手汗多是什么原因| 阿堵物是什么意思| hcg低是什么原因| 什么食物对眼睛好| 1956年属什么| psh是什么意思| 6月16号是什么星座| 水逆是什么| 涵字五行属什么| 蚊子代表什么生肖| 游戏是什么| 软饮是什么意思| 吃华法林不能吃什么| 什么是自由基| 什么的脚| 什么的武松| 处女座的幸运色是什么颜色| 糖宝是什么虫| 为什么伴娘要未婚| 为什么医生很少开阿斯美| domyos是什么牌子| ct检查什么| 什么时间是排卵期| 下午四点多是什么时辰| 1962属什么| 造影有什么危害| 慰问金是什么意思| 看指甲去医院挂什么科| 吐血是什么原因引起的| 李逵属什么生肖| 泰山山顶叫什么| 掉头发是缺什么| 没什么没什么| 值机是什么| mp是什么意思| 草字头的字有什么| 医院有什么科室| 大v什么意思| 支原体感染咳嗽吃什么药| 月亮为什么会有圆缺变化| 嘴唇干裂脱皮是什么原因| 为什么低烧比高烧可怕| 养老院护工都做些什么| 为什么活得这么累| 吃什么下火效果最好| 止吐针是什么药| 吃什么补钾最快| 护佑是什么意思| 焦虑吃什么药好| 什么饮料去火| 罗汉果有什么功效和作用| 肩周炎不能吃什么食物| 飞蛾吃什么| 眼睛经常充血是什么原因引起的| 经心的近义词是什么| 辐射是什么| 德五行属什么| 咳嗽无痰吃什么药| 梦见洗衣服是什么意思| 淀粉样变是什么病| 阳痿早泄吃什么药最好| 湿疹不能吃什么| 孕激素低吃什么补得快| 镜子是什么生肖| rap是什么意思| 1980年是什么年| 姓蔡的女孩起什么名字| 脚酸疼是什么原因引起的吗| 国防部部长什么级别| 为什么会磨牙| 属虎五行属什么| 弊是什么意思| 芦根煮水的功效是什么| trace什么意思| 为什么要补钾| 清油是什么油| 中医为什么下午不把脉| 食字五行属什么| 鹦鹉吃什么食物最好| 骨折忌口什么食物| 做健身教练有什么要求| 阴道炎是什么原因引起的| 家里的财位在什么位置| 粗枝大叶是什么意思| 什么人容易得老年痴呆| 疱疹用什么药好| 肾结晶是什么病| 缓刑是什么意思还要坐牢吗| 白细胞低说明什么| 膝关节退行性改变是什么意思| 湿疹长什么样子图片| lmp是什么意思| 睡眠时间短早醒是什么原因| 烫伤用什么| hcg阴性是什么意思| 黑苦荞茶适合什么人喝| 什么病会引起背部疼痛| 薤白的俗名叫什么| 什么星球最大| 神采什么| 天蓝色配什么颜色| 回锅肉是什么肉| 气血虚吃什么补最快女人| 为什么长不胖一直很瘦| vogue什么意思| 疱疹用什么药好得快| 吃什么有助睡眠| 三点水者念什么意思| 六味地黄丸有什么功效| 甄是什么意思| 经常感觉饿是什么原因| 活跃是什么意思| 肠道长息肉是什么原因造成的| 右手抖是什么病的预兆| 肖想是什么意思| 拖拖拉拉什么意思| 痱子粉什么牌子好| 女性感染hpv有什么症状| 骨痂形成是什么意思| 姐姐的婆婆叫什么| 女生左手中指戴戒指什么意思| 血滴子是什么意思| 女人吃什么补气血| 转头头晕是什么原因| 头疼恶心想吐是什么原因| 脲是什么意思| 腹泻吃什么水果好| 锑对人体有什么危害| 乙基麦芽酚是什么东西| 宝宝胀气是什么原因引起的| 继发性高血压是什么意思| 路政属于什么单位| 一什么铃铛| 气血不足挂什么科| 北京市长是什么级别| 孩子脾胃虚弱吃什么药| 百事可乐和可口可乐有什么区别| 祛斑喝什么花茶最有效| 嬴稷和嬴政什么关系| sub是什么意思| 桑黄有什么功效| 尿检是检查什么的| 葡萄球菌用什么抗生素| 阴虱是什么原因引起的| 苹果枸杞红枣煮水喝有什么功效| 缩量十字星意味着什么| 肺部结节灶是什么意思啊| 焦虑症是什么原因引起的| crispy是什么意思| std什么意思| 人言可畏是什么意思| 小孩子头晕是什么原因| 双肺斑索是什么意思| hpv感染有什么症状女性| 文房四宝指什么| 龙眼是什么季节的水果| 围魏救赵是什么意思| dm代表什么| 腰花是什么部位| 春天开的花都有什么花| 陪衬是什么意思| 续航是什么意思| 痛风可以吃什么水果| 什么时间喝牛奶最佳| 血稠吃什么食物好得快| 雪藏是什么意思| kbs是什么意思| smzco是什么药片| 锻炼pc肌有什么好处| 晞字五行属什么| 腱鞘炎是什么引起的| 瓷娃娃什么意思| 秋天有什么花| 白浆是什么| 吃五谷杂粮有什么好处| or发什么音| 任性是什么意思| 灵芝孢子粉有什么作用| 什么是虚无主义| 农历十二月是什么月| jio是什么意思| 反射弧是什么意思| 肺部结节挂什么科| 什么是蚕豆病| 右乳钙化灶是什么意思| sls是什么化学成分| 劳动的反义词是什么| 香港特首什么级别| 胚由什么发育而来| 勿忘是什么意思| 95年属什么生肖婚配表| 渣男之首是什么星座| 吃酸的有什么好处| 什么情况下要打狂犬疫苗| 胰岛素ins是什么意思| 单纯疱疹病毒是什么病| 1025是什么星座| 非经期少量出血是什么原因| 龙骨为什么比排骨便宜| 非营运车辆是什么意思| 孕早期宫缩是什么感觉| 瑜伽是什么| 秋天有什么花| 汽球是什么生肖| 盆腔炎挂什么科| 2月15是什么星座| 澳门是什么时候回归的| 11.15是什么星座| 什么是预防医学| 有时头晕是什么原因| 偷鸡不成蚀把米什么意思| 爱是什么东西| 什么蜂蜜最好| 孔子孟子什么关系| 湖南有什么特产| 农历六月十二是什么日子| 吃金针菇有什么好处| lsa是什么意思| 不以为然是什么意思| 并发症是什么意思| 国际章是什么意思| 苹果a1660是什么型号| 蜂蜜对人体有什么好处和功效| 什么日什么秋| 儿童咳嗽吃什么药管用| 怀孕吃什么菜最有营养| 腹泻呕吐是什么原因| 静水流深什么意思| 心管是什么部位| 看胃挂什么科室| 农历十月十八是什么星座| 腹部胀疼是什么原因| 前列腺增生是什么意思| 属龙的今年要注意什么| 眼下长斑是什么原因| 四平八稳是什么意思| 赵本山什么时候死的| 肝功能七项是检查什么| 为什么要打胰岛素| 2015年属什么生肖| 纵隔子宫是什么意思| 关节疼痛吃什么药| 左边太阳穴疼是什么原因| 阴唇为什么会长痘痘| 电子商务学什么| 为什么会有流星雨| 开半挂车需要什么证| 广义货币m2是什么意思| 甲状腺结节忌口什么| sunglasses什么意思| 云南白药草长什么样| 深藏不露是什么意思| 排卵试纸一深一浅说明什么| 皮肤脱皮是什么原因| 在家做什么小生意| 牙龈痛什么原因| 蓝瘦香菇是什么意思| 西红柿和番茄有什么区别| 手机服务密码是什么| 6个月宝宝可以吃什么水果| 烫伤了抹什么| 异食癖是什么意思| 持续高烧不退是什么原因| 热伤风吃什么感冒药| 百度
Research Article
Open Access

[我有传家宝]复兴号动车组列车

Natasha A. Choudhury MD
百度 越南党、国家和人民高度重视发展同中国的睦邻友好与全面合作关系,视之为越南对外政策的战略选择和头等优先。

Natasha A. Choudhury MD

Davee Department of Neurology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL

Search for more papers by this author
Shreya Mukherjee BA

Shreya Mukherjee BA

Davee Department of Neurology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL

These authors contributed equally.

