Impact of COVID-19 policies on perceptions of loneliness in people aged 75 years and over in the cognitive function and aging study (CFAS II).

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic and associated social distancing measures have profoundly impacted society and social contact patterns, with older people disproportionately affected. Concerns have been raised about a resulting pandemic of loneliness in older people, although the current evidence is mixed. This study provides a unique perspective on the prevalence of loneliness in a population cohort of older people before the pandemic, followed up after the introduction of social restrictions. METHODS: Data analysis was conducted using Wave 3 of the longitudinal Cognitive Function and Aging Study II (2018-2019) and a sub-study focusing on experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020). The sample comprised 379 adults aged over 75 living in Cambridge, Newcastle, and Nottingham. Multivariable binary logistic regression was conducted to identify correlates of prevalent loneliness, adjusted for confounding covariates, during the pandemic. The prevalence of loneliness during the pandemic was compared to loneliness in 2018-2019. RESULTS: Prevalence of loneliness in this sample during the pandemic was 25.1% (95% CI 20.9%-29.7%) compared to 17.2% (95% CI 13.7%-21.3%) in 2018-2019 (χ2  = 14.1, p < 0.01). Variables associated with increased odds of prevalent loneliness included: prior loneliness, living alone, female gender, living in an area of higher deprivation, frequent pre-pandemic social contact at community groups, and separation from family during the pandemic, adjusted for age and sex. Weekly technology-mediated contact using telephone or video calls was associated with lower odds of loneliness. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 recovery plans should address loneliness in older people. Target groups should include those who have previously been lonely, people who live alone, those living in deprived areas, and those who had previously been socially active through community groups.

Explaining the deprivation gap in COVID-19 mortality rates: A decomposition analysis of geographical inequalities in England.

One of the most consistent and worrying features of the COVID-19 pandemic globally has been the disproportionate burden of the epidemic in the most deprived areas. Most of the literature so far though has focused on estimating the extent of these inequalities. There has been much less attention paid to exploring the main pathways underpinning them. In this study, we employ the syndemic pandemic theoretical framework and apply novel decomposition methods to investigate the proportion of the COVID-19 mortality gap by area-level deprivation in England during the first wave of the pandemic (January to July 2020) was accounted for by pre-existing inequalities in the compositional and contextual characteristics of place. We use a decomposition approach to explicitly quantify the independent contribution of four inequalities pathways (vulnerability, susceptibility, exposure and transmission) in explaining the more severe COVID-19 outcomes in the most deprived local authorities compared to the rest. We find that inequalities in transmission (73%) and in vulnerability (49%) factors explained the highest proportion of mortality by deprivation. Our results suggest that public health agencies need to develop short- and long-term strategies to alleviate these underlying inequalities in order to alleviate the more severe impacts on the most vulnerable communities.

Inequalities in the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic: an ecological study of inequalities in mortality in the first wave and the effects of the first national lockdown in England.

OBJECTIVES: To examine how ecological inequalities in COVID-19 mortality rates evolved in England, and whether the first national lockdown impacted them. This analysis aimed to provide evidence for important lessons to inform public health planning to reduce inequalities in any future pandemics. DESIGN: Longitudinal ecological study. SETTING: 307 lower-tier local authorities in England. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Age-standardised COVID-19 mortality rates by local authority, regressed on Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) and relevant epidemic dynamics. RESULTS: Local authorities that started recording COVID-19 deaths earlier were more deprived, and more deprived authorities saw faster increases in their death rates. By 6 April 2020 (week 15, the earliest time that the 23 March lockdown could have begun affecting death rates) the cumulative death rate in local authorities in the two most deprived deciles of IMD was 54% higher than the rate in the two least deprived deciles. By 4 July 2020 (week 27), this gap had narrowed to 29%. Thus, inequalities in mortality rates by decile of deprivation persisted throughout the first wave, but reduced during the lockdown. CONCLUSIONS: This study found significant differences in the dynamics of COVID-19 mortality at the local authority level, resulting in inequalities in cumulative mortality rates during the first wave of the pandemic. The first lockdown in England was fairly strict-and the study found that it particularly benefited those living in more deprived local authorities. Care should be taken to implement lockdowns early enough, in the right places-and at a sufficiently strict level-to maximally benefit all communities, and reduce inequalities.

A Comparison of Well-Being of Carers of People with Dementia and Their Ability to Manage Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Findings from the IDEAL Study.

