The network of psychosocial health in middle-aged and older adults during the first COVID-19 lockdown.

PURPOSE: Psychosocial health problems, such as social isolation, loneliness, depression and anxiety, have gained attention during the COVID-19 pandemic and are commonly co-occurring. We investigated the network of psychosocial health constructs during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This study included 4553 participants (mean age: 68.6 ± 11.2 years, 56% women) from the prospective Rotterdam Study, who filled out a questionnaire between April and July 2020, the time of the first COVID-19 wave in the Netherlands. Psychosocial health constructs included were depressive symptoms (Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale), anxiety symptoms (Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale), loneliness (University of California, Los Angeles loneliness scale), social connectedness (five items) and pandemic-related worry (five items). We estimated mixed graphical models to assess the network of items of these constructs and whether age and sex affected the network structure. RESULTS: Within the network of psychosocial constructs, a higher depressive symptoms score was particularly associated with items of loneliness and social connectedness, whereas overall anxiety was particularly associated with items of pandemic-related worry. Between people from different sex and age, the network structure significantly altered. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that within the same network of psychosocial health constructs, depressive symptom score is particularly associated with loneliness and social connectedness, whereas anxiety symptom score is associated with pandemic-related worry during the first COVID-19 lockdown. Our results support that psychosocial constructs should be considered in conjunction with one another in prevention and treatment efforts in clinical care, and that these efforts need to be tailored to specific demographic groups.

Determinants of social health trajectories during the COVID-19 pandemic in older adults: the Rotterdam Study.

OBJECTIVES: The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and accompanying lockdown restrictions impacted social life significantly. We studied associations of sociodemographic factors, mental and social health markers, and brain structure with social health trajectories during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Prospective longitudinal population-based cohort study. SETTING: Community-dwelling inhabitants of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Repeated questionnaires including questions on social health were sent to Rotterdam Study participants from April 2020 onwards. Social health data at study baseline were available for 5017 participants (mean age: 68.7 ± 11.3; 56.9% women). MEASUREMENTS: Determinants were assessed in routine Rotterdam Study follow-up (1990-2020), including global brain volumes in a subset of participants (N = 1720). We applied linear mixed models and generalized estimating equations to quantify associations between determinants and trajectories of loneliness, perceived social isolation and social connectedness over three time points from April 22nd to July 31st 2020. RESULTS: Loneliness prevalence was 27.9% in April 2020 versus 12.6% prepandemic. Social isolation (baseline mean 4.7 ± 2.4) and loneliness scores (baseline mean 4.9 ± 1.5) decreased over time, whereas social connectedness trajectories remained stable. Depressive symptoms, female sex, prepandemic loneliness, living alone, and not owning a pet were independently associated with lower social connectedness and higher social isolation and loneliness at COVID-19 baseline, but recovery of social health was similar for all determinants. Larger intracranial volume was associated with higher social connectedness. CONCLUSIONS: Despite baseline differences for specific determinants, older adults showed similar recovery of loneliness and social isolation alongside stable social connectedness over time during the pandemic. Social health is multidimensional, especially during a global health crisis.

Prevalence and determinants of healthcare avoidance during the COVID-19 pandemic: A population-based cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the number of consultations and diagnoses in primary care and referrals to specialist care declined substantially compared to prepandemic levels. Beyond deferral of elective non-COVID-19 care by healthcare providers, it is unclear to what extent healthcare avoidance by community-dwelling individuals contributed to this decline in routine healthcare utilisation. Moreover, it is uncertain which specific symptoms were left unheeded by patients and which determinants predispose to healthcare avoidance in the general population. In this cross-sectional study, we assessed prevalence of healthcare avoidance during the pandemic from a patient perspective, including symptoms that were left unheeded, as well as determinants of healthcare avoidance. METHODS AND FINDINGS: On April 20, 2020, a paper COVID-19 survey addressing healthcare utilisation, socioeconomic factors, mental and physical health, medication use, and COVID-19-specific symptoms was sent out to 8,732 participants from the population-based Rotterdam Study (response rate 73%). All questionnaires were returned before July 10, 2020. By hand, prevalence of healthcare avoidance was subsequently verified through free text analysis of medical records of general practitioners. Odds ratios (ORs) for avoidance were determined using logistic regression models, adjusted for age, sex, and history of chronic diseases. We found that 1,142 of 5,656 included participants (20.2%) reported having avoided healthcare. Of those, 414 participants (36.3%) reported symptoms that potentially warranted urgent evaluation, including limb weakness (13.6%), palpitations (10.8%), and chest pain (10.2%). Determinants related to avoidance were older age (adjusted OR 1.14 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 1.21]), female sex (1.58 [1.38 to 1.82]), low educational level (primary education versus higher vocational/university 1.21 [1.01 to 1.46), poor self-appreciated health (per level decrease 2.00 [1.80 to 2.22]), unemployment (versus employed 2.29 [1.54 to 3.39]), smoking (1.34 [1.08 to 1.65]), concern about contracting COVID-19 (per level increase 1.28 [1.19 to 1.38]) and symptoms of depression (per point increase 1.13 [1.11 to 1.14]) and anxiety (per point increase 1.16 [1.14 to 1.18]). Study limitations included uncertainty about (perceived) severity of the reported symptoms and potentially limited generalisability given the ethnically homogeneous study population. CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based cross-sectional study, 1 in 5 individuals avoided healthcare during lockdown in the COVID-19 pandemic, often for potentially urgent symptoms. Healthcare avoidance was strongly associated with female sex, fragile self-appreciated health, and high levels of depression and anxiety. These results emphasise the need for targeted public education urging these vulnerable patients to timely seek medical care for their symptoms to mitigate major health consequences.

Design, implementation and initial findings of COVID-19 research in the Rotterdam Study: leveraging existing infrastructure for population-based investigations on an emerging disease.

The Rotterdam Study is an ongoing prospective, population-based cohort study that started in 1989 in the city of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. The study aims to unravel etiology, preclinical course, natural history and potential targets for intervention for chronic diseases in mid-life and late-life. It focuses on cardiovascular, endocrine, hepatic, neurological, ophthalmic, psychiatric, dermatological, otolaryngological, locomotor, and respiratory diseases. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a substudy was designed and embedded within the Rotterdam Study. On the 20th of April, 2020, all living non-institutionalized participants of the Rotterdam Study (n = 8732) were invited to participate in this sub-study by filling out a series of questionnaires administered over a period of 8 months. These questionnaires included questions on COVID-19 related symptoms and risk factors, characterization of lifestyle and mental health changes, and determination of health care seeking and health care avoiding behavior during the pandemic. As of May 2021, the questionnaire had been sent out repeatedly for a total of six times with an overall response rate of 76%. This article provides an overview of the rationale, design, and implementation of this sub-study nested within the Rotterdam Study. Finally, initial results on participant characteristics and prevalence of COVID-19 in this community-dwelling population are shown.

QTc-interval prolongation and increased risk of sudden cardiac death associated with hydroxychloroquine.

AIMS:: Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine ([hydroxy]chloroquine) are drugs used to treat malaria and rheumatological disorders and were recently suggested as beneficial for prevention and treatment of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, longitudinal studies to assess the electrocardiographic and cardiotoxic effects of these drugs are limited. In this study, we aimed to investigate the effect of these drugs on QTc-interval and incidence of sudden cardiac death (SCD). METHODS: We designed a longitudinal follow-up study of individuals within the prospective population-based Rotterdam Study. Eligible individuals had available data on medication and repeated ECG measurements. The study period was between 1 January 1991 and 1 January 2014. We studied on current and past use of [hydroxy]chloroquine as a time-varying exposure; high versus low daily dose of [hydroxy]chloroquine. QTc-interval duration, and the occurrence of SCD were the main outcomes. SCD was defined as an unexpected and sudden death due to cardiac arrhythmia within one hour of the onset of acute symptoms, and in patients without cardiac symptoms within 24 hours before death. RESULTS: Among the study population of 14 594 individuals (58.8% women) with an average age of 65 years, 346 patients used [hydroxy]chloroquine at any time during follow-up. The total number of SCD cases was 609. In a multiple linear mixed model analysis, the current use of [hydroxy]chloroquine was associated with a significantly increased duration of the QTc-interval of 8.1 ms (95% CI: 3.6; 12.6) compared with non-users. The association was stronger among current-high daily dosage [15.3 (95%CI: 7.0; 23.6)] compared with current-low daily dosage [5.5 (95%CI: 0.4; 10.7)] users. In a Cox proportional hazard regression analysis, the risk of SCD was significantly higher in participants who were current users of [hydroxy]chloroquine than in non-users [adjusted hazard ratio; 3.7 (95%CI: 1.1; 12.6)]. CONCLUSIONS: In this longitudinal study, persons who received [hydroxy]chloroquine had an increased QTc-interval duration and the association was dose-dependent. [Hydroxy]chloroquine was associated with a significantly increased risk of SCD. As long as their activity against COVID-19 is controversial, cardiotoxicity is a strong argument against using these drugs to treat COVID-19 infections.

Alzheimer’s Association International Cohort Study of Chronic Neuropsychiatric Sequeale of SARS-CoV-2 (CNS-SARS-CoV-2)

Abstract Background The pandemic of SARS-CoV-2 is focusing all energies on the impact on survival of affected individuals, treatment and prevention, but increasingly attention is focusing on its enduring consequences. We established a global consortium to study a longitudinal representative cohort of individuals, to characterize neurological and neuropsychiatric sequalae from direct viral, immune-, vascular- or accelerated neurodegenerative injury to the central nervous system (CNS). Method We propose to characterize the neurobehavioral phenomenology associated with SARS-CoV-2 in a large, multinational, longitudinal cohort of post COVID-19 infection patients following three sampling strategies: 1) Opportunity sample of patients discharged after hospital admission for COVID-19 related symptoms. 2) A stratified random sample from COVID-19 testing registries (including asymptomatic and negative participants). 3) Ascertaining COVID-19 exposure (antibody) status in ongoing longitudinal, community-based cohort studies that are already collecting biosamples, cognitive, behavioral and neuroimaging data. We will obtain core data within 6 months of discharge or testing. Core characterization will include interviews with the Schedules of Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry (SCAN), neurological exams, emotional reactivity scales and a neurocognitive assessment. Wherever feasible, we will also collect neuroimaging, biosamples and genetic data. Longitudinal follow up will be conducted at 9 and 18 months of the initial evaluation. An mHealth keeping-in-touch process will be set up to minimize attrition rates. The population cohorts provide a large, unbiased, normative and validation sample, albeit with more heterogenous outcome ascertainment. They also permit examination of pre- and post-COVID trends in symptoms and biomarkers. Since some ethnic groups, as well as in individuals with blood type A, are at higher risk of COVID-19 infection and death, a role of genetics in determining susceptibility to infection and poor outcomes seems well supported. We will collect genome-wide genotypes from our cohort individuals to address the role of ancestry and genetic variation on susceptibility to neuropsychiatric sequelae. High rates of mutation in COVID-19 strongly suggest that viral infectivity, including neurotropism, may not be uniform across countries affected by the pandemic. Results Pending. Conclusion Our consortium is in a unique position to address the interaction between genetics (including ancestral DNA), and viral strain variation on CNS sequelae of SARS-CoV-2.