One year health outcomes associated with systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19: a longitudinal cohort study (preprint)

BackgroundIn patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen, dexamethasone reduces acute severity and improves survival, but longer-term effects are unknown. We hypothesised that systemic corticosteroid administration during acute COVID-19 would be associated with improved health-related quality of life (HRQoL) one year after discharge. MethodsAdults admitted to hospital between February 2020 and March 2021 for COVID-19 and meeting current guideline recommendations for dexamethasone treatment were included using two prospective UK cohort studies. HRQoL, assessed by EQ-5D-5L utility index, pre-hospital and one year after discharge were compared between those receiving corticosteroids or not after propensity weighting for treatment. Secondary outcomes included patient reported recovery, physical and mental health status, and measures of organ impairment. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to account for survival and selection bias. FindingsIn 1,888 participants included in the primary analysis, 1,149 received corticosteroids. There was no between-group difference in EQ-5D-5L utility index at one year (mean difference 0.004, 95% CI: -0.026 to 0.034, p = 0.77). A similar reduction in EQ-5D-5L was seen at one year between corticosteroid exposed and non-exposed groups (mean (SD) change -0.12 (0.22) vs -0.11 (0.22), p = 0.32). Overall, there were no differences in secondary outcome measures. After sensitivity analyses modelled using a larger cohort of 109,318 patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, EQ-5D-5L utility index at one year remained similar between the two groups. InterpretationSystemic corticosteroids for acute COVID-19 have no impact on the large reduction in HRQoL one year after hospital discharge. Treatments to address this are urgently needed. Take home messageSystemic corticosteroids given for acute COVID-19 do not affect health-related quality of life or other patient reported outcomes, physical and mental health outcomes, and organ function one year after hospital discharge

Cohort Profile: Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) (preprint)

Abstract [bullet] PHOSP-COVID is a national UK multi-centre cohort study of patients who were hospitalised for COVID-19 and subsequently discharged. [bullet] PHOSP-COVID was established to investigate the medium- and long-term sequelae of severe COVID-19 requiring hospitalisation, understand the underlying mechanisms of these sequelae, evaluate the medium- and long-term effects of COVID-19 treatments, and to serve as a platform to enable future studies, including clinical trials. [bullet] Data collected covered a wide range of physical measures, biological samples, and Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). [bullet] Participants could join the cohort either in Tier 1 only with remote data collection using hospital records, a PROMs app and postal saliva sample for DNA, or in Tier 2 where they were invited to attend two specific research visits for further data collection and biological research sampling. These research visits occurred at five (range 2-7) months and 12 (range 10-14) months post-discharge. Participants could also participate in specific nested studies (Tier 3) at selected sites. [bullet] All participants were asked to consent to further follow-up for 25 years via linkage to their electronic healthcare records and to be re-contacted for further research. [bullet] In total, 7935 participants were recruited from 83 UK sites: 5238 to Tier 1 and 2697 to Tier 2, between August 2020 and March 2022. [bullet] Cohort data are held in a Trusted Research Environment and samples stored in a central biobank. Data and samples can be accessed upon request and subject to approvals.

The effects of sleep disturbance on dyspnoea and impaired lung function following COVID-19 hospitalisation: a prospective multi-centre cohort study (preprint)

Background Sleep disturbance is common following hospitalisation both for COVID-19 and other causes. The clinical associations are poorly understood, despite it altering pathophysiology in other scenarios. We, therefore, investigated whether sleep disturbance is associated with dyspnoea along with relevant mediation pathways. Methods Sleep parameters were assessed in a prospective cohort of patients (n=2,468) hospitalised for COVID-19 in the United Kingdom in 39 centres using both subjective and device-based measures. Results were compared to a matched UK biobank cohort and associations were evaluated using multivariable linear regression. Findings 64% (456/714) of participants reported poor sleep quality; 56% felt their sleep quality had deteriorated for at least 1-year following hospitalisation. Compared to the matched cohort, both sleep regularity (44.5 vs 59.2, p<0.001) and sleep efficiency (85.4% vs 88.5%, p<0.001) were lower whilst sleep period duration was longer (8.25h vs 7.32h, p<0.001). Overall sleep quality (effect estimate 4.2 (3.0-5.5)), deterioration in sleep quality following hospitalisation (effect estimate 3.2 (2.0-4.5)), and sleep regularity (effect estimate 5.9 (3.7-8.1)) were associated with both dyspnoea and impaired lung function (FEV1 and FVC). Depending on the sleep metric, anxiety mediated 13-42% of the effect of sleep disturbance on dyspnoea and muscle weakness mediated 29-43% of this effect. Interpretation Sleep disturbance is associated with dyspnoea, anxiety and muscle weakness following COVID-19 hospitalisation. It could have similar effects for other causes of hospitalisation where sleep disturbance is prevalent.

