User login
Paxlovid Lowers Risk of COVID-19 Hospitalization, Study Finds
This medicine has been approved for use in the United States for people over 12 years old who are at risk of having a severe COVID-19 infection.
The study was published in the Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy.
Study authors examined the health records of almost 45,000 outpatients who tested positive for COVID-19 from January to August 2022. This sample period was when the Omicron strain was dominant.
The average patient age was 47. Sixty-two percent were White, 24% were Black, 6% were Hispanic, and 8% had an unknown ethnicity. A slight majority, 51%, had received two or more vaccine doses before the study period.
From the study group, 201 people were hospitalized within 28 days of their positive COVID test.
Almost 5,000 people in the study group received Paxlovid. The use of Paxlovid was the best indicator of avoiding hospitalization, with three of those people being hospitalized.
“Patients who were treated with Paxlovid were twice as likely to have received at least two doses of COVID-19 vaccine,” the University of Minnesota’s CIDRAP reported. “They were also more likely to be 70 years or older.”
People taking Paxlovid were more likely to be White and to live in middle- or upper-income areas.
“COVID-19 hospitalization risk was reduced by 84% among [Paxlovid] recipients in a large, diverse healthcare system during the Omicron wave,” the study’s authors wrote. “These results suggest that [Paxlovid] remained highly effective in a setting substantially different than the original clinical trials.”
A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.
This medicine has been approved for use in the United States for people over 12 years old who are at risk of having a severe COVID-19 infection.
The study was published in the Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy.
Study authors examined the health records of almost 45,000 outpatients who tested positive for COVID-19 from January to August 2022. This sample period was when the Omicron strain was dominant.
The average patient age was 47. Sixty-two percent were White, 24% were Black, 6% were Hispanic, and 8% had an unknown ethnicity. A slight majority, 51%, had received two or more vaccine doses before the study period.
From the study group, 201 people were hospitalized within 28 days of their positive COVID test.
Almost 5,000 people in the study group received Paxlovid. The use of Paxlovid was the best indicator of avoiding hospitalization, with three of those people being hospitalized.
“Patients who were treated with Paxlovid were twice as likely to have received at least two doses of COVID-19 vaccine,” the University of Minnesota’s CIDRAP reported. “They were also more likely to be 70 years or older.”
People taking Paxlovid were more likely to be White and to live in middle- or upper-income areas.
“COVID-19 hospitalization risk was reduced by 84% among [Paxlovid] recipients in a large, diverse healthcare system during the Omicron wave,” the study’s authors wrote. “These results suggest that [Paxlovid] remained highly effective in a setting substantially different than the original clinical trials.”
A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.
This medicine has been approved for use in the United States for people over 12 years old who are at risk of having a severe COVID-19 infection.
The study was published in the Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy.
Study authors examined the health records of almost 45,000 outpatients who tested positive for COVID-19 from January to August 2022. This sample period was when the Omicron strain was dominant.
The average patient age was 47. Sixty-two percent were White, 24% were Black, 6% were Hispanic, and 8% had an unknown ethnicity. A slight majority, 51%, had received two or more vaccine doses before the study period.
From the study group, 201 people were hospitalized within 28 days of their positive COVID test.
Almost 5,000 people in the study group received Paxlovid. The use of Paxlovid was the best indicator of avoiding hospitalization, with three of those people being hospitalized.
“Patients who were treated with Paxlovid were twice as likely to have received at least two doses of COVID-19 vaccine,” the University of Minnesota’s CIDRAP reported. “They were also more likely to be 70 years or older.”
People taking Paxlovid were more likely to be White and to live in middle- or upper-income areas.
“COVID-19 hospitalization risk was reduced by 84% among [Paxlovid] recipients in a large, diverse healthcare system during the Omicron wave,” the study’s authors wrote. “These results suggest that [Paxlovid] remained highly effective in a setting substantially different than the original clinical trials.”
A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.
Federal program offers free COVID, flu at-home tests, treatments
The U.S. government has expanded a program offering free COVID-19 and flu tests and treatment.
The Home Test to Treat program is virtual and offers at-home rapid tests, telehealth sessions, and at-home treatments to people nationwide. The program is a collaboration among the National Institutes of Health, the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, and the CDC. It began as a pilot program in some locations this year.
“With its expansion, the Home Test to Treat program will now offer free testing, telehealth and treatment for both COVID-19 and for influenza (flu) A and B,” the NIH said in a press release. “It is the first public health program that includes home testing technology at such a scale for both COVID-19 and flu.”
The news release says that anyone 18 or over with a current positive test for COVID-19 or flu can get free telehealth care and medicine delivered to their home.
Adults who don’t have COVID-19 or the flu can get free tests if they are uninsured or are enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, the Veterans Affairs health care system, or Indian Health Services. If they test positive later, they can get free telehealth care and, if prescribed, treatment.
“I think that these [telehealth] delivery mechanisms are going to be absolutely crucial to unburden the in-person offices and the lines that we have and wait times,” said Michael Mina, MD, chief science officer at eMed, the company that helped implement the new Home Test to Treat program, to ABC News.
ABC notes that COVID tests can also be ordered at covidtests.gov – four tests per household or eight for those who have yet to order any this fall.
A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com .
The U.S. government has expanded a program offering free COVID-19 and flu tests and treatment.
The Home Test to Treat program is virtual and offers at-home rapid tests, telehealth sessions, and at-home treatments to people nationwide. The program is a collaboration among the National Institutes of Health, the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, and the CDC. It began as a pilot program in some locations this year.
“With its expansion, the Home Test to Treat program will now offer free testing, telehealth and treatment for both COVID-19 and for influenza (flu) A and B,” the NIH said in a press release. “It is the first public health program that includes home testing technology at such a scale for both COVID-19 and flu.”
