Acute COVID-19 severity and 16-month mental morbidity trajectories in patient populations of six nations

BACKGROUNDThe aim of this multinational study was to assess the development of adverse mental health symptoms among individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 in the general population by acute infection severity up to 16 months after diagnosis. METHODSParticipants consisted of 247 249 individuals from seven cohorts across six countries (Denmark, Estonia, Iceland, Norway, Scotland, and Sweden) recruited from April 2020 through August 2021. We used multivariable Poisson regression to contrast symptom-prevalence of depression, anxiety, COVID-19 related distress, and poor sleep quality among individuals with and without a diagnosis of COVID-19 at entry to respective cohorts by time (0-16 months) from diagnosis. We also applied generalised estimating equations (GEE) analysis to test differences in repeated measures of mental health symptoms before and after COVID-19 diagnosis among individuals ever diagnosed with COVID-19 over time. FINDINGSA total of 9979 individuals (4%) were diagnosed with COVID-19 during the study period and presented overall with a higher symptom burden of depression (prevalence ratio [PR] 1{middle dot}18, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1{middle dot}03-1{middle dot}36) and poorer sleep quality (1{middle dot}13, 1{middle dot}03-1{middle dot}24) but not with higher levels of symptoms of anxiety or COVID-19 related distress compared with individuals without a COVID-19 diagnosis. While the prevalence of depression and COVID-19 related distress attenuated with time, the trajectories varied significantly by COVID-19 acute infection severity. Individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 but never bedridden due to their illness were consistently at lower risks of depression and anxiety (PR 0{middle dot}83, 95% CI 0{middle dot}75-0{middle dot}91 and 0{middle dot}77, 0{middle dot}63-0{middle dot}94, respectively), while patients bedridden for more than 7 days were persistently at higher risks of symptoms of depression and anxiety (PR 1{middle dot}61, 95% CI 1{middle dot}27-2{middle dot}05 and 1{middle dot}43, 1{middle dot}26-1{middle dot}63, respectively) throughout the 16-month study period. CONCLUSIONAcute infection severity is a key determinant of long-term mental morbidity among COVID-19 patients.

Pre-pandemic Cognitive Function and COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: Prospective Cohort Study

BackgroundWhereas several predictors of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy have been examined, the role of cognitive function following the widely publicised development of an inoculation is unknown. ObjectiveTo test the association between scores from an array of cognitive function tests and self-reported vaccine hesitancy after the announcement of the successful testing of the Oxford University/AstraZeneca vaccine. Design, Setting, and ParticipantsWe used individual-level data from a pandemic-focused study (COVID Survey), a prospective cohort study nested within Understanding Society (Main Survey). In the week immediately following the announcement of successful testing of the first efficacious inoculation (November/December 2020), data on vaccine intentionality were collected in 11740 individuals (6702 women) aged 16-95. Pre-pandemic scores on general cognitive function, ascertained from a battery of six tests, were captured in 2011/12 wave of the Main Survey. MeasurementsSelf-reported intention to take up a vaccination for COVID-19. To summarise our results, we computed odds ratios with accompanying 95% confidence intervals for general cognitive function adjusted for selected covariates. ResultsOf the study sample, 17.2% (N=1842) indicated they were hesitant about having the vaccine. After adjustment for age, sex, and ethnicity, study members with a lower baseline cognition score were markedly more likely to be vaccine hesitant (odds ratio per standard deviation lower score in cognition; 95% confidence interval: 1.76; 1.62, 1.90). Adjustment for mental and physical health plus household shielding status had no impact on these results, whereas controlling for educational attainment led to partial attenuation but the probability of hesitancy was still elevated (1.52; 1.37, 1.67). There was a linear association for vaccine hesitancy across the full range of cognition scores (p for trend: p<0.0001). LimitationsOur outcome was based on intention rather than behaviour. ConclusionsErroneous social media reports might have complicated personal decision-making, leading to people with lower cognitive ability test scores being vaccine-hesitant. With people with lower cognition also experiencing higher rates of COVID-19 in studies conducted prior to vaccine distribution, these new findings are suggestive of a potential additional disease burden.

