The effects of COVID-19 on cognitive performance in a community-based cohort: a COVID symptom study biobank prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment has been reported after many types of infection, including SARS-CoV-2. Whether deficits following SARS-CoV-2 improve over time is unclear. Studies to date have focused on hospitalised individuals with up to a year follow-up. The presence, magnitude, persistence and correlations of effects in community-based cases remain relatively unexplored. METHODS: Cognitive performance (working memory, attention, reasoning, motor control) was assessed in a prospective cohort study of participants from the United Kingdom COVID Symptom Study Biobank between July 12, 2021 and August 27, 2021 (Round 1), and between April 28, 2022 and June 21, 2022 (Round 2). Participants, recruited from the COVID Symptom Study smartphone app, comprised individuals with and without SARS-CoV-2 infection and varying symptom duration. Effects of COVID-19 exposures on cognitive accuracy and reaction time scores were estimated using multivariable ordinary least squares linear regression models weighted for inverse probability of participation, adjusting for potential confounders and mediators. The role of ongoing symptoms after COVID-19 infection was examined stratifying for self-perceived recovery. Longitudinal analysis assessed change in cognitive performance between rounds. FINDINGS: 3335 individuals completed Round 1, of whom 1768 also completed Round 2. At Round 1, individuals with previous positive SARS-CoV-2 tests had lower cognitive accuracy (N = 1737, β = −0.14 standard deviations, SDs, 95% confidence intervals, CI: −0.21, −0.07) than negative controls. Deficits were largest for positive individuals with ≥12 weeks of symptoms (N = 495, β = −0.22 SDs, 95% CI: −0.35, −0.09). Effects were comparable to hospital presentation during illness (N = 281, β = −0.31 SDs, 95% CI: −0.44, −0.18), and 10 years age difference (60–70 years vs. 50–60 years, β = −0.21 SDs, 95% CI: −0.30, −0.13) in the whole study population. Stratification by self-reported recovery revealed that deficits were only detectable in SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals who did not feel recovered from COVID-19, whereas individuals who reported full recovery showed no deficits. Longitudinal analysis showed no evidence of cognitive change over time, suggesting that cognitive deficits for affected individuals persisted at almost 2 years since initial infection. INTERPRETATION: Cognitive deficits following SARS-CoV-2 infection were detectable nearly two years post infection, and largest for individuals with longer symptom durations, ongoing symptoms, and/or more severe infection. However, no such deficits were detected in individuals who reported full recovery from COVID-19. Further work is needed to monitor and develop understanding of recovery mechanisms for those with ongoing symptoms. FUNDING: Chronic Disease Research Foundation, Wellcome Trust, National Institute for Health and Care Research, Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, Alzheimer's Society, European Union, COVID-19 Driver Relief Fund, French National Research Agency

Symptom prevalence, duration, and risk of hospital admission in individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 during periods of omicron and delta variant dominance: a prospective observational study from the ZOE COVID Study

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern, omicron, appears to be less severe than delta. We aim to quantify the differences in symptom prevalence, risk of hospital admission, and symptom duration among the vaccinated population. METHODS: In this prospective longitudinal observational study, we collected data from participants who were self-reporting test results and symptoms in the ZOE COVID app (previously known as the COVID Symptoms Study App). Eligible participants were aged 16-99 years, based in the UK, with a body-mass index between 15 and 55 kg/m2, had received at least two doses of any SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, were symptomatic, and logged a positive symptomatic PCR or lateral flow result for SARS-CoV-2 during the study period. The primary outcome was the likelihood of developing a given symptom (of the 32 monitored in the app) or hospital admission within 7 days before or after the positive test in participants infected during omicron prevalence compared with those infected during delta prevalence. FINDINGS: Between June 1, 2021, and Jan 17, 2022, we identified 63 002 participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and reported symptoms in the ZOE app. These patients were matched 1:1 for age, sex, and vaccination dose, across two periods (June 1 to Nov 27, 2021, delta prevalent at >70%; n=4990, and Dec 20, 2021, to Jan 17, 2022, omicron prevalent at >70%; n=4990). Loss of smell was less common in participants infected during omicron prevalence than during delta prevalence (16·7% vs 52·7%, odds ratio [OR] 0·17; 95% CI 0·16-0·19, p<0·001). Sore throat was more common during omicron prevalence than during delta prevalence (70·5% vs 60·8%, 1·55; 1·43-1·69, p<0·001). There was a lower rate of hospital admission during omicron prevalence than during delta prevalence (1·9% vs 2·6%, OR 0·75; 95% CI 0·57-0·98, p=0·03). INTERPRETATION: The prevalence of symptoms that characterise an omicron infection differs from those of the delta SARS-CoV-2 variant, apparently with less involvement of the lower respiratory tract and reduced probability of hospital admission. Our data indicate a shorter period of illness and potentially of infectiousness which should impact work-health policies and public health advice. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust, ZOE, National Institute for Health Research, Chronic Disease Research Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and Medical Research Council