Search for more papers by this author
Tracey Singer BS

Tracey Singer BS

Davee Department of Neurology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL

These authors contributed equally.

Search for more papers by this author
Aditi Venkatesh BS

Aditi Venkatesh BS

Davee Department of Neurology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL

These authors contributed equally.

Search for more papers by this author
Gina S. Perez Giraldo MD

Gina S. Perez Giraldo MD

Davee Department of Neurology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL

Search for more papers by this author
Millenia Jimenez BS

Millenia Jimenez BS

Davee Department of Neurology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL

Search for more papers by this author
Janet Miller BS

Janet Miller BS

Davee Department of Neurology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL

Search for more papers by this author
Melissa Lopez MPH

Melissa Lopez MPH

Davee Department of Neurology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL

Search for more papers by this author
Barbara A. Hanson PhD

Barbara A. Hanson PhD

Davee Department of Neurology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL

Search for more papers by this author
Aasheeta P. Bawa PA-C

Aasheeta P. Bawa PA-C

Northwestern Medicine, Chicago, IL

Search for more papers by this author
Ayush Batra MD

Ayush Batra MD

Davee Department of Neurology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL

Search for more papers by this author
Eric M. Liotta MD

Eric M. Liotta MD

Davee Department of Neurology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL

Search for more papers by this author
Igor J. Koralnik MD

Corresponding Author

Igor J. Koralnik MD

Davee Department of Neurology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL

Address correspondence to Dr Koralnik, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 320 E Superior St, Morton 7-615, Chicago, IL, 60611. E-mail: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 22 November 2024
Citations: 12

Abstract

Objective

To investigate neurologic manifestations of post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (Neuro-PASC) in post-hospitalization Neuro-PASC (PNP) and non-hospitalized Neuro-PASC (NNP) patients across the adult lifespan.

Methods

Cross-sectional study of the first consecutive 200 PNP and 1,100 NNP patients evaluated at a Neuro-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) clinic between May 2020 and March 2023. Patients were divided into younger (18–44?years), middle-age (45–64?years), and older (65+ years) age groups.

Results

Younger and middle-age individuals accounted for 142 of 200 (71%) of PNP and 995 of 1100 (90.5%) of NNP patients. Significant age-related differences in the frequencies of comorbidities and abnormal neurologic findings demonstrated higher prevalence in older patients. Conversely, 10?months from COVID-19 onset, we found significant age-related differences in Neuro-PASC symptoms indicating lower prevalence, and therefore, symptom burden, in older individuals. Moreover, there were significant age-related differences in subjective impression of fatigue (median [interquartile range (IQR)] patient-reported outcomes measurement information system [PROMIS] score: younger 64 [57–69], middle-age 63 [57–68], older 60.5 [50.8–68.3]; p?=?0.04) and sleep disturbance (median [IQR] PROMIS score: younger 57 [51–63], middle-age 56 [53–63], older 54 [46.8–58]; p?=?0.002) in the NNP group, commensurate with higher impairment in quality of life (QoL) among younger patients. Finally, there were significant age-related differences in objective executive function (median [IQR] National Institutes of Health [NIH] toolbox score: younger 48 [35–63], middle-age 49 [38–63], older 54.5 [45–66.3]; p?=?0.01), and working memory (median [IQR] NIH toolbox score: younger 47 [40–53], middle-age 50 [44–57], older 48 [43–58]; p?=?0.0002) in NNP patients, with the worst performance coming from the younger group.

Interpretation

Younger and middle-age individuals are disproportionally affected by Neuro-PASC regardless of acute COVID-19 severity. Although older people more frequently have abnormal neurologic findings and comorbidities, younger and middle-age patients suffer from a higher burden of Neuro-PASC symptoms and cognitive dysfunction contributing to decreased QoL. Neuro-PASC principally affects adults in their prime, contributing to profound public health and socioeconomic impacts warranting dedicated resources for prevention, diagnosis and interventions. ANN NEUROL 2025;97:369–383

As of October 2024, more than 776 million total cases and over 7 million deaths have been reported since the beginning of the global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This includes more than 103 million total cases with over 1.2 million deaths in the United States (US) alone.1 For many COVID-19 survivors, post-COVID symptoms last long after the initial recovery from acute infection. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis of approximately 200 worldwide studies comprising over 700,000 patients estimated that 45% of COVID-19 survivors still experienced residual and persistent symptoms at ≥1?month after the onset of infection.2 Symptoms generally appear to improve over time, but may persist for years in some individuals, with 15% of patients continuing to experience symptoms 12?months after the initial infection.3 This syndrome has been called “post COVID-19 condition”, “post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC)”, and most commonly, “long COVID.”4, 5 This condition affects people across all sectors of age, gender, race and ethnicity, educational background, socioeconomic status, pre-existing health status, and severity of acute COVID-19.6, 7

The symptoms attributed to PASC are widespread and multi-systemic, involving constitutional, respiratory, cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, neurologic, psychiatric, and gastrointestinal systems.8 The neurologic manifestations of PASC, also known as “Neuro-PASC,” may be particularly debilitating and contribute to a significant proportion of the morbidity and disability faced by PASC patients. We have previously characterized the symptoms, comorbidities, neurologic exam findings, subjective quality of life (QoL), and objective cognitive performance of our prospective outpatient cohort, which revealed important differences between post-hospitalization Neuro-PASC (PNP) and non-hospitalized Neuro-PASC (NNP) patients.9

Prior studies have enumerated the morbidity, decreased QoL, and health care burden associated with PASC.10-13 Greater understanding of the risk factors involved in the development and severity of PASC is needed to facilitate the formation of sustainable prevention and mitigation strategies. Female sex has consistently shown to be associated with development of PASC.14-17 The evidence of an association of age with PASC remains a matter of debate, with different studies showing increased frequency with younger age, older age, or no age association.7, 10, 12, 15 To date, there have been no prospective studies detailing the impact of Neuro-PASC in adults by different age groups.

The aim of this study is to characterize the neurologic manifestations of PASC across the adult lifespan. Because older individuals are at higher risk of neurologic manifestations during acute COVID-19,18, 19 we hypothesized that they may also be more severely affected by Neuro-PASC. We sought to characterize neurologic symptoms, neurologic exam findings, QoL, and cognitive performance among patients with Neuro-PASC in younger, middle-age, and older adults. Such knowledge would help to facilitate risk stratification and prioritize resource allocation for prevention, treatment, rehabilitation, and long-term care in patients experiencing morbidity and disability from Neuro-PASC.

Subjects/Materials and Methods

Patients

We prospectively evaluated all patients seen at the Neuro-COVID-19 clinic of Northwestern Memorial Hospital, in Chicago, Illinois, and undertook a cross-sectional study of the first 1,300 (200 PNP and 1,100 NNP) patients who tested positive for SARS CoV-2, between May 2020 and March 2023. The first 600 patients were previously reported for comparisons of PNP and NNP groups, but not for age-related analyses.9 Patients were able to schedule their initial appointment via either physician- or self-referral. We accepted patients complaining of any neurologic symptoms associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection for evaluation. Our only exclusion criteria were absence of any neurologic symptoms.

