Determinants of recovery from post-COVID-19 dyspnoea: analysis of UK prospective cohorts of hospitalised COVID-19 patients and community-based controls.

Background: The risk factors for recovery from COVID-19 dyspnoea are poorly understood. We investigated determinants of recovery from dyspnoea in adults with COVID-19 and compared these to determinants of recovery from non-COVID-19 dyspnoea. Methods: We used data from two prospective cohort studies: PHOSP-COVID (patients hospitalised between March 2020 and April 2021 with COVID-19) and COVIDENCE UK (community cohort studied over the same time period). PHOSP-COVID data were collected during hospitalisation and at 5-month and 1-year follow-up visits. COVIDENCE UK data were obtained through baseline and monthly online questionnaires. Dyspnoea was measured in both cohorts with the Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify determinants associated with a reduction in dyspnoea between 5-month and 1-year follow-up. Findings: We included 990 PHOSP-COVID and 3309 COVIDENCE UK participants. We observed higher odds of improvement between 5-month and 1-year follow-up among PHOSP-COVID participants who were younger (odds ratio 1.02 per year, 95% CI 1.01-1.03), male (1.54, 1.16-2.04), neither obese nor severely obese (1.82, 1.06-3.13 and 4.19, 2.14-8.19, respectively), had no pre-existing anxiety or depression (1.56, 1.09-2.22) or cardiovascular disease (1.33, 1.00-1.79), and shorter hospital admission (1.01 per day, 1.00-1.02). Similar associations were found in those recovering from non-COVID-19 dyspnoea, excluding age (and length of hospital admission). Interpretation: Factors associated with dyspnoea recovery at 1-year post-discharge among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 were similar to those among community controls without COVID-19. Funding: PHOSP-COVID is supported by a grant from the MRC-UK Research and Innovation and the Department of Health and Social Care through the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) rapid response panel to tackle COVID-19. The views expressed in the publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the National Health Service (NHS), the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.COVIDENCE UK is supported by the UK Research and Innovation, the National Institute for Health Research, and Barts Charity. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funders.

Comparative effectiveness of two- and three-dose COVID-19 vaccination schedules involving AZD1222 and BNT162b2 in people with kidney disease: a linked OpenSAFELY and UK Renal Registry cohort study.

Background: Kidney disease is a key risk factor for COVID-19-related mortality and suboptimal vaccine response. Optimising vaccination strategies is essential to reduce the disease burden in this vulnerable population. We therefore compared the effectiveness of two- and three-dose schedules involving AZD1222 (AZ; ChAdOx1-S) and BNT162b2 (BNT) among people with kidney disease in England. Methods: With the approval of NHS England, we performed a retrospective cohort study among people with moderate-to-severe kidney disease. Using linked primary care and UK Renal Registry records in the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform, we identified adults with stage 3-5 chronic kidney disease, dialysis recipients, and kidney transplant recipients. We used Cox proportional hazards models to compare COVID-19-related outcomes and non-COVID-19 death after two-dose (AZ-AZ vs BNT-BNT) and three-dose (AZ-AZ-BNT vs BNT-BNT-BNT) schedules. Findings: After two doses, incidence during the Delta wave was higher in AZ-AZ (n = 257,580) than BNT-BNT recipients (n = 169,205; adjusted hazard ratios [95% CIs] 1.43 [1.37-1.50], 1.59 [1.43-1.77], 1.44 [1.12-1.85], and 1.09 [1.02-1.17] for SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19-related hospitalisation, COVID-19-related death, and non-COVID-19 death, respectively). Findings were consistent across disease subgroups, including dialysis and transplant recipients. After three doses, there was little evidence of differences between AZ-AZ-BNT (n = 220,330) and BNT-BNT-BNT recipients (n = 157,065) for any outcome during a period of Omicron dominance. Interpretation: Among individuals with moderate-to-severe kidney disease, two doses of BNT conferred stronger protection than AZ against SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe disease. A subsequent BNT dose levelled the playing field, emphasising the value of heterologous RNA doses in vulnerable populations. Funding: National Core Studies, Wellcome Trust, MRC, and Health Data Research UK.

