Telepsychiatry in an Era of Digital Mental Health Startups.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Telepsychiatry practiced by psychiatrists is evidence-based, regulated, private, and effective in diverse settings. The use of telemedicine has grown since the COVID-19 pandemic as people routinely obtain more healthcare services online. At the same time, there has been a rapid increase in the number of digital mental health startups that offer various services including online therapy and access to prescription medications. These digital mental health firms advertise directly to the consumer primarily through digital advertising. The purpose of this narrative review is to contrast traditional telepsychiatry and the digital mental health market related to online therapy. RECENT FINDINGS: In contrast to standard telepsychiatry, most of the digital mental health startups are unregulated, have unproven efficacy, and raise concerns related to self-diagnosis, self-medicating, and inappropriate prescribing. The role of digital mental health firms for people with serious mental illness has not been determined. There are inadequate privacy controls for the digital mental health firms, including for online therapy. We live in an age where there is widespread admiration for technology entrepreneurs and increasing emphasis on the role of the patient as a consumer. Yet, the business practices of digital mental health startups may compromise patient safety for profits. There is a need to address issues with the digital mental health startups and to educate patients about the differences between standard medical care and digital mental health products.

A co-produced online cultural experience compared to a typical museum website for mental health in people aged 16-24: A proof-of-principle randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare a co-produced online intervention encompassing the diverse human stories behind art and artefacts, named Ways of Being (WoB), with a typical museum website, the Ashmolean (Ash) on negative affect (NA), positive affect (PA) and psychological distress (K10). METHODS: In this parallel group RCT, 463 YP aged 16-24 were randomly assigned, 231 to WoB and 232 to Ash. RESULTS: Over the intervention phase (an aggregate score including all post-allocation timepoints to day-five) a group difference was apparent in favour of WoB for NA (WoB-Ash n=448, NA -0.158, p=0.010) but no differences were detected for PA or K10 and differences were not detected at week six. Group differences in NA in favour of WoB were detected in specific subgroups, e.g. ethnic minorities and males. Across participants (from both groups) mean K10 and NA improved between baseline and six weeks despite increased COVID-19 restrictions. Trial recruitment was rapid, retention high and feedback positive with broad geographical, occupational and ethnic diversity. CONCLUSIONS: Online engagement with arts and culture has the potential to impact on mental health in a measurable way in YP with high unmet mental health needs.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Global Delivery of Mental Health Services and Telemental Health: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic required mental health services around the world to adapt quickly to the new restrictions and regulations put in place to reduce the risk of transmission. As face-to-face contact became difficult, virtual methods were implemented to continue to safely provide mental health care. However, it is unclear to what extent service provision transitioned to telemental health worldwide. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to systematically review the global research literature on how mental health service provision adapted during the first year of the pandemic. METHODS: We searched systematically for quantitative papers focusing on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health services published until April 13, 2021, in the PubMed, Embase, medRxiv, and bioXriv electronic bibliographic databases, using the COVID-19 Open Access Project online platform. The screening process and data extraction were independently completed by at least two authors, and any disagreement was resolved by discussion with a senior member of the team. The findings were summarized narratively in the context of each country's COVID-19 Stringency Index, which reflects the stringency of a government's response to COVID-19 restrictions at a specific time. RESULTS: Of the identified 24,339 records, 101 papers were included after the screening process. Reports on general services (n=72) showed that several countries' face-to-face services reduced their activities at the start of the pandemic, with reductions in the total number of delivered visits and with some services forced to close. In contrast, telemental health use rapidly increased in many countries across the world at the beginning of the pandemic (n=55), with almost complete virtualization of general and specialistic care services by the end of the first year. Considering the reported COVID-19 Stringency Index values, the increased use of virtual means seems to correspond to periods when the Stringency Index values were at their highest in several countries. However, due to specific care requirements, telemental health could not be used in certain subgroups of patients, such as those on clozapine or depot treatments and those who continued to need face-to-face visits. CONCLUSIONS: During the pandemic, mental health services had to adapt quickly in the short term, implementing or increasing the use of telemental health services across the globe. Limited access to digital means, poor digital skills, and patients' preferences and individual needs may have contributed to differences in implementing and accessing telemental health services during the pandemic. In the long term, a blended approach, combining in-person and virtual modalities, that takes into consideration the needs, preferences, and digital skills of patients may better support the future development of mental health services. It will be required to improve confidence with digital device use, training, and experience in all modalities for both clinicians and service users.

