Breast Cancer ICYMI

Key clinical point: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were at an increased risk of developing all types of thyroid dysfunctions, with the risk being the highest for hypothyroidism, followed by subclinical hypothyroidism, subclinical hyperthyroidism, and hyperthyroidism.

Major finding: Patients with RA vs non-RA control individuals were at a higher risk of developing thyroid dysfunctions such as hypothyroidism (pooled OR [pOR] 2.25; 95% CI 1.78-2.84), subclinical hypothyroidism (pOR 2.18; 95% CI 1.32-3.61), subclinical hyperthyroidism (pOR 2.13; 95% CI 1.25-3.63), and hyperthyroidism (OR 1.65; 95% CI 1.24-2.19).

Study details: Findings are from a systematic review and meta-analysis of 29 studies that evaluated thyroid dysfunction in patients with RA (n = 35,708) and non-RA control individuals (n = 149,421).

Disclosures: This study was supported by grants from the Science and Technology Bureau of Quanzhou and the Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Liu Y-j et al. Association between rheumatoid arthritis and thyroid dysfunction: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Front Endocrinol. 2022;13:1015516 (Oct 13). Doi: 10.3389/fendo.2022.1015516

Key clinical point: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were at an increased risk of developing all types of thyroid dysfunctions, with the risk being the highest for hypothyroidism, followed by subclinical hypothyroidism, subclinical hyperthyroidism, and hyperthyroidism.

Major finding: Patients with RA vs non-RA control individuals were at a higher risk of developing thyroid dysfunctions such as hypothyroidism (pooled OR [pOR] 2.25; 95% CI 1.78-2.84), subclinical hypothyroidism (pOR 2.18; 95% CI 1.32-3.61), subclinical hyperthyroidism (pOR 2.13; 95% CI 1.25-3.63), and hyperthyroidism (OR 1.65; 95% CI 1.24-2.19).

Study details: Findings are from a systematic review and meta-analysis of 29 studies that evaluated thyroid dysfunction in patients with RA (n = 35,708) and non-RA control individuals (n = 149,421).

Disclosures: This study was supported by grants from the Science and Technology Bureau of Quanzhou and the Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Liu Y-j et al. Association between rheumatoid arthritis and thyroid dysfunction: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Front Endocrinol. 2022;13:1015516 (Oct 13). Doi: 10.3389/fendo.2022.1015516

Key clinical point: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were at an increased risk of developing all types of thyroid dysfunctions, with the risk being the highest for hypothyroidism, followed by subclinical hypothyroidism, subclinical hyperthyroidism, and hyperthyroidism.

Major finding: Patients with RA vs non-RA control individuals were at a higher risk of developing thyroid dysfunctions such as hypothyroidism (pooled OR [pOR] 2.25; 95% CI 1.78-2.84), subclinical hypothyroidism (pOR 2.18; 95% CI 1.32-3.61), subclinical hyperthyroidism (pOR 2.13; 95% CI 1.25-3.63), and hyperthyroidism (OR 1.65; 95% CI 1.24-2.19).

Study details: Findings are from a systematic review and meta-analysis of 29 studies that evaluated thyroid dysfunction in patients with RA (n = 35,708) and non-RA control individuals (n = 149,421).

Disclosures: This study was supported by grants from the Science and Technology Bureau of Quanzhou and the Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Liu Y-j et al. Association between rheumatoid arthritis and thyroid dysfunction: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Front Endocrinol. 2022;13:1015516 (Oct 13). Doi: 10.3389/fendo.2022.1015516

Key clinical point: Red blood cell distribution width could serve as a useful biomarker and successfully differentiate between patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and control individuals.

Major finding: Patients with RA vs. control individuals had significantly higher values for red blood cell distribution width (standardized mean difference, 0.96; P < .001); however, the mean platelet volume (P = .515) and platelet distribution width (P = .222) were not significantly different between the 2 groups.

Study details: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of 23 studies, of which 11 studies reported data on red blood cell distribution width and included 1,221 patients with RA and 983 control individuals.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Zinellu A and Mangoni AA et al. Platelet and red blood cell volume indices in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Diagnostics. 2022;12(11):2633 (Oct 30). Doi: 10.3390/diagnostics12112633.

Key clinical point: Red blood cell distribution width could serve as a useful biomarker and successfully differentiate between patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and control individuals.

Major finding: Patients with RA vs. control individuals had significantly higher values for red blood cell distribution width (standardized mean difference, 0.96; P < .001); however, the mean platelet volume (P = .515) and platelet distribution width (P = .222) were not significantly different between the 2 groups.

Study details: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of 23 studies, of which 11 studies reported data on red blood cell distribution width and included 1,221 patients with RA and 983 control individuals.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Zinellu A and Mangoni AA et al. Platelet and red blood cell volume indices in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Diagnostics. 2022;12(11):2633 (Oct 30). Doi: 10.3390/diagnostics12112633.

Key clinical point: Red blood cell distribution width could serve as a useful biomarker and successfully differentiate between patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and control individuals.

Major finding: Patients with RA vs. control individuals had significantly higher values for red blood cell distribution width (standardized mean difference, 0.96; P < .001); however, the mean platelet volume (P = .515) and platelet distribution width (P = .222) were not significantly different between the 2 groups.

Study details: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of 23 studies, of which 11 studies reported data on red blood cell distribution width and included 1,221 patients with RA and 983 control individuals.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Zinellu A and Mangoni AA et al. Platelet and red blood cell volume indices in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Diagnostics. 2022;12(11):2633 (Oct 30). Doi: 10.3390/diagnostics12112633.

Key clinical point: Age is an independent contributor to seronegative rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with the effect being prominent in females but not in males.

Major finding: Rates of rheumatoid factor (RF) and anticyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) positivity and RF/anti-CCP double positivity declined significantly with an increase in age at RA diagnosis (all P < .001). The age at disease onset was independently associated with RF (odds ratio [OR] 0.980; P < .001) and anti-CCP (OR 0.976; P < .001) positivity in patients with RA, with both the associations being significant in women (RF positivity: OR 0.979; P < .001; anti-CCP positivity: OR 0.970; P < .001) but not in men.

Study details: This was a cohort study including 1685 patients with RA (mean age at diagnosis, 51.9 years), of which 83.4% were women.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Takanashi S et al. Impacts of ageing on rheumatoid factor and anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody positivity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2022 (Nov 1). Doi: 10.3899/jrheum.220526

Key clinical point: Age is an independent contributor to seronegative rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with the effect being prominent in females but not in males.

Major finding: Rates of rheumatoid factor (RF) and anticyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) positivity and RF/anti-CCP double positivity declined significantly with an increase in age at RA diagnosis (all P < .001). The age at disease onset was independently associated with RF (odds ratio [OR] 0.980; P < .001) and anti-CCP (OR 0.976; P < .001) positivity in patients with RA, with both the associations being significant in women (RF positivity: OR 0.979; P < .001; anti-CCP positivity: OR 0.970; P < .001) but not in men.

Study details: This was a cohort study including 1685 patients with RA (mean age at diagnosis, 51.9 years), of which 83.4% were women.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Takanashi S et al. Impacts of ageing on rheumatoid factor and anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody positivity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2022 (Nov 1). Doi: 10.3899/jrheum.220526

Key clinical point: Age is an independent contributor to seronegative rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with the effect being prominent in females but not in males.

Major finding: Rates of rheumatoid factor (RF) and anticyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) positivity and RF/anti-CCP double positivity declined significantly with an increase in age at RA diagnosis (all P < .001). The age at disease onset was independently associated with RF (odds ratio [OR] 0.980; P < .001) and anti-CCP (OR 0.976; P < .001) positivity in patients with RA, with both the associations being significant in women (RF positivity: OR 0.979; P < .001; anti-CCP positivity: OR 0.970; P < .001) but not in men.

Study details: This was a cohort study including 1685 patients with RA (mean age at diagnosis, 51.9 years), of which 83.4% were women.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Takanashi S et al. Impacts of ageing on rheumatoid factor and anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody positivity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2022 (Nov 1). Doi: 10.3899/jrheum.220526

Key clinical point: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were at an increased risk for lung cancer compared with the general population, with seropositivity being a strong and independent risk factor above what can be explained by smoking.

Major finding: Patients with RA vs. general population were at increased risk for lung cancer (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.70; 95% CI 1.54-1.87), with the risk being even higher among ever smokers (aHR 1.82; 95% CI 1.06-3.17) or current smokers (aHR 2.73; 95% CI 1.21-6.16) and double seropositivity being a strong and independent risk factor (aHR 6.21; 95% CI 1.47-26.33).

Study details: This was a population-based matched cohort study including 44,101 patients with RA who were individually matched with 216,495 control individuals from the general population and prospectively followed for the occurrence of lung cancer.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Swedish Research Council and other sources. K Chatzidionysiou declared receiving consulting fees from various sources. J Askling declared serving as principal investigator and having ties with various sources.

Source: Chatzidionysiou K et al. Risk of lung cancer in rheumatoid arthritis and in relation to autoantibody positivity and smoking. RMD Open. 2022;8(2):e002465 (Oct 21). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002465

Key clinical point: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were at an increased risk for lung cancer compared with the general population, with seropositivity being a strong and independent risk factor above what can be explained by smoking.

