.2005. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
108. Pickering L, Jennum P, Ibsen R, et al. : Long-term health and socioeconomic consequences of childhood and adolescent onset of meningococcal meningitis. Eur J Pediatr. 2018. 10.1007/s00431-018-3192-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
109. Moffitt TE, Arseneault L, Belsky D, et al. : A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108(7):2693–8. 10.1073/pnas.1010076108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
110. United Nations: Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development A/RES/70/1. 2015; United Nations: New York. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
111. Durkin M: The epidemiology of developmental disabilities in low-income countries. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev. 2002;8(3):206–11. 10.1002/mrdd.10039 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
112. Rosselli M, Ardila A: The impact of culture and education on non-verbal neuropsychological measurements: a critical review. Brain Cogn. 2003;52(3):326–33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
113. Bodeau-Livinec F, Davidson LL, Zoumenou R, et al. : Neurocognitive testing in West African children 3-6 years of age: Challenges and implications for data analyses. Brain Res Bull. 2019;145:129–135. 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2018.04.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
114. Semrud-Clikeman M, Romero RAA, Prado EL, et al. : [Formula: see text]Selecting measures for the neurodevelopmental assessment of children in low- and middle-income countries. Child Neuropsychol. 2017;23(7):761–802. 10.1080/09297049.2016.1216536 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
115. Gladstone M, Lancaster GA, Umar E, et al. : The Malawi Developmental Assessment Tool (MDAT): the creation, validation, and reliability of a tool to assess child development in rural African settings. PLoS Med. 2010;7(5):e1000273. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000273 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
116. Lancaster GA, McCray G, Kariger P, et al. : Creation of the WHO Indicators of Infant and Young Child Development (IYCD): metadata synthesis across 10 countries. BMJ Glob Health. 2018;3(5):e000747. 10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000747 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
117. Rohlwink UK, Figaji A, Wilkinson KA, et al. : Tuberculous meningitis in children is characterized by compartmentalized immune responses and neural excitotoxicity. Nat Commun. 2019;10(1):3767. 10.1038/s41467-019-11783-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
118. Rissman RA, De Blas AL, Armstrong DM: GABA _A receptors in aging and Alzheimer's disease. J Neurochem. 2007;103(4):1285–92. 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2007.04832.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
119. Marczynski TJ: GABAergic deafferentation hypothesis of brain aging and Alzheimer's disease revisited. Brain Res Bull. 1998;45(4):341–79. 10.1016/s0361-9230(97)00347-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
120. Schweickert WD, Pohlman MC, Pohlman AS, et al. : Early physical and occupational therapy in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009;373(9678):1874–82. 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60658-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
121. Boivin MJ, Bangirana P, Nakasujja N, et al. : A year-long caregiver training program improves cognition in preschool Ugandan children with human immunodeficiency virus. J Pediatr. 2013;163(5):1409–16.e1-5. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2013.06.055 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
122. Boivin MJ, Bangirana P, Nakasujja N, et al. : A year-long caregiver training program to improve neurocognition in preschool Ugandan HIV-exposed children. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2013;34(4):269–78. 10.1097/DBP.0b013e318285fba9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
123. Trieu HT, Anh NTK, Vuong HNT, et al. : Long-term outcome in survivors of neonatal tetanus following specialist intensive care in Vietnam. BMC Infect Dis. 2017;17(1):646. 10.1186/s12879-017-2748-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Wellcome Open Res. 2020 Jan 20. doi: 10.21956/wellcomeopenres.16984.r37378

Reviewer response for version 1

Monica Marta ^1,²

This extensive review of the state of the art about neurocognitive impairment in TBM is well written, extensively based on published data and includes tables that highlight important messages. This review is a useful tool to chose cognitive tests for a future study or even in clinical practice.

Despite not being part of the subject of the review, it would be important to highlight how difficult it is to have a clear diagnosis of TBM both in resource-scarce and even in state of the art centres. It is not clear from the review how certain alternative and co-diagnoses may confound the outcomes: HIV is described but other infections such as malaria or bacterial meningitis are not.

Furthermore, drugs other than anti-TB are not assessed: e.g. the use of anti-epileptic medication and which drugs are used can be a confounder in the neurocognitive measurements.

If possible, it would be interesting to read about which aspects of neurocognitive impairment the authors consider amenable to rehabilitation.