Clinical characteristics with inflammation profiling of Long-COVID and association with one-year recovery following hospitalisation in the UK: a prospective observational study (preprint)

Background There are currently no effective pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions for Long-COVID. To identify potential therapeutic targets, we focussed on previously described four recovery clusters five months after hospital discharge, their underlying inflammatory profiles and relationship with clinical outcomes at one year. Methods PHOSP-COVID is a prospective longitudinal cohort study, recruiting adults hospitalised with COVID-19 across the UK. Recovery was assessed using patient reported outcomes measures (PROMs), physical performance, and organ function at five-months and one-year after hospital discharge. Hierarchical logistic regression modelling was performed for patient-perceived recovery at one-year. Cluster analysis was performed using clustering large applications (CLARA) k-medoids approach using clinical outcomes at five-months. Inflammatory protein profiling from plasma at the five-month visit was performed. Findings 2320 participants have been assessed at five months after discharge and 807 participants have completed both five-month and one-year visits. Of these, 35.6% were female, mean age 58.7 (SD 12.5) years, and 27.8% received invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). The proportion of patients reporting full recovery was unchanged between five months 501/165 (25.6%) and one year 232/804 (28.9%). Factors associated with being less likely to report full recovery at one year were: female sex OR 0.68 (95% CI 0.46-0.99), obesity OR 0.50 (95%CI 0.34-0.74) and IMV OR 0.42 (95%CI 0.23-0.76). Cluster analysis (n=1636) corroborated the previously reported four clusters: very severe, severe, moderate/cognitive, mild relating to the severity of physical, mental health and cognitive impairments at five months in a larger sample. There was elevation of inflammatory mediators of tissue damage and repair in both the very severe and the moderate/cognitive clusters compared to the mild cluster including interleukin-6 which was elevated in both comparisons. Overall, there was a substantial deficit in median (IQR) EQ5D-5L utility index from pre-COVID (retrospective assessment) 0.88 (0.74-1.00), five months 0.74 (0.60-0.88) to one year: 0.74 (0.59-0.88), with minimal improvements across all outcome measures at one-year after discharge in the whole cohort and within each of the four clusters. Interpretation The sequelae of a hospital admission with COVID-19 remain substantial one year after discharge across a range of health domains with the minority in our cohort feeling fully recovered. Patient perceived health-related quality of life remains reduced at one year compared to pre-hospital admission. Systematic inflammation and obesity are potential treatable traits that warrant further investigation in clinical trials.

COVID-19 infection and subsequent psychiatric morbidity, sleep problems and fatigue: analysis of an English primary care cohort of 226,521 positive patients (preprint)

ObjectivesThe primary hypothesis was that the risk of incident or repeat psychiatric illness, fatigue and sleep problems increased following COVID-19 infection. The analysis plan was pre-registered (https://osf.io/n2k34/). DesignMatched cohorts were assembled using a UK primary care registry (the CPRD-Aurum database). Patients were followed-up for up to 10 months, from 1st February 2020 to 9th December 2020. SettingPrimary care database of 11,923,499 adults ([≥]16 years). ParticipantsFrom 232,780 adults with a positive COVID-19 test (after excluding those with <2 years historical data or <1 week follow-up), 86,922 without prior mental illness, 19,020 with anxiety or depression, 1,036 with psychosis, 4,152 with fatigue and 4,539 with sleep problems were matched to up to four controls based on gender, general practice and year of birth. A negative control used patients who tested negative for COVID-19 and patients negative for COVID with an influenza diagnosis. Main Outcomes and MeasuresCox proportional hazard models estimated the association between a COVID-19 positive test and subsequent psychiatric morbidity (depression, anxiety, psychosis, or self-harm), sleep problems, fatigue or psychotropic prescribing. Models adjusted for comorbidities, ethnicity, smoking and BMI. ResultsAfter adjusting for observed confounders, there was an association between testing positive for COVID-19 and almost all markers of psychiatric morbidity, fatigue and sleep problems. The adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for incident psychiatric morbidity was 1.75 (95% CI 1.56-1.96). However, there was a similar risk of incident psychiatric morbidity for those with a negative COVID-19 test (aHR 1.57, 95% CI 1.51-1.63) and a larger increase associated with influenza (aHR 2.97, 95% CI 1.36-6.48). ConclusionsThere is consistent evidence that COVID-19 infection elevates risk of fatigue and sleep problems, however the results from the negative control analysis suggests that residual confounding may be responsible for at least some of the association between COVID-19 and psychiatric morbidity.

