Search

Objectives Long-term sickness absence from employment has negative consequences for the economy and can lead to widened health inequalities. Sick notes (also called ‘fit notes’) are issued by general practitioners when a person cannot work for health reasons for more than 7 days. We quantified the sick note rate in people with evidence of COVID-19 in 2020, 2021 and 2022, as an indication of the burden for people recovering from COVID-19.Design Cohort study.Setting With National Health Service (NHS) England approval, we used routine clinical data (primary care, hospital and COVID-19 testing records) within the OpenSAFELY-TPP database.Participants People 18–64 years with a recorded positive test or diagnosis of COVID-19 in 2020 (n=365 421), 2021 (n=1 206 555) or 2022 (n=1 321 313); general population matched in age, sex and region in 2019 (n=3 140 326), 2020 (n=3 439 534), 2021 (n=4 571 469) and 2022 (n=4 818 870); people hospitalised with pneumonia in 2019 (n=29 673).Primary outcome measure Receipt of a sick note in primary care.Results Among people with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test or COVID-19 diagnosis, the sick note rate was 4.88 per 100 person-months (95% CI 4.83 to 4.93) in 2020, 2.66 (95% CI 2.64 to 2.67) in 2021 and 1.73 (95% CI 1.72 to 1.73) in 2022. Compared with the age, sex and region-matched general population, the adjusted HR for receipt of a sick note over the entire follow-up period (up to 10 months) was 4.07 (95% CI 4.02 to 4.12) in 2020 decreasing to 1.57 (95% CI 1.56 to 1.58) in 2022. The HR was highest in the first 30 days postdiagnosis in all years. Among people hospitalised with COVID-19, after adjustment, the sick note rate was lower than in people hospitalised with pneumonia.Conclusions Given the under-recording of postacute COVID-19-related symptoms, these findings contribute a valuable perspective on the long-term effects of COVID-19. Despite likely underestimation of the sick note rate, sick notes were issued more frequently to people with COVID-19 compared with those without, even in an era when most people are vaccinated. Most sick notes occurred in the first 30 days postdiagnosis, but the increased risk several months postdiagnosis may provide further evidence of the long-term impact.

Summary: Background: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted healthcare and may have impacted ethnic inequalities in healthcare. We aimed to describe the impact of pandemic-related disruption on ethnic differences in clinical monitoring and hospital admissions for non-COVID conditions in England. Methods: In this population-based, observational cohort study we used primary care electronic health record data with linkage to hospital episode statistics data and mortality data within OpenSAFELY, a data analytics platform created, with approval of NHS England, to address urgent COVID-19 research questions. We included adults aged 18 years and over registered with a TPP practice between March 1, 2018, and April 30, 2022. We excluded those with missing age, sex, geographic region, or Index of Multiple Deprivation. We grouped ethnicity (exposure), into five categories: White, Asian, Black, Other, and Mixed. We used interrupted time-series regression to estimate ethnic differences in clinical monitoring frequency (blood pressure and Hba1c measurements, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma annual reviews) before and after March 23, 2020. We used multivariable Cox regression to quantify ethnic differences in hospitalisations related to diabetes, cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, and mental health before and after March 23, 2020. Findings: Of 33,510,937 registered with a GP as of 1st January 2020, 19,064,019 were adults, alive and registered for at least 3 months, 3,010,751 met the exclusion criteria and 1,122,912 were missing ethnicity. This resulted in 14,930,356 adults with known ethnicity (92% of sample): 86.6% were White, 7.3% Asian, 2.6% Black, 1.4% Mixed ethnicity, and 2.2% Other ethnicities. Clinical monitoring did not return to pre-pandemic levels for any ethnic group. Ethnic differences were apparent pre-pandemic, except for diabetes monitoring, and remained unchanged, except for blood pressure monitoring in those with mental health conditions where differences narrowed during the pandemic. For those of Black ethnicity, there were seven additional admissions for diabetic ketoacidosis per month during the pandemic, and relative ethnic differences narrowed during the pandemic compared to the White ethnic group (Pre-pandemic hazard ratio (HR): 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41, 0.60, Pandemic HR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.65, 0.87). There was increased admissions for heart failure during the pandemic for all ethnic groups, though highest in those of White ethnicity (heart failure risk difference: 5.4). Relatively, ethnic differences narrowed for heart failure admission in those of Asian (Pre-pandemic HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.49, 1.64, Pandemic HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.19, 1.29) and Black ethnicity (Pre-pandemic HR 1.41, 95% CI: 1.30, 1.53, Pandemic HR: 1.16, 95% CI 1.09, 1.25) compared with White ethnicity. For other outcomes the pandemic had minimal impact on ethnic differences. Interpretation: Our study suggests that ethnic differences in clinical monitoring and hospitalisations remained largely unchanged during the pandemic for most conditions. Key exceptions were hospitalisations for diabetic ketoacidosis and heart failure, which warrant further investigation to understand the causes. Funding: LSHTM COVID-19 Response Grant (DONAT15912).