Patients were included in the study if they had: (1) a history of clinical manifestations of COVID-19 consistent with those described by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); (2) positive confirmation of associated infection by SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) or rapid antigen test collected via nasopharyngeal swab, and/or by subsequent positive serum SARS-CoV-2 total antibody (before COVID-19 vaccinations) or nucleocapsid antibody (before or after COVID-19 vaccinations); and (3) persistent neurological symptoms lasting ≥6?weeks from onset of COVID-19. Our criteria for long COVID or Neuro-PASC were defined before that of the CDC, which includes a symptom duration of ≥4?weeks from onset of COVID-19; and the World Health Organization (WHO), which is defined as “the continuation or development of new symptoms 3 months after the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection, with these symptoms lasting for at least 2 months with no other explanation.” The study received prior approval by the Northwestern University institutional review board (STU00212583).

Procedures

All patients were evaluated by a board-certified attending neurologist, at times assisted by a neuroimmunology fellow, physician assistant, nurse practitioner, or neurology resident. Patients were seen either in-person or by video-based telehealth visit; the latter included patients from 37 US states. Medical records, including dates of positive SARS-CoV-2 testing, were obtained, reviewed, and recorded ahead of scheduled office visits. All appointments were allotted 1?hour, and recording of medical history was standardized via a “Neuro-COVID Consult” history and physical note template on the electronic medical record at Northwestern Memorial Hospital. Before their visit, patients filled out questionnaires based on the validated patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS), leading to reported measures for QoL domains including cognition, fatigue, sleep disturbance, anxiety, and depression.20, 21 PROMIS measures are reported as T-scores, with lower scores indicating greater severity of dysfunction for cognition, and higher scores indicating greater severity of fatigue, sleep disturbance, anxiety, and depression. Patients were also asked to report their subjective impression of Neuro-PASC symptom recovery at the time of the clinic visit as a percentage relative to a pre-COVID-19 baseline of 100%.

Parts of the neurologic exam (full cranial nerve exam, muscle strength and tone, reflexes, and sensation) were limited during telehealth visits, but full neurologic exams were performed during in-person visits. A more detailed assessment of cognitive function was performed using the National Institute of Health (NIH) Toolbox (version 2.1) for patients who were amenable and able to come to the clinic in-person, either during or within a week after the initial visit.22-25 The NIH toolbox includes assessments of processing speed (pattern comparison processing speed test), attention (Flanker inhibitory control and attention test), executive function (dimensional change card-sorting test), and working memory (list-sorting working memory test). The results are expressed as T-scores, with a score of 50 representing the normative US reference population with a standard deviation of 10. NIH Toolbox results are additionally standardized across age, sex, education, race, and ethnicity.

Statistical Analysis

Data were summarized as number of patients (frequency), mean (standard deviation) for normally distributed variables and median (interquartile range [IQR]) for non-normally distributed variables. Group differences were assessed using Fisher's exact and Chi squared tests for categorical data such as comparisons of sex, race/ethnicity, frequency of signs and symptoms, visit types, and pre-existing comorbidities. Between group differences in continuous variables were assessed using one-way analysis of variance for normally distributed variables and Kruskal-Wallis test for non-normally distributed variables. Relationships between variables were assessed with Pearson's correlation. Patient group T-scores for PROMIS and NIH Toolbox domains are compared to the demographic-matched, normative US population median of 50, using 1-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Two-sided p?≤?0.05 was considered statistically significant. The above analyses were performed in GraphPad Prism version 9.0.0. Study data were collected and managed using RedCap electronic data capture tools.

To summarize and visualize the multidimensional symptom profiles of the PNP and NNP cohorts and the relationships between the Neuro-PASC symptoms, we performed multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) using those symptoms reported as present in ≥20% of patients. MCA results are presented graphically as patient and symptom point clouds in 2-dimensional space, defined by the first and second principal component dimensions (the 2 orthogonal axes with the largest portion of the data inertia, or amount of variation, explained by the component). In the MCA graphs, points further from the origin have greater influence on the component axes, patients plotted in similar locations in space have similar symptom profiles, and symptom categories with similar profiles of patients are grouped together. MCA was performed using the FactoMineR package in R (R version 4.2.1, Vienna, Austria). We used the post hoc Holm-Bonferroni method to identify statistically significant pair-wise comparison.

Results

Patient Demographics

A total of 1,300 patients were included in the study, including 200 PNP and 1,100 NNP patients with evidence of prior positive SARS-CoV-2 test by RT-PCR, rapid antigen, or serology. Patients were divided into younger (18–44?years), middle-age (45–64?years), and older (65+ years) groups. Middle-age patients constituted the largest PNP group, whereas younger patients predominated in the NNP group. Altogether, younger and middle-age individuals accounted for 142 of 200 (71%) of PNP and 995 of 1100 (90.5%) of NNP patients. The mean age of PNP patients was 55.6?years (35.2, 54.4, and 71.9?years for younger, middle-age, and older groups, respectively), compared to 46.2?years for NNP patients (34.7, 53.9, and 72.6?years for younger, middle-age, and older groups, respectively). There was a difference in age-related sex distribution in NNP patients only (female: younger 64.4%, middle-age 72.2%, older 59%; p?=?0.006), with the middle-age group having the highest proportion of females (72.2%) versus males (27.8%). The race distribution was consistent with our previous study among PNP and NNP patients, without differences between the age groups, whereas the difference in ethnicity among NNP patients (Hispanic or Latino: younger 12.5%, middle-age, 10.2%, older 4.8%; p?=?0.002) was driven by the lower frequency of Hispanics in the older group. There were significant differences in the visit types in both PNP (in-person: younger 45%, middle-age, 55.9%, older 69%; p?=?0.03) and NNP patients (in-person: younger 53.9%, middle-age, 57.6%, older 38.1%; p?=?0.002). The older PNP group most frequently had in-person visits, whereas the older NNP group most frequently had telehealth visits. Demographics and clinic visit types for PNP and NNP patients are reported in Table 1.

TABLE 1. Demographics in post-hospitalization and non-hospitalized Neuro-PASC patients across the adult lifespan
Overall PNP PNP 18–44 yr PNP 45–64 yr PNP 65+ yr p Overall NNP NNP 18–44 yr NNP 45–64 yr NNP 65+ yr p
n (%) 200 40 (20) 102 (51) 58 (29) <0.0001 1,100 542 (49.3) 453 (41.2) 105 (9.5) <0.0001
Age, yr, mean (1 SD) 55.6 (14) 35.2 (7.3) 54.4 (4.9) 71.9 (6.2) 46.2 (14) 34.7 (7.1) 53.9 (5.5) 72.6 (6.11)
Gender, n (%) 0.2 0.006
Male 89 (44.5) 19 (47.5) 39 (38.2) 31 (53.4) 362 (32.9) 193 (35.6) 126 (27.8) 43 (40.9)
Female 111 (55.5) 21 (52.5) 63 (61.7) 27 (46.6) 738 (67.1) 349 (64.4) 327 (72.2) 62 (59)
Race, n (%) 0.3 0.26
White 121 (60.5) 27 (67.5) 54 (52.9) 41 (70.7) 823 (74.8) 396 (73.1) 337 (74.4) 90 (85.7)
Black or African American 41 (20.5) 6 (15) 24 (23.5) 11 (18.9) 87 (7.9) 38 (7) 43 (9.5) 6 (5.7)
Asian 7 (3.5) 1 (2.5) 5 (4.9) 1 (1.7) 42 (3.8) 26 (4.8) 15 (3.3) 1 (1)
American Indian/Alaskan Native 3 (1.5) 0 (0) 2 (1.9) 1 (1.7) 3 (0.3) 0 (0) 3 (0.6) 0 (0)
Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander 1 (0.5) 0 (0) 1 (0.9) 0 (0) 2 (0.2) 2 (0.4) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Other 16 (8) 2 (5) 12 (11.7) 2 (3.4) 73 (6.5) 42 (7.7) 26 (5.7) 5 (4.8)
Multiracial 5 (2.5) 1 (2.5) 3 (2.9) 1 (1.7) 13 (1.2) 6 (1.1) 6 (1.3) 1 (1)
Not specified 6 (3) 3 (7.5) 1 (0.9) 2 (3.4) 57 (5.2) 30 (5.5) 25 (5.5) 2 (1.9)
Ethnicity, n (%) 0.45 0.002
Not Hispanic or Latino 161 (80.5) 30 (75) 80 (78.4) 51 (87.9) 920 (83.6) 442 (81.5) 381 (84.1) 97 (92.4)
Hispanic or Latino 33 (16.5) 8 (20) 19 (18.6) 6 (10.3) 119 (10.9) 68 (12.5) 46 (10.2) 5 (4.8)
Not specified 6 (3) 2 (5) 3 (2.9) 1 (1.7) 61 (5.5) 32 (5.9) 26 (5.7) 3 (2.9)
Visit type, n (%) 0.03 0.002
In-person 115 (57.5) 18 (45) 57 (55.9) 40 (69) 593 (53.9) 292 (53.9) 261 (57.6) 40 (38.1)
Televisit 85 (42.5) 22 (55) 45 (44.1) 18 (31) 507 (46.1) 250 (46.1) 192 (42.4) 65 (61.9)
SARS-CoV-2 positive, n (%) 200 (100) 40 (100) 102 (100) 58 (100) 1,100 (100) 542 (100) 453 (100) 105 (100)
  • Abbreviations: NNP = non-hospitalized neurologic post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection; PNP = post-hospitalization neurologic post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection; SD = standard deviation. p values that are statistically significant p < 0.05 are highlighted in bold.