Frailty and rate of fractures in patients initiating antihypertensive medications: a cohort study in primary care

Background: Treatment for hypertension improves cardiovascular outcomes. Frailty may be present in older people treated for hypertension, but associates with adverse drug effects, potentially including falls resulting in fractures. We aimed to determine the association between baseline frailty and fractures in patients initiated on antihypertensive treatment. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using United Kingdom primary care data, including new users of first-line antihypertensives aged 65 years or over. We reported degree of frailty (fit, mild, moderate, severe) at antihypertensive initiation using the Electronic Frailty Index. We examined the association of frailty with fractures using multivariable Poisson regression, and assessed for interaction between antihypertensive class and frailty. Results: Of 113,779 patients aged 65 years or over who initiated on first-line antihypertensives, 49,634 patients (44%) were mildly or more frail. Over 4.1 years mean follow-up, 6567 (5.8%) experienced a fracture, with 3832 (58%) of these fractures occurring in frail people. Among those with severe frailty, doubling of fracture risk was observed after antihypertensive initiation, compared with fit people [adjusted rate ratio 2.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.93–2.65]. Secondary analyses indicate this pattern was replicated for hip and arm fractures, and strongest for spine fractures, and the association between different types of antihypertensives and fractures varied by frailty (p = 0.004), being lower in moderately frail users of renin-angiotensin blockers compared with calcium channel blockers [rate ratio 0.81, 95% CI 0.71–0.94]. Conclusions: Frailty is common among older patients initiating first-line antihypertensive treatment, and was associated with an increased fracture rate. Awareness of this is important to encourage clinicians to consider risk of falls and fractures when treating hypertension

Individual Factors Including Age, BMI, and Heritable Factors Underlie Temperature Variation in Sickness and in Health:An Observational, Multi-cohort Study

BACKGROUND: Ageing affects immunity, potentially altering fever response to infection. We assess effects of biological variables on basal temperature, and during COVID-19 infection, proposing an updated temperature threshold for older adults ≥65 years. METHODS: Participants were from four cohorts: 1089 unaffected adult TwinsUK volunteers; 520 adults with emergency admission to a London hospital with RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection; 757 adults with emergency admission to a Birmingham hospital with RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and 3972 adult community-based COVID Symptom Study participants self-reporting a positive RT-PCR test. Heritability was assessed using saturated and univariate ACE models; mixed-effect and multivariable linear regression examined associations between temperature, age, sex and BMI; multivariable logistic regression examined associations between fever (≥37.8°C) and age; receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to identify temperature threshold for adults ≥ 65 years. RESULTS: Among unaffected volunteers, lower BMI (p=0.001), and increasing age (p<0.001) associated with lower basal temperature. Basal temperature showed a heritability of 47% 95% Confidence Interval 18-57%). In COVID-19+ participants, increasing age was associated with lower temperatures in Birmingham and community-based cohorts (p<0.001). For each additional year of age, participants were 1% less likely to demonstrate a fever ≥37.8°C (OR 0.99; p<0.001). Combining healthy and COVID-19+ participants, a temperature of 37.4°C in adults ≥65 years had similar sensitivity and specificity to 37.8°C in adults <65 years for discriminating infection. CONCLUSIONS: Ageing affects temperature in health and acute infection, with significant heritability, indicating genetic factors contribute to temperature regulation. Our observations suggest a lower threshold (37.4°C/97.3°F) for identifying fever in older adults ≥65 years

Concordance of B- and T-cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, irrespective of symptoms suggestive of COVID-19

This study assessed T‐cell responses in individuals with and without a positive antibody response to SARS‐CoV‐2, in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Participants were drawn from the TwinsUK cohort, grouped by (a) presence or absence of COVID‐associated symptoms (S+, S−), logged prospectively through the COVID Symptom Study app, and (b) anti‐IgG Spike and anti‐IgG Nucleocapsid antibodies measured by ELISA (Ab+, Ab−), during the first wave of the UK pandemic. T‐cell helper and regulatory responses after stimulation with SARS‐CoV‐2 peptides were assessed. Thirty‐two participants were included in the final analysis. Fourteen of 15 with IgG Spike antibodies had a T‐cell response to SARS‐CoV‐2‐specific peptides; none of 17 participants without IgG Spike antibodies had a T‐cell response (χ (2): 28.2, p < 0.001). Quantitative T‐cell responses correlated strongly with fold‐change in IgG Spike antibody titer (ρ = 0.79, p < 0.0001) but not to symptom score (ρ = 0.17, p = 0.35). Humoral and cellular immune responses to SARS‐CoV‐2 are highly correlated. We found no evidence of cellular immunity suggestive of SARS‐CoV2 infection in individuals with a COVID‐19‐like illness but negative antibodies

