Clinician Reviews

A low-sodium diet was not associated with a reduction in future clinical events in a new study in ambulatory patients with heart failure. But there was a moderate benefit on quality of life and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class.

“The guidelines used to strongly recommend a reduction in sodium intake in heart failure patients, but this advice has backed off in recent years because of the lack of data. Most heart failure guidelines now do not make any recommendations on dietary sodium,” he said.

SODIUM-HF was a pragmatic, multinational, open-label, randomized trial conducted in six countries (Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and New Zealand), which included 809 patients (median age, 67 years) with chronic heart failure (NYHA functional class II–III) who were receiving optimally tolerated guideline-directed medical treatment. They were randomly assigned to usual care according to local guidelines or a low-sodium diet of less than 100 mmol (<1,500 mg/day). Patients with a baseline sodium intake of less than 1,500 mg/day were excluded.

In the intervention group, patients were asked to follow low-sodium menus developed by dietitians localized to each region. They also received behavioral counseling by trained dietitians or physicians or nurses.

Dietary sodium intake was assessed by using a 3-day food record (including 1 weekend day) at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months in both groups and, for the intervention group, also at 3 and 9 months to monitor and support dietary adherence.

Dr. Ezekowitz explained that although the best method for measuring sodium levels would normally be a 24-hour urine sodium, this would be impractical in a large clinical trial. In addition, he pointed out that urinary sodium is not an accurate measure of actual sodium levels in patients taking diuretics, so it is not a good measure to use in a heart failure population.

“The food record method of assessing sodium levels has been well validated; I think we measured it as accurately as we could have done,” he added.

Results showed that between baseline and 12 months, the median sodium intake decreased from 2,286 mg/day to 1,658 mg/day in the low-sodium group and from 2,119 mg/day to 2,073 mg/day in the usual care group. The median difference between groups was 415 mg/day at 12 months.

By 12 months, events comprising the primary outcome (hospitalization or emergency department visits due to cardiovascular causes or all-cause death) had occurred in 15% of patients in the low-sodium diet group and 17% of those in the usual care group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [95% CI, 0.63 - 1.26]; P = .53).

All-cause death occurred in 6% of patients in the low-sodium diet group and 4% of those in the usual care group (HR, 1.38; P = .32). Cardiovascular-related hospitalization occurred in 10% of the low-sodium group and 12% of the usual care group (HR, 0.82; P = .36), and cardiovascular-related emergency department visits occurred in 4% of both groups (HR, 1.21; P = .60).

The absence of treatment effect for the primary outcome was consistent across most prespecified subgroups, including those with higher vs lower baseline sodium intake. But there was a suggestion of a greater reduction in the primary outcome in individuals younger than age 65 years than in those age 65 years and older.

Quality-of-life measures on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) suggested a benefit in the low-sodium group, with mean between-group differences in the change from baseline to 12 months of 3.38 points in the overall summary score, 3.29 points in the clinical summary score, and 3.77 points in the physical limitation score (all differences were statistically significant).

There was no significant difference in 6-minute-walk distance at 12 months between the low-sodium diet group and the usual care group.

NYHA functional class at 12 months differed significantly between groups; the low-sodium diet group had a greater likelihood of improving by one NYHA class than the usual care group (odds ratio, 0.59; P = .0061).

No safety events related to the study treatment were reported in either group.

Dr. Ezekowitz said that to investigate whether longer follow-up may show a difference in events, further analyses are planned at 2 years and 5 years.

Questions on food recall and blinding

Commenting on the findings at the late-breaking clinical trials session at the ACC meeting, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, congratulated Dr. Ezekowitz on conducting this trial.

“We have been chasing the holy grail of sodium reduction in heart failure for a very long time, so I have to commend you and your team for taking on this challenge, especially during the pandemic,” she said.

But Dr. Bozkurt questioned whether the intervention group actually had a meaningful sodium reduction given that this was measured by food recall and this may have been accounted for by under-reporting of certain food intakes.

Dr. Ezekowitz responded that patients acted as their own controls in that calorie intake, fluid intake, and weight were also assessed and did not change. “So I think we did have a meaningful reduction in sodium,” he said.

Dr. Bozkurt also queried whether the improvements in quality of life and functional status were reliable given that this was an unblinded study.

To this point, Dr. Ezekowitz pointed out that the KCCQ quality-of-life measure was a highly validated instrument and that improvements were seen in these measures at 3, 6, and 12 months. “It is not like these were spurious findings, so I think we have to look at this as a real result,” he argued.

Commenting on the study at an ACC press conference, Mary Norine Walsh, MD, director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation programs at St. Vincent Heart Center in Indianapolis, said the trial had answered two important questions: that sodium reduction in heart failure may not reduce heart failure hospitalization/death but that patients feel better.

“I think we can safely tell patients that if they slip up a bit they may not end up in hospital,” she added.

This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the University Hospital Foundation (Edmonton, Alberta, Canada) and the Health Research Council of New Zealand. Dr. Ezekowitz reports research grants from American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, eko.ai, US2.ai, Merck, Novartis, Otsuka, Sanofi, and Servier and consulting fees from American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Otsuka, Sanofi, and Servier.

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

A low-sodium diet was not associated with a reduction in future clinical events in a new study in ambulatory patients with heart failure. But there was a moderate benefit on quality of life and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class.

“The guidelines used to strongly recommend a reduction in sodium intake in heart failure patients, but this advice has backed off in recent years because of the lack of data. Most heart failure guidelines now do not make any recommendations on dietary sodium,” he said.

SODIUM-HF was a pragmatic, multinational, open-label, randomized trial conducted in six countries (Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and New Zealand), which included 809 patients (median age, 67 years) with chronic heart failure (NYHA functional class II–III) who were receiving optimally tolerated guideline-directed medical treatment. They were randomly assigned to usual care according to local guidelines or a low-sodium diet of less than 100 mmol (<1,500 mg/day). Patients with a baseline sodium intake of less than 1,500 mg/day were excluded.

In the intervention group, patients were asked to follow low-sodium menus developed by dietitians localized to each region. They also received behavioral counseling by trained dietitians or physicians or nurses.

Dietary sodium intake was assessed by using a 3-day food record (including 1 weekend day) at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months in both groups and, for the intervention group, also at 3 and 9 months to monitor and support dietary adherence.

Dr. Ezekowitz explained that although the best method for measuring sodium levels would normally be a 24-hour urine sodium, this would be impractical in a large clinical trial. In addition, he pointed out that urinary sodium is not an accurate measure of actual sodium levels in patients taking diuretics, so it is not a good measure to use in a heart failure population.

“The food record method of assessing sodium levels has been well validated; I think we measured it as accurately as we could have done,” he added.

Results showed that between baseline and 12 months, the median sodium intake decreased from 2,286 mg/day to 1,658 mg/day in the low-sodium group and from 2,119 mg/day to 2,073 mg/day in the usual care group. The median difference between groups was 415 mg/day at 12 months.

By 12 months, events comprising the primary outcome (hospitalization or emergency department visits due to cardiovascular causes or all-cause death) had occurred in 15% of patients in the low-sodium diet group and 17% of those in the usual care group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [95% CI, 0.63 - 1.26]; P = .53).

All-cause death occurred in 6% of patients in the low-sodium diet group and 4% of those in the usual care group (HR, 1.38; P = .32). Cardiovascular-related hospitalization occurred in 10% of the low-sodium group and 12% of the usual care group (HR, 0.82; P = .36), and cardiovascular-related emergency department visits occurred in 4% of both groups (HR, 1.21; P = .60).

The absence of treatment effect for the primary outcome was consistent across most prespecified subgroups, including those with higher vs lower baseline sodium intake. But there was a suggestion of a greater reduction in the primary outcome in individuals younger than age 65 years than in those age 65 years and older.

Quality-of-life measures on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) suggested a benefit in the low-sodium group, with mean between-group differences in the change from baseline to 12 months of 3.38 points in the overall summary score, 3.29 points in the clinical summary score, and 3.77 points in the physical limitation score (all differences were statistically significant).

There was no significant difference in 6-minute-walk distance at 12 months between the low-sodium diet group and the usual care group.

NYHA functional class at 12 months differed significantly between groups; the low-sodium diet group had a greater likelihood of improving by one NYHA class than the usual care group (odds ratio, 0.59; P = .0061).

No safety events related to the study treatment were reported in either group.

Dr. Ezekowitz said that to investigate whether longer follow-up may show a difference in events, further analyses are planned at 2 years and 5 years.

Questions on food recall and blinding

Commenting on the findings at the late-breaking clinical trials session at the ACC meeting, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, congratulated Dr. Ezekowitz on conducting this trial.

“We have been chasing the holy grail of sodium reduction in heart failure for a very long time, so I have to commend you and your team for taking on this challenge, especially during the pandemic,” she said.

But Dr. Bozkurt questioned whether the intervention group actually had a meaningful sodium reduction given that this was measured by food recall and this may have been accounted for by under-reporting of certain food intakes.

Dr. Ezekowitz responded that patients acted as their own controls in that calorie intake, fluid intake, and weight were also assessed and did not change. “So I think we did have a meaningful reduction in sodium,” he said.

Dr. Bozkurt also queried whether the improvements in quality of life and functional status were reliable given that this was an unblinded study.

To this point, Dr. Ezekowitz pointed out that the KCCQ quality-of-life measure was a highly validated instrument and that improvements were seen in these measures at 3, 6, and 12 months. “It is not like these were spurious findings, so I think we have to look at this as a real result,” he argued.

Commenting on the study at an ACC press conference, Mary Norine Walsh, MD, director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation programs at St. Vincent Heart Center in Indianapolis, said the trial had answered two important questions: that sodium reduction in heart failure may not reduce heart failure hospitalization/death but that patients feel better.

“I think we can safely tell patients that if they slip up a bit they may not end up in hospital,” she added.

This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the University Hospital Foundation (Edmonton, Alberta, Canada) and the Health Research Council of New Zealand. Dr. Ezekowitz reports research grants from American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, eko.ai, US2.ai, Merck, Novartis, Otsuka, Sanofi, and Servier and consulting fees from American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Otsuka, Sanofi, and Servier.

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

A low-sodium diet was not associated with a reduction in future clinical events in a new study in ambulatory patients with heart failure. But there was a moderate benefit on quality of life and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class.

“The guidelines used to strongly recommend a reduction in sodium intake in heart failure patients, but this advice has backed off in recent years because of the lack of data. Most heart failure guidelines now do not make any recommendations on dietary sodium,” he said.

SODIUM-HF was a pragmatic, multinational, open-label, randomized trial conducted in six countries (Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and New Zealand), which included 809 patients (median age, 67 years) with chronic heart failure (NYHA functional class II–III) who were receiving optimally tolerated guideline-directed medical treatment. They were randomly assigned to usual care according to local guidelines or a low-sodium diet of less than 100 mmol (<1,500 mg/day). Patients with a baseline sodium intake of less than 1,500 mg/day were excluded.

In the intervention group, patients were asked to follow low-sodium menus developed by dietitians localized to each region. They also received behavioral counseling by trained dietitians or physicians or nurses.

Dietary sodium intake was assessed by using a 3-day food record (including 1 weekend day) at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months in both groups and, for the intervention group, also at 3 and 9 months to monitor and support dietary adherence.

Dr. Ezekowitz explained that although the best method for measuring sodium levels would normally be a 24-hour urine sodium, this would be impractical in a large clinical trial. In addition, he pointed out that urinary sodium is not an accurate measure of actual sodium levels in patients taking diuretics, so it is not a good measure to use in a heart failure population.

“The food record method of assessing sodium levels has been well validated; I think we measured it as accurately as we could have done,” he added.

Results showed that between baseline and 12 months, the median sodium intake decreased from 2,286 mg/day to 1,658 mg/day in the low-sodium group and from 2,119 mg/day to 2,073 mg/day in the usual care group. The median difference between groups was 415 mg/day at 12 months.

By 12 months, events comprising the primary outcome (hospitalization or emergency department visits due to cardiovascular causes or all-cause death) had occurred in 15% of patients in the low-sodium diet group and 17% of those in the usual care group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [95% CI, 0.63 - 1.26]; P = .53).

All-cause death occurred in 6% of patients in the low-sodium diet group and 4% of those in the usual care group (HR, 1.38; P = .32). Cardiovascular-related hospitalization occurred in 10% of the low-sodium group and 12% of the usual care group (HR, 0.82; P = .36), and cardiovascular-related emergency department visits occurred in 4% of both groups (HR, 1.21; P = .60).

The absence of treatment effect for the primary outcome was consistent across most prespecified subgroups, including those with higher vs lower baseline sodium intake. But there was a suggestion of a greater reduction in the primary outcome in individuals younger than age 65 years than in those age 65 years and older.

Quality-of-life measures on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) suggested a benefit in the low-sodium group, with mean between-group differences in the change from baseline to 12 months of 3.38 points in the overall summary score, 3.29 points in the clinical summary score, and 3.77 points in the physical limitation score (all differences were statistically significant).

There was no significant difference in 6-minute-walk distance at 12 months between the low-sodium diet group and the usual care group.

NYHA functional class at 12 months differed significantly between groups; the low-sodium diet group had a greater likelihood of improving by one NYHA class than the usual care group (odds ratio, 0.59; P = .0061).

No safety events related to the study treatment were reported in either group.

Dr. Ezekowitz said that to investigate whether longer follow-up may show a difference in events, further analyses are planned at 2 years and 5 years.

Questions on food recall and blinding

Commenting on the findings at the late-breaking clinical trials session at the ACC meeting, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, congratulated Dr. Ezekowitz on conducting this trial.

“We have been chasing the holy grail of sodium reduction in heart failure for a very long time, so I have to commend you and your team for taking on this challenge, especially during the pandemic,” she said.

But Dr. Bozkurt questioned whether the intervention group actually had a meaningful sodium reduction given that this was measured by food recall and this may have been accounted for by under-reporting of certain food intakes.

Dr. Ezekowitz responded that patients acted as their own controls in that calorie intake, fluid intake, and weight were also assessed and did not change. “So I think we did have a meaningful reduction in sodium,” he said.

Dr. Bozkurt also queried whether the improvements in quality of life and functional status were reliable given that this was an unblinded study.

To this point, Dr. Ezekowitz pointed out that the KCCQ quality-of-life measure was a highly validated instrument and that improvements were seen in these measures at 3, 6, and 12 months. “It is not like these were spurious findings, so I think we have to look at this as a real result,” he argued.

Commenting on the study at an ACC press conference, Mary Norine Walsh, MD, director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation programs at St. Vincent Heart Center in Indianapolis, said the trial had answered two important questions: that sodium reduction in heart failure may not reduce heart failure hospitalization/death but that patients feel better.

“I think we can safely tell patients that if they slip up a bit they may not end up in hospital,” she added.

This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the University Hospital Foundation (Edmonton, Alberta, Canada) and the Health Research Council of New Zealand. Dr. Ezekowitz reports research grants from American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, eko.ai, US2.ai, Merck, Novartis, Otsuka, Sanofi, and Servier and consulting fees from American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Otsuka, Sanofi, and Servier.

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

Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug that became popular as an alternative treatment for COVID-19, showed no signs of quelling the disease or reducing patients’ risk of hospitalization, according to results from a large clinical trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The findings pretty much rule out the drug as a treatment for COVID-19, the study authors wrote.

“There’s really no sign of any benefit,” David Boulware, MD, one of the coauthors and an infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the New York Times.

The researchers shared a summary of the results in August 2021 during an online presentation hosted by the National Institutes of Health. The full data hadn’t been published until now.

