What impact did the COVID-19 pandemic have on psychosis and the delivery of early intervention psychosis services?

BACKGROUND: In Australia, the first nationwide COVID-19 lockdown occurred in March 2020 bringing challenges for early intervention psychosis (EIP) services. Limited evidence exists on the impacts of the pandemic on treatment outcomes among EIP clients. METHODS: This prospective cohort study analysed routine data from 15 headspace Early Psychosis centres in Australia. Participants were 12 to 25 years, meeting criteria for First Episode Psychosis (FEP) or Ultra High Risk of psychosis (UHR) comparing those who commenced treatment 'pre-COVID-19' (between 16th August 2018 and 15th August 2019), and 'during-COVID-19' (between 1st March 2020 and 15th September 2020). Clinical symptoms at treatment commencement were assessed using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10). with outcomes after 6 months compared between cohorts using linear mixed-effects regression, controlling for confounders. RESULTS: Of 1246 young people analysed (653 FEP, 596 UHR), significant improvements were observed with treatment in both groups (5 to 13-point reduction in BPRS score per 6-months treatment). Treatment effectiveness reduced during-COVID-19 for psychosis symptoms, with the FEP BPRS treatment effect lower by 4.3 points (95%CI: 0.5, 8.1). UHR clients had lower BPRS negative symptoms during-COVID-19 (p = 0.020). Service contacts increased during-COVID-19, with increased telehealth services (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Early intervention remained effective for FEP and UHR, despite the pandemic and transition of EIP services to virtual service delivery. Reduced treatment efficacy in FEP psychosis symptoms may indicate potential limitations of telehealth. Further research to examine longer term clinical and functional outcomes due to the pandemic is required.

Moderate Physical Activity in Healthy Adults Is Associated With Cardiac Remodeling.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac mass and volumes are often elevated in athletes, but it is not known whether moderate physical activity is also associated with cardiac dilatation and hypertrophy in a healthy adult population. METHODS AND RESULTS: In total, 1096 adults (54% female, median age 39 years) without cardiovascular disease or cardiomyopathy-associated genetic variants underwent cardiac magnetic resonance imaging to determine biventricular volumes and function. Physical activity was assessed using a validated activity questionnaire. The relationship between cardiac parameters and activity was assessed using multiple linear regression adjusting for age, sex, race, and systolic blood pressure. Logistic regression was performed to determine the effect of activity on the likelihood of subjects having cardiac dilatation or hypertrophy according to standard cardiac magnetic resonance normal ranges. Increasing physical activity was associated with greater left ventricular (LV) mass (ß=0.23; P<0.0001) and elevated LV and right ventricular volumes (LV: ß=0.26, P<0.0001; right ventricular: ß=0.26, P<0.0001). Physical activity had a larger effect on cardiac parameters than systolic blood pressure (0.06≤ß≤0.21) and a similar effect to age (-0.20≤ß≤-0.31). Increasing physical activity was a risk factor for meeting imaging criteria for LV hypertrophy (adjusted odds ratio 2.1; P<0.0001), LV dilatation (adjusted odds ratio 2.2; P<0.0001), and right ventricular dilatation (adjusted odds ratio 2.2; P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Exercise-related cardiac remodeling is not confined to athletes, and there is a risk of overdiagnosing cardiac dilatation or hypertrophy in a proportion of active, healthy adults.