Emergency Medicine

Long COVID can exacerbate existing mental health disorders or cause new-onset psychiatric symptoms, but mental illness does not cause long COVID, experts say.

The consensus guidance statement on the assessment and treatment of mental health symptoms in patients with post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), also known as long COVID, was published online in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, the journal of the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R).

The statement was developed by a task force that included experts from physical medicine, neurology, neuropsychiatry, neuropsychology, rehabilitation psychology, and primary care. It is the eighth guidance statement on long COVID published by AAPM&R).

“Many of our patients have reported experiences in which their symptoms of long COVID have been dismissed either by loved ones in the community, or also amongst health care providers, and they’ve been told their symptoms are in their head or due to a mental health condition, but that’s simply not true,” Abby L. Cheng, MD, a physiatrist at Barnes Jewish Hospital in St. Louis and a coauthor of the new guidance, said in a press briefing.

“Long COVID is real, and mental health conditions do not cause long COVID,” Dr. Cheng added.
 

Millions of Americans affected

Anxiety and depression have been reported as the second and third most common symptoms of long COVID, according to the guidance statement.

There is some evidence that the body’s inflammatory response – specifically, circulating cytokines – may contribute to the worsening of mental health symptoms or may bring on new symptoms of anxiety or depression, said Dr. Cheng. Cytokines may also affect levels of brain chemicals, such as serotonin, she said.

Researchers are also exploring whether the persistence of virus in the body, miniature blood clots in the body and brain, and changes to the gut microbiome affect the mental health of people with long COVID.

Some mental health symptoms – such as fatigue, brain fog, sleep disturbances, and tachycardia – can mimic long COVID symptoms, said Dr. Cheng.

The treatment is the same for someone with or without long COVID who has anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, or other mental health conditions and includes treatment of coexisting medical conditions, supportive therapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy, and pharmacologic interventions, she said.

“Group therapy may have a particular role in the long COVID population because it really provides that social connection and awareness of additional resources in addition to validation of their experiences,” Dr. Cheng said.

The guidance suggests that primary care practitioners – if it’s within their comfort zone and they have the training – can be the first line for managing mental health symptoms.

But for patients whose symptoms are interfering with functioning and their ability to interact with the community, the guidance urges primary care clinicians to refer the patient to a specialist.

“It leaves the door open to them to practice within their scope but also gives guidance as to how, why, and who should be referred to the next level of care,” said Dr. Cheng.

Coauthor Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, chair of rehabilitation medicine at UT Health San Antonio, Texas, said that although fewer people are now getting long COVID, “it’s still an impactful number.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently estimated that about 7% of American adults (18 million) and 1.3% of children had experienced long COVID.

Dr. Gutierrez said that it’s an evolving number, as some patients who have a second or third or fourth SARS-CoV-2 infection experience exacerbations of previous bouts of long COVID or develop long COVID for the first time.

“We are still getting new patients on a regular basis with long COVID,” said AAPM&R President Steven R. Flanagan, MD, a physical medicine specialist.

“This is a problem that really is not going away. It is still real and still ever-present,” said Dr. Flanagan, chair of rehabilitation medicine at NYU Langone Health.
 

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

Long COVID can exacerbate existing mental health disorders or cause new-onset psychiatric symptoms, but mental illness does not cause long COVID, experts say.

The consensus guidance statement on the assessment and treatment of mental health symptoms in patients with post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), also known as long COVID, was published online in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, the journal of the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R).

The statement was developed by a task force that included experts from physical medicine, neurology, neuropsychiatry, neuropsychology, rehabilitation psychology, and primary care. It is the eighth guidance statement on long COVID published by AAPM&R).

“Many of our patients have reported experiences in which their symptoms of long COVID have been dismissed either by loved ones in the community, or also amongst health care providers, and they’ve been told their symptoms are in their head or due to a mental health condition, but that’s simply not true,” Abby L. Cheng, MD, a physiatrist at Barnes Jewish Hospital in St. Louis and a coauthor of the new guidance, said in a press briefing.

“Long COVID is real, and mental health conditions do not cause long COVID,” Dr. Cheng added.
 

Millions of Americans affected

Anxiety and depression have been reported as the second and third most common symptoms of long COVID, according to the guidance statement.