“Now that people can dive into the details and the data, hopefully that will steer the majority of doctors away from ivermectin toward other therapies,” Dr. Boulware said.

In the trial, the research team compared more than 1,350 people infected with the coronavirus in Brazil who received either ivermectin or a placebo as treatment.

Between March and August 2021, 679 patients received a daily dose of ivermectin over the course of 3 days. The researchers found that ivermectin didn’t reduce the risk that people with COVID-19 would be hospitalized or go to an ED within 28 days after treatment.

In addition, the researchers looked at particular groups to understand if some patients benefited for some reason, such as taking ivermectin sooner after testing positive for COVID-19. But those who took the drug during the first 3 days after a positive coronavirus test ended up doing worse than those in the placebo group. The drug also didn’t help patients recover sooner.

The researchers found “no important effects” of treatment with ivermectin on the number of days people spent in the hospital, the number of days hospitalized people needed mechanical ventilation, or the risk of death.

Ivermectin has become a controversial focal point during the pandemic.

For decades, the drug has been widely used to treat parasitic infections. At the beginning of the pandemic, researchers checked thousands of existing drugs against the coronavirus to determine if a potential treatment already existed. Laboratory experiments on cells suggested that ivermectin might work, the New York Times reported.

But some researchers noted that the experiments worked because a high concentration of ivermectin was used, a much higher dose than would be safe for people. Despite the concerns, some doctors began prescribing ivermectin to patients. After receiving reports of people who needed medical attention, particularly after using formulations intended for livestock, the Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that the drug wasn’t approved to be used for COVID-19.

Researchers around the world have done small clinical trials to understand whether ivermectin treats COVID-19, the newspaper reported. At the end of 2020, Andrew Hill, MD, a virologist at the University of Liverpool in England, reviewed the results from 23 trials and concluded that the drug could lower the risk of death from COVID-19. He published the results in July 2021, but later reports found that many of the studies were flawed, and at least one was fraudulent.

Dr. Hill retracted his original study and began another analysis, which was published in January 2022. In this review, he and his colleagues focused on studies that were least likely to be biased. They found that ivermectin was not helpful.

Recently, Dr. Hill and associates ran another analysis using the new data from the Brazil trial, and once again they saw no benefit.

Several clinical trials are still testing ivermectin as a treatment, the New York Times reported, with results expected in upcoming months. After reviewing the data from the Brazil trial, which tested ivermectin and a variety of other drugs against COVID-19, some infectious disease experts say they’ll likely see more of the same – that ivermectin doesn’t help people with COVID-19.

“I welcome the results of the other clinical trials and will view them with an open mind,” Paul Sax, MD, an infectious disease expert at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who has been watching the data on the drug throughout the pandemic, told the New York Times.

“But at some point, it will become a waste of resources to continue studying an unpromising approach,” he said.

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

Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug that became popular as an alternative treatment for COVID-19, showed no signs of quelling the disease or reducing patients’ risk of hospitalization, according to results from a large clinical trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The findings pretty much rule out the drug as a treatment for COVID-19, the study authors wrote.

“There’s really no sign of any benefit,” David Boulware, MD, one of the coauthors and an infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the New York Times.

The researchers shared a summary of the results in August 2021 during an online presentation hosted by the National Institutes of Health. The full data hadn’t been published until now.

“Now that people can dive into the details and the data, hopefully that will steer the majority of doctors away from ivermectin toward other therapies,” Dr. Boulware said.

In the trial, the research team compared more than 1,350 people infected with the coronavirus in Brazil who received either ivermectin or a placebo as treatment.

Between March and August 2021, 679 patients received a daily dose of ivermectin over the course of 3 days. The researchers found that ivermectin didn’t reduce the risk that people with COVID-19 would be hospitalized or go to an ED within 28 days after treatment.

In addition, the researchers looked at particular groups to understand if some patients benefited for some reason, such as taking ivermectin sooner after testing positive for COVID-19. But those who took the drug during the first 3 days after a positive coronavirus test ended up doing worse than those in the placebo group. The drug also didn’t help patients recover sooner.

The researchers found “no important effects” of treatment with ivermectin on the number of days people spent in the hospital, the number of days hospitalized people needed mechanical ventilation, or the risk of death.

Ivermectin has become a controversial focal point during the pandemic.

For decades, the drug has been widely used to treat parasitic infections. At the beginning of the pandemic, researchers checked thousands of existing drugs against the coronavirus to determine if a potential treatment already existed. Laboratory experiments on cells suggested that ivermectin might work, the New York Times reported.

But some researchers noted that the experiments worked because a high concentration of ivermectin was used, a much higher dose than would be safe for people. Despite the concerns, some doctors began prescribing ivermectin to patients. After receiving reports of people who needed medical attention, particularly after using formulations intended for livestock, the Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that the drug wasn’t approved to be used for COVID-19.

Researchers around the world have done small clinical trials to understand whether ivermectin treats COVID-19, the newspaper reported. At the end of 2020, Andrew Hill, MD, a virologist at the University of Liverpool in England, reviewed the results from 23 trials and concluded that the drug could lower the risk of death from COVID-19. He published the results in July 2021, but later reports found that many of the studies were flawed, and at least one was fraudulent.

Dr. Hill retracted his original study and began another analysis, which was published in January 2022. In this review, he and his colleagues focused on studies that were least likely to be biased. They found that ivermectin was not helpful.

Recently, Dr. Hill and associates ran another analysis using the new data from the Brazil trial, and once again they saw no benefit.

Several clinical trials are still testing ivermectin as a treatment, the New York Times reported, with results expected in upcoming months. After reviewing the data from the Brazil trial, which tested ivermectin and a variety of other drugs against COVID-19, some infectious disease experts say they’ll likely see more of the same – that ivermectin doesn’t help people with COVID-19.

“I welcome the results of the other clinical trials and will view them with an open mind,” Paul Sax, MD, an infectious disease expert at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who has been watching the data on the drug throughout the pandemic, told the New York Times.

“But at some point, it will become a waste of resources to continue studying an unpromising approach,” he said.

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

Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug that became popular as an alternative treatment for COVID-19, showed no signs of quelling the disease or reducing patients’ risk of hospitalization, according to results from a large clinical trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The findings pretty much rule out the drug as a treatment for COVID-19, the study authors wrote.

“There’s really no sign of any benefit,” David Boulware, MD, one of the coauthors and an infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the New York Times.

The researchers shared a summary of the results in August 2021 during an online presentation hosted by the National Institutes of Health. The full data hadn’t been published until now.

“Now that people can dive into the details and the data, hopefully that will steer the majority of doctors away from ivermectin toward other therapies,” Dr. Boulware said.

In the trial, the research team compared more than 1,350 people infected with the coronavirus in Brazil who received either ivermectin or a placebo as treatment.

Between March and August 2021, 679 patients received a daily dose of ivermectin over the course of 3 days. The researchers found that ivermectin didn’t reduce the risk that people with COVID-19 would be hospitalized or go to an ED within 28 days after treatment.

In addition, the researchers looked at particular groups to understand if some patients benefited for some reason, such as taking ivermectin sooner after testing positive for COVID-19. But those who took the drug during the first 3 days after a positive coronavirus test ended up doing worse than those in the placebo group. The drug also didn’t help patients recover sooner.

The researchers found “no important effects” of treatment with ivermectin on the number of days people spent in the hospital, the number of days hospitalized people needed mechanical ventilation, or the risk of death.

Ivermectin has become a controversial focal point during the pandemic.

For decades, the drug has been widely used to treat parasitic infections. At the beginning of the pandemic, researchers checked thousands of existing drugs against the coronavirus to determine if a potential treatment already existed. Laboratory experiments on cells suggested that ivermectin might work, the New York Times reported.

But some researchers noted that the experiments worked because a high concentration of ivermectin was used, a much higher dose than would be safe for people. Despite the concerns, some doctors began prescribing ivermectin to patients. After receiving reports of people who needed medical attention, particularly after using formulations intended for livestock, the Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that the drug wasn’t approved to be used for COVID-19.

Researchers around the world have done small clinical trials to understand whether ivermectin treats COVID-19, the newspaper reported. At the end of 2020, Andrew Hill, MD, a virologist at the University of Liverpool in England, reviewed the results from 23 trials and concluded that the drug could lower the risk of death from COVID-19. He published the results in July 2021, but later reports found that many of the studies were flawed, and at least one was fraudulent.

Dr. Hill retracted his original study and began another analysis, which was published in January 2022. In this review, he and his colleagues focused on studies that were least likely to be biased. They found that ivermectin was not helpful.

Recently, Dr. Hill and associates ran another analysis using the new data from the Brazil trial, and once again they saw no benefit.

Several clinical trials are still testing ivermectin as a treatment, the New York Times reported, with results expected in upcoming months. After reviewing the data from the Brazil trial, which tested ivermectin and a variety of other drugs against COVID-19, some infectious disease experts say they’ll likely see more of the same – that ivermectin doesn’t help people with COVID-19.

“I welcome the results of the other clinical trials and will view them with an open mind,” Paul Sax, MD, an infectious disease expert at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who has been watching the data on the drug throughout the pandemic, told the New York Times.

“But at some point, it will become a waste of resources to continue studying an unpromising approach,” he said.

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

A prospective study that followed more than 110,000 men and women for more than 30 years suggests that eating two servings of avocado a week reduces the risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD).

Researchers also found that replacing half a serving of butter, cheese, bacon, or other animal product with an equivalent amount of avocado was associated with up to 22% lower risk for CVD events.

tookapic/Pixabay

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

A prospective study that followed more than 110,000 men and women for more than 30 years suggests that eating two servings of avocado a week reduces the risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD).

Researchers also found that replacing half a serving of butter, cheese, bacon, or other animal product with an equivalent amount of avocado was associated with up to 22% lower risk for CVD events.

tookapic/Pixabay

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

A prospective study that followed more than 110,000 men and women for more than 30 years suggests that eating two servings of avocado a week reduces the risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD).

Researchers also found that replacing half a serving of butter, cheese, bacon, or other animal product with an equivalent amount of avocado was associated with up to 22% lower risk for CVD events.

tookapic/Pixabay

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

Even very light alcohol intake is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease, compared with not drinking at all, and the risk increases exponentially as alcohol intake rises, even at moderate levels, a new study shows.

“Our findings suggest that the observed benefit in individuals with light to moderate alcohol intake, which is consistently shown in epidemiological studies, is likely due to other positive lifestyle factors that are common in these individuals who drink lightly,” senior author Krishna Aragam, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

“Our results also showed that while all levels of alcohol were linked to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, the association was not linear. Rather, light alcohol intake was associated with rather modest risk increases, but there were exponential increases in cardiovascular risk with increasing amounts of alcohol consumption,” he said.

As the risk gradient appeared to increase quite sharply even between 1 and 2 drinks per day, Dr. Aragam suggested that what might be regarded as safe levels of drinking may trend downward in the future.

Kirby Hamilton/iStockphoto

They also conducted genetic analyses to examine the effect of alcohol and cardiovascular disease.   

Dr. Aragam explained that previous work has shown good evidence, in individuals who choose to drink, that several relevant genetic variants predict levels of alcohol consumption quite accurately.

“Mendelian randomization using these gene variants allows for stronger inferences about potential causality than do observational studies, as they are less affected by confounding factors,” he noted.

Newer techniques in Mendelian randomization in which data on several gene variants linked to alcohol consumption are combined into a score allow for a greater understanding of the risk linked to different amount of alcohol intake, he added.

In these Mendelian randomization analyses, a 1-standard deviation increase in genetically predicted alcohol consumption was associated with 1.3-fold higher risk of hypertension (P < .001) and 1.4-fold higher risk of coronary artery disease (P = .006).

Further analyses suggested nonlinear associations between alcohol consumption and both hypertension and coronary artery disease; light alcohol intake was associated with minimal increases in cardiovascular risk, whereas heavier consumption was associated with exponential increases in risk of both clinical and subclinical cardiovascular disease.

These results were replicated in a second database of 30,716 individuals from the Mass General Brigham Biobank.

“The findings of this study suggest that the observed cardioprotective effects of light to moderate alcohol intake may be largely mediated by confounding lifestyle factors,” the researchers conclude. “Genetic analyses suggest causal associations between alcohol intake and cardiovascular disease but with unequal and exponential increases in risk at greater levels of intake, which should be accounted for in health recommendations around the habitual consumption of alcohol.”

What is an acceptable level? 

“Specifically, our results suggest that consuming as many as 7 drinks per week is associated with relatively modest increases in cardiovascular risk,” they write.

But they point out that there are unequal increases in cardiovascular risk when progressing from 0 to 7 versus 7 to 14 drinks per week in both men and women.

“Although risk thresholds are inherently somewhat subjective, these findings again bring into question whether an average consumption of 2 drinks per day (14 drinks per week) should be designated a low-risk behavior,” they say.

“Furthermore, as several-fold increases in risk were observed for those consuming 21 or more drinks per week, our results emphasize the importance of aggressive efforts to reduce alcohol intake among heavy drinkers,” they add.

Dr. Aragam elaborated: “Our data suggest that reducing alcohol intake will reduce cardiovascular risk in all individuals, but the extent of the relative risk reduction is quite different depending on the current levels of consumption. For the same absolute reduction in alcohol intake, the gains in terms of reduction in cardiovascular risk will be more pronounced in those who drink heavily and will be more modest in those who drink at a light level.”

The results also suggest that while all levels of alcohol intake increase cardiovascular risk, there are low levels of alcohol consumption that do not carry major elevations in risk, but these are probably lower than those currently recommended, Dr. Aragam pointed out. 

“This doesn’t mean that everyone has to give up drinking alcohol completely, just that you shouldn’t consume with the goal of improving cardiovascular health. In fact, our analyses suggest that in an otherwise healthy person, up to 1 drink per day may not pose outsized risks,” he said. “And, even in a less healthy person who might be smoking, eating poorly, and drinking up to 1 drink per day, it may be a higher priority to focus on smoking cessation and diet than cutting back further on alcohol.”

“Beyond that amount, though, the jury is still out. Our models suggested marked increases in risk even between 1 and 2 drinks per day, and of course even greater risk increases beyond that. So, it’s probably worth revisiting what one might consider a ‘safe’ amount within the moderate drinking categories. The conservative move for now might be to advise a limit of 1 drink per day,” he said.   

Dr. Aragam is supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the American Heart Association. He reports receiving speaking fees from the Novartis Institute for Biomedical Research.

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

Even very light alcohol intake is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease, compared with not drinking at all, and the risk increases exponentially as alcohol intake rises, even at moderate levels, a new study shows.

“Our findings suggest that the observed benefit in individuals with light to moderate alcohol intake, which is consistently shown in epidemiological studies, is likely due to other positive lifestyle factors that are common in these individuals who drink lightly,” senior author Krishna Aragam, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

“Our results also showed that while all levels of alcohol were linked to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, the association was not linear. Rather, light alcohol intake was associated with rather modest risk increases, but there were exponential increases in cardiovascular risk with increasing amounts of alcohol consumption,” he said.

As the risk gradient appeared to increase quite sharply even between 1 and 2 drinks per day, Dr. Aragam suggested that what might be regarded as safe levels of drinking may trend downward in the future.

Kirby Hamilton/iStockphoto

They also conducted genetic analyses to examine the effect of alcohol and cardiovascular disease.   

Dr. Aragam explained that previous work has shown good evidence, in individuals who choose to drink, that several relevant genetic variants predict levels of alcohol consumption quite accurately.

“Mendelian randomization using these gene variants allows for stronger inferences about potential causality than do observational studies, as they are less affected by confounding factors,” he noted.

