A systematic review and meta-analysis of long COVID symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Ongoing symptoms or the development of new symptoms following a SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis has caused a complex clinical problem known as "long COVID" (LC). This has introduced further pressure on global healthcare systems as there appears to be a need for ongoing clinical management of these patients. LC personifies heterogeneous symptoms at varying frequencies. The most complex symptoms appear to be driven by the neurology and neuropsychiatry spheres. METHODS: A systematic protocol was developed, peer reviewed, and published in PROSPERO. The systematic review included publications from the 1st of December 2019-30th June 2021 published in English. Multiple electronic databases were used. The dataset has been analyzed using a random-effects model and a subgroup analysis based on geographical location. Prevalence and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were established based on the data identified. RESULTS: Of the 302 studies, 49 met the inclusion criteria, although 36 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The 36 studies had a collective sample size of 11,598 LC patients. 18 of the 36 studies were designed as cohorts and the remainder were cross-sectional. Symptoms of mental health, gastrointestinal, cardiopulmonary, neurological, and pain were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The quality that differentiates this meta-analysis is that they are cohort and cross-sectional studies with follow-up. It is evident that there is limited knowledge available of LC and current clinical management strategies may be suboptimal as a result. Clinical practice improvements will require more comprehensive clinical research, enabling effective evidence-based approaches to better support patients.

Mental health impact of the Middle East respiratory syndrome, SARS, and COVID-19: A comparative systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Over the last few decades, 3 pathogenic pandemics have impacted the global population; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and SARS-CoV-2. The global disease burden has attributed to millions of deaths and morbidities, with the majority being attributed to SARS-CoV-2. As such, the evaluation of the mental health (MH) impact across healthcare professionals (HCPs), patients and the general public would be an important facet to evaluate to better understand short, medium and long-term exposures. AIM: To identify and report: (1) MH conditions commonly observed across all 3 pandemics; (2) Impact of MH outcomes across HCPs, patients and the general public associated with all 3 pandemics; and (3) The prevalence of the MH impact and clinical epidemiological significance. METHODS: A systematic methodology was developed and published on PROSPERO (CRD42021228697). The databases PubMed, EMBASE, ScienceDirect and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were used as part of the data extraction process, and publications from January 1, 1990 to August 1, 2021 were searched. MeSH terms and keywords used included Mood disorders, PTSD, Anxiety, Depression, Psychological stress, Psychosis, Bipolar, Mental Health, Unipolar, Self-harm, BAME, Psychiatry disorders and Psychological distress. The terms were expanded with a 'snowballing' method. Cox-regression and the Monte-Carlo simulation method was used in addition to I 2 and Egger's tests to determine heterogeneity and publication bias. RESULTS: In comparison to MERS and SARS-CoV, it is evident SAR-CoV-2 has an ongoing MH impact, with emphasis on depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. CONCLUSION: It was evident MH studies during MERS and SARS-CoV was limited in comparison to SARS-CoV-2, with much emphasis on reporting symptoms of depression, anxiety, stress and sleep disturbances. The lack of comprehensive studies conducted during previous pandemics have introduced limitations to the "know-how" for clinicians and researchers to better support patients and deliver care with limited healthcare resources.

An evaluation of the mental health impact of SARS-CoV-2 on patients, general public and healthcare professionals: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The global impact of COVID-19 pandemic continues to affect the lives of billions of people with recurrent waves. Healthcare systems are struggling to manage pre-existing patient care and recurring covid-19 demands. As a result, we evaluated the mental health impact using systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A comprehensive search was undertaken from April 2020 to 22nd January 2021 using multiple electronic databases. A systematic review protocol was developed and published on PROSPERO registration; CRD42020181481. A random-effects model was used to compute pooled estimates of anxiety, depression, PTSD, insomnia and suicidal thoughts. FINDINGS: Our search yielded 11,295 studies and of those 287 met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis of 206 studies revealed minimal differences in prevalence of anxiety, depression, and PTSD among HCPs compared with the public during the pandemic but higher prevalence of suicidal thoughts/ideation or self-harm (11% vs 5.8%) and lower prevalence of wellbeing (28.2% vs 52.6%) among the public compared to HCPs. INTERPRETATION: The pandemic has led to a high mental health burden especially amongst HCPs and higher suicidal ideation and lower wellbeing in general public which warrants further investigation and management globally. These findings highlight an emerging critical public health issue that requires urgent solutions.

History for some or lesson for all? A systematic review and meta-analysis on the immediate and long-term mental health impact of the 2002-2003 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak.

BACKGROUND: The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis are to examine the prevalence of adverse mental health outcomes, both short-term and long-term, among SARS patients, healthcare workers and the general public of SARS-affected regions, and to examine the protective and risk factors associated with these mental health outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of the literature using databases such as Medline, Pubmed, Embase, PsycInfo, Web of Science Core Collection, CNKI, the National Central Library Online Catalog and dissertation databases to identify studies in the English or Chinese language published between January 2003 to May 2020 which reported psychological distress and mental health morbidities among SARS patients, healthcare workers, and the general public in regions with major SARS outbreaks. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 6984 titles. Screening resulted in 80 papers for the review, 35 of which were included in the meta-analysis. The prevalence of post-recovery probable or clinician-diagnosed anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among SARS survivors were 19, 20 and 28%, respectively. The prevalence of these outcomes among studies conducted within and beyond 6 months post-discharge was not significantly different. Certain aspects of mental health-related quality of life measures among SARS survivors remained impaired beyond 6 months post-discharge. The prevalence of probable depressive disorder and PTSD among healthcare workers post-SARS were 12 and 11%, respectively. The general public had increased anxiety levels during SARS, but whether there was a clinically significant population-wide mental health impact remained inconclusive. Narrative synthesis revealed occupational exposure to SARS patients and perceived stigmatisation to be risk factors for adverse mental health outcomes among healthcare workers, although causality could not be determined due to the limitations of the studies. CONCLUSIONS: The chronicity of psychiatric morbidities among SARS survivors should alert us to the potential long-term mental health complications of covid-19 patients. Healthcare workers working in high-risk venues should be given adequate mental health support. Stigmatisation against patients and healthcare workers should be explored and addressed. The significant risk of bias and high degree of heterogeneity among included studies limited the certainty of the body of evidence of the review.

Rapid commentary: Ethical implications for clinical trialists and patients associated with COVID-19 research.

Pandemics disrupt clinical trials worldwide, with lasting effects on research. It can severely impact clinical trialists ability to conduct safe and ethically uncompromised trials. Hence, the mounting pressure results in ethically and morally distressing decisions faced by clinical trial professionals during pandemic situations. Whilst clinical trialists attempt to think about preparedness and responses during a pandemic, the need to have an ethical framework that has real-world applicability is imperative. Pandemics are a challenging time for all, however, the safety and access to support for clinical trialists and patients within clinical trials should be at the forefront for their organisations and the government.