BACKGROUND: Social restriction measures imposed to curb the spread of COVID-19 in the United Kingdom impacted on carers of people with dementia, limiting access to support services and increasing perceived burden of caring. Few studies have compared data collected both during and before the pandemic to examine the effect of these changes. OBJECTIVE: To explore whether the COVID-19 pandemic affected the well-being of carers of people with dementia living in the community, and their ability to cope with their caring responsibilities. METHODS: Analysis was conducted on two groups of carers who were enrolled in the IDEAL programme; the 'pre-pandemic group' (n = 312), assessed at two time points prior to the pandemic, and the 'pandemic group', assessed prior to and several months into the pandemic (n = 156). For the pre-pandemic group, carers were matched 2:1 to carers in the pandemic group on certain characteristics. Differences in change over time between the two groups on self-reported well-being, quality of life, coping, perceived competence, and role captivity, were investigated using mixed effect modelling. RESULTS: Compared to the pre-pandemic group, those in the pandemic group appeared to cope better and had more stable self-rated competency and role captivity. They did not differ in terms of well-being or quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Despite reports of negative impacts on carers early in the pandemic, the findings suggest the pandemic had little negative longer-term impact on carers of people with dementia, and in fact they appeared to have a more positive attitude towards coping several months into the pandemic.

Minimal Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on the Mental Health and Wellbeing of People Living With Dementia: Analysis of Matched Longitudinal Data From the IDEAL Study.

Objective: Research suggests a decline in the mental health and wellbeing of people with dementia (PwD) during the COVID-19 pandemic; however few studies have compared data collected pre-pandemic and during the pandemic. Moreover, none have compared this change with what would be expected due to dementia progression. We explored whether PwD experienced changes in mental health and wellbeing by comparing pre-pandemic and pandemic data, and drew comparisons with another group of PwD questioned on two occasions prior to the pandemic. Methods: Community-dwelling PwD enrolled in the IDEAL programme were split into two groups matched for age group, sex, dementia diagnosis, and time since diagnosis. Although each group was assessed twice, one was assessed prior to and during the pandemic (pandemic group; n = 115) whereas the other was assessed prior to the pandemic (pre-pandemic group; n = 230). PwD completed measures of mood, sense of self, wellbeing, optimism, quality of life, and life satisfaction. Results: Compared to the pre-pandemic group, the pandemic group were less likely to report mood problems, or be pessimistic, but more likely to become dissatisfied with their lives. There were no changes in continuity in sense of self, wellbeing, and quality of life. Discussion: Results suggest the pandemic had little effect on the mental health and wellbeing of PwD, with any changes observed likely to be consistent with expected rates of decline due to dementia. Although personal accounts attest to the challenges experienced, PwD appear to have been resilient to the impact of lockdown and social restrictions during the pandemic.

Static Socio-Ecological COVID-19 Vulnerability Index and Vaccine Hesitancy Index for England.

BACKGROUND: Population characteristics can be used to infer vulnerability of communities to COVID-19, or to the likelihood of high levels of vaccine hesitancy. Communities harder hit by the virus, or at risk of being so, stand to benefit from greater resource allocation than their population size alone would suggest. This study reports a simple but efficacious method of ranking small areas of England by relative characteristics that are linked with COVID-19 vulnerability and vaccine hesitancy. METHODS: Publicly available data on a range of characteristics previously linked with either poor COVID-19 outcomes or vaccine hesitancy were collated for all Middle Super Output Areas of England (MSOA, n=6790, excluding Isles of Scilly), scaled and combined into two numeric indices. Multivariable linear regression was used to build a parsimonious model of vulnerability (static socio-ecological vulnerability index, SEVI) in 60% of MSOAs, and retained variables were used to construct two simple indices. Assuming a monotonic relationship between indices and outcomes, Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated between the SEVI and cumulative COVID-19 case rates at MSOA level in the remaining 40% of MSOAs over periods both during and out with national lockdowns. Similarly, a novel vaccine hesitancy index (VHI) was constructed using population characteristics aligned with factors identified by an Office for National Statistics (ONS) survey analysis. The relationship between the VHI and vaccine coverage in people aged 12+years (as of 2021-06-24) was determined using Spearman correlation. The indices were split into quintiles, and MSOAs within the highest vulnerability and vaccine hesitancy quintiles were mapped. FINDINGS: The SEVI showed a moderate to strong relationship with case rates in the validation dataset across the whole study period, and for every intervening period studied except early in the pandemic when testing was highly selective. The SEVI was more strongly correlated with case rates than any of its domains (rs 0·59 95% CI 0.57-0.62) and outperformed an existing MSOA-level vulnerability index. The VHI was significantly negatively correlated with COVID-19 vaccine coverage in the validation data at the time of writing (rs -0·43 95% CI -0·46 to -0·41). London had the largest number and proportion of MSOAs in quintile 5 (most vulnerable/hesitant) of SEVI and VHI concurrently. INTERPRETATION: The indices presented offer an efficacious way of identifying geographical disparities in COVID-19 risk, thus helping focus resources according to need. FUNDING: Funder: Integrated Covid Hub North East. AWARD NUMBER: n/a. GRANT RECIPIENT: Fiona Matthews.