Pre-Existing Comorbidities

As previously noted, the frequencies of different comorbidities significantly vary between PNP and NNP groups.9 In this study, we further characterized comorbidities among PNP and NNP patients over the adult lifespan. There were significant age-related differences in the frequencies of pre-existing hypertension, dyslipidemia and cancer among both PNP and NNP patients, and type 2 diabetes in NNP patients, driven by a higher prevalence with increasing age group. Conversely, significant differences in the frequency of pre-existing headaches in PNP patients reflected a higher prevalence with decreasing age group. Finally, significant differences in the frequencies of pre-existing autoimmune disease, endocrine disorders other than type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular and peripheral vascular diseases, and chronic kidney disease were found in NNP patients only, driven by a higher prevalence with increasing age group. Pre-existing comorbidities in PNP and NNP patients are shown in Table 2.

TABLE 2. Comorbidities in post-hospitalization and non-hospitalized Neuro-PASC patients across the adult lifespan
Overall PNP PNP 18–44 yr PNP 45–64 yr PNP 65+ yr p Overall NNP NNP 18–44 yr NNP 45–64 yr NNP 65+ yr p
n 200 40 102 58 <0.0001 1,100 542 453 105 <0.0001
Pre-existing comorbidity n (%)
Hypertension 71 (35.5) 5 (12.5) 34 (33.3) 32 (55.2) <0.0001 175 (15.9) 28 (5.2) 98 (21.6) 49 (46.7) <0.0001
Type 2 diabetes 48 (24) 4 (10) 29 (28.4) 15 (25.9) 0.06 51 (4.6) 7 (1.3) 34 (7.5) 10 (9.5) <0.0001
Dyslipidemia 38 (19) 3 (7.5) 16 (15.7) 19 (32.8) 0.008 141 (12.8) 20 (3.7) 77 (17) 44 (41.9) <0.0001
Depression/anxiety 34 (17) 9 (22.5) 17 (16.7) 8 (13.8) 0.54 266 (24.2) 143 (26.4) 103 (22.7) 20 (19) 0.18
Lung disease 30 (15) 4 (10) 16 (15.7) 10 (17.2) 0.65 188 (17.1) 83 (15.3) 89 (19.6) 16 (15.2) 0.17
Autoimmune disease 25 (12.5) 4 (10) 13 (12.7) 8 (13.8) 0.92 134 (12.2) 46 (8.5) 68 (15) 20 (19) 0.0005
Cancer 22 (11) 0 (0) 8 (7.8) 14 (24.1) 0.0003 61 (5.5) 10 (1.8) 32 (7.1) 19 (18.1) <0.0001
Other endocrine disorders 21 (10.5) 3 (7.5) 10 (9.8) 8 (13.7) 0.13 72 (6.5) 26 (5) 35 (7.7) 11 (10.5) 0.05
Gastrointestinal disease 18 (9) 4 (10) 10 (9.8) 4 (6.9) 0.85 85 (7.7) 40 (7.4) 31 (6.8) 14 (13.3) 0.07
Headache 13 (6.5) 4 (10) 9 (8.8) 0 (0) 0.02 150 (13.6) 72 (13.3) 64 (14.1) 14 (13.3) 0.92
Insomnia 8 (4) 4 (10) 3 (2.9) 1 (1.7) 0.12 82 (7.5) 34 (6.3) 40 (8.8) 8 (7.6) 0.31
Cardiovascular disease 8 (4) 0 (0) 3 (2.9) 5 (8.6) 0.09 33 (3) 7 (1.9) 15 (3.3) 11 (10.5) <0.0001
Chronic kidney disease 8 (4) 0 (0) 4 (3.9) 4 (6.9) 0.14 14 (1.3) 2 (0.4) 6 (1.3) 6 (5.7) 0.0006
Peripheral vascular disease 5 (2.5) 0 (0) 3 (2.9) 2 (3.4) 0.71 8 (0.7) 1 (0.2) 4 (0.9) 3 (2.9) 0.02
Dysautonomia 5 (2.5) 1 (2.5) 3 (2.9) 1 (1.7) 0.2 18 (1.6) 12 (2.2) 4 (0.9) 2 (1.9) 0.22
Cerebrovascular disease 5 (2.5) 0 (0) 2 (1.9) 3 (5.2) 0.34 9 (0.8) 2 (0.4) 5 (1.1) 2 (1.9) 0.13
Neuropsychiatric disease 3 (1.5) 0 (0) 3 (2.9) 0 (0) 0.44 53 (4.8) 27 (5) 22 (4.8) 4 (3.8) 0.96
Traumatic brain injury 3 (1.5) 0 (0) 2 (1.9) 1 (1.7) 1 49 (4.5) 26 (4.8) 20 (4.4) 3 (2.9) 0.79
Neuromuscular disease 1 (0.5) 1 (2.5) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0.2 3 (0.3) 0 (0) 2 (0.4) 1 (1) 0.07
Organ transplant 1 (0.5) 0 (0) 1 (0.98) 0 (0) 1 1 (0.09) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (1) 0.09
Other 57 (28.5) 9 (22.5) 28 (27.5) 20 (34.5) 0.43 300 (27.3) 120 (22.1) 119 (26.3) 61 (58.1) <0.0001
  • Abbreviations: NNP = non-hospitalized neurologic post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection; PNP = post-hospitalization neurologic post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection. p values that are statistically significant p < 0.05 are highlighted in bold.

Neurologic Manifestations of Long COVID

There was a significant difference in the time from Neuro-PASC symptom onset to initial clinic visit among the different age groups in NNP patients only (mean?±?SD: younger 9.48?±?6.18, middle-age 10.24?±?7.01, older 11.61?±?7.41?months; p?=?0.04), reflecting a shorter delay in seeking care among younger patients. PNP and NNP patients reported similar subjective impression of recovery compared to a pre-COVID-19 baseline, and there were no significant differences between the age groups. Overall, PNP and NNP patients had a median of 5 neurologic manifestations or symptoms attributed to PASC, with significant age-related differences in PNP patients (median [IQR] number of symptoms: younger 6 [4–8], middle-age 5 [3–7], older 4 [2–6]; p?=?0.001) and borderline significance in NNP patients (median [IQR] number of symptoms: younger 5 [3–7], middle-age 5 [3–7], older 4 [3–6]; p?=?0.05), reflecting a lower number of neurologic symptoms in older patients. Significant age-related differences in the frequencies of neurologic symptoms among age groups were observed for headache in PNP and NNP patients, numbness/tingling, dysgeusia and anosmia in NNP patients, and blurred vision in PNP patients, all reflecting lower prevalence in the older group. This was also the case for non-neurologic symptoms of depression/anxiety in NNP patients, insomnia in PNP patients, as well as chest pain and dysautonomia (self-reported variation of heart rate, blood pressure and/or temperature) in PNP and NNP patients, all driven by lower frequencies in the older age group. These data indicate a lower burden of neurologic and non-neurologic symptoms in older individuals with Neuro-PASC.

