Cognitive function in non-hospitalized patients 8-13 months after acute COVID-19 infection: A cohort study in Norway.

Studies have reported reduced cognitive function following COVID-19 illness, mostly from hospital settings with short follow-up times. This study recruited non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients from a general population to study prevalence of late cognitive impairment and associations with initial symptoms. We invited patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19. A postal questionnaire addressed basic demographics, initial COVID-19 symptoms and co-morbidity about 4 months after diagnosis. About 7 months later, we conducted cognitive tests using the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery, comprising four tests for short-term memory, attention and executive function. We present descriptive statistics using z-scores relative to UK population norms and defined impairment as z-score <-1.5. We used multivariable logistic regression with impairment as outcome. Continuous domain scores were analysed by multiple linear regression. Of the initial 458 participants; 305 were invited, and 234 (77%) completed cognitive testing. At median 11 (range 8-13) months after PCR positivity, cognitive scores for short term memory, visuospatial processing, learning and attention were lower than norms (p≤0.001). In each domain, 4-14% were cognitively impaired; 68/232 (29%) were impaired in ≥ 1 of 4 tests. There was no association between initial symptom severity and impairment. Multivariable linear regression showed association between spatial working memory and initial symptom load (6-9 symptoms vs. 0-5, coef. 4.26, 95% CI: 0.65; 7.86). No other dimension scores were associated with symptom load. At median 11 months after out-of-hospital SARS-Cov-2 infection, minor cognitive impairment was seen with little association between COVID-19 symptom severity and outcome.

Introduction

In recovery after acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), patients commonly complain about disturbed concentration or memory, insomnia, or fatigue [1-3]. Patients with critical illness, such as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), similarly have problems with memory, attention, concentration and/or global loss of cognitive function, often persisting after 1 year [4]. There is fear of long-term neurocognitive deficits following COVID-19, possibly due to hypoxemia or cerebral hypoxia, metabolic dysfunctions, viral encephalitis, immune activation, or other mechanisms [5, 6].

A recent review of 12 studies with objective neuropsychological test data of patients with recent COVID-19 reported that global cognitive impairment, impairment in memory, attention and executive function, and verbal fluency were common [7]. These studies most often used global cognitive tests designed for neurodegenerative disorders, such as the Montreal Cognitive Assessments (MoCa), and there was wide variation in populations, e.g. hospitalized patients vs. non-hospitalized, severity of acute COVID-19, ventilator use, follow-up time, age groups, and assessment methods [8-10].

Many patients would be expected to improve during the first 6–12 months, and it is unknown if earlier assessments are good indicators of the long-term impact on cognitive function. There is little detailed information on cognitive function after recovery in non-hospitalized patients, who constitute the majority of those affected by COVID-19. Furthermore, it is unascertained if any persistent neurocognitive impairment is related to the severity of COVID-19, and, if so, the potential mechanism. Two recent large studies comprising hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients 2–8 months after COVID-19 reported that patients having recovered from COVID-19 performed worse on a range of comprehensive cognitive tests than population norms or control subjects, with significantly more cognitive impairment in those hospitalized [11, 12].

This study aimed to determine the prevalence of objective cognitive deficits in a geographical cohort of well-characterized non-hospitalized patients 8–13 months after COVID-19. In addition, we wanted to investigate variables associated with neurocognitive deficits with a special focus on symptoms suggestive of central nervous system (CNS) engagement during the acute phase of COVID-19.

Methods

Study design and sample

This study was a longitudinal study in a geographical cohort in the catchment areas of two Norwegian hospitals, Akershus University Hospital and Østfold Hospital. The hospitals have a combined catchment area of about 900,000 inhabitants from both urban and rural areas, comprising about 17% of the population of Norway. For this study, we initially invited subjects ≥18 years with a positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) from the microbiology laboratories of the two hospitals and the largest private microbiology laboratory in the geographical area, Fürst Medical Laboratory, until June 1, 2020. We anticipated that these labs would have analyzed more than 90% of the SARS-CoV-2 tests in the hospitals’ catchment areas. Patients were eligible if they were alive and had not been hospitalized for COVID-19, defined as admitted to hospital <22 days after the positive PCR test. We excluded patients for the following reasons: living outside the hospitals’ catchment areas, no valid 11-digit Norwegian national identity number, or permanent address in a nursing home and dementia (Fig 1).

Fig 1

Flow chart of study recruitment and attrition.

The study participants were recruited during the first wave of COVID-19 in Norway until June 1, 2020, when a total of 8,443 laboratory-confirmed cases had been reported, or 157 cases per 100,000 inhabitants, and 1,068 patients with COVID-19 had been hospitalized [13]. Based on a limited national sample, the dominating subtype during this period was B.1, and less commonly B.1.1 and B.1.1.1 [14].