I am aware my questions are beyond the scope of this review, but maybe a mention in the Discussion would be useful.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Wellcome Open Res. 2019 Dec 20. doi: 10.21956/wellcomeopenres.16984.r37049

Reviewer response for version 1

Reuben Robbins ¹

This is a well-written and thorough review of the neurocognitive and functional sequelae of tuberculous meningitis (TBM) – a mostly understudied area. There are a few minor points that could be revised.

First, the introduction is fully without any citations – many statements are made without support. However, the other sections of the manuscript provide relevant support for the statements made in the introduction.

Second, the idea that neurocognitive and functional tests need specific adapting/validating for TBM is not totally correct. Most neurocognitive and functional tests were designed to assesses general abilities, irrespective of disease. What I think the authors are trying to say is that with such little research in this area, it is very difficult to know which or what types of these tests are best suited to detect the cognitive and functional sequelae of TBM. They provide useful recommendations that address this gap in the literature, but seem to suggest that tests need specific validation beyond robust cultural adaptions/translations and appropriate normative data collection.

Third, the issues of culturally validity and proper norms are not unique to HIV research, but rather speak to the field of doing these types of assessments across any disease.

Fourth, “Becks depression scale” should be changed to either “the Beck Depression Inventory” or “Beck’s depression scale.”

Finally, regarding novel computerized methods of neurocognitive assessment, the authors refer to the Katzef et al. article; they may also consider citing Robbins et al. (2018) ¹.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

References

1. : A Mobile App to Screen for Neurocognitive Impairment: Preliminary Validation of NeuroScreen Among HIV-Infected South African Adults. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth.2018;6(1) : 10.2196/mhealth.9148 e5 10.2196/mhealth.9148 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

No data are associated with this study.

