| Literature DB >> 35727534 |
Mario Gennaro Mazza1,2,3, Mariagrazia Palladini4,5,6, Sara Poletti4,5, Francesco Benedetti4,5.
Abstract
The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is still spreading worldwide over 2 years since its outbreak. The psychopathological implications in COVID-19 survivors such as depression, anxiety, and cognitive impairments are now recognized as primary symptoms of the "post-acute COVID-19 syndrome." Depressive psychopathology was reported in around 35% of patients at short, medium, and long-term follow-up after the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Post-COVID-19 depressive symptoms are known to increase fatigue and affect neurocognitive functioning, sleep, quality of life, and global functioning in COVID-19 survivors. The psychopathological mechanisms underlying post-COVID-19 depressive symptoms are mainly related to the inflammation triggered by the peripheral immune-inflammatory response to the viral infection and to the persistent psychological burden during and after infection. The large number of SARS-CoV-2-infected patients and the high prevalence of post-COVID-19 depressive symptoms may significantly increase the pool of people suffering from depressive disorders. Therefore, it is essential to screen, diagnose, treat, and monitor COVID-19 survivors' psychopathology to counteract the depression disease burden and related years of life lived with disability. This paper reviews the current literature in order to synthesize the available evidence regarding epidemiology, clinical features, neurobiological underpinning, and pharmacological treatment of post-COVID-19 depressive symptoms.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35727534 PMCID: PMC9210800 DOI: 10.1007/s40263-022-00931-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: CNS Drugs ISSN: 1172-7047 Impact factor: 6.497
Characteristics and key findings of the included meta-analyses. Heterogeneity between studies included in each meta-analysis was expressed in I2
| Original meta-analysis | Number of studies included | Total sample size | Diagnostic tool | Heterogeneity % | Overall prevalence % (95% CI) | Subgroup analyses | Subgroup analyses findings | AMSTAR-2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dong et al., 2021 [ | 27 | 6,002 | PHQ-9; SDS; HADS; SCL-90; HAMD; PHQ-2 | 38 (29–46) | COVID-19 severity | Combined prevalence for patients clinically stable was 31% (7–55, 95% CI) while combined prevalence for severe patients was 66% (16–117, 95% CI). Combined prevalence for discharged patients was 52% (25–79, 95% CI) | Low | |
| Liu et al., 2021 [ | 20 | 3,834 | PHQ-9; HADS-D; SDS; BDI; SCL-90; DASS-21 | 38 (25–51) | Sex | Combined prevalence was higher in female (46%, 95% CI 32–60) than in male patients (32%, 95% CI 17–47) | Moderate | |
| Country | Compared to other Countries (e.g., China, India, South Korea, Iran, Ecuador, Jordan; Turkey), Italy showed the lowest pooled prevalence of depression 11% (6–18, 95% CI) | |||||||
| Study design | Single-arm cohort studies showed higher pooled prevalence of depression 88% (44–100, 95% CI) | |||||||
| Severity of depressive symptoms | The pooled prevalence of mild depression (29%, 95% CI 24–34) was higher than both that of moderate depression 17% (11–22, 95% CI) and severe depression 10% (2–20, 95% CI) | |||||||
| Disease stage | The pooled prevalence of depression among undergoing COVID-19 patients (42%, 95% CI 29–56) was higher than that in those who were in the recovery stage (14%, 95% CI 0–48) | |||||||
| Deng et al., 2020 [ | 23 | 4028 | PHQ-9; SDS; HADS-D; SCL-90 | 45 (37–54) | Sex | Combined prevalence was higher in female (50%, 95% CI 38–62) than in male patients (39%, 95% CI 26–53) | High | |
| Country | Compared to other countries (e.g., China, Ecuador, Iran), Italy registers the lowest rate of depression in COVID-19 infected people, with a pooled prevalence of 38% (29–47, 95% CI) | |||||||
