Mental health conditions and COVID-19 vaccine outcomes: a scoping review (preprint)

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on the mental health of people worldwide. Mental health also impacts on physical health. In the context of viral illnesses, viral challenge studies have shown that indices of mental health are associated with susceptibility to viral infections, including coronaviruses. Research conducted during the pandemic has shown that people with a history of mental health conditions were at increased risk of infection, hospitalisation, and mortality. However, the relationship between mental health conditions and vaccine outcomes such as vaccine intentions, uptake, and vaccine breakthrough is not yet well-understood. MethodsWe conducted a systematic search on the topics of COVID-19 vaccine intentions, vaccine uptake, and vaccine breakthrough, in relation to mental health conditions, in four databases: PubMed, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and PsychINFO, as well as the publication lists of Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), The Health Improvement Network (THIN), OpenSAFELY, and QResearch. Inclusion criteria focus on studies reporting either of the aforementioned COVID-19 vaccine outcomes among people with mental health conditions. ResultsThirty-three out of 251 publications met our inclusion criteria for this review. Overall, the evidence is inconclusive regarding the level of intention to accept the COVID-19 vaccine among people with mental health conditions. However, people with mental health conditions were more likely to have lower uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine, compared to people without. Common barriers to COVID-19 vaccine uptake include concerns about the safety, effectiveness, and side effects of the vaccines. Limited evidence also suggests that vaccine breakthrough may be a particular risk for those with substance use disorder. ConclusionsOur findings revealed a possible intention-behaviour gap for receiving the COVID-19 vaccine among people with mental health conditions, yielding interventions to encourage vaccine uptake in this population. There is also the need to enhance our understanding of COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough in people with mental health conditions.

Analysis of uptake, effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccinations in pregnancy using the QResearch database: research protocol and statistical analysis plan (preprint)

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has affected millions of people globally with major health, social and economic consequences, prompting development of vaccines for use in the general population. However, vaccination uptake is lower in some groups, including in pregnant women, because of concerns regarding vaccine safety. There is evidence of increased risk of adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, but fear of vaccine-associated adverse events on the baby both in short and longer term is one of the main drivers of low uptake for this group. Other vaccines commonly used in pregnancy include influenza and pertussis. These both have reportedly higher uptake compared with COVID-19 vaccination, which may be because they are perceived to be safer. In this study, we will undertake an independent evaluation of the uptake, effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccinations in pregnant women using the QResearch primary care database in England. Objectives A. To determine COVID-19 vaccine uptake in pregnant women compared to uptake of influenza and pertussis vaccinations. B. To estimate COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness in pregnant women by evaluating the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes following vaccination. C. To assess the safety of COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy by evaluating the risks of adverse pregnancy and perinatal outcomes and adverse events of special interest for vaccine safety after COVID-19 vaccination compared with influenza and pertussis vaccinations. Methods This population-based study uses the QResearch database of primary health care records, linked to individual-level data on hospital admissions, mortality, COVID-19 vaccination, SARS-CoV-2 testing data and congenital anomalies. We will include women aged 16 to 49 years with at least one pregnancy during the study period of 30th December 2020 to the latest date available. Babies born during the study period will be identified and linked to the mothers record, where possible. We will describe vaccine uptake in pregnant women by trimester and population subgroups defined by demographics and other characteristics. Cox proportional hazards multivariable regression will be used to identify factors associated with vaccine uptake. The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant women will be assessed using time varying Royston-Palmar regression analyses to determine unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios for the occurrence of severe COVID-19 outcomes after each vaccine dose compared with unvaccinated individuals. For the safety analysis, we will we use logistic regression analyses to determine unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios for the occurrence of maternal (e.g. miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy and gestational diabetes) and perinatal outcomes (e.g. stillbirth, small for gestational age and congenital anomalies) by vaccination status compared to unvaccinated individuals. For the adverse events of special interest for vaccine safety (e.g. venous thromboembolism, myocarditis and Guillain Barre syndrome), we will use time varying Royston-Palmar regression analyses to determine unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios for the occurrence of each outcome by vaccination status to unvaccinated individuals. Ethics and dissemination QResearch is a Research Ethics Approved Research Database with ongoing approval from the East Midlands Multi-Centre Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 18/EM/0400). This study was approved by the QResearch Scientific Committee on 9th June 2022. This research protocol has been developed with support from a patient and public involvement panel, who will continue to provide input throughout the duration of the study. Research findings will be submitted to pre-print servers such as MedRxIv, academic publication and disseminated more broadly through media releases and community groups and conference presentations.

