Ethnic disparities in COVID-19 outcomes: a multinational cohort study of 20 million individuals from England and Canada.

BACKGROUND: Heterogeneous studies have demonstrated ethnic inequalities in the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and adverse COVID-19 outcomes. This study evaluates the association between ethnicity and COVID-19 outcomes in two large population-based cohorts from England and Canada and investigates potential explanatory factors for ethnic patterning of severe outcomes. METHODS: We identified adults aged 18 to 99 years in the QResearch primary care (England) and Ontario (Canada) healthcare administrative population-based datasets (start of follow-up: 24th and 25th Jan 2020 in England and Canada, respectively; end of follow-up: 31st Oct and 30th Sept 2020, respectively). We harmonised the definitions and the design of two cohorts to investigate associations between ethnicity and COVID-19-related death, hospitalisation, and intensive care (ICU) admission, adjusted for confounders, and combined the estimates obtained from survival analyses. We calculated the 'percentage of excess risk mediated' by these risk factors in the QResearch cohort. RESULTS: There were 9.83 million adults in the QResearch cohort (11,597 deaths; 21,917 hospitalisations; 2932 ICU admissions) and 10.27 million adults in the Ontario cohort (951 deaths; 5132 hospitalisations; 1191 ICU admissions). Compared to the general population, pooled random-effects estimates showed that South Asian ethnicity was associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 death (hazard ratio: 1.63, 95% CI: 1.09-2.44), hospitalisation (1.53; 1.32-1.76), and ICU admission (1.67; 1.23-2.28). Associations with ethnic groups were consistent across levels of deprivation. In QResearch, sociodemographic, lifestyle, and clinical factors accounted for 42.9% (South Asian) and 39.4% (Black) of the excess risk of COVID-19 death. CONCLUSION: International population-level analyses demonstrate clear ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 risks. Policymakers should be cognisant of the increased risks in some ethnic populations and design equitable health policy as the pandemic continues.

Uptake of COVID-19 vaccination in people with blood cancer: population-level cohort study of 12 million patients in England

Background People with blood cancers have increased risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 and were prioritised for vaccination. Methods Individuals in the QResearch database aged 12 years and above on 1st December 2020 were included in the analysis. Kaplan-Meier analysis described time to COVID-19 vaccine uptake in people with blood cancer and other high-risk disorders. Cox regression was used to identify factors associated with vaccine uptake in people with blood cancer. Results The analysis included 12,274,948 individuals, of whom 97,707 had a blood cancer diagnosis. 92% of people with blood cancer received at least one dose of vaccine, compared to 80% of the general population, but there was lower uptake of each subsequent vaccine dose (31% for fourth dose). Vaccine uptake decreased with social deprivation (HR 0.72, 95%CI 0.70-0.74 for most deprived versus most affluent quintile for first vaccine). Compared with White groups, uptake of all vaccine doses was significantly lower in people of Pakistani and Black ethnicity, and more of these groups remain unvaccinated. Conclusions COVID-19 vaccine uptake declines following second dose and there are ethnic and social disparities in uptake in blood cancer populations. Enhanced communication of benefits of vaccination to these groups is needed.

Preexisting Neuropsychiatric Conditions and Associated Risk of Severe COVID-19 Infection and Other Acute Respiratory Infections.