Changes in COVID-19-related mortality across key demographic and clinical subgroups in England from 2020 to 2022: a retrospective cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has been shown to differently affect various demographic and clinical population subgroups. We aimed to describe trends in absolute and relative COVID-19-related mortality risks across clinical and demographic population subgroups during successive SARS-CoV-2 pandemic waves. METHODS: We did a retrospective cohort study in England using the OpenSAFELY platform with the approval of National Health Service England, covering the first five SARS-CoV-2 pandemic waves (wave one [wild-type] from March 23 to May 30, 2020; wave two [alpha (B.1.1.7)] from Sept 7, 2020, to April 24, 2021; wave three [delta (B.1.617.2)] from May 28 to Dec 14, 2021; wave four [omicron (B.1.1.529)] from Dec 15, 2021, to April 29, 2022; and wave five [omicron] from June 24 to Aug 3, 2022). In each wave, we included people aged 18-110 years who were registered with a general practice on the first day of the wave and who had at least 3 months of continuous general practice registration up to this date. We estimated crude and sex-standardised and age-standardised wave-specific COVID-19-related death rates and relative risks of COVID-19-related death in population subgroups. FINDINGS: 18 895 870 adults were included in wave one, 19 014 720 in wave two, 18 932 050 in wave three, 19 097 970 in wave four, and 19 226 475 in wave five. Crude COVID-19-related death rates per 1000 person-years decreased from 4·48 deaths (95% CI 4·41-4·55) in wave one to 2·69 (2·66-2·72) in wave two, 0·64 (0·63-0·66) in wave three, 1·01 (0·99-1·03) in wave four, and 0·67 (0·64-0·71) in wave five. In wave one, the standardised COVID-19-related death rates were highest in people aged 80 years or older, people with chronic kidney disease stage 5 or 4, people receiving dialysis, people with dementia or learning disability, and people who had received a kidney transplant (ranging from 19·85 deaths per 1000 person-years to 44·41 deaths per 1000 person-years, compared with from 0·05 deaths per 1000 person-years to 15·93 deaths per 1000 person-years in other subgroups). In wave two compared with wave one, in a largely unvaccinated population, the decrease in COVID-19-related mortality was evenly distributed across population subgroups. In wave three compared with wave one, larger decreases in COVID-19-related death rates were seen in groups prioritised for primary SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, including people aged 80 years or older and people with neurological disease, learning disability, or severe mental illness (90-91% decrease). Conversely, smaller decreases in COVID-19-related death rates were observed in younger age groups, people who had received organ transplants, and people with chronic kidney disease, haematological malignancies, or immunosuppressive conditions (0-25% decrease). In wave four compared with wave one, the decrease in COVID-19-related death rates was smaller in groups with lower vaccination coverage (including younger age groups) and conditions associated with impaired vaccine response, including people who had received organ transplants and people with immunosuppressive conditions (26-61% decrease). INTERPRETATION: There was a substantial decrease in absolute COVID-19-related death rates over time in the overall population, but demographic and clinical relative risk profiles persisted and worsened for people with lower vaccination coverage or impaired immune response. Our findings provide an evidence base to inform UK public health policy for protecting these vulnerable population subgroups. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, Wellcome Trust, UK Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health and Care Research, and Health Data Research UK.

