ABSTRACT
Cognitive complaints are common signs of the Post COVID-19 (PC) condition, but the extent and type of cognitive impairment may be heterogeneous. Little is known about neuropsychological treatment options. Preliminary evidence suggests cognitive symptoms may improve with cognitive training and naturally over time. In this clinical trial, we examined whether participation in a weekly group consisting of cognitive training and group psychotherapy is feasible and would exert beneficial effects on cognitive performance in PC and whether improvements were associated with intervention group participation or represented a temporal improvement effect during syndrome progression. 15 PC patients underwent an 8-week intervention. Cognitive performance was assessed before and after each intervention group participation. A control group of 15 PC patients with subjective neurocognitive or psychiatric complaints underwent two cognitive assessments with comparable time intervals without group participation. To attribute changes to the intervention group participation, interaction effects of group participation and time were checked for significance. This is an exploratory, non-randomized, non-blinded controlled clinical trial. Within the intervention group, significant improvements were found for most cognitive measures. However, significant time x group interactions were only detected in some dimensions of verbal memory and visuo-spatial construction skills. Significant time effects were observed for attention, concentration, memory, executive functions, and processing speed. The intervention setting was feasible and rated as helpful and relevant by the patients. Our results suggest that cognitive symptoms of PC patients may improve over time. Patients affected by both neurocognitive impairments and mental disorders benefit from group psychotherapy and neurocognitive training. The present study provides evidence for a better understanding of the dynamic symptomatology of PC and might help to develop further studies addressing possible therapy designs. The main limitations of this exploratory feasibility trial are the small sample size as well as the non-randomized design due to the clinical setting.
ABSTRACT
Cognitive symptoms (CS) belong to the most common manifestations of the Post COVID-19 (PC) condition. We sought to objectify CS in PC patients using routine diagnostic assessments: neurocognitive testing (NCT) and brain imaging (BI). Further, we investigated possible associations of CS with patient reported outcomes (PROs), and risk factors for developing CS. Clinical data and PROs of 315 PC patients were assessed at a mean of 6 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection. 231 (73.3%) patients reported any sort of CS. Among them, 78 underwent NCT and 55 received BI. In NCT, the cognitive domains most affected were the working memory, attention, and concentration. Nonetheless, pathological thresholds were exceeded only in few cases. Neurocognitive performance did not differ significantly between patients complaining of severe (n = 26) versus non-severe (n = 52) CS. BI findings were abnormal in 8 (14.5%) cases with CS but were most likely not related to PC. Patients reporting high severity of CS scored worse in the PHQ-9, FSS, WHOQOL-BREF, were more likely to report impaired sleep, and had a higher prevalence of psychiatric diagnoses. Overall, NCT could confirm mild impairment in some but not all PC patients with CS, while BI studies were abnormal in only few cases. CS severity did not affect NCT results, but severe CS were associated with symptoms of depression (PHQ-9), fatigue (FSS), reduced quality of life (WHOQOL-BREF) and higher prevalence of psychiatric illnesses. These findings support the importance of NCT, BI, and neuro-psychological assessment in the work-up of PC patients reporting CS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration number and date of registration: DRKS00030974, 22 Dec 2022, retrospectively registered.
ABSTRACT
Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) such as the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) or Likert scales addressing various domains of health are important tools to assess disease severity in Post COVID-19 (PC) patients. By design, they are subjective in nature and prone to bias. Our findings reveal substantial differences in the perception of disease severity between patients (PAT), their attending internists (INT) and psychiatrists/psychologists (PSY). Patients rated almost all aspects of their health worse than INT or PSY. Most of the differences were statistically highly significant. The presence of fatigue and mood disorders correlated negatively with health perception. The physical health section of the WHO Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQoL-BREF) and Karnofsky index correlated positively with overall and mental health ratings by PAT and INT. Health ratings by neither PAT, PSY nor INT were associated with the number of abnormal findings in diagnostic procedures. This study highlights how strongly perceptions of disease severity diverge between PC patients and attending medical staff. Imprecise communication, different experiences regarding health and disease, and confounding psychological factors may explain these observations. Discrepancies in disease perception threaten patient-physician relationships and pose strong confounders in clinical studies. Established scores (e.g., WHOQoL-BREF, Karnofsky index) may represent an approach to overcome these discrepancies. Physicians and psychologists noting harsh differences between a patient's and their own perception of the patient's health should apply screening tools for mood disorders (i.e., PHQ-9, WHOQoL-BREF), psychosomatic symptom burden (SSD-12, FCV-19) and consider further psychological evaluation. An interdisciplinary approach to PC patients remains imperative. Trial Registration Number & Date of Registration: DRKS00030974, 22 Dec 2022, retrospectively registered.