[ref-1] 1. Anderson NE, Somaratne J, Mason DF, et al. : Neurological and systemic complications of tuberculous meningitis and its treatment at Auckland City Hospital, New Zealand. J Clin Neurosci. 2010;17(9):1114–1118. 10.1016/j.jocn.2010.01.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-2] 2. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR: "Mini-mental state". A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12(3):189–98. 10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-3] 3. Ranjan P, Kalita J, Misra UK: Serial study of clinical and CT changes in tuberculous meningitis. Neuroradiology. 2003;45(5):277–82. 10.1007/s00234-003-0958-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-4] 4. Kalita J, Misra UK, Ranjan P: Predictors of long-term neurological sequelae of tuberculous meningitis: a multivariate analysis. Eur J Neurol. 2007;14(1):33–7. 10.1111/j.1468-1331.2006.01534.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-5] 5. Chen HL, Lu CH, Chang CD, et al. : Structural deficits and cognitive impairment in tuberculous meningitis. BMC Infect Dis. 2015;15:279. 10.1186/s12879-015-1011-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-6] 6. Thwaites G, Chau TT, Mai NT, et al. : Tuberculous meningitis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2000;68(3):289–99. 10.1136/jnnp.68.3.289 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-7] 7. Lin WC, Chen PC, Wang HC, et al. : Diffusion tensor imaging study of white matter damage in chronic meningitis. PLoS One. 2014;9(6):e98210. 10.1371/journal.pone.0098210 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-8] 8. Thomas MD, Chopra JS, Walia BN: Tuberculous meningitis (T.B.M.)(a clinical study of 232 cases). J Assoc Physicians India. 1977;25(9):633–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-9] 9. Dastur DK, Lalitha VS, Udani PM, et al. : The brain and meninges in tuberculous meningitis-gross pathology in 100 cases and pathogenesis. Neurol India. 1970;18(2):86–100. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-10] 10. Misra UK, Kalita J, Maurya PK: Stroke in tuberculous meningitis. J Neurol Sci. 2011;303(1–2):22–30. 10.1016/j.jns.2010.12.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-11] 11. Chan KH, Cheung RT, Fong CY, et al. : Clinical relevance of hydrocephalus as a presenting feature of tuberculous meningitis. QJM. 2003;96(9):643–8. 10.1093/qjmed/hcg108 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-12] 12. Hellström P, Klinge P, Tans J, et al. : The neuropsychology of iNPH: findings and evaluation of tests in the European multicentre study. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2012;114(2):130–4. 10.1016/j.clineuro.2011.09.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-13] 13. Seddon JA, Shingadia D: Epidemiology and disease burden of tuberculosis in children: a global perspective. Infect Drug Resist. 2014;7:153–65. 10.2147/IDR.S45090 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-14] 14. Schoeman CJ, Herbst I, Nienkemper DC: The effect of tuberculous meningitis on the cognitive and motor development of children. S Afr Med J. 1997;87(1):70–2. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-15] 15. Rohlwink UK, Donald K, Gavine B, et al. : Clinical characteristics and neurodevelopmental outcomes of children with tuberculous meningitis and hydrocephalus. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2016;58(5):461–8. 10.1111/dmcn.13054 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-16] 16. Schoeman J, Wait J, Burger M, et al. : Long-term follow up of childhood tuberculous meningitis. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2002;44(8):522–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-17] 17. Wait JW, Stanton L, Schoeman JF: Tuberculosis meningitis and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children. J Trop Pediatr. 2002;48(5):294–9. 10.1093/tropej/48.5.294 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-18] 18. Chiang SS, Khan FA, Milstein MB, et al. : Treatment outcomes of childhood tuberculous meningitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2014;14(10):947–957. 10.1016/S1473-3099(14)70852-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-19] 19. Fitzsimons JM: Tuberculous meningitis: a follow-up study on 198 cases. Tubercle. 1963;44:87–102. 10.1016/s0041-3879(63)80063-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-20] 20. Todd RM, Neville JG: The Sequelae of Tuberculous Meningitis. Arch Dis Child. 1964;39:213–25. 10.1136/adc.39.205.213 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-21] 21. Lorber J: Long-term follow-up of 100 children who recovered from tuberculous meningitis. Pediatrics. 1961;28:778–91. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-22] 22. Ramachandran P, Duraipandian M, Reetha AM, et al. : Long-term status of children treated for tuberculous meningitis in south India. Tubercle. 1989;70(4):235–9. 10.1016/0041-3879(89)90017-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-23] 23. van Well GT, Paes BF, Terwee CB, et al. : Twenty years of pediatric tuberculous meningitis: a retrospective cohort study in the western cape of South Africa. Pediatrics. 2009;123(1):e1–8. 