Trends, variation, and clinical characteristics of recipients of antiviral drugs and neutralising monoclonal antibodies for covid-19 in community settings: retrospective, descriptive cohort study of 23.4 million people in OpenSAFELY

Objective To ascertain patient eligibility status and describe coverage of antiviral drugs and neutralising monoclonal antibodies (nMAB) as treatment for covid-19 in community settings in England. Design Retrospective, descriptive cohort study, approved by NHS England. Setting Routine clinical data from 23.4 million people linked to data on covid-19 infection and treatment, within the OpenSAFELY-TPP database. Participants Outpatients with covid-19 at high risk of severe outcomes. Interventions Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (paxlovid), sotrovimab, molnupiravir, casirivimab/imdevimab, or remdesivir, used in the community by covid-19 medicine delivery units. Results 93 870 outpatients with covid-19 were identified between 11 December 2021 and 28 April 2022 to be at high risk of severe outcomes and therefore potentially eligible for antiviral or nMAB treatment (or both). Of these patients, 19 040 (20%) received treatment (sotrovimab, 9660 (51%);molnupiravir, 4620 (24%);paxlovid, 4680 (25%);casirivimab/imdevimab, 50 (<1%);and remdesivir, 30 (<1%)). The proportion of patients treated increased from 9% (190/2220) in the first week of treatment availability to 29% (460/1600) in the latest week. The proportion treated varied by high risk group, being lowest in those with liver disease (16%;95% confidence interval 15% to 17%);by treatment type, with sotrovimab favoured over molnupiravir and paxlovid in all but three high risk groups (Down's syndrome (35%;30% to 39%), rare neurological conditions (45%;43% to 47%), and immune deficiencies (48%;47% to 50%));by age, ranging from ≥80 years (13%;12% to 14%) to 50-59 years (23%;22% to 23%);by ethnic group, ranging from black (11%;10% to 12%) to white (21%;21% to 21%);by NHS region, ranging from 13% (12% to 14%) in Yorkshire and the Humber to 25% (24% to 25%) in the East of England);and by deprivation level, ranging from 15% (14% to 15%) in the most deprived areas to 23% (23% to 24%) in the least deprived areas. Groups that also had lower coverage included unvaccinated patients (7%;6% to 9%), those with dementia (6%;5% to 7%), and care home residents (6%;6% to 7%). Conclusions Using the OpenSAFELY platform, we were able to identify patients with covid-19 at high risk of severe outcomes who were potentially eligible to receive treatment and assess the coverage of these new treatments among these patients. In the context of a rapid deployment of a new service, the NHS analytical code used to determine eligibility could have been over-inclusive and some of the eligibility criteria not fully captured in healthcare data. However targeted activity might be needed to resolve apparent lower treatment coverage observed among certain groups, in particular (at present): different NHS regions, ethnic groups, people aged ≥80 years, those living in socioeconomically deprived areas, and care home residents.

Characteristics and risk factors for post-COVID-19 breathlessness after hospitalisation for COVID-19.

Background: Persistence of respiratory symptoms, particularly breathlessness, after acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection has emerged as a significant clinical problem. We aimed to characterise and identify risk factors for patients with persistent breathlessness following COVID-19 hospitalisation. Methods: PHOSP-COVID is a multicentre prospective cohort study of UK adults hospitalised for COVID-19. Clinical data were collected during hospitalisation and at a follow-up visit. Breathlessness was measured by a numeric rating scale of 0-10. We defined post-COVID-19 breathlessness as an increase in score of ≥1 compared to the pre-COVID-19 level. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify risk factors and to develop a prediction model for post-COVID-19 breathlessness. Results: We included 1226 participants (37% female, median age 59 years, 22% mechanically ventilated). At a median 5 months after discharge, 50% reported post-COVID-19 breathlessness. Risk factors for post-COVID-19 breathlessness were socioeconomic deprivation (adjusted OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.14-2.44), pre-existing depression/anxiety (adjusted OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.06-2.35), female sex (adjusted OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.21-2.00) and admission duration (adjusted OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02). Black ethnicity (adjusted OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.35-0.89) and older age groups (adjusted OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.14-0.66) were less likely to report post-COVID-19 breathlessness. Post-COVID-19 breathlessness was associated with worse performance on the shuttle walk test and forced vital capacity, but not with obstructive airflow limitation. The prediction model had fair discrimination (concordance statistic 0.66, 95% CI 0.63-0.69) and good calibration (calibration slope 1.00, 95% CI 0.80-1.21). Conclusions: Post-COVID-19 breathlessness was commonly reported in this national cohort of patients hospitalised for COVID-19 and is likely to be a multifactorial problem with physical and emotional components.

