The patient experience of COVID-19: A qualitative investigation with symptomatic outpatients

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an acute respiratory illness characterised by a range of symptoms. Severe cases of COVID-19 could lead to hospitalisation and intensive care unit admission. However, little is known about the symptomatic experience of outpatients with COVID-19, or its daily life impact; the objective of this qualitative research was to document this experience. Methods: Thirty US adult patients with COVID-19 were interviewed within 21 days of diagnosis. To be included, patients had to self-report one of the following: fever, cough, shortness of breath/difficulty breathing, change/loss of taste/smell, vomiting/diarrhoea or body/muscle aches. Patients were asked open-ended questions to elicit their symptoms and the impacts COVID-19 had on their daily lives. Interviews were transcribed and inductively coded to perform thematic analysis and propose a conceptual model. The adequacy of the sample size was assessed by conceptual saturation analysis. Five independent clinicians were also interviewed about their experience treating outpatients with COVID-19. Findings: Patient-reported concepts were organised into six symptom themes (upper respiratory, lower respiratory, systemic, gastrointestinal, smell and taste, and other) and seven impact themes (activities of daily living, broad daily activities, leisure/social activities, physical impacts, emotional impacts, professional impacts and quarantine-specific impacts). Symptom type, severity, duration and time of onset varied greatly by patient. Clinicians endorsed all symptoms reported by patients. Interpretation: The manifestation of symptoms in outpatient COVID-19 is heterogeneous and affects all aspects of daily life. While reported symptoms were in line with previously published reports, patients offered new detailed insights into their symptomatic experiences and the impacts that symptoms had on their daily lives. Future studies should explore the symptoms and impacts of COVID-19 longitudinally, to better understand their early onset, their progression/resolution and the possible long-term implications of COVID-19. Funding: This research was sponsored and paid for by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

The effectiveness of inhaled Cannabis flower for the treatment of agitation/irritability, anxiety, and common stress

Background An observational research design was used to evaluate which types of commonly labeled Cannabis flower product characteristics are associated with changes in momentary feelings of distress-related symptoms. Methods We used data from 2306 patient-directed cannabis administration sessions among 670 people who used the real-time Cannabis effects recording software, Releaf App, between June 6, 2016, and February 23, 2019, for tracking the effects of Cannabis flower consumption. Fixed effects multivariable panel regression techniques were used to establish overall relief by symptom type and to determine which labeled product characteristics (e.g., subspecies/subtype, inhalation method, and major cannabinoid contents) showed the strongest correlation with changes in momentary feelings of agitation/irritability, anxiety, and stress, along with experienced side effects. Results In total, a decrease in symptom intensity levels was reported in 95.51% of Cannabis usage sessions, an increase in 2.32% of sessions, and no change in 2.16% of sessions. Fixed effects models showed, on average, respondents recorded a maximum symptom intensity reduction of 4.33 points for agitation/irritability (SE = 0.20, p < 0.01), 3.47 points for anxiety (SE = 0.13, p < 0.01), and 3.98 for stress (SE = 0.12, p < 0.01) on an 11-point visual analog scale. Fixed effects regressions showed that, controlling for time-invariant user characteristics, mid and high tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) levels were the primary independent predictor of increased symptom relief, and that when broken out by symptom type, this effect was only statistically significant for our largest sample of users, those reporting anxiety rather than agitation/irritability or stress. Cannabidiol (CBD) levels were generally not associated with changes in symptom intensity levels. In a minority of cannabis use sessions (< 13%), cannabis users reported anxiogenic-related negative side effects (e.g., feeling anxious, irritable, paranoid, rapid pulse, or restless), whereas in a majority of sessions (about 66%), users reported positive anxiolytic side effects (e.g., feeling chill, comfy, happy, optimistic, peaceful, or relaxed). Conclusions The findings suggest the majority of patients in our sample experienced relief from distress-related symptoms following consumption of Cannabis flower, and that among product characteristics, higher THC levels were the strongest predictors of relief.

