Search

Purpose: Consumption of ultra-processed foods (UPF) has been associated with increased risks of various age-related diseases. However, the potential association between UPF consumption and age-related eye diseases (AREDs) remains unclear. We aim to assess the associations between consumption of UPF and risk of AREDs including age-related macular degeneration (AMD), cataract and glaucoma., Methods: We included 156,232 individuals aged 50 or older, who were free from AREDs from UK biobank study. Dietary intake data were collected using 24-h dietary assessments. UPF is defined according to the NOVA classification, and all participants are divided into four quartiles based on the weight proportion (%) of UPF. During a median of 10 years of follow-up. Cox proportional hazards were used to estimate the association between the proportion of UPF in the diet and the subsequent risk of various AREDs., Results: After adjusting for multiple variables, individuals in the highest quartiles for UPF consumption exhibited an increased risk of AMD (hazard ratio (HR): 1.28; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-1.63; p = 0.03), cataract (HR: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.01-1.20; p = 0.04), and glaucoma (HR: 1.27; 95% CI: 0.98-1.63; p = 0.06) compared to those in the lowest quartiles. Moreover, a 10% increase in the weight of UPF in diet was associated with an 8% higher risk of AMD (HR: 1.08; 95% CI: 1.01-1.15; p = 0.03), a 3% higher risk of cataract (HR: 1.03; 95% CI: 1.00-1.06; p = 0.04), and a 7% higher risk of glaucoma (HR: 1.07; 95% CI: 1.00-1.15; p = 0.05)., Conclusion: Our results suggest that a higher proportion of UPF in the diet was significantly link with an elevated risk of AMD and cataract. While additional research is necessary to validate these findings in diverse populations and settings, these results offer initial evidence to endorse public health initiatives that encourage limiting consumption of UPF., (© 2024. Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

The COVID-19 pandemic and consequent lockdowns had a substantial impact on mental health. Distress and fatigue are highly correlated. However, little is known about the determinants of fatigue in the general population during the pandemic. This study aimed to examine the prevalence and predictors of fatigue during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK population. Online surveys were completed by a UK community cohort in April 2020 (wave 1), July-September 2020 (wave 2) and November-December 2020 (wave 3). In total, 3097 participants completed the wave 1 survey, and 1385 and 1087 participants (85.4% women) completed wave 2 and 3 surveys respectively. Fatigue was assessed using the Chalder Fatigue Scale at waves 2 and 3. Hair samples were provided by 827 participants (90.6% women) at wave 1 and wave 2, which were analyzed to indicate HairE (stress hormone). The mean total fatigue score during wave 2 was 14.7 (SD = 4.7), significantly higher than pre-pandemic levels observed in the community (mean difference 0.50, p = .003). At wave 2, 614 (44.3%) participants met the case definition for fatigue, only 15.6% of whom indicated that fatigue lasted for more than 6 months (suggesting it had started prior to the pandemic). Predictors of fatigue at wave 3 included being in a risk group, depression and belief in having COVID-19, which explained 23.8% of the variability in fatigue scores. Depression at wave 1 was the only significant predictor of remaining a fatigue case at wave 3. Fatigue was highly prevalent in the UK community during the COVID-19 pandemic and limited people's daily function. Depression and sociodemographic variables were significant predictors of fatigue.

