1.
6-month neurological and psychiatric outcomes in 236 379 survivors of COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study using electronic health records.
Taquet, M, Geddes, JR, Husain, M, Luciano, S, Harrison, PJ
The lancet. Psychiatry. 2021;8(5):416-427
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
Recent literature shows that COVID-19 survivors might be at an increased risk of neurological and psychiatric disorders. The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence of neurological and psychiatric diagnoses in survivors in the 6 months after documented clinical COVID-19 infection. This study is a retrospective cohort study with the primary cohort comprised of 236,379 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and two propensity-score-matched control cohorts. The primary cohort was divided into one of the four subgroups. Results indicate that the severity of COVID-19 had a clear effect on subsequent neurological diagnoses. In fact, COVID-19 was associated with an increased risk of neurological and psychiatric outcomes. However, the incidences and hazard ratio of these were greater in patients who had required hospitalisation, and particularly those who required ITU admission or developed encephalopathy, even after extensive propensity score matching for other factors. Authors conclude that COVID-19 is followed by significant rates of neurological and psychiatric diagnoses over the subsequent 6 months.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Neurological and psychiatric sequelae of COVID-19 have been reported, but more data are needed to adequately assess the effects of COVID-19 on brain health. We aimed to provide robust estimates of incidence rates and relative risks of neurological and psychiatric diagnoses in patients in the 6 months following a COVID-19 diagnosis. METHODS For this retrospective cohort study and time-to-event analysis, we used data obtained from the TriNetX electronic health records network (with over 81 million patients). Our primary cohort comprised patients who had a COVID-19 diagnosis; one matched control cohort included patients diagnosed with influenza, and the other matched control cohort included patients diagnosed with any respiratory tract infection including influenza in the same period. Patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19 or a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 were excluded from the control cohorts. All cohorts included patients older than 10 years who had an index event on or after Jan 20, 2020, and who were still alive on Dec 13, 2020. We estimated the incidence of 14 neurological and psychiatric outcomes in the 6 months after a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19: intracranial haemorrhage; ischaemic stroke; parkinsonism; Guillain-Barré syndrome; nerve, nerve root, and plexus disorders; myoneural junction and muscle disease; encephalitis; dementia; psychotic, mood, and anxiety disorders (grouped and separately); substance use disorder; and insomnia. Using a Cox model, we compared incidences with those in propensity score-matched cohorts of patients with influenza or other respiratory tract infections. We investigated how these estimates were affected by COVID-19 severity, as proxied by hospitalisation, intensive therapy unit (ITU) admission, and encephalopathy (delirium and related disorders). We assessed the robustness of the differences in outcomes between cohorts by repeating the analysis in different scenarios. To provide benchmarking for the incidence and risk of neurological and psychiatric sequelae, we compared our primary cohort with four cohorts of patients diagnosed in the same period with additional index events: skin infection, urolithiasis, fracture of a large bone, and pulmonary embolism. FINDINGS Among 236 379 patients diagnosed with COVID-19, the estimated incidence of a neurological or psychiatric diagnosis in the following 6 months was 33·62% (95% CI 33·17-34·07), with 12·84% (12·36-13·33) receiving their first such diagnosis. For patients who had been admitted to an ITU, the estimated incidence of a diagnosis was 46·42% (44·78-48·09) and for a first diagnosis was 25·79% (23·50-28·25). Regarding individual diagnoses of the study outcomes, the whole COVID-19 cohort had estimated incidences of 0·56% (0·50-0·63) for intracranial haemorrhage, 2·10% (1·97-2·23) for ischaemic stroke, 0·11% (0·08-0·14) for parkinsonism, 0·67% (0·59-0·75) for dementia, 17·39% (17·04-17·74) for anxiety disorder, and 1·40% (1·30-1·51) for psychotic disorder, among others. In the group with ITU admission, estimated