The news release says that anyone 18 or over with a current positive test for COVID-19 or flu can get free telehealth care and medicine delivered to their home.
Adults who don’t have COVID-19 or the flu can get free tests if they are uninsured or are enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, the Veterans Affairs health care system, or Indian Health Services. If they test positive later, they can get free telehealth care and, if prescribed, treatment.
“I think that these [telehealth] delivery mechanisms are going to be absolutely crucial to unburden the in-person offices and the lines that we have and wait times,” said Michael Mina, MD, chief science officer at eMed, the company that helped implement the new Home Test to Treat program, to ABC News.
ABC notes that COVID tests can also be ordered at covidtests.gov – four tests per household or eight for those who have yet to order any this fall.
A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com .
The U.S. government has expanded a program offering free COVID-19 and flu tests and treatment.
The Home Test to Treat program is virtual and offers at-home rapid tests, telehealth sessions, and at-home treatments to people nationwide. The program is a collaboration among the National Institutes of Health, the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, and the CDC. It began as a pilot program in some locations this year.
“With its expansion, the Home Test to Treat program will now offer free testing, telehealth and treatment for both COVID-19 and for influenza (flu) A and B,” the NIH said in a press release. “It is the first public health program that includes home testing technology at such a scale for both COVID-19 and flu.”
The news release says that anyone 18 or over with a current positive test for COVID-19 or flu can get free telehealth care and medicine delivered to their home.
Adults who don’t have COVID-19 or the flu can get free tests if they are uninsured or are enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, the Veterans Affairs health care system, or Indian Health Services. If they test positive later, they can get free telehealth care and, if prescribed, treatment.
“I think that these [telehealth] delivery mechanisms are going to be absolutely crucial to unburden the in-person offices and the lines that we have and wait times,” said Michael Mina, MD, chief science officer at eMed, the company that helped implement the new Home Test to Treat program, to ABC News.
ABC notes that COVID tests can also be ordered at covidtests.gov – four tests per household or eight for those who have yet to order any this fall.
A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com .
U.S. infant mortality rates rise for first time in 2 decades
The overall mortality rate and the rate for neonatal infants, those younger than 28 days old, rose by 3% from 2021 to 2022, says the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics. The mortality rate for infants older than 28 days rose by 4%.
Meanwhile, infant deaths caused by maternal complications rose by 8% and those caused by bacterial sepsis rose by 14%, the report says.
“We live in a country with significant resources, so the infant mortality rate and the increase are shockingly high,” wrote Sandy Chung, MD, of the American Academy of Pediatrics, to CNN. “As pediatricians who help children grow into healthy adults, any death of any child is one too many. The infant mortality rate in this country in unacceptable.”
Experts say the increase could be a sign of an underlying health care issue, an unusual occurrence, or partly related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The infant mortality rate rose among mothers aged 25-29 years; for preterm babies; for boys; and in Georgia, Iowa, Missouri, and Texas. The rate declined in Nevada.
“Mortality rates increased significantly among infants of American Indian and Alaska Native non-Hispanic ... and White non-Hispanic women,” the report says.
“Mortality rates for infants of Black women did not increase by much, the report found, but Black infants experienced the highest overall rates of infant mortality: nearly 11 deaths per 1,000 births, or over double the mortality rate of White infants,” CNN wrote.
“We know that for people who live in or near poverty and for certain racial and ethnic groups there are significant challenges with getting access to a doctor or getting treatments,” Dr. Chung wrote. “This can lead to moms and babies showing up for care when they are sicker and more likely have serious outcomes, even death.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The overall mortality rate and the rate for neonatal infants, those younger than 28 days old, rose by 3% from 2021 to 2022, says the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics. The mortality rate for infants older than 28 days rose by 4%.
Meanwhile, infant deaths caused by maternal complications rose by 8% and those caused by bacterial sepsis rose by 14%, the report says.
“We live in a country with significant resources, so the infant mortality rate and the increase are shockingly high,” wrote Sandy Chung, MD, of the American Academy of Pediatrics, to CNN. “As pediatricians who help children grow into healthy adults, any death of any child is one too many. The infant mortality rate in this country in unacceptable.”
Experts say the increase could be a sign of an underlying health care issue, an unusual occurrence, or partly related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The infant mortality rate rose among mothers aged 25-29 years; for preterm babies; for boys; and in Georgia, Iowa, Missouri, and Texas. The rate declined in Nevada.
“Mortality rates increased significantly among infants of American Indian and Alaska Native non-Hispanic ... and White non-Hispanic women,” the report says.
“Mortality rates for infants of Black women did not increase by much, the report found, but Black infants experienced the highest overall rates of infant mortality: nearly 11 deaths per 1,000 births, or over double the mortality rate of White infants,” CNN wrote.
“We know that for people who live in or near poverty and for certain racial and ethnic groups there are significant challenges with getting access to a doctor or getting treatments,” Dr. Chung wrote. “This can lead to moms and babies showing up for care when they are sicker and more likely have serious outcomes, even death.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The overall mortality rate and the rate for neonatal infants, those younger than 28 days old, rose by 3% from 2021 to 2022, says the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics. The mortality rate for infants older than 28 days rose by 4%.
Meanwhile, infant deaths caused by maternal complications rose by 8% and those caused by bacterial sepsis rose by 14%, the report says.
“We live in a country with significant resources, so the infant mortality rate and the increase are shockingly high,” wrote Sandy Chung, MD, of the American Academy of Pediatrics, to CNN. “As pediatricians who help children grow into healthy adults, any death of any child is one too many. The infant mortality rate in this country in unacceptable.”
Experts say the increase could be a sign of an underlying health care issue, an unusual occurrence, or partly related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The infant mortality rate rose among mothers aged 25-29 years; for preterm babies; for boys; and in Georgia, Iowa, Missouri, and Texas. The rate declined in Nevada.