Major finding: Patients with RA vs. general population were at increased risk for lung cancer (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.70; 95% CI 1.54-1.87), with the risk being even higher among ever smokers (aHR 1.82; 95% CI 1.06-3.17) or current smokers (aHR 2.73; 95% CI 1.21-6.16) and double seropositivity being a strong and independent risk factor (aHR 6.21; 95% CI 1.47-26.33).

Study details: This was a population-based matched cohort study including 44,101 patients with RA who were individually matched with 216,495 control individuals from the general population and prospectively followed for the occurrence of lung cancer.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Swedish Research Council and other sources. K Chatzidionysiou declared receiving consulting fees from various sources. J Askling declared serving as principal investigator and having ties with various sources.

Source: Chatzidionysiou K et al. Risk of lung cancer in rheumatoid arthritis and in relation to autoantibody positivity and smoking. RMD Open. 2022;8(2):e002465 (Oct 21). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002465

Key clinical point: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were at an increased risk for lung cancer compared with the general population, with seropositivity being a strong and independent risk factor above what can be explained by smoking.

Major finding: Patients with RA vs. general population were at increased risk for lung cancer (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.70; 95% CI 1.54-1.87), with the risk being even higher among ever smokers (aHR 1.82; 95% CI 1.06-3.17) or current smokers (aHR 2.73; 95% CI 1.21-6.16) and double seropositivity being a strong and independent risk factor (aHR 6.21; 95% CI 1.47-26.33).

Study details: This was a population-based matched cohort study including 44,101 patients with RA who were individually matched with 216,495 control individuals from the general population and prospectively followed for the occurrence of lung cancer.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Swedish Research Council and other sources. K Chatzidionysiou declared receiving consulting fees from various sources. J Askling declared serving as principal investigator and having ties with various sources.

Source: Chatzidionysiou K et al. Risk of lung cancer in rheumatoid arthritis and in relation to autoantibody positivity and smoking. RMD Open. 2022;8(2):e002465 (Oct 21). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002465

Key clinical point: Tocilizumab was more effective than etanercept in inhibiting the radiographic progression of joint erosion in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with joint damage progression being significantly associated with the baseline clinical disease activity index (CDAI) score.

Major finding: At 12 months, a significantly higher proportion of patients showed no radiographic progression of joint erosion with tocilizumab vs etanercept (change in total Sharp/van der Heijde score [erosion] ≤0%; 86.8% vs 63.2%; P = .032). The progression of radiographic joint erosion was significantly correlated with the baseline CDAI score (odds ratio 1.05; P = .037).

Study details: This was a retrospective cohort study including 187 patients with RA who received tocilizumab or etanercept for at least 12 months.

Disclosures: This study did not report the source of funding. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Hayashi S et al. Comparison of the inhibitory effect of tocilizumab and etanercept on the progression of joint erosion in rheumatoid arthritis treatment. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):17524 (Oct 20). Doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-22152-w

Key clinical point: Tocilizumab was more effective than etanercept in inhibiting the radiographic progression of joint erosion in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with joint damage progression being significantly associated with the baseline clinical disease activity index (CDAI) score.

Major finding: At 12 months, a significantly higher proportion of patients showed no radiographic progression of joint erosion with tocilizumab vs etanercept (change in total Sharp/van der Heijde score [erosion] ≤0%; 86.8% vs 63.2%; P = .032). The progression of radiographic joint erosion was significantly correlated with the baseline CDAI score (odds ratio 1.05; P = .037).

Study details: This was a retrospective cohort study including 187 patients with RA who received tocilizumab or etanercept for at least 12 months.

Disclosures: This study did not report the source of funding. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Hayashi S et al. Comparison of the inhibitory effect of tocilizumab and etanercept on the progression of joint erosion in rheumatoid arthritis treatment. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):17524 (Oct 20). Doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-22152-w

Key clinical point: Tocilizumab was more effective than etanercept in inhibiting the radiographic progression of joint erosion in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with joint damage progression being significantly associated with the baseline clinical disease activity index (CDAI) score.

Major finding: At 12 months, a significantly higher proportion of patients showed no radiographic progression of joint erosion with tocilizumab vs etanercept (change in total Sharp/van der Heijde score [erosion] ≤0%; 86.8% vs 63.2%; P = .032). The progression of radiographic joint erosion was significantly correlated with the baseline CDAI score (odds ratio 1.05; P = .037).

Study details: This was a retrospective cohort study including 187 patients with RA who received tocilizumab or etanercept for at least 12 months.

Disclosures: This study did not report the source of funding. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Hayashi S et al. Comparison of the inhibitory effect of tocilizumab and etanercept on the progression of joint erosion in rheumatoid arthritis treatment. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):17524 (Oct 20). Doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-22152-w

Key clinical point: Significant proportion of patients with high-risk early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) achieved the treatment target with a combination of methotrexate and step-down prednisolone, whereas nonresponders benefited from treatment intensification albeit with more adverse events.

Major finding: Overall, 73% of patients at high risk achieved the treatment target at 13 weeks. A significant proportion of nonresponders who were at high risk achieved the treatment target with treatment intensification vs continuation (80% vs 44%; difference 36%; P = .04), but experienced more adverse events (P < .01).

Study details: This study included 190 patients with early RA from the COBRA treat-to-target trial, of which high-risk patients received prednisolone (30 mg/day tapered to 7.5 mg/day) and methotrexate (increased from 10 to 25 mg/week). At 13 weeks, nonresponders were randomly assigned to treatment continuation or intensification (methotrexate 25 mg/week; prednisolone 60 mg/day tapered to 7.5 mg/day; sulfasalazine 2 g/day; and hydroxychloroquine 400 mg/day).

Disclosures: This study was supported by an unrestricted grant from Pfizer. M Boers and WF Lems reported ties with various sources.

Source: Hartman L et al. Favorable effect of a ‘second hit’ after 13 weeks in early RA non-responders: The Amsterdam COBRA treat-to-target randomized trial. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Oct 7). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac582

Key clinical point: Significant proportion of patients with high-risk early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) achieved the treatment target with a combination of methotrexate and step-down prednisolone, whereas nonresponders benefited from treatment intensification albeit with more adverse events.

Major finding: Overall, 73% of patients at high risk achieved the treatment target at 13 weeks. A significant proportion of nonresponders who were at high risk achieved the treatment target with treatment intensification vs continuation (80% vs 44%; difference 36%; P = .04), but experienced more adverse events (P < .01).

Study details: This study included 190 patients with early RA from the COBRA treat-to-target trial, of which high-risk patients received prednisolone (30 mg/day tapered to 7.5 mg/day) and methotrexate (increased from 10 to 25 mg/week). At 13 weeks, nonresponders were randomly assigned to treatment continuation or intensification (methotrexate 25 mg/week; prednisolone 60 mg/day tapered to 7.5 mg/day; sulfasalazine 2 g/day; and hydroxychloroquine 400 mg/day).

Disclosures: This study was supported by an unrestricted grant from Pfizer. M Boers and WF Lems reported ties with various sources.

Source: Hartman L et al. Favorable effect of a ‘second hit’ after 13 weeks in early RA non-responders: The Amsterdam COBRA treat-to-target randomized trial. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Oct 7). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac582

Key clinical point: Significant proportion of patients with high-risk early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) achieved the treatment target with a combination of methotrexate and step-down prednisolone, whereas nonresponders benefited from treatment intensification albeit with more adverse events.

Major finding: Overall, 73% of patients at high risk achieved the treatment target at 13 weeks. A significant proportion of nonresponders who were at high risk achieved the treatment target with treatment intensification vs continuation (80% vs 44%; difference 36%; P = .04), but experienced more adverse events (P < .01).

Study details: This study included 190 patients with early RA from the COBRA treat-to-target trial, of which high-risk patients received prednisolone (30 mg/day tapered to 7.5 mg/day) and methotrexate (increased from 10 to 25 mg/week). At 13 weeks, nonresponders were randomly assigned to treatment continuation or intensification (methotrexate 25 mg/week; prednisolone 60 mg/day tapered to 7.5 mg/day; sulfasalazine 2 g/day; and hydroxychloroquine 400 mg/day).

Disclosures: This study was supported by an unrestricted grant from Pfizer. M Boers and WF Lems reported ties with various sources.

Source: Hartman L et al. Favorable effect of a ‘second hit’ after 13 weeks in early RA non-responders: The Amsterdam COBRA treat-to-target randomized trial. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Oct 7). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac582

After recovery from acute infection with SARS-CoV-2, major stressful life events such as the death of a loved one or financial insecurity can have a significant impact on the development of long COVID symptoms, new research suggests.

Major life stressors in the year after hospital discharge for COVID-19 are “strongly predictive of a lot of the important outcomes that people may face after COVID,” lead investigator Jennifer A. Frontera, MD, a professor in the department of neurology at New York University Langone Health, said in an interview.

These outcomes include depression, brain fog, fatigue, trouble sleeping, and other long COVID symptoms.

The findings were published online in the Journal of the Neurological Sciences.
 

Major stressful events common

Dr. Frontera and the NYU Neurology COVID-19 study team evaluated 451 adults who survived a COVID hospital stay. Of these, 383 completed a 6-month follow-up, 242 completed a 12-month follow-up, and 174 completed follow-up at both time points. 

