ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The distressing COVID-19 pandemic has had a substantial impact on public mental health, and the importance of food and nutrients in several aspects of mental health has been recognized. People in isolation or quarantine suffer from severe stress, anger, panic attack, and anxiety. SCOPE AND APPROACH: Although, people who have improved and progressed through medications or vaccines have reduced anxiety levels to some extent yet the efficacy of these measures, in the long run, remains a question. The review depicts that such negative emotional reactions were particularly higher in elderly individuals in the first wave than in other phases. The emotional and behavioral response to the COVID-19 pandemic is multifactorial. From different research studies, it has been found that stress scores were considerably higher for those engaging in unhealthy eating practices. This factor relies not only on external components but on personal and innate ones as well. In the present pandemic, the sustainable development of the food system would have been a major issue; this should be carefully restored to avoid a food crisis in the future. KEY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Changes in mind-body interactions are triggered by psychosocial stresses such as interpersonal loss and social rejection. Physiological response (in terms of psychological stress) in COVID-19 affected patients varies due to individual physical health status. This review explores the relationship between nutrition and mental health as what we eat and think is interlinked with the gut-brain-axis. The role of dietary components along with the Mediterranean diet, DASH diet and use of psychobiotics in improving psychological distress in pandemic induced stress, anxiety and depression has also been discussed.
ABSTRACT
The COVID-19 pandemic has introduced a new battle in human history for a safe and fearless life. Therefore, this cross-sectional survey was conducted (Punjab, Pakistan) on healthy recovered, home quarantined COVID-19 patients to draw conclusive health support guidelines in the fight against this pandemic. COVID-19 recovered patients (n = 80) of age ≥14 years were randomly selected during the period November 2020 to February 2021. A nutrition and lifestyle changes questionnaire, containing ten sections and seventy questions, was completed through the telephone/WhatsApp. Data were transferred into an Excel spreadsheet and statistically analyzed by applying chi-square, correlation, and a t test of independent values using SPSS-16 software. The patients had an age range of 14 to 80 years, of which 52 (65%) were male and 28 (35%) were female, and 32 (40%) had a normal BMI. The patients had a peak COVID-19 recovery period of 2 weeks, and a mean recovery period of 2.8 ± 1.4 weeks. Certain variables, including gender (males), age (>40 years), sleep (≤5 hr), less/no physical activity, obesity, diabetes mellitus, and autoimmune diseases, were significantly associated with delayed recovery. Poor nutritional outcomes, including lower intakes of water, legumes, nuts, meat, and milk/yogurt; and higher consumption of fast/fried/junk/spicy foods and cold water/drinks, were also significantly associated with a longer recovery period. The results were similar for not taking daily doses of multivitamins, and vitamins C, D, E, and zinc. This study identified that staying physically active, maintaining sensible body weight, having a sleep of 7 hr, consuming more foods of plant origin especially plant-based proteins from nuts and legumes, taking supplemental doses of multivitamins, vitamin D, E, and zinc, along with drinking ≥2 L of water daily can provide a significant role in early and safe recovery from COVID-19.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Cardiovascular comorbidities may predispose to adverse outcomes in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, across the USA, the burden of cardiovascular comorbidities varies significantly. Whether clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 differ between regions has not yet been studied systematically. Here, we report differences in underlying cardiovascular comorbidities and clinical outcomes of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Texas and in New York state. METHODS: We established a multicenter retrospective registry including patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between March 15 and July 12, 2020. Demographic and clinical data were manually retrieved from electronic medical records. We focused on the following outcomes: mortality, need for pharmacologic circulatory support, need for mechanical ventilation, and need for hemodialysis. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Patients in the Texas cohort (n = 296) were younger (57 vs. 63 years, p value <0.001), they had a higher BMI (30.3 kg/m2 vs. 28.5 kg/m2, p = 0.015), and they had higher rates of diabetes mellitus (41 vs. 30%; p = 0.014). In contrast, patients in the New York state cohort (n = 218) had higher rates of coronary artery disease (19 vs. 10%, p = 0.005) and atrial fibrillation (11 vs. 5%, p = 0.012). Pharmacologic circulatory support, mechanical ventilation, and hemodialysis were more frequent in the Texas cohort (21 vs. 13%, p = 0.020; 30 vs. 12%, p < 0.001; and 11 vs. 5%, p = 0.009, respectively). In-hospital mortality was similar between the 2 cohorts (16 vs. 18%, p = 0.469). After adjusting for differences in underlying comorbidities, only the use of mechanical ventilation remained significantly higher in the participating Texas hospitals (odds ratios [95% CI]: 3.88 [1.23, 12.24]). Median time to pharmacologic circulatory support was 8 days (interquartile range: 2, 13.8) in the Texas cohort compared to 1 day (0, 3) in the New York state cohort, while median time to in-hospital mortality was 16 days (10, 25.5) and 7 days (4, 14), respectively (both p < 0.001). In-hospital mortality was higher in the late versus the early study phase in the New York state cohort (24 vs. 14%, p = 0.050), while it was similar between the 2 phases in the Texas cohort (16 vs. 15%, p = 0.741). CONCLUSIONS: Geographical differences, including practice pattern variations and the impact of disease burden on provision of health care, are important for the evaluation of COVID-19 outcomes. Unadjusted data may cause bias affecting future regulatory policies and proper allocation of resources.