Newer techniques in Mendelian randomization in which data on several gene variants linked to alcohol consumption are combined into a score allow for a greater understanding of the risk linked to different amount of alcohol intake, he added.

In these Mendelian randomization analyses, a 1-standard deviation increase in genetically predicted alcohol consumption was associated with 1.3-fold higher risk of hypertension (P < .001) and 1.4-fold higher risk of coronary artery disease (P = .006).

Further analyses suggested nonlinear associations between alcohol consumption and both hypertension and coronary artery disease; light alcohol intake was associated with minimal increases in cardiovascular risk, whereas heavier consumption was associated with exponential increases in risk of both clinical and subclinical cardiovascular disease.

These results were replicated in a second database of 30,716 individuals from the Mass General Brigham Biobank.

“The findings of this study suggest that the observed cardioprotective effects of light to moderate alcohol intake may be largely mediated by confounding lifestyle factors,” the researchers conclude. “Genetic analyses suggest causal associations between alcohol intake and cardiovascular disease but with unequal and exponential increases in risk at greater levels of intake, which should be accounted for in health recommendations around the habitual consumption of alcohol.”

What is an acceptable level? 

“Specifically, our results suggest that consuming as many as 7 drinks per week is associated with relatively modest increases in cardiovascular risk,” they write.

But they point out that there are unequal increases in cardiovascular risk when progressing from 0 to 7 versus 7 to 14 drinks per week in both men and women.

“Although risk thresholds are inherently somewhat subjective, these findings again bring into question whether an average consumption of 2 drinks per day (14 drinks per week) should be designated a low-risk behavior,” they say.

“Furthermore, as several-fold increases in risk were observed for those consuming 21 or more drinks per week, our results emphasize the importance of aggressive efforts to reduce alcohol intake among heavy drinkers,” they add.

Dr. Aragam elaborated: “Our data suggest that reducing alcohol intake will reduce cardiovascular risk in all individuals, but the extent of the relative risk reduction is quite different depending on the current levels of consumption. For the same absolute reduction in alcohol intake, the gains in terms of reduction in cardiovascular risk will be more pronounced in those who drink heavily and will be more modest in those who drink at a light level.”

The results also suggest that while all levels of alcohol intake increase cardiovascular risk, there are low levels of alcohol consumption that do not carry major elevations in risk, but these are probably lower than those currently recommended, Dr. Aragam pointed out. 

“This doesn’t mean that everyone has to give up drinking alcohol completely, just that you shouldn’t consume with the goal of improving cardiovascular health. In fact, our analyses suggest that in an otherwise healthy person, up to 1 drink per day may not pose outsized risks,” he said. “And, even in a less healthy person who might be smoking, eating poorly, and drinking up to 1 drink per day, it may be a higher priority to focus on smoking cessation and diet than cutting back further on alcohol.”

“Beyond that amount, though, the jury is still out. Our models suggested marked increases in risk even between 1 and 2 drinks per day, and of course even greater risk increases beyond that. So, it’s probably worth revisiting what one might consider a ‘safe’ amount within the moderate drinking categories. The conservative move for now might be to advise a limit of 1 drink per day,” he said.   

Dr. Aragam is supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the American Heart Association. He reports receiving speaking fees from the Novartis Institute for Biomedical Research.

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

Even very light alcohol intake is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease, compared with not drinking at all, and the risk increases exponentially as alcohol intake rises, even at moderate levels, a new study shows.

“Our findings suggest that the observed benefit in individuals with light to moderate alcohol intake, which is consistently shown in epidemiological studies, is likely due to other positive lifestyle factors that are common in these individuals who drink lightly,” senior author Krishna Aragam, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

“Our results also showed that while all levels of alcohol were linked to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, the association was not linear. Rather, light alcohol intake was associated with rather modest risk increases, but there were exponential increases in cardiovascular risk with increasing amounts of alcohol consumption,” he said.

As the risk gradient appeared to increase quite sharply even between 1 and 2 drinks per day, Dr. Aragam suggested that what might be regarded as safe levels of drinking may trend downward in the future.

Kirby Hamilton/iStockphoto

They also conducted genetic analyses to examine the effect of alcohol and cardiovascular disease.   

Dr. Aragam explained that previous work has shown good evidence, in individuals who choose to drink, that several relevant genetic variants predict levels of alcohol consumption quite accurately.

“Mendelian randomization using these gene variants allows for stronger inferences about potential causality than do observational studies, as they are less affected by confounding factors,” he noted.

Newer techniques in Mendelian randomization in which data on several gene variants linked to alcohol consumption are combined into a score allow for a greater understanding of the risk linked to different amount of alcohol intake, he added.

In these Mendelian randomization analyses, a 1-standard deviation increase in genetically predicted alcohol consumption was associated with 1.3-fold higher risk of hypertension (P < .001) and 1.4-fold higher risk of coronary artery disease (P = .006).

Further analyses suggested nonlinear associations between alcohol consumption and both hypertension and coronary artery disease; light alcohol intake was associated with minimal increases in cardiovascular risk, whereas heavier consumption was associated with exponential increases in risk of both clinical and subclinical cardiovascular disease.

These results were replicated in a second database of 30,716 individuals from the Mass General Brigham Biobank.

“The findings of this study suggest that the observed cardioprotective effects of light to moderate alcohol intake may be largely mediated by confounding lifestyle factors,” the researchers conclude. “Genetic analyses suggest causal associations between alcohol intake and cardiovascular disease but with unequal and exponential increases in risk at greater levels of intake, which should be accounted for in health recommendations around the habitual consumption of alcohol.”

What is an acceptable level? 

“Specifically, our results suggest that consuming as many as 7 drinks per week is associated with relatively modest increases in cardiovascular risk,” they write.

But they point out that there are unequal increases in cardiovascular risk when progressing from 0 to 7 versus 7 to 14 drinks per week in both men and women.

“Although risk thresholds are inherently somewhat subjective, these findings again bring into question whether an average consumption of 2 drinks per day (14 drinks per week) should be designated a low-risk behavior,” they say.

“Furthermore, as several-fold increases in risk were observed for those consuming 21 or more drinks per week, our results emphasize the importance of aggressive efforts to reduce alcohol intake among heavy drinkers,” they add.

Dr. Aragam elaborated: “Our data suggest that reducing alcohol intake will reduce cardiovascular risk in all individuals, but the extent of the relative risk reduction is quite different depending on the current levels of consumption. For the same absolute reduction in alcohol intake, the gains in terms of reduction in cardiovascular risk will be more pronounced in those who drink heavily and will be more modest in those who drink at a light level.”

The results also suggest that while all levels of alcohol intake increase cardiovascular risk, there are low levels of alcohol consumption that do not carry major elevations in risk, but these are probably lower than those currently recommended, Dr. Aragam pointed out. 

“This doesn’t mean that everyone has to give up drinking alcohol completely, just that you shouldn’t consume with the goal of improving cardiovascular health. In fact, our analyses suggest that in an otherwise healthy person, up to 1 drink per day may not pose outsized risks,” he said. “And, even in a less healthy person who might be smoking, eating poorly, and drinking up to 1 drink per day, it may be a higher priority to focus on smoking cessation and diet than cutting back further on alcohol.”

“Beyond that amount, though, the jury is still out. Our models suggested marked increases in risk even between 1 and 2 drinks per day, and of course even greater risk increases beyond that. So, it’s probably worth revisiting what one might consider a ‘safe’ amount within the moderate drinking categories. The conservative move for now might be to advise a limit of 1 drink per day,” he said.   

Dr. Aragam is supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the American Heart Association. He reports receiving speaking fees from the Novartis Institute for Biomedical Research.

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

Older adults taking psychotropic medication before contracting COVID-19 are at increased risk of dementia in the year following the illness, new research suggests.

Results from a large study of more than 1,700 patients who had been hospitalized with COVID showed a greater than twofold increased risk for post-COVID dementia in those taking antipsychotics and mood stabilizers/anticonvulsants – medications often used to treat schizophrenia, psychosis, bipolar disorder, and seizures.

“We know that pre-existing psychiatric illness is associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes, but our study is the first to show an association with certain psychiatric medications and dementia,” co-investigator Liron Sinvani, MD, the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York, said in an interview.

Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research

‘Striking’ dementia rate

Using electronic health records, the researchers evaluated pre-COVID psychotropic medication use and post-COVID dementia onset in 1,755 adults aged 65 and older. All were hospitalized with COVID-19 at Northwell Health between March 1 and April 20, 2020.

A “striking” 13% of the participants (n = 223) developed dementia within 1-year of follow-up, the investigators report.

Among the 438 patients (25%) exposed to at least one psychotropic medication before COVID-19, 105 (24%) developed dementia in the year following COVID versus 118 of 1,317 (9%) patients with no pre-COVID exposure to psychotropic medication (odds ratio, 3.2; 95% confidence interval, 2.37-4.32).

Both pre-COVID psychotropic medication use (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.8-4.0, P < .001) and delirium (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.9-4.6, P < .001) were significantly associated with post-COVID dementia at 1 year.

In a sensitivity analysis in the subset of 423 patients with at least one documented neurologic or psychiatric diagnosis at the time of COVID admission, and after adjusting for confounding factors, pre-COVID psychotropic medication use remained significantly linked to post-COVID dementia onset (OR, 3.09; 95% CI, 1.5-6.6, P = .002).

Drug classes most strongly associated with 1-year post-COVID dementia onset were antipsychotics (OR, 2.8, 95% CI, 1.7-4.4, P < .001) and mood stabilizers/anticonvulsants (OR, 2.4, 95% CI, 1.39-4.02, P = .001).

In a further exploratory analysis, the psychotropics valproic acid (multiple brands) and haloperidol (Haldol) had the largest association with post-COVID dementia.

Antidepressants as a class were not associated with post-COVID dementia, but the potential effects of two commonly prescribed antidepressants in older adults, mirtazapine (Remeron) and escitalopram (Lexapro), “warrant further investigation,” the researchers note.
 

Predictive risk marker?

“This research shows that psychotropic medications can be considered a predictive risk marker for post-COVID dementia. In patients taking psychotropic medications, COVID-19 could have accelerated progression of dementia after hospitalization,” lead author Yun Freudenberg-Hua, MD, the Feinstein Institutes, said in a news release.

It is unclear why psychotropic medications may raise the risk for dementia onset after COVID, the investigators note.

“It is intuitive that psychotropic medications indicate pre-existing neuropsychiatric conditions in which COVID-19 occurs. It is possible that psychotropic medications may potentiate the neurostructural changes that have been found in the brain of those who have recovered from COVID-19,” they write.

The sensitivity analysis in patients with documented neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses supports this interpretation. 

COVID-19 may also accelerate the underlying brain disorders for which psychotropic medications were prescribed, leading to the greater incidence of post-COVID dementia, the researchers write.

“It is important to note that this study is in no way recommending people should stop taking antipsychotics but simply that clinicians need to factor in a patient’s medication history while considering post-COVID aftereffects,” Dr. Freudenberg-Hua said.

“Given that the number of patients with dementia is projected to triple in the next 30 years, these findings have significant public health implications,” Dr. Sinvani added.

She noted that “care partners and health care professionals” should look for early signs of dementia, such as forgetfulness and depressive symptoms, in their patients.

“Future studies must continue to evaluate these associations, which are key for potential future interventions to prevent dementia,” Dr. Sinvani said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Freudenberg-Hua co-owns stock and stock options from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Sinvani has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Older adults taking psychotropic medication before contracting COVID-19 are at increased risk of dementia in the year following the illness, new research suggests.

Results from a large study of more than 1,700 patients who had been hospitalized with COVID showed a greater than twofold increased risk for post-COVID dementia in those taking antipsychotics and mood stabilizers/anticonvulsants – medications often used to treat schizophrenia, psychosis, bipolar disorder, and seizures.

“We know that pre-existing psychiatric illness is associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes, but our study is the first to show an association with certain psychiatric medications and dementia,” co-investigator Liron Sinvani, MD, the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York, said in an interview.

Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research

‘Striking’ dementia rate

Using electronic health records, the researchers evaluated pre-COVID psychotropic medication use and post-COVID dementia onset in 1,755 adults aged 65 and older. All were hospitalized with COVID-19 at Northwell Health between March 1 and April 20, 2020.

A “striking” 13% of the participants (n = 223) developed dementia within 1-year of follow-up, the investigators report.

Among the 438 patients (25%) exposed to at least one psychotropic medication before COVID-19, 105 (24%) developed dementia in the year following COVID versus 118 of 1,317 (9%) patients with no pre-COVID exposure to psychotropic medication (odds ratio, 3.2; 95% confidence interval, 2.37-4.32).

Both pre-COVID psychotropic medication use (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.8-4.0, P < .001) and delirium (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.9-4.6, P < .001) were significantly associated with post-COVID dementia at 1 year.

In a sensitivity analysis in the subset of 423 patients with at least one documented neurologic or psychiatric diagnosis at the time of COVID admission, and after adjusting for confounding factors, pre-COVID psychotropic medication use remained significantly linked to post-COVID dementia onset (OR, 3.09; 95% CI, 1.5-6.6, P = .002).

Drug classes most strongly associated with 1-year post-COVID dementia onset were antipsychotics (OR, 2.8, 95% CI, 1.7-4.4, P < .001) and mood stabilizers/anticonvulsants (OR, 2.4, 95% CI, 1.39-4.02, P = .001).

In a further exploratory analysis, the psychotropics valproic acid (multiple brands) and haloperidol (Haldol) had the largest association with post-COVID dementia.

Antidepressants as a class were not associated with post-COVID dementia, but the potential effects of two commonly prescribed antidepressants in older adults, mirtazapine (Remeron) and escitalopram (Lexapro), “warrant further investigation,” the researchers note.
 

Predictive risk marker?

“This research shows that psychotropic medications can be considered a predictive risk marker for post-COVID dementia. In patients taking psychotropic medications, COVID-19 could have accelerated progression of dementia after hospitalization,” lead author Yun Freudenberg-Hua, MD, the Feinstein Institutes, said in a news release.

It is unclear why psychotropic medications may raise the risk for dementia onset after COVID, the investigators note.

“It is intuitive that psychotropic medications indicate pre-existing neuropsychiatric conditions in which COVID-19 occurs. It is possible that psychotropic medications may potentiate the neurostructural changes that have been found in the brain of those who have recovered from COVID-19,” they write.

The sensitivity analysis in patients with documented neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses supports this interpretation. 

COVID-19 may also accelerate the underlying brain disorders for which psychotropic medications were prescribed, leading to the greater incidence of post-COVID dementia, the researchers write.

“It is important to note that this study is in no way recommending people should stop taking antipsychotics but simply that clinicians need to factor in a patient’s medication history while considering post-COVID aftereffects,” Dr. Freudenberg-Hua said.

“Given that the number of patients with dementia is projected to triple in the next 30 years, these findings have significant public health implications,” Dr. Sinvani added.

She noted that “care partners and health care professionals” should look for early signs of dementia, such as forgetfulness and depressive symptoms, in their patients.

“Future studies must continue to evaluate these associations, which are key for potential future interventions to prevent dementia,” Dr. Sinvani said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Freudenberg-Hua co-owns stock and stock options from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Sinvani has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Older adults taking psychotropic medication before contracting COVID-19 are at increased risk of dementia in the year following the illness, new research suggests.

Results from a large study of more than 1,700 patients who had been hospitalized with COVID showed a greater than twofold increased risk for post-COVID dementia in those taking antipsychotics and mood stabilizers/anticonvulsants – medications often used to treat schizophrenia, psychosis, bipolar disorder, and seizures.

