Cited by 1,484COVID-19 and Mental HealthLong-Term Effects of COVID-19COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies

Bidirectional associations between COVID-19 and psychiatric disorder: retrospective cohort studies of 62 354 COVID-19 cases in the USA.

Open access
Taquet, Maxime, Luciano, Sierra, Geddes, John R, Harrison, Paul J·2021·The Lancet Psychiatry

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Adverse mental health consequences of COVID-19, including anxiety and depression, have been widely predicted but not yet accurately measured. There are a range of physical health risk factors for COVID-19, but it is not known if there are also psychiatric risk factors. In this electronic health record network cohort study using data from 69 million individuals, 62 354 of whom had a diagnosis of COVID-19, we assessed whether a diagnosis of COVID-19 (compared with other health events) was associated with increased rates of subsequent psychiatric diagnoses, and whether patients with a history of psychiatric illness are at a higher risk of being diagnosed with COVID-19. METHODS: We used the TriNetX Analytics Network, a global federated network that captures anonymised data from electronic health records in 54 health-care organisations in the USA, totalling 69·8 million patients. TriNetX included 62 354 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between Jan 20, and Aug 1, 2020. We created cohorts of patients who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 or a range of other health events. We used propensity score matching to control for confounding by risk factors for COVID-19 and for severity of illness. We measured the incidence of and hazard ratios (HRs) for psychiatric disorders, dementia, and insomnia, during the first 14 to 90 days after a diagnosis of COVID-19. FINDINGS: In patients with no previous psychiatric history, a diagnosis of COVID-19 was associated with increased incidence of a first psychiatric diagnosis in the following 14 to 90 days compared with six other health events (HR 2·1, 95% CI 1·8-2·5 vs influenza; 1·7, 1·5-1·9 vs other respiratory tract infections; 1·6, 1·4-1·9 vs skin infection; 1·6, 1·3-1·9 vs cholelithiasis; 2·2, 1·9-2·6 vs urolithiasis, and 2·1, 1·9-2·5 vs fracture of a large bone; all p<0·0001). The HR was greatest for anxiety disorders, insomnia, and dementia. We observed similar findings, although with smaller HRs, when relapses and new diagnoses were measured. The incidence of any psychiatric diagnosis in the 14 to 90 days after COVID-19 diagnosis was 18·1% (95% CI 17·6-18·6), including 5·8% (5·2-6·4) that were a first diagnosis. The incidence of a first diagnosis of dementia in the 14 to 90 days after COVID-19 diagnosis was 1·6% (95% CI 1·2-2·1) in people older than 65 years. A psychiatric diagnosis in the previous year was associated with a higher incidence of COVID-19 diagnosis (relative risk 1·65, 95% CI 1·59-1·71; p<0·0001). This risk was independent of known physical health risk factors for COVID-19, but we cannot exclude possible residual confounding by socioeconomic factors. INTERPRETATION: Survivors of COVID-19 appear to be at increased risk of psychiatric sequelae, and a psychiatric diagnosis might be an independent risk factor for COVID-19. Although preliminary, our findings have implications for clinical services, and prospective cohort studies are warranted. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30462-4

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Taquet, M., Luciano, S., Geddes, J. R., & Harrison, P. J.
Affiliations
  • Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • TriNetX (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Harrison, Paul J
Venue
The Lancet Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-02
Volume
8
Issue
2
Pages
130-140
ISSN
2215-0366 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3095092064
Cited by
1,484
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 90 · 2024: 173 · 2023: 280 · 2022: 402 · 2021: 484 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 1
FWCI
118.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2021-01-01)
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health Research
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › COVID-19 and Mental Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Long-Term Effects of COVID-19
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Keywords
COVID-19 pandemic, mental illness, anxiety disorders, depression, dementia, insomnia, bidirectional relationship, psychiatric risk factors, COVID-19 risk factors, electronic health records, TriNetX, influenza, respiratory infections, urolithiasis, gallstones, fracture, relapse, hazard ratio, propensity score matching
MeSH terms
COVID-19, Adult, Aged, Mental Disorders, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, United States, Comorbidity, Incidence, Electronic Health Records

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review