Initial mixed mode survey

The initial survey was a postal survey at the end of June 2020 providing study information and a consent form to eligible subjects, about 1 to 4 months after contracting COVID-19. Participants could respond to an enclosed paper questionnaire or to a similar web-based questionnaire [15]. Following exclusions, we invited 938 subjects to participate in the survey, and 458 responded after one postal reminder.

The questionnaire contained background variables, symptoms during acute COVID-19 and prevailing symptoms at the time of the survey, as well as several standard questionnaires, including the EQ-5D-5L health status questionnaire [16] and Chalder fatigue questionnaire (CFQ) [17].

Follow-up survey and visit

Between December 2020 and April 2021 we invited respondents in the first survey, excluding those declining further participation (n = 19), to a follow-up visit including blood samples and more questionnaires. To enable differentiating the clinical examination program during the follow-up visits, we divided all participants into three symptomatic groups according to their report of dyspnea (modified Medical Research Council score ≥1) (n = 46), fatigue (CFQ score ≥4) (n = 92), dyspnea and fatigue (n = 112) in the first survey, and a random sample of 101 participants with no dyspnea or fatigue (n = 189). The fatigue, dyspnea and fatigue, and the no dyspnea or fatigue groups were invited to cognitive testing (n = 305) (Fig 1).

Variables from the initial survey

From the initial survey, we used information on demographics, education, comorbidity, smoking status, height, weight, initial COVID-19 symptoms, and date of first symptom.

Comorbidity was recorded using a checklist of 21 diseases and conditions, 18 of which constituted a self-report version of the Charlson comorbidity index [18] and some additional items that we assumed may be related to COVID-19. We summed up the number of comorbidities and categorized this comorbidity index as 0, 1, 2, ≥3 comorbidities.

Symptoms during the acute phase of COVID-19 and at the time of survey were assessed using a checklist of 23 self-reported symptoms [15]. The participants could check for having the symptom during COVID-19 (yes/now) and if they still had the symptom (yes). To denote the severity of the acute COVID-19 infection in the current analysis, we used the number of retrospectively reported symptoms during the acute disease, categorized into tertiles (0–5, 6–9, 10–23) [15].

Symptoms of anxiety/depression were extracted from scores on the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire [16] at 3 months and dichotomized as 0 (1 none/2 slight) or 1 (3 moderate/4 severe). None of the respondents had used the response option 5 (extreme).

Assessment of cognitive function

Selection of tests

We searched for brief test batteries for assessing cognitive function because of perceived time constraint during the visits and fatigue among the participants. They should have available validated norms and be possible to be administered by paraprofessionals or technically trained staff.

For this study, we focused on selected cognitive domains: short-term memory, attention and executive function. We chose a battery of tasks from the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB, Cambridge Cognition Ltd, Cambridge, UK) [19], using an iPad (Apple Inc., Cupertino, CA, United States). The CANTAB is widely used, offers many neurocognitive tasks, and has been validated in a variety of neurological and psychiatric conditions, including in Norway [20, 21]. We selected one warm-up task, a motor screening test (MOT), and four tests: (1) Delayed matching to sample (DMS), testing short term memory, visuospatial processing, learning and attention; (2) One-touch Stockings of Cambridge (OTS), testing executive function, which includes high level thinking and decision-making processes such as mental flexibility, planning and problem solving; (3) Rapid visual information processing (RVP), testing sustained attention; (4) Spatial working memory (SWM), testing working memory and strategy. The battery was expected to take 34 min to complete. All tests were available in Norwegian and English and had UK population norms from the vendor for subjects aged 18–85+ years, except for the MOT [22].

The tested cognitive processes do not work in isolation. Therefore, it may be beneficial to include tests which combine domains, as well as tests targeting separate domains [19]. Details of the four tests with available norm values are provided in Table 1.

Table 1

Cognitive tests and key outcomes.

Test	Domain	Time (min)	Key outcomes
Delayed matching to sample (DMS)
The participant is shown a complex visual pattern, followed by four similar patterns, after a short delay. The participant selects the pattern that exactly matches the sample. The delay varies during the test.	Visuospatial processing, attention, and short- term memory.	7	DMS-PCAD: Percent correct responses on first choice in all tasks with delay
Rapid visual information processing (RVP) with three targets
Digits from 2 to 9 are presented successively at the rate of 100 digits per minute and in a pseudorandom order. Participants respond to specified sequences of digits, with increasing difficulty.	Sustained attention.	9	A’ (A prime): a signal detection measure of response sensitivity to the target, regardless of response tendency (expected range is 0–1); The median response latency
One-touch stockings of Cambridge (OTS) standard version
The screen shows 2 displays, each with 3 colored balls. The participant must determine the minimum number of moves to transfer from the starting configuration to the target configuration, given specific rules/restriction on moves.	Executive function, spatial planning and working memory.	10	OTS-PSFC: No. of OTS problems solved on first choice.
Spatial working memory (SWM) standard 2.0 extended
Participants click on colored boxes presented on the screen. They inspect their contents, reveal a token hidden below, and move the token to a collection area.	Working memory and strategy. Retention and manipulation of visuospatial information.	6	SWM between errors: No. of times the participant incorrectly revisits a box, calculated across all assessed 4, 6, and 8 token trials.