“We know that pre-existing psychiatric illness is associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes, but our study is the first to show an association with certain psychiatric medications and dementia,” co-investigator Liron Sinvani, MD, the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York, said in an interview.

Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research

‘Striking’ dementia rate

Using electronic health records, the researchers evaluated pre-COVID psychotropic medication use and post-COVID dementia onset in 1,755 adults aged 65 and older. All were hospitalized with COVID-19 at Northwell Health between March 1 and April 20, 2020.

A “striking” 13% of the participants (n = 223) developed dementia within 1-year of follow-up, the investigators report.

Among the 438 patients (25%) exposed to at least one psychotropic medication before COVID-19, 105 (24%) developed dementia in the year following COVID versus 118 of 1,317 (9%) patients with no pre-COVID exposure to psychotropic medication (odds ratio, 3.2; 95% confidence interval, 2.37-4.32).

Both pre-COVID psychotropic medication use (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.8-4.0, P < .001) and delirium (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.9-4.6, P < .001) were significantly associated with post-COVID dementia at 1 year.

In a sensitivity analysis in the subset of 423 patients with at least one documented neurologic or psychiatric diagnosis at the time of COVID admission, and after adjusting for confounding factors, pre-COVID psychotropic medication use remained significantly linked to post-COVID dementia onset (OR, 3.09; 95% CI, 1.5-6.6, P = .002).

Drug classes most strongly associated with 1-year post-COVID dementia onset were antipsychotics (OR, 2.8, 95% CI, 1.7-4.4, P < .001) and mood stabilizers/anticonvulsants (OR, 2.4, 95% CI, 1.39-4.02, P = .001).

In a further exploratory analysis, the psychotropics valproic acid (multiple brands) and haloperidol (Haldol) had the largest association with post-COVID dementia.

Antidepressants as a class were not associated with post-COVID dementia, but the potential effects of two commonly prescribed antidepressants in older adults, mirtazapine (Remeron) and escitalopram (Lexapro), “warrant further investigation,” the researchers note.
 

Predictive risk marker?

“This research shows that psychotropic medications can be considered a predictive risk marker for post-COVID dementia. In patients taking psychotropic medications, COVID-19 could have accelerated progression of dementia after hospitalization,” lead author Yun Freudenberg-Hua, MD, the Feinstein Institutes, said in a news release.

It is unclear why psychotropic medications may raise the risk for dementia onset after COVID, the investigators note.

“It is intuitive that psychotropic medications indicate pre-existing neuropsychiatric conditions in which COVID-19 occurs. It is possible that psychotropic medications may potentiate the neurostructural changes that have been found in the brain of those who have recovered from COVID-19,” they write.

The sensitivity analysis in patients with documented neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses supports this interpretation. 

COVID-19 may also accelerate the underlying brain disorders for which psychotropic medications were prescribed, leading to the greater incidence of post-COVID dementia, the researchers write.

“It is important to note that this study is in no way recommending people should stop taking antipsychotics but simply that clinicians need to factor in a patient’s medication history while considering post-COVID aftereffects,” Dr. Freudenberg-Hua said.

“Given that the number of patients with dementia is projected to triple in the next 30 years, these findings have significant public health implications,” Dr. Sinvani added.

She noted that “care partners and health care professionals” should look for early signs of dementia, such as forgetfulness and depressive symptoms, in their patients.

“Future studies must continue to evaluate these associations, which are key for potential future interventions to prevent dementia,” Dr. Sinvani said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Freudenberg-Hua co-owns stock and stock options from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Sinvani has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Diagnosis: Acquired Lymphangioma Circumscriptum

A skin biopsy of the plaque on the right labium majus showed a proliferation of well-formed, dilated lymphatic vessels lined by benign-appearing endothelial cells in the papillary dermis (Figure). These findings were consistent with a diagnosis of acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum (ALC) in the setting of severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS).

Image courtesy of Alicia Schnebelen, MD (Dallas, Texas).

Acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum (also known as acquired lymphangiectasia or secondary lymphangioma¹) is a rare skin finding resulting from chronic lymphatic obstruction that leads to dilated lymphatic vessels within the dermis.^2,3 There also is a distinct congenital form of lymphangioma circumscriptum caused by lymphatic malformations present at birth.^2,4 Acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum of the vulva is a rare phenomenon.³ Identified causes include radiation or surgery for carcinoma, solid gynecologic tumors, lymphadenectomy, Crohn disease, and tuberculosis and other infections, all of which can disrupt normal lymphatics to cause ALC.^2-4 Hidradenitis suppurativa is not a widely recognized cause of ALC; however, this phenomenon is reported in the literature. A long-standing history of severe HS complicated by lymphedema seems to precede the development of ALC in the reported cases, as in our patient.^5-7

Acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum of the vulva can appear in women of all ages as frog spawn or cobblestone papules or vesicles, sometimes with a hyperkeratotic or verrucous appearance.^2,4 Associated symptoms include serous drainage, edema, pruritus, and discomfort. The lesions may become eroded, which can predispose patients to secondary infections.^1,2 Acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum of the vulva can be difficult to diagnose, as the time interval between the initial cause and the appearance of skin findings can be years, leading to the misdiagnosis of ALC as other similar-appearing genital skin conditions such as squamous cell carcinoma or condyloma.^4,8 When misidentified as an infection, diagnosis can lead to substantial distress, abstinence from sexual activity, and unnecessary and painful treatments.

Skin biopsy is helpful in distinguishing ALC from other differential diagnoses such as condylomata acuminata, squamous cell carcinoma, and condyloma lata. Histopathology in ALC is notable for dilated lymphatic vessels filled with hypocellular fluid and lined with endothelial cells in the superficial dermis; the epidermis can appear hyperplastic, hyperkeratotic, or eroded.^3-5,9 These lymphatic vessels stain positively for CD31 and D2-40, markers for endothelial cells and lymphatic endothelium, respectively, and negative for CD34, a marker for vascular endothelium.^3,4,9 Features suggestive of condylomata acuminata such as rounded parakeratosis, hypergranulosis, and vacuolated keratinocytes⁹ are not present. The giant condyloma of Buschke-Löwenstein, a clinical variant of verrucous squamous cell carcinoma, also can present as a warty ulcerated papule or plaque in the genital region, but the characteristic rounded eosinophilic keratinocytes pushing down into the dermis⁹ are not seen in ALC. Secondary syphilis is associated with condyloma lata, which are verrucous or fleshy-appearing papules often coalescing into plaques located in the anogenital region. Pathologic features of secondary syphilis include vacuolar interface dermatitis and acanthosis with long slender rete ridges.⁹ Squamous cell carcinoma, which can arise from inflammation associated with long-standing HS, must be ruled out, as it is associated with a high risk of mortality in patients with HS.¹⁰

It is noteworthy to recognize the various, often confusing nomenclature used to describe cutaneous lymphatic conditions. The terms acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum, secondary lymphangioma, and lymphangiectasia are used interchangeably to describe dilated lymphatic vessels in the skin.¹ The term atypical vascular lesion refers to lymphectasias of the skin of the breast due to prior radiation therapy most often used in the treatment of breast carcinoma; clinically, these present as red-brown or flesh-colored papules or telangiectatic plaques on the breast.^11,12 Lymphedema also may occur alongside atypical vascular lesions, as prior radiation or surgical lymph node dissection can predispose patients to impaired lymphatic drainage.¹³ The lymphatic histopathologic subtype of atypical vascular lesions may appear similar to ALC; however, the vascular subtype will demonstrate collections of capillary-sized vessels and extravasated erythrocytes.^11,12 Unlike ALC, the benign nature of atypical vascular lesions has been questioned, as they may be associated with a small risk for progression to angiosarcoma.^11-13 It also is important to distinguish ALC from lymphangiomatosis, a generalized lymphatic anomaly that is characterized by extensive lymphatic malformations involving numerous internal organs, including the lungs and gastrointestinal tract. This condition is associated with notable morbidity and mortality.¹³

Although the suffix of the term lymphangioma suggests a neoplastic process, ALC is not a neoplasm and can be managed expectantly in many cases.^2,3,8 However, due to cosmetic appearance, pain, discomfort, and recurrent bacterial superinfections, many patients pursue treatment. Treatment options for ALC include sclerotherapy, electrocautery, radiofrequency or carbon dioxide laser ablation, and excision, though recurrence can arise.^3-5,7,8 Our patient elected to manage her asymptomatic ALC expectantly.

The Diagnosis: Acquired Lymphangioma Circumscriptum

A skin biopsy of the plaque on the right labium majus showed a proliferation of well-formed, dilated lymphatic vessels lined by benign-appearing endothelial cells in the papillary dermis (Figure). These findings were consistent with a diagnosis of acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum (ALC) in the setting of severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS).

Image courtesy of Alicia Schnebelen, MD (Dallas, Texas).

Acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum (also known as acquired lymphangiectasia or secondary lymphangioma¹) is a rare skin finding resulting from chronic lymphatic obstruction that leads to dilated lymphatic vessels within the dermis.^2,3 There also is a distinct congenital form of lymphangioma circumscriptum caused by lymphatic malformations present at birth.^2,4 Acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum of the vulva is a rare phenomenon.³ Identified causes include radiation or surgery for carcinoma, solid gynecologic tumors, lymphadenectomy, Crohn disease, and tuberculosis and other infections, all of which can disrupt normal lymphatics to cause ALC.^2-4 Hidradenitis suppurativa is not a widely recognized cause of ALC; however, this phenomenon is reported in the literature. A long-standing history of severe HS complicated by lymphedema seems to precede the development of ALC in the reported cases, as in our patient.^5-7

Acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum of the vulva can appear in women of all ages as frog spawn or cobblestone papules or vesicles, sometimes with a hyperkeratotic or verrucous appearance.^2,4 Associated symptoms include serous drainage, edema, pruritus, and discomfort. The lesions may become eroded, which can predispose patients to secondary infections.^1,2 Acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum of the vulva can be difficult to diagnose, as the time interval between the initial cause and the appearance of skin findings can be years, leading to the misdiagnosis of ALC as other similar-appearing genital skin conditions such as squamous cell carcinoma or condyloma.^4,8 When misidentified as an infection, diagnosis can lead to substantial distress, abstinence from sexual activity, and unnecessary and painful treatments.

Skin biopsy is helpful in distinguishing ALC from other differential diagnoses such as condylomata acuminata, squamous cell carcinoma, and condyloma lata. Histopathology in ALC is notable for dilated lymphatic vessels filled with hypocellular fluid and lined with endothelial cells in the superficial dermis; the epidermis can appear hyperplastic, hyperkeratotic, or eroded.^3-5,9 These lymphatic vessels stain positively for CD31 and D2-40, markers for endothelial cells and lymphatic endothelium, respectively, and negative for CD34, a marker for vascular endothelium.^3,4,9 Features suggestive of condylomata acuminata such as rounded parakeratosis, hypergranulosis, and vacuolated keratinocytes⁹ are not present. The giant condyloma of Buschke-Löwenstein, a clinical variant of verrucous squamous cell carcinoma, also can present as a warty ulcerated papule or plaque in the genital region, but the characteristic rounded eosinophilic keratinocytes pushing down into the dermis⁹ are not seen in ALC. Secondary syphilis is associated with condyloma lata, which are verrucous or fleshy-appearing papules often coalescing into plaques located in the anogenital region. Pathologic features of secondary syphilis include vacuolar interface dermatitis and acanthosis with long slender rete ridges.⁹ Squamous cell carcinoma, which can arise from inflammation associated with long-standing HS, must be ruled out, as it is associated with a high risk of mortality in patients with HS.¹⁰

It is noteworthy to recognize the various, often confusing nomenclature used to describe cutaneous lymphatic conditions. The terms acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum, secondary lymphangioma, and lymphangiectasia are used interchangeably to describe dilated lymphatic vessels in the skin.¹ The term atypical vascular lesion refers to lymphectasias of the skin of the breast due to prior radiation therapy most often used in the treatment of breast carcinoma; clinically, these present as red-brown or flesh-colored papules or telangiectatic plaques on the breast.^11,12 Lymphedema also may occur alongside atypical vascular lesions, as prior radiation or surgical lymph node dissection can predispose patients to impaired lymphatic drainage.¹³ The lymphatic histopathologic subtype of atypical vascular lesions may appear similar to ALC; however, the vascular subtype will demonstrate collections of capillary-sized vessels and extravasated erythrocytes.^11,12 Unlike ALC, the benign nature of atypical vascular lesions has been questioned, as they may be associated with a small risk for progression to angiosarcoma.^11-13 It also is important to distinguish ALC from lymphangiomatosis, a generalized lymphatic anomaly that is characterized by extensive lymphatic malformations involving numerous internal organs, including the lungs and gastrointestinal tract. This condition is associated with notable morbidity and mortality.¹³

Although the suffix of the term lymphangioma suggests a neoplastic process, ALC is not a neoplasm and can be managed expectantly in many cases.^2,3,8 However, due to cosmetic appearance, pain, discomfort, and recurrent bacterial superinfections, many patients pursue treatment. Treatment options for ALC include sclerotherapy, electrocautery, radiofrequency or carbon dioxide laser ablation, and excision, though recurrence can arise.^3-5,7,8 Our patient elected to manage her asymptomatic ALC expectantly.

The Diagnosis: Acquired Lymphangioma Circumscriptum

A skin biopsy of the plaque on the right labium majus showed a proliferation of well-formed, dilated lymphatic vessels lined by benign-appearing endothelial cells in the papillary dermis (Figure). These findings were consistent with a diagnosis of acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum (ALC) in the setting of severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS).

Image courtesy of Alicia Schnebelen, MD (Dallas, Texas).

Acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum (also known as acquired lymphangiectasia or secondary lymphangioma¹) is a rare skin finding resulting from chronic lymphatic obstruction that leads to dilated lymphatic vessels within the dermis.^2,3 There also is a distinct congenital form of lymphangioma circumscriptum caused by lymphatic malformations present at birth.^2,4 Acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum of the vulva is a rare phenomenon.³ Identified causes include radiation or surgery for carcinoma, solid gynecologic tumors, lymphadenectomy, Crohn disease, and tuberculosis and other infections, all of which can disrupt normal lymphatics to cause ALC.^2-4 Hidradenitis suppurativa is not a widely recognized cause of ALC; however, this phenomenon is reported in the literature. A long-standing history of severe HS complicated by lymphedema seems to precede the development of ALC in the reported cases, as in our patient.^5-7

Acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum of the vulva can appear in women of all ages as frog spawn or cobblestone papules or vesicles, sometimes with a hyperkeratotic or verrucous appearance.^2,4 Associated symptoms include serous drainage, edema, pruritus, and discomfort. The lesions may become eroded, which can predispose patients to secondary infections.^1,2 Acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum of the vulva can be difficult to diagnose, as the time interval between the initial cause and the appearance of skin findings can be years, leading to the misdiagnosis of ALC as other similar-appearing genital skin conditions such as squamous cell carcinoma or condyloma.^4,8 When misidentified as an infection, diagnosis can lead to substantial distress, abstinence from sexual activity, and unnecessary and painful treatments.