Trust in government regarding COVID-19 and its associations with preventive health behaviour and prosocial behaviour during the pandemic: a cross-sectional and longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: The effective implementation of government policies and measures for controlling the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic requires compliance from the public. This study aimed to examine cross-sectional and longitudinal associations of trust in government regarding COVID-19 control with the adoption of recommended health behaviours and prosocial behaviours, and potential determinants of trust in government during the pandemic. METHODS: This study analysed data from the PsyCorona Survey, an international project on COVID-19 that included 23 733 participants from 23 countries (representative in age and gender distributions by country) at baseline survey and 7785 participants who also completed follow-up surveys. Specification curve analysis was used to examine concurrent associations between trust in government and self-reported behaviours. We further used structural equation model to explore potential determinants of trust in government. Multilevel linear regressions were used to examine associations between baseline trust and longitudinal behavioural changes. RESULTS: Higher trust in government regarding COVID-19 control was significantly associated with higher adoption of health behaviours (handwashing, avoiding crowded space, self-quarantine) and prosocial behaviours in specification curve analyses (median standardised ß = 0.173 and 0.229, p < 0.001). Government perceived as well organised, disseminating clear messages and knowledge on COVID-19, and perceived fairness were positively associated with trust in government (standardised ß = 0.358, 0.230, 0.056, and 0.249, p < 0.01). Higher trust at baseline survey was significantly associated with lower rate of decline in health behaviours over time (p for interaction = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These results highlighted the importance of trust in government in the control of COVID-19.

Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake in people with kidney disease: an OpenSAFELY cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To characterise factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake among people with kidney disease in England. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform, performed with the approval of NHS England. SETTING: Individual-level routine clinical data from 24 million people across GPs in England using TPP software. Primary care data were linked directly with COVID-19 vaccine records up to 31 August 2022 and with renal replacement therapy (RRT) status via the UK Renal Registry (UKRR). PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of adults with stage 3-5 chronic kidney disease (CKD) or receiving RRT at the start of the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out was identified based on evidence of reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) or inclusion in the UKRR. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Dose-specific vaccine coverage over time was determined from 1 December 2020 to 31 August 2022. Individual-level factors associated with receipt of a 3-dose or 4-dose vaccine series were explored via Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: 992 205 people with stage 3-5 CKD or receiving RRT were included. Cumulative vaccine coverage as of 31 August 2022 was 97.5%, 97.0% and 93.9% for doses 1, 2 and 3, respectively, and 81.9% for dose 4 among individuals with one or more indications for eligibility. Delayed 3-dose vaccine uptake was associated with younger age, minority ethnicity, social deprivation and severe mental illness-associations that were consistent across CKD severity subgroups, dialysis patients and kidney transplant recipients. Similar associations were observed for 4-dose uptake. CONCLUSION: Although high primary vaccine and booster dose coverage has been achieved among people with kidney disease in England, key disparities in vaccine uptake remain across clinical and demographic groups and 4-dose coverage is suboptimal. Targeted interventions are needed to identify barriers to vaccine uptake among under-vaccinated subgroups identified in the present study.