Within 1 year of discharge, 77 (17%) patients died and 51% suffered a major stressful life event.

In multivariable analyses, major life stressors – including financial insecurity, food insecurity, death of a close contact, and new disability – were strong independent predictors of disability, trouble with activities of daily living, depression, fatigue, sleep problems, and prolonged post-acute COVID symptoms. The adjusted odds ratios for these outcomes ranged from 2.5 to 20.8. 

The research also confirmed the contribution of traditional risk factors for long COVID symptoms, as shown in past studies. These include older age, poor pre-COVID functional status, and more severe initial COVID-19 infection.

Long-term sequelae of COVID are increasingly recognized as major public health issues. 

It has been estimated that roughly 16 million U.S. adults aged 18-65 years ave long COVID, with the often debilitating symptoms keeping up to 4 million out of work. 
 

Holistic approach

Dr. Frontera said it’s important to realize that “sleep, fatigue, anxiety, depression, even cognition are so interwoven with each other that anything that impacts any one of them could have repercussions on the other.”

She added that it “certainly makes sense that there is an interplay or even a bidirectional relationship between the stressors that people face and how well they can recover after COVID.”

Therapies that lessen the trauma of the most stress-inducing life events need to be a central part of treatment for long COVID, with more research needed to validate the best approaches, Dr. Frontera said.

She also noted that social services or case management resources may be able to help address at least some of the stressors that individuals are under – and it is important to refer them to these resources. Referral to mental health services is also important.

“I think it’s really important to take a holistic approach and try to deal with whatever the problem may be,” said Dr. Frontera.

“I’m a neurologist, but as part of my evaluation, I really need to address if there are life stressors or mental health issues that may be impacting this person’s function,” she added.

The study had no commercial funding. The investigators reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

After recovery from acute infection with SARS-CoV-2, major stressful life events such as the death of a loved one or financial insecurity can have a significant impact on the development of long COVID symptoms, new research suggests.

Major life stressors in the year after hospital discharge for COVID-19 are “strongly predictive of a lot of the important outcomes that people may face after COVID,” lead investigator Jennifer A. Frontera, MD, a professor in the department of neurology at New York University Langone Health, said in an interview.

These outcomes include depression, brain fog, fatigue, trouble sleeping, and other long COVID symptoms.

The findings were published online in the Journal of the Neurological Sciences.
 

Major stressful events common

Dr. Frontera and the NYU Neurology COVID-19 study team evaluated 451 adults who survived a COVID hospital stay. Of these, 383 completed a 6-month follow-up, 242 completed a 12-month follow-up, and 174 completed follow-up at both time points. 

Within 1 year of discharge, 77 (17%) patients died and 51% suffered a major stressful life event.

In multivariable analyses, major life stressors – including financial insecurity, food insecurity, death of a close contact, and new disability – were strong independent predictors of disability, trouble with activities of daily living, depression, fatigue, sleep problems, and prolonged post-acute COVID symptoms. The adjusted odds ratios for these outcomes ranged from 2.5 to 20.8. 

The research also confirmed the contribution of traditional risk factors for long COVID symptoms, as shown in past studies. These include older age, poor pre-COVID functional status, and more severe initial COVID-19 infection.

Long-term sequelae of COVID are increasingly recognized as major public health issues. 

It has been estimated that roughly 16 million U.S. adults aged 18-65 years ave long COVID, with the often debilitating symptoms keeping up to 4 million out of work. 
 

Holistic approach

Dr. Frontera said it’s important to realize that “sleep, fatigue, anxiety, depression, even cognition are so interwoven with each other that anything that impacts any one of them could have repercussions on the other.”

She added that it “certainly makes sense that there is an interplay or even a bidirectional relationship between the stressors that people face and how well they can recover after COVID.”

Therapies that lessen the trauma of the most stress-inducing life events need to be a central part of treatment for long COVID, with more research needed to validate the best approaches, Dr. Frontera said.

She also noted that social services or case management resources may be able to help address at least some of the stressors that individuals are under – and it is important to refer them to these resources. Referral to mental health services is also important.

“I think it’s really important to take a holistic approach and try to deal with whatever the problem may be,” said Dr. Frontera.

“I’m a neurologist, but as part of my evaluation, I really need to address if there are life stressors or mental health issues that may be impacting this person’s function,” she added.

The study had no commercial funding. The investigators reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

After recovery from acute infection with SARS-CoV-2, major stressful life events such as the death of a loved one or financial insecurity can have a significant impact on the development of long COVID symptoms, new research suggests.

Major life stressors in the year after hospital discharge for COVID-19 are “strongly predictive of a lot of the important outcomes that people may face after COVID,” lead investigator Jennifer A. Frontera, MD, a professor in the department of neurology at New York University Langone Health, said in an interview.

These outcomes include depression, brain fog, fatigue, trouble sleeping, and other long COVID symptoms.

The findings were published online in the Journal of the Neurological Sciences.
 

Major stressful events common

Dr. Frontera and the NYU Neurology COVID-19 study team evaluated 451 adults who survived a COVID hospital stay. Of these, 383 completed a 6-month follow-up, 242 completed a 12-month follow-up, and 174 completed follow-up at both time points. 

Within 1 year of discharge, 77 (17%) patients died and 51% suffered a major stressful life event.

In multivariable analyses, major life stressors – including financial insecurity, food insecurity, death of a close contact, and new disability – were strong independent predictors of disability, trouble with activities of daily living, depression, fatigue, sleep problems, and prolonged post-acute COVID symptoms. The adjusted odds ratios for these outcomes ranged from 2.5 to 20.8. 

The research also confirmed the contribution of traditional risk factors for long COVID symptoms, as shown in past studies. These include older age, poor pre-COVID functional status, and more severe initial COVID-19 infection.

Long-term sequelae of COVID are increasingly recognized as major public health issues. 

It has been estimated that roughly 16 million U.S. adults aged 18-65 years ave long COVID, with the often debilitating symptoms keeping up to 4 million out of work. 
 

Holistic approach

Dr. Frontera said it’s important to realize that “sleep, fatigue, anxiety, depression, even cognition are so interwoven with each other that anything that impacts any one of them could have repercussions on the other.”

She added that it “certainly makes sense that there is an interplay or even a bidirectional relationship between the stressors that people face and how well they can recover after COVID.”

Therapies that lessen the trauma of the most stress-inducing life events need to be a central part of treatment for long COVID, with more research needed to validate the best approaches, Dr. Frontera said.

She also noted that social services or case management resources may be able to help address at least some of the stressors that individuals are under – and it is important to refer them to these resources. Referral to mental health services is also important.

“I think it’s really important to take a holistic approach and try to deal with whatever the problem may be,” said Dr. Frontera.

“I’m a neurologist, but as part of my evaluation, I really need to address if there are life stressors or mental health issues that may be impacting this person’s function,” she added.

The study had no commercial funding. The investigators reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Headlines over the past few weeks are ringing the alarm about earlier and more serious influenza (flu) and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) outbreaks compared with previous years. Add COVID-19 to the mix and you have a dangerous mash of viruses that have many experts calling for caution and searching for explanations.

RSV and the flu “are certainly getting more attention, and they’re getting more attention for two reasons,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

“The first is that they’re both extraordinarily early. The second is that they’re both out there spreading very, very rapidly,” he told this news organization.

RSV usually follows a seasonal pattern with cases peaking in January and February. Both viruses tend to hit different regions of the country at different times, and that’s not the case in 2022.

“This is particularly striking for RSV, which usually doesn’t affect the entire country simultaneously,” Dr. Schaffner said.

“Yes, RSV is causing many more hospitalizations and earlier than any previously recorded season in the U.S.,” according to figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on RSV hospitalizations, said Kevin Messacar, MD, PhD, associate professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital Colorado in Aurora.

Although there could be some increase in diagnoses because of increased awareness, the jump in RSV and flu cases “is a real phenomenon for multiple reasons,” said Peter Chin-Hong, MD, professor in the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco.

With fewer COVID-related restrictions, people are moving around more. Also, during fall and winter, people tend to gather indoors. Colder temperatures and lower humidity contribute as well, Dr. Chin-Hong said, because “the droplets are just simply lighter.

“I think those are all factors,” he told this news organization.

Paul Auwaerter, MD, agreed that there are likely multiple causes for the unusual timing and severity of RSV and flu this year.

“Change in behaviors is a leading cause,” said the clinical director for the division of infectious diseases at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. More people returning to the workplace and children going to school without masks are examples, he added.

Less exposure to these three viruses also means there was less immune boosting among existing populations, he said. This can lead to “larger susceptible populations, especially infants and younger children, due to the relative absence of circulating virus in past years.”
 

A leading theory

Are we paying a price now for people following the edicts from officials to mask up, stand apart, and take other personal and public health precautions during the COVID-19 pandemic?

It’s possible, but that may not be the whole story.

“When it comes to RSV, I think that theory of isolation, social distancing, mask wearing, and not attending schools is a very valid one,” Dr. Schaffner said. “That’s everybody’s favorite [reason].”

He said he is confident that the jump in RSV cases is being driven by previous COVID public health protections. However, he’s “a little more cautious about influenza, in part because influenza is so variable.

“Like people in influenza say, if you’ve seen one influenza season, you’ve seen one influenza season,” Dr. Schaffner said.

