3 results
68 Subjective Cognitive Functioning Following Non-Severe COVID-19 Acute Infections: A Meta-Analysis
- Tara A Austin, Jacqueline Maye, Cooper Hodges, Sarah Parr, Emily Darowski, Amber Keller, Rachel Bergsmans, Crystal Lantrip, Elizabeth W. Twamley
-
- Journal:
- Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society / Volume 29 / Issue s1 / November 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 21 December 2023, pp. 63-64
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Objective:
Emerging evidence suggests that individuals recovering from COVID-19 perceive changes to their cognitive function and psychological health that persist for weeks to months following acute infection. Although there is a strong relationship between initial COVID-19 infection severity and development of prolonged symptoms, there is only a modest relationship between initial COVID-19 severity and self-reported severity of prolonged symptoms. While much of the research has focused on more severe COVID-19 cases, over 90% of COVID-19 infections are classified as mild or moderate. Previous work has found evidence that non-severe COVID-19 infection is associated with cognitive deficits with small-to-medium effect sizes, though patients who were not hospitalized generally performed better on cognitive measures than did those who were hospitalized for COVID-19 infection. As such, it is important to also quantify subjective cognitive functioning in non-severe (mild or moderate) COVID-19 cases. Our meta-analysis examines self-reported cognition in samples that also measured objective neuropsychological performance in individuals with non-severe COVID-19 infections in the post-acute (>28 days) period.
Participants and Methods:This study’s design was preregistered with PROSPERO (CRD42021293124) and used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklist for reporting guidelines. Inclusion criteria were established prior to article searching and required peer-reviewed studies to have (1) used adult participants with a probable or documented diagnosis of non-severe (asymptomatic, mild, or moderate) COVID-19 who were in the post-acute stage (>28 days after initial infection); (2) used objective neuropsychological testing to document cognitive functioning; and (3) include a self-report measure of subjective cognition. At least two independent reviewers conducted all aspects of the screening, reviews, and extraction process. Twelve studies with three types of study design met full criteria and were included (total n=2,744).
Results:Healthy comparison group comparison: Compared with healthy comparison participants, the post-COVID-19 group reported moderately worse subjective cognition (d=0.546 [95% CI (0.054, 1.038)], p=0.030). Severity comparison: When comparing hospitalized and not hospitalized groups, patients who were hospitalized reported modestly worse subjective cognition (d=-0.241, [95% CI (-0.703, 0.221)], p=0.30), though the difference was not statistically significant. Normative data comparison: When all non-severe groups (mild and moderate; k=12) were compared to the normative comparison groups, there was a large, statistically significant effect (d=-1.06, [95% CI (-1.58, -0.53)], p=0.001) for self-report of worse subjective cognitive functioning.
Conclusions:There was evidence of subjective report of worse cognitive functioning following non-severe COVID-19 infection. Future work should explore relationships between objective neuropsychological functioning and subjective cognitive difficulties following COVID-19.
5 Meta-Analysis of Cognitive Functioning Following Non-Severe COVID-19 Infection
- Tara A Austin, Cooper Hodges, Emily Darowski, Michael L Thomas, Rachel Bergsmans, Sarah Parr, Crystal Lantrip, Elizabeth W. Twamley
-
- Journal:
- Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society / Volume 29 / Issue s1 / November 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 21 December 2023, pp. 879-880
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Objective:
To effectively diagnose and treat cognitive post-COVID-19 symptoms, it is important to understand objective cognitive difficulties across the range of acute COVID-19 severity. The aim of this meta-analysis is to describe objective neuropsychological test performance in individuals with non-severe (mild/moderate) COVID-19 cases in the post-acute stage of infection (>28 days after initial infection).
Participants and Methods:This meta-analysis was pre-registered with Prospero (CRD42021293124) and utilized the PRISMA reporting guidelines, with screening conducted by at least two independent reviewers for all aspects of the screening and data extraction process. Inclusion criteria were established before the article search and were as follows: (1) Studies using adult participants with a probable or formal and documented diagnosis of COVID-19 in the post-acute stage of infection; (2) Studies comparing cognitive functioning using objective neuropsychological tests in one or more COVID-19 groups and a comparison group, or one group designs using tests with normative data; (3) Asymptomatic, mild, or moderate cases of COVID-19. Twenty-seven articles (n=18,202) with three types of study designs and three articles with additional longitudinal data met our full criteria.
Results:Individuals with non-severe initial COVID-19 infection demonstrated worse cognitive performance compared to healthy comparison participants (d=-0.412 [95% CI, -0.718, -0.176)], p=0.001). We used metaregression to examine the relationship between both average age of the sample and time since initial COVID-19 infection (as covariates in two independent models) and effect size in studies with comparison groups. There was no significant effect for age (b=-0.027 [95% CI (0.091, 0.038)], p=0.42). There was a significant effect for time since diagnosis, with a small improvement in cognitive performance for every day following initial acute COVID-19 infection (b=0.011 [95% CI (0.0039, 0.0174)], p=0.002). However, those with mild (non-hospitalized) initial COVID-19 infections performed better than did those who were hospitalized for initial COVID-19 infections (d=0.253 [95% CI (0.372, 0.134)], p<0.001). For studies that used normative data comparisons, there was a small, non-significant effect compared to normative data (d=-0.165 [95% CI (-0.333, 0.003)], p=0.055).
Conclusions:Individuals who have recovered from non-severe cases of COVID-19 may be at risk for cognitive decline or impairment and may benefit from cognitive health interventions.
Attitudes toward genetic testing and personalised nutrition in a representative sample of European consumers
- Barbara J. Stewart-Knox, Brendan P. Bunting, Sarah Gilpin, Heather J. Parr, Silvia Pinhão, J. J. Strain, Maria D. V. de Almeida, Mike Gibney
-
- Journal:
- British Journal of Nutrition / Volume 101 / Issue 7 / 14 April 2009
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 08 September 2008, pp. 982-989
- Print publication:
- 14 April 2009
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Negative consumer opinion poses a potential barrier to the application of nutrigenomic intervention. The present study has aimed to determine attitudes toward genetic testing and personalised nutrition among the European public. An omnibus opinion survey of a representative sample aged 14–55+ years (n 5967) took place in France, Italy, Great Britain, Portugal, Poland and Germany during June 2005 as part of the Lipgene project. A majority of respondents (66 %) reported that they would be willing to undergo genetic testing and 27 % to follow a personalised diet. Individuals who indicated a willingness to have a genetic test for the personalising of their diets were more likely to report a history of high blood cholesterol levels, central obesity and/or high levels of stress than those who would have a test only for general interest. Those who indicated that they would not have a genetic test were more likely to be male and less likely to report having central obesity. Individuals with a history of high blood cholesterol were less likely than those who did not to worry if intervention foods contained GM ingredients. Individuals who were aware that they had health problems associated with the metabolic syndrome appeared particularly favourable toward nutrigenomic intervention. These findings are encouraging for the future application of personalised nutrition provided that policies are put in place to address public concern about how genetic information is used and held.