There is some evidence that the body’s inflammatory response – specifically, circulating cytokines – may contribute to the worsening of mental health symptoms or may bring on new symptoms of anxiety or depression, said Dr. Cheng. Cytokines may also affect levels of brain chemicals, such as serotonin, she said.

Researchers are also exploring whether the persistence of virus in the body, miniature blood clots in the body and brain, and changes to the gut microbiome affect the mental health of people with long COVID.

Some mental health symptoms – such as fatigue, brain fog, sleep disturbances, and tachycardia – can mimic long COVID symptoms, said Dr. Cheng.

The treatment is the same for someone with or without long COVID who has anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, or other mental health conditions and includes treatment of coexisting medical conditions, supportive therapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy, and pharmacologic interventions, she said.

“Group therapy may have a particular role in the long COVID population because it really provides that social connection and awareness of additional resources in addition to validation of their experiences,” Dr. Cheng said.

The guidance suggests that primary care practitioners – if it’s within their comfort zone and they have the training – can be the first line for managing mental health symptoms.

But for patients whose symptoms are interfering with functioning and their ability to interact with the community, the guidance urges primary care clinicians to refer the patient to a specialist.

“It leaves the door open to them to practice within their scope but also gives guidance as to how, why, and who should be referred to the next level of care,” said Dr. Cheng.

Coauthor Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, chair of rehabilitation medicine at UT Health San Antonio, Texas, said that although fewer people are now getting long COVID, “it’s still an impactful number.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently estimated that about 7% of American adults (18 million) and 1.3% of children had experienced long COVID.

Dr. Gutierrez said that it’s an evolving number, as some patients who have a second or third or fourth SARS-CoV-2 infection experience exacerbations of previous bouts of long COVID or develop long COVID for the first time.

“We are still getting new patients on a regular basis with long COVID,” said AAPM&R President Steven R. Flanagan, MD, a physical medicine specialist.

“This is a problem that really is not going away. It is still real and still ever-present,” said Dr. Flanagan, chair of rehabilitation medicine at NYU Langone Health.
 

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

Long COVID can exacerbate existing mental health disorders or cause new-onset psychiatric symptoms, but mental illness does not cause long COVID, experts say.

The consensus guidance statement on the assessment and treatment of mental health symptoms in patients with post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), also known as long COVID, was published online in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, the journal of the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R).

The statement was developed by a task force that included experts from physical medicine, neurology, neuropsychiatry, neuropsychology, rehabilitation psychology, and primary care. It is the eighth guidance statement on long COVID published by AAPM&R).

“Many of our patients have reported experiences in which their symptoms of long COVID have been dismissed either by loved ones in the community, or also amongst health care providers, and they’ve been told their symptoms are in their head or due to a mental health condition, but that’s simply not true,” Abby L. Cheng, MD, a physiatrist at Barnes Jewish Hospital in St. Louis and a coauthor of the new guidance, said in a press briefing.

“Long COVID is real, and mental health conditions do not cause long COVID,” Dr. Cheng added.
 

Millions of Americans affected

Anxiety and depression have been reported as the second and third most common symptoms of long COVID, according to the guidance statement.

There is some evidence that the body’s inflammatory response – specifically, circulating cytokines – may contribute to the worsening of mental health symptoms or may bring on new symptoms of anxiety or depression, said Dr. Cheng. Cytokines may also affect levels of brain chemicals, such as serotonin, she said.

Researchers are also exploring whether the persistence of virus in the body, miniature blood clots in the body and brain, and changes to the gut microbiome affect the mental health of people with long COVID.

Some mental health symptoms – such as fatigue, brain fog, sleep disturbances, and tachycardia – can mimic long COVID symptoms, said Dr. Cheng.

The treatment is the same for someone with or without long COVID who has anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, or other mental health conditions and includes treatment of coexisting medical conditions, supportive therapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy, and pharmacologic interventions, she said.

“Group therapy may have a particular role in the long COVID population because it really provides that social connection and awareness of additional resources in addition to validation of their experiences,” Dr. Cheng said.

The guidance suggests that primary care practitioners – if it’s within their comfort zone and they have the training – can be the first line for managing mental health symptoms.

But for patients whose symptoms are interfering with functioning and their ability to interact with the community, the guidance urges primary care clinicians to refer the patient to a specialist.

“It leaves the door open to them to practice within their scope but also gives guidance as to how, why, and who should be referred to the next level of care,” said Dr. Cheng.