“There’s a lot of debate,” he added. “Nobody can say definitively whether the immune deficit or debt is a consequence of not being stimulated and restimulated by the influenza virus over the past two seasons.”
 

‘A perfect storm’

“Now you kind of have the perfect storm,” Dr. Chin-Hong said. “It’s not a good situation for COVID with the variants that are emerging. For influenza, not having seen a lot of influenza the last 2 years, we’re probably more susceptible to getting infected.”

RSV cases rose during summer 2021, but now the weather is colder, and people are interacting more closely. “And it’s very, very transmissible,” he said.

Dr. Chin-Hong also predicted that “even though we don’t have a lot of COVID now, COVID will probably pick up.”

The rise in RSV was unexpected by some experts. “This early influenza is also a bit of a surprise and may be influenced by the fact that lots of us are going back and seeing each other again close-to-close, face-to-face in many enclosed environments,” Dr. Schaffner said.

He estimated the 2022-2023 flu season started 4-6 weeks early “and it’s taken off like a rocket. It started in the Southeast, quickly went to the Southwest and up the East Coast. Now it’s moving dramatically through the Midwest and will continue. It’s quite sure to hit the West Coast if it isn’t there already.”
 

A phenomenon by any other name

Some are calling the situation an “immunity debt,” while others dub it an “immunity pause” or an “immunity deficit.” Many physicians and immunologists have taken to social media to push back on the term “immunity debt,” saying it’s a mischaracterization that is being used to vilify COVID precautions, such as masking, social distancing, and other protective measures taken during the pandemic.

“I prefer the term ‘immunity gap’ ... which is more established in the epidemiology literature, especially given the politicization of the term ‘immunity debt’ by folks recently,” Dr. Messacar said.

“To me, the immunity gap is a scientific observation, not a political argument,” he added.

In a July 2022 publication in The Lancet, Dr. Messacar and his colleagues stated that “decreased exposure to endemic viruses created an immunity gap – a group of susceptible individuals who avoided infection and therefore lack pathogen-specific immunity to protect against future infection. Decreases in childhood vaccinations with pandemic disruptions to health care delivery contribute to this immunity gap for vaccine-preventable diseases, such as influenza,measles, and polio.”

The researchers noted that because of isolation during the pandemic, older children and newborns are being exposed to RSV for the first time. Returning to birthday parties, playing with friends, and going to school without masks means “children are being exposed to RSV, and that’s likely the reason that RSV is moving early and very, very substantially through this now expanded pool of susceptible children,” Dr. Schaffner said.
 

How likely are coinfections?

With peaks in RSV, flu, and COVID-19 cases each predicted in the coming months, how likely is it that someone could get sick with more than one infection at the same time?

Early in the pandemic, coinfection with COVID and the flu was reported in people at some centers on the West Coast, Dr. Auwaerter said. Now, however, “the unpredictable nature of the Omicron subvariants and the potential for further change, along with the never-before-seen significant lessening of influenza over 2 years, leave little for predictability.

“I do think it is less likely, given the extent of immunity now to SARS-CoV-2 in the population,” Dr. Auwaerter said.

“I most worry about viral coinfections ... in people with suppressed immune systems if we have high community rates of the SARS-CoV-2 and influenza circulating this fall and winter,” he added.

Studies during the pandemic suggest that coinfection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and another respiratory virus were either rare or nonexistent.

Dr. Schaffner said these findings align with his experience at Vanderbilt University, which is part of a CDC-sponsored network that tracks laboratory-confirmed RSV, flu, and COVID cases among people in the hospital. “Coinfections are, at least to date, very unusual.”

There needs to be an asterisk next to that, Dr. Schaffner added. “Looking back over the last 2 years, we’ve had very little influenza, and we’ve had curtailed RSV seasons. So there hasn’t been a whole lot of opportunity for dual infections to occur.

“So this year may be more revelatory as we go forward,” he said.
 

Future concerns

The future is uncertain, Dr. Messacar and colleagues wrote in The Lancet: “Crucially, the patterns of these returning viral outbreaks have been heterogeneous across locations, populations, and pathogens, making predictions and preparations challenging.”

Dr. Chin-Hong used a horse race analogy to illustrate the situation now and going forward. RSV is the front-running horse, and influenza is running behind but trying to catch up. “And then COVID is the dark horse. It’s trailing the race right now – but all these variants are giving the horse extra supplements.

“And the COVID horse is probably going to be very competitive with the front-runner,” he said.

“We’re just at the beginning of the race right now,” Dr. Chin-Hong said, “so that’s why we’re worried that these three [viruses] will be even more pronounced come later in the year.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Headlines over the past few weeks are ringing the alarm about earlier and more serious influenza (flu) and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) outbreaks compared with previous years. Add COVID-19 to the mix and you have a dangerous mash of viruses that have many experts calling for caution and searching for explanations.

RSV and the flu “are certainly getting more attention, and they’re getting more attention for two reasons,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

“The first is that they’re both extraordinarily early. The second is that they’re both out there spreading very, very rapidly,” he told this news organization.

RSV usually follows a seasonal pattern with cases peaking in January and February. Both viruses tend to hit different regions of the country at different times, and that’s not the case in 2022.

“This is particularly striking for RSV, which usually doesn’t affect the entire country simultaneously,” Dr. Schaffner said.

“Yes, RSV is causing many more hospitalizations and earlier than any previously recorded season in the U.S.,” according to figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on RSV hospitalizations, said Kevin Messacar, MD, PhD, associate professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital Colorado in Aurora.

Although there could be some increase in diagnoses because of increased awareness, the jump in RSV and flu cases “is a real phenomenon for multiple reasons,” said Peter Chin-Hong, MD, professor in the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco.

With fewer COVID-related restrictions, people are moving around more. Also, during fall and winter, people tend to gather indoors. Colder temperatures and lower humidity contribute as well, Dr. Chin-Hong said, because “the droplets are just simply lighter.

“I think those are all factors,” he told this news organization.

Paul Auwaerter, MD, agreed that there are likely multiple causes for the unusual timing and severity of RSV and flu this year.

“Change in behaviors is a leading cause,” said the clinical director for the division of infectious diseases at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. More people returning to the workplace and children going to school without masks are examples, he added.

Less exposure to these three viruses also means there was less immune boosting among existing populations, he said. This can lead to “larger susceptible populations, especially infants and younger children, due to the relative absence of circulating virus in past years.”
 

A leading theory

Are we paying a price now for people following the edicts from officials to mask up, stand apart, and take other personal and public health precautions during the COVID-19 pandemic?

It’s possible, but that may not be the whole story.

“When it comes to RSV, I think that theory of isolation, social distancing, mask wearing, and not attending schools is a very valid one,” Dr. Schaffner said. “That’s everybody’s favorite [reason].”

He said he is confident that the jump in RSV cases is being driven by previous COVID public health protections. However, he’s “a little more cautious about influenza, in part because influenza is so variable.

“Like people in influenza say, if you’ve seen one influenza season, you’ve seen one influenza season,” Dr. Schaffner said.

“There’s a lot of debate,” he added. “Nobody can say definitively whether the immune deficit or debt is a consequence of not being stimulated and restimulated by the influenza virus over the past two seasons.”
 

‘A perfect storm’

“Now you kind of have the perfect storm,” Dr. Chin-Hong said. “It’s not a good situation for COVID with the variants that are emerging. For influenza, not having seen a lot of influenza the last 2 years, we’re probably more susceptible to getting infected.”

RSV cases rose during summer 2021, but now the weather is colder, and people are interacting more closely. “And it’s very, very transmissible,” he said.

Dr. Chin-Hong also predicted that “even though we don’t have a lot of COVID now, COVID will probably pick up.”

The rise in RSV was unexpected by some experts. “This early influenza is also a bit of a surprise and may be influenced by the fact that lots of us are going back and seeing each other again close-to-close, face-to-face in many enclosed environments,” Dr. Schaffner said.

He estimated the 2022-2023 flu season started 4-6 weeks early “and it’s taken off like a rocket. It started in the Southeast, quickly went to the Southwest and up the East Coast. Now it’s moving dramatically through the Midwest and will continue. It’s quite sure to hit the West Coast if it isn’t there already.”
 

A phenomenon by any other name

Some are calling the situation an “immunity debt,” while others dub it an “immunity pause” or an “immunity deficit.” Many physicians and immunologists have taken to social media to push back on the term “immunity debt,” saying it’s a mischaracterization that is being used to vilify COVID precautions, such as masking, social distancing, and other protective measures taken during the pandemic.

“I prefer the term ‘immunity gap’ ... which is more established in the epidemiology literature, especially given the politicization of the term ‘immunity debt’ by folks recently,” Dr. Messacar said.

“To me, the immunity gap is a scientific observation, not a political argument,” he added.

In a July 2022 publication in The Lancet, Dr. Messacar and his colleagues stated that “decreased exposure to endemic viruses created an immunity gap – a group of susceptible individuals who avoided infection and therefore lack pathogen-specific immunity to protect against future infection. Decreases in childhood vaccinations with pandemic disruptions to health care delivery contribute to this immunity gap for vaccine-preventable diseases, such as influenza,measles, and polio.”