Skin biopsy is helpful in distinguishing ALC from other differential diagnoses such as condylomata acuminata, squamous cell carcinoma, and condyloma lata. Histopathology in ALC is notable for dilated lymphatic vessels filled with hypocellular fluid and lined with endothelial cells in the superficial dermis; the epidermis can appear hyperplastic, hyperkeratotic, or eroded.^3-5,9 These lymphatic vessels stain positively for CD31 and D2-40, markers for endothelial cells and lymphatic endothelium, respectively, and negative for CD34, a marker for vascular endothelium.^3,4,9 Features suggestive of condylomata acuminata such as rounded parakeratosis, hypergranulosis, and vacuolated keratinocytes⁹ are not present. The giant condyloma of Buschke-Löwenstein, a clinical variant of verrucous squamous cell carcinoma, also can present as a warty ulcerated papule or plaque in the genital region, but the characteristic rounded eosinophilic keratinocytes pushing down into the dermis⁹ are not seen in ALC. Secondary syphilis is associated with condyloma lata, which are verrucous or fleshy-appearing papules often coalescing into plaques located in the anogenital region. Pathologic features of secondary syphilis include vacuolar interface dermatitis and acanthosis with long slender rete ridges.⁹ Squamous cell carcinoma, which can arise from inflammation associated with long-standing HS, must be ruled out, as it is associated with a high risk of mortality in patients with HS.¹⁰

It is noteworthy to recognize the various, often confusing nomenclature used to describe cutaneous lymphatic conditions. The terms acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum, secondary lymphangioma, and lymphangiectasia are used interchangeably to describe dilated lymphatic vessels in the skin.¹ The term atypical vascular lesion refers to lymphectasias of the skin of the breast due to prior radiation therapy most often used in the treatment of breast carcinoma; clinically, these present as red-brown or flesh-colored papules or telangiectatic plaques on the breast.^11,12 Lymphedema also may occur alongside atypical vascular lesions, as prior radiation or surgical lymph node dissection can predispose patients to impaired lymphatic drainage.¹³ The lymphatic histopathologic subtype of atypical vascular lesions may appear similar to ALC; however, the vascular subtype will demonstrate collections of capillary-sized vessels and extravasated erythrocytes.^11,12 Unlike ALC, the benign nature of atypical vascular lesions has been questioned, as they may be associated with a small risk for progression to angiosarcoma.^11-13 It also is important to distinguish ALC from lymphangiomatosis, a generalized lymphatic anomaly that is characterized by extensive lymphatic malformations involving numerous internal organs, including the lungs and gastrointestinal tract. This condition is associated with notable morbidity and mortality.¹³

Although the suffix of the term lymphangioma suggests a neoplastic process, ALC is not a neoplasm and can be managed expectantly in many cases.^2,3,8 However, due to cosmetic appearance, pain, discomfort, and recurrent bacterial superinfections, many patients pursue treatment. Treatment options for ALC include sclerotherapy, electrocautery, radiofrequency or carbon dioxide laser ablation, and excision, though recurrence can arise.^3-5,7,8 Our patient elected to manage her asymptomatic ALC expectantly.

COVID-19 continues to be a diminishing issue for U.S. children, as the number of new cases declined for the ninth consecutive week, based on data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New cases were down to 29,000 for the week of March 18-24, a drop of 9.3% from the previous week and a full 97.4% lower than the peak reached during the Omicron surge in January, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report. The most recently infected children brought the total number of COVID-19 cases to just over 12.8 million since the pandemic began.

Other measures of COVID occurrence in children, such as hospital admissions and emergency department visits, also followed recent downward trends, although the sizes of the declines are beginning to decrease. Admissions dropped by 13.3% during the week ending March 26, but that followed declines of 25%, 20%, 26.5% and 24.4% for the 4 previous weeks, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show.

The slowdown in ED visits started a couple of weeks earlier, but the decline is still ongoing. As of March 25, ED visits with a confirmed COVID diagnosis represented just 0.4% of all visits for children aged 0-11 years, down from 1.1% on Feb. 25 and a peak of 14.3% on Jan. 15. For children aged 12-15, the latest figure is just 0.2%, compared with 0.5% on Feb. 25 and a peak of 14.3% on Jan. 9, the CDC reported on its COVID Data Tracker.

Although he was speaking of the nation as a whole and not specifically of children, Anthony Fauci, MD, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, recently told the Washington Post that, “unless something changes dramatically,” another major surge isn’t on the horizon.

That sentiment, however, was not entirely shared by Moderna’s chief medical officer, Paul Burton, MD, PhD. In an interview with WebMD, he said that another COVID wave is inevitable and that it’s too soon to dismantle the vaccine infrastructure: “We’ve come so far. We’ve put so much into this to now take our foot off the gas. I think it would be a mistake for public health worldwide.”

Disparities during the Omicron surge

As the country puts Omicron in its rear view mirror, a quick look back at the CDC data shows some differences in how children were affected. At the surge’s peak in early to mid-January, Hispanic children were the most likely to get COVID-19, with incidence highest in the older groups. (See graph.)

At their peak week of Jan. 2-8, Hispanic children aged 16-17 years had a COVID rate of 1,568 cases per 100,000 population, versus 790 per 100,000 for White children, whose peak occurred a week later, from Jan. 9 to 15. Hispanic children aged 5-11 (1,098 per 100,000) and 12-15 (1,269 per 100,000) also had the highest recorded rates of the largest racial/ethnic groups, while Black children had the highest one-week rate, 625 per 100,000, among the 0- to 4-year-olds, according to the CDC.

COVID-19 continues to be a diminishing issue for U.S. children, as the number of new cases declined for the ninth consecutive week, based on data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New cases were down to 29,000 for the week of March 18-24, a drop of 9.3% from the previous week and a full 97.4% lower than the peak reached during the Omicron surge in January, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report. The most recently infected children brought the total number of COVID-19 cases to just over 12.8 million since the pandemic began.

Other measures of COVID occurrence in children, such as hospital admissions and emergency department visits, also followed recent downward trends, although the sizes of the declines are beginning to decrease. Admissions dropped by 13.3% during the week ending March 26, but that followed declines of 25%, 20%, 26.5% and 24.4% for the 4 previous weeks, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show.

The slowdown in ED visits started a couple of weeks earlier, but the decline is still ongoing. As of March 25, ED visits with a confirmed COVID diagnosis represented just 0.4% of all visits for children aged 0-11 years, down from 1.1% on Feb. 25 and a peak of 14.3% on Jan. 15. For children aged 12-15, the latest figure is just 0.2%, compared with 0.5% on Feb. 25 and a peak of 14.3% on Jan. 9, the CDC reported on its COVID Data Tracker.

Although he was speaking of the nation as a whole and not specifically of children, Anthony Fauci, MD, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, recently told the Washington Post that, “unless something changes dramatically,” another major surge isn’t on the horizon.

That sentiment, however, was not entirely shared by Moderna’s chief medical officer, Paul Burton, MD, PhD. In an interview with WebMD, he said that another COVID wave is inevitable and that it’s too soon to dismantle the vaccine infrastructure: “We’ve come so far. We’ve put so much into this to now take our foot off the gas. I think it would be a mistake for public health worldwide.”

Disparities during the Omicron surge

As the country puts Omicron in its rear view mirror, a quick look back at the CDC data shows some differences in how children were affected. At the surge’s peak in early to mid-January, Hispanic children were the most likely to get COVID-19, with incidence highest in the older groups. (See graph.)

At their peak week of Jan. 2-8, Hispanic children aged 16-17 years had a COVID rate of 1,568 cases per 100,000 population, versus 790 per 100,000 for White children, whose peak occurred a week later, from Jan. 9 to 15. Hispanic children aged 5-11 (1,098 per 100,000) and 12-15 (1,269 per 100,000) also had the highest recorded rates of the largest racial/ethnic groups, while Black children had the highest one-week rate, 625 per 100,000, among the 0- to 4-year-olds, according to the CDC.

COVID-19 continues to be a diminishing issue for U.S. children, as the number of new cases declined for the ninth consecutive week, based on data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New cases were down to 29,000 for the week of March 18-24, a drop of 9.3% from the previous week and a full 97.4% lower than the peak reached during the Omicron surge in January, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report. The most recently infected children brought the total number of COVID-19 cases to just over 12.8 million since the pandemic began.

Other measures of COVID occurrence in children, such as hospital admissions and emergency department visits, also followed recent downward trends, although the sizes of the declines are beginning to decrease. Admissions dropped by 13.3% during the week ending March 26, but that followed declines of 25%, 20%, 26.5% and 24.4% for the 4 previous weeks, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show.

The slowdown in ED visits started a couple of weeks earlier, but the decline is still ongoing. As of March 25, ED visits with a confirmed COVID diagnosis represented just 0.4% of all visits for children aged 0-11 years, down from 1.1% on Feb. 25 and a peak of 14.3% on Jan. 15. For children aged 12-15, the latest figure is just 0.2%, compared with 0.5% on Feb. 25 and a peak of 14.3% on Jan. 9, the CDC reported on its COVID Data Tracker.

Although he was speaking of the nation as a whole and not specifically of children, Anthony Fauci, MD, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, recently told the Washington Post that, “unless something changes dramatically,” another major surge isn’t on the horizon.

That sentiment, however, was not entirely shared by Moderna’s chief medical officer, Paul Burton, MD, PhD. In an interview with WebMD, he said that another COVID wave is inevitable and that it’s too soon to dismantle the vaccine infrastructure: “We’ve come so far. We’ve put so much into this to now take our foot off the gas. I think it would be a mistake for public health worldwide.”

Disparities during the Omicron surge

As the country puts Omicron in its rear view mirror, a quick look back at the CDC data shows some differences in how children were affected. At the surge’s peak in early to mid-January, Hispanic children were the most likely to get COVID-19, with incidence highest in the older groups. (See graph.)

At their peak week of Jan. 2-8, Hispanic children aged 16-17 years had a COVID rate of 1,568 cases per 100,000 population, versus 790 per 100,000 for White children, whose peak occurred a week later, from Jan. 9 to 15. Hispanic children aged 5-11 (1,098 per 100,000) and 12-15 (1,269 per 100,000) also had the highest recorded rates of the largest racial/ethnic groups, while Black children had the highest one-week rate, 625 per 100,000, among the 0- to 4-year-olds, according to the CDC.

The Food and Drug Administration today authorized Americans over the age of 50 to receive a second COVID-19 booster shot, even though many top infectious disease experts questioned the need before the agency’s decision.

The FDA granted emergency use authorization for both Pfizer and Moderna to offer the second booster – and fourth shot overall – for adults over 50 as well as those over 18 with compromised immune systems.

The Centers for Control and Prevention must still sign off before those doses start reaching American arms. That approval could come at any time.

“The general consensus, certainly the CDC’s consensus, is that the current vaccines are still really quite effective against Omicron and this new BA.2 variant in keeping people out of the hospital, and preventing the development of severe disease,” William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville said prior to the FDA’s announcement March 29.

Of the 217.4 million Americans who are “fully vaccinated,” i.e., received two doses of either Pfizer or Moderna’s vaccines or one dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, only 45% have also received a booster shot, according to the CDC.

“Given that, there’s no need at the moment for the general population to get a fourth inoculation,” Dr. Schaffner says. “Our current focus ought to be on making sure that as many people as possible get that [first] booster who are eligible.”

Monica Gandhi, MD, an infectious disease specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, agreed that another booster for everyone was unnecessary. The only people who would need a fourth shot (or third, if they had the Johnson & Johnson vaccine initially) are those over age 65 or 70 years, Dr. Gandhi says.

“Older people need those antibodies up high because they’re more susceptible to severe breakthroughs,” she said, also before the latest development.
 

To boost or not to boost

Daniel Kuritzkes, MD, chief of infectious diseases at Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston, said the timing of a booster and who should be eligible depends on what the nation is trying to achieve with its vaccination strategy.

“Is the goal to prevent any symptomatic infection with COVID-19, is the goal to prevent the spread of COVID-19, or is the goal to prevent severe disease that requires hospitalization?” asked Dr. Kuritzkes.

The current vaccine — with a booster — has prevented severe disease, he said.

An Israeli study showed, for instance, that a third Pfizer dose was 93% effective against hospitalization, 92% effective against severe illness, and 81% effective against death.

A just-published study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that a booster of the Pfizer vaccine was 95% effective against COVID-19 infection and that it did not raise any new safety issues.

A small Israeli study, also published in NEJM, of a fourth Pfizer dose given to health care workers found that it prevented symptomatic infection and illness, but that it was much less effective than previous doses — maybe 65% effective against symptomatic illness, the authors write.

Giving Americans another booster now — which has been shown to lose some effectiveness after about 4 months — means it might not offer protection this fall and winter, when there could be a seasonal surge of the virus, Dr. Kuritzkes says.

And, even if people receive boosters every few months, they are still likely to get a mild respiratory virus infection, he said.

“I’m pretty convinced that we cannot boost ourselves out of this pandemic,” said Dr. Kuritzkes. “We need to first of all ensure there’s global immunization so that all the people who have not been vaccinated at all get vaccinated. That’s far more important than boosting people a fourth time.”
 

Booster confusion

The April 6 FDA meeting of the agency’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee comes as the two major COVID vaccine makers — Pfizer and Moderna — have applied for emergency use authorization for an additional booster.

Pfizer had asked for authorization for a fourth shot in patients over age 65 years, while Moderna wanted a booster to be available to all Americans over 18. The FDA instead granted authorization to both companies for those over 50 and anyone 18 or older who is immunocompromised.

What this means for the committee’s April 6 meeting is not clear. The original agenda says the committee will consider the evidence on safety and effectiveness of the additional vaccine doses and discuss how to set up a process — similar to that used for the influenza vaccine — to be able to determine the makeup of COVID vaccines as new variants emerge. That could lay the groundwork for an annual COVID shot, if needed.

The FDA advisers will not make recommendations nor vote on whether — and which — Americans should get a COVID booster. That is the job of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

The last time a booster was considered, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, overrode the committee and recommended that all Americans — not just older individuals — get an additional COVID shot, which became the first booster.

That past action worries Dr. Gandhi, who calls it confusing, and says it may have contributed to the fact that less than half of Americans have since chosen to get a booster.

Dr. Schaffner says he expects the FDA to authorize emergency use for fourth doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, but he doesn’t think the CDC committee will recommend routine use. As was seen before, however, the CDC director does not have to follow the committee’s advice.

The members of ACIP “might be more conservative or narrower in scope in terms of recommending who needs to be boosted and when boosting is appropriate,” Dr. Kuritzkes says.

Dr. Gandhi says she’s concerned the FDA’s deliberations could be swayed by Moderna and Pfizer’s influence and that “pharmaceutical companies are going to have more of a say than they should in the scientific process.”

There are similar worries for Dr. Schaffner. He says he’s “a bit grumpy” that the vaccine makers have been using press releases to argue for boosters.

“Press releases are no way to make vaccine recommendations,” Dr. Schaffner said, adding that he “would advise [vaccine makers] to sit down and be quiet and let the FDA and CDC advisory committee do their thing.”

Moderna Chief Medical Officer Paul Burton, MD, however, told WebMD last week that the signs point to why a fourth shot may be needed.

“We see waning of effectiveness, antibody levels come down, and certainly effectiveness against Omicron comes down in 3 to 6 months,” Burton said. “The natural history, from what we’re seeing around the world, is that BA.2 is definitely here, it’s highly transmissible, and I think we are going to get an additional wave of BA.2 here in the United States.”

Another wave is coming, he said, and “I think there will be waning of effectiveness. We need to be prepared for that, so that’s why we need the fourth dose.”
 

Supply issues?

Meanwhile, the United Kingdom has begun offering boosters to anyone over 75, and Sweden’s health authority has recommended a fourth shot to people over age 80.

That puts pressure on the United States — at least on its politicians and policymakers — to, in a sense, keep up, said the infectious disease specialists.

