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.
Comparing eating behaviours, and symptoms of depression and anxiety between Spain and Greece during the COVID-19 outbreak: Cross-sectional analysis of two different confinement strategies.
Papandreou, C, Arija, V, Aretouli, E, Tsilidis, KK, Bulló, M
European eating disorders review : the journal of the Eating Disorders Association. 2020;28(6):836-846
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Plain language summary
Stress and mental health problems which may be induced by restrictions imposed during the Covid-19 pandemic can lead to unhealthy eating habits. Restrictions have varied amongst countries and this cross-sectional analysis aimed to compare eating behaviours and symptoms of stress experienced by 1841 individuals in countries with differing lockdown measures. The results showed that individuals in the country with higher lockdown measures showed lower restraint in eating, they were more likely to overeat if they saw or smelt food and reported increased anxiety. However, they did not display depression or overeating when experiencing negative feelings. It was concluded that both countries had a high frequency of depression and anxiety. Higher restrictions were associated with greater anxiety, lower restraint and overeating when confronted with food. This paper could be used by healthcare professionals to recognise the need to include dietary advice when dealing with patients who are reporting anxiety during the current Covid-19 pandemic.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE We compared eating behaviours, and depressive and anxiety symptoms in two countries with different confinement strictness strategies and different levels of COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD A web-based cross-sectional survey was administered during and shortly after the COVID-19 related lockdown in Spain and Greece. Multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to identify country differences associated with eating behaviour, and symptoms of depression and anxiety. RESULTS This study included 1,002 responders in Spain and 839 in Greece. The mean ± SD of restraint, emotional and external eating was 2.5 ± 0.79, 2.1 ± 0.81 and 2.6 ± 0.65 in Spain, whereas 2.7 ± 0.85, 2.3 ± 0.99 and 2.9 ± 0.74 in Greece. Spanish participants had lower average scores of restraint and external eating compared to Greek participants (p < .001), but no difference was seen for emotional eating. In Spain, 13.6%, and 12.3% of the survey respondents reported moderate to severe depressive and anxiety symptoms, respectively, whereas in Greece the respective values were 18.8 and 13.2%. After adjusting for several risk factors, a higher prevalence of anxiety symptoms was observed in Spain compared to Greece (p = .001), but no difference was seen for depressive symptoms. CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrated high scores of inappropriate eating behaviours and a high frequency of depressive and anxiety symptoms in two Mediterranean countries during the COVID-19 outbreak. Our findings revealed that compared to Greek participants, Spanish participants, that faced more severe COVID-19 pandemic and stricter lockdown measures, were associated with lower restraint and external eating and increased anxiety symptoms, but not with depressive symptoms or emotional eating.
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.