Procedure

The patients visited the outpatient clinic in 1 of the 2 hospitals, and as part of the work-up they received instructions on how to use the tablet from a study coordinator and completed the test immediately in the clinic. As a warm-up to familiarize the participants with the tablet and the system, they first completed the MOT (2 min). They then completed the RVP with three targets (9 min), DMS (7 min), OTS (10 min), and the SWM (6 min) test [22].

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics are presented using the mean (SD) or median (range), as appropriate. Non-response was assess using t-test or chi-square t-test, as appropriate. As some of the tests comprised several sub-tests that may be reported separately, we present cognitive scores for the sub-test from each of the four composite tests that was most comprehensive and had a broad and continuous distribution of scores (Fig 2). The results of the four cognitive tests are reported as z-scores, i.e., the number of SDs below or above the mean score in an age, sex and education-adjusted norm population mean. We used a z-score of <-1.5 (corresponding to the 6.68-percentile of the norm distribution) to denote an abnormal score. Because some of the tests showed non-normal distributions of scores, we used Wilcoxon signed-rank test to compare scores with population norms. As elderly patients may be more vulnerable to the effects of SARS-Cov-2 virus infections, in an additional post hoc analyses, we repeated the analysis above in a subset with participants ≥60 years of age.

Fig 2

Distribution of z-scores for CANTAB cognitive tests, with standard normal curve representing the norm population.

We are not aware of a case definition for cognitive impairment after COVID-19. Previous research of critically ill patients following ICU stay used a case definition of z-score <-2.0 in 2 of 7 dimensions, or <-1.5 in 3 of 7 dimensions [23]. Because we used four tests, we determined the proportion of patients having a z-score <-1.5 on 1 or more of 4 tests, as well as on 2 or more of 4 tests. This is similar to definitions used elsewhere [12, 24].

We assessed predictors of having a z-score <-1.5 on 1 or more of 4 tests using multivariable logistic regression analysis. Because of a limited number of events, we selected the following candidate variables prior to the analysis: age, education (four levels), Charlson comorbidity index (0, 1, 2, ≥3), number of acute COVID-19 symptoms (0–5, 6–9, 10–23), and confusion during COVID-19. We selected the latter variable because we hypothesized this to be the single symptom that was most likely to be associated with hypoxia in the acute phase.

To assess determinants of the continuous dimension scores, we analyzed the data using multiple linear regression analysis. Because of slight non-normality of the distribution of the residuals and influential outliers for several of the test, we estimated 95% CI and p-values using bootstrapping with 1000 iterations for all models. We chose candidate variables for all models based on the availability and the literature [25]: age, sex, education, born in Norway, Charlson comorbidity, headache, confusion, seizures, smell loss and aggregate number of symptoms during acute COVID-19 (0–5, 6–9, 10–23) and symptoms of anxiety/depression (yes vs. no). All variables were forced into the models without a variable selection procedure.

Because of risk of attrition affecting the outcome data, non-selection of dyspnea patients and random sampling of a subset of patients without dyspnea/fatigue, we conducted a sensitivity analysis where we weighted the dyspnea/fatigue patients with the inverse of the sampling weight, and then calculated the prevalence of cognitive z-scores <-1.5, repeated the logistic regression analysis and the multiple linear regression analyses (without bootstrapping).

We used Stata version 16.1 for statistical analysis (StataCorp., College Station, TX, United States). We chose a 5% significance level.

Ethics

All participants gave written informed consent to participate in the study. All procedures were performed according to the Helsinki protocol and were passed by the Ethics committee of South-East Norway and by the Data inspection officer of Akershus University Hospital.

Results

Sample

Of 904 non-hospitalized SARS-Cov-2 positive patients invited to participate, 458 (51%) responded to the first questionnaire; 19 of these patients refused further follow-up, thus 439 were available for clinical visits. Because of stratification and selection of a random sample of those without dyspnea or fatigue after 3 months, we invited 305 of patients to the visit including cognitive testing. Of these, 245 (80%) participated, and 233 (76%) completed the CANTAB cognitive test battery (Fig 1).

