The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has brought a great deal of pressure for medical students, who typically show elevated anxiety rates. Our aim is to investigate the prevalence of anxiety in medical students during this pandemic. This systematic review and mini meta-analysis has been conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. Two researchers independently searched PubMed on 26 August 2020 for cross-sectional studies on medical students during the COVID-19 outbreak, with no language restrictions applied. We then performed a manual search to detect other potentially eligible investigations. To the 1361 records retrieved in the initial search, 4 more were added by manual search on medRxiv. Finally, eight studies were finally included for qualitative and quantitative analysis, which yielded an estimated prevalence of anxiety of 28% (95% CI: 22–34%), with significant heterogeneity between studies. The prevalence of anxiety in medical students is similar to that prior to the pandemic but correlates with several specific COVID-related stressors. While some preventive and risk factors have been previously identified in a non-pandemic context, knowledge and cognitions on COVID-19 transmission, treatment, prognosis and prevention negatively correlate with anxiety, emerging as a key preventive factor that may provide a rationale for why the levels of anxiety have remained stable in medical students during the pandemic while increasing in their non-medical peers and the general population. Other reasons for the invariability of anxiety rates in this population are discussed. A major limitation of our review is that Chinese students comprised 89% the total sample, which could compromise the external validity of our work

Background: Poststroke cognitive impairment is common, but the trajectory and magnitude of cognitive decline after stroke is unclear. We examined the course and determinants of cognitive change after stroke using individual participant data from the Stroke and Cognition Consortium. Methods: Nine longitudinal hospital-based cohorts from 7 countries were included. Neuropsychological test scores and normative data were used to calculate standardized scores for global cognition and 5 cognitive domains. One-step individual participant data meta-analysis was used to examine the rate of change in cognitive function and risk factors for cognitive decline after stroke. Stroke-free controls were included to examine rate differences. Based on the literature and our own data that showed short-term improvement in cognitive function after stroke, key analyses were restricted to the period beginning 1-year poststroke to focus on its long-term effects. Results: A total of 1488 patients (mean age, 66.3 years; SD, 11.1; 98% ischemic stroke) were followed for a median of 2.68 years (25th–75th percentile: 1.21–4.14 years). After an initial period of improvement through up to 1-year poststroke, decline was seen in global cognition and all domains except executive function after adjusting for age, sex, education, vascular risk factors, and stroke characteristics (−0.053 SD/year [95% CI, −0.073 to −0.033]; P <0.001 for global cognition). Recurrent stroke and older age were associated with faster decline. Decline was significantly faster in patients with stroke compared with controls (difference=−0.078 SD/year [95% CI, −0.11 to −0.045]; P <0.001 for global cognition in a subgroup analysis). Conclusions: Patients with stroke experience cognitive decline that is faster than that of stroke-free controls from 1 to 3 years after onset. An increased rate of decline is associated with older age and recurrent stroke.

With no effective treatments for cognitive decline or dementia, improving the evidence base for modifiable risk factors is a research priority. This study investigated associations between risk factors and late-life cognitive decline on a global scale, including comparisons between ethno-regional groups. We harmonized longitudinal data from 20 population-based cohorts from 15 countries over 5 continents, including 48,522 individuals (58.4% women) aged 54–105 (mean = 72.7) years and without dementia at baseline. Studies had 2–15 years of follow-up. The risk factors investigated were age, sex, education, alcohol consumption, anxiety, apolipoprotein E ε4 allele (APOE*4) status, atrial fibrillation, blood pressure and pulse pressure, body mass index, cardiovascular disease, depression, diabetes, self-rated health, high cholesterol, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, physical activity, smoking, and history of stroke. Associations with risk factors were determined for a global cognitive composite outcome (memory, language, processing speed, and executive functioning tests) and Mini-Mental State Examination score. Individual participant data meta-analyses of multivariable linear mixed model results pooled across cohorts revealed that for at least 1 cognitive outcome, age (B = −0.1, SE = 0.01), APOE*4 carriage (B = −0.31, SE = 0.11), depression (B = −0.11, SE = 0.06), diabetes (B = −0.23, SE = 0.10), current smoking (B = −0.20, SE = 0.08), and history of stroke (B = −0.22, SE = 0.09) were independently associated with poorer cognitive performance (p < 0.05 for all), and higher levels of education (B = 0.12, SE = 0.02) and vigorous physical activity (B = 0.17, SE = 0.06) were associated with better performance (p < 0.01 for both). Age (B = −0.07, SE = 0.01), APOE*4 carriage (B = −0.41, SE = 0.18), and diabetes (B = −0.18, SE = 0.10) were independently associated with faster cognitive decline (p < 0.05 for all). Different effects between Asian people and white people included stronger associations for Asian people between ever smoking and poorer cognition (group by risk factor interaction: B = −0.24, SE = 0.12), and between diabetes and cognitive decline (B = −0.66, SE = 0.27; p < 0.05 for both). Limitations of our study include a loss or distortion of risk factor data with harmonization, and not investigating factors at midlife. These results suggest that education, smoking, physical activity, diabetes, and stroke are all modifiable factors associated with cognitive decline. If these factors are determined to be causal, controlling them could minimize worldwide levels of cognitive decline. However, any global prevention strategy may need to consider ethno-regional differences.

Background: Anxiety has been suggested as a potentially modifiable risk factor for dementia, but results are still controversial. Our main objectives are to develop an updated meta-analysis of prospective population-based studies on the relationship between anxiety and risk of dementia, and to estimate the population fraction of dementia attributable to anxiety (PAF). Methods: We searched for cohort studies listed on PubMed or Web of Science from January 2018 to January 2020 that reported risk estimates for the association between anxiety and incident dementia. These were added to cohort studies published before January 2018 that were used in a previously published meta-analysis. Fully adjusted RRs were pooled using random effects models. We estimated the proportion of incident dementia attributable to anxiety by using PAF. Results: The meta-analysis included nine prospective cohorts from eight studies, representing 29,608 participants. The overall relative risk (RR) of dementia was 1.24 (95% CI: 1.06–1.46) and the PAF of dementia due to anxiety was 3.9%. Conclusions: Anxiety is significantly associated with an increased risk of all-cause dementia. The treatment or prevention of anxiety might help to reduce dementia incidence rates, but more research is needed to clarify whether anxiety is a cause of dementia rather than a prodrome.

A large number of longitudinal studies of population-based ageing cohorts are in progress internationally, but the insights from these studies into the risk and protective factors for cognitive ageing and conditions like mild cognitive impairment and dementia have been inconsistent. Some of the problems confounding this research can be reduced by harmonising and pooling data across studies. COSMIC (Cohort Studies of Memory in an International Consortium) aims to harmonise data from international cohort studies of cognitive ageing, in order to better understand the determinants of cognitive ageing and neurocognitive disorders. Longitudinal studies of cognitive ageing and dementia with at least 500 individuals aged 60 years or over are eligible and invited to be members of COSMIC. There are currently 17 member studies, from regions that include Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America. A Research Steering Committee has been established, two meetings of study leaders held, and a website developed. The initial attempts at harmonising key variables like neuropsychological test scores are in progress. The challenges of international consortia like COSMIC include efficient communication among members, extended use of resources, and data harmonisation. Successful harmonisation will facilitate projects investigating rates of cognitive decline, risk and protective factors for mild cognitive impairment, and biomarkers of mild cognitive impairment and dementia. Extended implications of COSMIC could include standardised ways of collecting and reporting data, and a rich cognitive ageing database being made available to other researchers. COSMIC could potentially transform our understanding of the epidemiology of cognitive ageing, and have a world-wide impact on promoting successful ageing.