6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Cognitive impairments among patients in a long-COVID clinic: Prevalence, pattern and relation to illness severity, work function and quality of life

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          A considerable proportion of people experience lingering symptoms after Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). The aim of this study was to investigate the frequency, pattern and functional implications of cognitive impairments in patients at a long-COVID clinic who were referred after hospitalisation with COVID-19 or by their general practitioner.

          Methods

          Patients underwent cognitive screening and completed questionnaires regarding subjective cognition, work function and quality of life. Patients' cognitive performance was compared with that of 150 age-, sex-, and education-matched healthy controls (HC) and with their individually expected performance calculated based on their age, sex and education.

          Results

          In total, 194 patients were assessed, on average 7 months (standard deviation: 4) after acute COVID-19.44–53 % of the patients displayed clinically relevant cognitive impairments compared to HC and to their expected performance, respectively. Moderate to large impairments were seen in global cognition and in working memory and executive function, while mild to moderate impairments occurred in verbal fluency, verbal learning and memory. Hospitalised (n = 91) and non-hospitalised (n = 103) patients showed similar degree of cognitive impairments in analyses adjusted for age and time since illness. Patients in the cognitively impaired group were older, more often hospitalised, had a higher BMI and more frequent asthma, and were more often female. More objective cognitive impairment was associated with more subjective cognitive difficulties, poorer work function and lower quality of life.

          Limitations

          The study was cross-sectional, which precludes causality inferences.

          Conclusions

          These findings underscore the need to assess and treat cognitive impairments in patients at long-COVID clinics.

          Related collections

          Most cited references42

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          6-month neurological and psychiatric outcomes in 236 379 survivors of COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study using electronic health records

          Background Neurological and psychiatric sequelae of COVID-19 have been reported, but more data are needed to adequately assess the effects of COVID-19 on brain health. We aimed to provide robust estimates of incidence rates and relative risks of neurological and psychiatric diagnoses in patients in the 6 months following a COVID-19 diagnosis. Methods For this retrospective cohort study and time-to-event analysis, we used data obtained from the TriNetX electronic health records network (with over 81 million patients). Our primary cohort comprised patients who had a COVID-19 diagnosis; one matched control cohort included patients diagnosed with influenza, and the other matched control cohort included patients diagnosed with any respiratory tract infection including influenza in the same period. Patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19 or a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 were excluded from the control cohorts. All cohorts included patients older than 10 years who had an index event on or after Jan 20, 2020, and who were still alive on Dec 13, 2020. We estimated the incidence of 14 neurological and psychiatric outcomes in the 6 months after a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19: intracranial haemorrhage; ischaemic stroke; parkinsonism; Guillain-Barré syndrome; nerve, nerve root, and plexus disorders; myoneural junction and muscle disease; encephalitis; dementia; psychotic, mood, and anxiety disorders (grouped and separately); substance use disorder; and insomnia. Using a Cox model, we compared incidences with those in propensity score-matched cohorts of patients with influenza or other respiratory tract infections. We investigated how these estimates were affected by COVID-19 severity, as proxied by hospitalisation, intensive therapy unit (ITU) admission, and encephalopathy (delirium and related disorders). We assessed the robustness of the differences in outcomes between cohorts by repeating the analysis in different scenarios. To provide benchmarking for the incidence and risk of neurological and psychiatric sequelae, we compared our primary cohort with four cohorts of patients diagnosed in the same period with additional index events: skin infection, urolithiasis, fracture of a large bone, and pulmonary embolism. Findings Among 236 379 patients diagnosed with COVID-19, the estimated incidence of a neurological or psychiatric diagnosis in the following 6 months was 33·62% (95% CI 33·17–34·07), with 12·84% (12·36–13·33) receiving their first such diagnosis. For patients who had been admitted to an ITU, the estimated incidence of a diagnosis was 46·42% (44·78–48·09) and for a first diagnosis was 25·79% (23·50–28·25). Regarding individual diagnoses of the study outcomes, the whole COVID-19 cohort had estimated incidences of 0·56% (0·50–0·63) for intracranial haemorrhage, 2·10% (1·97–2·23) for ischaemic stroke, 0·11% (0·08–0·14) for parkinsonism, 0·67% (0·59–0·75) for dementia, 17·39% (17·04–17·74) for anxiety disorder, and 1·40% (1·30–1·51) for psychotic disorder, among others. In the group with ITU admission, estimated incidences were 2·66% (2·24–3·16) for intracranial haemorrhage, 6·92% (6·17–7·76) for ischaemic stroke, 0·26% (0·15–0·45) for parkinsonism, 1·74% (1·31–2·30) for dementia, 19·15% (17·90–20·48) for anxiety disorder, and 2·77% (2·31–3·33) for psychotic disorder. Most diagnostic categories were more common in patients who had COVID-19 than in those who had influenza (hazard ratio [HR] 1·44, 95% CI 1·40–1·47, for any diagnosis; 1·78, 1·68–1·89, for any first diagnosis) and those who had other respiratory tract infections (1·16, 1·14–1·17, for any diagnosis; 1·32, 1·27–1·36, for any first diagnosis). As with incidences, HRs were higher in patients who had more severe COVID-19 (eg, those admitted to ITU compared with those who were not: 1·58, 1·50–1·67, for any diagnosis; 2·87, 2·45–3·35, for any first diagnosis). Results were robust to various sensitivity analyses and benchmarking against the four additional index health events. Interpretation Our study provides evidence for substantial neurological and psychiatric morbidity in the 6 months after COVID-19 infection. Risks were greatest in, but not limited to, patients who had severe COVID-19. This information could help in service planning and identification of research priorities. Complementary study designs, including prospective cohorts, are needed to corroborate and explain these findings. Funding National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            More than 50 long-term effects of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

