0
selected
-
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.
Referral to Slimming World in UK Stop Smoking Services (SWISSS) versus stop smoking support alone on body weight in quitters: results of a randomised controlled trial.
Lycett, D, Aveyard, P, Farmer, A, Lewis, A, Munafò, M
BMJ open. 2020;10(1):e032271
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
Weight gain is a well-known consequence of smoking cessation. The aim of this study was to compare standard stop smoking behavioural support with an intervention that, in addition to providing standard stop smoking support, included personalised weight management support, provided by Slimming World. This study is a parallel group, individually randomised controlled trial. Participants were randomised (1:1) to usual care or Slimming World with usual care. Stop smoking advisors were unaware of the randomisation sequence. Results showed that referral to the Slimming World programme plus usual stop smoking support achieved significantly less weight gain than usual stop smoking support alone. Furthermore, percentage quit was no worse in the treatment than the control group. Authors conclude that referral to a behavioural weight loss programme may be a pragmatic option within stop smoking clinics.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Most people who stop smoking gain weight. Dietary modification may seem an obvious solution, but food restriction may increase cigarette craving and smoking relapse. TRIAL DESIGN An unblinded parallel randomised controlled trial. METHODS Participants were adult smokers with a body mass index greater or equal to 23 kg/m2. Setting was National Health Service commissioned Stop Smoking Services, interventions were referral to a commercial weight management programme, plus stop smoking support (treatment group), compared with stop smoking support alone (control group). Objective was to compare weight change between interventions in smoking abstainers and not abstinent rates in all. Primary outcome was change in weight (kg) at 12 weeks. Randomisation sequence was computer generated and concealed until allocation. RESULTS Seventy-six participants were recruited, 37 were randomised to the treatment group and 39 to the control group. Change in weight was analysed in long-term abstainers (13 treatment, 14 control) only because the aim was to prevent weight gain associated with smoking cessation. Abstinence was analysed on an intention-to-treat basis (37 treatment, 39 control). At 12 weeks weight gain was less in the treatment than the control group with an adjusted mean difference of -2.3 kg 95% CI (-4.4 to -0.1). Craving scores were lower (Mood and Physical Symptoms Scale craving domain -1.6 (-2.7 to -0.5)) and quit rates were higher in the treatment than the control group (32% vs 21%), although the trial was not powered to superiority in cravings and quit rates. No adverse events or side effects were reported. CONCLUSION In people who are obese and want to quit smoking, these data provide modest encouragement that providing weight management at the time of quitting may be helpful. Those who are not obese, but who are informed about potential weight gain during their quit attempt, were uninterested in a weight management programme. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ISRCTN65705512.
-
3.
Bariatric and metabolic surgery during and after the COVID-19 pandemic: DSS recommendations for management of surgical candidates and postoperative patients and prioritisation of access to surgery.
Rubino, F, Cohen, RV, Mingrone, G, le Roux, CW, Mechanick, JI, Arterburn, DE, Vidal, J, Alberti, G, Amiel, SA, Batterham, RL, et al
The lancet. Diabetes & endocrinology. 2020;8(7):640-648
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Plain language summary
Bariatric surgery has been proven for weight loss in people with severe obesity. However, during the covid-19 pandemic, surgery has been postponed for many individuals. Under normal conditions, patients who are awaiting bariatric surgery are prioritised based on weight, however this does not necessarily reflect severity of their condition. This review paper aimed to develop new criteria in order to help prioritise individuals who are awaiting bariatric surgery. The authors began by reviewing the reasons for delaying bariatric surgery and the need for beds, the risks of covid-19 transmission during the procedure and the severe covid-19 complications that individuals with obesity can experience were discussed. A recommendation was made that all patients having bariatric surgery be tested for Covid-19. Solutions were proposed for those awaiting surgery such as diets, exercise, optimal blood sugar control and the potential use of weight loss medications. Prioritisation of surgery should focus on clinical need; it should be accessible and minimise harm from delays. Individuals with obesity and type 2 diabetes should be prioritised based on those who have an increased risk of death, determined by whether the individual; has poor blood sugar control despite maximal use of medications to control it, uses insulin, has previous heart disease, has liver disease or if they have other risk factors. It was concluded that weight alone is inadequate to prioritise candidates for bariatric surgery. Disease severity should be at the centre of decisions, especially when access to surgery is reduced, as is during the Covid -19 pandemic. This paper could be used by healthcare professionals to understand how to prioritise their obese and type 2 diabetic patients who are awaiting bariatric surgery.
Abstract
The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic is wreaking havoc on society, especially health-care systems, including disrupting bariatric and metabolic surgery. The current limitations on accessibility to non-urgent care undermine postoperative monitoring of patients who have undergone such operations. Furthermore, like most elective surgery, new bariatric and metabolic procedures are being postponed worldwide during the pandemic. When the outbreak abates, a backlog of people seeking these operations will exist. Hence, surgical candidates face prolonged delays of beneficial treatment. Because of the progressive nature of obesity and diabetes, delaying surgery increases risks for morbidity and mortality, thus requiring strategies to mitigate harm. The risk of harm, however, varies among patients, depending on the type and severity of their comorbidities. A triaging strategy is therefore needed. The traditional weight-centric patient-selection criteria do not favour cases based on actual clinical needs. In this Personal View, experts from the Diabetes Surgery Summit consensus conference series provide guidance for the management of patients while surgery is delayed and for postoperative surveillance. We also offer a strategy to prioritise bariatric and metabolic surgery candidates on the basis of the diseases that are most likely to be ameliorated postoperatively. Although our system will be particularly germane in the immediate future, it also provides a framework for long-term clinically meaningful prioritisation.
-
4.
Association between intake of non-sugar sweeteners and health outcomes: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised and non-randomised controlled trials and observational studies.
Toews, I, Lohner, S, Küllenberg de Gaudry, D, Sommer, H, Meerpohl, JJ
BMJ (Clinical research ed.). 2019;364:k4718
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Plain language summary
Consumption of non-sugar sweeteners (NSS) has recently increased due to an emphasis on a low sugar diet. However, the exact health effects of this switch are uncertain. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis of 56 randomised and non-randomised trials aimed to determine the health effects of NSS’s in adults and children. The results showed that amongst adults body weight, blood sugar, daily energy intake, and blood pressure were all lower when exposed to NSS’s. Other health measures such as cancer and neurological disorders remained unaffected. Amongst children blood sugar was significantly higher and a small increase in body mass index was also observed when exposed to NSS’s. It was concluded that most health outcomes were unaffected by NSS’s, and there appears to be no health benefits on a broad range of outcomes when switching from sugar. Potential harm from regular NSS consumption could not be ruled out from this study. Healthcare professionals could use this study to understand that recommending diets which switch from sugar to NSS’s may have limited health benefits.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To assess the association between intake of non-sugar sweeteners (NSS) and important health outcomes in generally healthy or overweight/obese adults and children. DESIGN Systematic review following standard Cochrane review methodology. DATA SOURCES Medline (Ovid), Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Clinicaltrials.gov, and reference lists of relevant publications. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES Studies including generally healthy adults or children with or without overweight or obesity were eligible. Included study designs allowed for a direct comparison of no intake or lower intake of NSS with higher NSS intake. NSSs had to be clearly named, the dose had to be within the acceptable daily intake, and the intervention duration had to be at least seven days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Body weight or body mass index, glycaemic control, oral health, eating behaviour, preference for sweet taste, cancer, cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, mood, behaviour, neurocognition, and adverse effects. RESULTS The search resulted in 13 941 unique records. Of 56 individual studies that provided data for this review, 35 were observational studies. In adults, evidence of very low and low certainty from a limited number of small studies indicated a small beneficial effect of NSSs on body mass index (mean difference -0.6, 95% confidence interval -1.19 to -0.01; two studies, n=174) and fasting blood glucose (-0.16 mmol/L, -0.26 to -0.06; two, n=52). Lower doses of NSSs were associated with lower weight gain (-0.09 kg, -0.13 to -0.05; one, n=17 934) compared with higher doses of NSSs (very low certainty of evidence). For all other outcomes, no differences were detected between the use and non-use of NSSs, or between different doses of NSSs. No evidence of any effect of NSSs was seen on overweight or obese adults or children actively trying to lose weight (very low to moderate certainty). In children, a smaller increase in body mass index z score was observed with NSS intake compared with sugar intake (-0.15, -0.17 to -0.12; two, n=528, moderate certainty of evidence), but no significant differences were observed in body weight (-0.60 kg, -1.33 to 0.14; two, n=467, low certainty of evidence), or between different doses of NSSs (very low to moderate certainty). CONCLUSIONS Most health outcomes did not seem to have differences between the NSS exposed and unexposed groups. Of the few studies identified for each outcome, most had few participants, were of short duration, and their methodological and reporting quality was limited; therefore, confidence in the reported results is limited. Future studies should assess the effects of NSSs with an appropriate intervention duration. Detailed descriptions of interventions, comparators, and outcomes should be included in all reports. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION Prospero CRD42017047668.