Importance: Evidence indicates that preexisting neuropsychiatric conditions confer increased risks of severe outcomes from COVID-19 infection. It is unclear how this increased risk compares with risks associated with other severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs). Objective: To determine whether preexisting diagnosis of and/or treatment for a neuropsychiatric condition is associated with severe outcomes from COVID-19 infection and other SARIs and whether any observed association is similar between the 2 outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prepandemic (2015-2020) and contemporary (2020-2021) longitudinal cohorts were derived from the QResearch database of English primary care records. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) with 99% CIs were estimated in April 2022 using flexible parametric survival models clustered by primary care clinic. This study included a population-based sample, including all adults in the database who had been registered with a primary care clinic for at least 1 year. Analysis of routinely collected primary care electronic medical records was performed. Exposures: Diagnosis of and/or medication for anxiety, mood, or psychotic disorders and diagnosis of dementia, depression, schizophrenia, or bipolar disorder. Main Outcomes and Measures: COVID-19-related mortality, or hospital or intensive care unit admission; SARI-related mortality, or hospital or intensive care unit admission. Results: The prepandemic cohort comprised 11 134 789 adults (223 569 SARI cases [2.0%]) with a median (IQR) age of 42 (29-58) years, of which 5 644 525 (50.7%) were female. The contemporary cohort comprised 8 388 956 adults (58 203 severe COVID-19 cases [0.7%]) with a median (IQR) age of 48 (34-63) years, of which 4 207 192 were male (50.2%). Diagnosis and/or treatment for neuropsychiatric conditions other than dementia was associated with an increased likelihood of a severe outcome from SARI (anxiety diagnosis: HR, 1.16; 99% CI, 1.13-1.18; psychotic disorder diagnosis and treatment: HR, 2.56; 99% CI, 2.40-2.72) and COVID-19 (anxiety diagnosis: HR, 1.16; 99% CI, 1.12-1.20; psychotic disorder treatment: HR, 2.37; 99% CI, 2.20-2.55). The effect estimate for severe outcome with dementia was higher for those with COVID-19 than SARI (HR, 2.85; 99% CI, 2.71-3.00 vs HR, 2.13; 99% CI, 2.07-2.19). Conclusions and Relevance: In this longitudinal cohort study, UK patients with preexisting neuropsychiatric conditions and treatments were associated with similarly increased risks of severe outcome from COVID-19 infection and SARIs, except for dementia.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on incidence of tics in children and young people: a population-based cohort study.

Background: Since the onset of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, clinicians have reported an increase in presentations of sudden and new onset tics particularly affecting teenage girls. This population-based study aimed to describe and compare the incidence of tics in children and young people in primary care before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in England. Methods: We used information from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum dataset and included males and females aged 4-11 years and 12-18 years between Jan 1, 2015, and Dec 31, 2021. We grouped the pre-pandemic period (2015-2019) and presented the pandemic years (2020, 2021) separately. We described the characteristics of children and young people with a first record of a motor or vocal tic in each time period. Incidence rates of tics by age-sex groups in 2015-2019, 2020, and 2021 were calculated. Negative binomial regression models were used to calculate incidence rate ratios. Findings: We included 3,867,709 males and females aged 4-18 years. Over 14,734,062 person-years of follow-up, 11,245 people had a first tic record during the whole study period. The characteristics of people with tics differed over time, with the proportion of females aged 12-18 years and the proportion with mental health conditions including anxiety increasing during the pandemic. Tic incidence rates per 10,000 person-years were highest for 4-11-year-old males in all three time periods (13.4 [95% confidence interval 13.0-13.8] in 2015-2019; 13.2 [12.3-14.1] in 2020; 15.1 [14.1-16.1] in 2021) but increased markedly during the pandemic in 12-18-year-old females, from 2.5 (2.3-2.7) in 2015-2019, to 10.3 (9.5-11.3) in 2020 and 13.1 (12.1-14.1) in 2021. There were smaller increases in incidence rates in 12-18-year-old males (4.6 [4.4-4.9] in 2015-2019; 4.7 [4.1-5.3] in 2020; 6.2 [5.5-6.9] in 2021) and 4-11-year-old females (4.9 [4.7-5.2] in 2015-2019; 5.7 [5.1-6.4] in 2020; 7.6 [6.9-8.3] in 2021). Incidence rate ratios comparing 2020 and 2021 with 2015-2019 were highest in the 12-18-year-old female subgroup (4.2 [3.6-4.8] in 2020; 5.3 [4.7-6.0] in 2021). Interpretation: The incidence of tics in children and young people increased across all age and sex groups during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a differentially large effect in teenage girls (a greater than four-fold increase). Furthermore, in those with tic symptoms, proportions with mental health disorders including anxiety increased during the pandemic. Further research is required on the social and contextual factors underpinning this rise in onset of tics in teenage girls. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre.

Uptake of COVID-19 vaccination in people with blood cancer: Population-level cohort study of 12 million patients in England.

