The mental health burden of racial and ethnic minorities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Racial/ethnic minorities have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. The effects of COVID-19 on the long-term mental health of minorities remains unclear. To evaluate differences in odds of screening positive for depression and anxiety among various racial and ethnic groups during the latter phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, we performed a cross-sectional analysis of 691,473 participants nested within the prospective smartphone-based COVID Symptom Study in the United States (U.S.) and United Kingdom (U.K). from February 23, 2021 to June 9, 2021. In the U.S. (n=57,187), compared to White participants, the multivariable odds ratios (ORs) for screening positive for depression were 1·16 (95% CI: 1·02 to 1·31) for Black, 1·23 (1·11 to 1·36) for Hispanic, and 1·15 (1·02 to 1·30) for Asian participants, and 1·34 (1·13 to 1·59) for participants reporting more than one race/other even after accounting for personal factors such as prior history of a mental health disorder, COVID-19 infection status, and surrounding lockdown stringency. Rates of screening positive for anxiety were comparable. In the U.K. (n=643,286), racial/ethnic minorities had similarly elevated rates of positive screening for depression and anxiety. These disparities were not fully explained by changes in leisure time activities. Racial/ethnic minorities bore a disproportionate mental health burden during the COVID-19 pandemic. These differences will need to be considered as health care systems transition from prioritizing infection control to mitigating long-term consequences.

Symptom prevalence, duration, and risk of hospital admission in individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 during periods of omicron and delta variant dominance: a prospective observational study from the ZOE COVID Study.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern, omicron, appears to be less severe than delta. We aim to quantify the differences in symptom prevalence, risk of hospital admission, and symptom duration among the vaccinated population. METHODS: In this prospective longitudinal observational study, we collected data from participants who were self-reporting test results and symptoms in the ZOE COVID app (previously known as the COVID Symptoms Study App). Eligible participants were aged 16-99 years, based in the UK, with a body-mass index between 15 and 55 kg/m2, had received at least two doses of any SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, were symptomatic, and logged a positive symptomatic PCR or lateral flow result for SARS-CoV-2 during the study period. The primary outcome was the likelihood of developing a given symptom (of the 32 monitored in the app) or hospital admission within 7 days before or after the positive test in participants infected during omicron prevalence compared with those infected during delta prevalence. FINDINGS: Between June 1, 2021, and Jan 17, 2022, we identified 63 002 participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and reported symptoms in the ZOE app. These patients were matched 1:1 for age, sex, and vaccination dose, across two periods (June 1 to Nov 27, 2021, delta prevalent at >70%; n=4990, and Dec 20, 2021, to Jan 17, 2022, omicron prevalent at >70%; n=4990). Loss of smell was less common in participants infected during omicron prevalence than during delta prevalence (16·7% vs 52·7%, odds ratio [OR] 0·17; 95% CI 0·16-0·19, p<0·001). Sore throat was more common during omicron prevalence than during delta prevalence (70·5% vs 60·8%, 1·55; 1·43-1·69, p<0·001). There was a lower rate of hospital admission during omicron prevalence than during delta prevalence (1·9% vs 2·6%, OR 0·75; 95% CI 0·57-0·98, p=0·03). INTERPRETATION: The prevalence of symptoms that characterise an omicron infection differs from those of the delta SARS-CoV-2 variant, apparently with less involvement of the lower respiratory tract and reduced probability of hospital admission. Our data indicate a shorter period of illness and potentially of infectiousness which should impact work-health policies and public health advice. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust, ZOE, National Institute for Health Research, Chronic Disease Research Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and Medical Research Council.

The Contribution of Pharmacogenetic Drug Interactions to 90-Day Hospital Readmissions: Preliminary Results from a Real-World Healthcare System.

Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guidelines exist for many medications commonly prescribed prior to hospital discharge, yet there are limited data regarding the contribution of gene-x-drug interactions to hospital readmissions. The present study evaluated the relationship between prescription of CPIC medications prescribed within 30 days of hospital admission and 90-day hospital readmission from 2010 to 2020 in a study population (N = 10,104) who underwent sequencing with a 14-gene pharmacogenetic panel. The presence of at least one pharmacogenetic indicator for a medication prescribed within 30 days of hospital admission was considered a gene-x-drug interaction. Multivariable logistic regression analyzed the association between one or more gene-x-drug interactions with 90-day readmission. There were 2211/2354 (93.9%) admitted patients who were prescribed at least one CPIC medication. Univariate analyses indicated that the presence of at least one identified gene-x-drug interaction increased the risk of 90-day readmission by more than 40% (OR = 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09-1.84) (p = 0.01). A multivariable model adjusting for age, race, sex, employment status, body mass index, and medical conditions slightly attenuated the effect (OR = 1.32, 95% CI 1.02-1.73) (p = 0.04). Our results suggest that the presence of one or more CPIC gene-x-drug interactions increases the risk of 90-day hospital readmission, even after adjustment for demographic and clinical risk factors.

Whom Should We Test for COVID-19? Performance of a Symptom and Risk Factor Questionnaire on COVID-19 Test Results and Patient Outcomes in an Immediate Care Setting.

INTRODUCTION: The CDC and Illinois Department of Public Health disseminated risk factor criteria for COVID-19 testing early in the pandemic. The objective of this study is to assess the effectiveness of risk stratifying patients for COVID-19 testing and to identify which risk factors and which other clinical variables were associated with SARS-CoV-2 PCR test positivity. METHODS: We conducted an observational cohort study on a sample of symptomatic patients evaluated at an immediate care setting. A risk assessment questionnaire was administered to every patient before clinician evaluation. High-risk patients received SARS-CoV-2 test and low-risk patients were evaluated by a clinician and selectively tested based on clinician judgment. Multivariate analyses tested whether risk factors and additional variables were associated with test positivity. RESULTS: The adjusted odds ratio of testing positive was associated with COVID-19-positive or suspect close contact (aOR 1.56, 95% CI 1.15-2.10), large gathering attendance with a COVID-19-positive individual (aOR 1.92, 95% CI 1.10-3.34), and, with the largest effect size, decreased taste/smell (aOR 2.83, 95% CI 2.01-3.99). Testing positive was associated with ages 45-64 and ≥65 (aOR 1.75, 95% CI 1.25-2.44, and aOR 2.78, 95% CI 1.49-5.16), systolic blood pressures ≤120 (aOR 1.64, 95% CI 1.20-2.24), and, with the largest effect size, temperatures ≥99.0°F (aOR 3.06, 95% CI 2.23-4.20). The rate of positive SARS-CoV-2 test was similar between high-risk and low risk patients (225 [22.2%] vs 50 [19.8%]; P = .41). DISCUSSION: The risk assessment questionnaire was not effective at stratifying patients for testing. Although individual risk factors were associated with SARS-CoV-2 test positivity, the low-risk group had similar positivity rates to the high-risk group. Our observations underscore the need for clinicians to develop clinical experience and share best practices and for systems and payors to support policies, funding, and resources to test all symptomatic patients.