The respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) has undergone genetic evolution and led to variants of concern that vary in transmissibility and clinical severity.

This retrospective cohort analysis studied 232,364 hospitalized COVID-19-positive patients in the National COVID Cohort Collaborative [April 27, 2020 and June 25, 2022]. The primary outcomes were to compare demographics and need for mechanical ventilation and 30-day mortality across variants including Alpha (B.1.1.7), Delta (B.1.617.2), and Omicron (B.1.1.529).

The severity of SARS-CoV-2 decreased in the omicron-subsequent wave with decreased utilization of mechanical ventilation and decreased 30-day mortality among patients with comorbidities like diabetes mellitus, obesity, and liver disease. Although with each subsequent wave, the sex distribution remained equal and constant, there was an increase in rates of diabetes, liver disease, and respiratory disease amongst patients hospitalized with COVID-19 over the COVID waves despite the decreasing 30-day mortality and mechanical ventilation.

Despite changes in demographics over time, more recent COVID waves were associated with decreasing severity and mortality. These observations will help guide specific and effective resource allocation and patient care.

To examine patterns of cognitive function among a clinical sample of patients seeking treatment for Post-Acute Sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC).

One hundred nineteen patients each completed a baseline neuropsychological evaluation, including clinical diagnostic interview, cognitive assessments, and a comprehensive battery of self-report questionnaires. Patients had a mean age of 50 years (range:18 to 74, SD=10.1) and a mean of 15.5 years (SD=2.54) of formal education. Patients were primarily female (74%) and of White/Caucasian race (75%). Hierarchical agglomerative clustering was used to partition the data into groups based on cognitive performance. Euclidean distance was used as the similarity measure for the continuous variables and within-cluster variance was minimized using Ward’s method. The optimal number of clusters was determined empirically by fitting models with 1 to 15 clusters, with the best number of clusters selected using the silhouette index. All analyses were conducted using the NbClust package, an R package for determining the relevant number of clusters in a data set.

Clustering yielded two distinct clusters of cognitive performance. Group 1 (n=57) performed worse than Group 2 (n=62) on most cognitive variables (including a brief cognitive screener and tests of attention/working memory, executive function, processing speed, learning and delayed recall). Of note, there were no significant differences between groups on an infection severity scale, hospitalizations/ICU admissions, initial or current COVID-19 symptoms, or prior comorbidities. Groups did not differ in age or gender, but Group 1 had a lower education level than Group 2 (M=14.7, SD=2.45 vs. M=16.2, SD=2.42; p=.001). Group 1 also had significantly more minorities than Group 2 (40% vs. 8%; p<.001). No other demographic differences (income, living arrangement, or marital status) were observed. In comparison to Group 2 patients, Group 1 patients self-reported significantly higher levels of anxiety and depression and functional impairment (Functional Activities Questionnaire: M=11.3, SD=8.33 vs. M=7.65, SD=7.97), perceived stress (Perceived Stress Scale: M=24.7, SD=7.90 vs. M=20.3, SD=7.89), insomnia (Insomnia Severity Index: M=16.0, SD=6.50 vs. M=13.1, SD=6.76), and subjective cognitive functioning (Cognitive Failures Questionnaire: M=58.8, SD=16.9 vs. M=50.3, SD=18.6; p’s<.05).

Findings indicate two predominant subtypes of patients seeking treatment for PASC, with one group presenting as more cognitively impaired and reporting greater levels of anxiety, depression, insomnia, perceived stress, functional limitations, and subjective cognitive impairment. Future directions include follow-up assessments with these patients to determine cognitive trajectories over time and tailoring treatment adjuncts to address mood symptoms, insomnia, functional ability, and lifestyle variables. Understanding mechanisms of differences in cognitive and affective symptoms is needed in future work. Limitations to the study were that patients were referred for evaluation based on the complaint of “brain fog” and the sample was a homogenous, highly educated, younger group of individuals who experienced generally mild COVID-19 course.

