Cognitive domains affected post-COVID-19; a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This review aims to characterize the pattern of post-COVID-19 cognitive impairment, allowing better prediction of impact on daily function to inform clinical management and rehabilitation. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of neurocognitive sequelae following COVID-19 was conducted, following PRISMA-S guidelines. Studies were included if they reported domain-specific cognitive assessment in patients with COVID-19 at >4 weeks post-infection. Studies were deemed high-quality if they had >40 participants, utilized healthy controls, had low attrition rates and mitigated for confounders. RESULTS: Five of the seven primary Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) cognitive domains were assessed by enough high-quality studies to facilitate meta-analysis. Medium effect sizes indicating impairment in patients post-COVID-19 versus controls were seen across executive function (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.45), learning and memory (SMD -0.55), complex attention (SMD -0.54) and language (SMD -0.54), with perceptual motor function appearing to be impacted to a greater degree (SMD -0.70). A narrative synthesis of the 56 low-quality studies also suggested no obvious pattern of impairment. CONCLUSIONS: This review found moderate impairments across multiple domains of cognition in patients post-COVID-19, with no specific pattern. The reported literature was significantly heterogeneous, with a wide variety of cognitive tasks, small sample sizes and disparate initial disease severities limiting interpretability. The finding of consistent impairment across a range of cognitive tasks suggests broad, as opposed to domain-specific, brain dysfunction. Future studies should utilize a harmonized test battery to facilitate inter-study comparisons, whilst also accounting for the interactions between COVID-19, neurological sequelae and mental health, the interplay between which might explain cognitive impairment.

The impact of psychiatric comorbidity on Parkinson's disease outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: The burden of psychiatric symptoms in Parkinson's disease includes depression, anxiety, apathy, psychosis, and impulse control disorders. However, the relationship between psychiatric comorbidities and subsequent prognosis and neurological outcomes is not yet well understood. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, in individuals with Parkinson's disease, we aimed to characterise the association between specific psychiatric comorbidities and subsequent prognosis and neurological outcomes: cognitive impairment, death, disability, disease progression, falls or fractures and care home admission. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and AMED up to 13th November 2023 for longitudinal observational studies which measured disease outcomes in people with Parkinson's disease, with and without specific psychiatric comorbidities, and a minimum of two authors extracted summary data. Studies of individuals with other parkinsonian conditions and those with outcome measures that had high overlap with psychiatric symptoms were excluded to ensure face validity. For each exposure-outcome pair, a random-effects meta-analysis was conducted based on standardised mean difference, using adjusted effect sizes-where available-in preference to unadjusted effect sizes. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic and publication bias was assessed using funnel plots. PROSPERO Study registration number: CRD42022373072. Findings: There were 55 eligible studies for inclusion in meta-analysis (n = 165,828). Data on participants' sex was available for 164,514, of whom 99,182 (60.3%) were male and 65,460 (39.7%) female. Study quality was mostly high (84%). Significant positive associations were found between psychosis and cognitive impairment (standardised mean difference [SMD] 0.44, [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23-0.66], I2 30.9), psychosis and disease progression (SMD 0.46, [95% CI 0.12-0.80], I2 70.3%), depression and cognitive impairment (SMD 0.37 [95% CI 0.10-0.65], I2 27.1%), depression and disease progression (SMD 0.46 [95% CI 0.18-0.74], I2 52.2), depression and disability (SMD 0.42 [95% CI 0.25-0.60], I2 7.9%), and apathy and cognitive impairment (SMD 0.60 [95% CI 0.02-1.19], I2 27.9%). Between-study heterogeneity was moderately high. Interpretation: Psychosis, depression, and apathy in Parkinson's disease are all associated with at least one adverse outcome, including cognitive impairment, disease progression and disability. Whether this relationship is causal is not clear, but the mechanisms underlying these associations require exploration. Clinicians should consider these psychiatric comorbidities to be markers of a poorer prognosis in people with Parkinson's disease. Future studies should investigate the underlying mechanisms and which treatments for these comorbidities may affect Parkinson's disease outcomes. Funding: Wellcome Trust, UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) at University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, National Brain Appeal.

