Cognitive impairment after recovery from COVID-19: Frequency, profile, and relationships with clinical and laboratory indices.

Cognitive impairment (CI) is regarded as a remarkable burden in COVID-19 survivors. Its prevalence and profile, and relationships with the disease clinical and laboratory indices, remain unclear. The present study investigated, in a large sample of patients recovered from COVID-19, the frequency of CI with both a face-to-face screening tool and comprehensive test battery (MCCB). The study also evaluated the profile of CI and its relationships with COVID-19 clinical and laboratory indices and with psychopathological features. Out of 1344 subjects assessed for eligibility, 736 completed the screening phase 11 months after the COVID-19 infection; 402 participated in the baseline phase and completed an in depth cognitive, clinical and laboratory assessment about one month later. More than one third of the screened subjects presented a CI (COG+); it was associated to age, education, male gender, COVID-19 severity, and presence of anosmia, dyspnea at rest and exertional dyspnea during the acute phase. COG+ subjects showed a higher severity of depression, anxiety and post-traumatic distress, and worse global functioning, than subjects without CI. The MCCB showed that 45% of the subjects had a CI involving attention, working memory, verbal learning, visual learning, and reasoning and problem solving. Finally, neurocognitive functioning was inversely correlated with LDH blood levels, a potential biomarker of disease severity. According to our findings, cognitive functioning should be routinely and periodically assessed in COVID-19 patients, especially in older subjects, who experienced more severe COVID-19 symptoms. In case of persisting dysfunctions cognitive training programs should be considered as treatment strategies.

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of Competing Interest Prof. Silvana Galderisi, in the last three years, received advisory board/consultant fees, or honoraria/expenses from the following drug companies: Angelini, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gedeon Richter-Recordati, Janssen, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Recordati Pharmaceuticals, Rovi Pharma, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals. Prof. Antonio Vita, in the last three years, received advisory board/consultant fees and support for clinical studies or trials, conferences, and congress presentations from the following drug companies: Alkermes, Angelini, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen- Cilag, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Roche, Rovi Pharma. Prof. Armida Mucci, in the last three years, received advisory board/consultant fees from the following drug companies: Angelini, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pierre Fabre and Rovi Pharma. Prof. Stefano Barlati, in the last three years, received advisory board/consultant fees and support for clinical studies or trials, conferences, and congress presentations from the following drug companies: Angelini, Lundbeck, and Otsuka. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.