Search

Cognitive decline has been reported as a short-term sequela in patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). Whether COVID-19 is associated with late cognitive impairment in older free-living individuals with high cardiovascular risk, a group at greater risk of cognitive decline, is unknown. We determined this association of COVID-19 through a longitudinal evaluation of post-COVID-19 cognitive performance and impairment as post hoc analysis in 5,179 older adults (48% female) with mean (SD) age 68.5 (5.0) years, body mass index 31.7 (3.7) kg/m 2 , harboring ≥ 3 criteria for metabolic syndrome (e.g., hypertension, hyperlipidemia, hyperglycemia etc.) enrolled in PREDIMED-Plus trial. Pre- and post-COVID-19 cognitive performance was ascertained from scheduled assessments conducted using a battery of neuropsychological tests, including 5 domains: Global Cognitive Function, General Cognitive Function, Execution Function, Verbal Fluency and Attention domains, which were standardized for the cohort. Cognitive impairment was defined as the bottom 10 percentile of the sample. Multivariable linear and logistic regression models assessed the association of COVID-19 with cognitive decline and impairment, respectively. After a mean 50-week follow-up, no significant associations were observed between COVID-19 status and post-COVID-19 scores of all tapped neuropsychological domains, except Global Cognitive Function (GCF). When fully adjusted, COVID-19 was marginally associated with higher (better) post-pandemic GCF score (βadj (95% CI): 0.06 (0.00, 0.13) p=.05). However, the odds for post-COVID-19 cognitive impairment in GCF domain were not associated with the disease (ORadj (95% CI): 0.90 (0.53, 1.51) p=.68). In the PREDIMED-Plus cohort, COVID-19 status and cognitive impairment determined 50 weeks post-infection showed no association in older adults at high cardiovascular risk. This suggests that cognitive changes observed shortly after COVID-19 revert over time. However, cautious interpretation is warranted as these data were obtained within the framework of a clinical trial encouraging a healthy lifestyle.

Objective: To examine the compliance of colorectal cancer surveillance decisions for individuals at greater risk with current evidence-based guidelines and to determine whether compliance differs between surveillance models., Design: Prospective auditing of compliance of surveillance decisions with evidence-based guidelines (NHMRC) in two decision-making models: nurse coordinator-led decision making in public academic hospitals and physician-led decision making in private non-academic hospitals., Setting: Selected South Australian hospitals participating in the Southern Co-operative Program for the Prevention of Colorectal Cancer (SCOOP)., Main Outcome Measures: Proportions of recall recommendations that matched NHMRC guideline recommendations (March-May 2015); numbers of surveillance colonoscopies undertaken more than 6 months ahead of schedule (January-December 2015); proportions of significant neoplasia findings during the 15 years of SCOOP operation (2000-2015)., Results: For the nurse-led/public academic hospital model, the recall interval recommendation following 398 of 410 colonoscopies (97%) with findings covered by NHMRC guidelines corresponded to the guideline recommendations; for the physician-led/private non-academic hospital model, this applied to 257 of 310 colonoscopies (83%) (P < 0.001). During 2015, 27% of colonoscopies in public academic hospitals (mean, 27 months; SD, 13 months) and 20% of those in private non-academic hospitals (mean, 23 months; SD, 12 months) were performed more than 6 months earlier than scheduled, in most cases because of patient-related factors (symptoms, faecal occult blood test results). The ratio of the numbers of high risk adenomas to cancers increased from 6.6:1 during 2001-2005 to 16:1 during 2011-2015., Conclusion: The nurse-led/public academic hospital model for decisions about colorectal cancer surveillance intervals achieves a high degree of compliance with guideline recommendations, which should relieve burdening of colonoscopy resources.