Face covering adherence is positively associated with better mental health and wellbeing: a longitudinal analysis of the CovidLife surveys

Face masks or coverings are effective at reducing airborne infection rates, yet pandemic mitigation measures, including wearing face coverings, have been suggested to contribute to reductions in quality of life and poorer mental health. Longitudinal analyses of more than 11,000 participants across the UK found no association between lower adherence to face covering guidelines and poorer mental health. The opposite appears to be true. Even after controlling for behavioral, social, and psychological confounds, including measures of pre-pandemic mental health, individuals who wore face coverings "most of the time" or "always" had better mental health and wellbeing than those who did not. These results suggest that wearing face coverings more often will not negatively impact mental health.

Using symptom-based case predictions to identify host genetic factors that contribute to COVID-19 susceptibility

Epidemiological and genetic studies on COVID-19 are currently hindered by inconsistent and limited testing policies to confirm SARS-CoV-2 infection. Recently, it was shown that it is possible to predict potential COVID-19 cases using cross-sectional self-reported disease-related symptoms. Using a previously reported COVID-19 prediction model, we show that it is possible to conduct a GWAS on predicted COVID-19, and this GWAS benefits from the larger sample size to provide new insights into the genetic susceptibility of the disease. Furthermore, we find suggestive evidence that genetic variants for other viral infectious diseases do not overlap with COVID-19 susceptibility and that severity of COVID-19 may have a different genetic architecture compared to COVID-19 susceptibility. Our findings demonstrate the added value of using self-reported symptom assessments to quickly monitor novel endemic viral outbreaks in a scenario of limited testing. Should there be another outbreak of a novel infectious disease, we recommend repeatedly collecting data of disease-related symptoms.

Mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic in two longitudinal UK population cohorts

BackgroundThe impact of COVID-19 on mental health is unclear. Evidence from longitudinal studies with pre pandemic data are needed to address (1) how mental health has changed from pre-pandemic levels to during the COVID-19 pandemic and (2), whether there are groups at greater risk of poorer mental health during the pandemic? MethodsWe used data from COVID-19 surveys (completed through April/May 2020), nested within two large longitudinal population cohorts with harmonised measures of mental health: two generations of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALPSAC): the index generation ALSPAC-G1 (n= 2850, mean age 28) and the parents generation ALSPAC-G0 (n= 3720, mean age = 59) and Generation Scotland: Scottish Family Health Study (GS, (n= 4233, mean age = 59), both with validated pre-pandemic measures of mental health and baseline factors. To answer question 1, we used ALSPAC-G1, which has identical mental health measures before and during the pandemic. Question 2 was addressed using both studies, using pre-pandemic and COVID-19 specific factors to explore associations with depression and anxiety in COVID-19. FindingsIn ALSPAC-G1 there was evidence that anxiety and lower wellbeing, but not depression, had increased in COVID-19 from pre-pandemic assessments. The percentage of individuals with probable anxiety disorder was almost double during COVID-19: 24% (95% CI 23%, 26%) compared to pre-pandemic levels (13%, 95% CI 12%, 14%), with clinically relevant effect sizes. In both ALSPAC and GS, depression and anxiety were greater in younger populations, women, those with pre-existing mental and physical health conditions, those living alone and in socio-economic adversity. We did not detect evidence for elevated risk in key workers or health care workers. InterpretationThese results suggest increases in anxiety and lower wellbeing that may be related to the COVID-19 pandemic and/or its management, particularly in young people. This research highlights that specific groups may be disproportionally at risk of elevated levels of depression and anxiety during COVID-19 and supports recent calls for increasing funds for mental health services. FundingThe UK Medical Research Council (MRC), the Wellcome Trust and University of Bristol.