Can vaccination roll-out be more equitable if population risk is taken into account?

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccination in many countries, including England, has been prioritised primarily by age. However, people of the same age can have very different health statuses. Frailty is a commonly used metric of health and has been found to be more strongly associated with mortality than age among COVID-19 inpatients. METHODS: We compared the number of first vaccine doses administered across the 135 NHS Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) of England to both the over 50 population and the estimated frail population in each area. Area-based frailty estimates were generated using the English Longitudinal Survey of Ageing (ELSA), a national survey of older people. We also compared the number of doses to the number of people with other risk factors associated with COVID-19: atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, learning disabilities, obesity and smoking status. RESULTS: We estimate that after 79 days of the vaccine program, across all Clinical Commissioning Group areas, the number of people who received a first vaccine per frail person ranged from 4.4 (95% CI 4.0-4.8) and 20.1 (95% CI 18.3-21.9). The prevalences of other risk factors were also poorly associated with the prevalence of vaccination across England. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination with age-based priority created area-based inequities in the number of doses administered relative to the number of people who are frail or have other risk factors associated with COVID-19. As frailty has previously been found to be more strongly associated with mortality than age for COVID-19 inpatients, an age-based priority system may increase the risk of mortality in some areas during the vaccine roll-out period. Authorities planning COVID-19 vaccination programmes should consider the disadvantages of an age-based priority system.

Impact of COVID-19 on 'Living Well' with Mild-to-Moderate Dementia in the Community: Findings from the IDEAL Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Negative impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on people with dementia have been widely-documented, but most studies have relied on carer reports and few have compared responses to information collected before the pandemic. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore the impact of the pandemic on community-dwelling individuals with mild-to-moderate dementia and compare responses with pre-pandemic data. METHODS: During the second wave of the pandemic, we conducted structured telephone interviews with 173 people with dementia and 242 carers acting as informants, all of whom had previously participated in the IDEAL cohort. Where possible, we benchmarked responses against pre-pandemic data. RESULTS: Significant perceived negative impacts were identified in cognitive and functional skills and ability to engage in self-care and manage everyday activities, along with increased levels of loneliness and discontinuity in sense of self and a decline in perceived capability to 'live well'. Compared to pre-pandemic data, there were lower levels of pain, depression, and anxiety, higher levels of optimism, and better satisfaction with family support. There was little impact on physical health, mood, social connections and relationships, or perceptions of neighborhood characteristics. CONCLUSION: Efforts to mitigate negative impacts of pandemic-related restrictions and restore quality of life could focus on reablement to address the effects on participation in everyday activities, creating opportunities for social contact to reduce loneliness, and personalized planning to reconnect people with their pre-COVID selves. Such efforts may build on the resilience demonstrated by people with dementia and carers in coping with the pandemic.

National Early Warning Scores and COVID-19 deaths in care homes: an ecological time-series study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether National Early Warning Scores (NEWS/NEWS2) could contribute to COVID-19 surveillance in care homes. SETTING: 460 care home units using the same software package to collect data on residents, from 46 local authority areas in England. PARTICIPANTS: 6464 care home residents with at least one NEWS recording. EXPOSURE MEASURE: 29 656 anonymised person-level NEWS from 29 December 2019 to 20 May 2020 with component physiological measures: systolic blood pressure, respiratory rate, pulse rate, temperature and oxygen saturation. Baseline values for each measure calculated using 80th and 20th centile scores before March 2020. OUTCOME MEASURE: Cross-correlation comparison of time series with Office for National Statistics weekly reported registered deaths of care home residents where COVID-19 was the underlying cause of death, and all other deaths (excluding COVID-19) up to 10 May 2020. RESULTS: Deaths due to COVID-19 were registered from 23 March 2020 in the local authority areas represented in the study. Between 23 March 2020 and 10 May 2020, there were 5753 deaths (1532 involving COVID-19 and 4221 other causes). We observed a rise in the proportion of above-baseline NEWS beginning 16 March 2020, followed 2 weeks later by an increase in registered deaths (cross-correlation of r=0.82, p<0.05 for a 2 week lag) in corresponding local authorities. The proportion of above-baseline oxygen saturation, respiratory rate and temperature measurements also increased approximately 2 weeks before peaks in deaths. CONCLUSIONS: NEWS could contribute to COVID-19 disease surveillance in care homes during the pandemic. Oxygen saturation, respiratory rate and temperature could be prioritised as they appear to signal rise in mortality almost as well as NEWS. This study reinforces the need to collate data from care homes, to monitor and protect residents' health. Further work using individual level outcome data is needed to evaluate the role of NEWS in the early detection of resident illness.

