Cognitive Dysfunction in Non-CNS Metastatic Cancer: Comparing Brain Metastasis, Non-CNS Metastasis, and Healthy Controls.

Limited research has compared cognition of people with non-central nervous system metastatic cancer (NCM) vs. metastatic brain cancer (BM). This prospective cross-sectional study was comprised 37 healthy controls (HC), 40 NCM, and 61 BM completing 10 neuropsychological tests. The NCM performed below HCs on processing speed and executive functioning tasks, while the BM group demonstrated lower performance across tests. Tasks of processing speed, verbal fluency, and verbal memory differentiated the clinical groups (BM < NCM). Nearly 20% of the NCM group was impaired on at least three neuropsychological tests whereas approximately 40% of the BM group demonstrated the same level of impairment.

Neurocognitive and psychiatric outcomes associated with postacute COVID-19 infection without severe medical complication: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive symptoms are often reported by those with a history of COVID-19 infection. No comprehensive meta-analysis of neurocognitive outcomes related to COVID-19 exists despite the influx of studies after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study meta-analysed observational research comparing cross-sectional neurocognitive outcomes in adults with COVID-19 (without severe medical/psychiatric comorbidity) to healthy controls (HCs) or norm-referenced data. METHODS: Data were extracted from 54 studies published between January 2020 and June 2023. Hedges' g was used to index effect sizes, which were pooled using random-effects modelling. Moderating variables were investigated using meta-regression and subgroup analyses. RESULTS: Omnibus meta-analysis of 696 effect sizes extracted across 54 studies (COVID-19 n=6676, HC/norm-reference n=12 986; average time since infection=~6 months) yielded a small but significant effect indicating patients with COVID-19 performed slightly worse than HCs on cognitive measures (g=-0.36; 95% CI=-0.45 to -0.28), with high heterogeneity (Q=242.30, p<0.001, τ=0.26). Significant within-domain effects was yielded by cognitive screener (g=-0.55; 95% CI=-0.75 to -0.36), processing speed (g=-0.44; 95% CI=-0.57 to -0.32), global cognition (g=-0.40; 95% CI=-0.71 to -0.09), simple/complex attention (g=-0.38; 95% CI=-0.46 to -0.29), learning/memory (g=-0.34; 95% CI=-0.46 to -0.22), language (g=-0.34; 95% CI=-0.45 to -0.24) and executive function (g=-0.32; 95% CI=-0.43 to -0.21); but not motor (g=-0.40; 95% CI=-0.89 to 0.10), visuospatial/construction (g=-0.09; 95% CI=-0.23 to 0.05) and orientation (g=-0.02; 95% CI=-0.17 to 0.14). COVID-19 samples with elevated depression, anxiety, fatigue and disease severity yielded larger effects. CONCLUSION: Mild cognitive deficits are associated with COVID-19 infection, especially as detected by cognitive screeners and processing speed tasks. We failed to observe clinically meaningful cognitive impairments (as measured by standard neuropsychological instruments) in people with COVID-19 without severe medical or psychiatric comorbidities.

So how special is special K? A systematic review and meta-analysis of ketamine for PTSD RCTs.

Background: PTSD is a significant mental health problem worldwide. Current evidence-based interventions suffer various limitations. Ketamine is a novel agent that is hoped to be incrementally better than extant interventions.Objective: Several randomized control trials (RCTs) of ketamine interventions for PTSD have now been published. We sought to systematically review and meta-analyse results from these trials to evaluate preliminary evidence for ketamine's incremental benefit above-and-beyond control interventions in PTSD treatment.Results: Omnibus findings from 52 effect sizes extracted across six studies (n = 221) yielded a small advantage for ketamine over control conditions at reducing PTSD symptoms (g = 0.27, 95% CI = 0.03, 0.51). However, bias-correction estimates attenuated this effect (adjusted g = 0.20, 95%, CI = -0.08, 0.48). Bias estimates indicated smaller studies reported larger effect sizes favouring ketamine. The only consistent timepoint assessed across RCTs was 24-hours post-initial infusion. Effects at 24-hours post-initial infusion suggest ketamine has a small relative advantage over controls (g = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.06, 0.64). Post-hoc analyses at 24-hours post-initial infusion indicated that ketamine was significantly better than passive controls (g = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.03, 0.85), but not active controls (g = 0.24, 95% CI = -0.30, 0.78). Comparisons one-week into intervention suggested no meaningful group differences (g = 0.24, 95% CI = 0.00, 0.48). No significant differences were evident for RCTs that examined effects two-weeks post initial infusion (g = 0.17, 95% CI = -0.10, 0.44).Conclusions: Altogether, ketamine-for-PTSD RCTs reveal a nominal initial therapeutic advantage relative to controls. However, bias and heterogeneity appear problematic. While rapid acting effects were observed, all control agents (including saline) also evidenced rapid acting effects. We argue blind penetration to be a serious concern, and that placebo is the likely mechanism behind reported therapeutic effects.

