RESUMO
BackgroundSleep disturbance is common following hospitalisation both for COVID-19 and other causes. The clinical associations are poorly understood, despite it altering pathophysiology in other scenarios. We, therefore, investigated whether sleep disturbance is associated with dyspnoea along with relevant mediation pathways. MethodsSleep parameters were assessed in a prospective cohort of patients (n=2,468) hospitalised for COVID-19 in the United Kingdom in 39 centres using both subjective and device-based measures. Results were compared to a matched UK biobank cohort and associations were evaluated using multivariable linear regression. Findings64% (456/714) of participants reported poor sleep quality; 56% felt their sleep quality had deteriorated for at least 1-year following hospitalisation. Compared to the matched cohort, both sleep regularity (44.5 vs 59.2, p<0.001) and sleep efficiency (85.4% vs 88.5%, p<0.001) were lower whilst sleep period duration was longer (8.25h vs 7.32h, p<0.001). Overall sleep quality (effect estimate 4.2 (3.0-5.5)), deterioration in sleep quality following hospitalisation (effect estimate 3.2 (2.0-4.5)), and sleep regularity (effect estimate 5.9 (3.7-8.1)) were associated with both dyspnoea and impaired lung function (FEV1 and FVC). Depending on the sleep metric, anxiety mediated 13-42% of the effect of sleep disturbance on dyspnoea and muscle weakness mediated 29-43% of this effect. InterpretationSleep disturbance is associated with dyspnoea, anxiety and muscle weakness following COVID-19 hospitalisation. It could have similar effects for other causes of hospitalisation where sleep disturbance is prevalent. FundingUK Research and Innovation, National Institute for Health Research, and Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.
RESUMO
BackgroundThere are currently no effective pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions for Long-COVID. To identify potential therapeutic targets, we focussed on previously described four recovery clusters five months after hospital discharge, their underlying inflammatory profiles and relationship with clinical outcomes at one year. MethodsPHOSP-COVID is a prospective longitudinal cohort study, recruiting adults hospitalised with COVID-19 across the UK. Recovery was assessed using patient reported outcomes measures (PROMs), physical performance, and organ function at five-months and one-year after hospital discharge. Hierarchical logistic regression modelling was performed for patient-perceived recovery at one-year. Cluster analysis was performed using clustering large applications (CLARA) k-medoids approach using clinical outcomes at five-months. Inflammatory protein profiling from plasma at the five-month visit was performed. Findings2320 participants have been assessed at five months after discharge and 807 participants have completed both five-month and one-year visits. Of these, 35{middle dot}6% were female, mean age 58{middle dot}7 (SD 12{middle dot}5) years, and 27{middle dot}8% received invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). The proportion of patients reporting full recovery was unchanged between five months 501/1965 (25{middle dot}5%) and one year 232/804 (28{middle dot}9%). Factors associated with being less likely to report full recovery at one year were: female sex OR 0{middle dot}68 (95% CI 0{middle dot}46-0{middle dot}99), obesity OR 0{middle dot}50 (95%CI 0{middle dot}34-0{middle dot}74) and IMV OR 0{middle dot}42 (95%CI 0{middle dot}23-0{middle dot}76). Cluster analysis (n=1636) corroborated the previously reported four clusters: very severe, severe, moderate/cognitive, mild relating to the severity of physical, mental health and cognitive impairments at five months in a larger sample. There was elevation of inflammatory mediators of tissue damage and repair in both the very severe and the moderate/cognitive clusters compared to the mild cluster including interleukin-6 which was elevated in both comparisons. Overall, there was a substantial deficit in median (IQR) EQ5D-5L utility index from pre-COVID (retrospective assessment) 0{middle dot}88 (0{middle dot}74-1{middle dot}00), five months 0{middle dot}74 (0{middle dot}60-0{middle dot}88) to one year: 0{middle dot}74 (0{middle dot}59-0{middle dot}88), with minimal improvements across all outcome measures at one-year after discharge in the whole cohort and within each of the four clusters. InterpretationThe sequelae of a hospital admission with COVID-19 remain substantial one year after discharge across a range of health domains with the minority in our cohort feeling fully recovered. Patient perceived health-related quality of life remains reduced at one year compared to pre-hospital admission. Systematic inflammation and obesity are potential treatable traits that warrant further investigation in clinical trials. FundingUKRI & NIHR Research in ContextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSWe systematically searched PubMed and Embase databases for large studies reporting one-year follow-up data for hospitalised COVID-19 patients published between January 1, 2021 and November 7, 2021, without language restrictions. Search terms related to COVID-19, hospitalisation and long-term follow-up were used. A large prospective cohort study from Wuhan, China (n = 1276) showed that 49% of patients reported at least one persistent symptom during a follow-up clinic visit at 12 months post COVID-19; no significant improvement in exercise capacity was observed between six- and 12-month visits. Another two large cohort studies in China (n = 2433) and Spain (n = 1950) with one-year follow-up data from telephone interviews showed that 45% and 81% of patients reported at least one residual COVID-19 symptom, respectively. However, no previous studies have compared the trajectories of COVID-19 recovery in patients classified by different