“Mortality rates increased significantly among infants of American Indian and Alaska Native non-Hispanic ... and White non-Hispanic women,” the report says.
“Mortality rates for infants of Black women did not increase by much, the report found, but Black infants experienced the highest overall rates of infant mortality: nearly 11 deaths per 1,000 births, or over double the mortality rate of White infants,” CNN wrote.
“We know that for people who live in or near poverty and for certain racial and ethnic groups there are significant challenges with getting access to a doctor or getting treatments,” Dr. Chung wrote. “This can lead to moms and babies showing up for care when they are sicker and more likely have serious outcomes, even death.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Study: Unexpected vaginal bleeding rises after COVID vaccination
The researchers suggested it could have been connected to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in the vaccines. The study was published in Science Advances.
After vaccinations became widely available, many women reported heavier menstrual bleeding than normal. Researchers at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health in Oslo examined the data, particularly among women who do not have periods, such as those who have been through menopause or are taking contraceptives.
The researchers used an ongoing population health survey called the Norwegian Mother, Father, and Child Cohort Study, Nature reported. They examined more than 21,000 responses from postmenopausal, perimenopausal, and nonmenstruating premenopausal women. Some were on long-term hormonal contraceptives.
They learned that 252 postmenopausal women, 1,008 perimenopausal women, and 924 premenopausal women reported having unexpected vaginal bleeding.
About half said the bleeding occurred within 4 weeks of the first or second shot or both. The risk of bleeding was up three to five times for premenopausal and perimenopausal women, and two to three times for postmenopausal women, the researchers found.
Postmenopausal bleeding is usually serious and can be a sign of cancer. “Knowing a patient’s vaccination status could put their bleeding incidence into context,” said Kate Clancy, a biological anthropologist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
The study received funding through the Norwegian Institute of Public Health and Research Council of Norway. The researchers reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The researchers suggested it could have been connected to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in the vaccines. The study was published in Science Advances.
After vaccinations became widely available, many women reported heavier menstrual bleeding than normal. Researchers at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health in Oslo examined the data, particularly among women who do not have periods, such as those who have been through menopause or are taking contraceptives.
The researchers used an ongoing population health survey called the Norwegian Mother, Father, and Child Cohort Study, Nature reported. They examined more than 21,000 responses from postmenopausal, perimenopausal, and nonmenstruating premenopausal women. Some were on long-term hormonal contraceptives.
They learned that 252 postmenopausal women, 1,008 perimenopausal women, and 924 premenopausal women reported having unexpected vaginal bleeding.
About half said the bleeding occurred within 4 weeks of the first or second shot or both. The risk of bleeding was up three to five times for premenopausal and perimenopausal women, and two to three times for postmenopausal women, the researchers found.
Postmenopausal bleeding is usually serious and can be a sign of cancer. “Knowing a patient’s vaccination status could put their bleeding incidence into context,” said Kate Clancy, a biological anthropologist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
The study received funding through the Norwegian Institute of Public Health and Research Council of Norway. The researchers reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The researchers suggested it could have been connected to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in the vaccines. The study was published in Science Advances.
After vaccinations became widely available, many women reported heavier menstrual bleeding than normal. Researchers at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health in Oslo examined the data, particularly among women who do not have periods, such as those who have been through menopause or are taking contraceptives.
The researchers used an ongoing population health survey called the Norwegian Mother, Father, and Child Cohort Study, Nature reported. They examined more than 21,000 responses from postmenopausal, perimenopausal, and nonmenstruating premenopausal women. Some were on long-term hormonal contraceptives.
They learned that 252 postmenopausal women, 1,008 perimenopausal women, and 924 premenopausal women reported having unexpected vaginal bleeding.
About half said the bleeding occurred within 4 weeks of the first or second shot or both. The risk of bleeding was up three to five times for premenopausal and perimenopausal women, and two to three times for postmenopausal women, the researchers found.
Postmenopausal bleeding is usually serious and can be a sign of cancer. “Knowing a patient’s vaccination status could put their bleeding incidence into context,” said Kate Clancy, a biological anthropologist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
The study received funding through the Norwegian Institute of Public Health and Research Council of Norway. The researchers reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM SCIENCE ADVANCES
New Moderna vaccine to work against recent COVID variant
“The company said its shot generated an 8.7-fold increase in neutralizing antibodies in humans against BA.2.86, which is being tracked by the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,” Reuters reported.
“We think this is news people will want to hear as they prepare to go out and get their fall boosters,” Jacqueline Miller, Moderna head of infectious diseases, told the news agency.
The CDC said that the BA.2.86 variant might be more likely to infect people who have already had COVID or previous vaccinations. BA.2.86 is an Omicron variant. It has undergone more mutations than XBB.1.5, which has dominated most of this year and was the intended target of the updated shots.
BA.2.86 does not have a strong presence in the United States yet. However, officials are concerned about its high number of mutations, NBC News reported.
The FDA is expected to approve the new Moderna shot by early October.
Pfizer told NBC that its updated booster also generated a strong antibody response against Omicron variants, including BA.2.86.
COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations have been increasing in the U.S. because of the rise of several variants.
Experts told Reuters that BA.2.86 probably won’t cause a wave of severe disease and death because immunity has been built up around the world through previous infections and mass vaccinations.
A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.
“The company said its shot generated an 8.7-fold increase in neutralizing antibodies in humans against BA.2.86, which is being tracked by the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,” Reuters reported.
“We think this is news people will want to hear as they prepare to go out and get their fall boosters,” Jacqueline Miller, Moderna head of infectious diseases, told the news agency.