10.1542/peds.2008-1353 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-24] 24. Humphries MJ, Teoh R, Lau J, et al. : Factors of prognostic significance in Chinese children with tuberculous meningitis. Tubercle. 1990;71(3):161–8. 10.1016/0041-3879(90)90069-k [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-25] 25. Riva D, Taddei M, Ghielmetti F, et al. : Language Cerebro-cerebellar Reorganization in Children After Surgery of Right Cerebellar Astrocytoma: a fMRI Study. Cerebellum. 2019;18(4):791–806. 10.1007/s12311-019-01039-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-26] 26. Springer P, Swanevelder S, van Toorn R, et al. : Cerebral infarction and neurodevelopmental outcome in childhood tuberculous meningitis. Eur J Paediatr Neurol. 2009;13(4):343–9. 10.1016/j.ejpn.2008.07.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-27] 27. Krauss-Mars AH, Lachman PI: Social factors associated with tuberculous meningitis. A study of children and their families in the western Cape. S Afr Med J. 1992;81(1):16–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-28] 28. Wait JW, Schoeman JF: Behaviour profiles after tuberculous meningitis. J Trop Pediatr. 2010;56(3):166–71. 10.1093/tropej/fmp080 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-29] 29. Edmond K, Clark A, Korczak VS, et al. : Global and regional risk of disabling sequelae from bacterial meningitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2010;10(5):317–28. 10.1016/S1473-3099(10)70048-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-30] 30. Carlson RD, Rolfes MA, Birkenkamp KE, et al. : Predictors of neurocognitive outcomes on antiretroviral therapy after cryptococcal meningitis: a prospective cohort study. Metab Brain Dis. 2014;29(2):269–279. 10.1007/s11011-013-9476-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-31] 31. Wong MH, Robertson K, Nakasujja N, et al. : Frequency of and risk factors for HIV dementia in an HIV clinic in sub-Saharan Africa. Neurology. 2007;68(5):350–5. 10.1212/01.wnl.0000252811.48891.6d [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-32] 32. Nakasujja N, Skolasky RL, Musisi S, et al. : Depression symptoms and cognitive function among individuals with advanced HIV infection initiating HAART in Uganda. BMC Psychiatry. 2010;10:44. 10.1186/1471-244X-10-44 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-33] 33. Valcour V, Sithinamsuwan P, Letendre S, et al. : Pathogenesis of HIV in the central nervous system. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2011;8(1):54–61. 10.1007/s11904-010-0070-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-34] 34. Grant I, Atkinson JH, Hesselink JR, et al. : Evidence for early central nervous system involvement in the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and other human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections. Studies with neuropsychologic testing and magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Intern Med. 1987;107(6):828–36. 10.7326/0003-4819-107-6-828 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-35] 35. Heaton RK, Clifford DB, Franklin DR, Jr, et al. : HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders persist in the era of potent antiretroviral therapy: CHARTER Study. Neurology. 2010;75(23):2087–96. 10.1212/WNL.0b013e318200d727 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-36] 36. Nightingale S, Winston A, Letendre S, et al. : Controversies in HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders. Lancet Neurol. 2014;13(11):1139–1151. 10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70137-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-37] 37. Baraff LJ, Lee SI, Schriger DL: Outcomes of bacterial meningitis in children: a meta-analysis. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1993;12(5):389–94. 10.1097/00006454-199305000-00008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-38] 38. Carter JA, Neville BG, Newton CR: Neuro-cognitive impairment following acquired central nervous system infections in childhood: a systematic review. Brain Res Brain Res Rev. 2003;43(1):57–69. 10.1016/S0165-0173(03)00192-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-39] 39. Bozzola E, Bergonzini P, Bozzola M, et al. : Neuropsychological and internalizing problems in acute central nervous system infections: a 1 year follow-up. Ital J Pediatr. 2017;43(1):96. 10.1186/s13052-017-0416-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-40] 40. Molyneux EM, Tembo M, Kayira K, et al. : The effect of HIV infection on paediatric bacterial meningitis in Blantyre, Malawi. Arch Dis Child. 2003;88(12):1112–8. 10.1136/adc.88.12.1112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-41] 41. Grimwood K, Anderson VA, Bond L, et al. : Adverse outcomes of bacterial meningitis in school-age survivors. Pediatrics. 1995;95(5):646–56. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-42] 42. Bourdeau I, Bard C, Forget H, et al. : Cognitive function and cerebral assessment in patients who have Cushing's syndrome. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am. 2005;34(2):357–69, ix. 10.1016/j.ecl.2005.01.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-43] 43. Khandaker G, Jung J, Britton PN, et al. : Long-term outcomes of infective encephalitis in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2016;58(11):1108–1115. 