Indeed, the White House has been keeping fourth shots in the news, warning that it is running out of money to ensure that all Americans would have access to one, if recommended.

On March 23, outgoing White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Jeff Zients said the federal government had enough vaccine for the immunocompromised to get a fourth dose “and, if authorized in the coming weeks, enough supply for fourth doses for our most vulnerable, including seniors.”

But he warned that without congressional approval of a COVID-19 funding package, “We can’t procure the necessary vaccine supply to support fourth shots for all Americans.”

Mr. Zients also noted that other countries, including Japan, Vietnam, and the Philippines had already secured future booster doses and added, “We should be securing additional supply right now.”

Dr. Schaffner says that while it would be nice to “have a booster on the shelf,” the United States needs to put more effort into creating a globally-coordinated process for ensuring that vaccines match circulating strains and that they are manufactured on a timely basis.

He says he and others “have been reminding the public that the COVID pandemic may indeed be diminishing and moving into the endemic, but that doesn’t mean COVID is over or finished or disappeared.”

Dr. Schaffner says that it may be that “perhaps we’d need a periodic reminder to our immune system to remain protected. In other words, we might have to get boosted perhaps annually like we do with influenza.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration today authorized Americans over the age of 50 to receive a second COVID-19 booster shot, even though many top infectious disease experts questioned the need before the agency’s decision.

The FDA granted emergency use authorization for both Pfizer and Moderna to offer the second booster – and fourth shot overall – for adults over 50 as well as those over 18 with compromised immune systems.

The Centers for Control and Prevention must still sign off before those doses start reaching American arms. That approval could come at any time.

“The general consensus, certainly the CDC’s consensus, is that the current vaccines are still really quite effective against Omicron and this new BA.2 variant in keeping people out of the hospital, and preventing the development of severe disease,” William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville said prior to the FDA’s announcement March 29.

Of the 217.4 million Americans who are “fully vaccinated,” i.e., received two doses of either Pfizer or Moderna’s vaccines or one dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, only 45% have also received a booster shot, according to the CDC.

“Given that, there’s no need at the moment for the general population to get a fourth inoculation,” Dr. Schaffner says. “Our current focus ought to be on making sure that as many people as possible get that [first] booster who are eligible.”

Monica Gandhi, MD, an infectious disease specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, agreed that another booster for everyone was unnecessary. The only people who would need a fourth shot (or third, if they had the Johnson & Johnson vaccine initially) are those over age 65 or 70 years, Dr. Gandhi says.

“Older people need those antibodies up high because they’re more susceptible to severe breakthroughs,” she said, also before the latest development.
 

To boost or not to boost

Daniel Kuritzkes, MD, chief of infectious diseases at Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston, said the timing of a booster and who should be eligible depends on what the nation is trying to achieve with its vaccination strategy.

“Is the goal to prevent any symptomatic infection with COVID-19, is the goal to prevent the spread of COVID-19, or is the goal to prevent severe disease that requires hospitalization?” asked Dr. Kuritzkes.

The current vaccine — with a booster — has prevented severe disease, he said.

An Israeli study showed, for instance, that a third Pfizer dose was 93% effective against hospitalization, 92% effective against severe illness, and 81% effective against death.

A just-published study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that a booster of the Pfizer vaccine was 95% effective against COVID-19 infection and that it did not raise any new safety issues.

A small Israeli study, also published in NEJM, of a fourth Pfizer dose given to health care workers found that it prevented symptomatic infection and illness, but that it was much less effective than previous doses — maybe 65% effective against symptomatic illness, the authors write.

Giving Americans another booster now — which has been shown to lose some effectiveness after about 4 months — means it might not offer protection this fall and winter, when there could be a seasonal surge of the virus, Dr. Kuritzkes says.

And, even if people receive boosters every few months, they are still likely to get a mild respiratory virus infection, he said.

“I’m pretty convinced that we cannot boost ourselves out of this pandemic,” said Dr. Kuritzkes. “We need to first of all ensure there’s global immunization so that all the people who have not been vaccinated at all get vaccinated. That’s far more important than boosting people a fourth time.”
 

Booster confusion

The April 6 FDA meeting of the agency’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee comes as the two major COVID vaccine makers — Pfizer and Moderna — have applied for emergency use authorization for an additional booster.

Pfizer had asked for authorization for a fourth shot in patients over age 65 years, while Moderna wanted a booster to be available to all Americans over 18. The FDA instead granted authorization to both companies for those over 50 and anyone 18 or older who is immunocompromised.

What this means for the committee’s April 6 meeting is not clear. The original agenda says the committee will consider the evidence on safety and effectiveness of the additional vaccine doses and discuss how to set up a process — similar to that used for the influenza vaccine — to be able to determine the makeup of COVID vaccines as new variants emerge. That could lay the groundwork for an annual COVID shot, if needed.

The FDA advisers will not make recommendations nor vote on whether — and which — Americans should get a COVID booster. That is the job of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

The last time a booster was considered, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, overrode the committee and recommended that all Americans — not just older individuals — get an additional COVID shot, which became the first booster.

That past action worries Dr. Gandhi, who calls it confusing, and says it may have contributed to the fact that less than half of Americans have since chosen to get a booster.

Dr. Schaffner says he expects the FDA to authorize emergency use for fourth doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, but he doesn’t think the CDC committee will recommend routine use. As was seen before, however, the CDC director does not have to follow the committee’s advice.

The members of ACIP “might be more conservative or narrower in scope in terms of recommending who needs to be boosted and when boosting is appropriate,” Dr. Kuritzkes says.

Dr. Gandhi says she’s concerned the FDA’s deliberations could be swayed by Moderna and Pfizer’s influence and that “pharmaceutical companies are going to have more of a say than they should in the scientific process.”

There are similar worries for Dr. Schaffner. He says he’s “a bit grumpy” that the vaccine makers have been using press releases to argue for boosters.

“Press releases are no way to make vaccine recommendations,” Dr. Schaffner said, adding that he “would advise [vaccine makers] to sit down and be quiet and let the FDA and CDC advisory committee do their thing.”

Moderna Chief Medical Officer Paul Burton, MD, however, told WebMD last week that the signs point to why a fourth shot may be needed.

“We see waning of effectiveness, antibody levels come down, and certainly effectiveness against Omicron comes down in 3 to 6 months,” Burton said. “The natural history, from what we’re seeing around the world, is that BA.2 is definitely here, it’s highly transmissible, and I think we are going to get an additional wave of BA.2 here in the United States.”

Another wave is coming, he said, and “I think there will be waning of effectiveness. We need to be prepared for that, so that’s why we need the fourth dose.”
 

Supply issues?

Meanwhile, the United Kingdom has begun offering boosters to anyone over 75, and Sweden’s health authority has recommended a fourth shot to people over age 80.

That puts pressure on the United States — at least on its politicians and policymakers — to, in a sense, keep up, said the infectious disease specialists.

Indeed, the White House has been keeping fourth shots in the news, warning that it is running out of money to ensure that all Americans would have access to one, if recommended.

On March 23, outgoing White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Jeff Zients said the federal government had enough vaccine for the immunocompromised to get a fourth dose “and, if authorized in the coming weeks, enough supply for fourth doses for our most vulnerable, including seniors.”

But he warned that without congressional approval of a COVID-19 funding package, “We can’t procure the necessary vaccine supply to support fourth shots for all Americans.”

Mr. Zients also noted that other countries, including Japan, Vietnam, and the Philippines had already secured future booster doses and added, “We should be securing additional supply right now.”

Dr. Schaffner says that while it would be nice to “have a booster on the shelf,” the United States needs to put more effort into creating a globally-coordinated process for ensuring that vaccines match circulating strains and that they are manufactured on a timely basis.

He says he and others “have been reminding the public that the COVID pandemic may indeed be diminishing and moving into the endemic, but that doesn’t mean COVID is over or finished or disappeared.”

Dr. Schaffner says that it may be that “perhaps we’d need a periodic reminder to our immune system to remain protected. In other words, we might have to get boosted perhaps annually like we do with influenza.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration today authorized Americans over the age of 50 to receive a second COVID-19 booster shot, even though many top infectious disease experts questioned the need before the agency’s decision.

The FDA granted emergency use authorization for both Pfizer and Moderna to offer the second booster – and fourth shot overall – for adults over 50 as well as those over 18 with compromised immune systems.

The Centers for Control and Prevention must still sign off before those doses start reaching American arms. That approval could come at any time.

“The general consensus, certainly the CDC’s consensus, is that the current vaccines are still really quite effective against Omicron and this new BA.2 variant in keeping people out of the hospital, and preventing the development of severe disease,” William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville said prior to the FDA’s announcement March 29.

Of the 217.4 million Americans who are “fully vaccinated,” i.e., received two doses of either Pfizer or Moderna’s vaccines or one dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, only 45% have also received a booster shot, according to the CDC.

“Given that, there’s no need at the moment for the general population to get a fourth inoculation,” Dr. Schaffner says. “Our current focus ought to be on making sure that as many people as possible get that [first] booster who are eligible.”

Monica Gandhi, MD, an infectious disease specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, agreed that another booster for everyone was unnecessary. The only people who would need a fourth shot (or third, if they had the Johnson & Johnson vaccine initially) are those over age 65 or 70 years, Dr. Gandhi says.

“Older people need those antibodies up high because they’re more susceptible to severe breakthroughs,” she said, also before the latest development.
 

To boost or not to boost

Daniel Kuritzkes, MD, chief of infectious diseases at Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston, said the timing of a booster and who should be eligible depends on what the nation is trying to achieve with its vaccination strategy.

“Is the goal to prevent any symptomatic infection with COVID-19, is the goal to prevent the spread of COVID-19, or is the goal to prevent severe disease that requires hospitalization?” asked Dr. Kuritzkes.

The current vaccine — with a booster — has prevented severe disease, he said.

An Israeli study showed, for instance, that a third Pfizer dose was 93% effective against hospitalization, 92% effective against severe illness, and 81% effective against death.

A just-published study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that a booster of the Pfizer vaccine was 95% effective against COVID-19 infection and that it did not raise any new safety issues.

A small Israeli study, also published in NEJM, of a fourth Pfizer dose given to health care workers found that it prevented symptomatic infection and illness, but that it was much less effective than previous doses — maybe 65% effective against symptomatic illness, the authors write.

Giving Americans another booster now — which has been shown to lose some effectiveness after about 4 months — means it might not offer protection this fall and winter, when there could be a seasonal surge of the virus, Dr. Kuritzkes says.

And, even if people receive boosters every few months, they are still likely to get a mild respiratory virus infection, he said.

“I’m pretty convinced that we cannot boost ourselves out of this pandemic,” said Dr. Kuritzkes. “We need to first of all ensure there’s global immunization so that all the people who have not been vaccinated at all get vaccinated. That’s far more important than boosting people a fourth time.”
 

Booster confusion

The April 6 FDA meeting of the agency’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee comes as the two major COVID vaccine makers — Pfizer and Moderna — have applied for emergency use authorization for an additional booster.

Pfizer had asked for authorization for a fourth shot in patients over age 65 years, while Moderna wanted a booster to be available to all Americans over 18. The FDA instead granted authorization to both companies for those over 50 and anyone 18 or older who is immunocompromised.

What this means for the committee’s April 6 meeting is not clear. The original agenda says the committee will consider the evidence on safety and effectiveness of the additional vaccine doses and discuss how to set up a process — similar to that used for the influenza vaccine — to be able to determine the makeup of COVID vaccines as new variants emerge. That could lay the groundwork for an annual COVID shot, if needed.

The FDA advisers will not make recommendations nor vote on whether — and which — Americans should get a COVID booster. That is the job of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

The last time a booster was considered, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, overrode the committee and recommended that all Americans — not just older individuals — get an additional COVID shot, which became the first booster.

That past action worries Dr. Gandhi, who calls it confusing, and says it may have contributed to the fact that less than half of Americans have since chosen to get a booster.

Dr. Schaffner says he expects the FDA to authorize emergency use for fourth doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, but he doesn’t think the CDC committee will recommend routine use. As was seen before, however, the CDC director does not have to follow the committee’s advice.

The members of ACIP “might be more conservative or narrower in scope in terms of recommending who needs to be boosted and when boosting is appropriate,” Dr. Kuritzkes says.

Dr. Gandhi says she’s concerned the FDA’s deliberations could be swayed by Moderna and Pfizer’s influence and that “pharmaceutical companies are going to have more of a say than they should in the scientific process.”

There are similar worries for Dr. Schaffner. He says he’s “a bit grumpy” that the vaccine makers have been using press releases to argue for boosters.

“Press releases are no way to make vaccine recommendations,” Dr. Schaffner said, adding that he “would advise [vaccine makers] to sit down and be quiet and let the FDA and CDC advisory committee do their thing.”

Moderna Chief Medical Officer Paul Burton, MD, however, told WebMD last week that the signs point to why a fourth shot may be needed.

“We see waning of effectiveness, antibody levels come down, and certainly effectiveness against Omicron comes down in 3 to 6 months,” Burton said. “The natural history, from what we’re seeing around the world, is that BA.2 is definitely here, it’s highly transmissible, and I think we are going to get an additional wave of BA.2 here in the United States.”

Another wave is coming, he said, and “I think there will be waning of effectiveness. We need to be prepared for that, so that’s why we need the fourth dose.”
 

Supply issues?

Meanwhile, the United Kingdom has begun offering boosters to anyone over 75, and Sweden’s health authority has recommended a fourth shot to people over age 80.

That puts pressure on the United States — at least on its politicians and policymakers — to, in a sense, keep up, said the infectious disease specialists.

Indeed, the White House has been keeping fourth shots in the news, warning that it is running out of money to ensure that all Americans would have access to one, if recommended.

On March 23, outgoing White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Jeff Zients said the federal government had enough vaccine for the immunocompromised to get a fourth dose “and, if authorized in the coming weeks, enough supply for fourth doses for our most vulnerable, including seniors.”

But he warned that without congressional approval of a COVID-19 funding package, “We can’t procure the necessary vaccine supply to support fourth shots for all Americans.”

Mr. Zients also noted that other countries, including Japan, Vietnam, and the Philippines had already secured future booster doses and added, “We should be securing additional supply right now.”

Dr. Schaffner says that while it would be nice to “have a booster on the shelf,” the United States needs to put more effort into creating a globally-coordinated process for ensuring that vaccines match circulating strains and that they are manufactured on a timely basis.

He says he and others “have been reminding the public that the COVID pandemic may indeed be diminishing and moving into the endemic, but that doesn’t mean COVID is over or finished or disappeared.”

Dr. Schaffner says that it may be that “perhaps we’d need a periodic reminder to our immune system to remain protected. In other words, we might have to get boosted perhaps annually like we do with influenza.”

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

DENVER – Neurocognitive and psychiatric symptoms of mental illness, including posttraumatic stress disorder, are alarmingly high among patients who have previously had COVID-19 – even among those who were not hospitalized with the virus, new research shows.

The findings are from an online survey of more than 800 respondents.

“Regardless of how long ago they had been infected with COVID-19, all respondents had persistent symptoms,” co-investigator Beth Patterson, MSc, adjunct clinical professor at McMaster University, MacAnxiety Research Centre, Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization.

“The take-home message for clinicians is to be aware that if you have patients who had COVID-19, it’s quite likely that they may also experience a psychiatric issue and that they may have reduced resilience and lower quality-of-life [issues],” Ms. Patterson said.

The survey results were presented here at the Anxiety and Depression Association of America (ADAA) Conference 2022.
 

100% report symptoms

The study included 827 respondents (81% women) to an online survey who had contracted COVID.