The CDC said that the BA.2.86 variant might be more likely to infect people who have already had COVID or previous vaccinations. BA.2.86 is an Omicron variant. It has undergone more mutations than XBB.1.5, which has dominated most of this year and was the intended target of the updated shots.
BA.2.86 does not have a strong presence in the United States yet. However, officials are concerned about its high number of mutations, NBC News reported.
The FDA is expected to approve the new Moderna shot by early October.
Pfizer told NBC that its updated booster also generated a strong antibody response against Omicron variants, including BA.2.86.
COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations have been increasing in the U.S. because of the rise of several variants.
Experts told Reuters that BA.2.86 probably won’t cause a wave of severe disease and death because immunity has been built up around the world through previous infections and mass vaccinations.
A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.
“The company said its shot generated an 8.7-fold increase in neutralizing antibodies in humans against BA.2.86, which is being tracked by the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,” Reuters reported.
“We think this is news people will want to hear as they prepare to go out and get their fall boosters,” Jacqueline Miller, Moderna head of infectious diseases, told the news agency.
The CDC said that the BA.2.86 variant might be more likely to infect people who have already had COVID or previous vaccinations. BA.2.86 is an Omicron variant. It has undergone more mutations than XBB.1.5, which has dominated most of this year and was the intended target of the updated shots.
BA.2.86 does not have a strong presence in the United States yet. However, officials are concerned about its high number of mutations, NBC News reported.
The FDA is expected to approve the new Moderna shot by early October.
Pfizer told NBC that its updated booster also generated a strong antibody response against Omicron variants, including BA.2.86.
COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations have been increasing in the U.S. because of the rise of several variants.
Experts told Reuters that BA.2.86 probably won’t cause a wave of severe disease and death because immunity has been built up around the world through previous infections and mass vaccinations.
A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.
Number of people with long COVID could be vastly underestimated
It’s been estimated that up to one-third of people who survive acute SARS-CoV-2 infection will suffer a post-viral syndrome with lingering neurologic and other symptoms – now known as long COVID or neurological postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (Neuro-PASC).
However, Researchers found a significant proportion of patients in their small study who had never tested positive for COVID-19 but who were having symptoms of long COVID nevertheless showed evidence of immune responses consistent with previous exposure.
“We estimate that millions of people got COVID in the U.S. during the first year of the pandemic and then developed long COVID, yet they did not get a positive COVID diagnosis because of testing limitations,” Igor J. Koralnik, MD, of Northwestern Medicine Comprehensive COVID-19 Center in Chicago, said in an interview.
He noted that many post-COVID-19 clinics in the United States don’t accept people with long COVID symptoms who do not have a positive test result.
Patients with long COVID symptoms but without laboratory evidence of prior infection, “who have often been rejected and stigmatized, should feel vindicated by the results of our study,” Dr. Koralnik said.
“We think that those patients deserve the same clinical care as those with a positive test, as well as inclusion in research studies. This is what we are doing at Northwestern Medicine’s Comprehensive COVID[-19] Center,” Dr. Koralnik added.
The study was published online in the journal Neurology: Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation.
Delayed care
The researchers measured SARS-CoV-2-specific humoral and cell-mediated immune responses against nucleocapsid protein and spike proteins, which indicate a prior COVID-19 infection, in 29 patients with post-viral syndrome after suspected COVID-19, including neurologic symptoms such as cognitive impairment, headache, and fatigue, but who did not have a confirmed positive COVID-19 test.
They did the same in 32 age- and sex-matched COVID long haulers with confirmed Neuro-PASC and 18 healthy controls with none of the symptoms of long COVID and no known exposure to SARS-CoV-2 or positive test result.
They found that 12 of the 29 patients (41%) with post-viral syndrome (but no positive COVID-19 test) had detectable humoral and cellular immune responses consistent with prior exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Three-quarters harbored antinucleocapsid and 50% harbored antispike responses.
“Our data suggest that at least 4 million people with post-viral syndrome similar to long COVID may indeed have detectable immune responses to support a COVID diagnosis,” Dr. Koralnik said in a news release.
The 12 patients with post-viral syndrome but without a confirmed COVID-19 test had neurologic symptoms similar to those of patients with confirmed Neuro-PASC.
However, lack of a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis likely contributed to the 5-month delay in the median time from symptom onset to clinic visit, the researchers said. They were evaluated at a median of 10.7 months vs. 5.4 months for Neuro-PASC patients.
Dr. Koralnik said in an interview that the “most important take-home message” of the study is that patients with post-viral syndrome often present with clinical manifestations similar to those of confirmed patients with Neuro-PASC, suggesting that a positive result by commercially available SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test should not be a prerequisite for accessing care.
Patients with post-viral syndrome may benefit from the same clinical care as confirmed patients with Neuro-PASC, and the absence of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test should not preclude or delay treatment, he added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com .
This article was updated 8/28/23.
It’s been estimated that up to one-third of people who survive acute SARS-CoV-2 infection will suffer a post-viral syndrome with lingering neurologic and other symptoms – now known as long COVID or neurological postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (Neuro-PASC).
However, Researchers found a significant proportion of patients in their small study who had never tested positive for COVID-19 but who were having symptoms of long COVID nevertheless showed evidence of immune responses consistent with previous exposure.
“We estimate that millions of people got COVID in the U.S. during the first year of the pandemic and then developed long COVID, yet they did not get a positive COVID diagnosis because of testing limitations,” Igor J. Koralnik, MD, of Northwestern Medicine Comprehensive COVID-19 Center in Chicago, said in an interview.
He noted that many post-COVID-19 clinics in the United States don’t accept people with long COVID symptoms who do not have a positive test result.
Patients with long COVID symptoms but without laboratory evidence of prior infection, “who have often been rejected and stigmatized, should feel vindicated by the results of our study,” Dr. Koralnik said.