Uptake of Sotrovimab for prevention of severe COVID-19 and its safety in the community in England (preprint)

Sotrovimab is a neutralising monoclonal antibody (nMAB), currently administrated in England to treat extremely clinically vulnerable COVID-19 patients. Trials have shown it to have mild or moderate side effects, however safety in real-world settings has not been yet evaluated. We used national databases to investigate its uptake and safety in community patients across England. We used a cohort study to describe uptake and a self-controlled case series design to evaluate the risks of 49 pre-specified suspected adverse events in the 2-28 days post-treatment. Between December 11, 2021 and May 24, 2022, there were 172,860 COVID-19 patients eligible for treatment. Of the 22,815 people who received Sotrovimab, 21,487 (94.2%) had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test and 5,999 (26.3%) were not on the eligible list. Between treated and untreated eligible individuals, the mean age (54.6, SD: 16.1 vs 54.1, SD: 18.3) and sex distribution (women: 60.9% vs 58.1%; men: 38.9% vs 41.1%) were similar. There were marked variations in uptake between ethnic groups, which was higher amongst Indian (15.0%; 95%CI 13.8, 16.3), Other Asian (13.7%; 95%CI 11.9, 15.8), White (13.4%; 95%CI 13.3, 13.6), and Bangladeshi (11.4%; 95%CI 8.8, 14.6); and lower amongst Black Caribbean individuals (6.4%; 95%CI 5.4, 7.5) and Black Africans (4.7%; 95%CI 4.1, 5.4). We found no increased risk of any of the suspected adverse events in the overall period of 2-28 days post-treatment, but an increased risk of rheumatoid arthritis (IRR 3.08, 95% CI 1.44, 6.58) and of systematic lupus erythematosus (IRR 5.15, 95% CI 1.60, 16.60) in the 2-3 days post-treatment, when we narrowed the risk period. FundingNational Institute of Health Research (Grant reference 135561)

QCovid 4 - Predicting risk of death or hospitalisation from COVID-19 in adults testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection during the Omicron wave in England (preprint)

To (a) derive and validate risk prediction algorithms (QCovid4) to estimate risk of COVID-19 mortality and hospitalisation in UK adults with a SARS-CoV-2 positive test during the Omicron pandemic wave and (b) evaluate performance with earlier versions of algorithms developed in previous pandemic waves and the high-risk cohort identified by NHS Digital in England. Design Population-based cohort study using the QResearch database linked to national data on COVID-19 vaccination, high risk patients prioritised for COVID-19 therapeutics, SARS-CoV-2 results, hospitalisation, cancer registry, systemic anticancer treatment, radiotherapy and the national death registry. Settings and study period 1.3 million adults in the derivation cohort and 0.15 million adults in the validation cohort aged 18-100 years with a SARS-CoV-2 positive test between 11th December 2021 and 31st March 2022 with follow up to 30th June 2022. Main outcome measures Our primary outcome was COVID-19 death. The secondary outcome of interest was COVID-19 hospital admission. Models fitted in the derivation cohort to derive risk equations using a range of predictor variables. Performance evaluated in a separate validation cohort. Results Of 1,297,984 people with a SARS-CoV-2 positive test in the derivation cohort, 18,756 (1.45%) had a COVID-19 related hospital admission and 3,878 (0.3%) had a COVID-19 death during follow-up. Of the 145,404 people in the validation cohort, there were 2,124 (1.46%) COVID-19 admissions and 461 (0.3%) COVID-19 deaths. The COVID-19 mortality rate in men increased with age and deprivation. In the QCovid4 model in men hazard ratios were highest for those with the following conditions- kidney transplant (6.1-fold increase), Downs syndrome (4.9-fold); radiotherapy (3.1-fold); type 1 diabetes (3.4-fold), chemotherapy grade A (3.8-fold), grade B (5.8-fold), grade C (10.9-fold), solid organ transplant ever (2.4-fold), dementia (1.62-fold), Parkinsons disease (2.2-fold), liver cirrhosis (2.5-fold). Other conditions associated with increased COVID-19 mortality included learning disability, chronic kidney disease (stages 4 and 5), blood cancer, respiratory cancer, immunosuppressants, oral steroids, COPD, coronary heart disease, stroke, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, thromboembolism, rheumatoid or SLE, schizophrenia or bipolar disease sickle cell or HIV or SCID, type 2 diabetes. Results were similar in the model in women. COVID-19 mortality risk was lower among those who had received COVID-19 vaccination compared with unvaccinated individuals with evidence of a dose response relationship. The reduced mortality rates associated with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection were similar in men (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.51 (95% CI 0.40, 0.64)) and women (adjusted HR 0.55 (95%CI 0.45, 0.67)). The QCOVID4 algorithm explained 76.6% (95%CI 74.4 to 78.8) of the variation in time to COVID-19 death (R2) in women. The D statistic was 3.70 (95%CI 3.48 to 3.93) and the Harrells C statistic was 0.965 (95%CI 0.951 to 0.978). The corresponding results for COVID-19 death in men were similar with R2 76.0% (95% 73.9 to 78.2); D statistic 3.65 (95%CI 3.43 to 3.86) and C statistic of 0.970 (95%CI 0.962 to 0.979). QCOVID4 discrimination for mortality was slightly higher than that for QCOVID1 and QCOVID2, but calibration was much improved. Conclusion The QCovid4 risk algorithm modelled from data during the UK Omicron wave now includes vaccination dose and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and predicts COVID-19 mortality among people with a positive test. It has excellent performance and could be used for targeting COVID-19 vaccination and therapeutics. Although large disparities in risks of severe COVID-19 outcomes among ethnic minority groups were observed during the early waves of the pandemic, these are much reduced now with no increased risk of mortality by ethnic group.

