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.

SUMMARYBackgroundThe 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.MethodsFor this pre-registered systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO ID CRD42021239750) we searched PubMed, 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 primary 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.FindingsFrom 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 generally moderate. The most frequent 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.InterpretationNeuropsychiatric symptoms are common and persistent after recovery from COVID-19. The literature on longer-term consequences is still maturing, but indicates a particularly high frequency of insomnia, fatigue, cognitive impairment, and anxiety disorders in the first six months after infection.FundingJPR is supported by the Wellcome Trust (102186/B/13/Z).IK is funded through the NIHR (Oxford Health Biomedical Research Facility, Development and Skills Enhancement Award) and the Medical Research Council (Dementias Platform UK and Deep and Frequent Phenotyping study project grants).HH is funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG, Grant: HO 1286/16-1). The funders played no role in the design, analysis or decision to publish.RESEARCH IN CONTEXTEvidence before this studyNeuropsychiatric symptoms like cognitive impairment, fatigue, insomnia, depression and anxiety can be highly disabling. Recently there has been increasing awareness of persistent neuropsychiatric symptoms after COVID-19 infection, but a systematic synthesis of these symptoms is not available. In this review we searched five databases up to 20th February 2021, to establish the pooled prevalence of individual neuropsychiatric symptoms up to six months after COVID-19.Added value of this studyThis study establishes which of a range of neuropsychiatric symptoms are the most common after COVID-19. We found high rates in general, with little convincing evidence that these symptoms lessen in frequency during the follow-up periods studied.ImplicationsPersistent neuropsychiatric symptoms are common and appear to be limited neither to the post-acute phase, nor to recovery only from severe COVID-19. Our results imply that health services should plan for high rates of requirement for multidisciplinary services (including neurological, neuropsychiatric and psychological management) as populations recover from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objectives 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. Methods 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. Results 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% [35.2-51.3], n=15,975, 63 studies), weakness (40.0% [27.9-53.5], n=221, 3 studies), fatigue (37.8% [31.6-44.4], n=21,101, 67 studies), dysgeusia (37.2% [30.0-45.3], n=13,686, 52 studies), myalgia (25.1% [19.8-31.3], n=66.268, 76 studies), depression (23.0 % [11.8-40.2], n=43,128, 10 studies), headache (20.7% [95% CI 16.1-26.1], n=64,613, 84 studies), anxiety (15.9% [5.6-37.7], n=42,566, 9 studies) and altered mental status (8.2% [4.4-14.8], n=49,326, 19 studies). Heterogeneity for most clinical manifestations was high. Conclusions 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.

Objective To review the current literature regarding infection and inflammation of the thoracic aorta and to summarise its aetiologies, pathogenesis and clinical presentation. Additionally, the authors sought to compare diagnostic methods and to analyse the different management options. Method A comprehensive electronic search using PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus and Google Scholar was conducted to find relevant journal articles with key search terms including: ‘aortitis’, ‘thoracic aortic infection’ and ‘surgical management of infected thoracic aortic aneurysms’. Prominent publications from 1995 till present (2021) were analysed to achieve a deeper understanding of thoracic aorta infection and inflammation, and the information was then collated to form this review. Results The literature review revealed that infectious causes are more prominent than non-infectious causes, with Gram positive bacteria such as Staphylococcus, Enterococcus and Streptococcus accounting for approximately 60% of the infections. The authors also noted that Staphylococcus Aureus was associated with poorer outcomes. Key diagnostic tools include MRI and multi-slice CT imaging, which are useful imaging modalities in defining the extent of the disease thus allowing for planning surgical intervention. Surgical intervention itself is extremely multifaceted and the rarity of the condition means no large-scale comparative research between all the management options exists. Until more large-scale comparative data becomes available to guide treatment, the optimal approach must be decided on a case-by-case basis, considering the benefits and drawback of each treatment option. Conclusion A high index of suspicion and a comprehensive history is required to effectively diagnose and manage infection and inflammation of the thoracic aorta. Differentiating between infectious and inflammatory cases is crucial for management planning, as infectious causes typically require antibiotics and surgical intervention. Over the years, the post treatment results have shown significant improvement due to earlier diagnosis, advancement in surgical options and increasingly specific microbial therapy.