Coauthor Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, chair of rehabilitation medicine at UT Health San Antonio, Texas, said that although fewer people are now getting long COVID, “it’s still an impactful number.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently estimated that about 7% of American adults (18 million) and 1.3% of children had experienced long COVID.

Dr. Gutierrez said that it’s an evolving number, as some patients who have a second or third or fourth SARS-CoV-2 infection experience exacerbations of previous bouts of long COVID or develop long COVID for the first time.

“We are still getting new patients on a regular basis with long COVID,” said AAPM&R President Steven R. Flanagan, MD, a physical medicine specialist.

“This is a problem that really is not going away. It is still real and still ever-present,” said Dr. Flanagan, chair of rehabilitation medicine at NYU Langone Health.
 

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

Good news for people struggling with sensory problems after a bout of COVID-19. Although mild cases of the disease often impair the ability to taste and smell, and the problem can drag on for months, a new study from Italy shows that most people return to their senses, as it were, within 3 years.

“In the vast majority of cases, the loss of the sense of smell is not irreversible,” said Paolo Boscolo-Rizzo, MD, a professor of medicine, surgery, and health sciences at the University of Trieste (Italy), and a co-author of the study, published as a research letter in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery.

Dr. Boscolo-Rizzo and his colleagues analyzed data from 88 adults with mild COVID-19, which was defined as having no lower respiratory disease and blood oxygen saturation of 94% or greater. Another group of 88 adults who never contracted the virus but sometimes had difficulties with smell and taste were also studied. In both groups, the average age was 49 years, all participants were White, and 58% were women.

The researchers tested participants’ sense of smell with sticks that contained different odors and checked their sense of taste with strips that had different tastes. Over time, fewer people had difficulty distinguishing odors. Three years after developing COVID-19, only 12 people had impaired smell, compared with 36 people at year 1 and 24 people at year 2. And at the 3-year mark, all participants had at least a partial ability to smell. 

The story was similar with sense of taste, with 10 of 88 people reporting impairments 3 years later. By then, people with COVID-19 were no more likely to have trouble with smell or taste than people who did not get the virus. 

A study this past June showed a strong correlation between severity of COVID-19 symptoms and impaired sense of taste and smell and estimated that millions of Americans maintained altered senses. More than 10% of people in the Italian study still had trouble with smell or taste 3 years later.
 

Emerging treatments, psychological concerns

“We’re seeing fewer people with this problem, but there are still people suffering from it,” said Fernando Carnavali, MD, an internal medicine physician and a site director for the Center for Post-COVID Care at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City.

Dr. Carnavali wasn’t part of this study, but he did find the new results encouraging, and he called for similar studies in diverse populations that have experienced COVID-19. He also noted that an impaired sense of smell is distressing.

“It really has a significant psychological impact,” Dr. Carnavali said.

He recalled a patient crying in his office because her inability to smell made it impossible for her to cook. Dr. Carnavali recommended clinicians refer patients facing protracted loss of smell or taste to mental health professionals for support.

Treatments are emerging for COVID-19 smell loss. One approach is to inject platelet-rich plasma into a patient’s nasal cavities to help neurons related to smell repair themselves.

A randomized trial showed platelet-rich plasma significantly outperformed placebo in patients with smell loss up to a year after getting COVID-19.

“I wish more people would do it,” said Zara Patel, MD, an otolaryngologist at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine, who helped conduct that trial. She said some physicians may be nervous about injecting plasma so close to the skull and are therefore hesitant to try this approach. 

Another technique may help to address the olfactory condition known as parosmia, in which patients generally experience a benign odor as rancid, according to otolaryngologist Nyssa Farrell, MD, of Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis. Dr. Farrell said around two-thirds of patients who contract COVID-19 develop the condition, and the rates of long-term parosmia range from 10%-50% depending on various studies.

“It is almost always foul; this can profoundly affect someone’s quality of life,” impairing their ability to eat or to be intimate with a partner who now smells unpleasant, said Dr. Farrell, who wasn’t associated with this research.

The treatment, called a stellate ganglion block, is provided through a shot into nerves in the neck. People with parosmia associated with COVID-19 often report that this method cures them. Dr. Patel said that may be because their psychological health is improving, not their sense of smell, because the area of the body where the stellate ganglion block is applied is not part of the olfactory system.

Earlier this year, Dr. Farrell and colleagues reported that parosmia linked to COVID-19 is associated with an increased risk for depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. 

