Fatigue outcomes following COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Fatigue is a pervasive clinical symptom in coronaviruses and may continue beyond the acute phase, lasting for several months or years. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to incorporate the current evidence for postinfection fatigue among survivors of SARS-CoV-2 and investigate associated factors. METHODS: Embase, PsyINFO, Medline, CINAHL, CDSR, Open Grey, BioRxiv and MedRxiv were systematically searched from January 2019 to December 2021. Eligible records included all study designs in English. Outcomes were fatigue or vitality in adults with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 measured at >30 days post infection. Non-confirmed cases were excluded. JBI risk of bias was assessed by three reviewers. Random effects model was used for the pooled proportion with 95% CIs. A mixed effects meta-regression of 35 prospective articles calculated change in fatigue overtime. Subgroup analyses explored specific group characteristics of study methodology. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q and I2 statistic. Egger's tests for publication bias. RESULTS: Database searches returned 14 262 records. Following deduplication and screening, 178 records were identified. 147 (n=48 466 participants) were included for the meta-analyses. Pooled prevalence was 41% (95% CI: 37% to 45%, k=147, I2=98%). Fatigue significantly reduced over time (-0.057, 95% CI: -107 to -0.008, k=35, I2=99.3%, p=0.05). A higher proportion of fatigue was found in studies using a valid scale (51%, 95% CI: 43% to 58%, k=36, I2=96.2%, p=0.004). No significant difference was found for fatigue by study design (p=0.272). Egger's test indicated publication bias for all analyses except valid scales. Quality assessments indicated 4% at low risk of bias, 78% at moderate risk and 18% at high risk. Frequently reported associations were female gender, age, physical functioning, breathlessness and psychological distress. CONCLUSION: This study revealed that a significant proportion of survivors experienced fatigue following SARS-CoV-2 and their fatigue reduced overtime. Non-modifiable factors and psychological morbidity may contribute to ongoing fatigue and impede recovery. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020201247.

Golden opportunity for intervention? Identifying vitamin D deficiency in patients with substance use disorders in hospital.

SETTING: Based at a busy city hospital, the alcohol care team is a drug and alcohol specialist service, taking referrals for a wide range of patients with substance use disorders (SUD). OBJECTIVES: Patients with SUD are at high risk of vitamin D deficiency; this relates to frequent fractures and proximal myopathy. The coronavirus pandemic brought vitamin D into focus. Local guidelines advise that patients at high risk of vitamin D deficiency are offered replacement. There were no local data on vitamin D deficiency prevalence or any mention of patients with SUD in local vitamin D guidelines. The main aim of this project was to offer vitamin D checks and replacement to all appropriate patients. RESULTS: We collected data on 207 patients, [pilot study (n=50) and two subsequent samples (n=95 and n=62)]. Our pilot study showed that no patients were offered vitamin D testing or replacement. We then offered vitamin D checks to 95 patients. Most had low vitamin D (30 patients were vitamin D deficient and 26 were vitamin D insufficient). We provided vitamin D replacement and follow-up advice. Quality improvement was demonstrated 6 months later. We collected data on a further 62 patients who were all on our current or recent caseload. Following exclusions, nearly half (48%) of patients had had a vitamin D check. Almost all of these (95%) had low vitamin D (60% being classified as deficient). CONCLUSIONS: Patients had not been offered vitamin D replacement despite often having multiple risk factors for vitamin D deficiency. Vitamin D checks (and subsequent replacement) rose in frequency since the outset of this project. Local guidelines should add SUD as a risk factor for vitamin D deficiency. Hospital admission provides a rich opportunity to offer this simple intervention to patients who are often poorly engaged with community services.

Study protocol for a pilot high-intensity interval training intervention in inpatient mental health settings: a two-part study using a randomised controlled trial and naturalistic study design.

BACKGROUND: Severe mental illnesses (SMI), including schizophrenia spectrum disorder, bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder, are associated with physical health comorbidities and premature mortality. Physical activity and structured exercise have a beneficial impact on cardiometabolic risk and ameliorate mental health symptomology and cognition. This protocol describes a feasibility study for a high-intensity interval training (HIIT) intervention among inpatients with SMI, to improve their physical and mental health. METHODS: The feasibility study follows a two-part design owing to COVID-19-related adaptations to project design: (a) a non-blinded randomised controlled trial (RCT) of 12 weeks of bicycle-based HIIT, delivered twice weekly in a face-to-face, one-to-one setting, compared to treatment as usual (TAU) and (b) a naturalistic study of inpatient HIIT; eligible participants will be invited to two sessions of HIIT per week, delivered by the research team remotely or in person. Additionally, participants in the naturalistic study may use the bike to conduct self-directed sessions of their chosen length and intensity. We will measure the feasibility and acceptability of the HIIT intervention as primary outcomes, alongside secondary and tertiary outcomes evaluating the physical, mental and cognitive effects of HIIT. The study aims to recruit 40 patients to the RCT and 6-8 patients to the naturalistic design. DISCUSSION: Exercise is a modifiable lifestyle barrier that can reverse cardiometabolic disease risk. If HIIT is found to be feasible and acceptable in inpatients with SMI, there would be scope for large-scale work to evaluate the clinical, cost and implementation effectiveness of HIIT in inpatient mental health settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03959735 . Registered June 22, 2019.

Implementation, Adoption, and Perceptions of Telemental Health During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Early in 2020, mental health services had to rapidly shift from face-to-face models of care to delivering the majority of treatments remotely (by video or phone call or occasionally messaging) due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This resulted in several challenges for staff and patients, but also in benefits such as convenience or increased access for people with impaired mobility or in rural areas. There is a need to understand the extent and impacts of telemental health implementation, and barriers and facilitators to its effective and acceptable use. This is relevant both to future emergency adoption of telemental health and to debates on its future use in routine mental health care. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the adoption and impacts of telemental health approaches during the COVID-19 pandemic, and facilitators and barriers to optimal implementation. METHODS: Four databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science) were searched for primary research relating to remote working, mental health care, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Preprint servers were also searched. Results of studies were synthesized using framework synthesis. RESULTS: A total of 77 papers met our inclusion criteria. In most studies, the majority of contacts could be transferred to a remote form during the pandemic, and good acceptability to service users and clinicians tended to be reported, at least where the alternative to remote contacts was interrupting care. However, a range of impediments to dealing optimal care by this means were also identified. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of telemental health allowed some continuing support to the majority of service users during the COVID-19 pandemic and has value in an emergency situation. However, not all service users can be reached by this means, and better evidence is now needed on long-term impacts on therapeutic relationships and quality of care, and on impacts on groups at risk of digital exclusion and how to mitigate these. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews CRD42021211025; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021211025.

Implementation of Telemental Health Services Before COVID-19: Rapid Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews.

BACKGROUND: Telemental health care has been rapidly adopted for maintaining services during the COVID-19 pandemic, and a substantial interest is now being devoted in its future role. Service planning and policy making for recovery from the pandemic and beyond should draw on both COVID-19 experiences and the substantial research evidence accumulated before this pandemic. OBJECTIVE: We aim to conduct an umbrella review of systematic reviews available on the literature and evidence-based guidance on telemental health, including both qualitative and quantitative literature. METHODS: Three databases were searched between January 2010 and August 2020 for systematic reviews meeting the predefined criteria. The retrieved reviews were independently screened, and those meeting the inclusion criteria were synthesized and assessed for risk of bias. Narrative synthesis was used to report these findings. RESULTS: In total, 19 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. A total of 15 reviews examined clinical effectiveness, 8 reported on the aspects of telemental health implementation, 10 reported on acceptability to service users and clinicians, 2 reported on cost-effectiveness, and 1 reported on guidance. Most reviews were assessed to be of low quality. The findings suggested that video-based communication could be as effective and acceptable as face-to-face formats, at least in the short term. Evidence on the extent of digital exclusion and how it can be overcome and that on some significant contexts, such as children and young people's services and inpatient settings, was found to be lacking. CONCLUSIONS: This umbrella review suggests that telemental health has the potential to be an effective and acceptable form of service delivery. However, we found limited evidence on the impact of its large-scale implementation across catchment areas. Combining previous evidence and COVID-19 experiences may allow realistic planning for the future implementation of telemental health.

Vitamin D in the time of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic - a clinical review from a public health and public mental health perspective.

Individuals with serious mental disorders (SMD) may have a higher risk of vitamin D (VIT-D) deficiency. They also experience higher mortality because of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. Therefore, we have conducted a comprehensive review to examine the significance of VIT-D for public health and public mental health during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. This review had three specific aims, from a global perspective to (a) create a profile of VIT-D and review the epidemiology of VIT-D deficiency, (b) explore VIT-D deficiency as risk factor for SMD and COVID-19 infections and (c) examine the effectiveness of VIT-D supplementation for both conditions. We found that, in terms of SMD, the evidence from laboratory and observational studies points towards some association between VIT-D deficiency and depression or schizophrenia. Mendelian randomisation studies, however, suggest no, or reverse, causality. The evidence from intervention studies is conflicting. Concerning COVID-19 infection, on proof of principle, VIT-D could provide a plausible defence against the infection itself and against an adverse clinical course. But data from observational studies and the first preliminary intervention studies remain conflicting, with stronger evidence that VIT-D may mitigate the clinical course of COVID-19 infection rather than the risk of infection in the first place. From a public health and public mental health point of view, based on the currently limited knowledge, for individuals with SMD, the benefits of VIT-D optimisation through supplementation seem to outweigh the risks. VIT-D supplementation, however, should not substitute for vaccination or medical care for COVID-19 infection.

A feasibility hybrid II randomised controlled trial of volunteer 'Health Champions' supporting people with serious mental illness manage their physical health: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: People with serious mental illnesses (SMI) such as schizophrenia often also have physical health illnesses and interventions are needed to address the resultant multimorbidity and reduced life expectancy. Research has shown that volunteers can support people with SMI. This protocol describes a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a novel intervention involving volunteer 'Health Champions' supporting people with SMI to manage and improve their physical health. METHODS: This is a feasibility hybrid II randomised effectiveness-implementation controlled trial. The intervention involves training volunteers to be 'Health Champions' to support individual people with SMI using mental health services. This face-to-face or remote support will take place weekly and last for up to 9 months following initial introduction. This study will recruit 120 participants to compare Health Champions to treatment as usual for people with SMI using secondary community mental health services in South London, UK. We will measure the clinical and cost effectiveness including quality of life. We will measure the implementation outcomes of acceptability, feasibility, appropriateness, fidelity, barriers and enablers, unintended consequences, adoption and sustainability. DISCUSSION: There is a need for interventions to support people with SMI with their physical health. If this feasibility trial is successful, a definitive trial will follow to fully evaluate the clinical, cost and implementation effectiveness of Health Champions supporting people with SMI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, registration no: NCT04124744 .

Development and rapid evaluation of services to support the physical health of people using psychiatric inpatient units during the COVID-19 pandemic: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: People diagnosed with a serious mental illness have worse physical health and lower life expectancy than the general population. Integration of mental and physical health services is seen as one service development that could better support this. This protocol describes the evaluation of the provision of a Virtual Physical Health Clinic (VPHC) and Consultant Connect (CC) services to one UK-based mental health Trust. METHODS: Prospective, formative, pragmatic evaluation using both quantitative and qualitative techniques and driven by implementation science theoretical frameworks. The VPHC and CC are described along with the methodology being used to rapidly evaluate their implementation, effectiveness and potential economic impact in order to inform future roll out. We will assess the implementation process through quantitative data on uptake and reach and through self-reported data to be collected from interviews and the use of validated implementation outcome assessment measures. We will assess implementation strategies using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) strategies as a framework. We will assess the health economic impact of both services using established health economic methods including cost comparison scenarios and health service utilisation analyses. DISCUSSION: Supporting the physical health management of people in psychiatric inpatient units is important in improving the physical health of this population. Integration of mental and physical health can help this to happen effectively. This initiative provides one of the first service evaluation protocols of its kind to be reported in the UK at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Management of clozapine treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Clozapine is the only available treatment for refractory schizophrenia but its use involves frequent physical contact with healthcare workers for the purpose of mandatory blood monitoring. During the COVID-19 pandemic, patients taking clozapine will be self-isolating to reduce the risk of infection, not least because these patients are at high risk of serious illness and fatality because of high rates of diabetes, obesity and pulmonary disease and an increased risk of pneumonia. Problems may also arise because both clozapine-induced myocarditis and neutropenic sepsis share signs and symptoms with COVID-19 (fever, chest pain, dyspnoea, etc.). We recommend decreasing the frequency of physical contacts by extending the blood monitoring interval to 12 weeks in those patients taking clozapine for more than 1 year. To distinguish COVID-19 from clozapine-related physical adverse effects, we suggest an urgent antigen test alongside a full blood count. In those taking clozapine who develop COVID-19, we suggest continuing with clozapine whenever possible (even during ventilation), reducing the dose if necessary in line with blood assay results. Blood monitoring should continue but clozapine should only cease if there is a significant fall in neutrophils (COVID-19 is linked to lymphopenia but not neutropenia). To protect against the likelihood and severity of respiratory infection, we recommend the use of vitamin D in all clozapine patients. Initiation of clozapine is likely to remain problematic while the risk of infection remains, given the degree of physical contact required to assure safety.