Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 11 de 11
Filter
1.
BJPsych Open ; 8(4): e131, 2022 Jul 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2275120

ABSTRACT

The antipsychotic clozapine is known to have immune-modulating effects. Clozapine treatment has been reported to be associated with increased risk of COVID-19 infection. However, it remains unclear whether this is because of increased testing of this patient group, who are closely monitored. We linked anonymised health records from mental health services in Cambridgeshire (UK), for patients taking antipsychotic medication, with data from the local COVID-19 testing hub. Patients receiving clozapine were more likely to be tested for COVID-19, but not to test positive. Increased testing in patients receiving clozapine suggests prudent judgement by clinicians, considering the overall health vulnerabilities of this group.

2.
J Alzheimers Dis ; 92(1): 295-309, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2228816

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Persisting symptoms and increased mortality after SARS-CoV-2 infection has been described in COVID-19 survivors. OBJECTIVE: We examined longer-term mortality in patients with dementia and SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: A retrospective matched case-control study of 165 patients with dementia who survived an acute hospital admission with COVID-19 infection, and 1325 patients with dementia who survived a hospital admission but without SARS-CoV-2 infection. Potential risk factors investigated included socio-demographic factors, clinical features, and results of investigations. Data were fitted using a Cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: Compared to patients with dementia but without SARS-CoV-2 infection, people with dementia and SARS-CoV-2 infection had a 4.4-fold risk of death (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 4.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.13-6.30) even beyond the acute phase of infection. This excess mortality could be seen up to 125 days after initial recovery but was not elevated beyond this time. Risk factors for COVID-19-associated mortality included prescription of antipsychotics (aHR = 3.06, 95% CI 1.40-6.69) and benzodiazepines (aHR = 3.00, 95% CI 1.28-7.03). Abnormalities on investigation associated with increased mortality included high white cell count (aHR = 1.21, 95% CI 1.04-1.39), higher absolute neutrophil count (aHR = 1.28, 95% CI 1.12-1.46), higher C-reactive protein (aHR = 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02), higher serum sodium (aHR = 1.09, 95% CI 1.01-1.19), and higher ionized calcium (aHR = 1.03, 95% CI 1.00-1.06). The post-acute COVID mortality could be modeled for the first 120 days after recovery with a balanced accuracy of 87.2%. CONCLUSION: We found an increased mortality in patients with dementia beyond the acute phase of illness. We identified several investigation results associated with increased mortality, and increased mortality in patients prescribed antipsychotics or benzodiazepines.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Dementia , Humans , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Patient Discharge , Case-Control Studies , Risk Factors
3.
BMJ Open ; 12(4): e057579, 2022 04 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1816763

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: UK National Health Service/Health and Social Care (NHS/HSC) data are variably shared between healthcare organisations for direct care, and increasingly de-identified for research. Few large-scale studies have examined public opinion on sharing, including of mental health (MH) versus physical health (PH) data. We measured data sharing preferences. DESIGN/SETTING/INTERVENTIONS/OUTCOMES: Pre-registered anonymous online survey, measuring expressed preferences, recruiting February to September 2020. Participants were randomised to one of three framing statements regarding MH versus PH data. PARTICIPANTS: Open to all UK residents. Participants numbered 29 275; 40% had experienced an MH condition. RESULTS: Most (76%) supported identifiable data sharing for direct clinical care without explicit consent, but 20% opposed this. Preference for clinical/identifiable sharing decreased with geographical distance and was slightly less for MH than PH data, with small framing effects. Preference for research/de-identified data sharing without explicit consent showed the same small PH/MH and framing effects, plus greater preference for sharing structured data than de-identified free text. There was net support for research sharing to the NHS, academic institutions, and national research charities, net ambivalence about sharing to profit-making companies researching treatments, and net opposition to sharing to other companies (similar to sharing publicly). De-identified linkage to non-health data was generally supported, except to data held by private companies. We report demographic influences on preference. A majority (89%) supported a single NHS mechanism to choose uses of their data. Support for data sharing increased during COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Support for healthcare data sharing for direct care without explicit consent is broad but not universal. There is net support for the sharing of de-identified data for research to the NHS, academia, and the charitable sector, but not the commercial sector. A single national NHS-hosted system for patients to control the use of their NHS data for clinical purposes and for research would have broad support. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN37444142.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Public Opinion , Health Services , Humans , Information Dissemination , Informed Consent/psychology , State Medicine , United Kingdom
4.
BMC Geriatr ; 22(1): 181, 2022 03 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1724420