Psycho-Pharmacomicrobiomics: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the interactions between the gut microbiome and psychotropic medications (psycho-pharmacomicrobiomics) could improve treatment stratification strategies in psychiatry. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we first explored whether psychotropics modify the gut microbiome; second, we investigated whether the gut microbiome affects the efficacy and tolerability of psychotropics. METHODS: Following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, we searched (November 2022) for longitudinal and cross-sectional studies that investigated the effect of psychotropics on the gut microbiome. The primary outcome was the difference in diversity metrics (alpha and beta) before and after treatment with psychotropics (longitudinal studies) and in medicated compared with unmedicated individuals (cross-sectional studies). Secondary outcomes included the association between gut microbiome and efficacy and tolerability outcomes. Random effect meta-analyses were conducted on alpha diversity metrics, while beta diversity metrics were pooled using distance data extracted from graphs. Summary statistics included standardized mean difference and Higgins I2 for alpha diversity metrics and F and R values for beta diversity metrics. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were included in our synthesis; 12 investigated antipsychotics and 7 investigated antidepressants. Results showed significant changes in alpha (4 studies; standard mean difference: 0.12; 95% CI: 0.01-0.23; p = .04; I2: 14%) and beta (F = 15.59; R2 = 0.05; p < .001) diversity metrics following treatment with antipsychotics and antidepressants, respectively. Altered gut microbiome composition at baseline was associated with tolerability and efficacy outcomes across studies, including response to antidepressants (2 studies; alpha diversity; standard mean difference: 2.45; 95% CI: 0.50-4.40; p < .001, I2: 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with psychotropic medications is associated with altered gut microbiome composition, and the gut microbiome may in turn influence the efficacy and tolerability of these medications.

Prognostic factors for mental wellbeing in prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the evidence base for patient, oncological, and treatment prognostic factors associated with multiple mental wellbeing outcomes in prostate cancer patients. METHODS: We performed a literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases including studies evaluating patient, oncological, or treatment factors against one of five mental wellbeing outcomes; depression, anxiety, fear of cancer recurrence, masculinity, and body image perception. Data synthesis included a random effects meta-analysis for the prognostic effect of individual factors if sufficient homogenous data was available, with a structured narrative synthesis where this was not possible. RESULTS: A final 62 articles were included. Older age was associated with a reducing odds of depression (OR 0.97, p = 0.04), with little evidence of effect for other outcomes. Additionally, baseline mental health status was related to depression and increasing time since diagnosis was associated with reducing fear of recurrence, albeith with low certainty of evidence. However, few other patient or oncological factors demonstrated any coherent relationship with any wellbeing outcome. Androgen deprivation therapy was associated with increased depression (HR 1.65, 95% CI 1.41-1.92, p < 0.01) and anxiety, however, little difference was seen between other treatment options. Overall, whilst numerous factors were identified, most were evaluated by single studies with few evaluating masculinity and body image outcomes. CONCLUSION: We highlight the existing evidence for prognostic factors in mental wellbeing outcomes in prostate cancer, allowing us to consider high-risk groups of patients for preventative and treatment measures. However, the current evidence is heterogenous with further work required exploring less conclusive factors and outcomes.

Mental wellbeing and quality of life in prostate cancer (MIND-P): Protocol for a multi-institutional prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The mental wellbeing implications of a prostate cancer diagnosis are increasingly being realised. Significant mental health symptoms such as depression and anxiety, along with related constructs such as fear of cancer recurrence, body image and masculine self-esteem issues are prevalent. However, less is understood about potential prognostic factors for these outcomes in prostate cancer patients. Therefore, this study aims to primarily explore potential treatment, patient and oncological factors associated with mental wellbeing outcomes in the initial prostate cancer follow-up period. METHODS: MIND-P is a multi-institutional prospective cohort study recruiting newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients for 12-month follow up. It will aim to recruit a final sample of 300 participants undergoing one of four treatment options: active surveillance, radical prostatectomy, radical radiotherapy, or hormone monotherapy. Questionnaire-based data collection consists of multiple validated mental, physical, and social wellbeing outcomes at baseline and 3-monthly intervals until study completion. Primary analysis will include evaluation of treatment undergone against multiple mental wellbeing outcomes. Secondary analysis will additionally explore multiple patient and oncological prognostic factors of potential importance, along with the cumulative incidence of these outcomes, symptom trajectory and their association with subsequent functional and social outcomes. CONCLUSION: This cohort study aims to add to the existing limited literature evaluating significant prognostic factors for multiple mental wellbeing outcomes in newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients. This may be of potential use for guiding future prognosis research and of clinical use for identifying individuals potentially requiring additional surveillance or support during routine cancer follow up. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study was prospectively registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04647474).

