Physical activity, low-grade inflammation, and psychological responses to the COVID-19 pandemic among older adults in England

Mental health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic have been widely studied, but less is known about the potentially protective role of physical activity (PA) and the impact of low-grade inflammation. Using a sample of older adults from England, this study tested (1) if pre-pandemic PA and its changes during the pandemic were associated with mental health responses; (2) if older adults with low-grade inflammation experienced greater increases in depression and anxiety, compared to pre-pandemic levels; (3) if PA attenuated the association between inflammation and depression/anxiety. The study used data from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing, a cohort study following a national sample aged 50+. Information on mental health and PA were collected before the pandemic (2016/17 and 2018/19) and during November and December 2020. Inflammation was ascertained using pre-pandemic C-reactive protein (CRP). Analyses were adjusted for sociodemographic and health-related factors and pre-pandemic mental health. Increasing PA from before to during the pandemic was linked to reduced odds of depression (OR = 0.955, 95%CI [0.937, 0.974]) and anxiety (OR = 0.954, 95%CI [0.927; 0.982]). Higher pre-pandemic PA was associated with reduced odds of depression (OR = 0.964, 95%CI [0.948, 0.981]) and anxiety (OR = 0.976, 95%CI [0.953, 1.000]), whereas elevated CRP was associated with 1.343 times higher odds of depression (95%CI [1.100, 1.641]). PA did not attenuate the inflammation-depression association. The findings suggest that PA may contribute to psychological resilience among older adults, independently of inflammation. Further research is needed to explore the psychobiological pathways underlying this protective mechanism.


Inference criteria
The s-value can be interpreted as evidence against the null hypothesis expressed as the number of heads in a fair coin toss (s = -log2p).To illustrate, s = 4 means that, assuming the true effect is null, observing the given test statistic or a more extreme test statistic would be as likely as obtaining four heads in a row in a fair coin toss.Unlike p-values, s-values scale more intuitively, with larger s-values providing more evidence against the null hypothesis [5].
95% confidence intervals for ORs were interpreted as compatibility intervals as described by Amrhein et al. [6].Therefore, we considered effects included in a confidence interval as highly compatible with our data under a given statistical model.The confidence interval widths were used to assess the precision of OR point estimates [7].
Sensitivity power analyses were conducted in G*Power v3.1.9.6 [8].MDE is the smallest effect that could be reliably detected with a given sample size and power [9].Power was set to 0.8.
MDEs were compared to the estimated effect sizes.If other metrics found little evidence for an effect, we assessed if effects smaller than MDEs would be theoretically meaningful.Required model parameters were obtained from the data and the imputed models.MDEs could only be obtained for the main effects, as the methods implemented in G*Power are not appropriate for logistic regression with interactions [10].

Supplement 2: Sensitivity analyses
Firstly, the effect sizes and their confidence intervals from complete-case analyses were comparable to the pooled estimates from imputed datasets, suggesting a low risk of bias from imputing the data (Supplementary Table 6).However, the effect of pre-pandemic PA on anxiety was imprecise, with confidence interval not consistent in one direction of association.Secondly, additional adjustment for self-rated weight provided results similar to the main analyses (Supplementary Table 7).Thirdly, sensitivity analyses using continuous outcome scores also found a pattern consistent with the main analyses (Supplementary Table 8).Fourth, weighted analyses using Wave 9 measures of PA found slightly stronger associations between prepandemic PA and depression/anxiety (Supplementary Table 9).Fifth, the main results remained similar to those obtained from analyses that followed the pre-registration protocol (Supplementary Table 10).Lastly, we found comparable effects when recoding PA and its changes into binary variables indicating moderate-to-vigorous PA engagement at least once a week (Supplementary Table 11).

4/20
Supplementary Fig. 1: Participant Flowchart Note.The analytic sample included participants who (1) attended the nurse visit at Wave 8 or Wave 9 of ELSA, (2) did not have a history of blood fits or convulsions (thus were eligible to provide a blood sample), (3) had levels of CRP <10 mg/L.

5/20
Supplementary Fig. 2: Measures Flowchart Note.Due to financial reasons, only some participants were offered the nurse visit at ELSA Wave 8, with the rest of the participants providing blood samples at Wave 9 instead.Consequently, baseline measures for each participant were extracted from either Wave 8 or Wave 9, as appropriate.CES-D 8 = Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale; GAD-7: Generalised Anxiety Disorder scale.
† Used for imputation purposes only.