“We think that those patients deserve the same clinical care as those with a positive test, as well as inclusion in research studies. This is what we are doing at Northwestern Medicine’s Comprehensive COVID[-19] Center,” Dr. Koralnik added.
The study was published online in the journal Neurology: Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation.
Delayed care
The researchers measured SARS-CoV-2-specific humoral and cell-mediated immune responses against nucleocapsid protein and spike proteins, which indicate a prior COVID-19 infection, in 29 patients with post-viral syndrome after suspected COVID-19, including neurologic symptoms such as cognitive impairment, headache, and fatigue, but who did not have a confirmed positive COVID-19 test.
They did the same in 32 age- and sex-matched COVID long haulers with confirmed Neuro-PASC and 18 healthy controls with none of the symptoms of long COVID and no known exposure to SARS-CoV-2 or positive test result.
They found that 12 of the 29 patients (41%) with post-viral syndrome (but no positive COVID-19 test) had detectable humoral and cellular immune responses consistent with prior exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Three-quarters harbored antinucleocapsid and 50% harbored antispike responses.
“Our data suggest that at least 4 million people with post-viral syndrome similar to long COVID may indeed have detectable immune responses to support a COVID diagnosis,” Dr. Koralnik said in a news release.
The 12 patients with post-viral syndrome but without a confirmed COVID-19 test had neurologic symptoms similar to those of patients with confirmed Neuro-PASC.
However, lack of a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis likely contributed to the 5-month delay in the median time from symptom onset to clinic visit, the researchers said. They were evaluated at a median of 10.7 months vs. 5.4 months for Neuro-PASC patients.
Dr. Koralnik said in an interview that the “most important take-home message” of the study is that patients with post-viral syndrome often present with clinical manifestations similar to those of confirmed patients with Neuro-PASC, suggesting that a positive result by commercially available SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test should not be a prerequisite for accessing care.
Patients with post-viral syndrome may benefit from the same clinical care as confirmed patients with Neuro-PASC, and the absence of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test should not preclude or delay treatment, he added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com .
This article was updated 8/28/23.
It’s been estimated that up to one-third of people who survive acute SARS-CoV-2 infection will suffer a post-viral syndrome with lingering neurologic and other symptoms – now known as long COVID or neurological postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (Neuro-PASC).
However, Researchers found a significant proportion of patients in their small study who had never tested positive for COVID-19 but who were having symptoms of long COVID nevertheless showed evidence of immune responses consistent with previous exposure.
“We estimate that millions of people got COVID in the U.S. during the first year of the pandemic and then developed long COVID, yet they did not get a positive COVID diagnosis because of testing limitations,” Igor J. Koralnik, MD, of Northwestern Medicine Comprehensive COVID-19 Center in Chicago, said in an interview.
He noted that many post-COVID-19 clinics in the United States don’t accept people with long COVID symptoms who do not have a positive test result.
Patients with long COVID symptoms but without laboratory evidence of prior infection, “who have often been rejected and stigmatized, should feel vindicated by the results of our study,” Dr. Koralnik said.
“We think that those patients deserve the same clinical care as those with a positive test, as well as inclusion in research studies. This is what we are doing at Northwestern Medicine’s Comprehensive COVID[-19] Center,” Dr. Koralnik added.
The study was published online in the journal Neurology: Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation.
Delayed care
The researchers measured SARS-CoV-2-specific humoral and cell-mediated immune responses against nucleocapsid protein and spike proteins, which indicate a prior COVID-19 infection, in 29 patients with post-viral syndrome after suspected COVID-19, including neurologic symptoms such as cognitive impairment, headache, and fatigue, but who did not have a confirmed positive COVID-19 test.
They did the same in 32 age- and sex-matched COVID long haulers with confirmed Neuro-PASC and 18 healthy controls with none of the symptoms of long COVID and no known exposure to SARS-CoV-2 or positive test result.
They found that 12 of the 29 patients (41%) with post-viral syndrome (but no positive COVID-19 test) had detectable humoral and cellular immune responses consistent with prior exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Three-quarters harbored antinucleocapsid and 50% harbored antispike responses.
“Our data suggest that at least 4 million people with post-viral syndrome similar to long COVID may indeed have detectable immune responses to support a COVID diagnosis,” Dr. Koralnik said in a news release.
The 12 patients with post-viral syndrome but without a confirmed COVID-19 test had neurologic symptoms similar to those of patients with confirmed Neuro-PASC.
However, lack of a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis likely contributed to the 5-month delay in the median time from symptom onset to clinic visit, the researchers said. They were evaluated at a median of 10.7 months vs. 5.4 months for Neuro-PASC patients.
Dr. Koralnik said in an interview that the “most important take-home message” of the study is that patients with post-viral syndrome often present with clinical manifestations similar to those of confirmed patients with Neuro-PASC, suggesting that a positive result by commercially available SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test should not be a prerequisite for accessing care.
Patients with post-viral syndrome may benefit from the same clinical care as confirmed patients with Neuro-PASC, and the absence of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test should not preclude or delay treatment, he added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com .
This article was updated 8/28/23.
FROM NEUROLOGY, NEUROIMMUNOLOGY & NEUROINFLAMMATION
Long COVID leads to greater health risks, research finds
That is the finding of a new study from Washington University in St. Louis. The school distributed a press release about the study, which was published in the journal Nature Medicine.
“Some estimates show more than 90% of the U.S. population has been infected with COVID-19,” Ziyad Al-Aly, chief of research and development at Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System and clinical epidemiologist at Washington University, told the St. Louis Post–Dispatch. “Doctors need to realize that their patients could be at risk of these conditions, be it heart disease or lung problems or brain problems – they’re at risk.”
The researchers compared the health records for 138,000 patients who had been infected with those of 6 million who had not. They followed 80 health conditions associated with long COVID for 2 years. They used unnamed records from the VA.
