Short-term improvement of mental health after a COVID-19 vaccination.

INTRODUCTION: The role of COVID-19 vaccination on the mental health of the general population remains poorly understood. This study aims to assess the short-term change in depressive and anxiety symptoms in relation to COVID-19 vaccination among Swedish adults. METHODS: A prospective study of 7,925 individuals recruited from ongoing cohort studies at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, or through social media campaigns, with monthly data collections on self-reported depressive and anxiety symptoms from December 2020 to October 2021 and COVID-19 vaccination from July to October 2021. Prevalence of depressive and anxiety symptoms (defined as a self-reported total score of ≥10 in PHQ-9 and GAD-7, respectively) was calculated one month before, one month after the first dose, and, if applicable, one month after the second dose. For individuals not vaccinated or choosing not to report vaccination status (unvaccinated individuals), we selected three monthly measures of PHQ-9 and GAD-7 with 2-month intervals in-between based on data availability. RESULTS: 5,079 (64.1%) individuals received two doses of COVID-19 vaccine, 1,977 (24.9%) received one dose, 305 (3.9%) were not vaccinated, and 564 (7.1%) chose not to report vaccination status. There was a lower prevalence of depressive and anxiety symptoms among vaccinated, compared to unvaccinated individuals, especially after the second dose. Among individuals receiving two doses of vaccine, the prevalence of depressive and anxiety symptoms was lower after both first (aRR = 0.82, 95%CI 0.76-0.88 for depression; aRR = 0.81, 95%CI 0.73-0.89 for anxiety) and second (aRR = 0.79, 95%CI 0.73-0.85 for depression; aRR = 0.73, 95%CI 0.66-0.81 for anxiety) dose, compared to before vaccination. Similar results were observed among individuals receiving only one dose (aRR = 0.76, 95%CI 0.68-0.84 for depression; aRR = 0.82, 95%CI 0.72-0.94 for anxiety), comparing after first dose to before vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: We observed a short-term improvement in depressive and anxiety symptoms among adults receiving COVID-19 vaccines in the current pandemic. Our findings provide new evidence to support outreach campaigns targeting hesitant groups.

Trends in incident diagnoses and drug prescriptions for anxiety and depression during the COVID-19 pandemic: an 18-month follow-up study based on the UK Biobank.

Serious concerns have been raised about the negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on population psychological well-being. However, limited data exist on the long-term effects of the pandemic on incident psychiatric morbidities among individuals with varying exposure to the pandemic. Leveraging prospective data from the community-based UK Biobank cohort, we included 308,400 participants free of diagnosis of anxiety or depression, as well as 213,757 participants free of anxiolytics or antidepressants prescriptions, to explore the trends in incident diagnoses and drug prescriptions for anxiety and depression from 16 March 2020 to 31 August 2021, compared to the pre-pandemic period (i.e., 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2019) and across populations with different exposure statuses (i.e., not tested for COVID-19, tested negative and tested positive). The age- and sex-standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) were calculated by month which indicated an increase in incident diagnoses of anxiety or depression among individuals who were tested for COVID-19 (tested negative: SIR 3.05 [95% confidence interval 2.88-3.22]; tested positive: 2.03 [1.76-2.34]), especially during the first six months of the pandemic (i.e., March-September 2020). Similar increases were also observed for incident prescriptions of anxiolytics or antidepressants (tested negative: 1.56 [1.47-1.67]; tested positive: 1.41 [1.22-1.62]). In contrast, individuals not tested for COVID-19 had consistently lower incidence rates of both diagnoses of anxiety or depression (0.70 [0.67-0.72]) and prescriptions of respective psychotropic medications (0.70 [0.68-0.72]) during the pandemic period. These data suggest a distinct rise in health care needs for anxiety and depression among individuals tested for COVID-19, regardless of the test result, in contrast to a reduction in health care consumption for these disorders among individuals not tested for and, presumably, not directly exposed to the disease.