COVID-19 due to the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant compared to B.1.1.7 (Alpha) variant of SARS-CoV-2: a prospective observational cohort study

The Delta (B.1.617.2) variant was the predominant UK circulating SARS-CoV-2 strain between May and December 2021. How Delta infection compares with previous variants is unknown. This prospective observational cohort study assessed symptomatic adults participating in the app-based COVID Symptom Study who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 from May 26 to July 1, 2021 (Delta overwhelmingly the predominant circulating UK variant), compared (1:1, age- and sex-matched) with individuals presenting from December 28, 2020 to May 6, 2021 (Alpha (B.1.1.7) the predominant variant). We assessed illness (symptoms, duration, presentation to hospital) during Alpha- and Delta-predominant timeframes; and transmission, reinfection, and vaccine effectiveness during the Delta-predominant period. 3581 individuals (aged 18 to 100 years) from each timeframe were assessed. The seven most frequent symptoms were common to both variants. Within the first 28 days of illness, some symptoms were more common with Delta versus Alpha infection (including fever, sore throat, and headache) and some vice versa (dyspnoea). Symptom burden in the first week was higher with Delta versus Alpha infection; however, the odds of any given symptom lasting ≥ 7 days was either lower or unchanged. Illness duration ≥ 28 days was lower with Delta versus Alpha infection, though unchanged in unvaccinated individuals. Hospitalisation for COVID-19 was unchanged. The Delta variant appeared more (1.49) transmissible than Alpha. Re-infections were low in all UK regions. Vaccination markedly reduced the risk of Delta infection (by 69-84%). We conclude that COVID-19 from Delta or Alpha infections is similar. The Delta variant is more transmissible than Alpha; however, current vaccines showed good efficacy against disease. This research framework can be useful for future comparisons with new emerging variants

Symptom prevalence, duration, and risk of hospital admission in individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 during periods of omicron and delta variant dominance: a prospective observational study from the ZOE COVID Study

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern, omicron, appears to be less severe than delta. We aim to quantify the differences in symptom prevalence, risk of hospital admission, and symptom duration among the vaccinated population. METHODS: In this prospective longitudinal observational study, we collected data from participants who were self-reporting test results and symptoms in the ZOE COVID app (previously known as the COVID Symptoms Study App). Eligible participants were aged 16-99 years, based in the UK, with a body-mass index between 15 and 55 kg/m2, had received at least two doses of any SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, were symptomatic, and logged a positive symptomatic PCR or lateral flow result for SARS-CoV-2 during the study period. The primary outcome was the likelihood of developing a given symptom (of the 32 monitored in the app) or hospital admission within 7 days before or after the positive test in participants infected during omicron prevalence compared with those infected during delta prevalence. FINDINGS: Between June 1, 2021, and Jan 17, 2022, we identified 63 002 participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and reported symptoms in the ZOE app. These patients were matched 1:1 for age, sex, and vaccination dose, across two periods (June 1 to Nov 27, 2021, delta prevalent at >70%; n=4990, and Dec 20, 2021, to Jan 17, 2022, omicron prevalent at >70%; n=4990). Loss of smell was less common in participants infected during omicron prevalence than during delta prevalence (16·7% vs 52·7%, odds ratio [OR] 0·17; 95% CI 0·16-0·19, p<0·001). Sore throat was more common during omicron prevalence than during delta prevalence (70·5% vs 60·8%, 1·55; 1·43-1·69, p<0·001). There was a lower rate of hospital admission during omicron prevalence than during delta prevalence (1·9% vs 2·6%, OR 0·75; 95% CI 0·57-0·98, p=0·03). INTERPRETATION: The prevalence of symptoms that characterise an omicron infection differs from those of the delta SARS-CoV-2 variant, apparently with less involvement of the lower respiratory tract and reduced probability of hospital admission. Our data indicate a shorter period of illness and potentially of infectiousness which should impact work-health policies and public health advice. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust, ZOE, National Institute for Health Research, Chronic Disease Research Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and Medical Research Council

COVID-19 due to the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant compared to B.1.1.7 (Alpha) variant of SARS-CoV-2: a prospective observational cohort study.