COVID-19 Infection and Subsequent Psychiatric Morbidity, Sleep Problems and Fatigue: Analysis of an English Primary Care Cohort of 226,521 Positive Patients (preprint)

Background: While some people who have had COVID-19 experience fatigue and sleep problems long after the acute phase of the illness, the proportion affected and the length of time symptoms persist remains uncertain. There are also concerns of an increase in psychiatric illness following COVID-19 infection; however evidence of a direct effect is inconclusive.Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study using a UK primary care registry. Adults with a positive PCR COVID-19 test between 1st February and 8th December 2020 were matched to controls based on gender, general practice and year of birth. Separate matched cohorts were assembled for those with and without prior recorded mental illness, fatigue and sleep problems. Cox proportional hazard models estimated the association between a COVID-19 positive test and subsequent psychiatric morbidity (depression, anxiety, psychosis, or self-harm), sleep problems, fatigue or psychotropic prescribing, adjusted for comorbidities, ethnicity, smoking status and BMI. Interaction with age and area-level deprivation were tested for. Additional cohorts examined those with a negative COVID-19 test and those with influenza symptoms (and a negative COVID-19 test).Results: After adjusting for observed confounders, there was an association between testing positive for COVID-19 (n=232,780) and almost all markers of psychiatric morbidity, psychotropic prescribing, fatigue and sleep problems. The adjusted hazard ratio for any indicator of incident psychiatric morbidity was 1.75 (95% CI: 1.56-1.96) and for new psychotropic prescribing 2.17 (95% CI: 2.00-2.35). However, there was an increased risk of incident psychiatric morbidity for those with a negative COVID-19 test of similar magnitude and a larger increase associated with having influenza.Interpretation: Whilst COVID-19 infection appears to be causing sleep problems and fatigue, there is less clear evidence of an effect on subsequent psychiatric morbidity.Funding Information: This work was funded by the NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre.Declaration of Interests: TC received ad hoc payments for conducting workshops on evidence-based treatments for persistent physical symptoms. TC has received grants from NIHR programme grants, HTA, RfPB, Guy’s and St Thomas Charity, King’s Challenge Fund. Personal financial interests: TC is the author of several self-help books on chronic fatigue and received royalties in the past. TC received expenses for workshops on evidence-based treatments for persistent physical symptoms for BABCP and IAPT services (travel and accommodation). None of the other authors have any conflicts of interest.Ethics Approval Statement: This study was conducted using data from the CPRD obtained under licence from the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). The data are provided by patients and collected by the NHS as part of their care and support. The study was approved by the Independent Scientific Advisory Committee for CPRD research (20_094R2).

The prevalence, incidence, prognosis and risk factors for depression and anxiety in a UK cohort during the COVID-19 pandemic (preprint)

Background The COVID-19 pandemic had profound immediate impacts on population mental health. However, in whom the effects may be prolonged is less clear. Aims To investigate the prevalence, incidence, prognosis, and risk factors for depression and anxiety reported in a UK cohort over three distinct periods in the pandemic in 2020. Method An online survey was distributed to a UK community cohort (n=3097) at three points: April (baseline), July-September (T2) and November-December (T3). Participants completed validated measures of depression and anxiety on each occasion and we prospectively explored the role of socio-demographic factors and psychological factors (loneliness, positive mood, perceived risk of and worry about COVID-19) as risk factors. Results Depression (PHQ-9 means - baseline: 7.69, T2: 5.53, T3: 6.06) and anxiety scores (GAD-7 means -baseline: 6.59, T2: 4.60, T3: 4.98) were considerably greater than pre-pandemic population norms. Women reported greater depression and anxiety than men. Being younger, having prior mental health disorders, more negative life events due to COVID-19, as well as greater loneliness and lower positive mood at baseline were significant predictors of poorer mental health outcomes. Conclusion The negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health has persisted to some degree. Younger people and individuals with prior mental health disorders were at greatest risk. Easing of restrictions might bring the opportunity for a return to social interaction, which could mitigate the risk factors of loneliness and positive mood.