clinical phenotypes, and there are no large studies investigating the relationship between systemic inflammation and ongoing health impairments post COVID-19. Added value of this studyIn a diverse population of adults post-hospital admission with COVID-19, our large UK prospective multi-centre study reports several novel findings: the minority felt fully recovered at one year with minimal recovery from five months across any health domain; female sex and obesity are associated with being less likely to feel fully recovered at one year; several inflammatory mediators were increased in individuals with the most severe physical, mental health, and cognitive impairments compared to individuals with milder ongoing impairments. Implications of all the available evidenceBoth pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions are urgently needed to improve the ongoing burden following hospitalisation for COVID-19 both for individuals and healthcare systems; our findings support the use of a precision medicine approach with potential treatable traits of systemic inflammation and obesity.
RESUMO
ObjectivesThe primary hypothesis was that the risk of incident or repeat psychiatric illness, fatigue and sleep problems increased following COVID-19 infection. The analysis plan was pre-registered (https://osf.io/n2k34/). DesignMatched cohorts were assembled using a UK primary care registry (the CPRD-Aurum database). Patients were followed-up for up to 10 months, from 1st February 2020 to 9th December 2020. SettingPrimary care database of 11,923,499 adults ([≥]16 years). ParticipantsFrom 232,780 adults with a positive COVID-19 test (after excluding those with <2 years historical data or <1 week follow-up), 86,922 without prior mental illness, 19,020 with anxiety or depression, 1,036 with psychosis, 4,152 with fatigue and 4,539 with sleep problems were matched to up to four controls based on gender, general practice and year of birth. A negative control used patients who tested negative for COVID-19 and patients negative for COVID with an influenza diagnosis. Main Outcomes and MeasuresCox proportional hazard models estimated the association between a COVID-19 positive test and subsequent psychiatric morbidity (depression, anxiety, psychosis, or self-harm), sleep problems, fatigue or psychotropic prescribing. Models adjusted for comorbidities, ethnicity, smoking and BMI. ResultsAfter adjusting for observed confounders, there was an association between testing positive for COVID-19 and almost all markers of psychiatric morbidity, fatigue and sleep problems. The adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for incident psychiatric morbidity was 1.75 (95% CI 1.56-1.96). However, there was a similar risk of incident psychiatric morbidity for those with a negative COVID-19 test (aHR 1.57, 95% CI 1.51-1.63) and a larger increase associated with influenza (aHR 2.97, 95% CI 1.36-6.48). ConclusionsThere is consistent evidence that COVID-19 infection elevates risk of fatigue and sleep problems, however the results from the negative control analysis suggests that residual confounding may be responsible for at least some of the association between COVID-19 and psychiatric morbidity.
RESUMO
BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic had profound immediate impacts on population mental health. However, in whom the effects may be prolonged is less clear. AimsTo 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. MethodAn 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. ResultsDepression (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. ConclusionThe 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.
RESUMO
BackgroundSevere Acute Respiratory Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was identified in late 2019, spreading to over 200 countries and resulting in almost two million deaths worldwide. The emergence of safe and effective vaccines provides a route out of the pandemic, with vaccination uptake of 75-90% needed to achieve population protection. Vaccine hesitancy is problematic for vaccine rollout; global reports suggest only 73% of the population may agree to being vaccinated. As a result, there is an urgent need to develop equitable and accessible interventions to address vaccine hesitancy at the population level. MethodWe report the development of a scalable digital intervention seeking to address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and enhance uptake of COVID-19 vaccines. Guided by motivational interviewing (MI) principles, the intervention includes a series of therapeutic dialogues addressing 10 key concerns of vaccine hesitant individuals. Development of the intervention occurred linearly across four stages. During stage 1, we identified common reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy through analysis of existing survey data, a rapid systematic literature review, and public engagement workshops. Stage 2 comprised qualitative interviews with medical, immunological, and public health experts. Rapid content and thematic analysis of the data provided evidence-based responses to common vaccine concerns. Stage 3 involved the development of therapeutic dialogues through workshops with psychological and digital behaviour change experts. Dialogues were developed to address concerns using MI principles, including embracing resistance and supporting self-efficacy. Finally, stage 4 involved digitisation of the dialogues and pilot testing with members of the public. DiscussionThe digital intervention provides an evidence-based approach to addressing vaccine hesitancy through MI principles. The dialogues are user-selected, allowing exploration of relevant issues associated with hesitancy in a non-judgmental context. The text-based content and digital format allow for rapid modification to changing information and scalability for wider dissemination.
RESUMO
BackgroundThe impact of COVID-19 on physical and mental health, and employment following hospitalisation is poorly understood. MethodsPHOSP-COVID is a multi-centre, UK, observational study of adults discharged from hospital with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 involving an assessment between two- and seven-months later including detailed symptom, physiological and biochemical testing. Multivariable logistic regression was performed for patient-perceived recovery with age, sex, ethnicity, body mass index (BMI), co-morbidities, and severity of acute illness as co-variates. Cluster analysis was performed using outcomes for breathlessness, fatigue, mental health, cognition and physical function. FindingsWe report findings of 1077 patients discharged in 2020, from the assessment undertaken a median 5 [IQR4 to 6] months later: 36% female, mean age 58 [SD 13] years, 69% white ethnicity, 27% mechanical ventilation, and 50% had at least two co-morbidities. At follow-up only 29% felt fully recovered, 20% had a new disability, and 19% experienced a health-related change in occupation. Factors associated with failure to recover were female, middle-age, white ethnicity, two or more co-morbidities, and more severe acute illness. The magnitude of the persistent health burden was substantial and weakly related to acute severity. Four clusters were identified with different severities of mental and physical health impairment: 1) Very severe (17%), 2) Severe (21%), 3) Moderate with cognitive impairment (17%), 4) Mild (46%), with 3%, 7%, 36% and 43% feeling fully recovered, respectively. Persistent systemic inflammation determined by C-reactive protein was related to cluster severity, but not acute illness severity. InterpretationWe identified factors related to recovery from a hospital admission with COVID-19 and four different phenotypes relating to the severity of physical, mental, and cognitive health five months later. The implications for clinical care include the potential to stratify care and the need for a pro-active approach with wide-access to COVID-19 holistic clinical services. Funding: UKRI and NIHR
RESUMO
ObjectivesPrevious 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. DesignCross-sectional analysis of a community cohort study. MethodsDuring April 2020, keyworkers (n=1559) and non-keyworkers (n=1436) completed online measures of depression, anxiety, and stress levels as well as explanatory demographic and psychological factors hypothesised to be related to these mental health outcomes. ResultsKeyworkers 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. ConclusionsThe 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.
RESUMO
BackgroundPrevious 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. MethodsA 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. OutcomesN = 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. InterpretationIncreased 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.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Disabling fatigue is common in the working age population. It is essential that occupational health (OH) professionals are up-to-date with the management of fatigue in order to reduce the impact of fatigue on workplace productivity. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of one-day workshops on OH professionals' knowledge of fatigue and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), and their confidence in diagnosing and managing these in a working population. METHODS: Five interactive problem-based workshops were held in the United Kingdom. These workshops were developed and delivered by experts in the field. Questionnaires were self-administered immediately prior to, immediately after, and 4 months following each workshop. Questionnaires included measures of satisfaction, knowledge of fatigue and CFS, and confidence in diagnosing and managing fatigue. Open-ended questions were used to elicit feedback about the workshops. RESULTS: General knowledge of fatigue increased significantly after training (with a 25% increase in the median score). Participants showed significantly higher levels of confidence in diagnosing and managing CFS (with a 62.5% increase in the median score), and high scores were maintained 4 months after the workshops. OH physicians scored higher on knowledge and confidence than nurses. Similarly, thematic analysis revealed that participants had increased knowledge and confidence after attending the workshops. CONCLUSION: Fatigue can lead to severe functional impairment with adverse workplace outcomes. One-day workshops can be effective in training OH professionals in how to diagnose and manage fatigue and CFS. Training may increase general knowledge of fatigue and confidence in fatigue management in an OH setting.