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Older adults who live alone and have difficulties in activities of daily living (ADLs) may have been more vulnerable during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, little is known about pandemic-related changes in ADL assistance (such as home care, domiciliary care) and its international variation. We examined international patterns and changes in provision of ADL assistance, and related these to country-level measures including national income and health service expenditure. METHODS: We analysed data covering 29 countries from three longitudinal cohort studies (Health and Retirement Study, English Longitudinal Study of Aging, and Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe). Eligible people were aged ≥50 years and living alone. Outcomes included ADL difficulty status (assessed via six basic ADLs and five instrumental ADLs) and receipt of ADL assistance. Wealth-related inequality and need-related inequity in ADL assistance were measured using Erreygers' corrected concentration index (ECI). Correlations were estimated between prevalence/inequality/inequity in ADL assistance and national health-related indicators. We hypothesized these measures would be associated with health system factors such as affordability and availability of ADL assistance, as well as active ageing awareness. RESULTS: During COVID-19, 18.4% of older adults living alone reported ADL difficulties (ranging from 8.8% in Switzerland to 29.2% in the USA) and 56.8% of those reporting difficulties received ADL assistance (ranging from 38.7% in the UK to 79.8% in Lithuania). Females were more likely to receive ADL assistance than males in 16/29 countries; the sex gap increased further during the pandemic. Wealth-related ECIs indicated socioeconomic equality in ADL assistance within 24/39 countries before the pandemic, and significant favouring of the less wealthy in 18/29 countries during the pandemic. Needs-related ECIs indicated less equity in assistance with ADLs during the pandemic than before. Our hypotheses on the association between ADL provision measures and health system factors were confirmed before COVID-19, but unexpectedly disconfirmed during COVID-19. CONCLUSION: This study revealed an unequal (and in some countries, partly needs-mismatched) response from countries to older adults living alone during the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings might inform future research about, and policies for, older adults living alone, particularly regarding social protection responses during crises.


Subject(s)
Activities of Daily Living , COVID-19 , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Home Environment , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , Male , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
5.
J Affect Disord ; 298(Pt A): 396-399, 2022 02 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1509917

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Worsening of anxiety and depressive symptoms have been widely described during the COVID-19 pandemic. It can be hypothesized that vaccination could link to reduced symptoms of anxiety and/or depression. However, to date, no study has assessed this. This study aims to examine anxiety and depressive symptoms after vaccination in US adults, meanwhile test sociodemographic disparities in these outcomes. METHODS: Data from the January 6-June 7 2021, cross-sectional Household Pulse Survey were analyzed. Using survey-weighted logistic regression, we assessed the relationships between SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and anxiety and/or depressive symptoms, both on overall and sociodemographic subgroups. We controlled for a variety of potential socioeconomic and demographic confounding factors. RESULTS: Of the 453,167 participants studied, 52.2% of the participants had received the COVID-19 vaccine, and 26.5% and 20.3% of the participants reported anxiety and depression, respectively. Compared to those not vaccinated, the vaccinated participants had a 13% lower odds of anxiety (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.85, 95%CI 0.83-0.90) and 17% lower odds of depression (AOR = 0.83, 95%CI 0.79-0.85). Disparities on the above associations were identified in age, marital status, education level, ethnic/race, and income level, but not on gender. LIMITATIONS: The causal inference was not able to be investigated due to the cross-sectional study design. CONCLUSION: Being vaccinated for SARS-CoV-2 was associated with lower odds of anxiety and/or depressive symptoms. While those more middle-aged or more affluent, were more likely to show these negative associations, the contrary was observed in ethnic minorities and those with lower educational attainment. More strategic and demography-sensitive public health communications could perhaps temper these issues.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Adult , Anxiety/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Depression/epidemiology , Ethnic and Racial Minorities , Humans , Middle Aged , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , United States/epidemiology , Vaccination
6.
BJPsych Open ; 7(6): e201, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1496258