BACKGROUND: People with blood cancers have increased risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 and were prioritised for vaccination. METHODS: Individuals in the QResearch database aged 12 years and above on 1st December 2020 were included in the analysis. Kaplan-Meier analysis described time to COVID-19 vaccine uptake in people with blood cancer and other high-risk disorders. Cox regression was used to identify factors associated with vaccine uptake in people with blood cancer. RESULTS: The analysis included 12,274,948 individuals, of whom 97,707 had a blood cancer diagnosis. 92% of people with blood cancer received at least one dose of vaccine, compared to 80% of the general population, but there was lower uptake of each subsequent vaccine dose (31% for fourth dose). Vaccine uptake decreased with social deprivation (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.70, 0.74 for most deprived versus most affluent quintile for first vaccine). Compared with White groups, uptake of all vaccine doses was significantly lower in people of Pakistani and Black ethnicity, and more people in these groups remain unvaccinated. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccine uptake declines following second dose and there are ethnic and social disparities in uptake in blood cancer populations. Enhanced communication of benefits of vaccination to these groups is needed.

Feasibility of conducting a randomized, placebo-controlled study assessing whether omega-3 fatty acids prevent gout flares when starting urate-lowering treatment.

Objective: The aim was to test the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial exploring whether omega-3 fatty acid supplementation limits gout flares during treat-to-target urate-lowering treatment (T2T-ULT). Methods: Adults with at least one gout flare in the past 12 months and serum urate (SU) ≥360 µmol/l were recruited from general practices (primary method) and randomly assigned 1:1 to receive omega-3 fatty acid supplementation (4 g/day) or placebo for 28 weeks. At week 5, participants began T2T-ULT. The primary outcome was drop-out rate. Secondary outcomes were recruitment rate, outcome data completeness, the number, severity and duration of gout flares between weeks 5 and 28, and study drug compliance. Results: Ninety-five per cent of randomized participants (n = 60) completed all study visits. The primary method recruitment rate was 2.2%. Fifty and 42 participants achieved SU < 360 and 300 µmol/l (6 and 5 mg/dl), respectively. The number of gout flares [median (interquartile range): active 1 (0-2) and placebo 1 (0-2)], flare duration [mean (s.d.): active 7.00 (4.52) days and placebo 7.06 (8.14) days] and time to first flare [hazard ratio (95% CI) 0.97 (0.50, 1.86)] were comparable between both arms. Study drug compliance was high and comparable in both arms [median (interquartile range) returned capsule count: active 57 (26-100) and placebo 58 (27-154)]; red blood cell omega-3 fatty acid index increased twofold in the active arm and remained unchanged in the control arm. Conclusion: The study demonstrated feasibility and provided useful metrics for conducting a community-based gout flare prophylaxis trial. Study registration: ISRCTN; https://www.isrctn.com/; ISRCTN79392964.

Increases in stress hormone levels in a UK population during the COVID-19 pandemic: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Research suggests that psychological factors may influence vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 infection, although the mechanisms are unclear. PURPOSE: We examined whether the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis may be a possible mechanism, by measuring the relationship between indices of psychological distress and cortisone in hair (hairE) in a UK cohort during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Participants (N = 827) provided two 3 cm hair samples over a 6-month period between April-September 2020. Samples reflected hairE in the 3 months prior to the collection date. RESULTS: HairE in the first samples (T1: commenced April 2020) did not differ significantly from pre-pandemic population norms. However, hairE in the second samples (T2: commenced July 2020) were significantly higher than T1 and pre-pandemic population norms, with a 23% increase between T1 and T2. Linear regressions, controlling for age and gender, demonstrated that at both timepoints, hairE levels were greatest in people with a history of mental health difficulties. In addition, stress reported at T1 predicted greater hairE at T2 and a greater change in hairE between T1 and T2. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate that during the COVID-19 pandemic hairE was substantially elevated across a large community cohort, with greatest levels in those with a history of mental health difficulties and greatest changes in those reporting greatest levels of stress early in the pandemic. Further research is required with verified SARS-CoV-2 outcomes to determine whether the HPA axis is among the mechanisms by which a history of mental health difficulties and stress influence SARS-CoV-2 outcomes.

Risk Factors and Changes in Depression and Anxiety over Time in New Zealand during COVID-19: A Longitudinal Cohort Study

This longitudinal study investigated changes in and risk factors for anxiety and depression during the COVID-19 pandemic in a New Zealand cohort. Online surveys were distributed to 681 participants at three time-points: May 2020 (Time 1), August–September 2020 (Time 2), and March–April 2021 (Time 3). Participants completed measures of anxiety and depression, alongside measures of possible risk/protective factors. A total of 261 participants completed all three surveys and were included in analyses. Depression and anxiety reduced over time;however, levels were still significantly higher than pre-pandemic norms. Being younger, having a prior mental health disorder, experiencing negative life events due to COVID-19, and being a pet owner were risk factors for poorer depression and anxiety, whereas having higher positive mood was protective. This study demonstrates persisting negative effects of the pandemic on anxiety and depression in a context of low transmission and highlights the importance of providing psychological help to those most at risk.

Risk of Myocarditis After Sequential Doses of COVID-19 Vaccine and SARS-CoV-2 Infection by Age and Sex.

BACKGROUND: Myocarditis is more common after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection than after COVID-19 vaccination, but the risks in younger people and after sequential vaccine doses are less certain. METHODS: A self-controlled case series study of people ages 13 years or older vaccinated for COVID-19 in England between December 1, 2020, and December 15, 2021, evaluated the association between vaccination and myocarditis, stratified by age and sex. The incidence rate ratio and excess number of hospital admissions or deaths from myocarditis per million people were estimated for the 1 to 28 days after sequential doses of adenovirus (ChAdOx1) or mRNA-based (BNT162b2, mRNA-1273) vaccines, or after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. RESULTS: In 42 842 345 people receiving at least 1 dose of vaccine, 21 242 629 received 3 doses, and 5 934 153 had SARS-CoV-2 infection before or after vaccination. Myocarditis occurred in 2861 (0.007%) people, with 617 events 1 to 28 days after vaccination. Risk of myocarditis was increased in the 1 to 28 days after a first dose of ChAdOx1 (incidence rate ratio, 1.33 [95% CI, 1.09-1.62]) and a first, second, and booster dose of BNT162b2 (1.52 [95% CI, 1.24-1.85]; 1.57 [95% CI, 1.28-1.92], and 1.72 [95% CI, 1.33-2.22], respectively) but was lower than the risks after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test before or after vaccination (11.14 [95% CI, 8.64-14.36] and 5.97 [95% CI, 4.54-7.87], respectively). The risk of myocarditis was higher 1 to 28 days after a second dose of mRNA-1273 (11.76 [95% CI, 7.25-19.08]) and persisted after a booster dose (2.64 [95% CI, 1.25-5.58]). Associations were stronger in men younger than 40 years for all vaccines. In men younger than 40 years old, the number of excess myocarditis events per million people was higher after a second dose of mRNA-1273 than after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (97 [95% CI, 91-99] versus 16 [95% CI, 12-18]). In women younger than 40 years, the number of excess events per million was similar after a second dose of mRNA-1273 and a positive test (7 [95% CI, 1-9] versus 8 [95% CI, 6-8]). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the risk of myocarditis is greater after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after COVID-19 vaccination and remains modest after sequential doses including a booster dose of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. However, the risk of myocarditis after vaccination is higher in younger men, particularly after a second dose of the mRNA-1273 vaccine.

Associations of BMI with COVID-19 vaccine uptake, vaccine effectiveness, and risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes after vaccination in England: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: A high BMI has been associated with a reduced immune response to vaccination against influenza. We aimed to investigate the association between BMI and COVID-19 vaccine uptake, vaccine effectiveness, and risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes after vaccination by using a large, representative population-based cohort from England. METHODS: In this population-based cohort study, we used the QResearch database of general practice records and included patients aged 18 years or older who were registered at a practice that was part of the database in England between Dec 8, 2020 (date of the first vaccination in the UK), to Nov 17, 2021, with available data on BMI. Uptake was calculated as the proportion of people with zero, one, two, or three doses of the vaccine across BMI categories. Effectiveness was assessed through a nested matched case-control design to estimate odds ratios (OR) for severe COVID-19 outcomes (ie, admission to hospital or death) in people who had been vaccinated versus those who had not, considering vaccine dose and time periods since vaccination. Vaccine effectiveness against infection with SARS-CoV-2 was also investigated. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models estimated the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes associated with BMI (reference BMI 23 kg/m2) after vaccination. FINDINGS: Among 9 171 524 participants (mean age 52 [SD 19] years; BMI 26·7 [5·6] kg/m2), 566 461 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during follow-up, of whom 32 808 were admitted to hospital and 14 389 died. Of the total study sample, 19·2% (1 758 689) were unvaccinated, 3·1% (287 246) had one vaccine dose, 52·6% (4 828 327) had two doses, and 25·0% (2 297 262) had three doses. In people aged 40 years and older, uptake of two or three vaccine doses was more than 80% among people with overweight or obesity, which was slightly lower in people with underweight (70-83%). Although significant heterogeneity was found across BMI groups, protection against severe COVID-19 disease (comparing people who were vaccinated vs those who were not) was high after 14 days or more from the second dose for hospital admission (underweight: OR 0·51 [95% CI 0·41-0·63]; healthy weight: 0·34 [0·32-0·36]; overweight: 0·32 [0·30-0·34]; and obesity: 0·32 [0·30-0·34]) and death (underweight: 0·60 [0·36-0·98]; healthy weight: 0·39 [0·33-0·47]; overweight: 0·30 [0·25-0·35]; and obesity: 0·26 [0·22-0·30]). In the vaccinated cohort, there were significant linear associations between BMI and COVID-19 hospitalisation and death after the first dose, and J-shaped associations after the second dose. INTERPRETATION: Using BMI categories, there is evidence of protection against severe COVID-19 in people with overweight or obesity who have been vaccinated, which was of a similar magnitude to that of people of healthy weight. Vaccine effectiveness was slightly lower in people with underweight, in whom vaccine uptake was also the lowest for all ages. In the vaccinated cohort, there were increased risks of severe COVID-19 outcomes for people with underweight or obesity compared with the vaccinated population with a healthy weight. These results suggest the need for targeted efforts to increase uptake in people with low BMI (<18·5 kg/m2), in whom uptake is lower and vaccine effectiveness seems to be reduced. Strategies to achieve and maintain a healthy weight should be prioritised at the population level, which could help reduce the burden of COVID-19 disease. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.

Relationship Between Anxiety, Depression, and Susceptibility to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection: Proof of Concept.

BACKGROUND: Psychological factors can influence susceptibility to viral infections. We examined whether such influences are evident in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. METHODS: Participants (n = 102) completed measures of anxiety, depression, positive mood, and loneliness and provided a blood sample for the measurement of antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 spike and nucleocapsid proteins. RESULTS: SARS-CoV-2 was significantly negatively associated with anxiety and depression. The model remained significant after adjustment for age and gender, although anxiety and depression were no longer significant independent predictors. CONCLUSIONS: These findings offer early support for the hypothesis that psychological factors may influence susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Common protocol for validation of the QCOVID algorithm across the four UK nations.

INTRODUCTION: The QCOVID algorithm is a risk prediction tool for infection and subsequent hospitalisation/death due to SARS-CoV-2. At the time of writing, it is being used in important policy-making decisions by the UK and devolved governments for combatting the COVID-19 pandemic, including deliberations on shielding and vaccine prioritisation. There are four statistical validations exercises currently planned for the QCOVID algorithm, using data pertaining to England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, respectively. This paper presents a common procedure for conducting and reporting on validation exercises for the QCOVID algorithm. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will use open, retrospective cohort studies to assess the performance of the QCOVID risk prediction tool in each of the four UK nations. Linked datasets comprising of primary and secondary care records, virological testing data and death registrations will be assembled in trusted research environments in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. We will seek to have population level coverage as far as possible within each nation. The following performance metrics will be calculated by strata: Harrell's C, Brier Score, R2 and Royston's D. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approvals have been obtained from relevant ethics bodies in each UK nation. Findings will be made available to national policy-makers, presented at conferences and published in peer-reviewed journal.