The first questionnaire survey was performed a median of 4 months (118 days, range 41–193 days) after symptom onset, and cognitive tests were performed a median of 11 months (330 days, range 241–394 days) after the positive PCR. Respondents’ mean age was 50.1 years (SD 14.8), and 59% were females (Table 2).

Table 2

Descriptive statistics for subjects responding to CANTAB (N = 233).

	n	Freq.	Mean/Prop.	SD
Age, date of response	233		49.8	14.7
Sex, males	233	95	0.41
Highest attained education	233
Primary school (<10 years)		17	0.07
Secondary school (10–12 years)		95	0.41
University level, < 4 years		60	0.26
University level, ≥ 4 years		61	0.26
Marital status	233
Single		33	0.14
Married		109	0.47
Cohabiting		59	0.25
Divorced/separated		23	0.10
Widowed		9	0.04
Working status	232
Full-time working		149	0.64
Reduced hours (<80% of full-time)		29	0.12
On sick-leave		18	0.08
Retired		27	0.12
Pupil/student		9	0.04
Born in Norway	231	200	0.87
Smoking status	231
Never smoked daily		146	0.63
Former daily smoker		71	0.31
Current daily smoker		13	0.06
Infection place	233
Travel abroad		57	0.25
In Norway, known contact		103	0.44
I    n Norway, unknown contact		72	0.31
Body mass index (self-report), kg/m2	232		27.3	4.8
No. of comorbidites, categorized	233
0		108	0.46
1		76	0.33
2		29	0.12
≥3		20	0.09
Fever	231		0.71
Dyspnea	229		0.65
Confusion	232		0.16
Headache	232		0.71
Seizures	230		0.06
Smell loss	230		0.68
No. of symptoms during acute COVID-19	233
0–5		52	0.22
6–9		78	0.33
10–23		103	0.44
EQ-5D Anxiety/Depression after 3 months	232
1–2 (None/slight)		208	0.90
3–4 (Moderate/severe)		24	0.10
Time from symptom start to response survey 1, days.	229		117	26
Median (range)	229		118	41 to 193
Time from PCR test to cognitive test, days.	232		330	27
Median (range)	232		330	241 to 394

The most common initial COVID-19-associated symptoms reported were fever, headache, smell loss and dyspnea (72, 71, 68 and 65% respectively), and 16% and 6% respectively reported confusion and seizures. In total, 78% reported more than five COVID-19 symptoms during the acute phase (Table 2).

Those completing the CANTAB battery had more symptoms in the acute phase, poorer health-related quality of life (EQ-5D Index) than non-participants/non-respondents to CANTAB, but there was no difference in age, sex, marital status or Norwegian origin (S1 Table).

Cognitive assessments

Tests of short-term memory, visuospatial processing, learning and attention (SWM, DMS and RVP) showed small reductions in cognitive scores about 11 months after SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity compared to UK population norms (p≤0.001), after adjustment for age, sex and education. There was, in the total sample, no reduction for executive function (OTS), p = 0.167) (Table 3). The distribution of z-scores on the chosen cognitive tests are shown in Fig 2.

Table 3

Cognitive test scores and comparison with norm population.

				Raw score			Z-score*		P**	Z-score <-1.5
Test	Description	Score (range)	n	Mean	SD	n	Mean	SD		No.	%
Delayed matching to sample (DMS)	DMS Percent Correct (All trials containing a delay)	0 to 100 (best)	233	81.3	11.8	232	-0.31	1.16	<0.001	33	14.2
One Touch Stockings of Cambridge (OTS), standard version	No. of OTS Problems Solved on First Choice	0 to 15 (best)	233	10.3	3.1	232	0.09	1.03	0.167	22	9.5
Rapid visual information processing (RVP), 3 targets	RVP A’ (A prime) measures a subject’s sensitivity to the target sequence (string of three numbers), regardless of response tendency.	0 to 1 (best)	225	0.89	0.05	224	-0.39	0.67	<0.001	9	4.0
Spatial working memory (SWM), recommended standard 2.0 extended	SWM Between Errors. No. of times the subject incorrectly revisits a box in which a token has previously been found. Across all assessed trials.	0 to 153 (worst)	233	12.9	9.5	232	-0.27	1.23	0.001	22	9.5

* higher z-score is better performance

**Z-score comparison with norm population (mean = 0)

In the post hoc analysis of those ≥ 60 years, findings were similar as in the total sample, except for OTS scores where elderly individuals were more reduced and scored below norms (p = 0.030) (S2 Table).

Using a definition of impaired cognition of >1.5 SD below norms, only a small percentage of patients (4–14%) were cognitively impaired at follow-up (Table 4). Using the same 1.5 SD threshold, 29% (68/232) of participants had an impaired cognitive function in at least 1 of 4 tests and 6% (15/232) in at least 2 of 4 tests. Multivariable logistic regression using impairment of more than 1.5 SD in at least 1 of 4 dimensions and adjusting for age, education and number of comorbidities, showed no association with total COVID-19-associated symptoms nor with confusion as initial symptom.