Evolution of geographical inequalities in COVID-19 mortality over the first wave of the pandemic in England

BackgroundEarly in the COVID-19 pandemic it was clear that inequalities were emerging in the distribution of deaths, with more deprived areas harder hit than less deprived ones. How these inequalities began, evolved, and changed with the implementation of the first national lockdown did not receive as much attention. We used COVID-19 death counts per local authority (LA) over the first wave (up to 4th July, 2020) to understand how COVID-19 impacted different areas, and to shed light on the equity effects of a strict national lockdown.MethodsWeekly COVID-19 death counts per LA were provided by the Office for National Statistics, along with population estimates for mid-2019 and data on the index of multiple deprivation (IMD) and median age per LA. Mortality rates for each area were calculated as deaths per 100,000 persons. Characteristics of the evolution of mortality rate per LA and decile of IMD were calculated, for example the speed of increase to each LAs peak rate. Simple linear models and descriptive statistics were used to compare areas.ResultsMore deprived LAs tended to begin recording COVID-19 deaths earlier than less deprived areas. Mortality rates in more deprived LAs rose at a faster rate to their peak, which was also higher than in less deprived LAs. All LA death rates peaked between 3 and 9 weeks following the implementation of the first lockdown. The time between the lockdown announcement and the peak death rate was significantly negatively associated with the speed of increase, adjusted for the median age of the population (95% CI -0.33 to -0.31 deaths per 100,000 per week). Total cumulative mortality varied from 10.79 to 170.61 deaths per 100,000 persons per LA. Cumulative death rates were significantly higher in the most deprived 10% of LAs compared to others (p<0.001). Until lockdown, the most deprived 20% of LA’s recorded 64% more deaths than the most deprived 20%. By 4th July, this gap had narrowed to 16%.ConclusionVariation in the timing and speed of increase of local mortality rate curves occurred in the first wave and led to large inequalities across deprivation quintiles. This inequality was reduced but not completely abolished by the strict national lockdown imposed in March 2020. Timings of future national lockdowns should consider differences in local epidemic evolution, with extra support offered to those areas hardest hit.

BIOlogical Factors that Limit sustAined Remission in rhEumatoid arthritis (the BIO-FLARE study): protocol for a non-randomised longitudinal cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Our knowledge of immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID) aetiology and pathogenesis has improved greatly over recent years, however, very little is known of the factors that trigger disease relapses (flares), converting diseases from inactive to active states. Focussing on rheumatoid arthritis (RA), the challenge that we will address is why IMIDs remit and relapse. Extrapolating from pathogenetic factors involved in disease initiation, new episodes of inflammation could be triggered by recurrent systemic immune dysregulation or locally by factors within the joint, either of which could be endorsed by overarching epigenetic factors or changes in systemic or localised metabolism. METHODS: The BIO-FLARE study is a non-randomised longitudinal cohort study that aims to enrol 150 patients with RA in remission on a stable dose of non-biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), who consent to discontinue treatment. Participants stop their DMARDs at time 0 and are offered an optional ultrasound-guided synovial biopsy. They are studied intensively, with blood sampling and clinical evaluation at weeks 0, 2, 5, 8, 12 and 24. It is anticipated that 50% of participants will have a disease flare, whilst 50% remain in drug-free remission for the study duration (24 weeks). Flaring participants undergo an ultrasound-guided synovial biopsy before reinstatement of previous treatment. Blood samples will be used to investigate immune cell subsets, their activation status and their cytokine profile, autoantibody profiles and epigenetic profiles. Synovial biopsies will be examined to profile cell lineages and subtypes present at flare. Blood, urine and synovium will be examined to determine metabolic profiles. Taking into account all generated data, multivariate statistical techniques will be employed to develop a model to predict impending flare in RA, highlighting therapeutic pathways and informative biomarkers. Despite initial recruitment to time and target, the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has impacted significantly, and a decision was taken to close recruitment at 118 participants with complete data. DISCUSSION: This study aims to investigate the pathogenesis of flare in rheumatoid arthritis, which is a significant knowledge gap in our understanding, addressing a major unmet patient need. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was retrospectively registered on 27/06/2019 in the ISRCTN registry 16371380 .

The COVID-19 pandemic and health inequalities.

This essay examines the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic for health inequalities. It outlines historical and contemporary evidence of inequalities in pandemics-drawing on international research into the Spanish influenza pandemic of 1918, the H1N1 outbreak of 2009 and the emerging international estimates of socio-economic, ethnic and geographical inequalities in COVID-19 infection and mortality rates. It then examines how these inequalities in COVID-19 are related to existing inequalities in chronic diseases and the social determinants of health, arguing that we are experiencing a syndemicpandemic It then explores the potential consequences for health inequalities of the lockdown measures implemented internationally as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on the likely unequal impacts of the economic crisis. The essay concludes by reflecting on the longer-term public health policy responses needed to ensure that the COVID-19 pandemic does not increase health inequalities for future generations.