The Delta (B.1.617.2) variant was the predominant UK circulating SARS-CoV-2 strain between May and December 2021. How Delta infection compares with previous variants is unknown. This prospective observational cohort study assessed symptomatic adults participating in the app-based COVID Symptom Study who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 from May 26 to July 1, 2021 (Delta overwhelmingly the predominant circulating UK variant), compared (1:1, age- and sex-matched) with individuals presenting from December 28, 2020 to May 6, 2021 (Alpha (B.1.1.7) the predominant variant). We assessed illness (symptoms, duration, presentation to hospital) during Alpha- and Delta-predominant timeframes; and transmission, reinfection, and vaccine effectiveness during the Delta-predominant period. 3581 individuals (aged 18 to 100 years) from each timeframe were assessed. The seven most frequent symptoms were common to both variants. Within the first 28 days of illness, some symptoms were more common with Delta versus Alpha infection (including fever, sore throat, and headache) and some vice versa (dyspnoea). Symptom burden in the first week was higher with Delta versus Alpha infection; however, the odds of any given symptom lasting ≥ 7 days was either lower or unchanged. Illness duration ≥ 28 days was lower with Delta versus Alpha infection, though unchanged in unvaccinated individuals. Hospitalisation for COVID-19 was unchanged. The Delta variant appeared more (1.49) transmissible than Alpha. Re-infections were low in all UK regions. Vaccination markedly reduced the risk of Delta infection (by 69-84%). We conclude that COVID-19 from Delta or Alpha infections is similar. The Delta variant is more transmissible than Alpha; however, current vaccines showed good efficacy against disease. This research framework can be useful for future comparisons with new emerging variants

The effects of COVID-19 on cognitive performance in a community-based cohort: a COVID symptom study biobank prospective cohort studyResearch in context

Summary: Background: Cognitive impairment has been reported after many types of infection, including SARS-CoV-2. Whether deficits following SARS-CoV-2 improve over time is unclear. Studies to date have focused on hospitalised individuals with up to a year follow-up. The presence, magnitude, persistence and correlations of effects in community-based cases remain relatively unexplored. Methods: Cognitive performance (working memory, attention, reasoning, motor control) was assessed in a prospective cohort study of participants from the United Kingdom COVID Symptom Study Biobank between July 12, 2021 and August 27, 2021 (Round 1), and between April 28, 2022 and June 21, 2022 (Round 2). Participants, recruited from the COVID Symptom Study smartphone app, comprised individuals with and without SARS-CoV-2 infection and varying symptom duration. Effects of COVID-19 exposures on cognitive accuracy and reaction time scores were estimated using multivariable ordinary least squares linear regression models weighted for inverse probability of participation, adjusting for potential confounders and mediators. The role of ongoing symptoms after COVID-19 infection was examined stratifying for self-perceived recovery. Longitudinal analysis assessed change in cognitive performance between rounds. Findings: 3335 individuals completed Round 1, of whom 1768 also completed Round 2. At Round 1, individuals with previous positive SARS-CoV-2 tests had lower cognitive accuracy (N = 1737, β = −0.14 standard deviations, SDs, 95% confidence intervals, CI: −0.21, −0.07) than negative controls. Deficits were largest for positive individuals with ≥12 weeks of symptoms (N = 495, β = −0.22 SDs, 95% CI: −0.35, −0.09). Effects were comparable to hospital presentation during illness (N = 281, β = −0.31 SDs, 95% CI: −0.44, −0.18), and 10 years age difference (60–70 years vs. 50–60 years, β = −0.21 SDs, 95% CI: −0.30, −0.13) in the whole study population. Stratification by self-reported recovery revealed that deficits were only detectable in SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals who did not feel recovered from COVID-19, whereas individuals who reported full recovery showed no deficits. Longitudinal analysis showed no evidence of cognitive change over time, suggesting that cognitive deficits for affected individuals persisted at almost 2 years since initial infection. Interpretation: Cognitive deficits following SARS-CoV-2 infection were detectable nearly two years post infection, and largest for individuals with longer symptom durations, ongoing symptoms, and/or more severe infection. However, no such deficits were detected in individuals who reported full recovery from COVID-19. Further work is needed to monitor and develop understanding of recovery mechanisms for those with ongoing symptoms. Funding: Chronic Disease Research Foundation, Wellcome Trust, National Institute for Health and Care Research, Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, Alzheimer's Society, European Union, COVID-19 Driver Relief Fund, French National Research Agency