Table 4

Determinants of cognitive impairment (z-score <-1.5) in at least 1 of 4 tests.

Logistic regression analysis (n = 232).

Covariate	N	Odds ratio	95% Conf. Interval	P
Age, per decade	232	1	(0.80 to 1.26)	0.98
Education
Primary school (<10 years)	17	1
Secondary school (10–12 years)	94	0.74	(0.24 to 2.29)	0.60
University, <4 years	60	0.61	(0.18 to 2.07)	0.43
University, ≥4 years	61	0.78	(0.24 to 2.52)	0.68
No. of comorbidities, categorized
0*	108	1
1	76	0.82	(0.40 to 1.64)	0.57
2	29	1.93	(0.76 to 4.92)	0.168
≥3	19	0.79	(0.23 to 2.70)	0.71
Confusion
No*	195	1
Yes	37	1.22	(0.53 to 2.79)	0.64
No. of COVID-19 symptoms
0–5*	52	1
6–9	78	1.32	(0.57 to 3.05)	0.52
10–23	102	1.29	(0.55 to 3.01)	0.56

* Baseline category

In our adjusted, multivariable, linear regression analysis (Table 5), cognitive score on the SWM test, was the only test result significantly associated with the number of initial COVID-19 symptoms. DMS, OTS, and RVP (representing visuospatial processing, executive function and sustained attention respectively) were not associated with the total number of COVID-19 symptoms. None of the cognitive tests showed significant association with individual, CNS-related symptoms such as headache, confusion, seizures and loss of smell during COVID-19. All tests but RVP showed age-related decline (p<0.05 for DMS, p<0.001 for OTS and SWM). OTS and RVP were associated with degree of education with better scores among those with the highest level of education (p<0.001), whereas DMS and SWM were not. No other variables significantly affected the cognitive outcomes in the four models.

Table 5

Determinants of cognitive test scores.

Unstandardized beta coefficients with 95% confidence intervals and p-values, multiple linear regression analysis with bootstrapping.

	Delayed matching to sample (DMS-PCAD, higher score is better)		One touch stockings of Cambridge (OTS-PSFC, higher score is better)		Rapid visual information processing (RVP_A’, higher score is better)		Spatial working memory (SW-MBE, higher score is worse)
	Coef.	95%CI	Coef.	95%CI	Coef.	95%CI	Coef.	95%CI
Age, per decade	-0.15*	[-0.26,-0.03]	-0.59***	[-0.91,-0.27]	0	[-0.01,0.00]	2.18***	[1.20,3.15]
Sex
Female	0		0		0		0
Male	0.06	[-0.29,0.42]	0.63	[-0.11,1.38]	0.01	[-0.01,0.02]	-0.15	[-2.80,2.50]
Education
Primary school (<10 years)	0		0		0		0
Secondary school (10–12 years)	0.43	[-0.10,0.96]	1.19	[-0.66,3.04]	0	[-0.02,0.03]	-1.01	[-6.27,4.26]
University, <4 years	0.24	[-0.36,0.85]	2.13*	[0.20,4.07]	0.03	[-0.00,0.05]	-3.85	[-9.30,1.60]
University, ≥4 years	0.19	[-0.39,0.77]	2.50**	[0.63,4.37]	0.04**	[0.01,0.07]	-1.88	[-7.16,3.39]
Born in Norway
No	0		0		0		0
Yes	-0.16	[-0.71,0.40]	0.73	[-0.46,1.92]	0.01	[-0.01,0.03]	-1.7	[-5.09,1.68]
Comorbidities
0	0		0		0		0
1	0.02	[-0.35,0.39]	0.32	[-0.55,1.20]	0.01	[-0.01,0.02]	-2.29	[-5.15,0.57]
2	-0.1	[-0.55,0.35]	-0.86	[-2.24,0.52]	-0.01	[-0.04,0.01]	1.71	[-2.46,5.88]
≥3	-0.34	[-0.88,0.21]	-0.8	[-2.49,0.90]	0	[-0.03,0.03]	-1.17	[-5.94,3.60]
Headache during acute COVID-19
No	0		0		0		0
Yes	-0.01	[-0.38,0.36]	0.52	[-0.44,1.47]	0	[-0.02,0.01]	-1.2	[-4.42,2.03]
Confusion during acute COVID-19
No	0		0		0		0
Yes	-0.05	[-0.54,0.45]	-0.91	[-2.24,0.41]	0.01	[-0.01,0.03]	-0.73	[-4.29,2.83]
Seizures during acute COVID-19
No	0		0		0		0
Yes	0	[-1.00,1.00]	0.28	[-1.10,1.65]	-0.02	[-0.04,0.01]	-1.97	[-6.74,2.80]
Smell loss during acute COVID-19
No	0		0		0		0
Yes	0.13	[-0.23,0.49]	0.13	[-0.74,1.01]	-0.01	[-0.02,0.01]	0.65	[-2.26,3.56]
No. of symptoms during acute COVID-19 (0–23 scale)
0–5	0		0		0		0
6–9	-0.14	[-0.61,0.34]	-0.44	[-1.50,0.62]	-0.02	[-0.03,0.00]	4.26*	[0.65,7.86]
10–23	-0.19	[-0.69,0.30]	-0.5	[-1.76,0.76]	-0.02	[-0.04,0.00]	3.38	[-0.40,7.16]
EQ-5D Anxiety/Depression after 3 months
1–2 (None/slight)	0		0		0		0
3–4 (Moderate/severe)	-0.28	[-0.75,0.18]	-0.76	[-2.34,0.81]	0	[-0.02,0.02]	3.34	[-0.16,6.83]
N	222		223		216		223
Adj. R-squared	0		0.19		0.14		0.12

