Biopsychosocial response to the COVID-19 lockdown in people with major depressive disorder and multiple sclerosis.

BackgroundChanges in lifestyle, finances and work status during COVID-19 lockdowns may have led to biopsychosocial changes in people with pre-existing vulnerabilities such as Major Depressive Disorders (MDD) and Multiple Sclerosis (MS). MethodsData were collected as a part of the RADAR-CNS (Remote Assessment of Disease and Relapse - Central Nervous System) programme. We analyzed the following data from long-term participants in a decentralized multinational study: symptoms of depression, heart rate (HR) during the day and night; social activity; sedentary state, steps and physical activity of varying intensity. Linear mixed-effects regression analyses with repeated measures were fitted to assess the changes among three time periods (pre, during and post-lockdown) across the groups, adjusting for depression severity before the pandemic and gender. ResultsParticipants with MDD (N=255) and MS (N=214) were included in the analyses. Overall, depressive symptoms remained stable across the three periods in both groups. Lower mean HR and HR variation were observed between pre and during lockdown during the day for MDD and during the night for MS. HR variation during rest periods also decreased between pre-and post-lockdown in both clinical conditions. We observed a reduction of physical activity for MDD and MS upon the introduction of lockdowns. The group with MDD exhibited a net increase in social interaction via social network apps over the three periods. ConclusionsBehavioral response to the lockdown measured by social activity, physical activity and HR may reflect changes in stress in people with MDD and MS.

The King's College London Coronavirus Health and Experiences of Colleagues at King's Study: SARS-CoV-2 antibody response in a higher education sample

ObjectiveTo assess the feasibility of home antibody testing as part of large-scale study, the Kings College London Coronavirus Health and Experiences of Colleagues at Kings (KCL CHECK). MethodsParticipants of the KCL CHECK study were sent a SureScreen Diagnostics COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Cassette to complete at home in June 2020 (phase 1) and September 2020 (phase 2). Participants were asked to upload a test result image to a study website. Test result images and sociodemographic information were analysed by the research team. ResultsA total of n=2716 participants enrolled in the KCL CHECK study, with n=2003 (73.7%) and n=1825 (69.3%) consenting and responding to phase 1 and 2. Of these, n=1882 (93.9%; phase 1) and n=1675 (91.8%; phase 2) returned a valid result. n=123 (6.5%; phase 1) and n=91 (5.4%; phase 2) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. A total of n=1488 participants provided a result in both phases, with n=57 (3.8%) testing positive for SARS- CoV-2 antibodies across both phases, suggesting a reduction in the number of positive antibody results over time. Initial comparisons showed variation by age group, gender and clinical role. ConclusionsOur study highlights the feasibility of rapid, repeated and low-cost SARS-CoV-2 serological testing without the need for face-to-face contact. What is already known about this subject?Higher education institutions have a duty of care to minimise the spread and transmission of COVID-19 in its campuses, and among staff and students. The reopening of higher education buildings and campuses has brought about a mass movement of students, academics and support staff from across the UK. Serological antibody studies can assist by highlighting groups of people and behaviours associated with high risk of COVID-19. What are the new findings?We report a framework for SARS-CoV-2 serological antibody testing in an occupational group of postgraduate research students and current members of staff at Kings College London. Over two phases of data collection, 6.5% (phase 1) and 5.4% (phase 2) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, with only 3.8% testing positive for antibodies in both phases, suggesting a reduction in positive antibody results over time. How might this impact on policy or clinical practice in the foreseeable future?Our study highlights the feasibility of rapidly deploying low-cost and repeatable SARS-CoV-2 serological testing, without the need for face-to-face contact, to support the higher education system of the UK.

The psychosocial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on 4,378 UK healthcare workers and ancillary staff: initial baseline data from a cohort study collected during the first wave of the pandemic.

ObjectivesThis study reports preliminary findings on the prevalence of, and factors associated with, mental health and wellbeing outcomes of healthcare workers during the early months (April-June) of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. MethodsPreliminary cross-sectional data were analysed from a cohort study (n=4,378). Clinical and non-clinical staff of three London-based NHS Trusts (UK), including acute and mental health Trusts, took part in an online baseline survey. The primary outcome measure used is the presence of probable common mental disorders (CMDs), measured by the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). Secondary outcomes are probable anxiety (GAD-7), depression (PHQ-9), Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) (PCL-6), suicidal ideation (CIS-R), and alcohol use (AUDIT). Moral injury is measured using the Moray Injury Event Scale (MIES). ResultsAnalyses showed substantial levels of CMDs (58.9%, 95%CI 58.1 to 60.8), and of PTSD (30.2%, 95%CI 28.1 to 32.5) with lower levels of depression (27.3%, 95%CI 25.3 to 29.4), anxiety (23.2%, 95%CI 21.3 to 25.3), and alcohol misuse (10.5%, 95%CI, 9.2 to 11.9). Women, younger staff, and nurses tended to have poorer outcomes than other staff, except for alcohol misuse. Higher reported exposure to moral injury (distress resulting from violation of ones moral code) was strongly associated with increased levels of CMDs, anxiety, depression, PTSD symptoms, and alcohol misuse. ConclusionsOur findings suggest that mental health support for healthcare workers should consider those demographics and occupations at highest risk. Rigorous longitudinal data are needed in order to respond to the potential long-term mental health impacts of the pandemic. HighlightsO_ST_ABSWhat is already known about this subject?C_ST_ABSO_LILarge-scale population studies report increased prevalence of depression, anxiety, and psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic. C_LIO_LIEvidence from previous epidemics indicates a high and persistent burden of adverse mental health outcomes among healthcare workers. C_LI What are the new findings?O_LISubstantial levels of probable common mental disorders and post-traumatic stress disorder were found among healthcare workers. C_LIO_LIGroups at increased risk of adverse mental health outcomes included women, nurses, and younger staff, as well as those who reported higher levels of moral injury. C_LI How might this impact on policy or clinical practice in the foreseeable future?O_LIThe mental health offering to healthcare workers must consider the interplay of demographic, social, and occupational factors. C_LIO_LIAdditional longitudinal research that emphasises methodological rigor, namely with use of standardised diagnostic interviews to establish mental health diagnoses, is necessary to better understand the mental health burden, identify those most at risk, and provide appropriate support without pathologizing ordinary distress responses. C_LI

Indicators of COVID-19 status in a cohort study of university staff and post-graduate research students, including results from home antibody testing

Background Definitive diagnosis of COVID-19 requires resources frequently restricted to the severely ill. Cohort studies must rely on surrogate indicators to define cases of COVID-19 in the community. We describe the prevalence and overlap of potential indicators including self-reported symptoms, suspicion, and routine test results, plus home antibody testing. Methods An occupational cohort of 2807 staff and postgraduate students at a large London university. Repeated surveys covering March to June 2020. Antibody test results from 'lateral flow' IgG/IgM cassettes in June 2020. Results 1882 participants had valid antibody test results, and 124 (7%) were positive. Core symptoms of COVID-19 were common (770 participants positive, 41%), although fewer met criteria on a symptom algorithm (n=297, 16%). Suspicion of COVID-19 (n=509, 27%) was much higher than positive external tests (n=39, 2%). Positive antibody tests were rare in people who had no suspicion (n=4, 1%) or no core symptoms (n=10, 2%). In those who reported external antibody tests, 15% were positive on the study antibody test, compared with 24% on earlier external antibody tests. Discussion Our results demonstrate the agreement between different COVID indicators. Antibody testing using lateral flow devices at home can detect asymptomatic cases and provide greater certainty to self-report; but due to weak and waning antibody responses to mild infection, may under-ascertain. Multiple indicators used in combination can provide a more complete story than one used alone. Cohort studies need to consider how they deal with different, sometimes conflicting, indicators of COVID-19 illness to understand its long-term outcomes.

The King's College London Coronavirus Health and Experiences of Colleagues at King's Study: SARS-CoV-2 antibody response in an occupational sample

We report test results for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in an occupational group of postgraduate research students and current members of staff at Kings College London. Between June and July 2020, antibody testing kits were sent to n=2296 participants; n=2004 (86.3%) responded, of whom n=1882 (93.9%) returned valid test results. Of those that returned valid results, n=124 (6.6%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, with initial comparisons showing variation by age group and clinical exposure.