“There was really nothing at all looking at what happens to people at two years after the infection,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “So we decided to take a look.”
Patients who hadn’t been hospitalized within 30 days of infection had a higher risk of death 6 months after recovery, and a higher risk of hospitalization within 18 months. They had higher risk of diabetes, fatigue, joint pain, and other problems compared with people who had not been infected.
“In the nonhospitalized group, risks remained elevated for several problems, for several organ systems,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “For the people who were hospitalized, the risk was ubiquitous across all organ systems. It really spans the gamut with respect to the organ systems that are affected.”
People who had been hospitalized had a 65% greater risk of illnesses after 2 years. Nonhospitalized patients had just a 35% greater risk.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
That is the finding of a new study from Washington University in St. Louis. The school distributed a press release about the study, which was published in the journal Nature Medicine.
“Some estimates show more than 90% of the U.S. population has been infected with COVID-19,” Ziyad Al-Aly, chief of research and development at Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System and clinical epidemiologist at Washington University, told the St. Louis Post–Dispatch. “Doctors need to realize that their patients could be at risk of these conditions, be it heart disease or lung problems or brain problems – they’re at risk.”
The researchers compared the health records for 138,000 patients who had been infected with those of 6 million who had not. They followed 80 health conditions associated with long COVID for 2 years. They used unnamed records from the VA.
“There was really nothing at all looking at what happens to people at two years after the infection,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “So we decided to take a look.”
Patients who hadn’t been hospitalized within 30 days of infection had a higher risk of death 6 months after recovery, and a higher risk of hospitalization within 18 months. They had higher risk of diabetes, fatigue, joint pain, and other problems compared with people who had not been infected.
“In the nonhospitalized group, risks remained elevated for several problems, for several organ systems,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “For the people who were hospitalized, the risk was ubiquitous across all organ systems. It really spans the gamut with respect to the organ systems that are affected.”
People who had been hospitalized had a 65% greater risk of illnesses after 2 years. Nonhospitalized patients had just a 35% greater risk.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
That is the finding of a new study from Washington University in St. Louis. The school distributed a press release about the study, which was published in the journal Nature Medicine.
“Some estimates show more than 90% of the U.S. population has been infected with COVID-19,” Ziyad Al-Aly, chief of research and development at Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System and clinical epidemiologist at Washington University, told the St. Louis Post–Dispatch. “Doctors need to realize that their patients could be at risk of these conditions, be it heart disease or lung problems or brain problems – they’re at risk.”
The researchers compared the health records for 138,000 patients who had been infected with those of 6 million who had not. They followed 80 health conditions associated with long COVID for 2 years. They used unnamed records from the VA.
“There was really nothing at all looking at what happens to people at two years after the infection,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “So we decided to take a look.”
Patients who hadn’t been hospitalized within 30 days of infection had a higher risk of death 6 months after recovery, and a higher risk of hospitalization within 18 months. They had higher risk of diabetes, fatigue, joint pain, and other problems compared with people who had not been infected.
“In the nonhospitalized group, risks remained elevated for several problems, for several organ systems,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “For the people who were hospitalized, the risk was ubiquitous across all organ systems. It really spans the gamut with respect to the organ systems that are affected.”
People who had been hospitalized had a 65% greater risk of illnesses after 2 years. Nonhospitalized patients had just a 35% greater risk.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM NATURE MEDICINE
Can this common herb help grow hair?
If you’re looking to grow hair, you might just have a solution in your kitchen cabinet – if TikTok and some dermatologists are correct.
The herb might also protect hair from the sun, pollution, and other environmental elements, according to an article in Insider.
The study published in Skinmed found that rosemary oil was similar to the effectiveness of minoxidil for regrowing hair in men with androgenetic alopecia. The scalp was also less itchy after 3-6 months of use.
The study included only men.
Still, dermatologist Shilpi Khetarpal, MD, told the Cleveland Clinic that it seems to work.
“The study really prompted people to look at rosemary oil for hair growth,” she said. “It became much more common in over-the-counter products after that, too.”
The Cleveland Clinic also reports that rosemary oil might help against dandruff and premature graying.
Dr. Khetarpal suggested massaging rosemary oil into the scalp, letting it soak overnight, and then washing it out. This should be done two or three times a week.
She also noted that only a few drops of rosemary oil are needed, and that the focus should be on the scalp rather than the hair, which rosemary oil makes look greasy.
It may take 6 months for “meaningful improvement,” Dr. Khetarpal said.
Meanwhile, TikTok users love hyping the oil’s hair care qualities. On the social media platform, videos with the hashtag #rosemaryoil have been viewed more than 2 billion times.
A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.
If you’re looking to grow hair, you might just have a solution in your kitchen cabinet – if TikTok and some dermatologists are correct.
The herb might also protect hair from the sun, pollution, and other environmental elements, according to an article in Insider.
The study published in Skinmed found that rosemary oil was similar to the effectiveness of minoxidil for regrowing hair in men with androgenetic alopecia. The scalp was also less itchy after 3-6 months of use.
The study included only men.
Still, dermatologist Shilpi Khetarpal, MD, told the Cleveland Clinic that it seems to work.
“The study really prompted people to look at rosemary oil for hair growth,” she said. “It became much more common in over-the-counter products after that, too.”
The Cleveland Clinic also reports that rosemary oil might help against dandruff and premature graying.
Dr. Khetarpal suggested massaging rosemary oil into the scalp, letting it soak overnight, and then washing it out. This should be done two or three times a week.
She also noted that only a few drops of rosemary oil are needed, and that the focus should be on the scalp rather than the hair, which rosemary oil makes look greasy.
It may take 6 months for “meaningful improvement,” Dr. Khetarpal said.