The researchers noted that because of isolation during the pandemic, older children and newborns are being exposed to RSV for the first time. Returning to birthday parties, playing with friends, and going to school without masks means “children are being exposed to RSV, and that’s likely the reason that RSV is moving early and very, very substantially through this now expanded pool of susceptible children,” Dr. Schaffner said.
 

How likely are coinfections?

With peaks in RSV, flu, and COVID-19 cases each predicted in the coming months, how likely is it that someone could get sick with more than one infection at the same time?

Early in the pandemic, coinfection with COVID and the flu was reported in people at some centers on the West Coast, Dr. Auwaerter said. Now, however, “the unpredictable nature of the Omicron subvariants and the potential for further change, along with the never-before-seen significant lessening of influenza over 2 years, leave little for predictability.

“I do think it is less likely, given the extent of immunity now to SARS-CoV-2 in the population,” Dr. Auwaerter said.

“I most worry about viral coinfections ... in people with suppressed immune systems if we have high community rates of the SARS-CoV-2 and influenza circulating this fall and winter,” he added.

Studies during the pandemic suggest that coinfection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and another respiratory virus were either rare or nonexistent.

Dr. Schaffner said these findings align with his experience at Vanderbilt University, which is part of a CDC-sponsored network that tracks laboratory-confirmed RSV, flu, and COVID cases among people in the hospital. “Coinfections are, at least to date, very unusual.”

There needs to be an asterisk next to that, Dr. Schaffner added. “Looking back over the last 2 years, we’ve had very little influenza, and we’ve had curtailed RSV seasons. So there hasn’t been a whole lot of opportunity for dual infections to occur.

“So this year may be more revelatory as we go forward,” he said.
 

Future concerns

The future is uncertain, Dr. Messacar and colleagues wrote in The Lancet: “Crucially, the patterns of these returning viral outbreaks have been heterogeneous across locations, populations, and pathogens, making predictions and preparations challenging.”

Dr. Chin-Hong used a horse race analogy to illustrate the situation now and going forward. RSV is the front-running horse, and influenza is running behind but trying to catch up. “And then COVID is the dark horse. It’s trailing the race right now – but all these variants are giving the horse extra supplements.

“And the COVID horse is probably going to be very competitive with the front-runner,” he said.

“We’re just at the beginning of the race right now,” Dr. Chin-Hong said, “so that’s why we’re worried that these three [viruses] will be even more pronounced come later in the year.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Headlines over the past few weeks are ringing the alarm about earlier and more serious influenza (flu) and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) outbreaks compared with previous years. Add COVID-19 to the mix and you have a dangerous mash of viruses that have many experts calling for caution and searching for explanations.

RSV and the flu “are certainly getting more attention, and they’re getting more attention for two reasons,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

“The first is that they’re both extraordinarily early. The second is that they’re both out there spreading very, very rapidly,” he told this news organization.

RSV usually follows a seasonal pattern with cases peaking in January and February. Both viruses tend to hit different regions of the country at different times, and that’s not the case in 2022.

“This is particularly striking for RSV, which usually doesn’t affect the entire country simultaneously,” Dr. Schaffner said.

“Yes, RSV is causing many more hospitalizations and earlier than any previously recorded season in the U.S.,” according to figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on RSV hospitalizations, said Kevin Messacar, MD, PhD, associate professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital Colorado in Aurora.

Although there could be some increase in diagnoses because of increased awareness, the jump in RSV and flu cases “is a real phenomenon for multiple reasons,” said Peter Chin-Hong, MD, professor in the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco.

With fewer COVID-related restrictions, people are moving around more. Also, during fall and winter, people tend to gather indoors. Colder temperatures and lower humidity contribute as well, Dr. Chin-Hong said, because “the droplets are just simply lighter.

“I think those are all factors,” he told this news organization.

Paul Auwaerter, MD, agreed that there are likely multiple causes for the unusual timing and severity of RSV and flu this year.

“Change in behaviors is a leading cause,” said the clinical director for the division of infectious diseases at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. More people returning to the workplace and children going to school without masks are examples, he added.

Less exposure to these three viruses also means there was less immune boosting among existing populations, he said. This can lead to “larger susceptible populations, especially infants and younger children, due to the relative absence of circulating virus in past years.”
 

A leading theory

Are we paying a price now for people following the edicts from officials to mask up, stand apart, and take other personal and public health precautions during the COVID-19 pandemic?

It’s possible, but that may not be the whole story.

“When it comes to RSV, I think that theory of isolation, social distancing, mask wearing, and not attending schools is a very valid one,” Dr. Schaffner said. “That’s everybody’s favorite [reason].”

He said he is confident that the jump in RSV cases is being driven by previous COVID public health protections. However, he’s “a little more cautious about influenza, in part because influenza is so variable.

“Like people in influenza say, if you’ve seen one influenza season, you’ve seen one influenza season,” Dr. Schaffner said.

“There’s a lot of debate,” he added. “Nobody can say definitively whether the immune deficit or debt is a consequence of not being stimulated and restimulated by the influenza virus over the past two seasons.”
 

‘A perfect storm’

“Now you kind of have the perfect storm,” Dr. Chin-Hong said. “It’s not a good situation for COVID with the variants that are emerging. For influenza, not having seen a lot of influenza the last 2 years, we’re probably more susceptible to getting infected.”

RSV cases rose during summer 2021, but now the weather is colder, and people are interacting more closely. “And it’s very, very transmissible,” he said.

Dr. Chin-Hong also predicted that “even though we don’t have a lot of COVID now, COVID will probably pick up.”

The rise in RSV was unexpected by some experts. “This early influenza is also a bit of a surprise and may be influenced by the fact that lots of us are going back and seeing each other again close-to-close, face-to-face in many enclosed environments,” Dr. Schaffner said.

He estimated the 2022-2023 flu season started 4-6 weeks early “and it’s taken off like a rocket. It started in the Southeast, quickly went to the Southwest and up the East Coast. Now it’s moving dramatically through the Midwest and will continue. It’s quite sure to hit the West Coast if it isn’t there already.”
 

A phenomenon by any other name

Some are calling the situation an “immunity debt,” while others dub it an “immunity pause” or an “immunity deficit.” Many physicians and immunologists have taken to social media to push back on the term “immunity debt,” saying it’s a mischaracterization that is being used to vilify COVID precautions, such as masking, social distancing, and other protective measures taken during the pandemic.

“I prefer the term ‘immunity gap’ ... which is more established in the epidemiology literature, especially given the politicization of the term ‘immunity debt’ by folks recently,” Dr. Messacar said.

“To me, the immunity gap is a scientific observation, not a political argument,” he added.

In a July 2022 publication in The Lancet, Dr. Messacar and his colleagues stated that “decreased exposure to endemic viruses created an immunity gap – a group of susceptible individuals who avoided infection and therefore lack pathogen-specific immunity to protect against future infection. Decreases in childhood vaccinations with pandemic disruptions to health care delivery contribute to this immunity gap for vaccine-preventable diseases, such as influenza,measles, and polio.”

The researchers noted that because of isolation during the pandemic, older children and newborns are being exposed to RSV for the first time. Returning to birthday parties, playing with friends, and going to school without masks means “children are being exposed to RSV, and that’s likely the reason that RSV is moving early and very, very substantially through this now expanded pool of susceptible children,” Dr. Schaffner said.
 

How likely are coinfections?

With peaks in RSV, flu, and COVID-19 cases each predicted in the coming months, how likely is it that someone could get sick with more than one infection at the same time?

Early in the pandemic, coinfection with COVID and the flu was reported in people at some centers on the West Coast, Dr. Auwaerter said. Now, however, “the unpredictable nature of the Omicron subvariants and the potential for further change, along with the never-before-seen significant lessening of influenza over 2 years, leave little for predictability.

“I do think it is less likely, given the extent of immunity now to SARS-CoV-2 in the population,” Dr. Auwaerter said.

“I most worry about viral coinfections ... in people with suppressed immune systems if we have high community rates of the SARS-CoV-2 and influenza circulating this fall and winter,” he added.

Studies during the pandemic suggest that coinfection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and another respiratory virus were either rare or nonexistent.

Dr. Schaffner said these findings align with his experience at Vanderbilt University, which is part of a CDC-sponsored network that tracks laboratory-confirmed RSV, flu, and COVID cases among people in the hospital. “Coinfections are, at least to date, very unusual.”

There needs to be an asterisk next to that, Dr. Schaffner added. “Looking back over the last 2 years, we’ve had very little influenza, and we’ve had curtailed RSV seasons. So there hasn’t been a whole lot of opportunity for dual infections to occur.

“So this year may be more revelatory as we go forward,” he said.
 

Future concerns

The future is uncertain, Dr. Messacar and colleagues wrote in The Lancet: “Crucially, the patterns of these returning viral outbreaks have been heterogeneous across locations, populations, and pathogens, making predictions and preparations challenging.”

Dr. Chin-Hong used a horse race analogy to illustrate the situation now and going forward. RSV is the front-running horse, and influenza is running behind but trying to catch up. “And then COVID is the dark horse. It’s trailing the race right now – but all these variants are giving the horse extra supplements.

“And the COVID horse is probably going to be very competitive with the front-runner,” he said.

“We’re just at the beginning of the race right now,” Dr. Chin-Hong said, “so that’s why we’re worried that these three [viruses] will be even more pronounced come later in the year.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Higher levels of exposure to outdoor artificial light at night are significantly linked with markers of diabetes and impaired glucose homeostasis, in a new national, cross-sectional study from China.