Neuropsychiatric Ramifications of Severe COVID-19 and Other Severe Acute Respiratory Infections.

Importance: Individuals surviving severe COVID-19 may be at increased risk of neuropsychiatric sequelae. Robust assessment of these risks may help improve clinical understanding of the post-COVID syndrome, aid clinical care during the ongoing pandemic, and inform postpandemic planning. Objective: To quantify the risks of new-onset neuropsychiatric conditions and new neuropsychiatric medication prescriptions after discharge from a COVID-19-related hospitalization, and to compare these with risks after discharge from hospitalization for other severe acute respiratory infections (SARI) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, adults (≥18 years of age) were identified from QResearch primary care and linked electronic health record databases, including national SARS-CoV-2 testing, hospital episode statistics, intensive care admissions data, and mortality registers in England, from January 24, 2020, to July 7, 2021. Exposures: COVID-19-related or SARI-related hospital admission (including intensive care admission). Main Outcomes and Measures: New-onset diagnoses of neuropsychiatric conditions (anxiety, dementia, psychosis, depression, bipolar disorder) or first prescription for relevant medications (antidepressants, hypnotics/anxiolytics, antipsychotics) during 12 months of follow-up from hospital discharge. Maximally adjusted hazard ratios (HR) with 95% CIs were estimated using flexible parametric survival models. Results: In this cohort study of data from 8.38 million adults (4.18 million women, 4.20 million men; mean [SD] age 49.18 [18.45] years); 16 679 (0.02%) survived a hospital admission for SARI, and 32 525 (0.03%) survived a hospital admission for COVID-19. Compared with the remaining population, survivors of SARI and COVID-19 hospitalization had higher risks of subsequent neuropsychiatric diagnoses. For example, the HR for anxiety in survivors of SARI was 1.86 (95% CI, 1.56-2.21) and for survivors of COVID-19 infection was 2.36 (95% CI, 2.03-2.74); the HR for dementia for survivors of SARI was 2.55 (95% CI, 2.17-3.00) and for survivors of COVID-19 infection was 2.63 (95% CI, 2.21-3.14). Similar findings were observed for all medications analyzed; for example, the HR for first prescriptions of antidepressants in survivors of SARI was 2.55 (95% CI, 2.24-2.90) and for survivors of COVID-19 infection was 3.24 (95% CI, 2.91-3.61). There were no significant differences observed when directly comparing the COVID-19 group with the SARI group apart from a lower risk of antipsychotic prescriptions in the former (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69-0.92). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, the neuropsychiatric sequelae of severe COVID-19 infection were found to be similar to those for other SARI. This finding may inform postdischarge support for people surviving SARI.

The prevalence, incidence, prognosis and risk factors for symptoms of depression and anxiety in a UK cohort during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had profound consequences for population mental health. However, it is less clear for whom these effects are sustained. AIMS: To investigate the prevalence, incidence, prognosis and risk factors for symptoms of depression and anxiety in a UK cohort over three distinct periods in the pandemic in 2020. METHOD: An online survey was completed by a UK community cohort at three points (n = 3097 at baseline, n = 878 completed all surveys): April (baseline), July to September (time point 2) and November to December (time point 3). Participants completed validated measures of depression and anxiety on each occasion, and we prospectively explored the role of sociodemographic and psychological factors (loneliness, positive mood and perceived risk of and worry about COVID-19) as risk factors. RESULTS: Depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 means: baseline, 7.69; time point 2, 5.53; time point 3, 6.06) and anxiety scores (Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 means: baseline, 6.59; time point 2, 4.60; time point 3, 4.98) were considerably greater than pre-pandemic population norms at all time points. Women reported greater depression and anxiety symptoms than men. Younger age, history of mental health disorder, more COVID-19-related negative life events, greater loneliness and lower positive mood at baseline were all significant predictors of poorer mental health at time point 3. CONCLUSIONS: The negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health has persisted to some degree. Younger people and individuals with prior mental health disorders are at greatest risk. Easing of restrictions and resumption of social interaction could mitigate the risk factors of loneliness and positive mood.