Association between serum lithium level and incidence of COVID-19 infection.

An antiviral effect of lithium has been proposed, but never investigated for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Using electronic health records of 26 554 patients with documented serum lithium levels during the pandemic, we show that the 6-month COVID-19 infection incidence was lower among matched patients with 'therapeutic' (0.50-1.00) versus 'subtherapeutic' (0.05-0.50) lithium levels (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.82, 95% CI 0.69-0.97, P = 0.017) and among patients with 'therapeutic' lithium levels versus matched patients using valproate (HR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.67-0.92, P = 0.0023). Lower rates of infection were observed for both new COVID-19 diagnoses and positive polymerase chain reaction tests, regardless of underlying psychiatric diagnosis and vaccination status.

Use of online cultural content for mental health and well-being during COVID-19 restrictions: cross-sectional survey.

AIMS AND METHOD: To gain a deeper understanding of the use of online culture and its potential benefits to mental health and well-being, sociodemographic characteristics and self-reported data on usage, perceived mental health benefits and health status were collected in an online cross-sectional survey during COVID-19 restrictions in the UK in June-July 2020. RESULTS: In total, 1056 people completed the survey. A high proportion of participants reported finding online culture helpful for mental health; all but one of the benefits were associated with regular use and some with age. Reported benefits were wide-ranging and interconnected. Those aged under 25 years were less likely to be regular users of online culture or to have increased their use during lockdown. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: There may be benefits in targeting cultural resources for mental health to vulnerable groups such as young adults.

Physical, cognitive, and mental health impacts of COVID-19 after hospitalisation (PHOSP-COVID): a UK multicentre, prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The impact of COVID-19 on physical and mental health and employment after hospitalisation with acute disease is not well understood. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of COVID-19-related hospitalisation on health and employment, to identify factors associated with recovery, and to describe recovery phenotypes. METHODS: The Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) is a multicentre, long-term follow-up study of adults (aged ≥18 years) discharged from hospital in the UK with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19, involving an assessment between 2 and 7 months after discharge, including detailed recording of symptoms, and physiological and biochemical testing. Multivariable logistic regression was done for the primary outcome of patient-perceived recovery, with age, sex, ethnicity, body-mass index, comorbidities, and severity of acute illness as covariates. A post-hoc cluster analysis of outcomes for breathlessness, fatigue, mental health, cognitive impairment, and physical performance was done using the clustering large applications k-medoids approach. The study is registered on the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN10980107). FINDINGS: We report findings for 1077 patients discharged from hospital between March 5 and Nov 30, 2020, who underwent assessment at a median of 5·9 months (IQR 4·9-6·5) after discharge. Participants had a mean age of 58 years (SD 13); 384 (36%) were female, 710 (69%) were of white ethnicity, 288 (27%) had received mechanical ventilation, and 540 (50%) had at least two comorbidities. At follow-up, only 239 (29%) of 830 participants felt fully recovered, 158 (20%) of 806 had a new disability (assessed by the Washington Group Short Set on Functioning), and 124 (19%) of 641 experienced a health-related change in occupation. Factors associated with not recovering were female sex, middle age (40-59 years), two or more comorbidities, and more severe acute illness. The magnitude of the persistent health burden was substantial but only weakly associated with the severity of acute illness. Four clusters were identified with different severities of mental and physical health impairment (n=767): very severe (131 patients, 17%), severe (159, 21%), moderate along with cognitive impairment (127, 17%), and mild (350, 46%). Of the outcomes used in the cluster analysis, all were closely related except for cognitive impairment. Three (3%) of 113 patients in the very severe cluster, nine (7%) of 129 in the severe cluster, 36 (36%) of 99 in the moderate cluster, and 114 (43%) of 267 in the mild cluster reported feeling fully recovered. Persistently elevated serum C-reactive protein was positively associated with cluster severity. INTERPRETATION: We identified factors related to not recovering after hospital admission with COVID-19 at 6 months after discharge (eg, female sex, middle age, two or more comorbidities, and more acute severe illness), and four different recovery phenotypes. The severity of physical and mental health impairments were closely related, whereas cognitive health impairments were independent. In clinical care, a proactive approach is needed across the acute severity spectrum, with interdisciplinary working, wide access to COVID-19 holistic clinical services, and the potential to stratify care. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health Research.