To examine differences in noticing and use of nutrition information comparing jurisdictions with and without mandatory menu labelling policies and examine differences among sociodemographic groups.

Cross-sectional data from the International Food Policy Study (IFPS) online survey.

IFPS participants from Australia, Canada, Mexico, United Kingdom and USA in 2019.

Adults aged 18–99; n 19 393.

Participants in jurisdictions with mandatory policies were significantly more likely to notice and use nutrition information, order something different, eat less of their order and change restaurants compared to jurisdictions without policies. For noticed nutrition information, the differences between policy groups were greatest comparing older to younger age groups and comparing high education (difference of 10·7 %, 95 % CI 8·9, 12·6) to low education (difference of 4·1 %, 95 % CI 1·8, 6·3). For used nutrition information, differences were greatest comparing high education (difference of 4·9 %, 95 % CI 3·5, 6·4) to low education (difference of 1·8 %, 95 % CI 0·2, 3·5). Mandatory labelling was associated with an increase in ordering something different among the majority ethnicity group and a decrease among the minority ethnicity group. For changed restaurant visited, differences were greater for medium and high education compared to low education, and differences were greater for higher compared to lower income adequacy.

Participants living in jurisdictions with mandatory nutrition information in restaurants were more likely to report noticing and using nutrition information, as well as greater efforts to modify their consumption. However, the magnitudes of these differences were relatively small.

The Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index, a simple index that includes age, liver enzymes, and platelet count has been studied as a tool to identify patients at a risk of requiring mechanical ventilation due to its high negative predictive value. It is unknown if FIB-4 remains useful to predict the severity of respiratory disease requiring mechanical ventilation amongst new Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) variants and whether a relationship also exists between FIB-4 and 30-day mortality. The main objective was to determine if FIB-4 can predict mechanical ventilation requirements and 30-day mortality from COVID-19 across variants including Alpha, Delta, and Omicron.

This was a population-based, retrospective cohort analysis of 232,364 hospitalized patients in the National COVID-19 Cohort Collaborative between the age of 18–90 who tested positive for COVID-19 between April 27, 2020 and June 25, 2022. The primary outcome was association between FIB-4 and need for mechanical ventilation. Secondary measures included the association of FIB-4 with 30-day mortality.

A FIB-4 > 2.67 had 1.8 times higher odds of requiring mechanical ventilation across all variants of COVID-19 (OR 1.81; 95% CI: [1.76, 1.86]). The area under the ROC curve showed high diagnostic accuracy with values ranging between 0.79 (Omicron wave) and 0.97 (delta wave). Increased FIB-4 was associated with 30-day mortality across the variates.

The FIB-4 was consistently associated with both increased utilization of mechanical ventilation and 30-day mortality among COVID-19 patients across all waves in both adjusted and unadjusted models. This provides a simple tool for risk-stratification for front-line health care professionals.

Foundation Doctors are exposed to a range of specialties within the Foundation Programme, with 20.9% completing a psychiatry rotation. Those who do not have a psychiatry rotation may have little experience other than what was acquired in undergraduate training, despite being expected to care for patients with mental health problems. According to Mind (2017), one in four people will experience a mental health problem each year thus essential that our medical workforce know and understand the basic principles of psychiatry to aid their management of core psychiatric conditions. The aim of this project was to improve mental health literacy among Foundation Doctors by improving their communication, formulation and risk management skills. Another objective was to encourage uptake to Psychiatry and help plug the high number of unfilled Consultant posts.

The initial pilot was carried out between January and June 2021 over zoom and the sessions were optional. A survey was completed to find out which topics were most relevant and common themes included MCA/MHA interface, risk management and treatment of various conditions. These themes were incorporated into 90-minute sessions which included interactive case-based discussion in small breakout groups and some didactic teaching. The six session topics were EUPD, Dementia, Depression, Delirium, Substance Misuse and Alcohol Misuse. The sessions were facilitated by clinicians of mixed experience from Foundation Doctors to Consultants. Participant knowledge was tested using pre- and post-session quizzes and a working group reviewed feedback, making relevant changes subsequently.