Interestingly, the opposite trend was observed on the neurologic exam, with significant age-related differences seen for an abnormal exam in PNP patients, sensory and motor dysfunction in NNP patients, and gait dysfunction in both PNP and NNP patients, driven by a higher prevalence of these findings in the older group. These findings demonstrate an overall increase in abnormal neurologic exam findings among older patients with Neuro-PASC. Neurologic signs and symptoms and other symptoms attributed to PASC in PNP and NNP patients are reported in Table 3A and 3B.

TABLE 3A. Neurologic symptoms and signs attributed to PASC in post-hospitalization Neuro-PASC (PNP) patients across the adult lifespan
Overall PNP PNP 18–44?years PNP 45–64?years PNP 65+ years p
Time from symptom onset to clinic visit (month, mean (1 SD)) 9.6 (6.3) 7.6 (5.4) 10.2 (6.3) 10 (6.8) 0.07
Subjective recovery to pre-COVID baseline (mean % (1 SD)) 55.6 (25.3) 54.3 (27.8) 57 (23.4) 53.8 (26.9) 0.74
No. of Neuro-PASC symptoms / manifestations (median [IQR]) 5 [3–7] 6 [4–8] 5 [3–7] 4 [2–6] 0.001
Neurologic symptoms n (%)
≥4 138 (69) 30 (75) 75 (73.5) 33 (56.9) 0.06
Brain fog 173 (86.5) 34 (85) 91 (89.2) 48 (82.8) 0.49
Headache 113 (56.5) 32 (80) 60 (58.5) 21 (36.2) <0.0001
Numbness/tingling 113 (56.5) 23 (57.5) 63 (61.8) 27 (46.6) 0.18
Dizziness 111 (55.5) 25 (62.5) 60 (58.8) 26 (44.8) 0.14
Myalgia 106 (53) 27 (67.5) 54 (52.9) 25 (43.1) 0.06
Pain other than chest 93 (46.5) 19 (47.5) 53 (52) 21 (36.2) 0.16
Dysgeusia 87 (43.5) 21 (52.5) 45 (44.1) 21 (36.2) 0.27
Anosmia 84 (42) 18 (45) 44 (43.1) 22 (37.9) 0.75
Tinnitus 67 (33.5) 15 (37.5) 38 (37.3) 14 (24.1) 0.2
Blurred vision 60 (30) 14 (35) 36 (35.3) 10 (17.2) 0.04
Ischemic Stroke 5 (2.5) 0 (0) 1 (1) 4 (6.9) 0.05
Seizure 4 (2) 3 (7.5) 1 (1) 0 (0) 0.03
Movement disorder 2 (1) 2 (5) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0.04
Meningitis 2 (1) 1 (2.5) 1 (1) 0 (0) 0.44
Encephalitis 1 (0.5) 0 (0) 1 (1) 0 (0) 1
Focal sensory deficit 1 (0.5) 1 (2.5) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0.2
Focal motor deficit 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) N/A
Hemorrhagic stroke 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) N/A
Other symptom n (%)
Fatigue 172 (86) 32 (80) 89 (87.3) 51 (87.9) 0.5
Shortness of breath 140 (70) 30 (75) 76 (74.5) 34 (58.6) 0.09
Depression/Anxiety 137 (68.5) 28 (70) 68 (66.7) 41 (43.1) 0.9
Insomnia 123 (61.5) 29 (72.5) 69 (67.6) 25 (43.1) 0.003
Chest pain 80 (40) 20 (50) 46 (45.1) 14 (24.1) 0.01
Dysautonomia 67 (33.5) 20 (50) 37 (36.3) 10 (17.2) 0.002
GI symptoms 46 (23) 14 (35) 23 (22.5) 9 (15.5) 0.08
Sign n tested/total (%) 190/200 (95) 37/40 (92.5) 96/102 (94.1) 57/58 (98.3) 0.98
Abnormal exam 110 (55) 15 (40.5) 53 (55.2) 42 (73.7) 0.002
Memory deficit 68 (34) 12 (32.4) 29 (30.2) 27 (47.4) 0.06
Attention deficit 33 (16.5) 9 (24.3) 15 (15.6) 9 (15.8) 0.52
Sensory dysfunction 32 (16.8) 4 (10.8) 16 (16.7) 12 (21.1) 0.43
Gait dysfunction 31 (16.3) 2 (5.4) 11 (11.5) 18 (31.6) 0.0007
Motor dysfunction 22 (11.6) 5 (13.5) 8 (8.3) 9 (15.8) 0.35
Cranial nerve dysf. 7 (3.7) 0 (0) 2 (2.1) 5 (8.8) 0.04
Cerebellar dysf. 4 (2.1) 0 (0) 2 (2.1) 2 (3.5) 0.51
Movement disorder 4 (2.1) 3 (8.1) 1 (1) 0 (0) 0.02
  • Abbreviations: COVID = coronavirus disease; dysf?=?dysfunction; IQR = interquartile range; Neuro-PASC = neurologic post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection; PNP = post-hospitalization neurologic post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection; SD = standard deviation. p values that are statistically significant p < 0.05 are highlighted in bold.
TABLE 3B. Neurologic symptoms and signs attributed to PASC in non-hospitalized Neuro-PASC (NNP) patients across the adult lifespan
Overall NNP NNP 18–44?years NNP 45–64?years NNP 65+ years p
Time from symptom onset to clinic visit (month, mean (1 SD)) 10 (6.7) 9.48 (6.18) 10.24 (7.01) 11.61 (7.41) 0.04
Subjective recovery to pre-COVID baseline (mean % (1 SD)) 57.7 (24.5) 57.9 (24) 57.9 (24.2) 55.9 (28.5) 0.98
No. of Neuro-PASC symptoms / manifestations (median [IQR]) 5 [3–7] 5 [3–7] 5 [3–7] 4 [3–6] 0.05
Neurologic symptoms n (%)
≥4 797 (72.4) 395 (72.9) 338 (74.6) 64 (61) 0.02
Brain fog 923 (83.9) 466 (86) 376 (83) 81 (77.1) 0.06
Headache 780 (70.9) 408 (75.3) 315 (69.5) 57 (54.3) <0.0001
Numbness/tingling 456 (41.5) 212 (39.1) 207 (45.7) 37 (35.2) 0.04
Dizziness 592 (53.8) 290 (53.5) 247 (54.5) 55 (52.4) 0.91
Myalgia 585 (53.2) 283 (52.2) 250 (55.2) 52 (49.5) 0.47
Pain other than chest 481 (43.7) 227 (41.9) 215 (47.5) 39 (37.1) 0.08
Dysgeusia 535 (48.6) 263 (48.5) 234 (51.7) 38 (36.2) 0.02
Anosmia 566 (51.5) 279 (51.5) 247 (54.5) 40 (38.1) 0.01
Tinnitus 365 (33.2) 178 (32.8) 157 (34.7) 30 (28.6) 0.48
Blurred vision 346 (31.5) 169 (31.2) 151 (33.3) 26 (24.8) 0.23
Ischemic Stroke 15 (1.4) 3 (0.6) 7 (1.5) 5 (4.8) 0.005
Seizure 21 (1.9) 12 (2.2) 9 (2) 0 (0) 0.37
Movement disorder 6 (0.5) 5 (0.9) 0 (0) 1 (1) 0.07
Meningitis 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) N/A
Encephalitis 1 (0.1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (1) 0.1
Focal sensory deficit 3 (0.3) 0 (0) 3 (0.7) 0 (0) 0.14
Focal motor deficit 2 (0.2) 2 (0.4) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0.6
Hemorrhagic stroke 1 (0.1) 1 (0.2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1
Other symptom n (%)
Fatigue 963 (87.5) 479 (88.4) 388 (85.7) 96 (91.4) 0.19
Shortness of breath 511 (46.5) 244 (45) 221 (48.8) 46 (43.8) 0.42
Depression/anxiety 763 (69.4) 387 (71.4) 318 (70.2) 58 (55.2) 0.004
Insomnia 627 (57) 299 (55.2) 275 (60.7) 53 (50.5) 0.08
Chest pain 334 (30.4) 181 (33.4) 133 (29.4) 20 (19) 0.01
Dysautonomia 398 (36.2) 210 (38.7) 167 (36.9) 21 (20) 0.001
GI symptoms 299 (27.2) 156 (28.8) 119 (26.3) 24 (22.9) 0.39
Sign n tested/total (%) 1019/1100 (92.6) 507/542 (93.5) 415/453 (91.6) 97/105 (92.4) 0.51
Abnormal exam 406 (39.8) 190 (37.5) 168 (40.5) 48 (49.5) 0.08
Memory deficit 263 (25.8) 127 (25) 106 (25.5) 30 (30.9) 0.47
Attention deficit 116 (11.4) 54 (10.7) 52 (12.5) 10 (10.3) 0.63
Sensory dysfunction 74 (7.3) 23 (4.5) 35 (8.4) 16 (16.5) <0.0001
Gait dysfunction 47 (4.6) 15 (3) 18 (4.3) 14 (14.4) <0.0001
Motor dysfunction 29 (2.8) 12 (2.4) 9 (2.2) 8 (8.2) 0.003
Cranial nerve dysf. 22 (2.2) 7 (1.4) 12 (2.9) 3 (3.1) 0.23
Cerebellar dysf. 6 (0.6) 1 (0.2) 4 (1) 1 (1) 0.27
Movement disorder 15 (1.5) 5 (1) 6 (1.4) 4 (4.1) 0.06
  • Abbreviations: COVID = coronavirus disease; dysf?=?dysfunction; IQR = interquartile range; Neuro-PASC = neurologic post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection; NNP = non-hospitalized neurologic post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection; SD = standard deviation. p values that are statistically significant p < 0.05 are highlighted in bold.

QoL and Cognitive Measures

Subjective QoL measures based on the PROMIS questionnaire were expressed as median scores and are displayed in Figure 1. Higher subjective impairment is reflected by lower scores for cognitive function and higher scores for fatigue, sleep disturbance, anxiety, and depression. We have previously reported decreased QoL measures for all tested domains in both PNP and NNP patients.9 In the present study, we additionally found significant age-related differences in subjective impression of fatigue (median [IQR] PROMIS score: younger 64 [57–69], middle-age 63 [57–68], older 60.5 [50.8–68.3]; p?=?0.04) and sleep disturbance (median [IQR] PROMIS score: younger 57 [51–63], middle-age 56 [53–63], older 54 [46.8–58]; p?=?0.002) in NNP patients, reflecting higher subjective impairment in QoL among the younger group. Those differences in T-scores also translate in difference in categorization: among the NNP group, sleep disturbance T scores of 57 (young) or 56 (middle-age) correspond to “mild dysfunction” (range 56–60), whereas a T-score of 54 (old) remains within normal limits (range 10–55). Similarly, a fatigue T-score of 61 to 70 is considered “moderate,” which is the case for young and middle-age group, compared to “mild” for older people in both PNP and NNP groups. There were no significant age-related differences in QoL in PNP.

Details are in the caption following the image
Quality of life and cognitive results in post-hospitalization (PNP) and non-hospitalized (NNP) neurologic post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (Neuro-PASC) patients, ages 18–44, 45–64, and 65+ years. Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) T-scores for PNP (A), and NNP (B) patients show significant differences in NNP patients in the quality of life (QoL) domains of fatigue and sleep disturbance. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Toolbox T-scores for PNP (C), and NNP (D) patients reveal borderline age-related differences in executive function in the PNP group and significant age-related differences in the NNP group for executive function and working memory. [Color figure can be viewed at www.annalsofneurology.org]

Objective cognitive performance measures based on the NIH Toolbox assessment were expressed as median scores and are displayed in Figure 1. Worse cognitive impairment is reflected by lower median T-scores for all domains, including processing speed, attention, executive function, and working memory. We have previously reported decreased performance in processing speed, attention, and working memory for PNP patients and in attention only for NNP patients compared to a normative US population. In this study, we additionally found borderline age-related differences in executive function among PNP patients (median [IQR]: younger 36 [29.5–61], middle-age 44 [35–58], older 49.5 [41–56.5]; p?=?0.05) and significant differences in NNP patients (median [IQR] NIH toolbox score: younger 48 [35–63], middle-age 49 [38–63], older 54.5 [45–66.3]; p?=?0.01), reflecting worse objective cognitive performance in the younger group. Finally, there were also significant age-related differences in working memory among NNP patients, with the worst performance coming from the younger group (median [IQR] NIH toolbox score: younger 47 [40–53], middle-age 50 [44–57], older 48 [43–58]; p?=?0.0002). These results suggest that older individuals suffer less disruptions to their QoL and cognitive performance, whereas younger patients experience greater QoL and cognitive impairments, because of Neuro-PASC.

MCA

Seventeen symptoms were reported as present in ≥20% of patients and were, therefore, included in the MCAs, graphically displayed in Figure 2. Interpretation of the MCA graphs in PNP and NNP patients is described in the caption for Figure 2. For the PNP cohort, dimension 1 explained 23.1% of the variance, whereas dimension 2 explained 9.7% of the variance; each of the remaining 15 dimensions explained ≤7.8% of the variance. Six symptoms had correlation coefficient squared values (r2) with PNP dimension 1 that reached 0.25: dizziness (0.38), myalgias (0.37), pain (0.36), chest pain (0.32), fatigue (0.27), and shortness of breath (0.25), with all other symptoms having r2 values between 0.13 and 0.22. For PNP dimension 2, only two symptoms had r2 values exceeding 0.25: anosmia (0.66) and dysgeusia (0.59), with all other symptoms having r2 values below 0.08. MCA results for PNP patients are displayed in Figure 2A, B.

Details are in the caption following the image
Multiple correspondence analysis of neurologic post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (Neuro-PASC) symptoms across the adult lifespan. (A) Post-hospitalization Neuro-PASC (PNP) cohort symptom point cloud. (B) PNP cohort patient point cloud with age group concentration ellipses. (C) Non-hospitalized Neuro-PASC (NNP) cohort symptom point cloud. (D) NNP cohort patient point cloud with age group concentration ellipses. Larger-sized points represent the mean values of each respective age group's distribution. Increasing distance between the origin and a given symptom category indicates a greater contribution of that category to the pole of the corresponding dimension. Symptom categories with similar profiles of patients are grouped together. For both PNP and NNP patients, dimension 1 globally separates “yes” from “no” symptom categories such that “no” symptom categories with larger dimension 1 values are toward the right of the graph. For both PNP and NNP, the presence or absence of anosmia and dysgeusia are the predominant contributors to dimension 2. The predominance of anosmia and dysgeusia in dimension 2, relative to other symptoms, results in a visually stratified patient symptom cloud (particularly for the NNP cohort) such that presence of anosmia and dysgeusia with larger dimension 2 values are toward the top of the graph. For both PNP (median [interquartile range]: younger ?0.206 [?0.547, 0.315], middle-age ?0.102 [?0.414, 0.339], older 0.196 [?0.093, 0.495]), and NNP (median [interquartile range]: younger ?0.015 [?0.313, 0.336], middle-age ?0.007 [?0.361, 0.280], older 0.156 [?0.193, 0.482]) cohorts, the older age group had significantly larger values located on the right distal part of dimension 1 than younger or middle-age patient (post hoc Holm-Bonferroni method, p?<?0.002 for each pairwise comparison with older age) suggesting that older patients had a milder global symptom profile with more frequent “no” symptom responses. [Color figure can be viewed at www.annalsofneurology.org]

For the NNP cohort, dimension 1 explained 20.0% of the variance, whereas dimension 2 explained 10.3% of the variance; each of the remaining 15 dimensions explained <8.0% of the variance. Six symptoms had r2 values with NNP dimension 1 that reached 0.25: myalgias (0.31), dizziness (0.29), blurred vision (0.27), shortness of breath (0.27), pain (0.26), and neuropathy (0.25), with all other symptoms having r2 values between 0.07 and 0.22. For NNP dimension 2, only two symptoms had r2 values exceeding 0.25: anosmia (0.80) and dysgeusia (0.79), with all other symptoms having r2 values below 0.03. MCA results for NNP patients are displayed in Figure 2C, D.