Incidence, co-occurrence, and evolution of long-COVID features: A 6-month retrospective cohort study of 273,618 survivors of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Long-COVID refers to a variety of symptoms affecting different organs reported by people following Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. To date, there have been no robust estimates of the incidence and co-occurrence of long-COVID features, their relationship to age, sex, or severity of infection, and the extent to which they are specific to COVID-19. The aim of this study is to address these issues. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study based on linked electronic health records (EHRs) data from 81 million patients including 273,618 COVID-19 survivors. The incidence and co-occurrence within 6 months and in the 3 to 6 months after COVID-19 diagnosis were calculated for 9 core features of long-COVID (breathing difficulties/breathlessness, fatigue/malaise, chest/throat pain, headache, abdominal symptoms, myalgia, other pain, cognitive symptoms, and anxiety/depression). Their co-occurrence network was also analyzed. Comparison with a propensity score-matched cohort of patients diagnosed with influenza during the same time period was achieved using Kaplan-Meier analysis and the Cox proportional hazard model. The incidence of atopic dermatitis was used as a negative control. Among COVID-19 survivors (mean [SD] age: 46.3 [19.8], 55.6% female), 57.00% had one or more long-COVID feature recorded during the whole 6-month period (i.e., including the acute phase), and 36.55% between 3 and 6 months. The incidence of each feature was: abnormal breathing (18.71% in the 1- to 180-day period; 7.94% in the 90- to180-day period), fatigue/malaise (12.82%; 5.87%), chest/throat pain (12.60%; 5.71%), headache (8.67%; 4.63%), other pain (11.60%; 7.19%), abdominal symptoms (15.58%; 8.29%), myalgia (3.24%; 1.54%), cognitive symptoms (7.88%; 3.95%), and anxiety/depression (22.82%; 15.49%). All 9 features were more frequently reported after COVID-19 than after influenza (with an overall excess incidence of 16.60% and hazard ratios between 1.44 and 2.04, all p < 0.001), co-occurred more commonly, and formed a more interconnected network. Significant differences in incidence and co-occurrence were associated with sex, age, and illness severity. Besides the limitations inherent to EHR data, limitations of this study include that (i) the findings do not generalize to patients who have had COVID-19 but were not diagnosed, nor to patients who do not seek or receive medical attention when experiencing symptoms of long-COVID; (ii) the findings say nothing about the persistence of the clinical features; and (iii) the difference between cohorts might be affected by one cohort seeking or receiving more medical attention for their symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Long-COVID clinical features occurred and co-occurred frequently and showed some specificity to COVID-19, though they were also observed after influenza. Different long-COVID clinical profiles were observed based on demographics and illness severity.

6-month neurological and psychiatric outcomes in 236 379 survivors of COVID-19: A retrospective cohort study using electronic health records