* p<0.05

** p<0.01

*** p<0.001

The sensitivity analysis showed weighted percentages of subjects with a z-score <-1.5 for DMS of 13.5%, OTS 8.1%, RVP 3.4% and SWM 9.4%. The weighted logistic and multiple linear regression analyses showed similar patterns of coefficients as the primary analyses and did not alter the inferences or conclusions.

Discussion

The major findings in this study were that cognitive function in our sample of COVID-19- infected, non-hospitalized patients 8–13 months after the acute phase was only marginally poorer than expected based on comparison with normative UK data, and the effect sizes were small. The proportion of respondents with z-scores lower than -1.5 was similarly small, though with larger effects in post hoc analyses of executive function among older respondents. Except for SWM, we found no association between COVID-19 symptom severity or CNS symptomatology (headache, confusion) with overall or dimension-specific cognitive impairment in multivariable regression analyses.

Most other studies with cognitive testing after acute COVID-19 have had rather small samples, often of selected hospitalized or referred patients in the early recovery phase [26-29]. The follow-up time after COVID-19 in the present study is longer than in previous studies and at a point in time when most patients would be expected to have recovered.

The prevalence of impairments in this study at about 11 months are in line with the findings in 379 outpatients a mean of 7.6 months after diagnosis [12]. As in the present study, that study defined cognitive impairments as z-score <1.5 SD below norms, and reported that 5–15% of outpatients, and 13–39% of hospitalized patients had cognitive impairments on a battery of tests [12]. The highest prevalence of impairments were in the cognitive domains of memory encoding and processing speed [12]. Our findings also support the results from a web-based study, where non-hospitalized COVID-19 cases had 0.04–0.13 SD lower test scores than those that believed they had not been ill [11]. The majority of patients had cognitive testing 1–5 months after illness onset.

Following COVID-19, persistent cognitive symptoms were reported in 14 non-hospitalized young/middle-aged patients 48–142 days after symptom onset [27], in contrast with our findings from cognitive testing.

Recent studies of survivors 2–4 months after hospitalization for COVID-19 reported a high prevalence of moderate/severe neurocognitive impairment, as assessed by telephone [8] or a brief performance-best test battery [29], and telephone-administered cognitive tests were abnormal in 15–17% about 3 months after COVID-19 in a mixed population of hospitalized and referred patients [9]. Another study of hospitalized patients reported frequent cognitive abnormalities about 5 months after hospital discharge, in particular increased fatigability, and deficits of concentration and memory [30]. The latter finding corresponds with our finding of reduced function on the spatial working memory test (SWM), although the difference from the norm population was small in the present study.

Patients seeking neurological counseling for neurocognitive symptoms about 6 months after COVID-19 had only minor impairments at single-patient level [31]. Similarly, cognitive deficits were reported from selected patients following COVID-19 with initial neurologic symptoms lasting over 6 weeks [28], in 100 patients in a population with 70% females, and 85% reporting fatigue.

A longitudinal study with available cognitive scores 1–7 years before COVID-19 reported cognitive decline in middle-aged and old adults with mild symptomatic COVID-19 [32]. In contrast, another study did not show a difference in global cognition scores at 4 months between COVID-19-affected and non-affected health care workers [10].

Our findings complement these more short-term observational studies and suggest that most patients infected by COVID-19 but not requiring hospital admission, show little cognitive impairments after 8–13 months.