One coauthor reported receiving grants from Smell and Taste Lab, Takasago, Baia Foods, and Frequency Therapeutics. The other authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Good news for people struggling with sensory problems after a bout of COVID-19. Although mild cases of the disease often impair the ability to taste and smell, and the problem can drag on for months, a new study from Italy shows that most people return to their senses, as it were, within 3 years.

“In the vast majority of cases, the loss of the sense of smell is not irreversible,” said Paolo Boscolo-Rizzo, MD, a professor of medicine, surgery, and health sciences at the University of Trieste (Italy), and a co-author of the study, published as a research letter in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery.

Dr. Boscolo-Rizzo and his colleagues analyzed data from 88 adults with mild COVID-19, which was defined as having no lower respiratory disease and blood oxygen saturation of 94% or greater. Another group of 88 adults who never contracted the virus but sometimes had difficulties with smell and taste were also studied. In both groups, the average age was 49 years, all participants were White, and 58% were women.

The researchers tested participants’ sense of smell with sticks that contained different odors and checked their sense of taste with strips that had different tastes. Over time, fewer people had difficulty distinguishing odors. Three years after developing COVID-19, only 12 people had impaired smell, compared with 36 people at year 1 and 24 people at year 2. And at the 3-year mark, all participants had at least a partial ability to smell. 

The story was similar with sense of taste, with 10 of 88 people reporting impairments 3 years later. By then, people with COVID-19 were no more likely to have trouble with smell or taste than people who did not get the virus. 

A study this past June showed a strong correlation between severity of COVID-19 symptoms and impaired sense of taste and smell and estimated that millions of Americans maintained altered senses. More than 10% of people in the Italian study still had trouble with smell or taste 3 years later.
 

Emerging treatments, psychological concerns

“We’re seeing fewer people with this problem, but there are still people suffering from it,” said Fernando Carnavali, MD, an internal medicine physician and a site director for the Center for Post-COVID Care at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City.

Dr. Carnavali wasn’t part of this study, but he did find the new results encouraging, and he called for similar studies in diverse populations that have experienced COVID-19. He also noted that an impaired sense of smell is distressing.

“It really has a significant psychological impact,” Dr. Carnavali said.

He recalled a patient crying in his office because her inability to smell made it impossible for her to cook. Dr. Carnavali recommended clinicians refer patients facing protracted loss of smell or taste to mental health professionals for support.

Treatments are emerging for COVID-19 smell loss. One approach is to inject platelet-rich plasma into a patient’s nasal cavities to help neurons related to smell repair themselves.

A randomized trial showed platelet-rich plasma significantly outperformed placebo in patients with smell loss up to a year after getting COVID-19.

“I wish more people would do it,” said Zara Patel, MD, an otolaryngologist at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine, who helped conduct that trial. She said some physicians may be nervous about injecting plasma so close to the skull and are therefore hesitant to try this approach. 

Another technique may help to address the olfactory condition known as parosmia, in which patients generally experience a benign odor as rancid, according to otolaryngologist Nyssa Farrell, MD, of Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis. Dr. Farrell said around two-thirds of patients who contract COVID-19 develop the condition, and the rates of long-term parosmia range from 10%-50% depending on various studies.

“It is almost always foul; this can profoundly affect someone’s quality of life,” impairing their ability to eat or to be intimate with a partner who now smells unpleasant, said Dr. Farrell, who wasn’t associated with this research.

The treatment, called a stellate ganglion block, is provided through a shot into nerves in the neck. People with parosmia associated with COVID-19 often report that this method cures them. Dr. Patel said that may be because their psychological health is improving, not their sense of smell, because the area of the body where the stellate ganglion block is applied is not part of the olfactory system.

Earlier this year, Dr. Farrell and colleagues reported that parosmia linked to COVID-19 is associated with an increased risk for depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. 

One coauthor reported receiving grants from Smell and Taste Lab, Takasago, Baia Foods, and Frequency Therapeutics. The other authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Good news for people struggling with sensory problems after a bout of COVID-19. Although mild cases of the disease often impair the ability to taste and smell, and the problem can drag on for months, a new study from Italy shows that most people return to their senses, as it were, within 3 years.

“In the vast majority of cases, the loss of the sense of smell is not irreversible,” said Paolo Boscolo-Rizzo, MD, a professor of medicine, surgery, and health sciences at the University of Trieste (Italy), and a co-author of the study, published as a research letter in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery.