Background Neurological and psychiatric sequelae of COVID-19 have been reported, but more data are needed to adequately assess the effects of COVID-19 on brain health. We aimed to provide robust estimates of incidence rates and relative risks of neurological and psychiatric diagnoses in patients in the 6 months following a COVID-19 diagnosis. Methods For this retrospective cohort study and time-to-event analysis, we used data obtained from the TriNetX electronic health records network (with over 81 million patients). Our primary cohort comprised patients who had a COVID-19 diagnosis;one matched control cohort included patients diagnosed with influenza, and the other matched control cohort included patients diagnosed with any respiratory tract infection including influenza in the same period. Patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19 or a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 were excluded from the control cohorts. All cohorts included patients older than 10 years who had an index event on or after Jan 20, 2020, and who were still alive on Dec 13, 2020. We estimated the incidence of 14 neurological and psychiatric outcomes in the 6 months after a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19: intracranial haemorrhage;ischaemic stroke;parkinsonism;Guillain-Barre syndrome;nerve, nerve root, and plexus disorders;myoneural junction and muscle disease;encephalitis;dementia;psychotic, mood, and anxiety disorders (grouped and separately);substance use disorder;and insomnia. Using a Cox model, we compared incidences with those in propensity score-matched cohorts of patients with influenza or other respiratory tract infections. We investigated how these estimates were affected by COVID-19 severity, as proxied by hospitalisation, intensive therapy unit (ITU) admission, and encephalopathy (delirium and related disorders). We assessed the robustness of the differences in outcomes between cohorts by repeating the analysis in different scenarios. To provide benchmarking for the incidence and risk of neurological and psychiatric sequelae, we compared our primary cohort with four cohorts of patients diagnosed in the same period with additional index events: skin infection, urolithiasis, fracture of a large bone, and pulmonary embolism. Findings Among 236 379 patients diagnosed with COVID-19, the estimated incidence of a neurological or psychiatric diagnosis in the following 6 months was 33.62% (95% CI 33.17-34.07), with 12.84% (12.36-13.33) receiving their first such diagnosis. For patients who had been admitted to an ITU, the estimated incidence of a diagnosis was 46.42% (44.78-48.09) and for a first diagnosis was 25.79% (23.50-28.25). Regarding individual diagnoses of the study outcomes, the whole COVID-19 cohort had estimated incidences of 0.56% (0.50-0.63) for intracranial haemorrhage, 2.10% (1.97-2.23) for ischaemic stroke, 0.11% (0.08-0.14) for parkinsonism, 0.67% (0.59-0.75) for dementia, 17.39% (17.04-17.74) for anxiety disorder, and 1.40% (1.30-1.51) for psychotic disorder, among others. In the group with ITU admission, estimated incidences were 2.66% (2.24-3.16) for intracranial haemorrhage, 6.92% (6.17-7.76) for ischaemic stroke, 0.26% (0.15-0.45) for parkinsonism, 1.74% (1.31-2.30) for dementia, 19.15% (17.90-20.48) for anxiety disorder, and 2.77% (2.31-3.33) for psychotic disorder. Most diagnostic categories were more common in patients who had COVID-19 than in those who had influenza (hazard ratio [HR] 1.44, 95% CI 1.40-1.47, for any diagnosis;1.78, 1.68-1.89, for any first diagnosis) and those who had other respiratory tract infections (1.16, 1.14-1.17, for any diagnosis;1.32, 1.27-1.36, for any first diagnosis). As with incidences, HRs were higher in patients who had more severe COVID-19 (eg, those admitted to ITU compared with those who were not . . . (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)

Incidence and outcomes of eating disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic.

There are concerns that eating disorders have become commoner during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Using the electronic health records of 5.2 million people aged under 30, mostly in the USA, we show that the diagnostic incidence was 15.3% higher in 2020 overall compared with previous years (relative risk 1.15, 95% CI 1.12-1.19). The relative risk increased steadily from March 2020 onwards, exceeding 1.5 by the end of the year. The increase occurred solely in females, and primarily related to teenagers and anorexia nervosa. A higher proportion of patients with eating disorders in 2020 had suicidal ideation (hazard ratio HR = 1.30, 1.16-1.47) or attempted suicide (HR = 1.69, 1.21-2.35).

Cerebral venous thrombosis and portal vein thrombosis: A retrospective cohort study of 537,913 COVID-19 cases.

BACKGROUND: There are concerns about a link between the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and Ad26.COV2.S vaccines against COVID-19 and cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) and other thrombotic events. One key missing component of the risk-benefit analysis of using such vaccines is the risk of these severe thrombotic events following COVID-19. METHODS: Using a retrospective cohort study based on electronic health records primarily in the USA, the absolute risks of CVT and portal vein thrombosis (PVT) in the two weeks following a diagnosis of COVID-19 (made between January 20, 2020 and March 25, 2021) were calculated. The risks were compared to cohorts of patients with influenza (diagnosed within the same period) and people receiving an mRNA vaccine (i.e. not the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and Ad26.COV2.S vaccines) against COVID-19 (matched for demographics and the main risk factors for CVT and PVT). FINDINGS: A total of 537,913 patients with a COVID-19 diagnosis were included. The incidence of CVT in the two weeks after a COVID-19 diagnosis was 42.8 per million people (95% CI 28.5-64.2). This was significantly higher than in a matched cohort of people who received an mRNA vaccine (RR = 6.33, 95% CI 1.87-21.40, P = 0.00014) and patients with influenza (RR = 2.67, 95% CI 1.04-6.81, P = 0.031). The incidence of PVT after COVID-19 diagnosis was 392.3 per million people (95% CI 342.8-448.9). This was significantly higher than in a matched cohort of people who received an mRNA vaccine (RR=4.46, 95% CI 3.12-6.37, P < 0.0001) and patients with influenza (RR=1.43, 95% CI 1.10-1.88, P = 0.0094).

A cultural experience to support mental health in people aged 16-24 during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to a typical museum website: study protocol of an online randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite the high prevalence of common mental disorders in adolescents and young adults, and their association with poor health and socio-economic outcomes throughout the lifespan, many young people do not seek or receive help for such disorders. There is growing interest in the community sector in supporting mental health in young people; however, there is little by way of experimental research in this area. During the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown, we designed an online cultural experience to reduce anxiety and depression and support mental health in people aged 16-24. METHODS/DESIGN: The O-ACE POP (Online Active Community Engagement Proof of Principle) study is a UK-based online randomised controlled trial of an online cultural experience named Ways of Being, involving human centred narratives and viewpoints, compared with a typical museum website (the Ashmolean Museum). We aim to compare efficacy on  affect,  symptoms of epression and anxiety, flourishing and loneliness as well as investigating potential mechanisms of action. DISCUSSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to design an innovative approach to supporting mental health in young adults. Findings derived from this study will allow us to evaluate the efficacy of this intervention and will inform the design of studies to further refine the resource and test it further. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04663594. Registered on 11 December 2020 (submitted in same form 27 November 2020). Protocol v1.0: 27 November 2020. Date recruitment began: 4 December 2020. Recruitment complete (estimate): February 2021.

Study protocol for a randomised placebo-controlled trial of pramipexole in addition to mood stabilisers for patients with treatment resistant bipolar depression (the PAX-BD study).

BACKGROUND: Treatment Resistant Bipolar Depression (TRBD) is a major contributor to the burden of disease associated with Bipolar Disorder (BD). Treatment options for people experiencing bipolar depression are limited to three interventions listed by National Institute for Health and Care: lamotrigine, quetiapine and olanzapine, of which the latter two are often not well tolerated. The majority of depressed people with BD are therefore prescribed antidepressants despite limited efficacy. This demonstrates an unmet need for additional interventions. Pramipexole has been shown to improve mood symptoms in animal models of depression, in people with Parkinson's Disease and two proof of principle trials of pramipexole for people with BD who are currently depressed. METHODS: The PAX-BD study, funded by the United Kingdom (UK) National Institute for Health Research, aims to extend previous findings by assessing the efficacy, safety and health economic impact of pramipexole in addition to mood stabilisers for patients with TRBD. A randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled design is conducted in a naturalistic UK National Health Service setting. An internal pilot study to examine feasibility and acceptability of the study design is included. Participants with TRBD are screened from National Health Service secondary care services in up to 40 mental health trusts in the UK, with the aim of recruiting approximately 414 participants into a pre-randomisation phase to achieve a target of 290 randomised participants. Primary safety and efficacy measures are at 12 weeks following randomisation, with follow up of participants to 52 weeks. The primary outcome is depressive symptoms as measured by Quick Inventory for Depressive Symptomatology - Self Report. Secondary outcomes include changes in anxiety, manic symptoms, tolerability, acceptability, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Outcome measures are collected remotely using self-report tools implemented online, and observer-rated assessments conducted via telephone. ANCOVA will be used to examine the difference in rating scale scores between treatment arms, and dependent on compliance in completion of weekly self-report measures. A mixed effects linear regression model may also be used to account for repeated measures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN72151939. Registered on 28 August 2019, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN72151939 Protocol Version: 04-FEB-2021, Version 9.0.

Medium-term effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection on multiple vital organs, exercise capacity, cognition, quality of life and mental health, post-hospital discharge.

