Diet quality and risk and severity of COVID-19: a prospective cohort study

ObjectivePoor metabolic health and certain lifestyle factors have been associated with risk and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but data for diet are lacking. We aimed to investigate the association of diet quality with risk and severity of COVID-19 and its intersection with socioeconomic deprivation. DesignWe used data from 592,571 participants of the smartphone-based COVID Symptom Study. Diet quality was assessed using a healthful plant-based diet score, which emphasizes healthy plant foods such as fruits or vegetables. Multivariable Cox models were fitted to calculate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for COVID-19 risk and severity defined using a validated symptom-based algorithm or hospitalization with oxygen support, respectively. ResultsOver 3,886,274 person-months of follow-up, 31,815 COVID-19 cases were documented. Compared with individuals in the lowest quartile of the diet score, high diet quality was associated with lower risk of COVID-19 (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.88-0.94) and severe COVID-19 (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.47-0.74). The joint association of low diet quality and increased deprivation on COVID-19 risk was higher than the sum of the risk associated with each factor alone (Pinteraction=0.005). The corresponding absolute excess rate for lowest vs highest quartile of diet score was 22.5 (95% CI, 18.8-26.3) and 40.8 (95% CI, 31.7-49.8; 10,000 person-months) among persons living in areas with low and high deprivation, respectively. ConclusionsA dietary pattern characterized by healthy plant-based foods was associated with lower risk and severity of COVID-19. These association may be particularly evident among individuals living in areas with higher socioeconomic deprivation.

Aspirin and NSAID use and the risk of COVID-19

Early reports raised concern that use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may increase risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) disease (COVID-19). Users of the COVID Symptom Study smartphone application reported use of aspirin and other NSAIDs between March 24 and May 8, 2020. Users were queried daily about symptoms, COVID-19 testing, and healthcare seeking behavior. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to determine the risk of COVID-19 among according to aspirin or non-aspirin NSAID users. Among 2,736,091 individuals in the U.S., U.K., and Sweden, we documented 8,966 incident reports of a positive COVID-19 test over 60,817,043 person-days of follow-up. Compared to non-users and after stratifying by age, sex, country, day of study entry, and race/ethnicity, non-aspirin NSAID use was associated with a modest risk for testing COVID-19 positive (HR 1.23 [1.09, 1.32]), but no significant association was observed among aspirin users (HR 1.13 [0.92, 1.38]). After adjustment for lifestyle factors, comorbidities and baseline symptoms, any NSAID use was not associated with risk (HR 1.02 [0.94, 1.10]). Results were similar for those seeking healthcare for COVID-19 and were not substantially different according to lifestyle and sociodemographic factors or after accounting for propensity to receive testing. Our results do not support an association of NSAID use, including aspirin, with COVID-19 infection. Previous reports of a potential association may be due to higher rates of comorbidities or use of NSAIDs to treat symptoms associated with COVID-19. One Sentence SummaryNSAID use is not associated with COVID-19 risk.

Racial and ethnic differences in COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and uptake

BackgroundRacial and ethnic minorities have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. In the initial phase of population-based vaccination in the United States (U.S.) and United Kingdom (U.K.), vaccine hesitancy and limited access may result in disparities in uptake. MethodsWe performed a cohort study among U.S. and U.K. participants in the smartphone-based COVID Symptom Study (March 24, 2020-February 16, 2021). We used logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy (unsure/not willing) and receipt. ResultsIn the U.S. (n=87,388), compared to White non-Hispanic participants, the multivariable ORs of vaccine hesitancy were 3.15 (95% CI: 2.86 to 3.47) for Black participants, 1.42 (1.28 to 1.58) for Hispanic participants, 1.34 (1.18 to 1.52) for Asian participants, and 2.02 (1.70 to 2.39) for participants reporting more than one race/other. In the U.K. (n=1,254,294), racial and ethnic minorities had similarly elevated hesitancy: compared to White participants, their corresponding ORs were 2.84 (95% CI: 2.69 to 2.99) for Black participants, 1.66 (1.57 to 1.76) for South Asian participants, 1.84 (1.70 to 1.98) for Middle East/East Asian participants, and 1.48 (1.39 to 1.57) for participants reporting more than one race/other. Among U.S. participants, the OR of vaccine receipt was 0.71 (0.64 to 0.79) for Black participants, a disparity that persisted among individuals who specifically endorsed a willingness to obtain a vaccine. In contrast, disparities in uptake were not observed in the U.K. ConclusionsCOVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was greater among racial and ethnic minorities, and Black participants living in the U.S. were less likely to receive a vaccine than White participants. Lower uptake among Black participants in the U.S. during the initial vaccine rollout is attributable to both hesitancy and disparities in access.