10.1111/dmcn.13197 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-44] 44. Hills SL, Van Cuong N, Touch S, et al. : Disability from Japanese encephalitis in Cambodia and Viet Nam. J Trop Pediatr. 2011;57(4):241–4. 10.1093/tropej/fmp133 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-45] 45. van de Beek D, Schmand B, de Gans J, et al. : Cognitive impairment in adults with good recovery after bacterial meningitis. J Infect Dis. 2002;186(7):1047–52. 10.1086/344229 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-46] 46. Hoogman M, van de Beek D, Weisfelt M, et al. : Cognitive outcome in adults after bacterial meningitis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2007;78(10):1092–6. 10.1136/jnnp.2006.110023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-47] 47. Weisfelt M, Hoogman M, van de Beek D, et al. : Dexamethasone and long-term outcome in adults with bacterial meningitis. Ann Neurol. 2006;60(4):456–68. 10.1002/ana.20944 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-48] 48. Merkelbach S, Sittinger H, Schweizer I, et al. : Cognitive outcome after bacterial meningitis. Acta Neurol Scand. 2000;102(2):118–23. 10.1034/j.1600-0404.2000.102002118.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-49] 49. Levine AJ, Hinkin CH, Ando K, et al. : An exploratory study of long-term neurocognitive outcomes following recovery from opportunistic brain infections in HIV+ adults. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2008;30(7):836–43. 10.1080/13803390701819036 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-50] 50. Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, et al. : The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(4):695–9. 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53221.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-51] 51. Videnovic A, Bernard B, Fan W, et al. : The Montreal Cognitive Assessment as a screening tool for cognitive dysfunction in Huntington's disease. Mov Disord. 2010;25(3):401–4. 10.1002/mds.22748 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-52] 52. Robbins RN, Joska JA, Thomas KG, et al. : Exploring the utility of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment to detect HIV-associated neurocognitive disorder: the challenge and need for culturally valid screening tests in South Africa. Clin Neuropsychol. 2013;27(3):437–54. 10.1080/13854046.2012.759627 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-53] 53. , Fujiwara Y Suzuki H Yasunaga M et al. : Brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment in older Japanese: validation of the Japanese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2010;10(3):225–32. 10.1111/j.1447-0594.2010.00585.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-54] 54. Rahman TT, El Gaafary MM: Montreal Cognitive Assessment Arabic version: reliability and validity prevalence of mild cognitive impairment among elderly attending geriatric clubs in Cairo. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2009;9(1):54–61. 10.1111/j.1447-0594.2008.00509.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-55] 55. Lee JY, Dong Woo Lee, Cho SJ, et al. : Brief screening for mild cognitive impairment in elderly outpatient clinic: validation of the Korean version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol. 2008;21(2):104–10. 10.1177/0891988708316855 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-56] 56. Buckley RF, Sparks KP, Papp KV, et al. : Computerized Cognitive Testing for Use in Clinical Trials: A Comparison of the NIH Toolbox and Cogstate C3 Batteries. J Prev Alzheimers Dis. 2017;4(1):3–11. 10.14283/jpad.2017.1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-57] 57. Cysique LA, Maruff P, Darby D, et al. : The assessment of cognitive function in advanced HIV-1 infection and AIDS dementia complex using a new computerised cognitive test battery. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2006;21(2):185–94. 10.1016/j.acn.2005.07.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-58] 58. Overton ET, Kauwe JS, Paul R, et al. : Performances on the CogState and standard neuropsychological batteries among HIV patients without dementia. AIDS Behav. 2011;15(8):1902–9. 10.1007/s10461-011-0033-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-59] 59. Joska JA, Witten J, Thomas K, et al. : A Comparison of Five Brief Screening Tools for HIV-Associated Neurocognitive Disorders in the USA and South Africa. AIDS Behav. 2016;20(8):1621–31. 10.1007/s10461-016-1316-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-60] 60. Benedict RHB, Groninger L, Schretlen D, et al. : Revision of the brief visuospatial memory test: Studies of normal performance, reliability, and, validity. Psychol Assessment. 1996;8(2):145–53. 10.1037/1040-3590.8.2.145 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref-61] 61. D’Elia LF SP, Uchiyama CL, White T: Color Trails Test: Professional Manual. Odessa (Florida): Psychological Assessment Resources. Color Trails Test: Professional Manual. Professional Manual Odessa (Florida): Psychological Assessment Resources.1996. [Google Scholar]