Characteristics and risk factors for post-COVID breathlessness after hospitalisation for COVID-19

Background Persistence of respiratory symptoms—particularly breathlessness—after acute COVID-19 infection has emerged as a significant clinical problem. We aimed to characterise and identify risk factors for patients with persistent breathlessness following COVID-19 hospitalisation. Methods PHOSP-COVID is a multi-centre prospective cohort study of UK adults hospitalised for COVID-19. Clinical data were collected during hospitalisation and at a follow-up visit. Breathlessness was measured by a numeric rating scale of 0–10. We defined post-COVID breathlessness as an increase in score of 1 or more compared to the pre-COVID-19 level. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify risk factors, and to develop a prediction model for post-COVID breathlessness. Results We included 1226 participants (37% female, median age 59 years, 22% mechanically ventilated). At a median five months after discharge, 50% reported post-COVID breathlessness. Risk factors for post-COVID breathlessness were socio-economic deprivation (adjusted odds ratio, 1.67;95% confidence interval, 1.14–2.44), pre-existing depression/anxiety (1.58;1.06–2.35), female sex (1.56;1.21–2.00) and admission duration (1.01;1.00–1.02). Black ethnicity (0.56;0.35–0.89) and older age groups (0.31;0.14–0.66) were less likely to report post-COVID breathlessness. Post-COVID breathlessness was associated with worse performance on the shuttle walk test and forced vital capacity, but not with obstructive airflow limitation. The prediction model had fair discrimination (concordance-statistic 0.66;0.63–0.69), and good calibration (calibration slope 1.00;0.80–1.21). Conclusions Post-COVID breathlessness was commonly reported in this national cohort of patients hospitalised for COVID-19 and is likely to be a multifactorial problem with physical and emotional components.

Comparative effectiveness of sotrovimab and molnupiravir for prevention of severe covid-19 outcomes in patients in the community: observational cohort study with the OpenSAFELY platform.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of sotrovimab (a neutralising monoclonal antibody) with molnupiravir (an antiviral) in preventing severe outcomes of covid-19 in adult patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the community and at high risk of severe outcomes from covid-19. DESIGN: Observational cohort study with the OpenSAFELY platform. SETTING: With the approval of NHS England, a real world cohort study was conducted with the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform (a secure, transparent, open source software platform for analysis of NHS electronic health records), and patient level electronic health record data were obtained from 24 million people registered with a general practice in England that uses TPP software. The primary care data were securely linked with data on SARS-CoV-2 infection and treatments, hospital admission, and death, over a period when both drug treatments were frequently prescribed in community settings. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients with covid-19 in the community at high risk of severe outcomes from covid-19, treated with sotrovimab or molnupiravir from 16 December 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Sotrovimab or molnupiravir given in the community by covid-19 medicine delivery units. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Admission to hospital with covid-19 (ie, with covid-19 as the primary diagnosis) or death from covid-19 (ie, with covid-19 as the underlying or contributing cause of death) within 28 days of the start of treatment. RESULTS: Between 16 December 2021 and 10 February 2022, 3331 and 2689 patients were treated with sotrovimab and molnupiravir, respectively, with no substantial differences in baseline characteristics. Mean age of all 6020 patients was 52 (standard deviation 16) years; 59% were women, 89% were white, and 88% had received three or more covid-19 vaccinations. Within 28 days of the start of treatment, 87 (1.4%) patients were admitted to hospital or died of infection from SARS-CoV-2 (32 treated with sotrovimab and 55 with molnupiravir). Cox proportional hazards models stratified by area showed that after adjusting for demographic information, high risk cohort categories, vaccination status, calendar time, body mass index, and other comorbidities, treatment with sotrovimab was associated with a substantially lower risk than treatment with molnupiravir (hazard ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.33 to 0.88, P=0.01). Consistent results were found from propensity score weighted Cox models (0.50, 0.31 to 0.81, P=0.005) and when restricted to people who were fully vaccinated (0.53, 0.31 to 0.90, P=0.02). No substantial effect modifications by other characteristics were detected (all P values for interaction >0.10). The findings were similar in an exploratory analysis of patients treated between 16 February and 1 May 2022 when omicron BA.2 was the predominant variant in England. CONCLUSIONS: In routine care of adult patients in England with covid-19 in the community, at high risk of severe outcomes from covid-19, those who received sotrovimab were at lower risk of severe outcomes of covid-19 than those treated with molnupiravir.