Understanding and Addressing Vaccine Hesitancy in the Context of COVID-19: Development of a Digital intervention (preprint)

Background Severe Acute Respiratory Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was identified in late 2019, spreading to over 200 countries and resulting in almost two million deaths worldwide. The emergence of safe and effective vaccines provides a route out of the pandemic, with vaccination uptake of 75-90% needed to achieve population protection. Vaccine hesitancy is problematic for vaccine rollout; global reports suggest only 73% of the population may agree to being vaccinated. As a result, there is an urgent need to develop equitable and accessible interventions to address vaccine hesitancy at the population level. Method We report the development of a scalable digital intervention seeking to address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and enhance uptake of COVID-19 vaccines. Guided by motivational interviewing (MI) principles, the intervention includes a series of therapeutic dialogues addressing 10 key concerns of vaccine hesitant individuals. Development of the intervention occurred linearly across four stages. During stage 1, we identified common reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy through analysis of existing survey data, a rapid systematic literature review, and public engagement workshops. Stage 2 comprised qualitative interviews with medical, immunological, and public health experts. Rapid content and thematic analysis of the data provided evidence-based responses to common vaccine concerns. Stage 3 involved the development of therapeutic dialogues through workshops with psychological and digital behaviour change experts. Dialogues were developed to address concerns using MI principles, including embracing resistance and supporting self-efficacy. Finally, stage 4 involved digitisation of the dialogues and pilot testing with members of the public. Discussion The digital intervention provides an evidence-based approach to addressing vaccine hesitancy through MI principles. The dialogues are user-selected, allowing exploration of relevant issues associated with hesitancy in a non-judgmental context. The text-based content and digital format allow for rapid modification to changing information and scalability for wider dissemination.

Physical, cognitive and mental health impacts of COVID-19 following hospitalisation: a multi-centre prospective cohort study (preprint)

Background The impact of COVID-19 on physical and mental health, and employment following hospitalisation is poorly understood. Methods PHOSP-COVID is a multi-centre, UK, observational study of adults discharged from hospital with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 involving an assessment between two- and seven-months later including detailed symptom, physiological and biochemical testing. Multivariable logistic regression was performed for patient-perceived recovery with age, sex, ethnicity, body mass index (BMI), co-morbidities, and severity of acute illness as co-variates. Cluster analysis was performed using outcomes for breathlessness, fatigue, mental health, cognition and physical function. Findings We report findings of 1077 patients discharged in 2020, from the assessment undertaken a median 5 [IQR4 to 6] months later: 36% female, mean age 58 [SD 13] years, 69% white ethnicity, 27% mechanical ventilation, and 50% had at least two co-morbidities. At follow-up only 29% felt fully recovered, 20% had a new disability, and 19% experienced a health-related change in occupation. Factors associated with failure to recover were female, middle-age, white ethnicity, two or more co-morbidities, and more severe acute illness. The magnitude of the persistent health burden was substantial and weakly related to acute severity. Four clusters were identified with different severities of mental and physical health impairment: 1) Very severe (17%), 2) Severe (21%), 3) Moderate with cognitive impairment (17%), 4) Mild (46%), with 3%, 7%, 36% and 43% feeling fully recovered, respectively. Persistent systemic inflammation determined by C-reactive protein was related to cluster severity, but not acute illness severity. Interpretation We identified factors related to recovery from a hospital admission with COVID-19 and four different phenotypes relating to the severity of physical, mental, and cognitive health five months later. The implications for clinical care include the potential to stratify care and the need for a pro-active approach with wide-access to COVID-19 holistic clinical services. Funding: UKRI and NIHR

Fatigue outcomes following coronavirus or influenza virus infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis (preprint)