Background Home working has increased since the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic’s onset with concerns that it may have adverse health implications. We assessed the association between home working and social and mental wellbeing among the employed population aged 16 to 66 through harmonised analyses of 7 UK longitudinal studies. Methods and findings We estimated associations between home working and measures of psychological distress, low life satisfaction, poor self-rated health, low social contact, and loneliness across 3 different stages of the pandemic (T1 = April to June 2020 –first lockdown, T2 = July to October 2020 –eased restrictions, T3 = November 2020 to March 2021 –second lockdown) using modified Poisson regression and meta-analyses to pool results across studies. We successively adjusted the model for sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., age, sex), job characteristics (e.g., sector of activity, pre-pandemic home working propensities), and pre-pandemic health. Among respectively 10,367, 11,585, and 12,179 participants at T1, T2, and T3, we found higher rates of home working at T1 and T3 compared with T2, reflecting lockdown periods. Home working was not associated with psychological distress at T1 (RR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.79 to 1.08) or T2 (RR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.88 to 1.11), but a detrimental association was found with psychological distress at T3 (RR = 1.17, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.30). Study limitations include the fact that pre-pandemic home working propensities were derived from external sources, no information was collected on home working dosage and possible reverse association between change in wellbeing and home working likelihood. Conclusions No clear evidence of an association between home working and mental wellbeing was found, apart from greater risk of psychological distress during the second lockdown, but differences across subgroups (e.g., by sex or level of education) may exist. Longer term shifts to home working might not have adverse impacts on population wellbeing in the absence of pandemic restrictions but further monitoring of health inequalities is required. Jacques Wels and colleagues investigate the relationship between working from home and different indicators of mental and social wellbeing in the UK. Author summary Why was this study done? ➢ The number of workers working from home drastically increased during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. ➢ Little is known about the relationship between home working and mental and social wellbeing before and during the pandemic. ➢ As some home working schemes are likely to remain post-pandemic, understanding this association is important. What did the researchers do and find? ➢ We analysed data from 7 UK-based population surveys to better understand the relationship between working from home (partially or fully) and different indicators of mental and social wellbeing. ➢ We analysed these relationships over 3 time points—i.e., April to June 2020 (T1), July to October 2020 (T2), and November 2020 to March 2021 (T3)—and controlled for sociodemographic (e.g., age, sex, and ethnicity) and job characteristics (e.g., sector of activity, key worker status). ➢ We found that home working was not associated with psychological distress at T1 or T2, but at T3 it was associated with increased psychological distress (relative risk = 1.17, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.30). No other meaningful associations were found. ➢ We stratified these associations by sex, education level, age, and full-time versus part-time employment and found that home working was associated with greater psychological distress in those with lower than degree level education. What do these findings mean? ➢ We found no clear evidence of a lasting association between home working, mental health, and social wellbeing which may indicate that, during the pandemic, home working was not detrimental nor beneficial for workers’ wellbeing. ➢ Differences across subgroups may exist and specific impacts by sex, age, and education level need to be investigated further.