| Hospitalization | The pooled prevalence of depression for inpatients was 48% (35–61, 95% CI) while the pooled prevalence of depression for outpatients was 35% (22–48, 95% CI) | |||||||
| Severity of depressive symptoms | The pooled prevalence of mild depression was 33% (26–39, 95% CI), for moderate depression was 14% (11–16, 95% CI), and for severe depression was 7% (4–10, 95% CI) | |||||||
| Study design | The pooled prevalence of depression for cohort-studies was 74% (62–83, 95% CI) was significantly higher than the pooled prevalence of cross-sectional studies 44% (36–53, 95% CI) | |||||||
| Screening Tools | Studies that used HADS-D and SCL-90 showed lower prevalence of depression (respectively 20% and 19%), on the contrary studies that used PHQ-9 and ZSDS show higher prevalence (respectively 52% and 53%) | |||||||
| Wu et al., 2021 [ | 4 | 480 | WHO-5; BDI-II; CES-D; DASS-21 | 42 (26–58) | Target population | Compared to quarantined persons, general population, students, physician and nurses, non-medical staff, COVID-19 patients show the greatest pooled prevalence of depressive symptoms, that is 42% (26–58, 95% CI) | Moderate | |
| Khraisat et al., 2021 [ | 20 | 7994 | Validated Questionnaire | 21 (16–28) | NA | NA | Low |
AMSTAR Assessment of multiple systematic reviews, BDI Beck Depression Inventory, CES-D Center for Epidemiology Scale for Depression, CI confidence interval, COVID Coronavirus Disease 2019, DASS-21 Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale-21, HADS Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, HAMD Hamilton Depression Scale, NA not available, PHQ-9 Patient Health Questionnaire, SCL-90 Symptoms Checklist Revised-90, SDS Self-Rating Depression Scale, WHO-5 WHO-Five Well-Being Index
Characteristics of the included studies in the revision
| Original study | Sample size | Age in years | Males, % | Time of depressive symptoms assessment | Time of inflammatory marker assessment | Diagnostic tool for depressive symptoms | Inflammatory markers | Findings | Modified Newcastle Ottawa Scale |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ahmed et al., 2021 [ | 182 | > 18 | 46 | Six months’ follow-up | Hospital admission | SCL90 depression subscale | WBC, LYM, NEU, MON, PLT, NLR, CRP, and ferritin | NEU, PLT, and NLR were not significantly associated with SCL90 subscale for depression score | Low risk of bias |
| Benedetti et al., 2021 [ | 42 | > 18 | 67 | Three months’ follow-up | Emergency department admission | ZSDS | CRP and SII | SII measured in the emergency department, significantly predicted worse self-rated depressive symptoms ( | Low risk of bias |
| Garcia et al., 2021 [ | 27 | > 60 | 70 | Acute COVID-19 | During hospitalization | GSD | IL-6, IL-1β, and TNF-α | No significant correlation between IL-6, IL-1β, and TNF-α and GDS scale scores was found | High risk of bias |
| Gonzales et al., 2022 [ | 1851 | > 18 | 59 | Acute COVID-19 | Hospital admission | Clinical interview according to ICD-10 criteria | IL-6 and CRP | IL-6 serum levels were significantly higher in the group of patients with depressive symptoms than in patients without, even after adjusting for several confounders (114 ± 225 pg/mL vs. 86 ± 202 pg/mL, | Low risk of bias |
| Guo et al., 2020 [ | 103 | > 18 | 57 | Acute COVID-19 | At hospitalization admission and ± three days of fulfilling the on-line survey | PHQ-9 | WBC, LYM, NEU, MON, PLT, CRP, and ESR | Levels of CRP correlated positively with the PHQ-9 total score of patients who presented symptoms of depression ( | Low risk of bias |
| He et al., 2021 [ | 77 | > 18 | 49 | Acute COVID-19 | During hospitalization | PHQ-9 | IL-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-10, TNF-α, IFN, CD3+T, CD4+T, CD8+T, CD4+/CD8+, WBC, LYM, NEU, PLT, ESR, and HS-CRP | Patients with moderate depressive symptoms had higher CD8+counts [27.6 (24.4–32.2) vs. 21.9 (16.1–27.5)] and lower CD4+/CD8+ratios [1.6 (1.2–1.9) vs. 2.2 (1.7–2.9)] than patients with non-moderate depressive symptoms ( | High risk of bias |