ABSTRACT

Persisting symptoms and dysfunction after SARS-CoV-2 infection have frequently been observed. However, information on the aftermath of COVID-19 is inadequate. We followed up people with severe mental illness (SMI) infected with SARS-CoV-2, and evaluated their longer-term mortality, using data from Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust, UK. We examined the time course and duration of mortality risk from the point of diagnosis. After SARS-CoV-2 infection, people with SMI had a substantially higher risk of death (hazard ratio (HR) = 5.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.56-17.03; P = 0.007) during the first 28 days and during the following 28-60 days (HR = 2.96, 95% CI 1.21-7.26; P = 0.018) than those without infection, but after 60 days the additional risk of death was no longer significant (HR = 2.33, 95% CI 0.83-6.53; P = 0.107).

7.
Int J Geriatr Psychiatry ; 36(12): 1899-1907, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1353448

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To investigate factors contributing to excess deaths of older patients during the initial 2020 lockdown beyond those attributable to confirmed COVID-19. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study comparing patients treated between 23 March 2020 and 14 June 2020, deemed exposed to the pandemic/lockdown, to patients treated between 18 December 2019 and 10 March 2020, deemed to be unexposed. Data came from electronic clinical records from secondary care mental health services in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust (CPFT), UK (catchment area population ∼0.86 million). Eligible patients were aged 65 years or over at baseline with at least 14 days' follow-up, excluding patients diagnosed with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. FINDINGS: In the two cohorts, 3,073 subjects were exposed to lockdown and 4,372 subjects were unexposed; the cohorts were followed up for an average of 74 and 78 days, respectively. After controlling for confounding by sociodemographic factors, smoking status, mental comorbidities, and physical comorbidities, patients with dementia suffered an additional 53% risk of death (HR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.02-2.31), and patients with severe mental illness suffered an additional 123% risk of death (HR = 2.23, 95% CI = 1.42-3.49). No significant additional mortality risks were identified from physical comorbidities, potentially due to low statistical power in that respect. CONCLUSION: During lockdown people with dementia or severe mental illness had a higher risk of death without confirmed COVID-19. These data could inform future health service responses and policymaking to help prevent avoidable excess death during future outbreaks of this or a similar infectious disease.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Mental Health Services , Communicable Disease Control , Humans , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Secondary Care
8.
Front Psychiatry ; 12: 620842, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1133985

ABSTRACT

Objectives: Face-to-face healthcare, including psychiatric provision, must continue despite reduced interpersonal contact during the COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus) pandemic. Community-based services might use domiciliary visits, consultations in healthcare settings, or remote consultations. Services might also alter direct contact between clinicians. We examined the effects of appointment types and clinician-clinician encounters upon infection rates. Design: Computer simulation. Methods: We modelled a COVID-19-like disease in a hypothetical community healthcare team, their patients, and patients' household contacts (family). In one condition, clinicians met patients and briefly met family (e.g., home visit or collateral history). In another, patients attended alone (e.g., clinic visit), segregated from each other. In another, face-to-face contact was eliminated (e.g., videoconferencing). We also varied clinician-clinician contact; baseline and ongoing "external" infection rates; whether overt symptoms reduced transmission risk behaviourally (e.g., via personal protective equipment, PPE); and household clustering. Results: Service organisation had minimal effects on whole-population infection under our assumptions but materially affected clinician infection. Appointment type and inter-clinician contact had greater effects at low external infection rates and without a behavioural symptom response. Clustering magnified the effect of appointment type. We discuss infection control and other factors affecting appointment choice and team organisation. Conclusions: Distancing between clinicians can have significant effects on team infection. Loss of clinicians to infection likely has an adverse impact on care, not modelled here. Appointments must account for clinical necessity as well as infection control. Interventions to reduce transmission risk can synergize, arguing for maximal distancing and behavioural measures (e.g., PPE) consistent with safe care.