Impact of National Pandemic Lockdowns on Perceived Threat of Immigrants: A Natural Quasi-Experiment Across 23 Countries

Xenophobia and anti-immigrant attacks rose during the COVID-19 pandemic, yet this may not be solely due to the disease threat. According to theories of frustration and scapegoating, situational obstructions and deprivation can motivate prejudice against outgroups. Using a global natural quasi-experimental design, this study tests whether the restrictiveness of national lockdowns can explain higher individual-level perceptions of immigrant threat. Data of 45,894 participants from 23 countries were analyzed. Both lockdown duration and lockdown severity were positively associated with individuals' perceived threat of immigrants. The lockdown effects were independent of objective and subjective measures of disease threat, and there was no evidence that disease threat drives people's prejudice toward immigrants. Subgroup analysis suggested the lockdown effects were reliable in Europe and the Americas, but not in Asia. These findings suggest a need to mitigate frustration and scapegoating when implementing lockdowns, and to distinguish the influence of societal restrictions from disease threat.

Why some people do not get vaccinated against COVID-19: Social-cognitive determinants of vaccination behavior.

It is puzzling that a sizeable percentage of people refuse to get vaccinated against COVID-19. This study aimed to examine social psychological factors influencing their vaccine hesitancy. This longitudinal study traced a cohort of 2663 individuals in 25 countries from the time before COVID-19 vaccines became available (March 2020) to July 2021, when vaccination was widely available. Multilevel logistic regressions were used to examine determinants of actual COVID-19 vaccination behavior by July 2021, with country-level intercept as random effect. Of the 2663 participants, 2186 (82.1%) had been vaccinated by July 2021. Participants' attitude toward COVID-19 vaccines was the strongest predictor of both vaccination intention and subsequent vaccination behavior (p < .001). Perceived risk of getting infected and perceived personal disturbance of infection were also associated with higher likelihood of getting vaccinated (p < .001). However, religiosity, right-wing political orientation, conspiracy beliefs, and low trust in government regarding COVID-19 were negative predictors of vaccination intention and behavior (p < .05). Our findings highlight the importance of attitude toward COVID-19 vaccines and also suggest that certain life-long held convictions that predate the pandemic make people distrustful of their government and likely to accept conspiracy beliefs and therefore less likely to adopt the vaccination behavior.

Prevalence, risk factors and treatments for post-COVID-19 breathlessness: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Persistent breathlessness >28 days after acute COVID-19 infection has been identified as a highly debilitating post-COVID symptom. However, the prevalence, risk factors, mechanisms and treatments for post-COVID breathlessness remain poorly understood. We systematically searched PubMed and Embase for relevant studies published from 1 January 2020 to 1 November 2021 (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021285733) and included 119 eligible papers. Random-effects meta-analysis of 42 872 patients with COVID-19 reported in 102 papers found an overall prevalence of post-COVID breathlessness of 26% (95% CI 23-29) when measuring the presence/absence of the symptom, and 41% (95% CI 34-48) when using Medical Research Council (MRC)/modified MRC dyspnoea scale. The pooled prevalence decreased significantly from 1-6 months to 7-12 months post-infection. Post-COVID breathlessness was more common in those with severe/critical acute infection, those who were hospitalised and females, and was less likely to be reported by patients in Asia than those in Europe or North America. Multiple pathophysiological mechanisms have been proposed (including deconditioning, restrictive/obstructive airflow limitation, systemic inflammation, impaired mental health), but the body of evidence remains inconclusive. Seven cohort studies and one randomised controlled trial suggested rehabilitation exercises may reduce post-COVID breathlessness. There is an urgent need for mechanistic research and development of interventions for the prevention and treatment of post-COVID breathlessness.

Long-Term Sequelae of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of One-Year Follow-Up Studies on Post-COVID Symptoms.