For both PNP (median [IQR]: younger ?0.206 [?0.547, 0.315], middle-age ?0.102 [?0.414, 0.339], older 0.196 [?0.093, 0.495]), and NNP (median [IQR]: younger ?0.015 [?0.313, 0.336], middle-age ?0.007 [?0.361, 0.280], older 0.156 [?0.193, 0.482]) cohorts, the older age group had significantly larger dimension 1 values than younger or middle-age patients (post hoc Holm-Bonferroni method, p?<?0.002 for each pairwise comparison with older age), suggesting that older patients had a global symptom profile with more frequent “no” symptom responses than either middle-age or younger patients. For both PNP and NNP patients, dimension 1 values were not significantly different between younger and middle-age groups and dimension 2 values were not significantly different between any of the age groups.

In view of the different definitions of PASC between the CDC/NIH and WHO, we have also analyzed the PASC symptoms in the 90.1% of our study participants who came to the clinic >3?months from symptom onset, and therefore correspond to the WHO definition of PASC. The data shows similar findings than with our entire study population (Fig S1 ). Finally, MCA of PASC symptoms of patients evaluated in-person with those seen in televisit showed overlapping ellipses, demonstrating that these two groups were largely identical (Fig S2).

Recovery to Pre-COVID Baseline as a Function of Time from COVID-19 Onset

We aimed to determine whether there was an age-related difference in the subjective impression of recovery in our patient population. Overall, there was no significant relationship between the length of time from COVID-19 onset and the subjective impression of recovery reported at the time of the initial clinic visit. This was seen among all PNP and NNP age groups (Fig 3).

Details are in the caption following the image
Recovery to pre-coronavirus disease (COVID) baseline in post-hospitalization neurologic post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (Neuro-PASC) (PNP) and non-hospitalized Neuro-PASC (NNP), ages 18–44, 45–64, and 65+ years. Subjective impression of recovery reported at time of clinic visit, compared to pre-COVID-19 baseline of 100%, for all PNP and NNP patients, further stratified by age groups. R2?values demonstrate no significant relationship between time from COVID-19 onset and percent recovery in PNP and NNP regardless of age group. [Color figure can be viewed at www.annalsofneurology.org]

Discussion

We and others have previously shown that it is crucial to evaluate PNP and NNP patients separately. PNP patients are a decade older, have a higher burden of comorbidities and neurologic findings, and a broader pattern of cognitive dysfunction than NNP patients.9, 26-28 This present study aims to fill a key gap in our current knowledge regarding the impact of age on Neuro-PASC symptoms among both PNP and NNP patients.

Although older age is a risk factor for severe COVID-19 pneumonia requiring hospitalization, the older PNP group comprised less than a third of all PNP patients in our study. Furthermore, the older NNP group contained less than 10% of all NNP patients. These results indicate that the majority of Neuro-PASC patients represent the younger and middle-age segments of the adult US population. As expected, the highest burden of pre-existing comorbidities was found in older PNP and NNP patients, who also more frequently had an abnormal neurologic exam. Surprisingly, older PNP and NNP patients had lower frequencies of most neurologic and non-neurologic symptoms attributed to PASC. These results indicate that despite carrying a higher burden of comorbidities and objective neurologic dysfunction, older adults are less frequently affected by Neuro-PASC symptoms than younger age groups, regardless of their hospitalization status during acute COVID-19.

The higher PASC-related symptom burden affecting the younger age groups in our study further translated to worse subjective impression of QoL in domains of fatigue and sleep disturbance in younger and middle-age NNP patients, who also had worse results on tests of executive function than the older group. These results suggest that younger and middle-age adults are more severely affected by subjective alterations of their QoL and by objective cognitive dysfunction attributed to Neuro-PASC than older adults. The singular age-related differences in PASC symptoms were also demonstrated with MCA, which showed that in both PNP and NNP patients, older individuals had a milder phenotype compared to the younger and middle-age groups.

Previous studies have investigated age as a risk factor associated with the development of long COVID.29 In a retrospective cohort including 388 patients with Neuro-PASC and 149 patients with neurologic sequelae due to influenza, Neuro-PASC was associated with older age.30 However, in another longitudinal observational cohort including >150,000 COVID-19 patients, people were found to be at higher risk of all neurologic outcomes at 12?months after SARS-CoV-2 infection, regardless of age, compared to uninfected controls.11 The latter study did show a stronger risk of memory and cognitive disorders, sensory disorders, and other neurologic disorders in younger adults with PASC, whereas older adults had higher risk of mental health disorders, musculoskeletal disorders, and episodic disorders.

An important confounder for age-related associations in many long PASC studies is the lack of separation of post-hospitalization and non-hospitalized individuals during analyses.31, 32 Because post-hospitalization patients are a decade older than non-hospitalized patients, the predominance of one group over the other in any given population may skew the results if both groups are analyzed together. Furthermore, because PNP and NNP patients differ not only in their demographics, but also in their comorbidities, neurologic symptoms and signs as well as pattern of cognitive dysfunction, admixture of those two groups will hamper any attempt to develop a PASC case definition.32, 33 Another aspect to consider is whether studies report subjective symptoms only, or also objective findings from the neurologic exam. Interestingly, reported sensory Neuro-PASC symptoms of high frequency are consistent with that of a large online survey,34 but contrast with a lower frequency of corresponding abnormalities on the sensory neurologic exam in our study, reflecting a discrepancy between subjective and objective Neuro-PASC manifestations. Finally, age-related associations with PASC may be biased by the study population. This explains why symptoms of peripheral neuropathy seem more frequent in a study from the Veterans Administration database (mean age of COVID-19 patients?=?61.4?year, 89% male, 30.9% of type II diabetes)11 than in our younger patient population.

Our findings are consistent with data from an ongoing Long COVID Household Pulse Survey, carried out by the National Center for Health Statistics, which provides easily accessible and up-to-date information on PASC trends on the CDC website.35 As of September 16, 2024, 61.6% of all US adults report that they have had COVID-19. Of these, 29.8% report that they had PASC and 8.7% are still currently experiencing PASC. Most significantly 24.3% of all US adults who currently have PASC report having significant activity limitations because of this condition. Moreover, stratification by age group shows that the frequency of PASC increases from the second to fourth decades and decreases steadily thereafter from the fifth to eight decades. This data is consistent with the higher utilization of the Neuro-COVID-19 clinic by younger and middle-age compared to older adults.

The importance of neurologic complications of COVID-19 have been highlighted recently by the Global Burden of Disease Study, which demonstrated that neurologic disorders are the leading cause of overall disease burden in the world, accounting for at least 443 million disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) and affecting 3.4 billion people (43% of the global population). Of the 37 neurologic conditions in the study, neurologic complications because of COVID-19 were ranked 20th and accounted for 2.48 million global DALYs in 2021.6 In addition, we have shown that Neuro-PASC is the leading cause of consultation at our multispecialty Comprehensive COVID Center, accounting for 49% of all outpatient clinic visits, ahead of pulmonology (25%), cardiology (12%), and nine other specialty clinics.8 Together, these data indicate that neurologic manifestations are also the leading contributor of disease burden and disability among all people suffering from PASC.