9.
BJPsych Open ; 7(1): e34, 2021 Jan 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1027203

ABSTRACT

The Covid-19 crisis necessitated rapid adoption of remote consultations across National Health Service (NHS) child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS). This study aimed to understand practitioners' experiences of rapid implementation of remote consultations across CAMHS in one NHS trust in the east of England. Data were collected through a brief questionnaire documenting clinicians' experiences following remote delivery of services. The questionnaire began before 'lockdown' and focused on assessment consultations (n = 102) as part of a planned move to virtual assessment. As the roll-out of remote consultations was extended at lockdown, we extended the questionnaire to include all remote clinical contacts (n = 202). Despite high levels of initial concern, clinicians' reports were positive overall; importantly, however, their experiences varied by team. When restrictions on face-to-face working are lifted, a blended approach of remote and face-to-face service delivery is recommended to optimise access and capacity while retaining effective and safe care.

10.
Front Psychiatry ; 11: 585915, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-979050

ABSTRACT

To date, there is a paucity of information regarding the effect of COVID-19 or lockdown on mental disorders. We aimed to quantify the medium-term impact of lockdown on referrals to secondary care mental health clinical services. We conducted a controlled interrupted time series study using data from Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust (CPFT), UK (catchment population ~0.86 million). The UK lockdown resulted in an instantaneous drop in mental health referrals but then a longer-term acceleration in the referral rate (by 1.21 referrals per day per day, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41-2.02). This acceleration was primarily for urgent or emergency referrals (acceleration 0.96, CI 0.39-1.54), including referrals to liaison psychiatry (0.68, CI 0.35-1.02) and mental health crisis teams (0.61, CI 0.20-1.02). The acceleration was significant for females (0.56, CI 0.04-1.08), males (0.64, CI 0.05-1.22), working-age adults (0.93, CI 0.42-1.43), people of White ethnicity (0.98, CI 0.32-1.65), those living alone (1.26, CI 0.52-2.00), and those who had pre-existing depression (0.78, CI 0.19-1.38), severe mental illness (0.67, CI 0.19-1.15), hypertension/cardiovascular/cerebrovascular disease (0.56, CI 0.24-0.89), personality disorders (0.32, CI 0.12-0.51), asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (0.28, CI 0.08-0.49), dyslipidemia (0.26, CI 0.04-0.47), anxiety (0.21, CI 0.08-0.34), substance misuse (0.21, CI 0.08-0.34), or reactions to severe stress (0.17, CI 0.01-0.32). No significant post-lockdown acceleration was observed for children/adolescents, older adults, people of ethnic minorities, married/cohabiting people, and those who had previous/pre-existing dementia, diabetes, cancer, eating disorder, a history of self-harm, or intellectual disability. This evidence may help service planning and policy-making, including preparation for any future lockdown in response to outbreaks.

11.
J Psychiatr Res ; 131: 244-254, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-779326

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has affected social interaction and healthcare worldwide. METHODS: We examined changes in presentations and referrals to the primary provider of mental health and community health services in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, UK (population ~0·86 million), plus service activity and deaths. We conducted interrupted time series analyses with respect to the time of UK "lockdown", which was shortly before the peak of COVID-19 infections in this area. We examined changes in standardized mortality ratio for those with and without severe mental illness (SMI). RESULTS: Referrals and presentations to nearly all mental and physical health services dropped at lockdown, with evidence for changes in both supply (service provision) and demand (help-seeking). This was followed by an increase in demand for some services. This pattern was seen for all major forms of presentation to liaison psychiatry services, except for eating disorders, for which there was no evidence of change. Inpatient numbers fell, but new detentions under the Mental Health Act were unchanged. Many services shifted from face-to-face to remote contacts. Excess mortality was primarily in the over-70s. There was a much greater increase in mortality for patients with SMI, which was not explained by ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 has been associated with a system-wide drop in the use of mental health services, with some subsequent return in activity. "Supply" changes may have reduced access to mental health services for some. "Demand" changes may reflect a genuine reduction of need or a lack of help-seeking with pent-up demand. There has been a disproportionate increase in death among those with SMI during the pandemic.


Subject(s)
Community Health Services/statistics & numerical data , Coronavirus Infections , Health Services Accessibility/statistics & numerical data , Mental Disorders/mortality , Pandemics , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral , Referral and Consultation/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 , Community Mental Health Services/statistics & numerical data , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Female , Humans , Infection Control/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Mortality , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , United Kingdom/epidemiology , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL