Mental health in Europe during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review.

The COVID-19 pandemic caused immediate and far-reaching disruption to society, the economy, and health-care services. We synthesised evidence on the effect of the pandemic on mental health and mental health care in high-income European countries. We included 177 longitudinal and repeated cross-sectional studies comparing prevalence or incidence of mental health problems, mental health symptom severity in people with pre-existing mental health conditions, or mental health service use before versus during the pandemic, or between different timepoints of the pandemic. We found that epidemiological studies reported higher prevalence of some mental health problems during the pandemic compared with before it, but that in most cases this increase reduced over time. Conversely, studies of health records showed reduced incidence of new diagnoses at the start of the pandemic, which further declined during 2020. Mental health service use also declined at the onset of the pandemic but increased later in 2020 and through 2021, although rates of use did not return to pre-pandemic levels for some services. We found mixed patterns of effects of the pandemic on mental health and social outcome for adults already living with mental health conditions.

Increasing overdose deaths among Black Americans: a review of the literature.

In 2020, opioid overdose fatalities among Black Americans surpassed those among White Americans for the first time in US history. This Review analyses the academic literature on disparities in overdose deaths to highlight potential factors that could explain these increases in overdose deaths among Black Americans. Overall, we find that differences in structural and social determinants of health; inequality in the access, use, and continuity of substance use disorder and harm reduction services; variability in fentanyl exposure and risk; and changes in social and economic circumstances since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic are central to explaining this trend. We conclude with a discussion of opportunities for US policy reform and opportunities for future research.

Factors associated with receptive injection equipment sharing among people who inject drugs: findings from a multistate study at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Receptive injection equipment sharing (i.e., injecting with syringes, cookers, rinse water previously used by another person) plays a central role in the transmission of infectious diseases (e.g., HIV, viral hepatitis) among people who inject drugs. Better understanding these behaviors in the context of COVID-19 may afford insights about potential intervention opportunities in future health crises. OBJECTIVE: This study examines factors associated with receptive injection equipment sharing among people who inject drugs in the context of COVID-19. METHODS: From August 2020 to January 2021, people who inject drugs were recruited from 22 substance use disorder treatment programs and harm reduction service providers in nine states and the District of Columbia to complete a survey that ascertained how the COVID-19 pandemic affected substance use behaviors. We used logistic regression to identify factors associated with people who inject drugs having recently engaged in receptive injection equipment sharing. RESULTS: One in four people who inject drugs in our sample reported having engaged in receptive injection equipment sharing in the past month. Factors associated with greater odds of receptive injection equipment sharing included: having a high school education or equivalent (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.14, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.24, 3.69), experiencing hunger at least weekly (aOR = 1.89, 95% CI 1.01, 3.56), and number of drugs injected (aOR = 1.15, 95% CI 1.02, 1.30). Older age (aOR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.94, 1.00) and living in a non-metropolitan area (aOR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.18, 1.02) were marginally associated with decreased odds of receptive injection equipment sharing. CONCLUSIONS: Receptive injection equipment sharing was relatively common among our sample during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings contribute to existing literature that examines receptive injection equipment sharing by demonstrating that this behavior was associated with factors identified in similar research that occurred before COVID. Eliminating high-risk injection practices among people who inject drugs requires investments in low-threshold and evidence-based services that ensure persons have access to sterile injection equipment.

Intersecting substance use treatment and harm reduction services: exploring the characteristics and service needs of a community-based sample of people who use drugs.

BACKGROUND: Substance use treatment and harm reduction services are essential components of comprehensive strategies for reducing the harms of drug use and overdose. However, these services have been historically siloed, and there is a need to better understand how programs that serve people who use drugs (PWUD) are integrating these services. In this study, we compared treatment and harm reduction services offered by a multistate sample of substance use service providers and assessed how well they align with characteristics and needs of clients they serve early in the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We recruited a convenience sample of programs that deliver harm reduction and/or treatment services in ten US states. Program directors participated in a survey assessing the services offered at their program. We also recruited clients of these programs to participate in a survey assessing a range of sociodemographic and health characteristics, substance use behaviors, and health service utilization. We then cross-compared client characteristics and behaviors relative to services being offered through these programs. RESULTS: We collected and analyzed data from 511 clients attending 18 programs that we classified as either offering treatment with medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) (N = 6), syringe service programs (SSP) (N = 8), or offering both MOUD and SSP (N = 4). All programs delivered a range of treatment and harm reduction services, with MOUD & SSP programs delivering the greatest breadth of services. There were discrepancies between services provided and characteristics and behaviors reported by clients: 80% of clients of programs that offered MOUD without SSP actively used drugs and 50% injected drugs; 40% of clients of programs that offered SSP without MOUD sought drug treatment services. Approximately half of clients were unemployed and unstably housed, but few programs offered direct social services. CONCLUSIONS: In many ways, existing programs are not meeting the service needs of PWUD. Investing in innovative models that empower clients and integrate a range of accessible and flexible treatment, harm reduction and social services can pave the way for a more effective and equitable service system that considers the long-term health of PWUD.

Exploring the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on syringe services programs in rural Kentucky.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) exacerbated risks for adverse health consequences among people who inject drugs by reducing access to sterile injection equipment, HIV testing, and syringe services programs (SSPs). Several decades of research demonstrate the public health benefits of SSP implementation; however, existing evidence primarily reflects studies conducted in metropolitan areas and before the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVES: We aim to explore how the COVID-19 pandemic affected SSP operations in rural Kentucky counties. METHODS: In late 2020, we conducted eighteen in-depth, semi-structured interviews with persons (10 women, 8 men) involved in SSP implementation in rural Kentucky counties. The interview guide broadly explored the barriers and facilitators to SSP implementation in rural communities; participants were also asked to describe how COVID-19 affected SSP operations. RESULTS: Participants emphasized the need to continue providing SSP-related services throughout the pandemic. COVID-19 mitigation strategies (e.g., masking, social distancing, pre-packing sterile injection equipment) limited relationship building between staff and clients and, more broadly, the pandemic adversely affected overall program expansion, momentum building, and coalition building. However, participants offered multiple examples of innovative solutions to the myriad of obstacles the pandemic presented. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic impacted SSP operations throughout rural Kentucky. Despite challenges, participants reported that providing SSP services remained paramount. Diverse adaptative strategies were employed to ensure continuation of essential SSP services, demonstrating the commitment and ingenuity of program staff. Given that SSPs are essential for preventing adverse injection drug use-associated health consequences, further resources should be invested in SSP operations to ensure service delivery is not negatively affected by co-occurring crises.

Risk Factors for Infection and Health Impacts of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic in People With Autoimmune Diseases.

BACKGROUND: People with autoimmune or inflammatory conditions taking immunomodulatory/suppressive medications may have higher risk of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Chronic disease care has also changed for many patients, with uncertain downstream consequences. METHODS: We included participants with autoimmune or inflammatory conditions followed by specialists at Johns Hopkins. Participants completed periodic surveys querying comorbidities, disease-modifying medications, exposures, COVID-19 testing and outcomes, social behaviors, and disruptions to healthcare. We assessed whether COVID-19 risk is higher among those on immunomodulating or suppressive agents and characterized pandemic-associated changes to care and mental health. RESULTS: In total, 265 (5.6%) developed COVID-19 over 9 months of follow-up (April-December 2020). Patient characteristics (age, race, comorbidity, medications) were associated with differences in social distancing behaviors during the pandemic. Glucocorticoid exposure was associated with higher odds of COVID-19 in models incorporating behavior and other potential confounders (odds ratio [OR]: 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.08, 1.89). Other medication classes were not associated with COVID-19 risk. Diabetes (OR: 1.72; 95% CI: 1.08, 2.73), cardiovascular disease (OR: 1.68; 95% CI: 1.24, 2.28), and kidney disease (OR: 1.76; 95% CI: 1.04, 2.97) were associated with higher odds of COVID-19. Of the 2156 reporting pre-pandemic utilization of infusion, mental health or rehabilitative services, 975 (45.2%) reported disruptions therein, which disproportionately affected individuals experiencing changes to employment or income. CONCLUSIONS: Glucocorticoid exposure may increase risk of COVID-19 in people with autoimmune or inflammatory conditions. Disruption to healthcare and related services was common. Those with pandemic-related reduced income may be most vulnerable to care disruptions.

Discordant humoral and T cell immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in people with multiple sclerosis on anti-CD20 therapy.

BACKGROUND: Sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor (S1P) modulators and anti-CD20 therapies impair humoral responses to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines. Relatively few studies have assessed the impact of an array of disease modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) on T cell immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. METHODS: In 101 people with MS, we measured humoral responses via an immunoassay to measure IgG against the COVID-19 spike S1 glycoprotein in serum. We also measured T cell responses using FluoroSpot assay for interferon gamma (IFN-γ) (Mabtech, Sweden) using cryopreserved rested PBMCs and then incubated in cRPMI with 1µg/ml of pooled peptides spanning the entire spike glycoprotein (Genscript, 2 pools; 158 peptides each). Plates were read on an AID iSpot Spectrum to determine the number of spot forming cells (SFC)/106 PBMCs. We tested for differences in immune responses across DMTs using linear models. FINDINGS: Humoral responses were detected in 22/39 (56.4%) participants on anti-CD20 and in 59/63 (93.6%) participants on no or other DMTs. In a subset (n=88; 87%), T cell responses were detected in 76/88 (86%), including 32/33 (96.9%) participants on anti-CD20 therapies. Anti-CD20 therapies were associated with an increase in IFN-γ SFC counts relative to those on no DMT or other DMTs (for anti-CD20 vs. no DMT: 425.9% higher [95%CI: 109.6%, 1206.6%] higher; p<0.001; for anti-CD20 vs. other DMTs: 289.6% [95%CI: 85.9%, 716.6%] higher; p<0.001). INTERPRETATION: We identified a robust T cell response in individuals on anti-CD20 therapies despite a reduced humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Follow up studies are needed to determine if this translates to protection against COVID-19 infection. FUNDING: This study was funded partially by 1K01MH121582-01 from NIH/NIMH and TA-1805-31136 from the National MS Society (NMSS) to KCF and TA-1503-03465 and JF-2007-37655 from the NMSS to PB. This study was also supported through the generosity of the collective community of donors to the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine for COVID research.

COVID-19 and psychological distress in Norway: The role of trust in the healthcare system.

AIM: The study aims to examine groups at risk for psychological distress in connection with the COVID-19 outbreak, and the role of trust in the healthcare system as a possible moderator. METHODS: Data were collected from a large sample of the Norwegian population (n = 4008) through the Norwegian Citizen Panel (NCP). A linear regression was conducted to examine the effects of COVID-19 related risk factors on psychological distress, using the 10-item Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL-10). Finally, we conducted a moderation analysis to examine the interaction of trust in the healthcare system and COVID-19 related risk factors. RESULTS: A linear regression showed that female gender, younger age, lower level of education, being infected with COVID-19, being medically vulnerable, working in the healthcare system, being in voluntary quarantine and having an immigrant background predicted mean HSCL-10 scores. The moderation analysis revealed that people in the medically vulnerable group, those below 61, and those in quarantine reported higher psychological distress when they also had lower trust in the healthcare system. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate important groups to take into consideration in mental healthcare strategies and policies. However, most participants in the current study reported psychological distress levels that were below the clinical cut-off, suggesting that the majority may have coped relatively well in the early stages of the pandemic.