Emerging evidence has shown that COVID-19 survivors could suffer from persistent symptoms. However, it remains unclear whether these symptoms persist over the longer term. This study aimed to systematically synthesise evidence on post-COVID symptoms persisting for at least 12 months. We searched PubMed and Embase for papers reporting at least one-year follow-up results of COVID-19 survivors published by 6 November 2021. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to estimate pooled prevalence of specific post-COVID symptoms. Eighteen papers that reported one-year follow-up data from 8591 COVID-19 survivors were included. Fatigue/weakness (28%, 95% CI: 18-39), dyspnoea (18%, 95% CI: 13-24), arthromyalgia (26%, 95% CI: 8-44), depression (23%, 95% CI: 12-34), anxiety (22%, 95% CI: 15-29), memory loss (19%, 95% CI: 7-31), concentration difficulties (18%, 95% CI: 2-35), and insomnia (12%, 95% CI: 7-17) were the most prevalent symptoms at one-year follow-up. Existing evidence suggested that female patients and those with more severe initial illness were more likely to suffer from the sequelae after one year. This study demonstrated that a sizeable proportion of COVID-19 survivors still experience residual symptoms involving various body systems one year later. There is an urgent need for elucidating the pathophysiologic mechanisms and developing and testing targeted interventions for long-COVID patients.

A clinical review of long-COVID with a focus on the respiratory system.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Persistence of symptoms after acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), often described as long- COVID, is common and debilitating. In this article, we review the epidemiology, clinical features, and research priorities for long-COVID focusing on the respiratory system. RECENT FINDINGS: Breathlessness, cough and chest pain were the most commonly reported respiratory symptoms associated with long-COVID. In hospitalised patients, abnormalities on lung function testing or chest imaging were observed less commonly at 12 months compared to six months since discharge. Clinical assessment of patients with persisting symptoms after acute COVID-19 requires a comprehensive evaluation to exclude other possible causes for symptoms. With no robust current evidence for interventions to treat long-COVID respiratory symptoms, symptomatic treatment, supported self-management and pulmonary rehabilitation should be considered to help individuals with respiratory symptoms associated with long-COVID. SUMMARY: Long-COVID is a debilitating syndrome that often includes persisting respiratory symptoms and to a lesser degree, abnormalities in lung physiology or imaging. Respiratory features of long-COVID may reduce over time, yet resolution is not seen in all cases. Future research is needed to understand the natural history of long-COVID, identify factors associated with spontaneous improvement/persistence, investigate mechanisms for persisting symptoms, and test interventions to prevent and treat long-COVID.

Health, Lifestyle, and Psycho-Social Determinants of Poor Sleep Quality During the Early Phase of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Focus on UK Older Adults Deemed Clinically Extremely Vulnerable.

Background: Several studies have assessed the impact of COVID-19-related lockdowns on sleep quality across global populations. However, no study to date has specifically assessed at-risk populations, particularly those at highest risk of complications from coronavirus infection deemed "clinically-extremely-vulnerable-(COVID-19CEV)" (as defined by Public Health England). Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we surveyed 5,558 adults aged ≥50 years (of whom 523 met criteria for COVID-19CEV) during the first pandemic wave that resulted in a nationwide-lockdown (April-June 2020) with assessments of sleep quality (an adapted sleep scale that captured multiple sleep indices before and during the lockdown), health/medical, lifestyle, psychosocial and socio-demographic factors. We examined associations between these variables and sleep quality; and explored interactions of COVID-19CEV status with significant predictors of poor sleep, to identify potential moderating factors. Results: Thirty-seven percent of participants reported poor sleep quality which was associated with younger age, female sex and multimorbidity. Significant associations with poor sleep included health/medical factors: COVID-19CEV status, higher BMI, arthritis, pulmonary disease, and mental health disorders; and the following lifestyle and psychosocial factors: living alone, higher alcohol consumption, an unhealthy diet and higher depressive and anxiety symptoms. Moderators of the negative relationship between COVID-19CEV status and good sleep quality were marital status, loneliness, anxiety and diet. Within this subgroup, less anxious and less lonely males, as well as females with healthier diets, reported better sleep. Conclusions: Sleep quality in older adults was compromised during the sudden unprecedented nation-wide lockdown due to distinct modifiable factors. An important contribution of our study is the assessment of a "clinically-extremely-vulnerable" population and the sex differences identified within this group. Male and female older adults deemed COVID-19CEV may benefit from targeted mental health and dietary interventions, respectively. This work extends the available evidence on the notable impact of lack of social interactions during the COVID-19 pandemic on sleep, and provides recommendations toward areas for future work, including research into vulnerability factors impacting sleep disruption and COVID-19-related complications. Study results may inform tailored interventions targeted at modifiable risk factors to promote optimal sleep; additionally, providing empirical data to support health policy development in this area.

Association between blood pressure categories and cardiovascular disease mortality in China.

BACKGROUND: Blood pressure (BP) categories are useful to simplify preventions in public health, and diagnostic and treatment approaches in clinical practice. Updated evidence about the associations of BP categories with cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) and its subtypes is warranted. METHODS AND FINDINGS: About 0.5 million adults aged 30 to 79 years were recruited from 10 areas in China during 2004-2008. The present study included 430 977 participants without antihypertension treatment, cancer, or CVD at baseline. BP was measured at least twice in a single visit at baseline and CVD deaths during follow-up were collected via registries and the national health insurance databases. Multivariable Cox regression was used to estimate the associations between BP categories and CVD mortality. Overall, 16.3% had prehypertension-low, 25.1% had prehypertension-high, 14.1% had isolated systolic hypertension (ISH), 1.9% had isolated diastolic hypertension (IDH), and 9.1% had systolic-diastolic hypertension (SDH). During a median 10-year follow-up, 9660 CVD deaths were documented. Compared with normal, the hazard ratios (95% CI) of prehypertension-low, prehypertension-high, ISH, IDH, SDH for CVD were 1.10 (1.01-1.19), 1.32 (1.23-1.42), 2.04 (1.91-2.19), 2.20 (1.85-2.61), and 3.81 (3.54-4.09), respectively. All hypertension subtypes were related to the increased risk of CVD subtypes, with a stronger association for hemorrhagic stroke than for ischemic heart disease. The associations were stronger in younger than older adults. CONCLUSIONS: Prehypertension-high should be considered in CVD primary prevention given its high prevalence and increased CVD risk. All hypertension subtypes were independently associated with CVD and its subtypes mortality, though the strength of associations varied substantially.

Associations of risk perception of COVID-19 with emotion and mental health during the pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Although there are increasing concerns on mental health consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, no large-scale population-based studies have examined the associations of risk perception of COVID-19 with emotion and subsequent mental health. METHODS: This study analysed cross-sectional and longitudinal data from the PsyCorona Survey that included 54,845 participants from 112 countries, of which 23,278 participants are representative samples of 24 countries in terms of gender and age. Specification curve analysis (SCA) was used to examine associations of risk perception of COVID-19 with emotion and self-rated mental health. This robust method considers all reasonable model specifications to avoid subjective analytical decisions while accounting for multiple testing. RESULTS: All 162 multilevel linear regressions in the SCA indicated that higher risk perception of COVID-19 was significantly associated with less positive or more negative emotions (median standardised ß=-0.171, median SE=0.004, P<0.001). Specifically, regressions involving economic risk perception and negative emotions revealed stronger associations. Moreover, risk perception at baseline survey was inversely associated with subsequent mental health (standardised ß=-0.214, SE=0.029, P<0.001). We further used SCA to explore whether this inverse association was mediated by emotional distress. Among the 54 multilevel linear regressions of mental health on risk perception and emotion, 42 models showed a strong mediation effect, where no significant direct effect of risk perception was found after controlling for emotion (P>0.05). LIMITATIONS: Reliance on self-reported data. CONCLUSIONS: Risk perception of COVID-19 was associated with emotion and ultimately mental health. Interventions on reducing excessive risk perception and managing emotional distress could promote mental health.