The results showed a 7% significant increase in diabetes prevalence per quintile exposure to artificial light at night (prevalence ratio, 1.07), report Ruizhi Zheng, PhD, of the Shanghai (China) Jiaotong University School of Medicine, and colleagues. People living in areas with the most exposure to light at night had a 28% higher prevalence of diabetes than those living in places with the lowest exposure (PR, 1.28), the researchers found.

The study was published online  in Diabetologia.

Previous animal studies have shown that exposure to light at night may interfere with circadian rhythms and affect glucose homeostasis, the study team note. Other research has demonstrated that chronic exposure to moderate indoor light during sleep elevated the prevalence of diabetes in older adults, compared with those sleeping in a dim setting, the authors add.

“Our findings contribute to the growing literature suggesting that artificial light at night is detrimental to health and demonstrate that artificial light at night may be a potential novel risk factor for diabetes,” they write.

“Considering the coexistence of the diabetes epidemic and the widespread influence of light pollution at night, the positive associations indicate an urgent need for countries and governments to develop effective prevention and intervention policies and to protect people from the adverse health effects of light pollution at night,” the study authors stress.

Gareth Nye, PhD, senior lecturer at the University of Chester, England, agreed that prior research has found an association between metabolic conditions, such as diabetes, and artificial light at night, with most theories as to the cause focusing on the body’s natural circadian cycle.

He said that internal clocks regulate a variety of bodily processes, such as metabolism and hormone synthesis. They also affect sleep patterns by interfering with synthesis of the hormone melatonin, which is essential for sound sleep, Dr. Nye told the UK Science Media Centre.

However, he stressed that much more research is needed before any link can be considered definitive.
 

Outdoor night light exposure linked to fasting glucose, A1c

The Chinese researchers set out to approximate the relationships between diabetes prevalence and glucose homeostasis with chronic exposure to outdoor light at night. 

They assessed 98,658 participants from the China Noncommunicable Disease Surveillance Study across 162 sites. The mean age of participants was 42.7 years. Female participants comprised 49.2% of the study cohort.

Diabetes was defined based on American Diabetes Association criteria. Satellite data were used to determine exposure to outdoor light at night in 2010. The associations between light exposure at night and indicators of glucose homeostasis were investigated.

Prevalence ratios were calculated and adjusted for sex, age, smoking status, education, body mass index, physical activity, household income, family history of diabetes, rural/urban areas, drinking status, and use of lipid-lowering prescription drugs (primarily statins) or antihypertensives.

The findings showed exposure levels to outdoor light at night were positively linked with 2-hour and fasting glucose concentrations, A1c, and insulin resistance (measured using homeostatic model assessment [HOMA]), but negatively related to β-cell function (measured using HOMA).
 

More research needed

“We advise caution against causal interpretation of the findings and call for further studies involving direct measurement of individual exposure to light at night,” the researchers conclude.

Dr. Nye agreed.

“One issue with this study is that the areas with the highest outdoor artificial light levels are likely to be those in urban areas and bigger cities. It has been known for a long time now that living in an urbanized area increases your risk of obesity through increased access to high-fat and convenience food, less physical activity levels due to transport links, and less social activities. The authors also state this and the fact participants tended to be older,” he noted.

Large datasets are used in this investigation, however, which generally increases the reliability of the data, he observed.

But it is also “unclear as to whether the population here was selected for this study or was retrospectively analyzed, which poses reliability issues, as does the selection of the representative sample, as it is not discussed,” he noted.

Ultimately, there is no confirmed evidence of the link, and until further work is done to directly link light exposure and diabetes in humans, “the link will remain an association only,” he concluded.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Higher levels of exposure to outdoor artificial light at night are significantly linked with markers of diabetes and impaired glucose homeostasis, in a new national, cross-sectional study from China.

The results showed a 7% significant increase in diabetes prevalence per quintile exposure to artificial light at night (prevalence ratio, 1.07), report Ruizhi Zheng, PhD, of the Shanghai (China) Jiaotong University School of Medicine, and colleagues. People living in areas with the most exposure to light at night had a 28% higher prevalence of diabetes than those living in places with the lowest exposure (PR, 1.28), the researchers found.

The study was published online  in Diabetologia.

Previous animal studies have shown that exposure to light at night may interfere with circadian rhythms and affect glucose homeostasis, the study team note. Other research has demonstrated that chronic exposure to moderate indoor light during sleep elevated the prevalence of diabetes in older adults, compared with those sleeping in a dim setting, the authors add.

“Our findings contribute to the growing literature suggesting that artificial light at night is detrimental to health and demonstrate that artificial light at night may be a potential novel risk factor for diabetes,” they write.

“Considering the coexistence of the diabetes epidemic and the widespread influence of light pollution at night, the positive associations indicate an urgent need for countries and governments to develop effective prevention and intervention policies and to protect people from the adverse health effects of light pollution at night,” the study authors stress.

Gareth Nye, PhD, senior lecturer at the University of Chester, England, agreed that prior research has found an association between metabolic conditions, such as diabetes, and artificial light at night, with most theories as to the cause focusing on the body’s natural circadian cycle.

He said that internal clocks regulate a variety of bodily processes, such as metabolism and hormone synthesis. They also affect sleep patterns by interfering with synthesis of the hormone melatonin, which is essential for sound sleep, Dr. Nye told the UK Science Media Centre.

However, he stressed that much more research is needed before any link can be considered definitive.
 

Outdoor night light exposure linked to fasting glucose, A1c

The Chinese researchers set out to approximate the relationships between diabetes prevalence and glucose homeostasis with chronic exposure to outdoor light at night. 

They assessed 98,658 participants from the China Noncommunicable Disease Surveillance Study across 162 sites. The mean age of participants was 42.7 years. Female participants comprised 49.2% of the study cohort.

Diabetes was defined based on American Diabetes Association criteria. Satellite data were used to determine exposure to outdoor light at night in 2010. The associations between light exposure at night and indicators of glucose homeostasis were investigated.

Prevalence ratios were calculated and adjusted for sex, age, smoking status, education, body mass index, physical activity, household income, family history of diabetes, rural/urban areas, drinking status, and use of lipid-lowering prescription drugs (primarily statins) or antihypertensives.

The findings showed exposure levels to outdoor light at night were positively linked with 2-hour and fasting glucose concentrations, A1c, and insulin resistance (measured using homeostatic model assessment [HOMA]), but negatively related to β-cell function (measured using HOMA).
 

More research needed

“We advise caution against causal interpretation of the findings and call for further studies involving direct measurement of individual exposure to light at night,” the researchers conclude.

Dr. Nye agreed.

“One issue with this study is that the areas with the highest outdoor artificial light levels are likely to be those in urban areas and bigger cities. It has been known for a long time now that living in an urbanized area increases your risk of obesity through increased access to high-fat and convenience food, less physical activity levels due to transport links, and less social activities. The authors also state this and the fact participants tended to be older,” he noted.

Large datasets are used in this investigation, however, which generally increases the reliability of the data, he observed.

But it is also “unclear as to whether the population here was selected for this study or was retrospectively analyzed, which poses reliability issues, as does the selection of the representative sample, as it is not discussed,” he noted.

Ultimately, there is no confirmed evidence of the link, and until further work is done to directly link light exposure and diabetes in humans, “the link will remain an association only,” he concluded.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Higher levels of exposure to outdoor artificial light at night are significantly linked with markers of diabetes and impaired glucose homeostasis, in a new national, cross-sectional study from China.

The results showed a 7% significant increase in diabetes prevalence per quintile exposure to artificial light at night (prevalence ratio, 1.07), report Ruizhi Zheng, PhD, of the Shanghai (China) Jiaotong University School of Medicine, and colleagues. People living in areas with the most exposure to light at night had a 28% higher prevalence of diabetes than those living in places with the lowest exposure (PR, 1.28), the researchers found.

The study was published online  in Diabetologia.

Previous animal studies have shown that exposure to light at night may interfere with circadian rhythms and affect glucose homeostasis, the study team note. Other research has demonstrated that chronic exposure to moderate indoor light during sleep elevated the prevalence of diabetes in older adults, compared with those sleeping in a dim setting, the authors add.

“Our findings contribute to the growing literature suggesting that artificial light at night is detrimental to health and demonstrate that artificial light at night may be a potential novel risk factor for diabetes,” they write.

“Considering the coexistence of the diabetes epidemic and the widespread influence of light pollution at night, the positive associations indicate an urgent need for countries and governments to develop effective prevention and intervention policies and to protect people from the adverse health effects of light pollution at night,” the study authors stress.

Gareth Nye, PhD, senior lecturer at the University of Chester, England, agreed that prior research has found an association between metabolic conditions, such as diabetes, and artificial light at night, with most theories as to the cause focusing on the body’s natural circadian cycle.

He said that internal clocks regulate a variety of bodily processes, such as metabolism and hormone synthesis. They also affect sleep patterns by interfering with synthesis of the hormone melatonin, which is essential for sound sleep, Dr. Nye told the UK Science Media Centre.

However, he stressed that much more research is needed before any link can be considered definitive.
 