6/20
Supplementary Fig. 3  Running a completer analysis could lead to selection bias.We decided to extend our imputations to address attrition (see below).Therefore, participants were only required to attend the nurse visit at baseline.

Imputations
• Imputed missing data for completers.

•
MICE used 20 imputed datasets and iterations.

•
Imputed missing outcome values for those lost to attrition as well.

•
Increased the number of imputations and iterations to 30.

•
Included previously identified drivers of attrition in the imputation models (housing tenure, occupation, selfreported health, working status, selfrated memory) The reason was to reduce selection bias due to attrition.Numbers of imputations and iterations were increased due to a larger proportion of missing data in the outcome variable (27.2%).The original baseline for PA was set at W9, reflecting PA levels immediately prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.However, this could introduce inconsistencies in the timing of confounders and exposures.CRP was assessed at W8 for some participants and at W9 for others.To maintain consistency across the models, we decided to define the baseline as W8/W9 for all variables, respectively.
• Use PAW11 as the exposure and derive the effects of change in PA using adjustment for PAW8/W9 Between the conception and finalisation of this project, change scores have been scrutinised in various contexts [11][12][13].We have decided to follow the approach outlined by Katsoulis et al. [12], so that the change-in-exposure estimand has a clearer interpretation.

Baseline confounders
The baseline was set to either W8 or W9, depending on the participant.We added a wave indicator to account for the different baselines used for each participant.Adjusting for the presence of a limiting illness at baseline might lead to overadjustment bias, as it could be situated on the causal pathway between CRP, PA, and mental health.

Covariates with unclear role (confounders or mediators)
• Run sensitivity analyses adjusting for baseline (W9) smoking status, alcohol consumption, and selfrated weight.

•
Adjust the main analyses for having a positive COVID-19 test result.
• Adjust the main analyses for smoking status, alcohol consumption, and limiting longstanding illness measured immediately prior to the exposure value (W7/W8).

•
Run a sensitivity analysis adjusting for self-rated weight at baseline (W8/W9) Adjusting for past levels of confounders prevents overadjustment bias, as past confounders cannot be retroactively affected by future exposure levels.However, W7 and W8 offered different adiposity measures.Therefore, we conducted a sensitivity analysis that adjusted for self-rated weight at baseline.The outcome was common (>10%), so ORs can overestimate the relative risk and may become difficult to interpret.For this reason, we assessed if RRs yielded similar results.Computing MDEs for interaction terms accurately would require more complex methods, such as power simulations.

Sensitivity analyses
• Rerun using the unimputed dataset,

•
Rerun with binary coding of PA.

•
Rerun with linear regression.

•
Rerun with additional adjustment for self-rated weight, smoking, and alcohol consumption.

•
Rerun with binary coding of PA.

•
Rerun with linear regression.

•
Rerun with additional adjustment for self-rated weight.

•
Rerun the main analyses exactly as pre-registered.
For amendments relating to the additional confounder adjustment, see the section on confounders.The additional sensitivity analysis using weights examined physical activity levels immediately before the pandemic and addressed selection bias (attending the nurse visit, population representativeness of the ELSA sample).

W8/W9
Participants were asked about their occupation.These categories were then collapsed using the NS-SEC 3 category classification as part of the ELSA project.Descriptive statistics were obtained from complete-case and multiply imputed datasets.Two imputation models were used to estimate the missing data values depending on the substantive (analytical model).Model 1 included pre-pandemic physical activity, whilst Model 2 used changes in PA from before to during the pandemic.Both imputation models additionally included all other variables and interaction terms used in the main analytical models and auxiliary variables accounting for missingness.The descriptive statistics were averaged over 30 imputed datasets generated per imputation model.IQR = interquartile range; NI = not imputed; SD = standard deviation.† Listed for continuous variables with skewness or kurtosis ³1.4), and interactions between inflammation and physical activity as indicated (Model 3 and 5).Odds ratios, standard errors, and p-values were obtained from logistic regression models.Risk ratios were approximated using Poisson regression with a sandwich variance estimator.The models were adjusted for pre-pandemic mental health (depression or anxiety depending on the outcome), sex, age, ethnicity, education, partnership status, household wealth, having a limiting longstanding illness, smoking status, and alcohol consumption.Effects of PA changes were estimated using coefficients of pandemic PA adjusted for pre-pandemic PA and the outlined confounders.CI = confidence interval;