BACKGROUND: The medium-term effects of Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) on organ health, exercise capacity, cognition, quality of life and mental health are poorly understood. METHODS: Fifty-eight COVID-19 patients post-hospital discharge and 30 age, sex, body mass index comorbidity-matched controls were enrolled for multiorgan (brain, lungs, heart, liver and kidneys) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), spirometry, six-minute walk test, cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET), quality of life, cognitive and mental health assessments. FINDINGS: At 2-3 months from disease-onset, 64% of patients experienced breathlessness and 55% reported fatigue. On MRI, abnormalities were seen in lungs (60%), heart (26%), liver (10%) and kidneys (29%). Patients exhibited changes in the thalamus, posterior thalamic radiations and sagittal stratum on brain MRI and demonstrated impaired cognitive performance, specifically in the executive and visuospatial domains. Exercise tolerance (maximal oxygen consumption and ventilatory efficiency on CPET) and six-minute walk distance were significantly reduced. The extent of extra-pulmonary MRI abnormalities and exercise intolerance correlated with serum markers of inflammation and acute illness severity. Patients had a higher burden of self-reported symptoms of depression and experienced significant impairment in all domains of quality of life compared to controls (p<0.0001 to 0.044). INTERPRETATION: A significant proportion of patients discharged from hospital reported symptoms of breathlessness, fatigue, depression and had limited exercise capacity. Persistent lung and extra-pulmonary organ MRI findings are common in patients and linked to inflammation and severity of acute illness. FUNDING: NIHR Oxford and Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centres, British Heart Foundation Centre for Research Excellence, UKRI, Wellcome Trust, British Heart Foundation.

"Bidirectional associations between COVID-19 and psychiatric disorder: Retrospective cohort studies of 62,354 COVID-19 cases in the USA": Correction

Reports an error in "Bidirectional associations between COVID-19 and psychiatric disorder: Retrospective cohort studies of 62,354 COVID-19 cases in the USA" by Maxime Taquet, Sierra Luciano, John R. Geddes and Paul J. Harrison (The Lancet Psychiatry, 2021[Feb], Vol 8[2], 130-140). In this article, the y axes in figure 2 were labeled incorrectly. These corrections have been made to the online version as of Nov 12, 2020, and will be made to the printed version. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2021-11939-030.) Background: Adverse mental health consequences of COVID-19, including anxiety and depression, have been widely predicted but not yet accurately measured. There are a range of physical health risk factors for COVID-19, but it is not known if there are also psychiatric risk factors. In this electronic health record network cohort study using data from 69 million individuals, 62 354 of whom had a diagnosis of COVID-19, we assessed whether a diagnosis of COVID-19 (compared with other health events) was associated with increased rates of subsequent psychiatric diagnoses, and whether patients with a history of psychiatric illness are at a higher risk of being diagnosed with COVID-19. Methods: We used the TriNetX Analytics Network, a global federated network that captures anonymised data from electronic health records in 54 health-care organisations in the USA, totalling 69.8 million patients. TriNetX included 62 354 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between Jan 20, and Aug 1, 2020. We created cohorts of patients who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 or a range of other health events. We used propensity score matching to control for confounding by risk factors for COVID-19 and for severity of illness. We measured the incidence of and hazard ratios (HRs) for psychiatric disorders, dementia, and insomnia, during the first 14 to 90 days after a diagnosis of COVID-19. Findings: In patients with no previous psychiatric history, a diagnosis of COVID-19 was associated with increased incidence of a first psychiatric diagnosis in the following 14 to 90 days compared with six other health events (HR 2.1, 95% CI 1.8-2.5 vs influenza;1.7, 1.5-1.9 vs other respiratory tract infections;1.6, 1.4-1.9 vs skin infection;1.6, 1.3-1.9 vs cholelithiasis;2.2, 1.9-2.6 vs urolithiasis, and 2.1, 1.9-2.5 vs fracture of a large bone;all p < 0.0001). The HR was greatest for anxiety disorders, insomnia, and dementia. We observed similar findings, although with smaller HRs, when relapses and new diagnoses were measured. The incidence of any psychiatric diagnosis in the 14 to 90 days after COVID-19 diagnosis was 18.1% (95% CI 17.6-18.6), including 5.8% (5.2-6.4) that were a first diagnosis. The incidence of a first diagnosis of dementia in the 14 to 90 days after COVID-19 diagnosis was 1.6% (95% CI 1.2-2.1) in people older than 65 years. A psychiatric diagnosis in the previous year was associated with a higher incidence of COVID-19 diagnosis (relative risk 1.65, 95% CI 1.59-1.71;p < 0.0001). This risk was independent of known physical health risk factors for COVID-19, but we cannot exclude possible residual confounding by socioeconomic factors. Interpretation: Survivors of COVID-19 appear to be at increased risk of psychiatric sequelae, and a psychiatric diagnosis might be an independent risk factor for COVID-19. Although preliminary, our findings have implications for clinical services, and prospective cohort studies are warranted. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)