Vaccine effectiveness of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac against SARS-CoV-2 omicron infection and related hospital admission among people with substance use disorder in Hong Kong: a matched case-control study.

BACKGROUND: People with substance use disorder have a high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and subsequent poor outcomes. Few studies have evaluated COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness among people with substance use disorder. We aimed to estimate the vaccine effectiveness of BNT162b2 (Fosun-BioNTech) and CoronaVac (Sinovac) against SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529) infection and related hospital admission in this population. METHODS: We did a matched case-control study using electronic health databases in Hong Kong. Individuals diagnosed with substance use disorder between Jan 1, 2016, and Jan 1, 2022, were identified. People aged 18 years and older with SARS-CoV-2 infection from Jan 1 to May 31, 2022, and people with COVID-19-related hospital admission from Feb 16 to May 31, 2022, were included as cases and were matched by age, sex, and previous clinical history with controls from all individuals diagnosed with substance use disorder who attended the Hospital Authority health services: up to three controls for SARS-CoV-2 infection and up to ten controls for hospital admission. Conditional logistical regression was used to evaluate the association between vaccination status (ie, one, two, or three doses of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac) and the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19-related hospital admission, adjusted for baseline comorbidities and medication use. FINDINGS: Among 57 674 individuals with substance use disorder, 9523 people with SARS-CoV-2 infections (mean age 61·00 years, SD 14·90; 8075 [84·8%] males and 1448 [15·2%] females) were identified and matched to 28 217 controls (mean age 60·99 years, 14·67; 24 006 [85·1%] males and 4211 [14·9%] females), and 843 people with COVID-19-related hospital admissions (mean age 70·48 years, SD 14·68; 754 [89·4%] males and 89 [10·6%] females) were identified and matched to 7459 controls (mean age 70·24 years, 13·87; 6837 [91·7%] males and 622 [8·3%] females). Data on ethnicity were not available. We observed significant vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection for two-dose BNT162b2 vaccination (20·7%, 95% CI 14·0-27·0, p<0·0001) and three-dose vaccination (all BNT162b2 41·5%, 34·4-47·8, p<0·0001; all CoronaVac 13·6%, 5·4-21·0, p=0·0015; BNT162b2 booster after two-dose CoronaVac 31·3%, 19·8-41·1, p<0·0001), but not for one dose of either vaccine or two doses of CoronaVac. Significant vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19-related hospital admission was detected after one dose of BNT162b2 vaccination (35·7%, 3·8-57·1, p=0·032), two-dose vaccination (both BNT162b2 73·3%, 64·3 to 80·0, p<0·0001; both CoronaVac 59·9%, 50·2-67·7, p<0·0001), and three-dose vaccination (all BNT162b2 86·3%, 75·6-92·3, p<0·0001; all CoronaVac 73·5% 61·0-81·9, p<0·0001; BNT162b2 booster after two-dose CoronaVac 83·7%, 64·6-92·5, p<0·0001), but not after one dose of CoronaVac. INTERPRETATION: For both BNT162b2 and CoronaVac, two-dose or three-dose vaccination was protective against COVID-19-related hospital admission and the booster dose provided protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection among people with substance use disorder. Our findings confirm the importance of booster doses in this population during the period dominated by the omicron variant. FUNDING: Health Bureau, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

