Search

Objectives: The diagnostic capabilities of specific cognitive screeners are clinically crucial for an early detection of frontotemporal features in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) patients. This study aimed at providing diagnostic properties of the cognitive section of the Edinburgh Cognitive and Behavioral ALS Screen (ECAS) in Italian ALS patients. Methods: Eighty-nine consecutive Italian ALS patients were classified according to Strong et al. (2017) criteria with a comprehensive neuropsychological assessment. The Italian version of ECAS was also administered, and its accuracy, sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), negative and positive predictive values (PPV; NPV) and likelihood ratios (LR+; LR-) were computed against clinical diagnoses. Results: The ECAS and its subscales yielded moderate-to-high accuracy (AUC =.7–.87). High SP was overall found (81.8%–100%). The most sensitive measures were ALS-specific and Executive (73.9–78.3%) subscales, while the least were the ALS-non-specific subscales (8.7–17.4%). ECAS measures showed good PPVs (60%–100%) and NPVs (75.9%–91.5%). Acceptable LRs were found (LR+: 6.97–4.3; LR–:.29–.91), with total and ALS-specific measures yielding the best estimates. Conclusions: This is the first study demonstrating the diagnostic value of the ECAS against a thorough neuropsychological assessment in Italy. ECAS-total and -ALS-specific scores are diagnostically sound as to both intrinsic and post-test features, whereas ALS-non-specific measures perform slightly worse.

Background: Episodic long-term memory (LTM) difficulties/deficits are frequent in COVID-19-recovered patients and negatively impact on prognosis and outcome. However, little is known about their semiology and prevalence, also being still debated whether they arise from primary amnesic features or are secondary to dysexecutive/inattentive processes and disease-related/premorbid status. Hence, this study aimed at (1) assessing LTM functioning in post-infectious SARS-CoV-2 patients by accounting for premorbid and disease-related confounders and (2) exploring its cognitive etiology. Methods: Measures of global cognition (Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA)) and LTM (Babcock Memory Test (BMT)) of fifty-four COVID-19-recovered patients were retrospectively collected. Patients were subdivided into those being already at risk or not for cognitive decline (RCD + ; RCD −). Cognitive measures were converted into equivalent scores (ESs). Results: LTM sub-clinical/clinical deficits (ESs = 0/1) were mildly-to-moderately prevalent in both RCD + (MoCA-Memory, 31.8%; BMT, 31.8%) and RCD − (MoCA-Memory, 28.6%; BMT, 39.3%) patients. MMSE and MoCA total scores, but not the MoCA-Attention subtest, were associated with the BMT. RCD + asymptomatic patients performed better on the BMT (p =.033) than those requiring O2 therapy (but not ventilation). Discussion: COVID-19-recovered individuals might show LTM deficits of both primary and secondary etiology and should be thus screened for them, especially those having suffered mid-to-moderate COVID-19 and those already being at risk for cognitive decline. Both I- and II-level measures of verbal LTM can be adopted, although the former might be more sensitive.

Background: The novel human coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) shows neurotropism and systemically affects the central nervous system (CNS). Cognitive deficits have been indeed reported as both short- and long-term sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, the association between these disturbances and background/disease-related clinical features remains elusive. This work aimed at exploring how post-infective cognitive status relates to clinical/treatment outcomes by controlling for premorbid/current risk factors for cognitive deficits. Methods: Cognitive measures (Mini-Mental State Examination, MMSE) of N=152 COVID-19 patient were retrospectively assessed in relation to disease severity, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, steroidal treatment, and occurrence of other viral/bacterial infections by controlling for remote/recent/COVID-19-related risk factors for cognitive deficits (at-risk vs. not-at-risk: Neuro+ vs. Neuro−). Results: Descriptively, impaired MMSE performances were highly prevalent in mild-to-moderate patients (26.3%). ICU-admitted patients made less errors (p=.021) on the MMSE than those not admitted when partialling out risk factors and age—the latter negatively influencing performances. When addressing Neuro− patients only, steroidal treatment appears to improve MMSE scores among those suffering from other infections (p=.025). Discussion: Cognitive sequelae of COVID-19 are likely to arise from a complex interplay between background/clinical premorbid features and disease-related/interventional procedures and outcomes. Mild-to-moderate patients requiring assistive ventilation who however are not admitted to an ICU are more likely to suffer from cognitive deficits—despite their etiology remaining elusive.

Background: Due to SARS-CoV-2-related encephalopathic features, COVID-19 patients may show cognitive sequelae that negatively affect functional outcomes. However, although cognitive screening has been recommended in recovered individuals, little is known about which instruments are suitable to this scope by also accounting for clinical status. This study thus aimed at comparatively assessing the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in detecting cognitive deficits in post-COVID-19 patients premorbidly/contextually being or not at risk for cognitive deficits (RCD + ; RCD-). Methods: Data from N = 100 COVID-19-recovered individuals having been administered both the MMSE and the MoCA were retrospectively analyzed separately for each group. RCD ± classification was performed by taking into consideration both previous and disease-related conditions. Equivalent scores (ESs) were adopted to examine classification performances of the two screeners. Results: The two groups were comparable as for most background and cognitive measures. MMSE or MoCA adjusted scores were mostly unrelated to disease-related features. The two screeners yielded similar estimates of below-cut-off performances—RCD + : MMSE: 20%, MoCA: 23.6%; RCD-: MMSE: 2.2%, MoCA: 4.4%. However, agreement rates dropped when also addressing borderline, “low-end” normal, and normal ability categories—with the MoCA attributing lower levels than the MMSE (RCD + : Cohen’s k =.47; RCD-: Cohen’s k =.17). Discussion: Although both the MMSE and the MoCA proved to be equally able to detect severe cognitive sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection in both RCD + and RCD- patients, the MoCA appeared to be able to reveal sub-clinical defects and more sharply discriminate between different levels of ability.