12/20
LGI = low-grade inflammation; OR = adjusted odds ratio; PA = physical activity; RR = risk ratio, s = Shannon information value (surprisal value); SE = standard error.Note.The models show associations between clinically significant depressive or anxiety symptoms during the pandemic (November-December 2020) and pre-pandemic low-grade inflammation (2016/17 or 2018/2019; Model 1), pre-pandemic physical activity engagement (2016/17 or 2018/2019; Model 2), changes in physical activity from before to during the pandemic (Model 4), and interactions between inflammation and physical activity as indicated (Model 3 and 5).The results were pooled from 30 imputed datasets (sample N = 5,829).Odds ratios, standard errors, and p-values were obtained from logistic regression models.Risk ratios were approximated using modified Poisson regression with a sandwich variance estimator.The models were adjusted for pre-pandemic mental health (depression or anxiety depending on the outcome), sex, age, ethnicity, education, partnership status, household wealth, having a limiting longstanding illness, smoking status, alcohol consumption, and self-rated weight.Effects of PA changes were estimated using coefficients of pandemic PA adjusted for pre-pandemic PA and the outlined confounders.CI = confidence interval; LGI = low-grade inflammation; OR = adjusted odds ratio; PA = physical activity; RR = risk ratio, s = Shannon information value (surprisal value); SE = standard error.

16/20
Supplementary The models show associations between clinically significant depressive or anxiety symptoms during the pandemic (November-December 2020) and pre-pandemic low-grade inflammation (2016/17 or 2018/2019; Model 1), pre-pandemic physical activity engagement (2016/17 or 2018/2019; Model 2), changes in physical activity from before to during the pandemic (Model 4), and interactions between inflammation and physical activity as indicated (Model 3 and 5).The results were pooled from 30 imputed datasets (sample N = 5,829).Odds ratios, standard errors, and p-values were obtained from logistic regression models.Risk ratios were approximated using modified Poisson regression with a sandwich variance estimator.D = change (from pre-pandemic to pandemic levels), CI = confidence interval; LGI = low-grade inflammation; OR = adjusted odds ratio; PA = physical activity; RR = risk ratio; s = Shannon information value (surprisal value); SE = standard error.

:
Physical activity engagement before and during the COVID-19 pandemic Note.The figure shows self-reported engagement in three intensities of physical activity: mild, moderate, and vigorous.Participants indicated how often they engaged in each of the three intensities, with response options including 'hardly ever, or never', 'once to three times a week', 'once a week', and 'more than once a week'.Pre-pandemic physical activity was obtained from Wave 8 (2016/17) and Wave 9 (2018/19) of ELSA depending on each participant, whereas pandemic data were acquired at Wave 2 of the COVID-19 sub-study (Nov-Dec 2020).PA = physical activity.

Table 2 : Overview of the covariates
[14]x variable derived using over 20 components measured in ELSA, including investments and savings, housing, and debt.See Marmot et al.[14]for details.Tertiles (obtained separately for W8 and W9)Health-relatedLimiting longstanding illness W7/W8Answering yes to both of the following: 1. "Do you have any longstanding illness, disability or infirmity?By longstanding, I mean anything that has troubled you over a period of time." 2. "Does this illness or disability limit your activities in any way?"How often a participant reported having a drink in the past 12 months ('not at all in the last 12 months', 'once or twice a year', 'once every couple of months', 'once or twice a month', 'once or twice a week', 'three or four days a week', 'five or six days a week', 'almost every day').Treated as continuous in the regression models (0-7), reported collapsed categories for descriptive purposes.Participants were asked "Given your age and height, would you say that you are: about the right weight / too heavy / too light" About the right weight / Too heavy / Too light

Table 9 : Results of weighted adjusted logistic regression models using W9 PA measures (sensitivity analysis)
Note.The models show associations between clinically significant depressive or anxiety symptoms during the pandemic (November-December 2020) and pre-pandemic physical activity engagement (2018/2019; Model 2) and changes in physical activity from before to during the pandemic (Model 4).The models were weighted to the population of interest at Wave 9 using longitudinal W9-COVID-19 W2 survey weights and the results were pooled from 30 imputed datasets (sample N = 5,378).Odds ratios, standard errors, and p-values were obtained from logistic regression models.Risk ratios were approximated using modified Poisson regression with a sandwich variance estimator.The models were adjusted for pre-pandemic mental health (depression or anxiety depending on the outcome), sex, age, ethnicity, education, partnership status, household wealth, having a limiting longstanding illness, smoking status, and alcohol consumption.Effects of PA changes were estimated using coefficients of pandemic PA adjusted for pre-pandemic PA and the outlined confounders.