Performance of patients with different schizophrenia subtypes on the Synthetic House–Tree–Person Test

We explored differences in performance on the Synthetic House–Tree–Person Test between people with mainly positive symptoms and those with mainly negative symptoms of schizophrenia and, further, aimed to provide a basis for the diagnosis of schizophrenia symptom type. Participants were 58 people receiving treatment for schizophrenia, and we asked them to complete the Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms, the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms, and the Synthetic House–Tree–Person Test. There were significant differences in results on the Synthetic House–Tree–Person Test between the group with positive symptoms, the group with a mix of positive and negative symptoms, and the group with negative symptoms. There were 12 features of participants' drawings, such as big hands, which were correlated with hallucinations and delusions in positive symptoms, and 9 features, such as trees in a landscape, which were correlated with avolition and anhedonia in negative symptoms. Our study results suggest differences in performance on the Synthetic House–Tree–Person Test between these different symptom subtypes of schizophrenia; hence, the features that appear in drawings made during the test may contribute to the diagnosis of symptoms of people with schizophrenia.

Gastrointestinal Effects of Exogenous Ketone Drinks are Infrequent, Mild, and Vary According to Ketone Compound and Dose

Exogenous ketone drinks may improve athletic performance and recovery, but information on their gastrointestinal tolerability is limited. Studies to date have used a simplistic reporting methodology that inadequately represents symptom type, frequency, and severity. Herein, gastrointestinal symptoms were recorded during three studies of exogenous ketone monoester (KME) and salt (KS) drinks. Study 1 compared low- and high-dose KME and KS drinks consumed at rest. Study 2 compared KME with isocaloric carbohydrate (CHO) consumed at rest either when fasted or after a standard meal. Study 3 compared KME+CHO with isocaloric CHO consumed before and during 3.25 hr of bicycle exercise. Participants reported symptom type and rated severity between 0 and 8 using a Likert scale at regular intervals. The number of visits with no symptoms reported after ketone drinks was n = 32/60 in Study 1, n = 9/32 in Study 2, and n = 20/42 in Study 3. Following KME and KS drinks, symptoms were acute but mild and were fully resolved by the end of the study. High-dose KS drinks caused greater total-visit symptom load than low-dose KS drinks (13.8 ± 4.3 vs. 2.0 ± 1.0; p < .05) and significantly greater time-point symptom load than KME drinks 1–2 hr postdrink. At rest, KME drinks caused greater total-visit symptom load than CHO drinks (5.0 ± 1.6 vs. 0.6 ± 0.4; p < .05). However, during exercise, there was no significant difference in total-visit symptom load between KME+CHO (4.2 ± 1.0) and CHO (7.2 ± 1.9) drinks. In summary, exogenous ketone drinks cause mild gastrointestinal symptoms that depend on time, the type and amount of compound consumed, and exercise.

Adherence to guidelines in management of symptoms suggestive of heart failure in primary care

ObjectiveClinical guidelines on heart failure (HF) suggest timings for investigation and referral in primary care. We calculated the time for patients to achieve key elements in the recommended pathway to diagnosis of HF.MethodsIn this observational study, we used linked primary and secondary care data (Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a database of anonymised electronic records from UK general practices) between 2010 and 2013. Records were examined for presenting symptoms (breathlessness, fatigue, ankle swelling) and key elements of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-recommended pathway to diagnosis (serum natriuretic peptide (NP) test, echocardiography, specialist referral).Results42 403 patients were diagnosed with HF, of whom 16 597 presented in primary care with suggestive symptoms. 6464 (39%) had recorded NP or echocardiography, and 6043 (36%) specialist referral. Median time from recorded symptom(s) to investigation (NP or echocardiography) was 292 days (IQR 34–844) and to referral 236 days (IQR 42–721). Median time from symptom(s) to diagnosis was 972 days (IQR 337–1468) and to treatment with HF-relevant medication 803 days (IQR 230–1364). Factors significantly affecting timing of referral, treatment and diagnosis included patients’ sex (p=0.001), age (p<0.001), deprivation score (p=0.001), comorbidities (p<0.001) and presenting symptom type (p<0.001).ConclusionsMedian times to investigation or referral of patients presenting in primary care with symptoms suggestive of HF considerably exceeded recommendations. There is a need to support clinicians in the diagnosis of HF in primary care, with improved access to investigation and specialist assessment to support timely management.