Risk Factors for Longer-Term Mortality in Discharged Patients with Dementia and SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Matched Case-Control Study.

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.

Disparities in the unmet mental health needs between LGBTQ+ and non-LGBTQ+ populations during COVID-19 in the United States from 21 July 2021 to 9 May 2022.

Background: Evidence highlighted the likelihood of unmet mental health needs (UMHNs) among LGBTQ+ than non-LGBTQ+ populations during COVID-19. However, there lacks evidence to accurately answer to what extent the gap was in UMHN between LGBTQ+ and non-LGBTQ+ populations. We aim to evaluate the difference in UMHN between LGBTQ+ and non-LGBTQ+ during COVID-19. Methods: Cross-sectional data from Household Pulse Survey between 21 July 2021 and 9 May 2022 were analyzed. LGBTQ+ was defined based on self-reported sex at birth, gender, and sexual orientation identity. UMHN was assessed by a self-reported question. Multivariable logistic regressions generated adjusted odds ratios (AODs) of UMHN, both on overall and subgroups, controlling for a variety of socio-demographic and economic-affordability confounders. Findings: 81267 LGBTQ+ and 722638 non-LGBTQ+ were studied. The difference in UMHN between LGBTQ+ and non-LGBTQ+ (as reference) varied from 4.9% (95% CI 1.2-8.7%) in Hawaii to 16.0% (95% CI 12.2-19.7%) in Utah. In multivariable models, compared with non-LGBTQ+ populations, LGBTQ+ had a higher likelihood to report UMHN (AOR = 2.27, 95% CI 2.18-2.39), with the highest likelihood identified in transgender (AOR = 3.63, 95% CI 2.97-4.39); compared with LGBTQ+ aged 65+, LGBTQ+ aged 18-25 had a higher likelihood to report UMHN (AOR = 1.34, 95% CI 1.03-1.75); compared with White LGBTQ+ populations, Black and Hispanic LGBTQ+ had a lower likelihood to report UMHN (AOR = 0.72, 95% CI 0.63-0.82; AOR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.75-0.97, respectively). Interpretation: During the COVID-19, LGBTQ+ had a substantial additional risk of UMHN than non-LGBTQ+. Disparities among age groups, subtypes of LGBTQ+, and geographic variance were also identified.

Association between workplace and mental health and its mechanisms during COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional, population-based, multi-country study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic worsens populations' mental health. However, little is known about the COVID-19-related mental health among remote workers. METHODS: We retrieved data from survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe, covering 27 countries. Eligible people were those employed. The main outcome is the mental disorder, covering four aspects: depression, anxiety, sleep disorder, and loneliness. Country-specific weighted mixed models were fitted to estimate the association of workplaces with mental health, controlled for age, gender, education level, living alone, making ends meets, working hours, closing to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases, received anti-virus protection, social contact, disability, and chronic disease. Moderate analyses were conducted to explore possible mechanisms. RESULTS: 11,197 participants were included, among them 29.3% suffered at least one worse mental disorder. After controlling for covariates, compared with those who worked at the usual workplace, those who worked at home only or part of the time did not associate with worse mental disorders (p-value ≥0.1395), and those who worked at neither the usual workplace nor home had a 55% higher likelihood of suffering from worse mental disorders (OR = 1.55, 95%CI 1.03-2.36). The mediation analyses identified three indirect pathways by which workplaces influence mental health, including making ends meets, social contact, and receiving anti-virus protection. Detailed results on subtypes of mental disorders were also provided. LIMITATIONS: All assessments were self-reported, resulting in a risk of method bias. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, working at other places, neither at the usual workplace nor home, worsened mental health. Evidence provided in this study will contribute to more nuanced and practical public health policy strategy making.

Difficulty and help with activities of daily living among older adults living alone during the COVID-19 pandemic: a multi-country population-based study.

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.

Assessment of personal exposure to infectious contaminant under the effect of indoor air stability.

The objective of this study is to understand the effect of indoor air stability on personal exposure to infectious contaminant in the breathing zone. Numerical simulations are carried out in a test chamber with a source of infectious contaminant and a manikin (Manikin A). To give a good visual illustration of the breathing zone, the contaminant source is visualized by the mouth of another manikin. Manikin A is regarded as a vulnerable individual to infectious contaminant. Exposure index and exposure intensity are used as indicators of the exposure level in the breathing zone. The results show that in the stable condition, the infectious contaminant proceeds straightly towards the breathing zone of the vulnerable individual, leading to a relatively high exposure level. In the unstable condition, the indoor air experiences a strong mixing due to the heat exchange between the hot bottom air and the cool top air, so the infectious contaminant disperses effectively from the breathing zone. The unstable air can greatly reduce personal exposure to the infectious contaminant in the breathing zone. This study demonstrates the importance of indoor air stability on personal exposure in the indoor environment and provides a new direction for future study of personal exposure reduction in the indoor environment.

Mental health outcomes after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in the United States: A national cross-sectional study.

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.

Longer-term mortality following SARS-CoV-2 infection in people with severe mental illness: retrospective case-matched study.

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).

Coordinated Management of COVID-19 Response: Lessons From Whole-of-Society and Whole-of-Health Strategies in Wuhan, China.

Background: The outbreak of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been challenging globally following the scarcity of medical resources after a surge in demand. As the pandemic continues, the question remains on how to accomplish more with the existing resources and improve the efficiency of existing health care delivery systems worldwide. In this study, we reviewed the experience from Wuhan - the first city to experience a COVID-19 outbreak - that has presently shown evidence for efficient and effective local control of the epidemic. Material and Methods: We performed a retrospective qualitative study based on the document analysis of COVID-19-related materials and interviews with first-line people in Wuhan. Results: We extracted two themes (the evolution of Wuhan's prevention and control strategies on COVID-19 and corresponding effectiveness) and four sub-themes (routine prevention and control period, exploration period of targeted prevention and control strategies, mature period of prevention and control strategies, and recovery period). How Wuhan combatted COVID-19 through multi-tiered and multi-sectoral collaboration, overcoming its fragmented, hospital-centered, and treatment-dominated healthcare system, was illustrated and summarized. Conclusion: Four lessons for COVID-19 prevention and control were summarized: (a) Engage the communities and primary care not only in supporting but also in screening and controlling, and retain community and primary care as among the first line of COVID-19 defense; (b) Extend and stratify the existing health care delivery system; (c) Integrate person-centered integrated care into the whole coordination; and (d) Delink the revenue relationship between doctors and patients and safeguard the free-will of physicians when treating patients.

Risk factors for excess deaths during lockdown among older users of secondary care mental health services without confirmed COVID-19: A retrospective cohort study.

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.

Changes in daily mental health service use and mortality at the commencement and lifting of COVID-19 'lockdown' policy in 10 UK sites: a regression discontinuity in time design.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate changes in daily mental health (MH) service use and mortality in response to the introduction and the lifting of the COVID-19 'lockdown' policy in Spring 2020. DESIGN: A regression discontinuity in time (RDiT) analysis of daily service-level activity. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Mental healthcare data were extracted from 10 UK providers. OUTCOME MEASURES: Daily (weekly for one site) deaths from all causes, referrals and discharges, inpatient care (admissions, discharges, caseloads) and community services (face-to-face (f2f)/non-f2f contacts, caseloads): Adult, older adult and child/adolescent mental health; early intervention in psychosis; home treatment teams and liaison/Accident and Emergency (A&E). Data were extracted from 1 Jan 2019 to 31 May 2020 for all sites, supplemented to 31 July 2020 for four sites. Changes around the commencement and lifting of COVID-19 'lockdown' policy (23 March and 10 May, respectively) were estimated using a RDiT design with a difference-in-difference approach generating incidence rate ratios (IRRs), meta-analysed across sites. RESULTS: Pooled estimates for the lockdown transition showed increased daily deaths (IRR 2.31, 95% CI 1.86 to 2.87), reduced referrals (IRR 0.62, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.70) and reduced inpatient admissions (IRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.83) and caseloads (IRR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.91) compared with the pre lockdown period. All community services saw shifts from f2f to non-f2f contacts, but varied in caseload changes. Lift of lockdown was associated with reduced deaths (IRR 0.42, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.66), increased referrals (IRR 1.36, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.60) and increased inpatient admissions (IRR 1.21, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.42) and caseloads (IRR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.12) compared with the lockdown period. Site-wide activity, inpatient care and community services did not return to pre lockdown levels after lift of lockdown, while number of deaths did. Between-site heterogeneity most often indicated variation in size rather than direction of effect. CONCLUSIONS: MH service delivery underwent sizeable changes during the first national lockdown, with as-yet unknown and unevaluated consequences.

Simulating a Community Mental Health Service During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Effects of Clinician-Clinician Encounters, Clinician-Patient-Family Encounters, Symptom-Triggered Protective Behaviour, and Household Clustering.

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.

The Medium-Term Impact of COVID-19 Lockdown on Referrals to Secondary Care Mental Health Services: A Controlled Interrupted Time Series Study.

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.

The early impact of COVID-19 on mental health and community physical health services and their patients' mortality in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, UK.

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.

Simulating a community mental health service during the COVID-19 pandemic: effects of clinician-clinician encounters, clinician-patient-family encounters, symptom-triggered protective behaviour, and household clustering (preprint)

BackgroundFace-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. AimsWe examined the effects of appointment types and clinician-clinician encounters upon infection rates. MethodsWe 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. ResultsService organization 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 organization. ConclusionsDistancing 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.