Abstract Background Loss of skeletal muscle mass and strength occurs with increasing age and is associated with loss of function, disability, and the development of sarcopenia and frailty. Dietary protein is essential for skeletal muscle function, but older adults do not anabolise muscle in response to protein supplementation as well as younger people, so called ‘anabolic resistance’. The aetiology and molecular mechanisms for this are not understood, however the gut microbiome is known to play a key role in several of the proposed mechanisms. Thus, we hypothesise that the gut microbiome may mediate anabolic resistance and therefore represent an exciting new target for ameliorating muscle loss in older adults. This study aims to test whether modulation of the gut microbiome using a prebiotic, in addition to protein supplementation, can improve muscle strength (as measured by chair-rise time) versus protein supplementation alone. Methods The study is a randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial, with two parallel arms; one will receive prebiotic and protein supplementation, and the other will receive placebo (maltodextrin) and protein supplementation. Participants will be randomised as twin pairs, with one twin from each pair in each arm. Participants will be asked to take supplementation once daily for 12 weeks in addition to resistance exercises. Every participant will receive a postal box, containing their supplements, and the necessary equipment to return faecal, urine, saliva and capillary blood samples, via post. A virtual visit will be performed using online platform at the beginning and end of the study, with measures taken over video. Questionnaires, food diary and cognitive testing will be sent out via email at the beginning and end of the study. Discussion This study aims to provide evidence for the role of the gut microbiome in anabolic resistance to dietary protein. If those who take the prebiotic and protein supplementation have a greater improvement in muscle strength compared with those who take protein supplementation alone, this would suggest that strategies to modify the gut microbiome may reduce anabolic resistance, and therefore potentially mitigate sarcopenia and frailty in older adults. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04309292 . Registered on the 2nd May 2020.

Background: Identifying and testing individuals likely to have SARS-CoV-2 is critical for infection control, including post-vaccination. Vaccination is a major public health strategy to reduce SARS-CoV-2 infection globally. Some individuals experience systemic symptoms post-vaccination, which overlap with COVID-19 symptoms. This study compared early post-vaccination symptoms in individuals who subsequently tested positive or negative for SARS-CoV-2, using data from the COVID Symptom Study (CSS) app. Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study in 1,072,313 UK CSS participants who were asymptomatic when vaccinated with Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2) or Oxford-AstraZeneca adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) between 8 December 2020 and 17 May 2021, who subsequently reported symptoms within seven days (N=362,770) (other than local symptoms at injection site) and were tested for SARS-CoV-2 (N=14,842), aiming to differentiate vaccination side-effects per se from superimposed SARS-CoV-2 infection. The post-vaccination symptoms and SARS-CoV-2 test results were contemporaneously logged by participants. Demographic and clinical information (including comorbidities) were recorded. Symptom profiles in individuals testing positive were compared with a 1:1 matched population testing negative, including using machine learning and multiple models considering UK testing criteria. Findings: Differentiating post-vaccination side-effects alone from early COVID-19 was challenging, with a sensitivity in identification of individuals testing positive of 0.6 at best. Most of these individuals did not have fever, persistent cough, or anosmia/dysosmia, requisite symptoms for accessing UK testing; and many only had systemic symptoms commonly seen post-vaccination in individuals negative for SARS-CoV-2 (headache, myalgia, and fatigue). Interpretation: Post-vaccination symptoms per se cannot be differentiated from COVID-19 with clinical robustness, either using symptom profiles or machine-derived models. Individuals presenting with systemic symptoms post-vaccination should be tested for SARS-CoV-2 or quarantining, to prevent community spread. Funding: UK Government Department of Health and Social Care, Wellcome Trust, UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, UK National Institute for Health Research, UK Medical Research Council and British Heart Foundation, Chronic Disease Research Foundation, Zoe Limited.

Abstract Previous research has shown that genes play a substantial role in determining a person’s susceptibility to age-related hearing impairment. The existing studies on this subject have different results, which may be caused by difficulties in determining the phenotype or the limited number of participants involved. Here, we have gathered the largest sample to date (discovery n = 9,675; replication n = 10,963; validation n = 356,141), and examined phenotypes that represented low/mid and high frequency hearing loss on the pure tone audiogram. We identified 7 loci that were either replicated and/or validated, of which 5 loci are novel in hearing. Especially the ILDR1 gene is a high profile candidate, as it contains our top SNP, is a known hearing loss gene, has been linked to age-related hearing impairment before, and in addition is preferentially expressed within hair cells of the inner ear. By verifying all previously published SNPs, we can present a paper that combines all new and existing findings to date, giving a complete overview of the genetic architecture of age-related hearing impairment. This is of importance as age-related hearing impairment is highly prevalent in our ageing society and represents a large socio-economic burden.