Anosmia and other SARS-CoV-2 positive test-associated symptoms, across three national, digital surveillance platforms as the COVID-19 pandemic and response unfolded: an observation study

BackgroundMultiple participatory surveillance platforms were developed across the world in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, providing a real-time understanding of community-wide COVID-19 epidemiology. During this time, testing criteria broadened and healthcare policies matured. We sought to test whether there were consistent associations of symptoms with SARS-CoV-2 test status across three national surveillance platforms, during periods of testing and policy changes, and whether inconsistencies could better inform our understanding and future studies as the COVID-19 pandemic progresses. MethodsFour months (1st April 2020 to 31st July 2020) of observation through three volunteer COVID-19 digital surveillance platforms targeting communities in three countries (Israel, United Kingdom, and United States). Logistic regression of self-reported symptom on self-reported SARS-CoV-2 test status (or test access), adjusted for age and sex, in each of the study cohorts. Odds ratios over time were compared to known changes in testing policies and fluctuations in COVID-19 incidence. FindingsAnosmia/ageusia was the strongest, most consistent symptom associated with a positive COVID-19 test, based on 658,325 tests (5% positive) from over 10 million respondents in three digital surveillance platforms using longitudinal and cross-sectional survey methodologies. During higher-incidence periods with broader testing criteria, core COVID-19 symptoms were more strongly associated with test status. Lower incidence periods had, overall, larger confidence intervals. InterpretationThe strong association of anosmia/ageusia with self-reported SARS-CoV-2 test positivity is omnipresent, supporting its validity as a reliable COVID-19 signal, regardless of the participatory surveillance platform or testing policy. This analysis highlights that precise effect estimates, as well as an understanding of test access patterns to interpret differences, are best done only when incidence is high. These findings strongly support the need for testing access to be as open as possible both for real-time epidemiologic investigation and public health utility. FundingNIH, NIHR, Alzheimers Society, Wellcome Trust Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSAs the COVID-19 pandemic has evolved, testing capacity expanded and governmental guidelines adapted, generally encouraging testing with a broader set of symptoms, not just fever with respiratory symptoms. In parallel, multiple large-scale citizen science digital surveillance platforms launched to complement knowledge from laboratory and somewhat smaller clinical studies. Symptoms such as loss of sense of smell have been identified as strongly predictive of COVID-19 infection in both clinical and syndromic surveillance analyses, and have therefore been used to inform these testing policy changes and access expansion. Added value of this studyThis study identifies symptoms that are or are not consistently associated with SARS-CoV-2 test positivity over time and across three country-based COVID-19 surveillance platforms in the United States, United Kingdom and Israel. These platforms are website and smartphone based, as well as cross-sectional and longitudinal. The study period of 4 months covers fluctuating COVID-19 prevalence during the fall of the first wave and, in some areas, rise of the second wave. In addition, the study period overlaps expansion of test access and test seeking. Importantly, these analyses track and highlight the value of individual symptoms to predict SARS-CoV-2 test positivity under a range of conditions. Implications of all the available evidenceDespite differences in surveillance methodology, access to SARS-CoV-2 testing and disease prevalence, loss of sense of smell or taste was consistently the strongest predictor of COVID-19 infection across all platforms over time. As access to testing broadened, the relevance of COVID-like symptoms and consistency of their predictive ability became apparent. However, confidence bounds generally widened with a fall in COVID-19 incidence. Therefore, for the most robust symptom-based COVID-19 prediction models should consider surveillance data during periods of higher incidence and improved test access, and effect estimates that replicate across different epidemiologic conditions and platforms.