            COVID-19 can involve persistence, sequelae, and other medical complications that last weeks to months after initial recovery. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to identify studies assessing the long-term effects of COVID-19. LitCOVID and Embase were searched to identify articles with original data published before the 1st of January 2021, with a minimum of 100 patients. For effects reported in two or more studies, meta-analyses using a random-effects model were performed using the MetaXL software to estimate the pooled prevalence with 95% CI. PRISMA guidelines were followed. A total of 18,251 publications were identified, of which 15 met the inclusion criteria. The prevalence of 55 long-term effects was estimated, 21 meta-analyses were performed, and 47,910 patients were included (age 17–87 years). The included studies defined long-COVID as ranging from 14 to 110 days post-viral infection. It was estimated that 80% of the infected patients with SARS-CoV-2 developed one or more long-term symptoms. The five most common symptoms were fatigue (58%), headache (44%), attention disorder (27%), hair loss (25%), and dyspnea (24%). Multi-disciplinary teams are crucial to developing preventive measures, rehabilitation techniques, and clinical management strategies with whole-patient perspectives designed to address long COVID-19 care.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              SARS-CoV-2 is associated with changes in brain structure in UK Biobank

              There is strong evidence of brain-related abnormalities in COVID-19 1–13 . However, it remains unknown whether the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection can be detected in milder cases, and whether this can reveal possible mechanisms contributing to brain pathology. Here we investigated brain changes in 785 participants of UK Biobank (aged 51–81 years) who were imaged twice using magnetic resonance imaging, including 401 cases who tested positive for infection with SARS-CoV-2 between their two scans—with 141 days on average separating their diagnosis and the second scan—as well as 384 controls. The availability of pre-infection imaging data reduces the likelihood of pre-existing risk factors being misinterpreted as disease effects. We identified significant longitudinal effects when comparing the two groups, including (1) a greater reduction in grey matter thickness and tissue contrast in the orbitofrontal cortex and parahippocampal gyrus; (2) greater changes in markers of tissue damage in regions that are functionally connected to the primary olfactory cortex; and (3) a greater reduction in global brain size in the SARS-CoV-2 cases. The participants who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 also showed on average a greater cognitive decline between the two time points. Importantly, these imaging and cognitive longitudinal effects were still observed after excluding the 15 patients who had been hospitalised. These mainly limbic brain imaging results may be the in vivo hallmarks of a degenerative spread of the disease through olfactory pathways, of neuroinflammatory events, or of the loss of sensory input due to anosmia. Whether this deleterious effect can be partially reversed, or whether these effects will persist in the long term, remains to be investigated with additional follow-up.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Affect Disord
                J Affect Disord
                Journal of Affective Disorders
                The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V.
                0165-0327
                1573-2517
                28 December 2022
                1 March 2023
                28 December 2022
                : 324
                : 162-169
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Psychology, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 2A, DK-1353 Copenhagen, Denmark
                [b ]Neurocognition and Emotion in Affective Disorders (NEAD) Centre, Psychiatric Centre Copenhagen, Frederiksberg Hospital, DK-2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark
                [c ]Department of Physio- and Occupational Therapy, Copenhagen University Hospital, Bispebjerg-Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark
                [d ]Respiratory Research Unit, Dept of Respiratory Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital, Bispebjerg, Copenhagen, Denmark
                [e ]Department of Respiratory Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital at Bispebjerg, Copenhagen, Denmark
                [f ]Respiratory Research Unit, Dept of Respiratory Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital, Hvidovre, Denmark
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author at: NEAD Group, CADIC, Psychiatric Centre Copenhagen, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
                Article
                S0165-0327(22)01484-7
                10.1016/j.jad.2022.12.122
                9795797
                36586593
                885f164f-6ad9-42e4-80e0-f760d2f3c549
                © 2022 The Author(s)

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                : 25 May 2022
                : 6 October 2022
                : 23 December 2022
                Categories
                Research Paper

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                covid-19,cognitive impairment,quality of life,work function
                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                covid-19, cognitive impairment, quality of life, work function

                Comments

                Comment on this article