[ref-62] 62. Wechsler D, III: WAIS-III: Administration and scoring manual: Wechsler adult intelligence scale. Psychological Corporation. San Antonio, TX.1997. Reference Source [Google Scholar]

[ref-63] 63. Klove H: Clinical neuropsychology. In: (Ed.) FMF, editor. Med Clin North Am.New York: WB Saunders;1963;47(6):1647–58. 10.1016/S0025-7125(16)33515-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-64] 64. Katzef C, Henry M, Gouse H, et al. : A culturally fair test of processing speed: Construct validity, preliminary normative data, and effects of HIV infection on performance in South African adults. Neuropsychology. 2019;33(5):685–700. 10.1037/neu0000539 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-65] 65. Wilson JT, Hareendran A, Grant M, et al. : Improving the assessment of outcomes in stroke: use of a structured interview to assign grades on the modified Rankin Scale. Stroke. 2002;33(9):2243–6. 10.1161/01.str.0000027437.22450.bd [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-66] 66. Rankin J: Cerebral vascular accidents in patients over the age of 60. III. Diagnosis and treatment. Scott Med J. 1957;2(6):254–68. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-67] 67. Mahoney FI, Barthel DW: Functional Evaluation: The Barthel Index. Md State Med J. 1965;14:61–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-68] 68. Collin C, Wade DT, Davies S, et al. : The Barthel ADL Index: a reliability study. Int Disabil Stud. 1988;10(2):61–3. 10.3109/09638288809164103 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-69] 69. Quinn TJ, Langhorne P, Stott DJ: Barthel index for stroke trials: development, properties, and application. Stroke. 2011;42(4):1146–51. 10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.598540 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-70] 70. Wilson JT, Pettigrew LE, Teasdale GM: Structured interviews for the Glasgow Outcome Scale and the extended Glasgow Outcome Scale: guidelines for their use. J Neurotrauma. 1998;15(8):573–85. 10.1089/neu.1998.15.573 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-71] 71. Lewthwaite P, Begum A, Ooi MH, et al. : Disability after encephalitis: development and validation of a new outcome score. Bull World Health Organ. 2010;88(8):584–92. 10.2471/BLT.09.071357 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-72] 72. Lees KR, Zivin JA, Ashwood T, et al. : NXY-059 for acute ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(6):588–600. 10.1056/NEJMoa052980 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-73] 73. Taylor-Rowan M, Wilson A, Dawson J, et al. : Functional Assessment for Acute Stroke Trials: Properties, Analysis, and Application. Front Neurol. 2018;9:191. 10.3389/fneur.2018.00191 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-74] 74. Weimar C, Kurth T, Kraywinkel K, et al. : Assessment of functioning and disability after ischemic stroke. Stroke. 2002;33(8):2053–9. 10.1161/01.str.0000022808.21776.bf [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-75] 75. Muralidharan R, Mateen FJ, Rabinstein AA: Outcome of fulminant bacterial meningitis in adult patients. Eur J Neurol. 2014;21(3):447–53. 10.1111/ene.12328 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-76] 76. Thakur KT, Motta M, Asemota AO, et al. : Predictors of outcome in acute encephalitis. Neurology. 2013;81(9):793–800. 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182a2cc6d [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-77] 77. Banks JL, Marotta CA: Outcomes validity and reliability of the modified Rankin scale: implications for stroke clinical trials: a literature review and synthesis. Stroke. 2007;38(3):1091–6. 10.1161/01.STR.0000258355.23810.c6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-78] 78. Thwaites GE, Nguyen DB, Nguyen HD, et al. : Dexamethasone for the treatment of tuberculous meningitis in adolescents and adults. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(17):1741–51. 10.1056/NEJMoa040573 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-79] 79. Torok ME, Chau TT, Mai PP, et al. : Clinical and microbiological features of HIV-associated tuberculous meningitis in Vietnamese adults. PLoS One. 2008;3(3):e1772. 10.1371/journal.pone.0001772 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-80] 80. Heemskerk AD, Bang ND, Mai NT, et al. : Intensified Antituberculosis Therapy in Adults with Tuberculous Meningitis. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(2):124–34. 10.1056/NEJMoa1507062 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-81] 81. Dian S, Yunivita V, Ganiem AR, et al. : Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Phase II Dose-Finding Study To Evaluate High-Dose Rifampin for Tuberculous Meningitis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2018;62(12):pii: e01014–18. 10.1128/AAC.01014-18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-82] 82. Wasay M, Khan M, Farooq S, et al. : Frequency and Impact of Cerebral Infarctions in Patients With Tuberculous Meningitis. Stroke. 2018;49(10):2288–2293. 10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.021301 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-83] 83. Cantier M, Morisot A, Guérot E, et al. : Functional outcomes in adults with tuberculous meningitis admitted to the ICU: a multicenter cohort study. Crit Care. 2018;22(1):210. 