Treatment resistant depression: A comparative study of access, pathways, and outcomes between Caucasian and ethnic minority individuals.

BACKGROUND: Treatment resistant depression (TRD) is considered when an individual fails to respond to two or more different antidepressants in adequate doses, duration and with adequate adherence within the same major depressive episode. AIM: To examine the clinical profiles of TRD patients through data from electronic healthcare records and compare characteristics and treatment pathways of ethnic minority and non-minority patients in UK. METHODS: A retrospective, longitudinal, observational cohort study of patients with TRD was carried out in 10 Mental Health NHS Foundation Trusts in the Akrivia Health/UK Clinical Record Interactive Search (CRIS) system network. The CRIS system was used as a means of analysing de-identified data across 3.2 million anonymised patients' records. RESULTS: 10,048 patient records were deemed eligible for this study, of which 20.2 % of patients identified as BAME, and 79.8 % patients identified as White. Overall, around half of the patients were likely to be prescribed an antidepressant within 2 months of the MDD diagnosis. White patients were prescribed more antidepressants than the BAME group (p < 0.001), with a significant effect size for comorbidities. LIMITATIONS: The nature of the data source limited the ability to filter for short treatment durations as clinicians did not often record concrete medication end-dates in clinical note fields. CONCLUSION: There are significant differences in care pathways between ethnic groups in relation to TRD patients. It is vital to understand factors causing these potential clinical biases and increase awareness and education to deliver the most effective treatments for TRD in ethnic minority patients.

Post-acute COVID-19 neuropsychiatric symptoms are not associated with ongoing nervous system injury.

A proportion of patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 experience a range of neuropsychiatric symptoms months after infection, including cognitive deficits, depression and anxiety. The mechanisms underpinning such symptoms remain elusive. Recent research has demonstrated that nervous system injury can occur during COVID-19. Whether ongoing neural injury in the months after COVID-19 accounts for the ongoing or emergent neuropsychiatric symptoms is unclear. Within a large prospective cohort study of adult survivors who were hospitalized for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection, we analysed plasma markers of nervous system injury and astrocytic activation, measured 6 months post-infection: neurofilament light, glial fibrillary acidic protein and total tau protein. We assessed whether these markers were associated with the severity of the acute COVID-19 illness and with post-acute neuropsychiatric symptoms (as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire for depression, the General Anxiety Disorder assessment for anxiety, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment for objective cognitive deficit and the cognitive items of the Patient Symptom Questionnaire for subjective cognitive deficit) at 6 months and 1 year post-hospital discharge from COVID-19. No robust associations were found between markers of nervous system injury and severity of acute COVID-19 (except for an association of small effect size between duration of admission and neurofilament light) nor with post-acute neuropsychiatric symptoms. These results suggest that ongoing neuropsychiatric symptoms are not due to ongoing neural injury.

Acute blood biomarker profiles predict cognitive deficits 6 and 12 months after COVID-19 hospitalization.

Post-COVID cognitive deficits, including 'brain fog', are clinically complex, with both objective and subjective components. They are common and debilitating, and can affect the ability to work, yet their biological underpinnings remain unknown. In this prospective cohort study of 1,837 adults hospitalized with COVID-19, we identified two distinct biomarker profiles measured during the acute admission, which predict cognitive outcomes 6 and 12 months after COVID-19. A first profile links elevated fibrinogen relative to C-reactive protein with both objective and subjective cognitive deficits. A second profile links elevated D-dimer relative to C-reactive protein with subjective cognitive deficits and occupational impact. This second profile was mediated by fatigue and shortness of breath. Neither profile was significantly mediated by depression or anxiety. Results were robust across secondary analyses. They were replicated, and their specificity to COVID-19 tested, in a large-scale electronic health records dataset. These findings provide insights into the heterogeneous biology of post-COVID cognitive deficits.

Risks of neurological and psychiatric sequelae 2 years after hospitalisation or intensive care admission with COVID-19 compared to admissions for other causes.

The association between COVID-19 and subsequent neurological and psychiatric disorders is well established. However, two important questions remain unanswered. First, what are the risks in those admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) with COVID-19? Admission to ICU is itself associated with neurological and psychiatric sequelae and it is not clear whether COVID-19 further increases those risks or changes their profile. Second, what are the trajectories of neurological and psychiatric risks in patients admitted to hospital or ICU with COVID-19, and when do the risks subside? We sought to answer these two questions using a retrospective cohort study based on electronic health records (EHR) data from the TriNetX Analytics Network (covering 89 million patients, mostly in the USA). Cohorts of patients admitted to hospital or ICU with COVID-19 were propensity score-matched (for 82 covariates capturing risk factors for COVID-19 and more severe COVID-19 illness) to patients admitted to hospital or ICU (respectively) for any other reason. Matched cohorts were followed for up to two years and the risk of 14 neurological and psychiatric outcomes were compared. A total of 280,173 patients admitted to hospital and 46,573 patients admitted to ICU with COVID-19 were successfully matched to an equal number of patients admitted to hospital or ICU for any other reason. Those hospitalised with COVID-19 were found to be at a greater risk of a range of neurological and psychiatric outcomes including seizure/epilepsy, encephalitis, myoneural junction/muscle disease, Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), dementia, cognitive deficits, psychotic disorder, mood and anxiety disorders, but not ischaemic stroke or intracranial haemorrhage. When risks were elevated after COVID-19, most remained so for the whole two years of follow-up (except for mood and anxiety disorders). Risk profiles and trajectories were substantially different among those admitted to ICU: compared to those admitted for any other reasons, those admitted with COVID-19 were at a greater risk of myoneural junction/muscle disease, GBS, cognitive deficits and anxiety disorder, but at a significantly lower risk of ischaemic stroke, intracranial haemorrhage, encephalitis, and mood disorder. When elevated, the risks in those admitted to ICU with COVID-19 were mostly short-lived. In summary, risks of neurological and psychiatric sequelae in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 are wide ranging and long standing whereas those in patients admitted to ICU with COVID-19 are similar to, or lower than, the risks observed post-ICU admission for any other cause. These contrasting risk trajectories are relevant for researchers, clinicians, patients, and policymakers.