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.

Global trends in psycho-oncology research investments 2016-2020: A content analysis.

OBJECTIVE: An estimated one-third of cancer patients experience a clinically significant psychological disorder, however it is unclear to what extent this is reflected in research funding. To address this a systematic analysis the allocation of psycho-oncology research funding globally between 2016 and 2020 was conducted. METHODS: A global dataset of 66,388 cancer research awards, from 2016 to 2020 inclusive and totalling $24.5 billion USD was assembled from public and philanthropic funders. Each award was previously categorised by cancer site type and research theme, including psychosocial research and these awards were further sub-categorised for this analysis. RESULTS: There was $523m of funding awarded for psychological research across 1122 studies: 2.14% of all cancer research funding during this period ($24.5 billion). Median funding per award was $97,473 (IQR $36,864 - $453,051). Within psychological research, mental health received most funding ($174m, 33.5% of psychological funding). Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) focused research was the specific psychological support with the highest proportion of funding at $14 million. By country of funder, the USA provided most investment ($375.5 m, 71.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Psycho-oncology research received relatively little funding, for example, when compared with pre-clinical cancer research. There needs to be a shift from pre-clinical science to research that benefits cancer patients in the shorter-term. Low- and middle-income countries, and ethnic minorities in higher-income settings, were underrepresented despite having a large cancer burden, indicating inequities that need to be addressed.

Global funding for cancer research between 2016 and 2020: a content analysis of public and philanthropic investments.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is a leading cause of disease burden globally, with more than 19·3 million cases and 10 million deaths recorded in 2020. Research is crucial to understanding the determinants of cancer and the effects of interventions, and to improving outcomes. We aimed to analyse global patterns of public and philanthropic investment in cancer research. METHODS: In this content analysis, we searched the UberResearch Dimensions database and Cancer Research UK data for human cancer research funding awards from public and philanthropic funders between Jan 1, 2016, and Dec 31, 2020. Included award types were project and programme grants, fellowships, pump priming, and pilot projects. Awards focused on operational delivery of cancer care were excluded. Awards were categorised by cancer type, cross-cutting research theme, and research phase. Funding amount was compared with global burden of specific cancers, measured by disability-adjusted life-years, years lived with disability, and mortality using data from the Global Burden of Disease study. FINDINGS: We identified 66 388 awards with total investment of about US$24·5 billion in 2016-20. Investment decreased year-on-year, with the largest drop observed between 2019 and 2020. Pre-clinical research received 73·5% of the funding across the 5 years ($18 billion), phase 1-4 clinical trials received 7·4% ($1·8 billion), public health research received 9·4% ($2·3 billion), and cross-disciplinary research received 5·0% ($1·2 billion). General cancer research received the largest investment ($7·1 billion, 29·2% of the total funding). The most highly funded cancer types were breast cancer ($2·7 billion [11·2%]), haematological cancer ($2·3 billion [9·4%]), and brain cancer ($1·3 billion [5·5%]). Analysis by cross-cutting theme revealed that 41·2% of investment ($9·6 billion) went to cancer biology research, 19·6% ($4·6 billion) to drug treatment research, and 12·1% ($2·8 billion) to immuno-oncology. 1·4% of the total funding ($0·3 billion) was spent on surgery research, 2·8% ($0·7 billion) was spent on radiotherapy research, and 0·5% ($0·1 billion) was spent on global health studies. INTERPRETATION: Cancer research funding must be aligned with the global burden of cancer with more equitable funding for cancer research in low-income and middle-income countries (which account for 80% of cancer burden), both to support research relevant to these settings, and build research capacity within these countries. There is an urgent need to prioritise investment in surgery and radiotherapy research given their primacy in the treatment of many solid tumours. FUNDING: None.