Association of social distancing and masking with risk of COVID-19

Given the continued burden of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS CoV-2) disease (COVID-19) across the U.S., there is a high unmet need for data to inform decision-making regarding social distancing and universal masking. We examined the association of community-level social distancing measures and individual masking with risk of predicted COVID-19 in a large prospective U.S. cohort study of 198,077 participants. Individuals living in communities with the greatest social distancing had a 31% lower risk of predicted COVID-19 compared with those living in communities with poor social distancing. Self-reported masking was associated with a 63% reduced risk of predicted COVID-19 even among individuals living in a community with poor social distancing. These findings provide support for the efficacy of mask-wearing even in settings of poor social distancing in reducing COVID-19 transmission. In the current environment of relaxed social distancing mandates and practices, universal masking may be particularly important in mitigating risk of infection.

Attributes and predictors of Long-COVID: analysis of COVID cases and their symptoms collected by the Covid Symptoms Study App

Reports of "Long-COVID", are rising but little is known about prevalence, risk factors, or whether it is possible to predict a protracted course early in the disease. We analysed data from 4182 incident cases of COVID-19 who logged their symptoms prospectively in the COVID Symptom Study app. 558 (13.3%) had symptoms lasting >=28 days, 189 (4.5%) for >=8 weeks and 95 (2.3%) for >=12 weeks. Long-COVID was characterised by symptoms of fatigue, headache, dyspnoea and anosmia and was more likely with increasing age, BMI and female sex. Experiencing more than five symptoms during the first week of illness was associated with Long-COVID, OR=3.53 [2.76;4.50]. A simple model to distinguish between short and long-COVID at 7 days, which gained a ROC-AUC of 76%, was replicated in an independent sample of 2472 antibody positive individuals. This model could be used to identify individuals for clinical trials to reduce long-term symptoms and target education and rehabilitation services.

Racial and ethnic determinants of Covid-19 risk

BackgroundRacial and ethnic minorities have disproportionately high hospitalization rates and mortality related to the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). There are comparatively scant data on race and ethnicity as determinants of infection risk. MethodsWe used a smartphone application (beginning March 24, 2020 in the United Kingdom [U.K.] and March 29, 2020 in the United States [U.S.]) to recruit 2,414,601 participants who reported their race/ethnicity through May 25, 2020 and employed logistic regression to determine the adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for a positive Covid-19 test among racial and ethnic groups. ResultsWe documented 8,858 self-reported cases of Covid-19 among 2,259,841 non-Hispanic white; 79 among 9,615 Hispanic; 186 among 18,176 Black; 598 among 63,316 Asian; and 347 among 63,653 other racial minority participants. Compared with non-Hispanic white participants, the risk for a positive Covid-19 test was increased across racial minorities (aORs ranging from 1.24 to 3.51). After adjustment for socioeconomic indices and Covid-19 exposure risk factors, the associations (aOR [95% CI]) were attenuated but remained significant for Hispanic (1.58 [1.24-2.02]) and Black participants (2.56 [1.93-3.39]) in the U.S. and South Asian (1.52 [1.38-1.67]) and Middle Eastern participants (1.56 [1.25-1.95]) in the U.K. A higher risk of Covid-19 and seeking or receiving treatment was also observed for several racial/ethnic minority subgroups. ConclusionsOur results demonstrate an increase in Covid-19 risk among racial and ethnic minorities not completely explained by other risk factors for Covid-19, comorbidities, and sociodemographic characteristics. Further research investigating these disparities are needed to inform public health measures.

