ABSTRACT
Previous studies on the natural history of long-COVID have been few and selective. Without comparison groups, disease progression cannot be differentiated from symptoms originating from other causes. The Long-COVID in Scotland Study (Long-CISS) is a Scotland-wide, general population cohort of adults who had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection matched to adults never infected. Serial, self-completed, online questionnaires collected information on pre-existing health conditions and current health: 26 symptoms and health-related quality of life, six, 12 and 18 months after the index test. Those previously infected also self-reported current recovery status (fully, partially or not recovered). Here we show that, of those with previous symptomatic infection, 35% reported persistent incomplete/no recovery, 12% improvement and 12% deterioration. At six and 12 months, one or more symptom was reported by 71.5% and 70.7% respectively of those previously infected, compared with 53.5% and 56.5% of those never infected. Altered taste, smell and confusion improved over time compared to the never infected group and adjusted for confounders. Conversely, late onset dry and productive cough, and hearing problems were more likely following SARS-CoV-2 infection than among those never infected. Whilst resolution of some symptoms of long-COVID (altered taste/smell and confusion) is reassuring, late onset cough and hearing problems in some individuals merits further investigation.
Subject(s)
Cough , COVID-19 , Confusion , Hearing LossABSTRACT
Introduction One in eight children in the United Kingdom are estimated to have a mental health condition, and many do not receive support or treatment. The COVID-19 pandemic appears to have exacerbated this issue. Prevalence of poor mental health is not evenly distributed across age-groups, by sex or socioeconomic groups. Equity in access to mental health care is a policy priority but relatively under-researched. Methods We linked previously unlinked records for all mental health prescriptions and referrals to specialist mental health outpatient care between the years of 2015 and 2021 for children aged 2 to 17 years in a single NHS Scotland health board region. We analysed trends in prescribing, referrals, and acceptance to out-patient treatment over time, and measured differences in treatment and service use rates by age, sex, and area deprivation. Results We identified 18,732 children with 178,657 mental health prescriptions and 21,874 referrals to specialist outpatient care. Prescriptions increased by 59% over the study period. Boys received double the prescriptions of girls and the rate of prescribing in the most deprived areas was double that in the least deprived. Referrals increased 9% overall. Initially, boys and girls both had an annual referral rate of 2.7 per 1,000, but this fell 6% for boys and rose 25% for girls. Referral rate for the youngest decreased 67% but increased 21% for the oldest. The proportion of rejected referrals increased steeply since 2020 from 17% to 30%. The proportion of referrals accepted for girls rose to 62% and the mean age increased 1.5 years. Discussion The large increase in mental health prescribing and changes in referrals to specialist outpatient care aligns with emerging evidence of increasing poor mental health, particularly since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The static size of the population accepted for specialist treatment amid greater demand, and the changing demographics of those accepted, indicate clinical prioritisation and unmet need.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
BACKGROUNDWith increasing numbers of people infected with SARS-CoV-2, a better understanding of long-COVID is required to inform health and social care support.METHODSA nationwide, ambidirectional, population cohort was constructed of adults in Scotland with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test from April 2020 to May 2021 and a matched, never infected comparison group. Recovery status, symptoms, quality of life, impaired daily activities, hospitalization and death were ascertained via repeated self-completed questionnaires, at 6, 12 and 18-months follow-up, and linkage to hospitalization and death records.RESULTSThe cohort comprised 31,486 symptomatic and 1,795 asymptomatic infected individuals, and 62,957 never infected individuals. Of the former, 1,856 (6%) had not recovered and 13,350 (42%) only partially. Lack of recovery was associated with severe (hospitalized) infection, older age, female sex, deprivation, respiratory disease, depression and multimorbidity. Twenty-four persistent symptoms were independently associated with previous infection including breathlessness (OR 3.44, 95% CI 3.29–3.59), palpitations (OR 2.51, OR 2.37–2.67), chest pain (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.97–2.24), and confusion (OR 2.93, 95% CI 2.78–3.08). Pre-infection vaccination was associated with reduced risk of seven symptoms. Previous symptomatic infection was also associated with poorer quality of life (EQ-5D median 75 vs 80, p < 0.001) and impairment across all daily activities. Asymptomatic infection was not associated with adverse outcomes.CONCLUSIONSThe sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection are wide-ranging and not explained by confounding. The risk of long-COVID is greater following severe infections requiring hospitalization and absent following asymptomatic infection, whilst pre-infection vaccination may be protective.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
BackgroundIn March 2020, the government of Scotland identified people deemed clinically extremely vulnerable to COVID due to their pre-existing health conditions. These people were advised to strictly self-isolate (shield) at the start of the pandemic, except for necessary healthcare. We examined who was identified as clinically extremely vulnerable, how their healthcare changed during isolation, and whether this process exacerbated healthcare inequalities. MethodsWe linked those on the shielding register in NHS Grampian, a health authority in Scotland, to healthcare records from 2015-2020. We described the source of identification, demographics, and clinical history of the cohort. We measured changes in out-patient, in-patient, and emergency healthcare during isolation in the shielding population and compared to the general non-shielding population. ResultsThe register included 16,092 people (3% of the population), clinically vulnerable primarily due to a respiratory disease, immunosuppression, or cancer. Among them, 42% were not identified by national healthcare record screening but added ad hoc, with these additions including more children and fewer economically-deprived. During isolation, all forms of healthcare use decreased (25%-46%), with larger decreases in scheduled care than in emergency care. However, people shielding had better maintained scheduled care compared to the non-shielding general population: out-patient visits decreased 35% vs 49%; in-patient visits decreased 46% vs 81%. Notably, there was substantial variation in whose scheduled care was maintained during isolation: younger people and those with cancer had significantly higher visit rates, but there was no difference between sexes or socioeconomic levels. ConclusionsHealthcare changed dramatically for the clinically extremely vulnerable population during the pandemic. The increased reliance on emergency care while isolating indicates that continuity of care for existing conditions was not optimal. However, compared to the general population, there was success in maintaining scheduled care, particularly in young people and those with cancer. We suggest that integrating demographic and primary care data would improve identification of the clinically vulnerable and could aid prioritising their care.