Genetic predispositions to psychiatric disorders and the risk of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Whether a genetic predisposition to psychiatric disorders is associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unknown. METHODS: Our analytic sample consisted of 287,123 white British participants in UK Biobank who were alive on 31 January 2020. We performed a genome-wide association study (GWAS) analysis for each psychiatric disorder (substance misuse, depression, anxiety, psychotic disorder, and stress-related disorders) in a randomly selected half of the study population ("base dataset"). For the other half ("target dataset"), the polygenic risk score (PRS) was calculated as a proxy of individuals' genetic predisposition to a given psychiatric phenotype using discovered genetic variants from the base dataset. Ascertainment of COVID-19 was based on the Public Health England dataset, inpatient hospital data, or death registers in UK Biobank. COVID-19 cases from hospitalization records or death records were considered "severe cases." The association between the PRS for psychiatric disorders and COVID-19 risk was examined using logistic regression. We also repeated PRS analyses based on publicly available GWAS summary statistics. RESULTS: A total of 143,562 participants (including 10,868 COVID-19 cases) were used for PRS analyses. A higher genetic predisposition to psychiatric disorders was associated with an increased risk of any COVID-19 and severe COVID-19. The adjusted odds ratio (OR) for any COVID-19 was 1.07 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.13) and 1.06 (95% CI 1.01-1.11) among individuals with a high genetic risk (above the upper tertile of the PRS) for substance misuse and depression, respectively, compared with individuals with a low genetic risk (below the lower tertile). Slightly higher ORs were noted for severe COVID-19, and similar result patterns were obtained in analyses based on publicly available GWAS summary statistics. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest a potential role of genetic factors in the observed phenotypic association between psychiatric disorders and COVID-19. Our data underscore the need for increased medical surveillance for this vulnerable population during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Public awareness, emotional reactions and human mobility in response to the COVID-19 outbreak in China - a population-based ecological study.

BACKGROUND: The outbreak of COVID-19 generated severe emotional reactions, and restricted mobility was a crucial measure to reduce the spread of the virus. This study describes the changes in public emotional reactions and mobility patterns in the Chinese population during the COVID-19 outbreak. METHODS: We collected data on public emotional reactions in response to the outbreak through Weibo, the Chinese Twitter, between 1st January and 31st March 2020. Using anonymized location-tracking information, we analyzed the daily mobility patterns of approximately 90% of Sichuan residents. RESULTS: There were three distinct phases of the emotional and behavioral reactions to the COVID-19 outbreak. The alarm phase (19th-26th January) was a restriction-free period, characterized by few new daily cases, but a large amount public negative emotions [the number of negative comments per Weibo post increased by 246.9 per day, 95% confidence interval (CI) 122.5-371.3], and a substantial increase in self-limiting mobility (from 45.6% to 54.5%, changing by 1.5% per day, 95% CI 0.7%-2.3%). The epidemic phase (27th January-15th February) exhibited rapidly increasing numbers of new daily cases, decreasing expression of negative emotions (a decrease of 27.3 negative comments per post per day, 95% CI -40.4 to -14.2), and a stabilized level of self-limiting mobility. The relief phase (16th February-31st March) had a steady decline in new daily cases and decreasing levels of negative emotion and self-limiting mobility. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 outbreak in China, the public's emotional reaction was strongest before the actual peak of the outbreak and declined thereafter. The change in human mobility patterns occurred before the implementation of restriction orders, suggesting a possible link between emotion and behavior.

Psychological distress among health professional students during the COVID-19 outbreak.

BACKGROUND: Due to the drastic surge of COVID-19 patients, many countries are considering or already graduating health professional students early to aid professional resources. We aimed to assess outbreak-related psychological distress and symptoms of acute stress reaction (ASR) in health professional students and to characterize individuals with potential need for interventions. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of 1442 health professional students at Sichuan University, China. At baseline (October 2019), participants were assessed for childhood adversity, stressful life events, internet addiction, and family functioning. Using multivariable logistic regression, we examined associations of the above exposures with subsequent psychological distress and ASR in response to the outbreak. RESULTS: Three hundred and eighty-four (26.63%) participants demonstrated clinically significant psychological distress, while 160 (11.10%) met the criterion for a probable ASR. Individuals who scored high on both childhood adversity and stressful life event experiences during the past year were at increased risks of both distress (ORs 2.00-2.66) and probable ASR (ORs 2.23-3.10), respectively. Moreover, internet addiction was associated with elevated risks of distress (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.60-2.64) and probable ASR (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.50-3.10). By contrast, good family functioning was associated with decreased risks of distress (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.33-0.55) and probable ASR (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.33-0.69). All associations were independent of baseline psychological distress. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that COVID-19 related psychological distress and high symptoms burden of ASR are common among health professional students. Extended family and professional support should be considered for vulnerable individuals during these unprecedented times.