Symptom clusters in Covid19: A potential clinical prediction tool from the COVID Symptom study app

As no one symptom can predict disease severity or the need for dedicated medical support in COVID-19, we asked if documenting symptom time series over the first few days informs outcome. Unsupervised time series clustering over symptom presentation was performed on data collected from a training dataset of completed cases enlisted early from the COVID Symptom Study Smartphone application, yielding six distinct symptom presentations. Clustering was validated on an independent replication dataset between May 1-May 28th, 2020. Using the first 5 days of symptom logging, the ROC-AUC of need for respiratory support was 78.8%, substantially outperforming personal characteristics alone (ROC-AUC 69.5%). Such an approach could be used to monitor at-risk patients and predict medical resource requirements days before they are required. One sentence summaryLongitudinal clustering of symptoms can predict the need for respiratory support in severe COVID-19.

Risk of symptomatic Covid-19 among frontline healthcare workers

BackgroundData for frontline healthcare workers (HCWs) and risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection are limited and whether personal protective equipment (PPE) mitigates this risk is unknown. We evaluated risk for COVID-19 among frontline HCWs compared to the general community and the influence of PPE. MethodsWe performed a prospective cohort study of the general community, including frontline HCWs, who reported information through the COVID Symptom Study smartphone application beginning on March 24 (United Kingdom, U.K.) and March 29 (United States, U.S.) through April 23, 2020. We used Cox proportional hazards modeling to estimate multivariate-adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) of a positive COVID-19 test. FindingsAmong 2,035,395 community individuals and 99,795 frontline HCWs, we documented 5,545 incident reports of a positive COVID-19 test over 34,435,272 person-days. Compared with the general community, frontline HCWs had an aHR of 11{middle dot}6 (95% CI: 10{middle dot}9 to 12{middle dot}3) for reporting a positive test. The corresponding aHR was 3{middle dot}40 (95% CI: 3{middle dot}37 to 3{middle dot}43) using an inverse probability weighted Cox model adjusting for the likelihood of receiving a test. A symptom-based classifier of predicted COVID-19 yielded similar risk estimates. Compared with HCWs reporting adequate PPE, the aHRs for reporting a positive test were 1{middle dot}46 (95% CI: 1{middle dot}21 to 1{middle dot}76) for those reporting PPE reuse and 1{middle dot}31 (95% CI: 1{middle dot}10 to 1{middle dot}56) for reporting inadequate PPE. Compared with HCWs reporting adequate PPE who did not care for COVID-19 patients, HCWs caring for patients with documented COVID-19 had aHRs for a positive test of 4{middle dot}83 (95% CI: 3{middle dot}99 to 5{middle dot}85) if they had adequate PPE, 5{middle dot}06 (95% CI: 3{middle dot}90 to 6{middle dot}57) for reused PPE, and 5{middle dot}91 (95% CI: 4{middle dot}53 to 7{middle dot}71) for inadequate PPE. InterpretationFrontline HCWs had a significantly increased risk of COVID-19 infection, highest among HCWs who reused PPE or had inadequate access to PPE. However, adequate supplies of PPE did not completely mitigate high-risk exposures. FundingZoe Global Ltd., Wellcome Trust, EPSRC, NIHR, UK Research and Innovation, Alzheimers Society, NIH, NIOSH, Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness RESEARCH IN CONTEXTO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSThe prolonged course of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, coupled with sustained challenges supplying adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) for frontline healthcare workers (HCW), have strained global healthcare systems in an unprecedented fashion. Despite growing awareness of this problem, there are few data to inform policy makers on the risk of COVID-19 among HCWs and the impact of PPE on their disease burden. Prior reports of HCW infections are based on cross sectional data with limited individual-level information on risk factors for infection. A PubMed search for articles published between January 1, 2020 and May 5, 2020 using the terms "covid-19", "healthcare workers", and "personal protective equipment," yielded no population-scale investigations exploring this topic. Added value of this studyIn a prospective study of 2,135,190 individuals, frontline HCWs may have up to a 12-fold increased risk of reporting a positive COVID-19 test. Compared with those who reported adequate availability of PPE, frontline HCWs with inadequate PPE had a 31% increase in risk. However, adequate availability of PPE did not completely reduce risk among HCWs caring for COVID-19 patients. Implications of all the available evidenceBeyond ensuring adequate availability of PPE, additional efforts to protect HCWs from COVID-19 are needed, particularly as lockdown is lifted in many regions of the world.