Association between smoking, e-cigarette use and severe COVID-19: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Smoking is a risk factor for most respiratory infections, but it may protect against SARS-CoV-2 infection. The objective was to assess whether smoking and e-cigarette use were associated with severe COVID-19. METHODS: This cohort ran from 24 January 2020 until 30 April 2020 at the height of the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in England. It comprised 7 869 534 people representative of the population of England with smoking status, demographic factors and diseases recorded by general practitioners in the medical records, which were linked to hospital and death data. The outcomes were COVID-19-associated hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and death. The associations between smoking and the outcomes were assessed with Cox proportional hazards models, with sequential adjustment for confounding variables and indirect causal factors (body mass index and smoking-related disease). RESULTS: Compared with never smokers, people currently smoking were at lower risk of COVID-19 hospitalization, adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were 0.64 (95% confidence intervals 0.60 to 0.69) for <10 cigarettes/day, 0.49 (0.41 to 0.59) for 10-19 cigarettes/day, and 0.61 (0.49 to 0.74) for ≥20 cigarettes/day. For ICU admission, the corresponding HRs were 0.31 (0.24 to 0.40), 0.15 (0.06 to 0.36), and 0.35 (0.17 to 0.74) and death were: 0.79 (0.70 to 0.89), 0.66 (0.48 to 0.90), and 0.77 (0.54 to 1.09) respectively. Former smokers were at higher risk of severe COVID-19: HRs: 1.07 (1.03 to 1.11) for hospitalization, 1.17 (1.04 to 1.31) for ICU admission, and 1.17 (1.10 to 1.24) for death. All-cause mortality was higher for current smoking than never smoking, HR 1.42 (1.36 to 1.48). Among e-cigarette users, the adjusted HR for e-cigarette use and hospitalization with COVID-19 was 1.06 (0.88 to 1.28), for ICU admission was 1.04 (0.57 to 1.89, and for death was 1.12 (0.81 to 1.55). CONCLUSIONS: Current smoking was associated with a reduced risk of severe COVID-19 but the association with e-cigarette use was unclear. All-cause mortality remained higher despite this possible reduction in death from COVID-19 during an epidemic of SARS-CoV-2. Findings support investigating possible protective mechanisms of smoking for SARS-CoV-2 infection, including the ongoing trials of nicotine to treat COVID-19.

Mortality and critical care unit admission associated with the SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7 in England: an observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: A more transmissible variant of SARS-CoV-2, the variant of concern 202012/01 or lineage B.1.1.7, has emerged in the UK. We aimed to estimate the risk of critical care admission, mortality in patients who are critically ill, and overall mortality associated with lineage B.1.1.7 compared with non-B.1.1.7. We also compared clinical outcomes between these two groups. METHODS: For this observational cohort study, we linked large primary care (QResearch), national critical care (Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre Case Mix Programme), and national COVID-19 testing (Public Health England) databases. We used SARS-CoV-2 positive samples with S-gene molecular diagnostic assay failure (SGTF) as a proxy for the presence of lineage B.1.1.7. We extracted two cohorts from the data: the primary care cohort, comprising patients in primary care with a positive community COVID-19 test reported between Nov 1, 2020, and Jan 26, 2021, and known SGTF status; and the critical care cohort, comprising patients admitted for critical care with a positive community COVID-19 test reported between Nov 1, 2020, and Jan 27, 2021, and known SGTF status. We explored the associations between SARS-CoV-2 infection with and without lineage B.1.1.7 and admission to a critical care unit (CCU), 28-day mortality, and 28-day mortality following CCU admission. We used Royston-Parmar models adjusted for age, sex, geographical region, other sociodemographic factors (deprivation index, ethnicity, household housing category, and smoking status for the primary care cohort; and ethnicity, body-mass index, deprivation index, and dependency before admission to acute hospital for the CCU cohort), and comorbidities (asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, type 1 and 2 diabetes, and hypertension for the primary care cohort; and cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, metastatic disease, and immunocompromised conditions for the CCU cohort). We reported information on types and duration of organ support for the B.1.1.7 and non-B.1.1.7 groups. FINDINGS: The primary care cohort included 198 420 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of these, 117 926 (59·4%) had lineage B.1.1.7, 836 (0·4%) were admitted to CCU, and 899 (0·4%) died within 28 days. The critical care cohort included 4272 patients admitted to CCU. Of these, 2685 (62·8%) had lineage B.1.1.7 and 662 (15·5%) died at the end of critical care. In the primary care cohort, we estimated adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of 2·15 (95% CI 1·75-2·65) for CCU admission and 1·65 (1·36-2·01) for 28-day mortality for patients with lineage B.1.1.7 compared with the non-B.1.1.7 group. The adjusted HR for mortality in critical care, estimated with the critical care cohort, was 0·91 (0·76-1·09) for patients with lineage B.1.1.7 compared with those with non-B.1.1.7 infection. INTERPRETATION: Patients with lineage B.1.1.7 were at increased risk of CCU admission and 28-day mortality compared with patients with non-B.1.1.7 SARS-CoV-2. For patients receiving critical care, mortality appeared to be independent of virus strain. Our findings emphasise the importance of measures to control exposure to and infection with COVID-19. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust, National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, and the Medical Sciences Division of the University of Oxford.