We survey 62 users of a university asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 testing service on details of their activities, protective behaviours and contacts in the 7 days prior to receiving a positive or negative SARS-CoV-2 PCR test result in the period October 2020-March 2021. The resulting data set is novel in capturing very detailed social contact history linked to asymptomatic disease status during a period of significant restriction on social activities. We use this data to explore 3 questions: (i) Did participation in university activities enhance infection risk? (ii) How do contact definitions rank in their ability to explain test outcome during periods of social restrictions? (iii) Do patterns in the protective behaviours help explain discrepancies between the explanatory performance of different contact measures? We classify activities into settings and use Bayesian logistic regression to model test outcome, computing posterior model probabilities to compare the performance of models adopting different contact definitions. Associations between protective behaviours, participant characteristics and setting are explored at the level of individual activities using multiple correspondence analysis (MCA). We find that participation in air travel or non-university work activities was associated with a positive asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 PCR test, in contrast to participation in research and teaching settings. Intriguingly, logistic regression models with binary measures of contact in a setting performed better than more traditional contact numbers or person contact hours (PCH). The MCA indicates that patterns of protective behaviours vary between setting, in a manner which may help explain the preference for any participation as a contact measure. We conclude that linked PCR testing and social contact data can in principle be used to test the utility of contact definitions, and the investigation of contact definitions in larger linked studies is warranted to ensure contact data can capture environmental and social factors influencing transmission risk., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Research suggests that psychological factors may influence vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 infection, although the mechanisms are unclear., Purpose: We examined whether the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis may be a possible mechanism, by measuring the relationship between indices of psychological distress and cortisone in hair (hairE) in a UK cohort during the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: Participants (N = 827) provided two 3 cm hair samples over a 6-month period between April-September 2020. Samples reflected hairE in the 3 months prior to the collection date., Results: HairE in the first samples (T1: commenced April 2020) did not differ significantly from pre-pandemic population norms. However, hairE in the second samples (T2: commenced July 2020) were significantly higher than T1 and pre-pandemic population norms, with a 23% increase between T1 and T2. Linear regressions, controlling for age and gender, demonstrated that at both timepoints, hairE levels were greatest in people with a history of mental health difficulties. In addition, stress reported at T1 predicted greater hairE at T2 and a greater change in hairE between T1 and T2., Conclusions: These findings demonstrate that during the COVID-19 pandemic hairE was substantially elevated across a large community cohort, with greatest levels in those with a history of mental health difficulties and greatest changes in those reporting greatest levels of stress early in the pandemic. Further research is required with verified SARS-CoV-2 outcomes to determine whether the HPA axis is among the mechanisms by which a history of mental health difficulties and stress influence SARS-CoV-2 outcomes., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest AM is the director of Cortigenix (www.cortigenix.com). Cortigenix provided guidance on remote self-collection of hair samples by participants., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The number of people testing positive for Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) in the UK, particularly among young adults, is increasing. We report here on the mental health of young adults and related psychological and behavioural responses to the pandemic and consider the role of these factors in fuelling the increase in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in this group., Methods: An online survey was completed during the first six weeks of the first UK-wide lockdown by 3097 respondents, including data for 364 respondents aged 18-24 years. The survey included measures of mental health and indices capturing related psychological and behavioural responses to the pandemic., Results: The mental health of 18- to 24-years-olds in the first 6 weeks of lockdown was significantly poorer than that of older respondents and previously published norms: with 84% reporting symptoms of depression and 72% reporting symptoms of anxiety. Young adults also reported significantly greater loneliness and reduced positive mood, both of which were also associated with greater mental health difficulties., Conclusions: We contend that the combination of mental health, social and economic considerations may have contributed to the rise of COVID-19 infections in young adults, and ascribing blame to this group will not aid our efforts to regain control of the disease., (Copyright © 2020 The Royal Society for Public Health. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Previous pandemics have resulted in significant consequences for mental health. Here, we report the mental health sequelae of the COVID-19 pandemic in a UK cohort and examine modifiable and non-modifiable explanatory factors associated with mental health outcomes. We focus on the first wave of data collection, which examined short-term consequences for mental health, as reported during the first 4-6 weeks of social distancing measures being introduced., Design: Cross-sectional online survey., Setting: Community cohort study., Participants: N=3097 adults aged ≥18 years were recruited through a mainstream and social media campaign between 3 April 2020 and 30 April 2020. The cohort was predominantly female (n=2618); mean age 44 years; 10% (n=296) from minority ethnic groups; 50% (n=1559) described themselves as key workers and 20% (n=649) identified as having clinical risk factors putting them at increased risk of COVID-19., Main Outcome Measures: Depression, anxiety and stress scores., Results: Mean scores for depression ([Formula: see text] =7.69, SD=6.0), stress ([Formula: see text] =6.48, SD=3.3) and anxiety ([Formula: see text] = 6.48, SD=3.3) significantly exceeded population norms (all p<0.0001). Analysis of non-modifiable factors hypothesised to be associated with mental health outcomes indicated that being younger, female and in a recognised COVID-19 risk group were associated with increased stress, anxiety and depression, with the final multivariable models accounting for 7%-14% of variance. When adding modifiable factors, significant independent effects emerged for positive mood, perceived loneliness and worry about getting COVID-19 for all outcomes, with the final multivariable models accounting for 54%-57% of total variance., Conclusions: Increased psychological morbidity was evident in this UK sample and found to be more common in younger people, women and in individuals who identified as being in recognised COVID-19 risk groups. Public health and mental health interventions able to ameliorate perceptions of risk of COVID-19, worry about COVID-19 loneliness and boost positive mood may be effective., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)