Outdoor night light exposure linked to fasting glucose, A1c

The Chinese researchers set out to approximate the relationships between diabetes prevalence and glucose homeostasis with chronic exposure to outdoor light at night. 

They assessed 98,658 participants from the China Noncommunicable Disease Surveillance Study across 162 sites. The mean age of participants was 42.7 years. Female participants comprised 49.2% of the study cohort.

Diabetes was defined based on American Diabetes Association criteria. Satellite data were used to determine exposure to outdoor light at night in 2010. The associations between light exposure at night and indicators of glucose homeostasis were investigated.

Prevalence ratios were calculated and adjusted for sex, age, smoking status, education, body mass index, physical activity, household income, family history of diabetes, rural/urban areas, drinking status, and use of lipid-lowering prescription drugs (primarily statins) or antihypertensives.

The findings showed exposure levels to outdoor light at night were positively linked with 2-hour and fasting glucose concentrations, A1c, and insulin resistance (measured using homeostatic model assessment [HOMA]), but negatively related to β-cell function (measured using HOMA).
 

More research needed

“We advise caution against causal interpretation of the findings and call for further studies involving direct measurement of individual exposure to light at night,” the researchers conclude.

Dr. Nye agreed.

“One issue with this study is that the areas with the highest outdoor artificial light levels are likely to be those in urban areas and bigger cities. It has been known for a long time now that living in an urbanized area increases your risk of obesity through increased access to high-fat and convenience food, less physical activity levels due to transport links, and less social activities. The authors also state this and the fact participants tended to be older,” he noted.

Large datasets are used in this investigation, however, which generally increases the reliability of the data, he observed.

But it is also “unclear as to whether the population here was selected for this study or was retrospectively analyzed, which poses reliability issues, as does the selection of the representative sample, as it is not discussed,” he noted.

Ultimately, there is no confirmed evidence of the link, and until further work is done to directly link light exposure and diabetes in humans, “the link will remain an association only,” he concluded.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

U.K. researchers have established that hypertension is associated with a 22% greater risk of severe COVID-19, with the odds of severe COVID-19 unaffected by medication type.

Hypertension “appears to be one of the commonest comorbidities in COVID-19 patients”, explained the authors of a new study, published in PLOS ONE. The authors highlighted that previous research had shown that hypertension was more prevalent in severe and fatal cases compared with all cases of COVID-19.

They pointed out, however, that whether hypertensive individuals have a higher risk of severe COVID-19, compared with nonhypertensives, and whether the absolute level of systolic blood pressure or the type of antihypertensive medication is related to this risk, remained “unclear.”

To try to answer these questions, the research team, led by University of Cambridge researchers, analyzed data from 16,134 individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 (mean age 65.3 years, 47% male, 90% white), 40% were diagnosed with essential hypertension at the analysis baseline – 22% of whom had developed severe COVID-19.

Systolic blood pressure (SBP) was categorized by 10–mm Hg ranges, starting from < 120 mm Hg up to 180+ mm Hg, with the reference category defined as 120-129 mm Hg, based on data from the SPRINT study, which demonstrated that intensive SBP lowering to below 120 mm Hg, as compared with the traditional threshold of 140 mm Hg, was beneficial. Diastolic blood pressure was categorized by 10–mm Hg ranges, starting from < 60 mm Hg up to 100+ mm Hg with 80-90 mm Hg being the reference category.

In their analyses the researchers adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, ethnicity, smoking status, diabetes status, socioeconomic status, and inflammation (C-reactive protein [CRP]), as these were proposed as potential confounders. To assess the direct effect of hypertension on COVID-19, they also adjusted for intermediate variables, including cardiovascular comorbidities and stroke, on the causal pathway between hypertension and severe COVID-19.
 

Majority of effect of hypertension on severe COVID-19 was direct

The unadjusted odds ratio of the association between hypertension and severe COVID-19 was 2.33 (95% confidence interval, 2.16-2.51), the authors emphasized. They found that, after adjusting for all confounding variables, hypertension was associated with 22% higher odds of severe COVID-19 (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.12-1.33), compared with normotension.

Individuals with severe COVID-19 were marginally older, more likely to be male, and more deprived, the authors said. “They were also more likely to be hypertensive, compared with individuals without severe COVID-19, and a greater proportion of individuals with severe COVID-19 had cardiovascular comorbidities.”

The majority of the effect of hypertension on development of severe COVID-19 was “direct,” they said. However, a modest proportion of the effect was mediated via cardiovascular comorbidities such as peripheral vascular disease, MI, coronary heart disease, arrhythmias, and stroke. Of note, those with a history of stroke had a 47% higher risk of severe COVID-19 and those with a history of other cardiovascular comorbidities had a 30% higher risk of severe COVID-19, the authors commented.
 

J-shaped relationship

Of the total of 6,517 (40%) individuals who had a diagnosis of essential hypertension at baseline, 67% were treated (41% with monotherapy, 59% with combination therapy), and 33% were untreated.

There were similar numbers of severe COVID-19 in each medication group: ACE inhibitors, 34%; angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), 36%; and “other” medications 34%.

In hypertensive individuals receiving antihypertensive medications, there was a “J-shaped relationship” between the level of blood pressure and risk of severe COVID-19 when using a systolic blood pressure level of 120-129 mm Hg as a reference – 150-159 mm Hg versus 120-129 mm Hg (OR 1.91; 95% CI, 1.44-2.53), > 180+ mm Hg versus 120-129 mm Hg (OR 1.93; 95% CI, 1.06-3.51).

The authors commented that there was no evidence of a higher risk of severe COVID-19 until systolic blood pressure “exceeded 150 mm Hg.”

They said it was an interesting finding that “very well-controlled” systolic blood pressure < 120 mm Hg was associated with a 40% (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.11-1.78) greater odds of severe COVID-19. “This may be due to reverse causality, where low systolic blood pressure levels may indicate poorer health, such that the occurrence of severe COVID-19 may be related to underlying disease rather than the level of SBP per se,” they suggested.

The J-shaped association observed remained after multiple adjustments, including presence of known cardiovascular comorbidities, which suggested a possible “real effect” of low SBP on severe COVID-19, “at least in treated hypertensive individuals.”

Their analyses also identified that, compared with a “normal” diastolic blood pressure (80-90 mm Hg), having a diastolic blood pressure higher than 90 mm Hg was associated with higher odds of severe COVID-19.

The association between hypertension and COVID-19 was “amplified” if the individuals were treated and their BP remained uncontrolled, the authors pointed out.

There did not appear to be any difference in the risk of severe COVID-19 between individuals taking ACE inhibitors and those taking ARBs or other antihypertensive medications, the authors said.
 

Better understanding of underlying mechanisms needed

Individuals with hypertension who tested positive for COVID-19 had “over twice” the risk of developing severe COVID-19, compared with nonhypertensive individuals, the authors said.

They highlighted that their findings also suggest that there are “further effects” influencing the severity of COVID-19 beyond a “dichotomous” diagnosis of hypertension.

“Individuals with a higher-than-target systolic blood pressure may be less healthy, less active, suffering more severe hypertension, or have developed drug-resistant hypertension, all suggesting that the effects of hypertension have already had detrimental physiological effects on the cardiovascular system, which in turn may offer some explanation for the higher risk of severe COVID-19 with uncontrolled SBP,” they explained.

“Hypertension is an important risk factor for COVID-19,” reiterated the authors, who emphasized that a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms driving this increased risk is warranted in case of “more severe strains or other viruses” in the future.

The authors have declared no competing interests.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

U.K. researchers have established that hypertension is associated with a 22% greater risk of severe COVID-19, with the odds of severe COVID-19 unaffected by medication type.

Hypertension “appears to be one of the commonest comorbidities in COVID-19 patients”, explained the authors of a new study, published in PLOS ONE. The authors highlighted that previous research had shown that hypertension was more prevalent in severe and fatal cases compared with all cases of COVID-19.

They pointed out, however, that whether hypertensive individuals have a higher risk of severe COVID-19, compared with nonhypertensives, and whether the absolute level of systolic blood pressure or the type of antihypertensive medication is related to this risk, remained “unclear.”

To try to answer these questions, the research team, led by University of Cambridge researchers, analyzed data from 16,134 individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 (mean age 65.3 years, 47% male, 90% white), 40% were diagnosed with essential hypertension at the analysis baseline – 22% of whom had developed severe COVID-19.

Systolic blood pressure (SBP) was categorized by 10–mm Hg ranges, starting from < 120 mm Hg up to 180+ mm Hg, with the reference category defined as 120-129 mm Hg, based on data from the SPRINT study, which demonstrated that intensive SBP lowering to below 120 mm Hg, as compared with the traditional threshold of 140 mm Hg, was beneficial. Diastolic blood pressure was categorized by 10–mm Hg ranges, starting from < 60 mm Hg up to 100+ mm Hg with 80-90 mm Hg being the reference category.

In their analyses the researchers adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, ethnicity, smoking status, diabetes status, socioeconomic status, and inflammation (C-reactive protein [CRP]), as these were proposed as potential confounders. To assess the direct effect of hypertension on COVID-19, they also adjusted for intermediate variables, including cardiovascular comorbidities and stroke, on the causal pathway between hypertension and severe COVID-19.
 

Majority of effect of hypertension on severe COVID-19 was direct

The unadjusted odds ratio of the association between hypertension and severe COVID-19 was 2.33 (95% confidence interval, 2.16-2.51), the authors emphasized. They found that, after adjusting for all confounding variables, hypertension was associated with 22% higher odds of severe COVID-19 (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.12-1.33), compared with normotension.

Individuals with severe COVID-19 were marginally older, more likely to be male, and more deprived, the authors said. “They were also more likely to be hypertensive, compared with individuals without severe COVID-19, and a greater proportion of individuals with severe COVID-19 had cardiovascular comorbidities.”

The majority of the effect of hypertension on development of severe COVID-19 was “direct,” they said. However, a modest proportion of the effect was mediated via cardiovascular comorbidities such as peripheral vascular disease, MI, coronary heart disease, arrhythmias, and stroke. Of note, those with a history of stroke had a 47% higher risk of severe COVID-19 and those with a history of other cardiovascular comorbidities had a 30% higher risk of severe COVID-19, the authors commented.
 

J-shaped relationship

Of the total of 6,517 (40%) individuals who had a diagnosis of essential hypertension at baseline, 67% were treated (41% with monotherapy, 59% with combination therapy), and 33% were untreated.

There were similar numbers of severe COVID-19 in each medication group: ACE inhibitors, 34%; angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), 36%; and “other” medications 34%.

In hypertensive individuals receiving antihypertensive medications, there was a “J-shaped relationship” between the level of blood pressure and risk of severe COVID-19 when using a systolic blood pressure level of 120-129 mm Hg as a reference – 150-159 mm Hg versus 120-129 mm Hg (OR 1.91; 95% CI, 1.44-2.53), > 180+ mm Hg versus 120-129 mm Hg (OR 1.93; 95% CI, 1.06-3.51).

The authors commented that there was no evidence of a higher risk of severe COVID-19 until systolic blood pressure “exceeded 150 mm Hg.”

They said it was an interesting finding that “very well-controlled” systolic blood pressure < 120 mm Hg was associated with a 40% (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.11-1.78) greater odds of severe COVID-19. “This may be due to reverse causality, where low systolic blood pressure levels may indicate poorer health, such that the occurrence of severe COVID-19 may be related to underlying disease rather than the level of SBP per se,” they suggested.

The J-shaped association observed remained after multiple adjustments, including presence of known cardiovascular comorbidities, which suggested a possible “real effect” of low SBP on severe COVID-19, “at least in treated hypertensive individuals.”

Their analyses also identified that, compared with a “normal” diastolic blood pressure (80-90 mm Hg), having a diastolic blood pressure higher than 90 mm Hg was associated with higher odds of severe COVID-19.

The association between hypertension and COVID-19 was “amplified” if the individuals were treated and their BP remained uncontrolled, the authors pointed out.

There did not appear to be any difference in the risk of severe COVID-19 between individuals taking ACE inhibitors and those taking ARBs or other antihypertensive medications, the authors said.
 

Better understanding of underlying mechanisms needed

Individuals with hypertension who tested positive for COVID-19 had “over twice” the risk of developing severe COVID-19, compared with nonhypertensive individuals, the authors said.

They highlighted that their findings also suggest that there are “further effects” influencing the severity of COVID-19 beyond a “dichotomous” diagnosis of hypertension.

“Individuals with a higher-than-target systolic blood pressure may be less healthy, less active, suffering more severe hypertension, or have developed drug-resistant hypertension, all suggesting that the effects of hypertension have already had detrimental physiological effects on the cardiovascular system, which in turn may offer some explanation for the higher risk of severe COVID-19 with uncontrolled SBP,” they explained.

“Hypertension is an important risk factor for COVID-19,” reiterated the authors, who emphasized that a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms driving this increased risk is warranted in case of “more severe strains or other viruses” in the future.

The authors have declared no competing interests.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

U.K. researchers have established that hypertension is associated with a 22% greater risk of severe COVID-19, with the odds of severe COVID-19 unaffected by medication type.

Hypertension “appears to be one of the commonest comorbidities in COVID-19 patients”, explained the authors of a new study, published in PLOS ONE. The authors highlighted that previous research had shown that hypertension was more prevalent in severe and fatal cases compared with all cases of COVID-19.

They pointed out, however, that whether hypertensive individuals have a higher risk of severe COVID-19, compared with nonhypertensives, and whether the absolute level of systolic blood pressure or the type of antihypertensive medication is related to this risk, remained “unclear.”

To try to answer these questions, the research team, led by University of Cambridge researchers, analyzed data from 16,134 individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 (mean age 65.3 years, 47% male, 90% white), 40% were diagnosed with essential hypertension at the analysis baseline – 22% of whom had developed severe COVID-19.

Systolic blood pressure (SBP) was categorized by 10–mm Hg ranges, starting from < 120 mm Hg up to 180+ mm Hg, with the reference category defined as 120-129 mm Hg, based on data from the SPRINT study, which demonstrated that intensive SBP lowering to below 120 mm Hg, as compared with the traditional threshold of 140 mm Hg, was beneficial. Diastolic blood pressure was categorized by 10–mm Hg ranges, starting from < 60 mm Hg up to 100+ mm Hg with 80-90 mm Hg being the reference category.

In their analyses the researchers adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, ethnicity, smoking status, diabetes status, socioeconomic status, and inflammation (C-reactive protein [CRP]), as these were proposed as potential confounders. To assess the direct effect of hypertension on COVID-19, they also adjusted for intermediate variables, including cardiovascular comorbidities and stroke, on the causal pathway between hypertension and severe COVID-19.
 

Majority of effect of hypertension on severe COVID-19 was direct

The unadjusted odds ratio of the association between hypertension and severe COVID-19 was 2.33 (95% confidence interval, 2.16-2.51), the authors emphasized. They found that, after adjusting for all confounding variables, hypertension was associated with 22% higher odds of severe COVID-19 (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.12-1.33), compared with normotension.

Individuals with severe COVID-19 were marginally older, more likely to be male, and more deprived, the authors said. “They were also more likely to be hypertensive, compared with individuals without severe COVID-19, and a greater proportion of individuals with severe COVID-19 had cardiovascular comorbidities.”

The majority of the effect of hypertension on development of severe COVID-19 was “direct,” they said. However, a modest proportion of the effect was mediated via cardiovascular comorbidities such as peripheral vascular disease, MI, coronary heart disease, arrhythmias, and stroke. Of note, those with a history of stroke had a 47% higher risk of severe COVID-19 and those with a history of other cardiovascular comorbidities had a 30% higher risk of severe COVID-19, the authors commented.
 

J-shaped relationship

Of the total of 6,517 (40%) individuals who had a diagnosis of essential hypertension at baseline, 67% were treated (41% with monotherapy, 59% with combination therapy), and 33% were untreated.

There were similar numbers of severe COVID-19 in each medication group: ACE inhibitors, 34%; angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), 36%; and “other” medications 34%.

In hypertensive individuals receiving antihypertensive medications, there was a “J-shaped relationship” between the level of blood pressure and risk of severe COVID-19 when using a systolic blood pressure level of 120-129 mm Hg as a reference – 150-159 mm Hg versus 120-129 mm Hg (OR 1.91; 95% CI, 1.44-2.53), > 180+ mm Hg versus 120-129 mm Hg (OR 1.93; 95% CI, 1.06-3.51).

The authors commented that there was no evidence of a higher risk of severe COVID-19 until systolic blood pressure “exceeded 150 mm Hg.”

They said it was an interesting finding that “very well-controlled” systolic blood pressure < 120 mm Hg was associated with a 40% (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.11-1.78) greater odds of severe COVID-19. “This may be due to reverse causality, where low systolic blood pressure levels may indicate poorer health, such that the occurrence of severe COVID-19 may be related to underlying disease rather than the level of SBP per se,” they suggested.

The J-shaped association observed remained after multiple adjustments, including presence of known cardiovascular comorbidities, which suggested a possible “real effect” of low SBP on severe COVID-19, “at least in treated hypertensive individuals.”

Their analyses also identified that, compared with a “normal” diastolic blood pressure (80-90 mm Hg), having a diastolic blood pressure higher than 90 mm Hg was associated with higher odds of severe COVID-19.

The association between hypertension and COVID-19 was “amplified” if the individuals were treated and their BP remained uncontrolled, the authors pointed out.

There did not appear to be any difference in the risk of severe COVID-19 between individuals taking ACE inhibitors and those taking ARBs or other antihypertensive medications, the authors said.
 

Better understanding of underlying mechanisms needed

Individuals with hypertension who tested positive for COVID-19 had “over twice” the risk of developing severe COVID-19, compared with nonhypertensive individuals, the authors said.

They highlighted that their findings also suggest that there are “further effects” influencing the severity of COVID-19 beyond a “dichotomous” diagnosis of hypertension.

“Individuals with a higher-than-target systolic blood pressure may be less healthy, less active, suffering more severe hypertension, or have developed drug-resistant hypertension, all suggesting that the effects of hypertension have already had detrimental physiological effects on the cardiovascular system, which in turn may offer some explanation for the higher risk of severe COVID-19 with uncontrolled SBP,” they explained.

“Hypertension is an important risk factor for COVID-19,” reiterated the authors, who emphasized that a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms driving this increased risk is warranted in case of “more severe strains or other viruses” in the future.

The authors have declared no competing interests.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.