Unravelling the link between sleep and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The emergence of COVID-19 brought unparalleled changes in people's lifestyle, including sleep. We aimed to assess the bidirectional association between sleep quality and mental health and describe how sleep and mental health were affected in Sweden during the COVID-19 pandemic (between June 2020 and September 2021). Data were obtained from the Omtanke2020 study. Participants who completed the baseline survey and each of the 8 monthly follow-up surveys were included (N = 9035). We described the distribution of sleep and mental health in the different Swedish regions using maps and over the study period with longitudinal graphs adjusting for sex, age, recruitment type (self-recruitment or invitation), and COVID-19 status. The inner relationships between mental health, sleep and Covid infection were described through relative importance networks. Finally, we modelled how mental health affects sleep and vice versa using generalized estimating equations with different adjustments. Seasonal and north-south regional variations were found in sleep and mental health outcomes at baseline and attenuated over time. The seasonal variation of sleep and mental health correlated moderately with the incidence rate of COVID-19 in the sample. Networks indicate that the relationship between COVID-19 incidence and mental health varies over time. We observed a bidirectional relationship between sleep quality and quantity at baseline and mental health at follow-up and vice versa. Sleep quality and quantity at baseline was associated with adverse symptom trajectories of mental health at follow-up, and vice versa, during the COVID-19 pandemic. There was also a weak relationship between COVID-19 incidence, sleep, and mental health.

Mental health indicators in Sweden over a 12-month period during the COVID-19 pandemic - Baseline data of the Omtanke2020 Study.

BACKGROUND: The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented impact on the lives of people globally and is expected to have profound effects on mental health. Here we aim to describe the mental health burden experienced in Sweden using baseline data of the Omtanke2020 Study. METHOD: We analysed self-reported, cross-sectional baseline data collected over a 12-month period (June 9, 2020-June 8, 2021) from the Omtanke2020 Study including 27,950 adults in Sweden. Participants were volunteers or actively recruited through existing cohorts and, after providing informed consent, responded to online questionnaires on socio-demographics, mental and physical health, as well as COVID-19 infection and impact. Poisson regression was fitted to assess the relative risk of demonstrating high level symptoms of depression, anxiety, and COVID-19 related distress. RESULT: The proportion of persons with high level of symptoms was 15.6 %, 9.5 % and 24.5 % for depression, anxiety, and COVID-19 specific post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), respectively. Overall, 43.4 % of the participants had significant, clinically relevant symptoms for at least one of the three mental health outcomes and 7.3 % had significant symptoms for all three outcomes. We also observed differences in the prevalence of these outcomes across strata of sex, age, recruitment type, COVID-19 status, region, and seasonality. CONCLUSION: While the proportion of persons with high mental health burden remains higher than the ones reported in pre-pandemic publications, our estimates are lower than previously reported levels of depression, anxiety, and PTSD during the pandemic in Sweden and elsewhere.

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.

COVID-19 and risk of subsequent life-threatening secondary infections: a matched cohort study in UK Biobank.

BACKGROUND: With the increasing number of people infected with and recovered from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the extent of major health consequences of COVID-19 is unclear, including risks of severe secondary infections. METHODS: Based on 445,845 UK Biobank participants registered in England, we conducted a matched cohort study where 5151 individuals with a positive test result or hospitalized with a diagnosis of COVID-19 were included in the exposed group. We then randomly selected up to 10 matched individuals without COVID-19 diagnosis for each exposed individual (n = 51,402). The life-threatening secondary infections were defined as diagnoses of severe secondary infections with high mortality rates (i.e., sepsis, endocarditis, and central nervous system infections) from the UK Biobank inpatient hospital data, or deaths from these infections from mortality data. The follow-up period was limited to 3 months after the initial COVID-19 diagnosis. Using a similar study design, we additionally constructed a matched cohort where exposed individuals were diagnosed with seasonal influenza from either inpatient hospital or primary care data between 2010 and 2019 (6169 exposed and 61,555 unexposed individuals). After controlling for multiple confounders, Cox models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) of life-threatening secondary infections after COVID-19 or seasonal influenza. RESULTS: In the matched cohort for COVID-19, 50.22% of participants were male, and the median age at the index date was 66 years. During a median follow-up of 12.71 weeks, the incidence rate of life-threatening secondary infections was 2.23 (123/55.15) and 0.25 (151/600.55) per 1000 person-weeks for all patients with COVID-19 and their matched individuals, respectively, which corresponded to a fully adjusted HR of 8.19 (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.33-10.59). The corresponding HR of life-threatening secondary infections among all patients with seasonal influenza diagnosis was 4.50, 95% CI 3.34-6.08 (p for difference < 0.01). Also, elevated HRs were observed among hospitalized individuals for life-threatening secondary infections following hospital discharge, both in the COVID-19 (HR = 6.28 [95% CI 4.05-9.75]) and seasonal influenza (6.01 [95% CI 3.53-10.26], p for difference = 0.902) cohorts. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 patients have increased subsequent risks of life-threatening secondary infections, to an equal extent or beyond risk elevations observed for patients with seasonal influenza.

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.