Decision Regret in Patients with Localised Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Treatment choice for localised prostate cancer remains a significant challenge for patients and clinicians, with uncertainty over decisions potentially leading to conflict and regret. There is a need to further understand the prevalence and prognostic factors of decision regret to improve patient quality of life. OBJECTIVE: To generate the best estimates for the prevalence of significant decision regret localised prostate cancer patients, and to investigate prognostic patient, oncological, and treatment factors associated with regret. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and PsychINFO databases including studies evaluating the prevalence or patient, treatment, or oncological prognostic factors in localised prostate cancer patients. A pooled prevalence of significant regret was calculated with the formal prognostic factor evaluation conducted per factor identified. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Significant decision regret was present in a pooled 20% (95% confidence interval 16-23) of patients across 14 studies and 17883 patients. This was lower in active surveillance (13%), with little difference between those who underwent radiotherapy (19%) and those who underwent prostatectomy (18%). Evaluation of individual prognostic factors demonstrated higher regret in those with poorer post-treatment bowel, sexual, and urinary function; decreased involvement in the decision-making process; and Black ethnicity. However, evidence remains conflicting, with low or moderate certainty of findings. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of men experience decision regret after a localised prostate cancer diagnosis. Monitoring those with increased functional symptoms and improving patient involvement in the decision-making process through education and decision aids may reduce regret. PATIENT SUMMARY: We looked at how common regret in treatment decisions is after treatment for early-stage prostate cancer and factors linked with this. We found that one in five regret their decision, with those who had experienced side effects or were less involved in the decision-making process more likely to have regret. By addressing these, clinicians could reduce regret and improve quality of life.

The role of the electroencephalogram (EEG) in determining the aetiology of catatonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy.

Background: Catatonia is a psychomotor syndrome that has a wide range of aetiologies. Determining whether catatonia is due to a medical or psychiatric cause is important for directing treatment but is clinically challenging. We aimed to ascertain the performance of the electroencephalogram (EEG) in determining whether catatonia has a medical or psychiatric cause, conventionally defined. Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy (PROSPERO CRD42021239027), Medline, EMBASE, PsycInfo, and AMED were searched from inception to May 11, 2022 for articles published in peer-reviewed journals that reported EEG findings in catatonia of a medical or psychiatric origin and were reported in English, French, or Italian. Eligible study types were clinical trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, case series, and case reports. The reference standard was the final clinical diagnosis. Data extraction was conducted using individual patient-level data, where available, by two authors. We prespecified two types of studies to overcome the limitations anticipated in the data: larger studies (n ≥ 5), which were suitable for formal meta-analytic methods but generally lacked detailed information about participants, and smaller studies (n < 5), which were unsuitable for formal meta-analytic methods but had detailed individual patient level data, enabling additional sensitivity analyses. Risk of bias and applicability were assessed with the QUADAS-2 tool for larger studies, and with a published tool designed for case reports and series for smaller studies. The primary outcomes were sensitivity and specificity, which were derived using a bivariate mixed-effects regression model. Findings: 355 studies were included, spanning 707 patients. Of the 12 larger studies (5 cohort studies and 7 case series), 308 patients were included with a mean age of 48.2 (SD = 8.9) years. 85 (52.8%) were reported as male and 99 had catatonia due to a general medical condition. In the larger studies, we found that an abnormal EEG predicted a medical cause of catatonia with a sensitivity of 0.82 (95% CI 0.67-0.91) and a specificity of 0.66 (95% CI 0.45-0.82) with an I 2 of 74% (95% CI 42-100%). The area under the summary ROC curve offered excellent discrimination (AUC = 0.83). The positive likelihood ratio was 2.4 (95% CI 1.4-4.1) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.28 (95% CI 0.15-0.51). Only 5 studies had low concerns in terms of risk of bias and applicability, but a sensitivity analysis limited to these studies was similar to the main analysis. Among the 343 smaller studies, 399 patients were included, resulting in a sensitivity of 0.76 (95% CI 0.71-0.81), specificity of 0.67 (0.57-0.76) and AUC = 0.71 (95% CI 0.67-0.76). In multiple sensitivity analyses, the results were robust to the exclusion of reports of studies and individuals considered at high risk of bias. Features of limbic encephalitis, epileptiform discharges, focal abnormality, or status epilepticus were highly specific to medical catatonia, but features of encephalopathy had only moderate specificity and occurred in 23% of the cases of psychiatric catatonia in smaller studies. Interpretation: In cases of diagnostic uncertainty, the EEG should be used alongside other investigations to ascertain whether the underlying cause of catatonia is medical. The main limitation of this review is the differing thresholds for considering an EEG abnormal between studies. Funding: Wellcome Trust, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.