ABSTRACT Objectives Fatigue is a pervasive clinical symptom for many infected with respiratory viruses such as influenza or coronaviruses. Prior evidence from influenza and coronavirus epidemics suggest that fatigue symptomology may continue beyond the acute phase, lasting for several months to several years post-discharge. This systematic review aimed to examine long-term fatigue prevalence among survivors and among communities, as well as investigate the current evidence for associated factors. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Setting Hospitalised and community samples. Participants Patient populations with a confirmed diagnosis of a named influenza virus or coronavirus. Main outcomes measured Fatigue, fatigue syndromes Results Ten studies met the inclusion criteria for a pooled prevalence analysis and five studies were identified as eligible for a means differences analysis. A fatigue prevalence of 41% (95% CI 0.299-0.488) was found among a total population of 1,310. Using the ‘vitality’ subscale of the SF-36 as a proxy for fatigue, the estimate for means differences indicated a lower mean vitality score for survivors compared to population norms (M -1.523, CI -13.53 – 10.48), although this was not significant (p = 0.803). The most common associations with fatigue were PTSD, depression and anxiety, female gender and higher age. Conclusions This study reveals that a significant proportion of survivors (41%) experienced fatigue following their recovery from novel respiratory viruses such as SARS, MERS, SARS-CoV2 or influenza and that this fatigue can be long-lasting. Also, some factors such as female gender and psychological factors may contribute to continuing fatigue outcomes for this population. Strengths and limitations (a) this study provides support for long-term fatigue outcomes in people with a confirmed influenza, SARS, MERS, SARS-CoV2 virus infection (b) the study suggests individual, psychological and social factors are associated with fatigue, (c) findings are limited by the availability of fatigue data and lack of pre-morbid fatigue information; (d) a meta-analysis on the associations was prohibited by the small number of studies investigating long-term fatigue correlates and (e) the heterogeneity of the studies (>75%) suggests the pooled estimates should be interpreted with caution.

Mental Health of Keyworkers in the UK during the COVID-19 Pandemic: a Cross-sectional Analysis of a Community Cohort (preprint)

Objectives: Previous pandemics have resulted in high levels of psychological morbidity among frontline workers. Here we report on the early mental health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on keyworkers in the UK, as assessed during the first six weeks of nationwide social distancing measures being introduced. Comparisons are made with non-keyworkers, and psychological factors that may be protective to keyworkers mental health are explored. Design: Cross-sectional analysis of a community cohort study. Results: Keyworkers reported significantly higher depression, anxiety, and stress than pre-pandemic population norms. Compared to non-keyworkers, keyworkers were more likely to worry about COVID-19 and perceived they were at higher risk from the virus. This was particularly evident for health and social care keyworkers. Younger keyworkers and those in a clinically increased risk group were more likely to report poorer mental health. Lower positive mood, greater loneliness and worrying more about COVID-19 were all associated with poorer mental health outcomes amongst keyworkers. Conclusions: The mental health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on keyworkers in the UK has been substantial. Worry about COVID-19 and perceived risk from COVID-19 in keyworkers are understandable given potential increased exposure to the virus. Younger and clinically vulnerable keyworkers may benefit most from any interventions that seek to mitigate the negative mental health impacts of the pandemic.

Mental health in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic: early observations (preprint)

Background: Previous pandemics have resulted in significant consequences for mental health. Here we report the mental health sequela of the COVID-19 pandemic on the UK population and examine modifiable and non-modifiable explanatory factors associated with mental health outcomes. We focus on the short-term consequences for mental health, as reported during the first four-six weeks of social distancing measures being introduced. Methods: A community cohort study was conducted with adults aged [≥]18 years recruited through a mainstream and social media campaign between 3/4/20-30/4/20. Consenting participants completed an online survey measuring depression, anxiety and stress and explanatory variables hypothesised to be related to these mental health outcomes. Outcomes: N=3097 eligible individuals participated. The cohort was predominantly female (85%); mean age forty-four years; 10% from minority ethnic groups; 50% described themselves as key-workers and 20% identified as having clinical risk factors putting them at increased risk of COVID-19. Mean scores for depression, stress and anxiety significantly exceeded population norms. Analysis of non-modifiable factors indicated that being younger and female were associated with all outcomes, with the final multivariable models accounting for 7-13% of variance. When adding modifiable factors, significant independent effects emerged for positive mood, perceived loneliness and worry about getting COVID-19 for all outcomes, with the final multivariable models accounting for 54-57% of variance. Interpretation: Increased psychological morbidity was evident in this UK cohort, with younger people and women at particular risk. Interventions targeting perceptions of: loneliness, risk of COVID-19, worry about COVID-19, and positive mood may be effective.