Our study also has far-reaching implications for public health. Because younger and middle-age people are the most frequently and severely affected by Neuro-PASC, whether this could potentially translate into a higher or earlier incidence of subsequent cognitive impairment and neurodegenerative diseases in this population is a matter of serious concern for our clinic patients. A study of electronic medical records of 35,362 COVID-19 outpatients in Denmark showed an increased relative risk (RR) of 3.5 for Alzheimer's disease and 2.6 for Parkinson's disease compared to outpatients who did not have COVID-19.36 A meta-analysis of 12 studies including 2.6 million post-COVID-19 cases and 30.4 million controls showed a significant association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and increased risk of new-onset Alzheimer's disease (HR?=?1.50), dementia (HR?=?1.66), and Parkinson's disease (HR?=?1.44) among COVID-19 survivors.37 Potential mechanisms triggering or accelerating neurodegeneration may include persistent inflammation, immune dysregulation, mitochondrial dysfunction, and/or endotheliopathy.38, 39 These mechanisms may be enhanced in younger people who display a more robust inflammatory response unique to COVID-19,40 whereas they may be less prominent in older individuals secondary to immunosenescence.41 However, the full impact of PASC in the development of neurodegenerative diseases may not be known for decades, as the current population of younger and middle-age adults affected by Neuro-PASC reaches old age.42, 43

Our study has the following limitations. First, our definition of PASC differed from the CDC/NIH and WHO definitions regarding duration of symptoms (6?weeks in our study, compared to 4?weeks for CDC/NIH and 3?months for WHO). However, our definition had already been established before that of either of these organizations, and >90% of our patients fit the WHO definition. Moreover, all participants fit the CDC/NIH criteria. Next, outside of the MCA, our statistical analyses did not adjust for multiple covariates. This is because of the exploratory nature of this first-of-its-kind study aiming at guiding further investigations, because those adjustments may increase the type II error for those associations that are not null.44, 45 Like all studies researching diseases in the health care setting, the patients included in this report are those who chose to seek care at our Neuro-COVID-19 clinic. This selection bias also applies to other research settings including online questionnaires and may be influenced by multiple factors including geographic location, technological access, and socioeconomic status. To facilitate access to care, we did not require physician referral and opened the clinic to patients either in-person or by telehealth visits. Therefore, our study population coming from 37 states is representative of those who seek care at post-COVID clinics in the entire United States. We have found no evidence that this self-referral bias leads to a younger age-based skew in our Neuro-COVID-19 clinic patients. The average age of our NNP group is 46?years old, which is similar to the average age (45?years) of the entire patient population of the Comprehensive COVID Center at Northwestern Medicine that comprises 12 specialty clinics.8 It is also identical to the average age (46?years) in a newly published study from the RECOVER cohort with 8,746 PASC patients, including 91% who were non-hospitalized, recruited from 83 sites from 33 US states plus Washington DC and Puerto Rico.46 Although we used a uniform template for all our patients, those who came via telehealth visits had a limited neurologic examination compared to those evaluated in person. Principal component analyses performed in our previous study demonstrated that these two groups were largely identical.9 We could not test a control group of individuals without COVID-19 for cognitive and QoL measures because of the limitations on human subjects' research during the pandemic. Therefore, we used PROMIS and NIH toolbox measures that have been extensively validated for neurologic research and include normative data from large US populations. Although the NIH Toolbox test was performed in-person under direct supervision, patients answered computer-adaptive PROMIS questionnaires ahead of the clinic visit. PROMIS questionnaires have been designed to be answered independently and do not require investigator supervision. A recent study tested PROMIS cognition screeners for the Medicare annual wellness visit and used them either before or at the time of the visit interchangeably.47 Finally, we were not able to determine possible age-related effects of different SARS-CoV-2 variants on Neuro-PASC, because there was no method to retrospectively confirm the exact viral strain for each patient, given this testing was not routinely performed within our institution.

Conclusions

Together, these data refute our initial hypothesis that the burden of Neuro-PASC will be greater for older adults. Our study demonstrates the opposite finding that younger and middle-age patients with Neuro-PASC are more severely affected than older patients, regardless of the severity of their acute COVID-19 and hospitalization status. We showed that younger and middle-age patients suffer from a higher burden of neurologic symptoms, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and cognitive dysfunction contributing to decreased QoL, compared to older patients with Neuro-PASC. However, older Neuro-PASC patients more frequently have abnormal findings on their neurologic exam, likely corresponding with a higher burden of pre-existing comorbidities. This is the first cross-sectional study to report an association of neurologic manifestations of PASC with young and middle age. Longitudinal studies are needed to truly capture the duration and fluctuation of Neuro-PASC over time.

These findings have immense public health impact given that Neuro-PASC significantly contributes to the leading global burden of disability and disease caused by neurologic disorders. The impact of this condition causing disproportionate morbidity and disability in younger adults in their prime, who provide much of the workforce, productivity, and innovation in our society, may lead to critical issues of increased health care system burden, mental health crisis, socio-cultural deterioration, and economic recession.

Continued identification and risk stratification for factors contributing to the development and severity of PASC is vital to minimizing and improving the disease and disability burden of this condition, which remains a significant global public health threat. Resources and efforts for prevention, detection/diagnosis, treatment/palliation, and rehabilitation should be increasingly focused on groups disproportionately affected by this condition.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported in part by National Institutes of Health (NIH)/National Institute on Aging (NIA) (grant K23AG078705, E.M.L.). This study was supported in part by NIH/NIA (grant R21AG086751, A.B.). This study was supported in part by a gift from Mr. and Mrs. Michael Ferro.

    Author Contributions

    N.C., S.M., T.C., A.V., A.B., E.L., and I.K. contributed to the conception and design of the study; N.C., S.M., T.C., A.V., G.P.G., M.J., J.M., M.L., B.H., A.P.B, A.B., E.L., and I.K contributed to the acquisition and analysis of the data; N.C., M.J., M.L., B.H., A.B., E.L., and I.K. contributed to drafting the text or contributed to preparing the figures.

    Potential Conflict of Interest

    Nothing to report.

    Data Availability

    Deidentified data will be deposited in the COVID-19 Neuro Databank after publication.

      The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.

      click me
      晚上喝什么有助于睡眠 心房扑动是什么意思 椎管狭窄是什么意思 奶糕是什么 动脉硬化吃什么可以软化血管
      火和什么相生 胆汁为什么会反流到胃里面 日斤读什么字 卵巢囊肿挂什么科 水柔棉是什么面料
      敦促的意思是什么 8.14是什么星座 落井下石什么意思 二代身份证是什么意思 调戏什么意思
      露营需要准备什么东西 粗粮是什么 管理的本质是什么 什么是超声波 方脸适合什么耳环
      cm代表什么单位hcv8jop6ns3r.cn 铁观音是什么茶hcv9jop4ns3r.cn 故的偏旁是什么hcv8jop1ns8r.cn 孕妇吃什么蔬菜好hcv7jop7ns4r.cn 中国发明了什么hcv9jop3ns5r.cn
      秋田狐鱼钩适合钓什么鱼hcv8jop2ns5r.cn 猪吃什么食物inbungee.com 为什么运动完会恶心头晕想吐hcv8jop8ns2r.cn 狗狗发烧吃什么药hcv9jop0ns6r.cn 身上长湿疹是什么原因导致imcecn.com
      tin是什么hlguo.com 什么叫割礼hcv7jop4ns6r.cn 兆字五行属什么hcv8jop6ns3r.cn 甲沟炎用什么药膏好hcv8jop5ns9r.cn esrd医学上是什么意思hcv9jop6ns9r.cn
      脊髓空洞是什么意思hcv9jop2ns8r.cn 睡觉经常流口水是什么原因hcv8jop9ns6r.cn 什么的风hcv8jop4ns7r.cn 天成是什么意思hcv8jop2ns8r.cn 长期服用丙戊酸钠有什么副作用hcv7jop9ns1r.cn
      百度