Feedback was majorly positive, and attendees valued the interactivity, breakout rooms, case studies and choice of topics. Suggested areas of improvement were having more time for discussion, technical difficulties, and less psychiatric ‘jargon’, but these tended to be isolated comments. Five out of six sessions showed an improvement in assessment scores afterwards, with an average improvement of 12.6% (average pre-session score of 70% and average post-session score of 82.6%). One session showed a decrease in the post-session quiz scores which on reflection showed that the questions in the assessment covered material not included in the session.

The virtual programme was an effective way of improving knowledge and confidence in psychiatry. Whilst the sessions were positively received and showed improvements in post-session scores, there were some limitations which will be addressed and used to develop future training. There is now more mental health woven throughout the new Foundation curriculum and expected that much of this content will be covered during Foundation Training.

Minority and older adult patients remain underrepresented in cancer clinical trials (CCTs). The current study sought to examine sociodemographic inequities in CCT interest, eligibility, enrollment, decline motivation, and attrition across two psychosocial CCTs for gynecologic, gastrointestinal, and thoracic cancers.

Patients were approached for recruitment to one of two interventions: (1) a randomized control trial (RCT) examining effects of a cognitive-behavioral intervention targeting sleep, pain, mood, cytokines, and cortisol following surgery, or (2) a yoga intervention to determine its feasibility, acceptability, and effects on mitigating distress. Prospective RCT participants were queried about interest and screened for eligibility. All eligible patients across trials were offered enrollment. Patients who declined yoga intervention enrollment provided reasons for decline. Sociodemographic predictors of enrollment decisions and attrition were explored.

No sociodemographic differences in RCT interest were observed, and older patients were more likely to be ineligible. Eligible Hispanic patients across trials were significantly more likely to enroll than non-Hispanic patients. Sociodemographic factors predicted differences in decline motivation. In one trial, individuals originating from more urban areas were more likely to prematurely discontinue participation.

These results corroborate evidence of no significant differences in CCT interest across minority groups, with older adults less likely to fulfill eligibility criteria. While absolute Hispanic enrollment was modest, Hispanic patients were more likely to enroll relative to non-Hispanic patients. Additional sociodemographic trends were noted in decline motivation and geographical prediction of attrition. Further investigation is necessary to better understand inequities, barriers, and best recruitment practices for representative CCTs.

There is evidence that the COVID-19 pandemic has negatively affected mental health, but most studies have been conducted in the general population.

To identify factors associated with mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic in individuals with pre-existing mental illness.

Participants (N = 2869, 78% women, ages 18–94 years) from a UK cohort (the National Centre for Mental Health) with a history of mental illness completed a cross-sectional online survey in June to August 2020. Mental health assessments were the GAD-7 (anxiety), PHQ-9 (depression) and WHO-5 (well-being) questionnaires, and a self-report question on whether their mental health had changed during the pandemic. Regressions examined associations between mental health outcomes and hypothesised risk factors. Secondary analyses examined associations between specific mental health diagnoses and mental health.

A total of 60% of participants reported that mental health had worsened during the pandemic. Younger age, difficulty accessing mental health services, low income, income affected by COVID-19, worry about COVID-19, reduced sleep and increased alcohol/drug use were associated with increased depression and anxiety symptoms and reduced well-being. Feeling socially supported by friends/family/services was associated with better mental health and well-being. Participants with a history of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder or eating disorder were more likely to report that mental health had worsened during the pandemic than individuals without a history of these diagnoses.

We identified factors associated with worse mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic in individuals with pre-existing mental illness, in addition to specific groups potentially at elevated risk of poor mental health during the pandemic.