Neurological and psychiatric presentations associated with human monkeypox virus infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Neuropsychiatric presentations of monkeypox (MPX) infection have not been well characterised, despite evidence of nervous system involvement associated with the related smallpox infection. Methods: In this pre-registered (PROSPERO ID 336649) systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED and the preprint server MedRxiv up to 31/05/2022. Any study design of humans infected with MPX that reported a neurological or psychiatric presentation was included. For eligible symptoms, we calculated a pooled prevalence using an inverse variance approach and corresponding 95% confidence intervals. The degree of variability that could be explained by between-study heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 statistic. Risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle Ottawa Scale and the Joanna Briggs Institute quality assessment tool. Findings: From 1705 unique studies, we extracted data on 19 eligible studies (1512 participants, 1031 with confirmed infection using CDC criteria or PCR testing) most of which were cohort studies and case series with no control groups. Study quality was generally moderate. Three clinical features were eligible for meta-analysis: seizure 2.7% (95% CI 0.7-10.2%, I2 0%), confusion 2.4% (95% CI 1.1-5.2%, I2 0%) and encephalitis 2.0% (95% 0.5-8.2%, I2 55.8%). Other frequently reported symptoms included myalgia, headache and fatigue, where heterogeneity was too high for estimation of pooled prevalences, possibly as a result of differences in viral clades and study methodology. Interpretation: There is preliminary evidence for a range of neuropsychiatric presentations including severe neurological complications (encephalitis and seizure) and nonspecific neurological features (confusion, headache and myalgia). There is less evidence regarding the psychiatric presentations or sequelae of MPX. This may warrant surveillance within the current MPX outbreak, with prospective longitudinal studies evaluating the mid- to long-term sequelae of the virus. Robust methods to evaluate the potential causality of MPX with these clinical features are required. More evidence is necessary to explain heterogeneity in prevalence estimates. Funding: UKRI/MRC (MR/V03605X/1), MRC-CSF (MR/V007181/1), MRC/AMED (MR/T028750/1) and the Wellcome Trust (102186/B/13/Z) and (102186/B/13/Z) and UCLH BRC.

Persistent neuropsychiatric symptoms after COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The nature and extent of persistent neuropsychiatric symptoms after COVID-19 are not established. To help inform mental health service planning in the pandemic recovery phase, we systematically determined the prevalence of neuropsychiatric symptoms in survivors of COVID-19. For this pre-registered systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO ID CRD42021239750), we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO to 20 February 2021, plus our own curated database. We included peer-reviewed studies reporting neuropsychiatric symptoms at post-acute or later time-points after COVID-19 infection and in control groups where available. For each study, a minimum of two authors extracted summary data. For each symptom, we calculated a pooled prevalence using generalized linear mixed models. Heterogeneity was measured with I 2. Subgroup analyses were conducted for COVID-19 hospitalization, severity and duration of follow-up. From 2844 unique titles, we included 51 studies (n = 18 917 patients). The mean duration of follow-up after COVID-19 was 77 days (range 14-182 days). Study quality was most commonly moderate. The most prevalent neuropsychiatric symptom was sleep disturbance [pooled prevalence = 27.4% (95% confidence interval 21.4-34.4%)], followed by fatigue [24.4% (17.5-32.9%)], objective cognitive impairment [20.2% (10.3-35.7%)], anxiety [19.1% (13.3-26.8%)] and post-traumatic stress [15.7% (9.9-24.1%)]. Only two studies reported symptoms in control groups, both reporting higher frequencies in COVID-19 survivors versus controls. Between-study heterogeneity was high (I 2 = 79.6-98.6%). There was little or no evidence of differential symptom prevalence based on hospitalization status, severity or follow-up duration. Neuropsychiatric symptoms are common and persistent after recovery from COVID-19. The literature on longer-term consequences is still maturing but indicates a particularly high prevalence of insomnia, fatigue, cognitive impairment and anxiety disorders in the first 6 months after infection.

Clinical characteristics and impacts of HIV infection in people with bipolar disorders.

BACKGROUND: People with bipolar disorders (BD) may be at increased risk of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infection but our understanding of the impacts of HIV infection on psychiatric outcomes is poor. This study aimed to examine the prevalence, temporal relationship, and clinical impact of HIV infection in people with BD. METHODS: In this retrospective case-control study, anonymised electronic case records of patients with BD who had been under the care of South London and Maudsley mental health services were used for data extraction. 54 HIV+ people with BD were identified and compared to a matched control group of 54 HIV- people with BD. RESULTS: The prevalence of HIV co-morbidity in the BD population was around 1%. 76% of HIV+ BD men identified as men who have sex with men (MSM). 65% of the HIV+ BD group were diagnosed with BD before becoming HIV+. The HIV+ BD group experienced significantly higher rates of stimulant, GBL/GHB and psychedelic use compared to the HIV- BD group. 85% of the HIV+ BD group were recorded as taking antiretroviral medications. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective and cross-sectional study design, and a relatively small sample size CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of HIV comorbidity in BD was comparable to the local general population. HIV infection in BD is associated with MSM status and stimulant, GHB/GBL and psychedelics use suggesting that HIV prevention strategies should particularly target these groups. Lower use of antiretroviral medications by people with BD underlines the importance of engaging HIV+ BD people in HIV services.