Meanwhile, TikTok users love hyping the oil’s hair care qualities. On the social media platform, videos with the hashtag #rosemaryoil have been viewed more than 2 billion times.
A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.
If you’re looking to grow hair, you might just have a solution in your kitchen cabinet – if TikTok and some dermatologists are correct.
The herb might also protect hair from the sun, pollution, and other environmental elements, according to an article in Insider.
The study published in Skinmed found that rosemary oil was similar to the effectiveness of minoxidil for regrowing hair in men with androgenetic alopecia. The scalp was also less itchy after 3-6 months of use.
The study included only men.
Still, dermatologist Shilpi Khetarpal, MD, told the Cleveland Clinic that it seems to work.
“The study really prompted people to look at rosemary oil for hair growth,” she said. “It became much more common in over-the-counter products after that, too.”
The Cleveland Clinic also reports that rosemary oil might help against dandruff and premature graying.
Dr. Khetarpal suggested massaging rosemary oil into the scalp, letting it soak overnight, and then washing it out. This should be done two or three times a week.
She also noted that only a few drops of rosemary oil are needed, and that the focus should be on the scalp rather than the hair, which rosemary oil makes look greasy.
It may take 6 months for “meaningful improvement,” Dr. Khetarpal said.
Meanwhile, TikTok users love hyping the oil’s hair care qualities. On the social media platform, videos with the hashtag #rosemaryoil have been viewed more than 2 billion times.
A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.
Increasing number of children being poisoned by liquid nicotine
Doctors say a 2016 law aimed at lowering the risk contained a big flaw, NBC News reported. The Child Nicotine Poisoning Prevention Act required child-resistant packaging on vaping liquid – but not on the vaping devices themselves.
Contact with the vaping liquid, or liquid nicotine, can cause children to get dizzy, pass out, and suffer drops in blood pressure. A few drops of the liquid can be fatal for a toddler.
Last year, 6,731 cases of vaping-related nicotine exposure were reported, according to Poison Help. “As of June 30, 2023, poison centers have managed 3,863 exposure cases about e-cigarette devices and liquid nicotine,” the organization said.
“Poison centers began receiving calls about e-cigarettes and liquid nicotine products in 2011, which coincides with the initial period where these products reached the U.S. market,” according to Poison Help.
“These products often contain a greater concentration of nicotine, a stimulant, than other nicotine/tobacco products on the market. Some children and toddlers who come in contact with e-cigarette devices or liquid nicotine have become very ill; some even requiring emergency department visits with nausea and vomiting being the most significant symptoms.”
Toxicologist Ryan Marino, MD, told NBC that refillable vapes are designed to hold liquid nicotine in a central reservoir, making them dangerous to children.
“Even vapes that appear more child-resistant – because their nicotine is sealed inside a removable cartridge – present a risk, because the cartridges can be pried open,” NBC said. “And some disposable e-cigarettes, now the top-selling type on the market, allow users to take thousands of ‘puffs’ and contain as much nicotine as multiple packs of cigarettes.”
A spokesperson for the vaping industry said all e-liquid bottles made in this country conform to U.S. law.
“Not only are the caps child-resistant, but the flow of liquid is restricted so that only small amounts can be dispensed,” said April Meyers of the Smoke-Free Alternatives Trade Association, which represents the vaping industry.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Doctors say a 2016 law aimed at lowering the risk contained a big flaw, NBC News reported. The Child Nicotine Poisoning Prevention Act required child-resistant packaging on vaping liquid – but not on the vaping devices themselves.
Contact with the vaping liquid, or liquid nicotine, can cause children to get dizzy, pass out, and suffer drops in blood pressure. A few drops of the liquid can be fatal for a toddler.
Last year, 6,731 cases of vaping-related nicotine exposure were reported, according to Poison Help. “As of June 30, 2023, poison centers have managed 3,863 exposure cases about e-cigarette devices and liquid nicotine,” the organization said.
“Poison centers began receiving calls about e-cigarettes and liquid nicotine products in 2011, which coincides with the initial period where these products reached the U.S. market,” according to Poison Help.
“These products often contain a greater concentration of nicotine, a stimulant, than other nicotine/tobacco products on the market. Some children and toddlers who come in contact with e-cigarette devices or liquid nicotine have become very ill; some even requiring emergency department visits with nausea and vomiting being the most significant symptoms.”
Toxicologist Ryan Marino, MD, told NBC that refillable vapes are designed to hold liquid nicotine in a central reservoir, making them dangerous to children.
“Even vapes that appear more child-resistant – because their nicotine is sealed inside a removable cartridge – present a risk, because the cartridges can be pried open,” NBC said. “And some disposable e-cigarettes, now the top-selling type on the market, allow users to take thousands of ‘puffs’ and contain as much nicotine as multiple packs of cigarettes.”
A spokesperson for the vaping industry said all e-liquid bottles made in this country conform to U.S. law.
“Not only are the caps child-resistant, but the flow of liquid is restricted so that only small amounts can be dispensed,” said April Meyers of the Smoke-Free Alternatives Trade Association, which represents the vaping industry.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Doctors say a 2016 law aimed at lowering the risk contained a big flaw, NBC News reported. The Child Nicotine Poisoning Prevention Act required child-resistant packaging on vaping liquid – but not on the vaping devices themselves.
Contact with the vaping liquid, or liquid nicotine, can cause children to get dizzy, pass out, and suffer drops in blood pressure. A few drops of the liquid can be fatal for a toddler.
Last year, 6,731 cases of vaping-related nicotine exposure were reported, according to Poison Help. “As of June 30, 2023, poison centers have managed 3,863 exposure cases about e-cigarette devices and liquid nicotine,” the organization said.
“Poison centers began receiving calls about e-cigarettes and liquid nicotine products in 2011, which coincides with the initial period where these products reached the U.S. market,” according to Poison Help.
“These products often contain a greater concentration of nicotine, a stimulant, than other nicotine/tobacco products on the market. Some children and toddlers who come in contact with e-cigarette devices or liquid nicotine have become very ill; some even requiring emergency department visits with nausea and vomiting being the most significant symptoms.”
Toxicologist Ryan Marino, MD, told NBC that refillable vapes are designed to hold liquid nicotine in a central reservoir, making them dangerous to children.
“Even vapes that appear more child-resistant – because their nicotine is sealed inside a removable cartridge – present a risk, because the cartridges can be pried open,” NBC said. “And some disposable e-cigarettes, now the top-selling type on the market, allow users to take thousands of ‘puffs’ and contain as much nicotine as multiple packs of cigarettes.”
A spokesperson for the vaping industry said all e-liquid bottles made in this country conform to U.S. law.
“Not only are the caps child-resistant, but the flow of liquid is restricted so that only small amounts can be dispensed,” said April Meyers of the Smoke-Free Alternatives Trade Association, which represents the vaping industry.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Research casts doubt on value of daily aspirin for healthy adults
Daily use of low-dose aspirin offers no significant protection against stroke and was linked to a higher rate of bleeding in the brain, according to new research published in JAMA.
The research matches other evidence advising that healthy older adults without a history of heart conditions or warning signs of stroke should not take low-dose aspirin.
The findings also support the recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force that low-dose aspirin should not be prescribed for preventing a first heart attack or stroke in healthy older adults, The New York Times reported.
“We can be very emphatic that healthy people who are not on aspirin and do not have multiple risk factors should not be starting it now,” said Randall Stafford, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, who was not involved in the study, in the Times.
It’s not as clear for others, he said.
“The longer you’ve been on aspirin and the more risk factors you have for heart attacks and strokes, the murkier it gets,” he said.
Some cardiac and stroke experts say daily aspirin should remain part of the regimen for people who have had a heart attack or stroke.
The JAMA report was based on data from a randomized control trial of 19,000 people from Australia and America. Participants were over the age of 70 and did not have heart disease.
The data covered an average of almost 4.7 years and revealed that aspirin lowered the rate of ischemic stroke but not significantly. An ischemic stroke happens when a clot forms in a blood vessel that sends blood to the brain.
There was also a 38% higher rate of brain bleeds for people who took aspirin daily, compared with those who took a placebo.
The Times wrote, “In the past, some doctors regarded aspirin as something of a wonder drug, capable of protecting healthy patients against a future heart attack or stroke. But recent studies have shown that the powerful drug has limited protective power among people who have not yet had such an event, and it comes with dangerous side effects.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Daily use of low-dose aspirin offers no significant protection against stroke and was linked to a higher rate of bleeding in the brain, according to new research published in JAMA.
The research matches other evidence advising that healthy older adults without a history of heart conditions or warning signs of stroke should not take low-dose aspirin.
The findings also support the recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force that low-dose aspirin should not be prescribed for preventing a first heart attack or stroke in healthy older adults, The New York Times reported.
“We can be very emphatic that healthy people who are not on aspirin and do not have multiple risk factors should not be starting it now,” said Randall Stafford, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, who was not involved in the study, in the Times.
It’s not as clear for others, he said.
“The longer you’ve been on aspirin and the more risk factors you have for heart attacks and strokes, the murkier it gets,” he said.
Some cardiac and stroke experts say daily aspirin should remain part of the regimen for people who have had a heart attack or stroke.
The JAMA report was based on data from a randomized control trial of 19,000 people from Australia and America. Participants were over the age of 70 and did not have heart disease.
The data covered an average of almost 4.7 years and revealed that aspirin lowered the rate of ischemic stroke but not significantly. An ischemic stroke happens when a clot forms in a blood vessel that sends blood to the brain.
There was also a 38% higher rate of brain bleeds for people who took aspirin daily, compared with those who took a placebo.
The Times wrote, “In the past, some doctors regarded aspirin as something of a wonder drug, capable of protecting healthy patients against a future heart attack or stroke. But recent studies have shown that the powerful drug has limited protective power among people who have not yet had such an event, and it comes with dangerous side effects.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Daily use of low-dose aspirin offers no significant protection against stroke and was linked to a higher rate of bleeding in the brain, according to new research published in JAMA.
The research matches other evidence advising that healthy older adults without a history of heart conditions or warning signs of stroke should not take low-dose aspirin.
The findings also support the recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force that low-dose aspirin should not be prescribed for preventing a first heart attack or stroke in healthy older adults, The New York Times reported.
“We can be very emphatic that healthy people who are not on aspirin and do not have multiple risk factors should not be starting it now,” said Randall Stafford, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, who was not involved in the study, in the Times.
It’s not as clear for others, he said.
“The longer you’ve been on aspirin and the more risk factors you have for heart attacks and strokes, the murkier it gets,” he said.
Some cardiac and stroke experts say daily aspirin should remain part of the regimen for people who have had a heart attack or stroke.
The JAMA report was based on data from a randomized control trial of 19,000 people from Australia and America. Participants were over the age of 70 and did not have heart disease.
The data covered an average of almost 4.7 years and revealed that aspirin lowered the rate of ischemic stroke but not significantly. An ischemic stroke happens when a clot forms in a blood vessel that sends blood to the brain.
There was also a 38% higher rate of brain bleeds for people who took aspirin daily, compared with those who took a placebo.
The Times wrote, “In the past, some doctors regarded aspirin as something of a wonder drug, capable of protecting healthy patients against a future heart attack or stroke. But recent studies have shown that the powerful drug has limited protective power among people who have not yet had such an event, and it comes with dangerous side effects.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM JAMA