Mental health impact of the Middle East respiratory syndrome, SARS, and COVID-19: A comparative systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Over the last few decades, 3 pathogenic pandemics have impacted the global population; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and SARS-CoV-2. The global disease burden has attributed to millions of deaths and morbidities, with the majority being attributed to SARS-CoV-2. As such, the evaluation of the mental health (MH) impact across healthcare professionals (HCPs), patients and the general public would be an important facet to evaluate to better understand short, medium and long-term exposures. AIM: To identify and report: (1) MH conditions commonly observed across all 3 pandemics; (2) Impact of MH outcomes across HCPs, patients and the general public associated with all 3 pandemics; and (3) The prevalence of the MH impact and clinical epidemiological significance. METHODS: A systematic methodology was developed and published on PROSPERO (CRD42021228697). The databases PubMed, EMBASE, ScienceDirect and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were used as part of the data extraction process, and publications from January 1, 1990 to August 1, 2021 were searched. MeSH terms and keywords used included Mood disorders, PTSD, Anxiety, Depression, Psychological stress, Psychosis, Bipolar, Mental Health, Unipolar, Self-harm, BAME, Psychiatry disorders and Psychological distress. The terms were expanded with a 'snowballing' method. Cox-regression and the Monte-Carlo simulation method was used in addition to I 2 and Egger's tests to determine heterogeneity and publication bias. RESULTS: In comparison to MERS and SARS-CoV, it is evident SAR-CoV-2 has an ongoing MH impact, with emphasis on depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. CONCLUSION: It was evident MH studies during MERS and SARS-CoV was limited in comparison to SARS-CoV-2, with much emphasis on reporting symptoms of depression, anxiety, stress and sleep disturbances. The lack of comprehensive studies conducted during previous pandemics have introduced limitations to the "know-how" for clinicians and researchers to better support patients and deliver care with limited healthcare resources.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the Endometriosis and Mental-Health Sequelae; The ELEMI Project.

BACKGROUND: It is important to evaluate sequalae for complex chronic health conditions such as endometriosis and mental health disorders. Endometriosis impacts 1 in 10 women. Mental health outcomes can be a primary determinant in many physical health conditions although this is an area not well researched particularly in women's health. This has been problematic for endometriosis patients in particular, who report mental health issues as well as other key comorbidities such as chronic pelvic pain and infertility. This could be partly due to the complexities associated with comprehensively exploring overlaps between physical and mental health disorders in the presence of multiple comorbidities and their potential mechanistic relationship. METHODS: In this evidence synthesis, a systematic methodology and mixed-methods approaches were used to synthesize both qualitative and quantitative data to examine the prevalence of the overlapping sequalae between endometriosis and psychiatric symptoms and disorders. As part of this, an evidence synthesis protocol was developed which included a systematic review protocol that was published on PROSPERO (CRD42020181495). The aim was to identify and evaluate mental health reported outcomes and prevalence of symptoms and psychiatric disorders associated with endometriosis. FINDINGS: A total of 34 papers were included in the systematic review and 15 were included in the meta-analysis. Anxiety and depression symptoms were the most commonly reported mental health outcomes while a pooled analysis also revealed high prevalence of chronic pelvic pain and dyspareunia. INTERPRETATION: It is evident that small-scale cross-sectional studies have been conducted in a variety of settings to determine mental health outcomes among endometriosis patients. Further research is required to comprehensively evaluate the mental health sequalae with endometriosis.

An evaluation of the mental health impact of SARS-CoV-2 on patients, general public and healthcare professionals: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The global impact of COVID-19 pandemic continues to affect the lives of billions of people with recurrent waves. Healthcare systems are struggling to manage pre-existing patient care and recurring covid-19 demands. As a result, we evaluated the mental health impact using systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A comprehensive search was undertaken from April 2020 to 22nd January 2021 using multiple electronic databases. A systematic review protocol was developed and published on PROSPERO registration; CRD42020181481. A random-effects model was used to compute pooled estimates of anxiety, depression, PTSD, insomnia and suicidal thoughts. FINDINGS: Our search yielded 11,295 studies and of those 287 met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis of 206 studies revealed minimal differences in prevalence of anxiety, depression, and PTSD among HCPs compared with the public during the pandemic but higher prevalence of suicidal thoughts/ideation or self-harm (11% vs 5.8%) and lower prevalence of wellbeing (28.2% vs 52.6%) among the public compared to HCPs. INTERPRETATION: The pandemic has led to a high mental health burden especially amongst HCPs and higher suicidal ideation and lower wellbeing in general public which warrants further investigation and management globally. These findings highlight an emerging critical public health issue that requires urgent solutions.

Rapid commentary: Ethical implications for clinical trialists and patients associated with COVID-19 research.

Pandemics disrupt clinical trials worldwide, with lasting effects on research. It can severely impact clinical trialists ability to conduct safe and ethically uncompromised trials. Hence, the mounting pressure results in ethically and morally distressing decisions faced by clinical trial professionals during pandemic situations. Whilst clinical trialists attempt to think about preparedness and responses during a pandemic, the need to have an ethical framework that has real-world applicability is imperative. Pandemics are a challenging time for all, however, the safety and access to support for clinical trialists and patients within clinical trials should be at the forefront for their organisations and the government.