Search

This study evaluates to what extent symptoms are present before, during, and after a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test, and to evaluate how the symptom burden and quality of Life (QoL) compares to those with a negative PCR test. Participants from the Dutch Lifelines COVID-19 Cohort Study filled-out as of March 2020 weekly, later bi-weekly and monthly, questions about demographics, COVID-19 diagnosis and severity, QoL, and symptoms. The study population included those with one positive or negative PCR test who filled out two questionnaires before and after the test, resulting in 996 SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive and 3978 negative participants. Nearly all symptoms were more often reported after a positive test versus the period before the test (p < 0.05), except fever. A higher symptom prevalence after versus before a test was also found for nearly all symptoms in negatives (p < 0.05). Before the test, symptoms were already partly present and reporting of nearly all symptoms before did not differ between positives and negatives (p > 0.05). QoL decreased around the test for positives and negatives, with a larger deterioration for positives. Not all symptoms after a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test might be attributable to the infection and symptoms were also common in negatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Physical and mental health are determined by an interplay between nature, for example genetics, and nurture, which encompasses experiences and exposures that can be short or long-lasting. The COVID-19 pandemic represents a unique situation in which whole communities were suddenly and simultaneously exposed to both the virus and the societal changes required to combat the virus. We studied 27,537 population-based biobank participants for whom we have genetic data and extensive longitudinal data collected via 19 questionnaires over 10 months, starting in March 2020. This allowed us to explore the interaction between genetics and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on individuals' wellbeing over time. We observe that genetics affected many aspects of wellbeing, but also that its impact on several phenotypes changed over time. Over the course of the pandemic, we observed that the genetic predisposition to life satisfaction had an increasing influence on perceived quality of life. We also estimated heritability and the proportion of variance explained by shared environment using variance components methods based on pedigree information and household composition. The results suggest that people's genetic constitution manifested more prominently over time, potentially due to social isolation driven by strict COVID-19 containment measures. Overall, our findings demonstrate that the relative contribution of genetic variation to complex phenotypes is dynamic rather than static. Author summary: All over the world we have experienced the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on our wellbeing. However, the impact may not have been the same for everyone. We know that physical and mental health are affected partly by nature, for example genetics, and partly by environmental factors, for example the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we explored the interaction between genetics and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on individuals' wellbeing over time. We observed that genetics not only influenced many aspects of wellbeing, but also that this impact changed over time during the pandemic. Our results suggest that the relative contribution of an individuals' genetics increased over time. Overall, our findings demonstrate that the relative contribution of genetic variation to complex phenotypes, such as wellbeing, is dynamic rather than static. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although sex differences are described in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnoses and testing, many studies neglect possible gender-related influences. Additionally, research is often performed in clinical populations, while most COVID-19 patients are not hospitalized. Therefore, we investigated associations between sex and gender-related variables, and COVID-19 diagnoses and testing practices in a large general population cohort during the first wave of the pandemic when testing capacity was limited. Methods: We used data from the Lifelines COVID-19 Cohort (N = 74,722; 60.8% female). We applied bivariate and multiple logistic regression analyses. The outcomes were a COVID-19 diagnosis (confirmed by SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing or physician's clinical diagnosis) and PCR testing. Independent variables included among others participants' sex, age, somatic comorbidities, occupation, and smoking status. Sex-by-comorbidity and sex-by-occupation interaction terms were included to investigate sex differences in associations between the presence of comorbidities or an occupation with COVID-19 diagnoses or testing practices. Results: In bivariate analyses female sex was significantly associated with COVID-19 diagnoses and testing, but significance did not persist in multiple logistic regression analyses. However, a gender-related variable, being a health care worker, was significantly associated with COVID-19 diagnoses (OR = 1.68; 95%CI = 1.30–2.17) and testing (OR = 12.5; 95%CI = 8.55–18.3). Female health care workers were less often diagnosed and tested than male health care workers (ORinteraction = 0.54; 95%CI = 0.32–0.92, ORinteraction = 0.53; 95%CI = 0.29–0.97, respectively). Conclusions: We found no sex differences in COVID-19 diagnoses and testing in the general population. Among health care workers, a male preponderance in COVID-19 diagnoses and testing was observed. This could be explained by more pronounced COVID-19 symptoms in males or by gender inequities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document is a correction notice for an article titled "Symptoms and quality of life before, during, and after a SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive or negative test: data from Lifelines" published in Scientific Reports. The correction states that H. Marike Boezen, one of the authors, is deceased. Additionally, there was an error in the Consortium list, where Judith G. M. Rosmalen was incorrectly listed as an author. The correction has been made to the original article. The authors of the article are Yvonne M. J. Goërtz, Martijn A. Spruit, Maarten Van Herck, Nicole Dukers-Muijrers, H. Marike Boezen, Jochen O. Mierau, H. Lude Franke, Jackie Dekens, Patrick Deelen, Pauline Lanting, Judith M. Vonk, Ilja Nolte, Anil P. S. Ori, Annique Claringbould, Floranne Boulogne, Marjolein X. L. Dijkema, Henry H. Wiersma, Robert Warmerdam, Soesma A. Jankipersadsing, Irene van Blokland, Geertruida H. de Bock, Cisca Wijmenga, Carla J. H. van der Kallen, Chris Burtin, and Daisy J. A. Janssen. [Extracted from the article]