10.1186/s13054-018-2140-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-84] 84. Anuradha HK, Garg RK, Sinha MK, et al. : Intracranial tuberculomas in patients with tuberculous meningitis: predictors and prognostic significance. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2011;15(2):234–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-85] 85. Hacke W, Kaste M, Fieschi C, et al. : Randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial of thrombolytic therapy with intravenous alteplase in acute ischaemic stroke (ECASS II). Second European-Australasian Acute Stroke Study Investigators. Lancet. 1998;352(9136):1245–51. 10.1016/s0140-6736(98)08020-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-86] 86. Optimising Analysis of Stroke Trials (OAST) Collaboration, Bath PM, Gray LJ, et al. : Can we improve the statistical analysis of stroke trials? Statistical reanalysis of functional outcomes in stroke trials. Stroke. 2007;38(6):1911–5. 10.1161/STROKEAHA.106.474080 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-87] 87. Balu S: Differences in psychometric properties, cut-off scores, and outcomes between the Barthel Index and Modified Rankin Scale in pharmacotherapy-based stroke trials: systematic literature review. Curr Med Res Opin. 2009;25(6):1329–41. 10.1185/03007990902875877 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-88] 88. Duffy L, Gajree S, Langhorne P, et al. : Reliability (inter-rater agreement) of the Barthel Index for assessment of stroke survivors: systematic review and meta-analysis. Stroke. 2013;44(2):462–8. 10.1161/STROKEAHA.112.678615 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-89] 89. Green J, Forster A, Young J: A test-retest reliability study of the Barthel Index, the Rivermead Mobility Index, the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale and the Frenchay Activities Index in stroke patients. Disabil Rehabil. 2001;23(15):670–6. 10.1080/09638280110045382 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-90] 90. Kwon S, Hartzema AG, Duncan PW, et al. : Disability measures in stroke: relationship among the Barthel Index, the Functional Independence Measure, and the Modified Rankin Scale. Stroke. 2004;35(4):918–23. 10.1161/01.STR.0000119385.56094.32 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-91] 91. Celani MG, Cantisani TA, Righetti E, et al. : Different measures for assessing stroke outcome: an analysis from the International Stroke Trial in Italy. Stroke. 2002;33(1):218–23. 10.1161/hs0102.100532 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-92] 92. Kay R, Wong KS, Perez G, et al. : Dichotomizing stroke outcomes based on self-reported dependency. Neurology. 1997;49(6):1694–6. 10.1212/wnl.49.6.1694 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-93] 93. Uyttenboogaart M, Stewart RE, Vroomen PC, et al. : Optimizing cutoff scores for the Barthel index and the modified Rankin scale for defining outcome in acute stroke trials. Stroke. 2005;36(9):1984–7. 10.1161/01.STR.0000177872.87960.61 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-94] 94. Misra UK, Kalita J, Nair PP: Role of aspirin in tuberculous meningitis: a randomized open label placebo controlled trial. J Neurol Sci. 2010;293(1-2):12–7. 10.1016/j.jns.2010.03.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-95] 95. Sutlas PN, Unal A, Forta H, et al. : Tuberculous meningitis in adults: review of 61 cases. Infection. 2003;31(6):387–91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-96] 96. Kalita J, Misra UK, Prasad S, et al. : Safety and efficacy of levofloxacin versus rifampicin in tuberculous meningitis: an open-label randomized controlled trial. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014;69(8):2246–51. 10.1093/jac/dku103 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-97] 97. Chou CH, Lin GM, Ku CH, et al. : Comparison of the APACHE II, GCS and MRC scores in predicting outcomes in patients with tuberculous meningitis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2010;14(1):86–92. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-98] 98. Gomes MS, Amorim WW, Morais RS, et al. : Polypharmacy in older patients at primary care units in Brazil. Int J Clin Pharm. 2019;41(2):516–524. 10.1007/s11096-018-00780-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-99] 99. Ustün TB, Chatterji S, Kostanjsek N, et al. : Developing the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. Bull World Health Organ. 2010;88(11):815–23. 10.2471/BLT.09.067231 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-100] 100. Springer PE, Slogrove AL, Laughton B, et al. : Neurodevelopmental outcome of HIV-exposed but uninfected infants in the Mother and Infants Health Study, Cape Town, South Africa. Trop Med Int Health. 2018;23(1):69–78. 10.1111/tmi.13006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-101] 101. Springer PE, Slogrove AL, Kidd M, et al. : Neurodevelopmental and behavioural outcomes of HIV-exposed uninfected and HIV-unexposed children at 2-3 years of age in Cape Town, South Africa. AIDS Care. 2019;1–9. 10.1080/09540121.2019.1637506 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-102] 102. Squires J: Ages and stages questionnaire (3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.2009. Reference Source [Google Scholar]