The impact of COVID-19 on the mental health workforce: A rapid review.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to significant adaptations to healthcare. Provision of mental healthcare in a changing environment presented healthcare workers with unique challenges and demands, including changes in workload and expectations. To inform current and future healthcare service responses, and adaptations, the current review aimed to collate and examine the impact of the pandemic on mental healthcare workers (MHWs). We conducted a rapid systematic review to examine the overall impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on MHWs. Searches were conducted in Ovid Medline and PsycInfo and restricted to articles published from 2020. Inclusion criteria specified articles written in English, published in peer-reviewed journals, and that examined any outcome of the impact of COVID-19 on MHWs; 55 articles fulfilled these criteria. Outcomes were categorized into 'work-related outcomes' and 'personal outcomes'. Mental healthcare workers worldwide experienced a range of work-related and personal adversities during the pandemic. Key work-related outcomes included increased workload, changed roles, burnout, decreased job satisfaction, telehealth challenges, difficulties with work-life balance, altered job performance, vicarious trauma and increased workplace violence. Personal outcomes included decreased well-being, increased psychological distress and psychosocial difficulties. These outcomes differed between inpatient, outpatient and remote settings. The COVID-19 pandemic significantly altered the delivery of mental healthcare and MHWs experienced both work-related and personal adversities during the COVID-19 pandemic. With the continuation of changes introduced to healthcare in the initial stages of the pandemic, it will be important to maintain efforts to monitor negative outcomes and ensure supports for MHWs, going forward.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on access to healthcare, physical and mental health among patients with chronic kidney disease in Victoria, Australia.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the difficulties healthcare systems face to care for patients with chronic diseases. In the state of Victoria, Australia, the government implemented a state-wide lockdown and restricted the delivery of healthcare to limit the spread of the virus. This study investigated the impact of the pandemic on healthcare access, mental and physical health for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). METHODS: Patients with stage 4 or 5 CKD were recruited from the nephrology unit of a metropolitan hospital in Victoria. Participants completed a quantitative and qualitative questionnaire that assessed the impact of the pandemic on their access to healthcare and mental and physical health. The quantitative data were analysed by a series of one-way between-groups analysis of variance (ANOVAs) comparing impact between different time periods since the beginning of the pandemic. RESULTS: Participants (n = 75) completed the questionnaire from 30 March 2020 to 29 September 2021. Participants reported significant disruptions to accessing healthcare in the initial 6 months of the pandemic. There were no significant differences in the quantitative assessments of physical and mental health of participants across the 18 months of this study. The participants' qualitative comments about disrupted normal activities, feeling vulnerable to COVID-19, transitioning to telehealth, feeling isolated and vaccination protection provided further insight into the cumulative negative mental health impact of the extended lockdown. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight the importance of optimising telehealth to improve communication between CKD patients and their treating teams and continuing to monitor the impacts of pandemic restrictions on patients' mental and physical health.

Protocol for a systematic review of interventions targeting mental health, cognition or psychological well-being among individuals with long COVID.

INTRODUCTION: For some people, COVID-19 infection leads to negative health impacts that can last into the medium or long term. The long-term sequelae of COVID-19 infection, or 'long COVID', negatively affects not only physical health, but also mental health, cognition or psychological well-being. Complex, integrated interventions are recommended for long COVID, including psychological components; however, the effectiveness of such interventions has yet to be critically evaluated. This protocol describes a systematic review to be conducted of scientific literature reporting on clinical trials of interventions to promote mental health, cognition or psychological well-being among individuals with long COVID. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines will be followed. A health sciences librarian will identify the relevant literature through comprehensive systematic searches of Medline, Embase, APA PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, medRxiv, PsyArXiv, China National Knowledge Internet and WANFANG Data databases, as well as The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Studies will be selected through a title and abstract review, followed by a full-text review using inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data extracted will include intervention descriptions and efficacy metrics. Data will be narratively synthesised; if the data allow, a meta-analysis will be conducted. Risk of bias assessment will be conducted using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for systematic reviews is not required. As researchers and clinicians respond to the new clinical entity that long COVID represents, this review will synthesise a rapidly emerging evidence base describing and testing interventions to promote mental health, cognition or psychological well-being. Results will therefore be disseminated through an open-access peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations to inform research and clinical practice. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022318678.

Interest Grows in Treatment of Mood Disorders by Classic Psychedelics

The article offers a perspective on the growing interest in the treatment of mood disorders with psychedelic drugs. It describes the mechanism of action of psychedelic drugs. An overview of the results of a randomized clinical trial on the efficacy of psilocybin compared with escitalopram for major depressive disorder is provided. It discusses ethical considerations for the psychedelic-assisted therapy and offers a look into the expansion of psychedelic research into other areas of psychiatry.

Interventions for mental health, cognition, and psychological wellbeing in long COVID: a systematic review of registered trials.

BACKGROUND: Among patients diagnosed with COVID-19, a substantial proportion are experiencing ongoing symptoms for months after infection, known as 'long COVID'. Long COVID is associated with a wide range of physical and neuropsychological symptoms, including impacts on mental health, cognition, and psychological wellbeing. However, intervention research is only beginning to emerge. This systematic review synthesizes currently registered trials examining interventions for mental health, cognition, and psychological wellbeing in patients with long COVID. METHODS: Standard systematic review guidelines were followed. Trials registered in two large trial registries in 2020 to May 2022 were reviewed. Included studies were narratively synthesized by type of intervention and a risk-of-bias assessment was conducted. RESULTS: Forty-two registered trials were included, with a total target sample size of 5814 participants. These include 11 psychological interventions, five pharmacological and other medical interventions, and five evaluating herbal, nutritional, or natural supplement interventions. An additional nine trials are examining cognitive and neurorehabilitation interventions and 12 are examining physiotherapy or physical rehabilitation. Most trials are randomized, but many are feasibility trials; trials are evaluating a wide spectrum of outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: While there is a newly emerging body of research testing interventions for mental health, cognition, and psychological wellbeing in long COVID, the breadth and scope of the research remains limited. It is urgently incumbent on researchers to expand upon the intervention research currently under way, in order to generate high-quality evidence on a wide range of candidate interventions for diverse long COVID patient populations.

Adapting Peer Researcher Facilitated Strategies to Recruit People Receiving Mental Health Services to a Tobacco Treatment Trial.

Introduction: One of the most challenging aspects of conducting intervention trials among people who experience severe mental illness (SMI) and who smoke tobacco, is recruitment. In our parent "QuitLink" randomized controlled trial (RCT), slower than expected peer researcher facilitated recruitment, along with the impact of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, necessitated an adaptive recruitment response. The objectives of the present study were to: (i) describe adaptive peer researcher facilitated recruitment strategies; (ii) explore the effectiveness of these strategies; (iii) investigate whether recruitment strategies reached different subgroups of participants; and (iv) examine the costs and resources required for implementing these strategies. Finally, we offer experience-based lessons in a Peer Researcher Commentary. Methods: People were included in the RCT if they smoked at least 10 cigarettes a day and were accessing mental health support from the project's two partnering mental health organizations in Victoria, Australia. The majority of people accessing these services will have been diagnosed with SMI. Recruitment occurred over 2 years. We began with peer facilitated recruitment strategies delivered face-to-face, then replaced this with direct mail postcards followed by telephone contact. In the final 4 months of the study, we began online recruitment, broadening it to people who smoked and were accessing support or treatment (including from general practitioners) for mental health and/or alcohol or other drug problems, anywhere in the state of Victoria. Differences between recruitment strategies on key participant variables were assessed. We calculated the average cost per enrolee of the different recruitment approaches. Results: Only 109 people were recruited from a target of 382: 29 via face-to-face (March 2019 to April 2020), 66 from postcards (May 2020 to November 2020), and 14 from online (November to December 2020 and January to March 2021) strategies. Reflecting our initial focus on recruiting from supported independent living accommodation facilities, participants recruited face-to-face were significantly more likely to be living in partially or fully supported independent living (n = 29, <0.001), but the samples were otherwise similar. After the initial investment in training and equipping peer researchers, the average cost of recruitment was AU$1,182 per participant-~US$850. Face-to-face recruitment was the most expensive approach and postcard recruitment the least (AU$1,648 and AU$928 per participant). Discussion: Peer researcher facilitated recruitment into a tobacco treatment trial was difficult and expensive. Widely dispersed services and COVID-19 restrictions necessitated non-face-to-face recruitment strategies, such as direct mail postcards, which improved recruitment and may be worthy of further research. Clinical Trial Registration: The trial is registered with ANZCTR (www.anzctr.org.au): ACTRN12619000244101 prior to the accrual of the first participant and updated regularly as per registry guidelines. The trial sponsor was the University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia.

Long COVID Optimal Health Program (LC-OHP) to Enhance Psychological and Physical Health: Protocol for a Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Long COVID is a collection of symptoms that develop during or following a confirmed or suspected case of COVID-19, which continue for more than 12 weeks. Despite the negative impact of long COVID on people's lives and functioning, there is no validated treatment or even rehabilitation guidance. What has been recommended thus far is the adoption of holistic management approaches. The Optimal Health Program (OHP) is a brief 5-session, plus booster, psychosocial program designed to support mental and physical well-being that has been used effectively for a range of chronic conditions. OBJECTIVE: This study examines the feasibility and acceptability of employing an especially customized version of OHP (long COVID OHP [LC-OHP]) to improve psychological and physical health of people with long COVID. METHODS: This is a feasibility randomized controlled trial that will be running from November 2021 to February 2023. Eligible participants aged 18 years or older who are experiencing symptoms of long COVID will be identified through their secondary practitioners with recruitment to be undertaken by the research team. A total of 60 participants will be randomized into a control (usual care) or an intervention (LC-OHP) group. Outcomes will be feasibility and acceptability of the program (primary); and efficacy of the LC-OHP in improving anxiety, depression, fatigue, self-efficacy, and quality of life (secondary). Up to 20 participants will be interviewed at the end of the trial to explore their experience with the program. Quantitative data will be analyzed using SPSS, and differences between groups will be compared using inferential tests where appropriate. Qualitative data will be transcribed and thematically analyzed to identify common emerging themes. RESULTS: This is an ongoing study, which began in November 2021. CONCLUSIONS: Long COVID has a significant impact on an individual's mental and physical functioning. The LC-OHP has a potential to provide people living with long COVID with additional support and to improve self-efficacy. The findings of this study would identify the feasibility of delivering this program to this population and will provide an indication for the program's effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN38746119; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN38746119. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/36673.

Psychological consequences of social isolation and quarantine

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the stark reality of city lockdowns, mass quarantines and social isolation worldwide. The importance of social isolation and quarantine measures to reduce community transmission of COVID-19 must be balanced against the potential impact on the psychological health of the population.ObjectiveThe purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the psychological and social impacts of human isolation, how these may present and approaches to identifying and mitigating these effects.DiscussionQuarantine has been associated with increased rates of suicide, anger, acute stress disorder, depression and posttraumatic stress disorder, with symptoms continuing even years after quarantine ends. There are several predisposing risk factors including the inhabited environment, unique aspects of assessment as well as phenomena seen specifically among groups facing isolation together. The article provides management strategies for the general practitioner as well as indicators for referral to further psychological supports.

Psychological consequences of social isolation and quarantine: Issues related to COVID-19 restrictions.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the stark reality of city lockdowns, mass quarantines and social isolation worldwide. The importance of social isolation and quarantine measures to reduce community transmission of COVID-19 must be balanced against the potential impact on the psychological health of the population. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the psychological and social impacts of human isolation, how these may present and approaches to identifying and mitigating these effects. DISCUSSION: Quarantine has been associated with increased rates of suicide, anger, acute stress disorder, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, with symptoms continuing even years after quarantine ends. There are several predisposing risk factors including the inhabited environment, unique aspects of assessment as well as phenomena seen specifically among groups facing isolation together. The article provides management strategies for the general practitioner as well as indicators for referral to further psychological supports.

Changes in telepsychiatry regulations during the COVID-19 pandemic: 17 countries and regions' approaches to an evolving healthcare landscape.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of telemedicine as a way to reduce COVID-19 infections was noted and consequently deregulated. However, the degree of telemedicine regulation varies from country to country, which may alter the widespread use of telemedicine. This study aimed to clarify the telepsychiatry regulations for each collaborating country/region before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We used snowball sampling within a global network of international telepsychiatry experts. Thirty collaborators from 17 different countries/regions responded to a questionnaire on barriers to the use and implementation of telepsychiatric care, including policy factors such as regulations and reimbursement at the end of 2019 and as of May 2020. RESULTS: Thirteen of 17 regions reported a relaxation of regulations due to the pandemic; consequently, all regions surveyed stated that telepsychiatry was now possible within their public healthcare systems. In some regions, restrictions on prescription medications allowed via telepsychiatry were eased, but in 11 of the 17 regions, there were still restrictions on prescribing medications via telepsychiatry. Lower insurance reimbursement amounts for telepsychiatry consultations v. in-person consultations were reevaluated in four regions, and consequently, in 15 regions telepsychiatry services were reimbursed at the same rate (or higher) than in-person consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm that, due to COVID-19, the majority of countries surveyed are altering telemedicine regulations that had previously restricted the spread of telemedicine. These findings provide information that could guide future policy and regulatory decisions, which facilitate greater scale and spread of telepsychiatry globally.