Pre-pandemic psychiatric disorders and risk of COVID-19: a UK Biobank cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: Psychiatric morbidities have been associated with a risk of severe infections through compromised immunity, health behaviours, or both. However, data are scarce on the association between multiple types of pre-pandemic psychiatric disorders and COVID-19. We aimed to assess the association between pre-pandemic psychiatric disorders and the subsequent risk of COVID-19 using UK Biobank. METHODS: For this cohort analysis, we included participants from UK Biobank who were registered in England and excluded individuals who died before Jan 31, 2020, (the start of the COVID-19 outbreak in the UK) or had withdrawn from UK Biobank. Participants diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder before Jan 31 were included in the group of individuals with pre-pandemic psychiatric disorders, whereas participants without a diagnosis before the outbreak were included in the group of individuals without pre-pandemic psychiatric disorders. We used the Public Health England dataset, UK Biobank hospital data, and death registers to collect data on COVID-19 cases. To examine the relationship between pre-pandemic psychiatric disorders and susceptibility to COVID-19, we used logistic regression models to estimate odds ratios (ORs), controlling for multiple confounders and somatic comorbidities. Key outcomes were all COVID-19, COVID-19 specifically diagnosed in inpatient care, and COVID-19-related deaths. ORs were also estimated separately for each psychiatric disorder and on the basis of the number of pre-pandemic psychiatric disorders. As a positive disease control, we repeated analyses for hospitalisation for other infections. FINDINGS: We included 421 014 UK Biobank participants in our study and assessed their COVID-19 status between Jan 31 and July 26, 2020. 50 809 participants were diagnosed with psychiatric disorders before the outbreak, while 370 205 participants had no psychiatric disorders. The mean age at outbreak was 67·80 years (SD 8·12). We observed an elevated risk of COVID-19 among individuals with pre-pandemic psychiatric disorders compared with that of individuals without such conditions. The fully adjusted ORs were 1·44 (95% CI 1·28-1·62) for All COVID-19 cases, 1·55 (1·34-1·78) for Inpatient COVID-19 cases, and 2·03 (1·59-2·59) for COVID-19-related deaths. We observed excess risk, defined as risk that increased with the number of pre-pandemic psychiatric disorders, across all diagnostic categories of pre-pandemic psychiatric disorders. We also observed an association between psychiatric disorders and elevated risk of hospitalisation due to other infections (OR 1·74, 95% CI 1·58-1·93). INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that pre-existing psychiatric disorders are associated with an increased risk of COVID-19. These findings underscore the need for surveillance of and care for populations with pre-existing psychiatric disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic. FUNDING: National Natural Science Foundation of China.

Effect of early oxygen therapy and antiviral treatment on disease progression in patients with COVID-19: A retrospective study of medical charts in China.

BACKGROUND: Until now, no antiviral treatment has been proven to be effective for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The timing of oxygen therapy was considered to have a great influence on the symptomatic relief of hypoxemia and seeking medical intervention, especially in situations with insufficient medical resources, but the evidence on the timing of oxygen therapy is limited. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Medical charts review was carried out to collect the data of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection confirmed in Tongji hospital, Wuhan from 30th December 2019 to 8th March 2020. In this study, the appropriate timing of oxygen therapy and risk factors associated with severe and fatal illness were identified and the effectiveness of antivirus on disease progression was assessed. Among 1362 patients, the prevalence of hypoxia symptoms was significantly higher in those patients with severe and fatal illness than in those with less severe disease. The onset of hypoxia symptoms was most common in the second to third week after symptom onset, and patients with critical and fatal illness experienced these symptoms earlier than those with mild and severe illness. In multivariable analyses, the risk of death increased significantly when oxygen therapy was started more than 2 days after hypoxia symptoms onset among critical patients (OR, 1.92; 95%CI, 1.20 to 3.10). Compared to the critically ill patients without IFN-a, the patients who were treated with IFN-a had a lower mortality (OR, 0.60; 95%CI, 0.39 to 0.91). CONCLUSIONS: Early initiation of oxygen therapy was associated with lower mortality among critical patients. This study highlighted the importance of early oxygen therapy after the onset of hypoxia symptoms. Our results also lend support to potentially beneficial effects of IFNα on critical illness.

COVID-19 outbreak-related psychological distress among healthcare trainees: a cross-sectional study in China.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 outbreak has caused enormous strain on healthcare systems, and healthcare trainees, which comprise the future healthcare workforce, may be a vulnerable group. It is essential to assess the psychological distress experienced by healthcare trainees during the COVID-19 outbreak. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A cross-sectional study with 4184 healthcare trainees at Sichuan University in China was implemented during 7-13 February 2020. Participants were grouped by training programmes (medicine, medical technology and nursing) and training stages (undergraduate, postgraduate and residency). MAIN OUTCOMES: COVID-19-related psychological distress and acute stress reaction (ASR) were assessed using the Kessler 6-item Psychological Distress Scale and the Impact of Event Scale-Revised, respectively. We estimated the ORs of distress by comparing trainees across programmes and training stages using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Significant psychological distress was found in 1150 (30.90%) participants and probable ASR in 403 (10.74%). Compared with the nursing trainees, the medical trainees (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.95) reported a higher burden of psychological distress during the outbreak, while the medical technology trainees (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.62) reported similar symptom scores. Postgraduates (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.08) in medicine had higher levels of distress than their undergraduate counterparts did, whereas the nursing residents (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.71) reported a lower burden than did nursing undergraduates. A positive association was found between having active clinical duties during the outbreak and distress (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.39), particularly among the medical trainees (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.47 to 2.33) and undergraduates (OR 4.20, 95% CI 1.61 to 11.70). No clear risk patterns of ASR symptoms were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Medical trainees, particularly postgraduates and those with active clinical duties, were at risk for psychological distress during the COVID-19 outbreak. Stress management may be considered for high-risk healthcare trainees.