RESUMEN
Multiple studies across global populations have established the primary symptoms characterising COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019) and long COVID. However, as symptoms may also occur in the absence of COVID-19, a lack of appropriate controls has often meant that specificity of symptoms to acute COVID-19 or long COVID could not be examined. We aimed to characterise patterns of COVID-19 and long COVID symptoms across nine UK longitudinal studies, totalling over 42,000 participants. Conducting latent class analyses separately in three groups ( no COVID-19, COVID-19 in last 12 weeks, COVID-19 > 12 weeks ago), the data did not support the presence of more than two distinct symptom patterns, representing high and low symptom burden, in each group. Comparing the high symptom burden classes between the COVID-19 in last 12 weeks and no COVID-19 groups we identified symptoms characteristic of acute COVID-19, including loss of taste and smell, fatigue, cough, shortness of breath and muscle pains or aches. Comparing the high symptom burden classes between the COVID-19 > 12 weeks ago and no COVID-19 groups we identified symptoms characteristic of long COVID, including fatigue, shortness of breath, muscle pain or aches, difficulty concentrating and chest tightness. The identified symptom patterns among individuals with COVID-19 > 12 weeks ago were strongly associated with self-reported length of time unable to function as normal due to COVID-19 symptoms, suggesting that the symptom pattern identified corresponds to long COVID. Building the evidence base regarding typical long COVID symptoms will improve diagnosis of this condition and the ability to elicit underlying biological mechanisms, leading to better patient access to treatment and services.
RESUMEN
BackgroundEvidence on associations between COVID-19 illness and mental health is mixed. We examined longitudinal associations between COVID-19 and mental health while considering: 1) pre-pandemic mental health, 2) time since infection; 3) subgroup differences; and 4) confirmation of infection via self-reported test, and serology data. MethodsUsing data from 11 UK longitudinal studies, involving 54,442 participants, with 2 to 8 repeated measures of mental health and COVID-19 between April 2020 and April 2021, we standardised continuous mental health scales within each study across time. We investigated associations between COVID-19 (self-report, test-confirmed, serology-confirmed) and mental health using multilevel generalised estimating equations. We examined whether associations varied by age, sex, ethnicity, education and pre-pandemic mental health. Effect-sizes were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses. OutcomesPooled estimates of the standardized difference in outcome between those with and without self-reported COVID-19 suggested associations with subsequent psychological distress (0.10 [95%CI: 0.06; 0.13], I2=42.8%), depression (0.08 [0.05; 0.10], I2=20.8%), anxiety (0.08 [0.05; 0.10], I2=0%), and lower life satisfaction (-0.06 [-0.08; -0.04], I2=29.2%). Associations did not vary by time since infection until 3+ months and were present in all age groups, with some evidence of stronger effects in those aged 50+. Self-reported COVID-19, whether suspected or test-confirmed and irrespective of serology status, was associated with poorer mental health. InterpretationSelf-reporting COVID-19 was longitudinally associated with deterioration in mental health and life satisfaction. Our findings have important implications for mental health service provision, given the substantial prevalence of COVID-19 in the UK and worldwide. FundingMRC and NIHR
RESUMEN
The COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted mental health globally. Individuals with neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs), including autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), are at elevated risk of mental health difficulties. Therefore, we investigated the impact of the pandemic on anxiety, depression and mental wellbeing in adults with NDDs using longitudinal data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children study (n=3,058). Mental health data were collected pre-pandemic (age 21-25) and at three timepoints during the pandemic (ages 27-28) using the Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire, Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment-7, and Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale. ADHD and ASD were defined using validated cut-points of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and Autism Spectrum Quotient, self-reported at age 25. We used multi-level mixed-effects models to investigate changes in mental health in those with ADHD and ASD compared to those without. Prevalences of depression, anxiety and poor mental wellbeing were higher at all timepoints (pre-pandemic and during pandemic) in those with ADHD and ASD compared to those without. Anxiety increased to a greater extent in those with ADHD ({beta}=0.8 [0.2,1.4], p=0.01) and ASD ({beta}=1.2 [-0.1,2.5], p=0.07), while depression symptoms decreased, particularly in females with ASD ({beta}=-3.1 [-4.6,-1.5], p=0.0001). On average, mental wellbeing decreased in all, but to a lesser extent in those with ADHD ({beta}=1.3 [0.2,2.5], p=0.03) and females with ASD ({beta}=3.0 [0.2,5.9], p=0.04). To conclude, anxiety disproportionately increased in adults with NDDs during the pandemic, however, the related lockdowns may have provided a protective environment for depressive symptoms in the same individuals.
RESUMEN
BackgroundStructural barriers to testing may introduce selection bias in COVID-19 research. We explore whether changes to testing and lockdown restrictions introduce time-specific selection bias into analyses of socioeconomic position (SEP) and SARS-CoV-2 infection. MethodsUsing UK Biobank (N = 420 231; 55 % female; mean age = 56{middle dot}3 [SD=8{middle dot}01]) we estimated the association between SEP and i) being tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection versus not being tested ii) testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection versus testing negative and iii) testing negative for SARS-CoV-2 infection versus not being tested, at four distinct time-periods between March 2020 and March 2021. We explored potential selection bias by examining the same associations with hypothesised positive (ABO blood type) and negative (hair colour) control exposures. Finally, we conducted a hypothesis-free phenome-wide association study to investigate how individual characteristics associated with testing changed over time. FindingsThe association between low SEP and SARS-CoV-2 testing attenuated across time-periods. Compared to individuals with a degree, individuals who left school with GCSEs or less had an OR of 1{middle dot}05 (95% CI: 0{middle dot}95 to 1{middle dot}16) in March-May 2020 and 0{middle dot}98 (95% CI: 0{middle dot}94 to 1{middle dot}02) in January-March 2021. The magnitude of the association between low SEP and testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection increased over the same time-period. For the same comparisons, the OR for testing positive increased from 1{middle dot}27 (95% CI: 1{middle dot}08 to 1{middle dot}50), to 1{middle dot}73 (95% CI: 1{middle dot}59 to 1{middle dot}87). We found little evidence of an association between both control exposures and all outcomes considered. Our phenome-wide analysis highlighted a broad range of individual traits were associated with testing, which were distinct across time-periods. InterpretationThe association between SEP (and indeed many individual traits) and SARS-CoV-2 testing changed over time, indicating time-specific selection pressures in COVID-19. However, positive, and negative control analyses suggest that changes in the magnitude of the association between SEP and SARS-CoV-2 infection over time were unlikely to be explained by selection bias and reflect true increases in socioeconomic inequalities. FundingUniversity of Bristol; UK Medical Research Council; British Heart Foundation; European Union Horizon 2020; Wellcome Trust and The Royal Society; National Institute of Health Research; UK Economic and Social Research Council
RESUMEN
ObjectiveTo use the example of the effect of body mass index (BMI) on COVID-19 susceptibility and severity to illustrate methods to explore potential selection and misclassification bias in Mendelian randomisation (MR) of COVID-19 determinants. DesignTwo-sample MR analysis. SettingSummary statistics from the Genetic Investigation of ANthropometric Traits (GIANT) and COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative (HGI) consortia. Participants681,275 participants in GIANT and more than 2.5 million people from the COVID-19 HGI consortia. ExposureGenetically instrumented BMI. Main outcome measuresSeven case/control definitions for SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 severity: very severe respiratory confirmed COVID-19 vs not hospitalised COVID-19 (A1) and vs population (those who were never tested, tested negative or had unknown testing status (A2)); hospitalised COVID-19 vs not hospitalised COVID-19 (B1) and vs population (B2); COVID-19 vs lab/self-reported negative (C1) and vs population (C2); and predicted COVID-19 from self-reported symptoms vs predicted or self-reported non-COVID-19 (D1). ResultsWith the exception of A1 comparison, genetically higher BMI was associated with higher odds of COVID-19 in all comparison groups, with odds ratios (OR) ranging from 1.11 (95%CI: 0.94, 1.32) for D1 to 1.57 (95%CI: 1.57 (1.39, 1.78) for A2. As a method to assess selection bias, we found no strong evidence of an effect of COVID-19 on BMI in a no-relevance analysis, in which COVID-19 was considered the exposure, although measured after BMI. We found evidence of genetic correlation between COVID-19 outcomes and potential predictors of selection determined a priori (smoking, education, and income), which could either indicate selection bias or a causal pathway to infection. Results from multivariable MR adjusting for these predictors of selection yielded similar results to the main analysis, suggesting the latter. ConclusionsWe have proposed a set of analyses for exploring potential selection and misclassification bias in MR studies of risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 and demonstrated this with an illustrative example. Although selection by socioeconomic position and arelated traits is present, MR results are not substantially affected by selection/misclassification bias in our example. We recommend the methods we demonstrate, and provide detailed analytic code for their use, are used in MR studies assessing risk factors for COVID-19, and other MR studies where such biases are likely in the available data. SummaryO_ST_ABSWhat is already known on this topicC_ST_ABS- Mendelian randomisation (MR) studies have been conducted to investigate the potential causal relationship between body mass index (BMI) and COVID-19 susceptibility and severity. - There are several sources of selection (e.g. when only subgroups with specific characteristics are tested or respond to study questionnaires) and misclassification (e.g. those not tested are assumed not to have COVID-19) that could bias MR studies of risk factors for COVID-19. - Previous MR studies have not explored how selection and misclassification bias in the underlying genome-wide association studies could bias MR results. What this study adds- Using the most recent release of the COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative data (with data up to June 2021), we demonstrate a potential causal effect of BMI on susceptibility to detected SARS-CoV-2 infection and on severe COVID-19 disease, and that these results are unlikely to be substantially biased due to selection and misclassification. - This conclusion is based on no evidence of an effect of COVID-19 on BMI (a no-relevance control study, as BMI was measured before the COVID-19 pandemic) and finding genetic correlation between predictors of selection (e.g. socioeconomic position) and COVID-19 for which multivariable MR supported a role in causing susceptibility to infection. - We recommend studies use the set of analyses demonstrated here in future MR studies of COVID-19 risk factors, or other examples where selection bias is likely.
RESUMEN
BackgroundNon-random selection into analytic subsamples could introduce selection bias in observational studies of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 severity (e.g. including only those have had a COVID-19 PCR test). We explored the potential presence and impact of selection in such studies using data from self-report questionnaires and national registries. MethodsUsing pre-pandemic data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) (mean age=27.6 (standard deviation [SD]=0.5); 49% female) and UK Biobank (UKB) (mean age=56 (SD=8.1); 55% female) with data on SARS-CoV-2 infection and death-with-COVID-19 (UKB only), we investigated predictors of selection into COVID-19 analytic subsamples. We then conducted empirical analyses and simulations to explore the potential presence, direction, and magnitude of bias due to selection when estimating the association of body mass index (BMI) with SARS-CoV-2 infection and death-with-COVID-19. ResultsIn both ALSPAC and UKB a broad range of characteristics related to selection, sometimes in opposite directions. For example, more educated participants were more likely to have data on SARS-CoV-2 infection in ALSPAC, but less likely in UKB. We found bias in many simulated scenarios. For example, in one scenario based on UKB, we observed an expected odds ratio of 2.56 compared to a simulated true odds ratio of 3, per standard deviation higher BMI. ConclusionAnalyses using COVID-19 self-reported or national registry data may be biased due to selection. The magnitude and direction of this bias depends on the outcome definition, the true effect of the risk factor, and the assumed selection mechanism. Key messagesO_LIObservational studies assessing the association of risk factors with SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 severity may be biased due to non-random selection into the analytic sample. C_LIO_LIResearchers should carefully consider the extent that their results may be biased due to selection, and conduct sensitivity analyses and simulations to explore the robustness of their results. We provide code for these analyses that is applicable beyond COVID-19 research. C_LI
RESUMEN
BackgroundThe impact of long COVID is considerable, but risk factors are poorly characterised. We analysed symptom duration and risk factor from 10 longitudinal study (LS) samples and electronic healthcare records (EHR). MethodsSamples: 6907 adults self-reporting COVID-19 infection from 48,901 participants in the UK LS, and 3,327 adults with COVID-19, were assigned a long COVID code from 1,199,812 individuals in primary care EHR. Outcomes for LS included symptom duration lasting 4+ weeks (long COVID) and 12+ weeks. Association with of age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic factors, smoking, general and mental health, overweight/obesity, diabetes, hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia, and asthma was assessed. ResultsIn LS, symptoms impacted normal functioning for 12+ weeks in 1.2% (mean age 20 years) to 4.8% (mean age 63 y) of COVID-19 cases. Between 7.8% (mean age 28 y) and 17% (mean age 58 y) reported any symptoms for 12+ weeks, and greater proportions for 4+ weeks. Age was associated with a linear increased risk in long COVID between 20 and 70 years. Being female (LS: OR=1.49; 95%CI:1.24-1.79; EHR: OR=1.51 [1.41-1.61]), having poor pre-pandemic mental health (LS: OR=1.46 [1.17-1.83]; EHR: OR=1.57 [1.47-1.68]) and poor general health (LS: OR=1.62 [1.25-2.09]; EHR: OR=1.26; [1.18-1.35]) were associated with higher risk of long COVID. Individuals with asthma (LS: OR=1.32 [1.07-1.62]; EHR: OR=1.56 [1.46-1.67]), and overweight or obesity (LS: OR=1.25 [1.01-1.55]; EHR: OR=1.31 [1.21-1.42]) also had higher risk. Non-white ethnic minority groups had lower risk (LS: OR=0.32 [0.22-0.47]), a finding consistent in EHR. . Few participants had been hospitalised (0.8-5.2%). ConclusionLong COVID is associated with sociodemographic and pre-existing health factors. Further investigations into causality should inform strategies to address long COVID in the population.
RESUMEN
BackgroundThe impact of COVID-19 on mental health is unclear. Evidence from longitudinal studies with pre pandemic data are needed to address (1) how mental health has changed from pre-pandemic levels to during the COVID-19 pandemic and (2), whether there are groups at greater risk of poorer mental health during the pandemic? MethodsWe used data from COVID-19 surveys (completed through April/May 2020), nested within two large longitudinal population cohorts with harmonised measures of mental health: two generations of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALPSAC): the index generation ALSPAC-G1 (n= 2850, mean age 28) and the parents generation ALSPAC-G0 (n= 3720, mean age = 59) and Generation Scotland: Scottish Family Health Study (GS, (n= 4233, mean age = 59), both with validated pre-pandemic measures of mental health and baseline factors. To answer question 1, we used ALSPAC-G1, which has identical mental health measures before and during the pandemic. Question 2 was addressed using both studies, using pre-pandemic and COVID-19 specific factors to explore associations with depression and anxiety in COVID-19. FindingsIn ALSPAC-G1 there was evidence that anxiety and lower wellbeing, but not depression, had increased in COVID-19 from pre-pandemic assessments. The percentage of individuals with probable anxiety disorder was almost double during COVID-19: 24% (95% CI 23%, 26%) compared to pre-pandemic levels (13%, 95% CI 12%, 14%), with clinically relevant effect sizes. In both ALSPAC and GS, depression and anxiety were greater in younger populations, women, those with pre-existing mental and physical health conditions, those living alone and in socio-economic adversity. We did not detect evidence for elevated risk in key workers or health care workers. InterpretationThese results suggest increases in anxiety and lower wellbeing that may be related to the COVID-19 pandemic and/or its management, particularly in young people. This research highlights that specific groups may be disproportionally at risk of elevated levels of depression and anxiety during COVID-19 and supports recent calls for increasing funds for mental health services. FundingThe UK Medical Research Council (MRC), the Wellcome Trust and University of Bristol.
RESUMEN
Observational data on COVID-19 including hypothesised risk factors for infection and progression are accruing rapidly, often from non-random sampling such as hospital admissions, targeted testing or voluntary participation. Here, we highlight the challenge of interpreting observational evidence from such samples of the population, which may be affected by collider bias. We illustrate these issues using data from the UK Biobank in which individuals tested for COVID-19 are highly selected for a wide range of genetic, behavioural, cardiovascular, demographic, and anthropometric traits. We discuss the sampling mechanisms that leave aetiological studies of COVID-19 infection and progression particularly susceptible to collider bias. We also describe several tools and strategies that could help mitigate the effects of collider bias in extant studies of COVID-19 and make available a web app for performing sensitivity analyses. While bias due to non-random sampling should be explored in existing studies, the optimal way to mitigate the problem is to use appropriate sampling strategies at the study design stage.