[ref-103] 103. Bayley N: Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development III (screening test). San Antonio, TX: Pearson.2005. Reference Source [Google Scholar]

[ref-104] 104. Mullen EM: Mullen Scales of Early Learning. Torrance, CA: WPS.1995. Reference Source [Google Scholar]

[ref-105] 105. Wechsler D: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-IV) (4th ed.). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.2003. Reference Source [Google Scholar]

[ref-106] 106. Kaufman AS, Kaufman NL: Kaufman assessment battery for children-2. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.2004. [Google Scholar]

[ref-107] 107. Sparrow SS, Cicchetti DV, Balla DA: Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Pearson.2005. Reference Source [Google Scholar]

[ref-108] 108. Pickering L, Jennum P, Ibsen R, et al. : Long-term health and socioeconomic consequences of childhood and adolescent onset of meningococcal meningitis. Eur J Pediatr. 2018. 10.1007/s00431-018-3192-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-109] 109. Moffitt TE, Arseneault L, Belsky D, et al. : A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108(7):2693–8. 10.1073/pnas.1010076108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-110] 110. United Nations: Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development A/RES/70/1. 2015; United Nations: New York. Reference Source [Google Scholar]

[ref-111] 111. Durkin M: The epidemiology of developmental disabilities in low-income countries. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev. 2002;8(3):206–11. 10.1002/mrdd.10039 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-112] 112. Rosselli M, Ardila A: The impact of culture and education on non-verbal neuropsychological measurements: a critical review. Brain Cogn. 2003;52(3):326–33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-113] 113. Bodeau-Livinec F, Davidson LL, Zoumenou R, et al. : Neurocognitive testing in West African children 3-6 years of age: Challenges and implications for data analyses. Brain Res Bull. 2019;145:129–135. 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2018.04.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-114] 114. Semrud-Clikeman M, Romero RAA, Prado EL, et al. : [Formula: see text]Selecting measures for the neurodevelopmental assessment of children in low- and middle-income countries. Child Neuropsychol. 2017;23(7):761–802. 10.1080/09297049.2016.1216536 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-115] 115. Gladstone M, Lancaster GA, Umar E, et al. : The Malawi Developmental Assessment Tool (MDAT): the creation, validation, and reliability of a tool to assess child development in rural African settings. PLoS Med. 2010;7(5):e1000273. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000273 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-116] 116. Lancaster GA, McCray G, Kariger P, et al. : Creation of the WHO Indicators of Infant and Young Child Development (IYCD): metadata synthesis across 10 countries. BMJ Glob Health. 2018;3(5):e000747. 10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000747 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-117] 117. Rohlwink UK, Figaji A, Wilkinson KA, et al. : Tuberculous meningitis in children is characterized by compartmentalized immune responses and neural excitotoxicity. Nat Commun. 2019;10(1):3767. 10.1038/s41467-019-11783-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-118] 118. Rissman RA, De Blas AL, Armstrong DM: GABA _A receptors in aging and Alzheimer's disease. J Neurochem. 2007;103(4):1285–92. 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2007.04832.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-119] 119. Marczynski TJ: GABAergic deafferentation hypothesis of brain aging and Alzheimer's disease revisited. Brain Res Bull. 1998;45(4):341–79. 10.1016/s0361-9230(97)00347-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-120] 120. Schweickert WD, Pohlman MC, Pohlman AS, et al. : Early physical and occupational therapy in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009;373(9678):1874–82. 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60658-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-121] 121. Boivin MJ, Bangirana P, Nakasujja N, et al. : A year-long caregiver training program improves cognition in preschool Ugandan children with human immunodeficiency virus. J Pediatr. 2013;163(5):1409–16.e1-5. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2013.06.055 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-122] 122. Boivin MJ, Bangirana P, Nakasujja N, et al. : A year-long caregiver training program to improve neurocognition in preschool Ugandan HIV-exposed children. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2013;34(4):269–78. 10.1097/DBP.0b013e318285fba9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-123] 123. Trieu HT, Anh NTK, Vuong HNT, et al. : Long-term outcome in survivors of neonatal tetanus following specialist intensive care in Vietnam. BMC Infect Dis. 2017;17(1):646. 10.1186/s12879-017-2748-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Neurocognitive and functional impairment in adult and paediatric tuberculous meningitis

Angharad G Davis

Sam Nightingale

Priscilla E Springer

Regan Solomons

Ana Arenivas

Robert J Wilkinson

Suzanne T Anderson

Felicia C Chow

Roles

Abstract

Introduction

What is known about neurocognitive impairment in TBM?

Adult

Paediatric

Neurocognitive impairment and functional outcomes in infective meningoencephalitis: what can we learn from other infective causes of brain injury?

Adult

Table 1. Methods used in selected studies assessing neurocognitive and functional impairment in other causes of adult infective meningoencephalitis.

Paediatric

What outcome measures are available to assess cognitive and functional outcomes in TBM?

Adult

Table 2. Selected neurocognitive outcome measures relating to domains which are likely to be affected in adult tuberculous meningitis and felt to be culturally neutral.

Table 3. Strengths and limitations of Modified Rankin Scale vs Barthels Index in a tuberculous meningitis setting.

Box 1. Benefits and limitations of using shift analysis for the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) in clinical trials.

Paediatrics

Table 4. Recommendations for testing neurocognitive and functional impairment in tuberculous meningitis studies.

What are the knowledge gaps?

Future recommendations

Data availability

Acknowledgements

Funding Statement

Contributor Information

References

Reviewer response for version 1

Monica Marta

Roles

Reviewer response for version 1

Reuben Robbins

Roles

References

Associated Data

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases