Radiographic joint space width in individuals with hand osteoarthritis: Are their "healthy" joints really healthy?

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to investigate the systemic nature of hand osteoarthritis (OA). We hypothesized that people who suffer from hand OA would display narrower radiographic joint space width (JSW) - not only in joints with apparent radiographic OA but also in their unaffected "healthy" joints. METHOD: We examined 3394 participants from the Osteoarthritis Initiative with available dominant hand radiographs at baseline. Cases were defined as having interphalangeal OA (IPOA) based on a Kellgren and Lawrence (KL) score of ≥2 in two or more finger joints, whereas controls did not have IPOA. We used custom software to make JSW measurements of the metacarpophalangeal, proximal interphalangeal, and distal interphalangeal joints in fingers 2-5 per hand. In joint-level analyses, we included only KL score=0, allowing us to compare all joints without IPOA in cases and controls. We used generalized estimating equation models to compare JSW between both groups, adjusted for age, gender, metacarpal length, and joint type. RESULTS: Finger joints without radiographic OA had significantly narrower JSW in the IPOA group compared to finger joints in the control group (p < 0.001). The differences were significant across all joint types and for both total JSW measurements as well as for central and lateral sub-regions within each joint group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Unaffected finger joints in people with IPOA had narrower joint space than joints of healthy controls. This implies a systemic nature of hand OA, in which people may have a predisposition for general cartilage deterioration.

Association of Everyday Discrimination With Depressive Symptoms and Suicidal Ideation During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the All of Us Research Program.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic has coincided with an increase in depressive symptoms as well as a growing awareness of health inequities and structural racism in the United States. Objective: To examine the association of mental health with everyday discrimination during the pandemic in a large and diverse cohort of the All of Us Research Program. Design, Setting, and Participants: Using repeated assessments in the early months of the pandemic, mixed-effects models were fitted to assess the associations of discrimination with depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation, and inverse probability weights were applied to account for nonrandom probabilities of completing the voluntary survey. Main Outcomes and Measures: The exposure and outcome measures were ascertained using the Everyday Discrimination Scale and the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), respectively. Scores for PHQ-9 that were greater than or equal to 10 were classified as moderate to severe depressive symptoms, and any positive response to the ninth item of the PHQ-9 scale was considered as presenting suicidal ideation. Results: A total of 62 651 individuals (mean [SD] age, 59.3 [15.9] years; female sex at birth, 41 084 [65.6%]) completed at least 1 assessment between May and July 2020. An association with significantly increased likelihood of moderate to severe depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation was observed as the levels of discrimination increased. There was a dose-response association, with 17.68-fold (95% CI, 13.49-23.17; P < .001) and 10.76-fold (95% CI, 7.82-14.80; P < .001) increases in the odds of moderate to severe depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation, respectively, on experiencing discrimination more than once a week. In addition, the association with depressive symptoms was greater when the main reason for discrimination was race, ancestry, or national origins among Hispanic or Latino participants at all 3 time points and among non-Hispanic Asian participants in May and June 2020. Furthermore, high levels of discrimination were as strongly associated with moderate to severe depressive symptoms as was history of prepandemic mood disorder diagnosis. Conclusions and Relevance: In this large and diverse sample, increased levels of discrimination were associated with higher odds of experiencing moderate to severe depressive symptoms. This association was particularly evident when the main reason for discrimination was race, ancestry, or national origins among Hispanic or Latino participants and, early in the pandemic, among non-Hispanic Asian participants.

Effects of social support on depression risk during the COVID-19 pandemic: What support types and for whom?

Background: Rates of depression have increased worldwide during the COVID-19 pandemic. One known protective factor for depression is social support, but more work is needed to quantify the extent to which social support could reduce depression risk during a global crisis, and specifically to identify which types of support are most helpful, and who might benefit most. Methods: Data were obtained from participants in the All of Us Research Program who responded to the COVID-19 Participant Experience (COPE) survey administered monthly from May 2020 to July 2020 (N=69,066, 66% female). Social support was assessed using 10 items measuring emotional/informational support (e.g., someone to confide in or talk to about yourself or your problems), positive social interaction support (e.g., someone to do things with to help you get your mind off things), and tangible support (e.g., someone to help with daily chores if sick). Elevated depression symptoms were defined based on having a moderate-to-severe (≥10) score on the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). Mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to test associations across time between overall social support and its subtypes with depression, adjusting for age, sex, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic factors. We then assessed interactions between social support and potential effect modifiers: age, sex, pre-pandemic mood disorder, and pandemic-related stressors (e.g., financial insecurity). Results: Approximately 16% of the sample experienced elevated depressive symptoms. Overall social support was associated with significantly reduced odds of depression (adjusted odds ratio, aOR [95% CI]=0.44 [0.42-0.45]). Among subtypes, emotional/informational support (aOR=0.42 [0.41-0.43]) and positive social interactions (aOR=0.43 [0.41-0.44]) showed the largest protective associations with depression, followed by tangible support (aOR=0.63 [0.61-0.65]). Sex, age, and pandemic-related financial stressors were statistically significant modifiers of the association between social support and depression. Conclusions: Individuals reporting higher levels of social support were at reduced risk of depression during the early COVID-19 pandemic. The perceived availability of emotional support and positive social interactions, more so than tangible support, was key. Individuals more vulnerable to depression (e.g., women, younger individuals, and those experiencing financial stressors) may particularly benefit from enhanced social support, supporting a precision prevention approach.