We systematically reviewed and meta-analysed all randomized control trials of ketamine intervention for PTSD.While ketamine was associated with a reduction in symptoms, the effect was generally not stronger than control conditions.By two-weeks post-initial infusion, no meaningful differences are evident between ketamine and controls.

Association of Use of a Mobile Tackling Dummy During College Football Practice With Reduced Sport-Related Concussion: Results of a Pilot Investigation.

Background: Considering the multifaceted consequences of improperly managed sport-related concussions (SRCs) in American football, identifying efficacious prevention measures for enhancing player safety is crucial. Purpose: To investigate the association of primary prevention measures (no-tackle practices and using a mobile tackling dummy in practice) with the frequency of SRCs within college football programs in the United States. Study Design: Descriptive epidemiology study. Methods: In this pilot study, we analyzed the frequency of new SRCs recorded during various settings (total, in preseason, in season, in practice, and game) across 14 seasons (2007-2019 and 2021) for Dartmouth College and across 7 seasons (2013-2019) for the 7 other teams in the Ivy League men's athletic football conference. Trends between seasons and the number of SRCs sustained were examined using correlations and basic descriptive statistics. We also examined SRC frequency in relation to primary prevention measures (no-tackle practices, use of mobile tackling dummies during practice) in the Dartmouth College football program, and we compared SRCs with regard to the no-tackle practice policy in the other Ivy League teams. Results: There was a statistically significant reduction in the number of SRCs over the seasons studied, with the strongest finding observed for Dartmouth College in-game SRCs (r = -0.52; P = .029). Relatedly, the strongest between-season effect was seen for the Dartmouth College practice policy on in-game SRCs (η2 = 0.510; P = .01). The use of mobile tackling dummies was found to be independently associated (adjusting for no-tackle practice) with a lower number total (ß = -0.53; P = .049), in-season (ß = -0.63; P = .023), and in-game (ß = -0.79; P = .003) SRCs. While seasons with the no-tackle practice were not meaningfully associated with SRCs for Dartmouth College, stronger trends were observed in the other Ivy League teams, such that seasons with this policy were associated with lower SRC prevalence. Conclusion: Our data indicate that the use of the mobile tackling dummy in practice was related to the reduced number of SRCs sustained at multiple settings during the football season. To a lesser extent, the no-tackle practice policy was also associated with a reduced number of SRCs.

Neuropsychological Function in Migraine Headaches: An Expanded Comprehensive Multidomain Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A sizable literature has studied neuropsychologic function in persons with migraine (PwM), but despite this, few quantitative syntheses exist. These focused on circumscribed areas of the literature. In this study, we conducted an expanded comprehensive meta-analysis comparing performance on clinical measures of neuropsychological function both within and across domains, between samples of PwM and healthy controls (HCs). METHODS: For this Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology-compliant meta-analysis, a unified search strategy was applied to OneSearch (a comprehensive collection of electronic databases) to identify peer-reviewed original research published across all years up until August 1, 2023. Using random-effects modeling, we examined aggregated effect sizes (Hedges' g), between-study heterogeneity (Cochran Q and I2), moderating variables (meta-regression and subgroup analyses), and publication bias (Egger regression intercept and Duval and Tweedie Trim-and-Fill procedure). Study bias was also coded using the NIH Study Quality Assessment Tools. RESULTS: Omnibus meta-analysis from the 58 studies included (PwM n = 5,452, HC n = 16,647; 612 effect sizes extracted) indicated lower overall cognitive performance in PwM vs HCs (g = -0.37; 95% CI -0.47 to -0.28; p < 0.001), and high between-study heterogeneity (Q = 311.25, I2 = 81.69). Significant domain-specific negative effects were observed in global cognition (g = -0.46, p < 0.001), executive function (g = -0.45, p < 0.001), processing speed (g = -0.42, p < 0.001), visuospatial/construction (g = -0.39, p = 0.006), simple/complex attention (g = -0.38, p < 0.001), learning/memory (g = -0.25, p < 0.001), and language (g = -0.24, p < 0.001). Orientation (p = 0.146), motor (p = 0.102), and intelligence (p = 0.899) were not significant. Moderator analyses indicated that age (particularly younger HCs), samples drawn from health care facility settings (e.g., tertiary headache centers) vs community-based populations, and higher attack duration were associated with larger (negative) effects and accounted for a significant proportion of between-study heterogeneity in effects. Notably, PwM without aura yielded stronger (negative) effects (omnibus g = -0.37) vs those with aura (omnibus g = -0.10), though aura status did not account for heterogeneity observed between studies. DISCUSSION: Relative to HCs, PwM demonstrate worse neurocognition, as detected by neuropsychological tests, especially on cognitive screeners and tests within executive functioning and processing speed domains. Effects were generally small to moderate in magnitude and evident only in clinic (vs community) samples. Aura was not meaningfully associated with neurocognitive impairment.