| Hu et al., 2020 [ | 70 | > 18 | 51 | Acute COVID-19 | During hospitalization within 1 week of the date on which the questionnaire was completed | PHQ-9 | IL-1β, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, TNF-α, CRP, WBC, LYM, NEU, and NLR | PHQ-9 score for depression was significantly related to the level of IL-1β (r=0.50, p<0.001) and to NLR (r=0.36, p<0.01). A multivariate regression model showed that result showed that sex ( | Low risk of bias |
| Al-Jassas., 2022 [ | 60 | 25–59 | 100 | Acute COVID-19 | During hospitalization | HDRS | CRP, IL-6, and IL-10 | The HDRS scores showed positive significant associations with CRP ( | Low risk of bias |
| Huarcaya‐Victoria et al., 2021 [ | 318 | > 18 | 61 | Three months’ follow-up | At the beginning of hospitalization | PHQ-9 | NLR and MLR | NLR was significantly higher in patients with clinically relevant symptoms of depression (11.4, 95% CI 8.8–14.1 vs. 8.52, 95% CI 7.62–9.42; | Low risk of bias |
| Kahve et al., 2021 [ | 175 | > 18 | 61 | Acute COVID-19 | The day of hospitalization or the next day | BDI | ESR, CRP, NLR, IL-6, and ferritin | No significant relationship was found between ferritin, ERS, CRP, IL-6, NLR levels and depressive symptoms severity | Low risk of bias |
| Li et al., 2021 [ | 66 | > 17 | 42 | Acute COVID-19 | During hospitalization | ZSDS | WBC, LYM, NEU, and NLR | NEU (2.91, 95% CI 2.36–3.44 109/L vs. 3.34, 95% CI 3.22–4.69 109/L; | High risk of bias |
| Mazza et al., 2020 [ | 402 | > 18 | 66 | One month’s follow-up | Emergency department admission | ZSDS | CRP, NLR, MLR, and SII | SII, which reflects the immune response and systemic inflammation based on peripheral lymphocyte, neutrophil, and platelet counts, positively associated with scores of depressive symptoms at follow-up ( | Low risk of bias |
| Mazza et al., 2021 [ | 226 | > 18 | 66 | Three months’ follow-up | Emergency department admission | ZSDS | CRP, NLR, MLR, and SII | SII predicted self-rated depressive symptomatology at 3 months’ follow-up (χ2=42.417, p<0.001); and changes of SII predicted changes of depression during follow-up (Wald = 6.881, | Low risk of bias |
| Wu et al., 2021 [ | 57 | > 18 | 35 | Acute COVID-19 | During hospitalization | PHQ-9 | INF-γ, TNF, IL-10, IL-5, IL-4, IL-2, CD3+, CD4+, CD8+, and CD4+/CD8+ | The counts of CD4+T lymphocytes and CD4/CD8 significantly correlated with the PHQ-9 scores ( | Low risk of bias |
| Yuan et al., 2020 [ | 96 | > 18 | 50 | One week after negative virus test | During hospitalization | ZSDS | WBC, NEU, LYM, MON, NLR, HS-CRP, and IL-6 | The results suggested that patients with self-reported depression exhibited increased immune response, as indicated by increased WBC (6.0 ± 1.5 109/L vs. 6.7 ± 1.5 109/L; | Low risk of bias |
| Zhou et al., 2021 [ | 65 | > 21 | 48 | Acute COVID-19 | During hospitalization | ZSDS | LYM and IL-6 | There was significant statistically lower LYM in the patients with relevant depressive symptoms when compared to patients without (1.43 vs. 1.79, | Low risk of bias |
BDI Beck's Depression Inventory, CD Cluster of Differentiation, COVID Coronavirus Disease 2019, CRP C-reactive protein, ESR erythrocyte sedimentation rate, HDRS Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, ICD International Classification of Diseases, IFN interferon, IL interleukin, LYM lymphocyte, MLR monocyte/lymphocyte ratio, MON monocyte, NEU neutrophil, NLR neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, PHQ-9 Patient Health Questionnaire-9, PLT platelet, SII Systemic Immune-Inflammatory Index, TNF tumor necrosis factor, WBC white blood cell count, ZSDS Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale
| Post-COVID-19 depressive symptoms have been reported in around 35% of patients at short, medium, and long-term follow-up after infection. |
| The psychopathological mechanisms of post-COVID-19 depressive symptoms are mainly related to the peripheral immune-inflammatory response triggered by the viral infection. |
| Conventional antidepressants have proved to be effective in treating post-COVID-19 depression. |