Prospective examination of mental health in university students during the COVID-19 pandemic (preprint)

Background: The impact of changing social restrictions on the mental health of students during the COVID-19 pandemic warrants exploration. Aims: To prospectively examine changes to university students mental health during the pandemic. Methods: Students completed repeated online surveys at three time points (October 2020 (baseline), February 2021, March 2021) to explore relationships between demographic and psychological factors (loneliness and positive mood) and mental health outcomes (depression, anxiety, and stress). Results: A total of 893 students participated. Depression and anxiety levels were higher at all timepoints than pre-pandemic normative data (p

The prevalence, incidence, prognosis and risk factors for depression and anxiety in a UK cohort during the COVID-19 pandemic (preprint)

Background The COVID-19 pandemic had profound immediate impacts on population mental health. However, in whom the effects may be prolonged is less clear. Aims To investigate the prevalence, incidence, prognosis, and risk factors for depression and anxiety reported in a UK cohort over three distinct periods in the pandemic in 2020. Method An online survey was distributed to a UK community cohort (n=3097) at three points: April (baseline), July-September (T2) and November-December (T3). Participants completed validated measures of depression and anxiety on each occasion and we prospectively explored the role of socio-demographic factors and psychological factors (loneliness, positive mood, perceived risk of and worry about COVID-19) as risk factors. Results Depression (PHQ-9 means - baseline: 7.69, T2: 5.53, T3: 6.06) and anxiety scores (GAD-7 means -baseline: 6.59, T2: 4.60, T3: 4.98) were considerably greater than pre-pandemic population norms. Women reported greater depression and anxiety than men. Being younger, having prior mental health disorders, more negative life events due to COVID-19, as well as greater loneliness and lower positive mood at baseline were significant predictors of poorer mental health outcomes. Conclusion The negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health has persisted to some degree. Younger people and individuals with prior mental health disorders were at greatest risk. Easing of restrictions might bring the opportunity for a return to social interaction, which could mitigate the risk factors of loneliness and positive mood.

Analysis of severe outcomes associated with the SARS-CoV-2 Variant of Concern 202012/01 in England using ICNARC Case Mix Programme and QResearch databases (preprint)

ABSTRACT Background A new, more transmissible variant of SARS-CoV-2, variant of concern (VOC) 202012/01 or lineage B.1.1.7, has emerged in the UK. We estimate the risk of critical care admission, mortality in critical ill patients, and overall mortality associated with VOC B.1.1.7 compared with the original variant. We also compare clinical outcomes between these variants ‘ groups. Methods We linked a large primary care (QResearch), the national critical care (ICNARC CMP) and the COVID-19 testing (PHE) database and extracted two cohorts. The first was used to explore the association between VOC B.1.1.7 and critical care admission and 28-day mortality. The second to determine the risk of mortality in critically ill patients with VOC B.1.1.7 compared to those without. We used Royston-Parmar models adjusted for age, sex, region, other socio-demographics and comorbidities (asthma, COPD, type I and II, hypertension). We reported information on types and duration of organ supports for the two variants ‘ groups. Findings The first cohort included 198,420 patients. Of these, 80,494 had VOC B.1.1.7, 712 were critically ill and 630 died by 28 days. The second cohort included 3432 critically ill patients. Of these, 2019 had VOC B.1.1.7 and 822 died at the end of critical care. Using the first cohort, we estimated adjusted hazard ratios for critical care admission and mortality to be 1.99 (95% CI: 1.59, 2.49) and 1.59 (95% CI: 1.25-2.03) for VOC B.1.1.7 compared with the original variant group, respectively. The adjusted hazard ratio for mortality in critical care, estimated using the second cohort, was 0.93 (95% CI 0.76-1.15) for patients with VOC B.1.1.7, compared to those without. Interpretation VOC B.1.1.7 appears to be more severe. Patients with VOC B.1.1.7 are at increased risk of critical care admission and mortality compared with patients without. For patients receiving critical care, mortality appears independent of virus strain. RESEARCH IN CONTEXT Evidence before this study A new variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, variant of concern (VOC) 202012/01, or lineage B.1.1.7, was detected in England in September 2020. The characteristics and outcomes of patients infected with VOC B.1.1.7 are not yet known. VOC B.1.1.7 has been associated with increased transmissibility. Early analyses have suggested infection with VOC B.1.1.7 may be associated with a higher risk of mortality compared with infection with other virus variants, but these analyses had either limited ability to adjust for key confounding variables or did not consider critical care admission. The effects of VOC B.1.1.7 on severe COVID-19 outcomes remain unclear. Added value of this study This study found a 60% higher risk of 28-day mortality associated with infection with VOC B.1.1.7 in patients tested in the community in comparison with the original variant, when adjusted for key confounding variables. The risk of critical care admission for those with VOC B.1.1.7 is double the risk associated with the original variant. For patients receiving critical care, the infecting variant is not associated with the risk of mortality at the end of critical care. Implications of all the available evidence The higher mortality and rate of critical care admission associated with VOC B.1.1.7, combined with its known increased transmissibility, are likely to put health care systems under further stress. These effects may be mitigated by the ongoing vaccination programme.

Influenza, Shingles and Pneumococcal Vaccine Uptake, Offer and Refusal in Adult Populations at High-Risk for COVID-19: A UK Population-Based Cohort Study (preprint)

Background: As COVID-19 vaccination programs are being rolled out globally, we studied the ethnic, deprivation, household size and comorbidity ‘patterning’ of existing vaccination programs in populations at high-risk for COVID-19, to inform risk-stratified vaccination strategies and mitigate health inequalities. Methods: A population-level cohort study of UK adults aged 65 years or older, using a large primary care database. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess uptake of influenza, pneumococcal and shingles vaccination across ethnic groups, deprivation quintile, household size, and comorbidities, computing odds ratios (OR) adjusted for age, sex, demographics, body mass index and smoking. Offers and refusals of each vaccination type were analysed in those not receiving them. Findings: The cohort comprised 2,054,463 patients from 1,318 general practices. 1,452,014 (70.7%) patients received influenza vaccine, 1,391,228 (67.7%) received pneumococcal vaccine, and 690,783 (53.4%) received shingles vaccine. Compared to Whites, influenza vaccination uptake was lower in Pakistani (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.82; 99% confidence interval: 0.74-0.90), Black Caribbean (OR 0.46; 0.43-0.48), Black African (OR 0.63; 0.58-0.68), Chinese (OR 0.70; 0.64-0.76) and ‘Other ethnic group’ (OR 0.65; 0.63-0.69). The Black Caribbean group had higher vaccination refusal than the White group for influenza vaccination (OR 1.17; 1.05-1.30). Vaccination uptake was lower among the more deprived and those living in household sizes above 3 or more persons, with some significant interactions between ethnicity and comorbidities. Uptake of all three vaccines was higher in those with asthma, COPD, type 2 diabetes, hypertension and learning disability, whilst lower in those with dementia. Interpretation: Whilst uptake and refusal of influenza, shingles and pneumococcal vaccination are patterned by ethnicity, deprivation, household size and comorbidities, vaccination offer is mostly patterned by comorbidities. This information can inform national policies to ensure equitable implementation of COVID-19 vaccination programs to avoid exacerbating health inequalities.Funding Statement: This project was funded by the Medical Research Council (Grant Ref: MR/V027778/1).Declaration of Interests: PST reports previous consultation with AstraZeneca and Duke-NUS outside the submitted work. KK is a Member of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), Member of Independent SAGE, Director of the University of Leicester Centre for Black Minority Health and Trustee of the south Asian Health Foundation. JHC is a member of several SAGE committees and chair of the risk stratification subgroup of the NERVTAG. She is unpaid director of QResearch and founder and former medical director of ClinRisk Ltd (outside the submitted work). MP, AKC, HDM, DS, TAR, FZ, BRS, SJG, CC, CG have no interests to declare.

Experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic: cross-sectional analysis of risk perceptions and mental health in a student cohort (preprint)

Objective: This study examined the COVID-19 risk perceptions and mental health of university students on returning to campus in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: An online survey was completed during the first four weeks of the academic year (October 2020) by 897 university students. The survey included demographics and measures of experiences of COVID-19 testing, self-isolation, shielding, perceived risk, mental health and indices capturing related psychological responses to the pandemic. Results: We observed higher levels of depression and anxiety, but not stress, in students compared with pre-pandemic normative data, but lower than levels reported earlier in the pandemic in other similar cohorts. Depression, anxiety and stress were independently associated with greater loneliness and reduced positive mood. Greater worry about COVID-19 was also independently associated with anxiety and stress. Female students and those with pre-existing mental health disorders were at greatest risk of poor mental health outcomes. Conclusion: Although students perceived themselves at only moderate risk of COVID-19, the prevalence of depression and anxiety among university students should remain a concern. Universities should provide adequate support for students mental health during term-time. Interventions to reduced loneliness and worry, and improve mood, may benefit students overall mental well-being.

Mental Health of Keyworkers in the UK during the COVID-19 Pandemic: a Cross-sectional Analysis of a Community Cohort (preprint)

Objectives: Previous pandemics have resulted in high levels of psychological morbidity among frontline workers. Here we report on the early mental health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on keyworkers in the UK, as assessed during the first six weeks of nationwide social distancing measures being introduced. Comparisons are made with non-keyworkers, and psychological factors that may be protective to keyworkers mental health are explored. Design: Cross-sectional analysis of a community cohort study. Results: Keyworkers reported significantly higher depression, anxiety, and stress than pre-pandemic population norms. Compared to non-keyworkers, keyworkers were more likely to worry about COVID-19 and perceived they were at higher risk from the virus. This was particularly evident for health and social care keyworkers. Younger keyworkers and those in a clinically increased risk group were more likely to report poorer mental health. Lower positive mood, greater loneliness and worrying more about COVID-19 were all associated with poorer mental health outcomes amongst keyworkers. Conclusions: The mental health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on keyworkers in the UK has been substantial. Worry about COVID-19 and perceived risk from COVID-19 in keyworkers are understandable given potential increased exposure to the virus. Younger and clinically vulnerable keyworkers may benefit most from any interventions that seek to mitigate the negative mental health impacts of the pandemic.

Mental Health Status of Adolescents During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-sectional Survey among the Bangladeshi Graduate Students at Dhaka City (preprint)

ObjectivesTo identify the level of Mental Health Status of Adolescents During the COVID-19 Pandemic among the Bangladeshi Graduate Student at Dhaka MethodA cross-sectional survey was conducted with 330 students from different public and Private Universities in Dhaka, Bangladesh between April 01, 2020 and July 31, 2020 amid the COVID-19 lockdown period in Bangladesh. A standard, self-administered online questionnaire consisting of questions on socio-demographic variables, mental health status, as well as stress management sent to the respondents through social networking platforms. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-test, one-way ANOVA and correlation tests. ResultsThe mean score of mental health status was 2.08 based on four points scale. They felt problem in decision making (3.04), in doing the things well (2.92), in enjoying normal day to day life (2.88), in playing a useful part in life (2.85), in doing their task (2.75), living in perfectly well and in good health (2.70). The respondents also developed a suicidal tendency (2.55), felt nervous in strung-up (2.24), took longer time to do things (2.14), felt tightness and pressure in head (2.12), and found themselves pressurized by various stuff (2.05). This study also found a significant positive relationship between mental health status and age, living with parents, and parents attitude. Finally, this study revealed that the respondents managed their stress by chatting with their friends, parents and siblings, and by sleeping. ConclusionMental health status of adolescents was found moderate in this study. This study suggests further large-scale study including different socio-economic settings in order to figure out the real scenario of adolescents mental health status of the country during the pandemic.

A retrospective cluster analysis of COVID-19 cases by county (preprint)

The COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. has exhibited distinct waves, the first beginning in March 2020, the second beginning in early June, and additional waves currently emerging. Paradoxically, almost no county has exhibited this multi-wave pattern. We aim to answer three research questions: (1) How many distinct clusters of counties exhibit similar COVID-19 patterns in the time-series of daily confirmed cases?; (2) What is the geographic distribution of the counties within each cluster? and (3) Are county-level demographic, socioeconomic and political variables associated with the COVID-19 case patterns? We analyzed data from counties in the U.S. from March 1 to October 24, 2020. Time series clustering identified clusters in the daily confirmed cases of COVID-19. An explanatory model was used to identify demographic, socioeconomic and political variables associated the cluster patterns. Four patterns were identified from the timing of the outbreaks including counties experiencing a spring, an early summer, a late summer, and a fall outbreak. Several county-level demographic, socioeconomic, and political variables showed significant associations with the identified clusters. The timing of the outbreak is related both to the geographic location within the U.S. and several variables including age, poverty distribution, and political association. These results show that the reported pattern of cases in the U.S. is observed through aggregation of the COVID-19 cases, suggesting that local trends may be more informative. The timing of the outbreak varies by county, and is associated with important demographic, socioeconomic and geographic factors.

Associations between COVID-19 infection, tobacco smoking and nicotine use, common respiratory conditions and inhaled corticosteroids: a prospective QResearch-Case Mix Programme data linkage study January-May 2020 (preprint)

Introduction Epidemiological and laboratory research seems to suggest that smoking and perhaps nicotine alone could reduce the severity of COVID-19. Likewise, there is some evidence that inhaled corticosteroids could also reduce its severity, opening the possibility that nicotine and inhaled steroids could be used as treatments. Methods In this prospective cohort study, we will link English general practice records from the QResearch database to Public Health England's database of SARS-CoV-2 positive tests, Hospital Episode Statistics, admission to intensive care units, and death from COVID-19 to identify our outcomes: hospitalisation, ICU admission, and death due to COVID. Using Cox regression, we will perform sequential adjustment for potential confounders identified by separate directed acyclic graphs to: 1. Assess the association between smoking and COVID-19 disease severity, and how that changes on adjustment for smoking-related comorbidity. 2. More closely characterise the association between smoking and severe COVID-19 disease by assessing whether the association is modified by age (as a proxy of length of smoking), gender, ethnic group, and whether people have asthma or COPD. 3. Assess for evidence of a dose-response relation between smoking intensity and disease severity, which would help create a case for causality. 4. Examine the association between former smokers who are using NRT or are vaping and disease severity. 5. Examine whether pre-existing respiratory disease is associated with severe COVID-19 infection. 6. Assess whether the association between chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma and COVID-19 disease severity is modified by age, gender, ethnicity, and smoking status. 7. Assess whether the use of inhaled corticosteroids is associated with severity of COVID-19 disease. 8. To assess whether the association between use of inhaled corticosteroids and severity of COVID-19 disease is modified by the number of other airways medications used (as a proxy for severity of condition) and whether people have asthma or COPD. Conclusions This representative population sample will, to our knowledge, present the first comprehensive examination of the association between smoking, nicotine use without smoking, respiratory disease, and severity of COVID-19. We will undertake several sensitivity analyses to examine the potential for bias in these associations.

Mental health in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic: early observations (preprint)

Background: Previous pandemics have resulted in significant consequences for mental health. Here we report the mental health sequela of the COVID-19 pandemic on the UK population and examine modifiable and non-modifiable explanatory factors associated with mental health outcomes. We focus on the short-term consequences for mental health, as reported during the first four-six weeks of social distancing measures being introduced. Methods: A community cohort study was conducted with adults aged [≥]18 years recruited through a mainstream and social media campaign between 3/4/20-30/4/20. Consenting participants completed an online survey measuring depression, anxiety and stress and explanatory variables hypothesised to be related to these mental health outcomes. Outcomes: N=3097 eligible individuals participated. The cohort was predominantly female (85%); mean age forty-four years; 10% from minority ethnic groups; 50% described themselves as key-workers and 20% identified as having clinical risk factors putting them at increased risk of COVID-19. Mean scores for depression, stress and anxiety significantly exceeded population norms. Analysis of non-modifiable factors indicated that being younger and female were associated with all outcomes, with the final multivariable models accounting for 7-13% of variance. When adding modifiable factors, significant independent effects emerged for positive mood, perceived loneliness and worry about getting COVID-19 for all outcomes, with the final multivariable models accounting for 54-57% of variance. Interpretation: Increased psychological morbidity was evident in this UK cohort, with younger people and women at particular risk. Interventions targeting perceptions of: loneliness, risk of COVID-19, worry about COVID-19, and positive mood may be effective.