Using validated symptom severity scores, respondents were assessed for mental health and neurocognitive issues, as well as some physical and quality-of-life factors.

Remarkably, all participants (100%) reported having current, persistent symptoms of COVID. In addition, 88% (n = 729) reported persistent neurocognitive symptoms, even though only 15.5% reported they had been hospitalized for COVID.

Of those hospitalized, 28.9% were treated in the intensive care unit; 42.2% stayed in hospital for less than 1 week; and 13.3% remained hospitalized for at least 3 weeks.

Data were not available on how long it had been since the patients were diagnosed or hospitalized, but most participants (68%) said they had not returned to normal functioning since contracting COVID.

The most common persistent symptoms were fatigue (75.9%), brain fog (67.9%), difficulty concentrating (61%), and weakness (51.2%).

More than half of respondents reported neurocognitive symptoms, including poor memory (57.4%) and word-finding problems in processing information (46.9%). Only 11% reported no persistent neurocognitive symptoms.

A total of 41.7% of respondents reported anxiety using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) scale, and rates of depression were 61.4% as assessed with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9).

Rates of probable posttraumatic stress disorder were 40.5% as assessed via the PTSD checklist (PCL-5).

Although it wasn’t possible to use diagnostic screens, the assessment scores suggest strikingly high rates of mental health disorders among the respondents, Ms. Patterson said.

“When we look at the mean scores on the validated scales, we see percentages of probable diagnoses that are staggeringly higher than you would find in the population,” she added.

Of note, about 44% of respondents reported having had mental health treatment in the past, and 33.7% were receiving current mental health treatment.

Although the study had no control group, the findings are consistent with larger studies that have had comparator groups, including research recently published in the BMJ.
 

Poor understanding of COVID’s fallout

In an editorial accompanying the BMJ study, Scott Weich, MD, Mental Health Research Unit, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, United Kingdom, emphasized the need to better understand the lingering mental health aspects of COVID-19 infection.

“Our attachment to syndromal phenotypes means that we have learned remarkably little about the causes of mental ill health – in this case psychopathology associated with a viral pandemic,” Dr. Weich writes.

Dr. Weich called for improved efforts to understanding long COVID, as well as the establishment of more effective responses to the mental health fallout from the pandemic.

Commenting on the current study, Dr. Weich elaborated on the challenges in disentangling the causes of mental health effects in illness.

“In terms of other viruses, etc., there is a long history of debate and pitched battles between those that attribute mental health effects to predominantly biological processes, [involving] immunological and other responses, and those who understand these responses are mediated by psychological and social processes,” he noted.

“The story of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome speaks volumes about these different positions, and how difficult it can be to find a middle ground,” he said.

“This has been going on for centuries and may never be fully resolved, at least until we have clearer and more definitive evidence of pathophysiology, though this seems incredibly elusive,” Dr. Weich said.

The authors and Dr. Weich have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

DENVER – Neurocognitive and psychiatric symptoms of mental illness, including posttraumatic stress disorder, are alarmingly high among patients who have previously had COVID-19 – even among those who were not hospitalized with the virus, new research shows.

The findings are from an online survey of more than 800 respondents.

“Regardless of how long ago they had been infected with COVID-19, all respondents had persistent symptoms,” co-investigator Beth Patterson, MSc, adjunct clinical professor at McMaster University, MacAnxiety Research Centre, Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization.

“The take-home message for clinicians is to be aware that if you have patients who had COVID-19, it’s quite likely that they may also experience a psychiatric issue and that they may have reduced resilience and lower quality-of-life [issues],” Ms. Patterson said.

The survey results were presented here at the Anxiety and Depression Association of America (ADAA) Conference 2022.
 

100% report symptoms

The study included 827 respondents (81% women) to an online survey who had contracted COVID.

Using validated symptom severity scores, respondents were assessed for mental health and neurocognitive issues, as well as some physical and quality-of-life factors.

Remarkably, all participants (100%) reported having current, persistent symptoms of COVID. In addition, 88% (n = 729) reported persistent neurocognitive symptoms, even though only 15.5% reported they had been hospitalized for COVID.

Of those hospitalized, 28.9% were treated in the intensive care unit; 42.2% stayed in hospital for less than 1 week; and 13.3% remained hospitalized for at least 3 weeks.

Data were not available on how long it had been since the patients were diagnosed or hospitalized, but most participants (68%) said they had not returned to normal functioning since contracting COVID.

The most common persistent symptoms were fatigue (75.9%), brain fog (67.9%), difficulty concentrating (61%), and weakness (51.2%).

More than half of respondents reported neurocognitive symptoms, including poor memory (57.4%) and word-finding problems in processing information (46.9%). Only 11% reported no persistent neurocognitive symptoms.

A total of 41.7% of respondents reported anxiety using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) scale, and rates of depression were 61.4% as assessed with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9).

Rates of probable posttraumatic stress disorder were 40.5% as assessed via the PTSD checklist (PCL-5).

Although it wasn’t possible to use diagnostic screens, the assessment scores suggest strikingly high rates of mental health disorders among the respondents, Ms. Patterson said.

“When we look at the mean scores on the validated scales, we see percentages of probable diagnoses that are staggeringly higher than you would find in the population,” she added.

Of note, about 44% of respondents reported having had mental health treatment in the past, and 33.7% were receiving current mental health treatment.

Although the study had no control group, the findings are consistent with larger studies that have had comparator groups, including research recently published in the BMJ.
 

Poor understanding of COVID’s fallout

In an editorial accompanying the BMJ study, Scott Weich, MD, Mental Health Research Unit, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, United Kingdom, emphasized the need to better understand the lingering mental health aspects of COVID-19 infection.

“Our attachment to syndromal phenotypes means that we have learned remarkably little about the causes of mental ill health – in this case psychopathology associated with a viral pandemic,” Dr. Weich writes.

Dr. Weich called for improved efforts to understanding long COVID, as well as the establishment of more effective responses to the mental health fallout from the pandemic.

Commenting on the current study, Dr. Weich elaborated on the challenges in disentangling the causes of mental health effects in illness.

“In terms of other viruses, etc., there is a long history of debate and pitched battles between those that attribute mental health effects to predominantly biological processes, [involving] immunological and other responses, and those who understand these responses are mediated by psychological and social processes,” he noted.

“The story of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome speaks volumes about these different positions, and how difficult it can be to find a middle ground,” he said.

“This has been going on for centuries and may never be fully resolved, at least until we have clearer and more definitive evidence of pathophysiology, though this seems incredibly elusive,” Dr. Weich said.

The authors and Dr. Weich have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

DENVER – Neurocognitive and psychiatric symptoms of mental illness, including posttraumatic stress disorder, are alarmingly high among patients who have previously had COVID-19 – even among those who were not hospitalized with the virus, new research shows.

The findings are from an online survey of more than 800 respondents.

“Regardless of how long ago they had been infected with COVID-19, all respondents had persistent symptoms,” co-investigator Beth Patterson, MSc, adjunct clinical professor at McMaster University, MacAnxiety Research Centre, Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization.

“The take-home message for clinicians is to be aware that if you have patients who had COVID-19, it’s quite likely that they may also experience a psychiatric issue and that they may have reduced resilience and lower quality-of-life [issues],” Ms. Patterson said.

The survey results were presented here at the Anxiety and Depression Association of America (ADAA) Conference 2022.
 

100% report symptoms

The study included 827 respondents (81% women) to an online survey who had contracted COVID.

Using validated symptom severity scores, respondents were assessed for mental health and neurocognitive issues, as well as some physical and quality-of-life factors.

Remarkably, all participants (100%) reported having current, persistent symptoms of COVID. In addition, 88% (n = 729) reported persistent neurocognitive symptoms, even though only 15.5% reported they had been hospitalized for COVID.

Of those hospitalized, 28.9% were treated in the intensive care unit; 42.2% stayed in hospital for less than 1 week; and 13.3% remained hospitalized for at least 3 weeks.

Data were not available on how long it had been since the patients were diagnosed or hospitalized, but most participants (68%) said they had not returned to normal functioning since contracting COVID.

The most common persistent symptoms were fatigue (75.9%), brain fog (67.9%), difficulty concentrating (61%), and weakness (51.2%).

More than half of respondents reported neurocognitive symptoms, including poor memory (57.4%) and word-finding problems in processing information (46.9%). Only 11% reported no persistent neurocognitive symptoms.

A total of 41.7% of respondents reported anxiety using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) scale, and rates of depression were 61.4% as assessed with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9).

Rates of probable posttraumatic stress disorder were 40.5% as assessed via the PTSD checklist (PCL-5).

Although it wasn’t possible to use diagnostic screens, the assessment scores suggest strikingly high rates of mental health disorders among the respondents, Ms. Patterson said.

“When we look at the mean scores on the validated scales, we see percentages of probable diagnoses that are staggeringly higher than you would find in the population,” she added.

Of note, about 44% of respondents reported having had mental health treatment in the past, and 33.7% were receiving current mental health treatment.

Although the study had no control group, the findings are consistent with larger studies that have had comparator groups, including research recently published in the BMJ.
 

Poor understanding of COVID’s fallout

In an editorial accompanying the BMJ study, Scott Weich, MD, Mental Health Research Unit, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, United Kingdom, emphasized the need to better understand the lingering mental health aspects of COVID-19 infection.

“Our attachment to syndromal phenotypes means that we have learned remarkably little about the causes of mental ill health – in this case psychopathology associated with a viral pandemic,” Dr. Weich writes.

Dr. Weich called for improved efforts to understanding long COVID, as well as the establishment of more effective responses to the mental health fallout from the pandemic.

Commenting on the current study, Dr. Weich elaborated on the challenges in disentangling the causes of mental health effects in illness.

“In terms of other viruses, etc., there is a long history of debate and pitched battles between those that attribute mental health effects to predominantly biological processes, [involving] immunological and other responses, and those who understand these responses are mediated by psychological and social processes,” he noted.

“The story of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome speaks volumes about these different positions, and how difficult it can be to find a middle ground,” he said.

“This has been going on for centuries and may never be fully resolved, at least until we have clearer and more definitive evidence of pathophysiology, though this seems incredibly elusive,” Dr. Weich said.

The authors and Dr. Weich have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Long COVID symptoms may differ depending on which SARS-CoV-2 variant is behind a person’s infection, a new study shows.

The data from Italy compared long COVID symptoms reported by patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 from March to December 2020 (when the original, or “Wuhan,” variant was dominant) with those reported by patients infected from January to April 2021 (B.1.1.7-, or Alpha variant-dominant). It showed a substantial change in the pattern of neurological and cognitive/emotional problems – the latter mostly seen with the Alpha variant.

Infectious disease specialist Michele Spinicci, MD, from the University of Florence and Careggi University Hospital, Italy, led the work. “Many of the symptoms reported in this study have been measured [before], but this is the first time they have been linked to different COVID-19 variants,” he told this news organization. “Findings in patients with long COVID were focused on neurological and psychological difficulties.”

However, he pointed out that much remains to be understood about long COVID in terms of symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment. 

“Long COVID is a huge area that involves many different fields of medicine, so there is not one single piece of advice to give on management. There’s lots to consider when evaluating a long COVID patient,” he said.

Results showed that when the Alpha variant was the dominant variant, the prevalence of myalgia (10%), dyspnea (42%), brain fog/mental confusion (17%), and anxiety/depression (13%) significantly increased relative to the wild-type (original, Wuhan) variant, while anosmia (2%), dysgeusia (4%), and impaired hearing (1%) were less common.

When the wild-type (original, Wuhan) variant was dominant, fatigue (37%), insomnia (16%), dysgeusia (11%), and impaired hearing (5%) were all more common than with the Alpha variant. Dyspnea (33%), brain fog (10%), myalgia (4%), and anxiety/depression (6%) were less common. 

Overall, 76% of the patients in the trial reported at least one persistent symptom, while the most common reported symptoms were dyspnea (37%) and chronic fatigue (36%), followed by insomnia (16%), visual disorders (13%), and brain fog (13%).

The findings come from an early-release abstract that will be presented at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID) 2022, in Lisbon, Portugal, in a few weeks’ time.
 

‘The take-home point’  

Michael A. Horberg, MD, associate medical director, Kaiser Permanente – Mid-Atlantic Permanente Medical Group, Rockville, Maryland, has recently presented data on symptoms seen with long COVID in over 28,000 people, as reported by this news organization, at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections 2022. These people were infected with the wild-type virus.

Commenting on the study by Dr. Spinicci, he said: “The issue is that as we go along the COVID lifespan from acute to long COVID, what prompts patients to seek medical attention may change. If symptoms are not severe or were not well publicized previously, patients may not see the need to seek care or evaluation. As such, it doesn’t surprise me to find these changes over time, independent of any potential biological activity of the virus or its consequences.”

Dr. Horberg noted that their own study results are consistent with those of Dr. Spinicci et al. from March to December 2020 (original, Wuhan variant). “To me, the take-home point is long COVID is real, and physicians need to be on the lookout for it. However, not all symptoms are due to long COVID, and we need to keep the time course of symptoms during evaluation of such patients.”

Also providing comment on the findings was Debby Bogaert, MD, chair of Pediatric Medicine, University of Edinburgh. Reflecting on whether the symptoms were due to long COVID or another underlying disease, she said: “The number of patients with ongoing symptoms is very high, therefore [it is] unlikely that all of this is re-emergence of underlying or previous health problems. The type of symptoms reported are also as reported by other cohorts, so not unexpected. And irrespective of the root cause, they require care.”

Dr. Bogaert also noted that the data reiterate that COVID-19 is a new disease, and that “new variants might show shifting clinical pictures, not only regarding severity and symptoms of acute disease, but possibly also regarding sequela,” and that this, “underlines the importance of ongoing surveillance of variants, and ongoing evaluation of the acute and long-term clinical picture accompanying these, to ensure we adapt our public health approaches, clinical treatment plans, and long-term follow-up when and where needed.”

Dr. Bogaert stressed that only by keeping track of the changes in symptoms both acute and long-term – by patients and doctors – would the best patient care be provided.

“Patients need to know so they can report these back to their doctors, and doctors need to know over time that the picture of sequela might shift, so sequela are recognized early, and these patients receive the appropriate follow-up treatment,” she said. These shifting patterns might also apply to community patients as well as those hospitalized with COVID-19.
 

Study details

The retrospective, observational study included 428 patients, 59% men, with a mean age of 64 years, who had been treated at the Careggi University Hospital’s post-COVID outpatient service between June 2020 and June 2021, when the original form of SARS-CoV-2, and later the Alpha variant, were circulating, with some overlap.

All patients had been hospitalized with COVID-19 and discharged 4-12 weeks prior to attending the outpatient post-COVID service. They were asked to complete a questionnaire on persistent symptoms at the median of 53 days after being discharged from the hospital. In addition, data on medical history, microbiological and clinical COVID-19 course, self-reported symptoms (at the point of the follow-up visit), and patient demographics were obtained from electronic medical records.
 

Newer variants being studied

Upon analysis of long COVID symptoms according to treatment given during the acute phase using multivariate analysis, increasing oxygen support (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.8), use of immunosuppressant drugs (OR, 6.4; 95% CI, 1.5-28), and female sex (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-2.9) were associated with a higher risk for long COVID symptoms, while patients with type 2 diabetes (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.7) had a lower risk of developing long COVID symptoms.

When asked whether the increased anxiety and depression seen with the Alpha variant might be also linked to the fact that people are living through hard times, with lockdowns, economic difficulties, possible illness, and even fatalities among family and friends due to COVID, Dr. Spinicci pointed out that “it’s a preliminary study, and there are lots of factors that we didn’t explore. It’s difficult to arrive at definite conclusions about long COVID because so much remains unknown. There are lots of external and environmental factors in the general population that might contribute to these findings.”

Dr. Spinicci has continued to enroll patients from later periods of the pandemic, including patients who were infected with the Delta and Omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2.

“We’re interested in finding out if these other variants are also associated with different phenotypes of long COVID. This study is part of our follow-up program here in the hospital where lots of different specialties are following patients for 20 months,” he said.

Dr. Horberg noted that one criticism of this study is that it was unclear whether the researchers accounted for pre-existing conditions. “They note the co-morbidities in the table 1, but don’t say how they accounted for that in their analyses. We found a lot of what patients were calling ‘long COVID’ were exacerbations of co-morbidities but not a new condition.” 

Dr. Spinicci and his coauthors acknowledged that the study was observational. And, as such, it does not prove cause and effect, and they could not confirm which variant of the virus caused the infection in different patients, which may limit the conclusions that can be drawn.

“Future research should focus on the potential impacts of variants of concern and vaccination status on ongoing symptoms,” Spinicci said.

Early release of an abstract will be presented at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID) 2022, in Lisbon, Portugal, April 23-26, 2022. Abstract 02768.

Dr. Spinicci and Dr. Horberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bogaert declared that she is on the program committee of ECCMID; she has been a member of SIGN/NICE COVID-19 rapid guideline: managing the long-term effects of COVID-19; and she is involved in multiple ongoing COVID-related studies, both acute and long-term sequela (funding MRC, CSO, ZonMw).

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

Long COVID symptoms may differ depending on which SARS-CoV-2 variant is behind a person’s infection, a new study shows.

The data from Italy compared long COVID symptoms reported by patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 from March to December 2020 (when the original, or “Wuhan,” variant was dominant) with those reported by patients infected from January to April 2021 (B.1.1.7-, or Alpha variant-dominant). It showed a substantial change in the pattern of neurological and cognitive/emotional problems – the latter mostly seen with the Alpha variant.

Infectious disease specialist Michele Spinicci, MD, from the University of Florence and Careggi University Hospital, Italy, led the work. “Many of the symptoms reported in this study have been measured [before], but this is the first time they have been linked to different COVID-19 variants,” he told this news organization. “Findings in patients with long COVID were focused on neurological and psychological difficulties.”

However, he pointed out that much remains to be understood about long COVID in terms of symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment. 

“Long COVID is a huge area that involves many different fields of medicine, so there is not one single piece of advice to give on management. There’s lots to consider when evaluating a long COVID patient,” he said.

Results showed that when the Alpha variant was the dominant variant, the prevalence of myalgia (10%), dyspnea (42%), brain fog/mental confusion (17%), and anxiety/depression (13%) significantly increased relative to the wild-type (original, Wuhan) variant, while anosmia (2%), dysgeusia (4%), and impaired hearing (1%) were less common.

When the wild-type (original, Wuhan) variant was dominant, fatigue (37%), insomnia (16%), dysgeusia (11%), and impaired hearing (5%) were all more common than with the Alpha variant. Dyspnea (33%), brain fog (10%), myalgia (4%), and anxiety/depression (6%) were less common. 

Overall, 76% of the patients in the trial reported at least one persistent symptom, while the most common reported symptoms were dyspnea (37%) and chronic fatigue (36%), followed by insomnia (16%), visual disorders (13%), and brain fog (13%).

The findings come from an early-release abstract that will be presented at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID) 2022, in Lisbon, Portugal, in a few weeks’ time.
 

‘The take-home point’  

Michael A. Horberg, MD, associate medical director, Kaiser Permanente – Mid-Atlantic Permanente Medical Group, Rockville, Maryland, has recently presented data on symptoms seen with long COVID in over 28,000 people, as reported by this news organization, at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections 2022. These people were infected with the wild-type virus.

Commenting on the study by Dr. Spinicci, he said: “The issue is that as we go along the COVID lifespan from acute to long COVID, what prompts patients to seek medical attention may change. If symptoms are not severe or were not well publicized previously, patients may not see the need to seek care or evaluation. As such, it doesn’t surprise me to find these changes over time, independent of any potential biological activity of the virus or its consequences.”

Dr. Horberg noted that their own study results are consistent with those of Dr. Spinicci et al. from March to December 2020 (original, Wuhan variant). “To me, the take-home point is long COVID is real, and physicians need to be on the lookout for it. However, not all symptoms are due to long COVID, and we need to keep the time course of symptoms during evaluation of such patients.”

Also providing comment on the findings was Debby Bogaert, MD, chair of Pediatric Medicine, University of Edinburgh. Reflecting on whether the symptoms were due to long COVID or another underlying disease, she said: “The number of patients with ongoing symptoms is very high, therefore [it is] unlikely that all of this is re-emergence of underlying or previous health problems. The type of symptoms reported are also as reported by other cohorts, so not unexpected. And irrespective of the root cause, they require care.”

Dr. Bogaert also noted that the data reiterate that COVID-19 is a new disease, and that “new variants might show shifting clinical pictures, not only regarding severity and symptoms of acute disease, but possibly also regarding sequela,” and that this, “underlines the importance of ongoing surveillance of variants, and ongoing evaluation of the acute and long-term clinical picture accompanying these, to ensure we adapt our public health approaches, clinical treatment plans, and long-term follow-up when and where needed.”

Dr. Bogaert stressed that only by keeping track of the changes in symptoms both acute and long-term – by patients and doctors – would the best patient care be provided.

“Patients need to know so they can report these back to their doctors, and doctors need to know over time that the picture of sequela might shift, so sequela are recognized early, and these patients receive the appropriate follow-up treatment,” she said. These shifting patterns might also apply to community patients as well as those hospitalized with COVID-19.
 

Study details

The retrospective, observational study included 428 patients, 59% men, with a mean age of 64 years, who had been treated at the Careggi University Hospital’s post-COVID outpatient service between June 2020 and June 2021, when the original form of SARS-CoV-2, and later the Alpha variant, were circulating, with some overlap.

All patients had been hospitalized with COVID-19 and discharged 4-12 weeks prior to attending the outpatient post-COVID service. They were asked to complete a questionnaire on persistent symptoms at the median of 53 days after being discharged from the hospital. In addition, data on medical history, microbiological and clinical COVID-19 course, self-reported symptoms (at the point of the follow-up visit), and patient demographics were obtained from electronic medical records.
 

Newer variants being studied

Upon analysis of long COVID symptoms according to treatment given during the acute phase using multivariate analysis, increasing oxygen support (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.8), use of immunosuppressant drugs (OR, 6.4; 95% CI, 1.5-28), and female sex (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-2.9) were associated with a higher risk for long COVID symptoms, while patients with type 2 diabetes (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.7) had a lower risk of developing long COVID symptoms.

When asked whether the increased anxiety and depression seen with the Alpha variant might be also linked to the fact that people are living through hard times, with lockdowns, economic difficulties, possible illness, and even fatalities among family and friends due to COVID, Dr. Spinicci pointed out that “it’s a preliminary study, and there are lots of factors that we didn’t explore. It’s difficult to arrive at definite conclusions about long COVID because so much remains unknown. There are lots of external and environmental factors in the general population that might contribute to these findings.”

Dr. Spinicci has continued to enroll patients from later periods of the pandemic, including patients who were infected with the Delta and Omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2.

“We’re interested in finding out if these other variants are also associated with different phenotypes of long COVID. This study is part of our follow-up program here in the hospital where lots of different specialties are following patients for 20 months,” he said.

Dr. Horberg noted that one criticism of this study is that it was unclear whether the researchers accounted for pre-existing conditions. “They note the co-morbidities in the table 1, but don’t say how they accounted for that in their analyses. We found a lot of what patients were calling ‘long COVID’ were exacerbations of co-morbidities but not a new condition.” 

Dr. Spinicci and his coauthors acknowledged that the study was observational. And, as such, it does not prove cause and effect, and they could not confirm which variant of the virus caused the infection in different patients, which may limit the conclusions that can be drawn.

“Future research should focus on the potential impacts of variants of concern and vaccination status on ongoing symptoms,” Spinicci said.

Early release of an abstract will be presented at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID) 2022, in Lisbon, Portugal, April 23-26, 2022. Abstract 02768.

Dr. Spinicci and Dr. Horberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bogaert declared that she is on the program committee of ECCMID; she has been a member of SIGN/NICE COVID-19 rapid guideline: managing the long-term effects of COVID-19; and she is involved in multiple ongoing COVID-related studies, both acute and long-term sequela (funding MRC, CSO, ZonMw).

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

Long COVID symptoms may differ depending on which SARS-CoV-2 variant is behind a person’s infection, a new study shows.

The data from Italy compared long COVID symptoms reported by patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 from March to December 2020 (when the original, or “Wuhan,” variant was dominant) with those reported by patients infected from January to April 2021 (B.1.1.7-, or Alpha variant-dominant). It showed a substantial change in the pattern of neurological and cognitive/emotional problems – the latter mostly seen with the Alpha variant.

Infectious disease specialist Michele Spinicci, MD, from the University of Florence and Careggi University Hospital, Italy, led the work. “Many of the symptoms reported in this study have been measured [before], but this is the first time they have been linked to different COVID-19 variants,” he told this news organization. “Findings in patients with long COVID were focused on neurological and psychological difficulties.”

However, he pointed out that much remains to be understood about long COVID in terms of symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment. 

“Long COVID is a huge area that involves many different fields of medicine, so there is not one single piece of advice to give on management. There’s lots to consider when evaluating a long COVID patient,” he said.

Results showed that when the Alpha variant was the dominant variant, the prevalence of myalgia (10%), dyspnea (42%), brain fog/mental confusion (17%), and anxiety/depression (13%) significantly increased relative to the wild-type (original, Wuhan) variant, while anosmia (2%), dysgeusia (4%), and impaired hearing (1%) were less common.

When the wild-type (original, Wuhan) variant was dominant, fatigue (37%), insomnia (16%), dysgeusia (11%), and impaired hearing (5%) were all more common than with the Alpha variant. Dyspnea (33%), brain fog (10%), myalgia (4%), and anxiety/depression (6%) were less common. 

Overall, 76% of the patients in the trial reported at least one persistent symptom, while the most common reported symptoms were dyspnea (37%) and chronic fatigue (36%), followed by insomnia (16%), visual disorders (13%), and brain fog (13%).

The findings come from an early-release abstract that will be presented at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID) 2022, in Lisbon, Portugal, in a few weeks’ time.
 

‘The take-home point’  

Michael A. Horberg, MD, associate medical director, Kaiser Permanente – Mid-Atlantic Permanente Medical Group, Rockville, Maryland, has recently presented data on symptoms seen with long COVID in over 28,000 people, as reported by this news organization, at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections 2022. These people were infected with the wild-type virus.

Commenting on the study by Dr. Spinicci, he said: “The issue is that as we go along the COVID lifespan from acute to long COVID, what prompts patients to seek medical attention may change. If symptoms are not severe or were not well publicized previously, patients may not see the need to seek care or evaluation. As such, it doesn’t surprise me to find these changes over time, independent of any potential biological activity of the virus or its consequences.”

Dr. Horberg noted that their own study results are consistent with those of Dr. Spinicci et al. from March to December 2020 (original, Wuhan variant). “To me, the take-home point is long COVID is real, and physicians need to be on the lookout for it. However, not all symptoms are due to long COVID, and we need to keep the time course of symptoms during evaluation of such patients.”

Also providing comment on the findings was Debby Bogaert, MD, chair of Pediatric Medicine, University of Edinburgh. Reflecting on whether the symptoms were due to long COVID or another underlying disease, she said: “The number of patients with ongoing symptoms is very high, therefore [it is] unlikely that all of this is re-emergence of underlying or previous health problems. The type of symptoms reported are also as reported by other cohorts, so not unexpected. And irrespective of the root cause, they require care.”

Dr. Bogaert also noted that the data reiterate that COVID-19 is a new disease, and that “new variants might show shifting clinical pictures, not only regarding severity and symptoms of acute disease, but possibly also regarding sequela,” and that this, “underlines the importance of ongoing surveillance of variants, and ongoing evaluation of the acute and long-term clinical picture accompanying these, to ensure we adapt our public health approaches, clinical treatment plans, and long-term follow-up when and where needed.”

Dr. Bogaert stressed that only by keeping track of the changes in symptoms both acute and long-term – by patients and doctors – would the best patient care be provided.

“Patients need to know so they can report these back to their doctors, and doctors need to know over time that the picture of sequela might shift, so sequela are recognized early, and these patients receive the appropriate follow-up treatment,” she said. These shifting patterns might also apply to community patients as well as those hospitalized with COVID-19.
 

Study details

The retrospective, observational study included 428 patients, 59% men, with a mean age of 64 years, who had been treated at the Careggi University Hospital’s post-COVID outpatient service between June 2020 and June 2021, when the original form of SARS-CoV-2, and later the Alpha variant, were circulating, with some overlap.

All patients had been hospitalized with COVID-19 and discharged 4-12 weeks prior to attending the outpatient post-COVID service. They were asked to complete a questionnaire on persistent symptoms at the median of 53 days after being discharged from the hospital. In addition, data on medical history, microbiological and clinical COVID-19 course, self-reported symptoms (at the point of the follow-up visit), and patient demographics were obtained from electronic medical records.
 

Newer variants being studied

Upon analysis of long COVID symptoms according to treatment given during the acute phase using multivariate analysis, increasing oxygen support (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.8), use of immunosuppressant drugs (OR, 6.4; 95% CI, 1.5-28), and female sex (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-2.9) were associated with a higher risk for long COVID symptoms, while patients with type 2 diabetes (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.7) had a lower risk of developing long COVID symptoms.

When asked whether the increased anxiety and depression seen with the Alpha variant might be also linked to the fact that people are living through hard times, with lockdowns, economic difficulties, possible illness, and even fatalities among family and friends due to COVID, Dr. Spinicci pointed out that “it’s a preliminary study, and there are lots of factors that we didn’t explore. It’s difficult to arrive at definite conclusions about long COVID because so much remains unknown. There are lots of external and environmental factors in the general population that might contribute to these findings.”

Dr. Spinicci has continued to enroll patients from later periods of the pandemic, including patients who were infected with the Delta and Omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2.

“We’re interested in finding out if these other variants are also associated with different phenotypes of long COVID. This study is part of our follow-up program here in the hospital where lots of different specialties are following patients for 20 months,” he said.

Dr. Horberg noted that one criticism of this study is that it was unclear whether the researchers accounted for pre-existing conditions. “They note the co-morbidities in the table 1, but don’t say how they accounted for that in their analyses. We found a lot of what patients were calling ‘long COVID’ were exacerbations of co-morbidities but not a new condition.” 

Dr. Spinicci and his coauthors acknowledged that the study was observational. And, as such, it does not prove cause and effect, and they could not confirm which variant of the virus caused the infection in different patients, which may limit the conclusions that can be drawn.

“Future research should focus on the potential impacts of variants of concern and vaccination status on ongoing symptoms,” Spinicci said.

Early release of an abstract will be presented at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID) 2022, in Lisbon, Portugal, April 23-26, 2022. Abstract 02768.

Dr. Spinicci and Dr. Horberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bogaert declared that she is on the program committee of ECCMID; she has been a member of SIGN/NICE COVID-19 rapid guideline: managing the long-term effects of COVID-19; and she is involved in multiple ongoing COVID-related studies, both acute and long-term sequela (funding MRC, CSO, ZonMw).

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