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 20th 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 generalised linear mixed models. Heterogeneity was measured with I2. Subgroup analyses were conducted for COVID-19 hospitalisation, severity, and duration of follow-up. From 2,844 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%CI 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 (I2=79·6%-98·6%). There was little or no evidence of differential symptom prevalence based on hospitalisation 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 six months after infection.

There is accumulating evidence of the neurological and neuropsychiatric features of infection with SARS-CoV-2. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to describe the characteristics of the early literature and estimate point prevalences for neurological and neuropsychiatric manifestations. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL up to 18 July 2020 for randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies and case series. Studies reporting prevalences of neurological or neuropsychiatric symptoms were synthesised into meta-analyses to estimate pooled prevalence. 13 292 records were screened by at least two authors to identify 215 included studies, of which there were 37 cohort studies, 15 case-control studies, 80 cross-sectional studies and 83 case series from 30 countries. 147 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The symptoms with the highest prevalence were anosmia (43.1% (95% CI 35.2% to 51.3%), n=15 975, 63 studies), weakness (40.0% (95% CI 27.9% to 53.5%), n=221, 3 studies), fatigue (37.8% (95% CI 31.6% to 44.4%), n=21 101, 67 studies), dysgeusia (37.2% (95% CI 29.8% to 45.3%), n=13 686, 52 studies), myalgia (25.1% (95% CI 19.8% to 31.3%), n=66 268, 76 studies), depression (23.0% (95% CI 11.8% to 40.2%), n=43 128, 10 studies), headache (20.7% (95% CI 16.1% to 26.1%), n=64 613, 84 studies), anxiety (15.9% (5.6% to 37.7%), n=42 566, 9 studies) and altered mental status (8.2% (95% CI 4.4% to 14.8%), n=49 326, 19 studies). Heterogeneity for most clinical manifestations was high. Neurological and neuropsychiatric symptoms of COVID-19 in the pandemic’s early phase are varied and common. The neurological and psychiatric academic communities should develop systems to facilitate high-quality methodologies, including more rapid examination of the longitudinal course of neuropsychiatric complications of newly emerging diseases and their relationship to neuroimaging and inflammatory biomarkers.

ObjectivesWe aimed to identify existing outcome measures for functional neurological disorder (FND), to inform the development of recommendations and to guide future research on FND outcomes.MethodsA systematic review was conducted to identify existing FND-specific outcome measures and the most common measurement domains and measures in previous treatment studies. Searches of Embase, MEDLINE and PsycINFO were conducted between January 1965 and June 2019. The findings were discussed during two international meetings of the FND-Core Outcome Measures group.ResultsFive FND-specific measures were identified—three clinician-rated and two patient-rated—but their measurement properties have not been rigorously evaluated. No single measure was identified for use across the range of FND symptoms in adults. Across randomised controlled trials (k=40) and observational treatment studies (k=40), outcome measures most often assessed core FND symptom change. Other domains measured commonly were additional physical and psychological symptoms, life impact (ie, quality of life, disability and general functioning) and health economics/cost–utility (eg, healthcare resource use and quality-adjusted life years).ConclusionsThere are few well-validated FND-specific outcome measures. Thus, at present, we recommend that existing outcome measures, known to be reliable, valid and responsive in FND or closely related populations, are used to capture key outcome domains. Increased consistency in outcome measurement will facilitate comparison of treatment effects across FND symptom types and treatment modalities. Future work needs to more rigorously validate outcome measures used in this population.

No abstract

No abstract