In another study, headache, oxygen therapy, anosmia and dysgeusia were associated with cognitive impairment following hospitalization for COVID-19 [25], though the sample was small and the analysis limited to univariate analysis. This contrasts with the finding in the present, larger study of no associations between headache or other initial COVID-19 symptoms and cognition, in a non-hospitalized population with less severe COVID-19, longer follow-up before cognitive assessments, and multivariable analysis.

We used tests from the CANTAB battery because we expected that shorter cognitive tests, such as the Mini Mental State Exam or MoCa would be less sensitive to capture potential, possibly dimension-specific deficits, and that traditional neuropsychological assessment would require more resources than were available. We cannot exclude the possibility that traditional neuropsychological tests may have been more sensitive to COVID-19-induced changes, as the CANTAB only shows modest associations with traditional neuropsychological test measures [33].

The main weaknesses of the study are that we had limited information about pre-infection cognitive symptoms or functioning, and the lack of a feasible comparison group. Most of the patients, however, had been working full time before COVID-19, and the prevalence of comorbidities was low. In addition, the sample size may seem small. However, in terms of the total number of COVID-19-verified non-hospitalized patients available in these districts in Norway at the time, and in comparison with the size of other similar studies, we think the sample size is sufficient to give important and reasonably generalizable results. We naturally also cannot exclude a role of other, as yet, unidentified confounders.

From available CANTAB tests, we chose those available in Norwegian, as well as with population norms. The chosen battery is very similar to that recently recommended for studies following COVID-19 [19]. Choice of comparison group in cognitive testing remains a challenge for interpretation of findings following COVID-19. Very few studies would have pre-COVID-19 cognitive tests for the same individuals, and in case, this would probably be because there was a special indication. Other options would be to have a non-COVID-19 group from the general population, or possibly hospitalized for another reason for comparison. The choice of control group could in any case be criticized, and there may be proponents of different choices. We think we used the best option that was available to us. As no local normative data is available, we used UK norms provided by the vendor [22]. The norms were derived from web-based cognitive assessment from a UK population ≥18 years of age, with no previous significant head injury (resulting in loss of consciousness), no mental health condition that is uncontrolled (by medication or intervention) and which has a significant impact on daily life, and no previous diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment or dementia [22]. We suggest this to be a reasonable comparator when addressing a pandemic that affects the general population. The CANTAB system has been used in numerous studies in many countries [33].

We think the pattern of better cognitive scores with declining age and increasing length of education in the regression analysis on raw scores support the validity of the tests as do perhaps the post hoc analyses suggesting a reduced executive function in the older portion of the sample.

This study was originally population-based and reasonably representative of the population of non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The respondents in the first round were older (mean age on 1 June 2020 49.5 (SD 15.3) vs. 43.9 (17.3) years for non-respondents (p<0.001) and comprised a larger proportion of women (256 (56%) vs. 219 (46%), p = 0.005) [34]. The response rates in seven aggregated geographical districts within the catchment areas of the hospitals ranged from 26% to 65%, with lowest rates in three districts of Oslo that have a large proportion of immigrants in the population [15]. This may have introduced bias in the sample.

Furthermore, during the clinic visit in the present study we did not conduct cognitive tests in those with dyspnea only and under-sampled those without dyspnea or fatigue for the cognitive testing, which possibly could have contributed to lower overall cognitive scores. Respondents to CANTAB had more baseline symptoms and lower quality of life, but did not differ from non-respondents in other characteristics. This may have caused a selection bias and may limit generalization. However, we do not know to what extent this may influence associations between cognitive test scores and the chosen determinants. The sensitivity analyses, taking this into consideration, did not materially influence the results and the inferences.

The lack of major late cognitive reduction in our sample of non-hospitalized, but PCR-verified COVID-19 patients seems to advocate against SARS-Cov-2 viral infection of the CNS itself as being causative in cognitive changes after the acute disease phase.

If cognitive sequelae were associated with hypoxia concomitant with cerebrovascular disease or due to critical illness, this would be expected to be more severe in hospital-admitted or ICU-treated cases that were not included in the present study. Most serious indirect causes of damage would probably have led to hospital admission or be partly a result of intensive hospital treatment.

In conclusion, this study of non-hospitalized patients 8–13 months after COVID-19 found only slightly lower cognitive scores in this population compared to available population norms. This is reassuring and suggests that most non-hospitalized patients have little cognitive sequela following the infection, despite a multitude of symptoms in the acute phase.

Non-response analysis among those that responded to the first survey (n = 458).

Comparison between those completing CANTAB assessment during the follow-up visit (n = 233) and non-participants/not responding to CANTAB (n = 225).

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Cognitive test scores for subjects ≥60 years and comparison with norm population.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

30 May 2022

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Tai-Heng Chen, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please amend your current ethics statement to address the following concerns:

a) Did participants provide their written or verbal informed consent to participate in this study?

b) If consent was verbal, please explain i) why written consent was not obtained, ii) how you documented participant consent, and iii) whether the ethics committees/IRB approved this consent procedure.

3. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors investigated the cognitive function for non-hospitalized patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients. They longitudinally followed them.

At median 11 (range 8–13) months after PCR positivity, cognitive scores for short term memory, visuospatial processing, learning and attention were lower than norms (p≤0.001).

At median 11 months after out-of-hospital SARS-Cov-2 infection, minor cognitive impairment was seen with little association between COVID-19 symptom severity and outcome.

I will raise some concerns before publication.

Major

#1

Why did not the authors perform cognitive testing for dyspnea group? The authors hypothesized that the cognitive sequelae were associated with hypoxia. Then, dyspnea group should be conducted cognitive testing.

Could you elaborate on “Because of risk of attrition”?

#2

As the authors pointed out, the repone rate was low. Selection bias should be considered.

Are there any differences between response and non-response to questionnaire of survey 1?

If any, discuss it. And are there any differences between response and non-response to CANTAB of survey 2? If any, discuss it.

Minor

#3

In Result, Sample

“191 of these patients refused further follow-up” should be “19 of these patients refused further follow-up”.

#4

Please mention the COVID-19 infectious situation, such as local infections prevalence and mutation of prevalent SARS-CoV-2.

Over all, the paragraph division is bad and it is difficult to read.

Reviewer #2: Overall statement

This study aims to evaluate the effect of Covid-19 infection on cognitive function in non-hospitalized patients. The researchers found that late after a Covid-19 infection, non-hospitalized patients showed only slightly lower cognitive test scores. The research question is clearly outlined. The authors used a detailed cognitive test battery. The results seem to be valid and reliable. In my opinion the sample size is limited for a population based study.

Strengths and impact

This is a longitudinal study that includes evaluations with a good quality cognitive test battery (CANTAB). This battery evaluates many cognitive domains, especially executive functions. The title of the study is informative. The study aim is interesting since they measured the cognitive effects after a Covid-19 infection in a non-hospitalized group with low comorbidity scores. The references at the end of the text are up to date. The current knowledge about the topic are given in detail. Statistical methodology seems to be nice (using Z scores). The manuscript is generally well written (especially discussion).

Minor weaknesses

1. Even if they designed a longitudinal study, the reserchers very found mild differences in cognitive scores (%4-14). Since this is a cognitive study. The results must be discussed further in relation to participant age, educational status and comorbid conditions. It may be possible to find significant cognitive differences in an elderly population with a larger sample size.

2. The introduction is well written. The author wrote that they aimed to determine the prevalence of cognitive deficits 8-13 months after Covid-19 infection. The author must explain the importance/meaning of this time interval (8-13 months) since they wrote it in the study aim and the title.

3. Did any of the patients have CT documented pulmonary Covid disease? The Figure legends are missing.

4. The researcher divided the patients with a Covid-19 history into 3 groups according to their symptoms (fatigue, dyspnea & fatigue, no dyspnea or fatigue). I think that this classification makes the study a little bit confusing. If I were to do a patient classification for non-hospitalized Covid-19 patients I would divide them into 2 groups such as; asymptomatic/mild symptomatic and symptomatic (including dyspnea and apparent fever). Maybe if they made 2 patient groups with a different methodology, they could have included dyspnea only patients and the remaining asymptomatic patients to increase the sample size.

5. Table 1. is informative. Table 3. is easy to understand and definitive. The regression analysis did not reveal any significance except patient age (Table 5.). The author may want to make a subgroup analysis in older participants to see which cognitive domains were effected after an acute Covid-19 infection.

6. In the results/sample section the number of patients participated in CANTAB was given as 233. In Table 2. the number seems to be 234?

7. Even if the author made adjustments for possible confounders, there may be other confounders not taken into account. There is no control group as the author mentioned. Therefore, it would be better if the author writes some more possible limitations.

Major weaknesses

1. In my opinion the sample size is limited for a population based study.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

23 Jun 2022

Uploaded as file.

Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers_13jun2022_KSCL.docx

Click here for additional data file.

12 Jul 2022

24 Jul 2022

See rebuttal letter.

Submitted filename: Rebuttal_letter_2.docx

Click here for additional data file.

8 Aug 2022

Cognitive function in non-hospitalized patients 8–13 months after acute COVID-19 infection: a cohort study in Norway

PONE-D-22-12572R2

Dear Dr. Stavem,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Tai-Heng Chen, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The title has been changed as a comment.

All my concerns were satisfied.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

11 Aug 2022

PONE-D-22-12572R2

Cognitive function in non-hospitalized patients 8–13 months after acute COVID-19 infection: a cohort study in Norway

Dear Dr. Stavem:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Tai-Heng Chen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE