Risks of mental health outcomes in people with covid-19: cohort study

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Objective

To estimate the risks of incident mental health disorders in survivors of the acute phase of covid-19.

Design

Cohort study.

Setting

US Department of Veterans Affairs.

Participants

Cohort comprising 153 848 people who survived the first 30 days of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and two control groups: a contemporary group (n=5 637 840) with no evidence of SARS-CoV-2, and a historical control group (n=5 859 251) that predated the covid-19 pandemic.

Main outcomes measures

Risks of prespecified incident mental health outcomes, calculated as hazard ratio and absolute risk difference per 1000 people at one year, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Predefined covariates and algorithmically selected high dimensional covariates were used to balance the covid-19 and control groups through inverse weighting.

Results

The covid-19 group showed an increased risk of incident anxiety disorders (hazard ratio 1.35 (95% confidence interval 1.30 to 1.39); risk difference 11.06 (95% confidence interval 9.64 to 12.53) per 1000 people at one year), depressive disorders (1.39 (1.34 to 1.43); 15.12 (13.38 to 16.91) per 1000 people at one year), stress and adjustment disorders (1.38 (1.34 to 1.43); 13.29 (11.71 to 14.92) per 1000 people at one year), and use of antidepressants (1.55 (1.50 to 1.60); 21.59 (19.63 to 23.60) per 1000 people at one year) and benzodiazepines (1.65 (1.58 to 1.72); 10.46 (9.37 to 11.61) per 1000 people at one year). The risk of incident opioid prescriptions also increased (1.76 (1.71 to 1.81); 35.90 (33.61 to 38.25) per 1000 people at one year), opioid use disorders (1.34 (1.21 to 1.48); 0.96 (0.59 to 1.37) per 1000 people at one year), and other (non-opioid) substance use disorders (1.20 (1.15 to 1.26); 4.34 (3.22 to 5.51) per 1000 people at one year). The covid-19 group also showed an increased risk of incident neurocognitive decline (1.80 (1.72 to 1.89); 10.75 (9.65 to 11.91) per 1000 people at one year) and sleep disorders (1.41 (1.38 to 1.45); 23.80 (21.65 to 26.00) per 1000 people at one year). The risk of any incident mental health diagnosis or prescription was increased (1.60 (1.55 to 1.66); 64.38 (58.90 to 70.01) per 1000 people at one year). The risks of examined outcomes were increased even among people who were not admitted to hospital and were highest among those who were admitted to hospital during the acute phase of covid-19. Results were consistent with those in the historical control group. The risk of incident mental health disorders was consistently higher in the covid-19 group in comparisons of people with covid-19 not admitted to hospital versus those not admitted to hospital for seasonal influenza, admitted to hospital with covid-19 versus admitted to hospital with seasonal influenza, and admitted to hospital with covid-19 versus admitted to hospital for any other cause.

Conclusions

The findings suggest that people who survive the acute phase of covid-19 are at increased risk of an array of incident mental health disorders. Tackling mental health disorders among survivors of covid-19 should be a priority.

Related collections

Most cited references 33

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

An Introduction to Propensity Score Methods for Reducing the Effects of Confounding in Observational Studies

Peter C Austin (2011)

The propensity score is the probability of treatment assignment conditional on observed baseline characteristics. The propensity score allows one to design and analyze an observational (nonrandomized) study so that it mimics some of the particular characteristics of a randomized controlled trial. In particular, the propensity score is a balancing score: conditional on the propensity score, the distribution of observed baseline covariates will be similar between treated and untreated subjects. I describe 4 different propensity score methods: matching on the propensity score, stratification on the propensity score, inverse probability of treatment weighting using the propensity score, and covariate adjustment using the propensity score. I describe balance diagnostics for examining whether the propensity score model has been adequately specified. Furthermore, I discuss differences between regression-based methods and propensity score-based methods for the analysis of observational data. I describe different causal average treatment effects and their relationship with propensity score analyses.

0 comments Cited 1943 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Global prevalence and burden of depressive and anxiety disorders in 204 countries and territories in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic

(2021)

Background Before 2020, mental disorders were leading causes of the global health-related burden, with depressive and anxiety disorders being leading contributors to this burden. The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic has created an environment where many determinants of poor mental health are exacerbated. The need for up-to-date information on the mental health impacts of COVID-19 in a way that informs health system responses is imperative. In this study, we aimed to quantify the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the prevalence and burden of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders globally in 2020. Methods We conducted a systematic review of data reporting the prevalence of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic and published between Jan 1, 2020, and Jan 29, 2021. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, preprint servers, grey literature sources, and consulted experts. Eligible studies reported prevalence of depressive or anxiety disorders that were representative of the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic and had a pre-pandemic baseline. We used the assembled data in a meta-regression to estimate change in the prevalence of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders between pre-pandemic and mid-pandemic (using periods as defined by each study) via COVID-19 impact indicators (human mobility, daily SARS-CoV-2 infection rate, and daily excess mortality rate). We then used this model to estimate the change from pre-pandemic prevalence (estimated using Disease Modelling Meta-Regression version 2.1 [known as DisMod-MR 2.1]) by age, sex, and location. We used final prevalence estimates and disability weights to estimate years lived with disability and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders. Findings We identified 5683 unique data sources, of which 48 met inclusion criteria (46 studies met criteria for major depressive disorder and 27 for anxiety disorders). Two COVID-19 impact indicators, specifically daily SARS-CoV-2 infection rates and reductions in human mobility, were associated with increased prevalence of major depressive disorder (regression coefficient [ B ] 0·9 [95% uncertainty interval 0·1 to 1·8; p=0·029] for human mobility, 18·1 [7·9 to 28·3; p=0·0005] for daily SARS-CoV-2 infection) and anxiety disorders (0·9 [0·1 to 1·7; p=0·022] and 13·8 [10·7 to 17·0; p<0·0001]. Females were affected more by the pandemic than males ( B 0·1 [0·1 to 0·2; p=0·0001] for major depressive disorder, 0·1 [0·1 to 0·2; p=0·0001] for anxiety disorders) and younger age groups were more affected than older age groups (−0·007 [–0·009 to −0·006; p=0·0001] for major depressive disorder, −0·003 [–0·005 to −0·002; p=0·0001] for anxiety disorders). We estimated that the locations hit hardest by the pandemic in 2020, as measured with decreased human mobility and daily SARS-CoV-2 infection rate, had the greatest increases in prevalence of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders. We estimated an additional 53·2 million (44·8 to 62·9) cases of major depressive disorder globally (an increase of 27·6% [25·1 to 30·3]) due to the COVID-19 pandemic, such that the total prevalence was 3152·9 cases (2722·5 to 3654·5) per 100 000 population. We also estimated an additional 76·2 million (64·3 to 90·6) cases of anxiety disorders globally (an increase of 25·6% [23·2 to 28·0]), such that the total prevalence was 4802·4 cases (4108·2 to 5588·6) per 100 000 population. Altogether, major depressive disorder caused 49·4 million (33·6 to 68·7) DALYs and anxiety disorders caused 44·5 million (30·2 to 62·5) DALYs globally in 2020. Interpretation This pandemic has created an increased urgency to strengthen mental health systems in most countries. Mitigation strategies could incorporate ways to promote mental wellbeing and target determinants of poor mental health and interventions to treat those with a mental disorder. Taking no action to address the burden of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders should not be an option. Funding Queensland Health, National Health and Medical Research Council, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

0 comments Cited 1208 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

6-month neurological and psychiatric outcomes in 236 379 survivors of COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study using electronic health records

Maxime Taquet, John R Geddes, Masud Husain … (2021)

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.

0 comments Cited 858 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Yan Xie: Role: clinical epidemiologist

Evan Xu: Role: medical student

Ziyad Al-Aly:

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2600-0434

Role: director

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): BMJ

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): BMJ

Journal ID (publisher-id): BMJ-US

Journal ID (hwp): bmj

Title: The BMJ

Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

ISSN (Print): 0959-8138

ISSN (Electronic): 1756-1833

Publication date Collection: 2022

Publication date (Electronic): 16 February 2022

Publication date PMC-release: 16 February 2022

Volume: 376

Electronic Location Identifier: e068993

Affiliations

[1 ]Clinical Epidemiology Center, Research and Development Service, VA Saint Louis Health Care System, Saint Louis, MO 63106, USA

[2 ]Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, College for Public Health and Social Justice, Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, MO, USA

[3 ]Veterans Research and Education Foundation of Saint Louis, Saint Louis, MO, USA

[4 ]Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO, USA

[5 ]Nephrology Section, Medicine Service, VA Saint Louis Health Care System, Saint Louis, MO, USA

[6 ]Institute for Public Health, Washington University in Saint Louis, Saint Louis, MO, USA

Author notes

Correspondence to: Z Al-Aly zalaly@ 123456gmail.com (or @zalaly on Twitter)

Author information

Ziyad Al-Aly https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2600-0434

Article

Publisher ID: bmj-2021-068993.R1 Publisher ID: xiey068993

DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2021-068993

PMC ID: 8847881

PubMed ID: 35172971

SO-VID: 480e6b57-6dac-435d-a1c8-4bb2b6d591f6

License:

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

History

Date accepted : 08 January 2022

Funding

Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100001463, American Society of Nephrology;

Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000738, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs;

Risks of mental health outcomes in people with covid-19: cohort study

Read this article at

Abstract

Objective

Design

Setting

Participants

Main outcomes measures

Results

Conclusions

Related collections

Novel Coronavirus Disease COVID-19

Most cited references 33

An Introduction to Propensity Score Methods for Reducing the Effects of Confounding in Observational Studies

Global prevalence and burden of depressive and anxiety disorders in 204 countries and territories in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic

6-month neurological and psychiatric outcomes in 236 379 survivors of COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study using electronic health records

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Author notes

Author information

Article

History

Funding

Categories

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 113

Cited by 140

Most referenced authors 505