Psychological Predictors of Self-reported COVID-19 Outcomes: Results From a Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Previous research has shown that psychological factors, such as stress and social support, are associated with greater susceptibility to viral respiratory illnesses and more severe symptoms. During the COVID-19 pandemic there has been a well-documented deterioration in psychological well-being and increased social isolation. This raises questions as to whether those experiencing psychological adversity during the pandemic are more at risk of contracting and/or experiencing COVID-19 symptoms. PURPOSE: To examine the relationship between psychological factors and the risk of COVID-19 self-reported infection and the symptomatic experience of SARS-CoV-2 (indicated by the number and severity of symptoms). METHODS: As part of a longitudinal prospective observational cohort study, 1,087 adults completed validated measures of psychological well-being during April 2020 and self-reported incidence of COVID-19 infection and symptom experience across the pandemic through to December 2020. Regression models were used to explore these relationships controlling for demographic and occupational factors. RESULTS: Greater psychological distress during the early phase of the pandemic was significantly associated with subsequent self-reported SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as the experience of a greater number and more severe symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 infection and symptoms may be more common among those experiencing elevated psychological distress. Further research to elucidate the mechanisms underlying these associations is needed.

Risks of myocarditis, pericarditis, and cardiac arrhythmias associated with COVID-19 vaccination or SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Although myocarditis and pericarditis were not observed as adverse events in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine trials, there have been numerous reports of suspected cases following vaccination in the general population. We undertook a self-controlled case series study of people aged 16 or older vaccinated for COVID-19 in England between 1 December 2020 and 24 August 2021 to investigate hospital admission or death from myocarditis, pericarditis and cardiac arrhythmias in the 1-28 days following adenovirus (ChAdOx1, n = 20,615,911) or messenger RNA-based (BNT162b2, n = 16,993,389; mRNA-1273, n = 1,006,191) vaccines or a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positive test (n = 3,028,867). We found increased risks of myocarditis associated with the first dose of ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 vaccines and the first and second doses of the mRNA-1273 vaccine over the 1-28 days postvaccination period, and after a SARS-CoV-2 positive test. We estimated an extra two (95% confidence interval (CI) 0, 3), one (95% CI 0, 2) and six (95% CI 2, 8) myocarditis events per 1 million people vaccinated with ChAdOx1, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively, in the 28 days following a first dose and an extra ten (95% CI 7, 11) myocarditis events per 1 million vaccinated in the 28 days after a second dose of mRNA-1273. This compares with an extra 40 (95% CI 38, 41) myocarditis events per 1 million patients in the 28 days following a SARS-CoV-2 positive test. We also observed increased risks of pericarditis and cardiac arrhythmias following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Similar associations were not observed with any of the COVID-19 vaccines, apart from an increased risk of arrhythmia following a second dose of mRNA-1273. Subgroup analyses by age showed the increased risk of myocarditis associated with the two mRNA vaccines was present only in those younger than 40.