incidences were 2·66% (2·24-3·16) for intracranial haemorrhage, 6·92% (6·17-7·76) for ischaemic stroke, 0·26% (0·15-0·45) for parkinsonism, 1·74% (1·31-2·30) for dementia, 19·15% (17·90-20·48) for anxiety disorder, and 2·77% (2·31-3·33) for psychotic disorder. Most diagnostic categories were more common in patients who had COVID-19 than in those who had influenza (hazard ratio [HR] 1·44, 95% CI 1·40-1·47, for any diagnosis; 1·78, 1·68-1·89, for any first diagnosis) and those who had other respiratory tract infections (1·16, 1·14-1·17, for any diagnosis; 1·32, 1·27-1·36, for any first diagnosis). As with incidences, HRs were higher in patients who had more severe COVID-19 (eg, those admitted to ITU compared with those who were not: 1·58, 1·50-1·67, for any diagnosis; 2·87, 2·45-3·35, for any first diagnosis). Results were robust to various sensitivity analyses and benchmarking against the four additional index health events. INTERPRETATION Our study provides evidence for substantial neurological and psychiatric morbidity in the 6 months after COVID-19 infection. Risks were greatest in, but not limited to, patients who had severe COVID-19. This information could help in service planning and identification of research priorities. Complementary study designs, including prospective cohorts, are needed to corroborate and explain these findings. FUNDING National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre.
2.
Usefulness of a Lifestyle Intervention in Patients With Cardiovascular Disease.
Broers, ER, Gavidia, G, Wetzels, M, Ribas, V, Ayoola, I, Piera-Jimenez, J, Widdershoven, JWMG, Habibović, M
The American journal of cardiology. 2020;125(3):370-375
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
Modifiable (behavioural) risk factors such as sedentary lifestyle and low sleep efficiency, are associated with increased mortality risk and disease progression in individuals with cardiovascular disease. The main aim of this study was to evaluate changes in objectively measured lifestyle and health data derived from wearable devices. This study was part of an international, multicenter randomized controlled trial, the Do Cardiac Health Advanced New Generation Ecosystem 2 study. Only the participants (n=70) randomised to the intervention group were analysed. The participants received the devices to monitor their lifestyle and health parameters. Results indicate significant changes over time in the number of steps and activity level. No significant improvement over time was observed in other outcome measures (i.e., blood pressure, weight, and sleep efficiency). Secondary analysis showed demographic (gender, nationality, marital status), clinical (co-morbidities, heart failure), and psychological (anxiety, depression) profiles that were associated with lifestyle measures. Authors conclude that a personalised approach might be the way forward in order to improve health outcomes in the future.
Abstract
The importance of modifying lifestyle factors in order to improve prognosis in cardiac patients is well-known. Current study aims to evaluate the effects of a lifestyle intervention on changes in lifestyle- and health data derived from wearable devices. Cardiac patients from Spain (n = 34) and The Netherlands (n = 36) were included in the current analysis. Data were collected for 210 days, using the Fitbit activity tracker, Beddit sleep tracker, Moves app (GPS tracker), and the Careportal home monitoring system. Locally Weighted Error Sum of Squares regression assessed trajectories of outcome variables. Linear Mixed Effects regression analysis was used to find relevant predictors of improvement deterioration of outcome measures. Analysis showed that Number of Steps and Activity Level significantly changed over time (F = 58.21, p < 0.001; F = 6.33, p = 0.01). No significant changes were observed on blood pressure, weight, and sleep efficiency. Secondary analysis revealed that being male was associated with higher activity levels (F = 12.53, p < 0.001) and higher number of steps (F = 8.44, p < 0.01). Secondary analysis revealed demographic (gender, nationality, marital status), clinical (co-morbidities, heart failure), and psychological (anxiety, depression) profiles that were associated with lifestyle measures. In conclusion results showed that physical activity increased over time and that certain subgroups of patients were more likely to have a better lifestyle behaviors based on their demographic, clinical, and psychological profile. This advocates a personalized approach in future studies in order to change lifestyle in cardiac patients.