Dr. Boscolo-Rizzo and his colleagues analyzed data from 88 adults with mild COVID-19, which was defined as having no lower respiratory disease and blood oxygen saturation of 94% or greater. Another group of 88 adults who never contracted the virus but sometimes had difficulties with smell and taste were also studied. In both groups, the average age was 49 years, all participants were White, and 58% were women.

The researchers tested participants’ sense of smell with sticks that contained different odors and checked their sense of taste with strips that had different tastes. Over time, fewer people had difficulty distinguishing odors. Three years after developing COVID-19, only 12 people had impaired smell, compared with 36 people at year 1 and 24 people at year 2. And at the 3-year mark, all participants had at least a partial ability to smell. 

The story was similar with sense of taste, with 10 of 88 people reporting impairments 3 years later. By then, people with COVID-19 were no more likely to have trouble with smell or taste than people who did not get the virus. 

A study this past June showed a strong correlation between severity of COVID-19 symptoms and impaired sense of taste and smell and estimated that millions of Americans maintained altered senses. More than 10% of people in the Italian study still had trouble with smell or taste 3 years later.
 

Emerging treatments, psychological concerns

“We’re seeing fewer people with this problem, but there are still people suffering from it,” said Fernando Carnavali, MD, an internal medicine physician and a site director for the Center for Post-COVID Care at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City.

Dr. Carnavali wasn’t part of this study, but he did find the new results encouraging, and he called for similar studies in diverse populations that have experienced COVID-19. He also noted that an impaired sense of smell is distressing.

“It really has a significant psychological impact,” Dr. Carnavali said.

He recalled a patient crying in his office because her inability to smell made it impossible for her to cook. Dr. Carnavali recommended clinicians refer patients facing protracted loss of smell or taste to mental health professionals for support.

Treatments are emerging for COVID-19 smell loss. One approach is to inject platelet-rich plasma into a patient’s nasal cavities to help neurons related to smell repair themselves.

A randomized trial showed platelet-rich plasma significantly outperformed placebo in patients with smell loss up to a year after getting COVID-19.

“I wish more people would do it,” said Zara Patel, MD, an otolaryngologist at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine, who helped conduct that trial. She said some physicians may be nervous about injecting plasma so close to the skull and are therefore hesitant to try this approach. 

Another technique may help to address the olfactory condition known as parosmia, in which patients generally experience a benign odor as rancid, according to otolaryngologist Nyssa Farrell, MD, of Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis. Dr. Farrell said around two-thirds of patients who contract COVID-19 develop the condition, and the rates of long-term parosmia range from 10%-50% depending on various studies.

“It is almost always foul; this can profoundly affect someone’s quality of life,” impairing their ability to eat or to be intimate with a partner who now smells unpleasant, said Dr. Farrell, who wasn’t associated with this research.

The treatment, called a stellate ganglion block, is provided through a shot into nerves in the neck. People with parosmia associated with COVID-19 often report that this method cures them. Dr. Patel said that may be because their psychological health is improving, not their sense of smell, because the area of the body where the stellate ganglion block is applied is not part of the olfactory system.

Earlier this year, Dr. Farrell and colleagues reported that parosmia linked to COVID-19 is associated with an increased risk for depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. 

One coauthor reported receiving grants from Smell and Taste Lab, Takasago, Baia Foods, and Frequency Therapeutics. The other authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Could antidepressants hold the key to treating long COVID? University of Pennsylvania researchers have uncovered a link between long COVID and levels of serotonin in the body that may offer a new explanation for the condition. The study even points to a possible treatment.

Serotonin is a neurotransmitter that has many functions in the body and is targeted by the most commonly prescribed antidepressants – the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.

Serotonin is widely studied for its effects on the brain – it regulates the messaging between neurons, affecting sleep, mood, and memory. It is present in the gut, is found in cells along the gastrointestinal tract, and is absorbed by blood platelets. Gut serotonin, known as circulating serotonin, is responsible for a host of other functions, including the regulation of blood flow, body temperature, and digestion.

Low levels of serotonin could result in any number of seemingly unrelated symptoms, as in the case of long COVID, experts say. The condition affects about 7% of Americans and is associated with a wide range of health problems, including fatigue, shortness of breath, neurological symptoms, joint pain, blood clots, heart palpitations, and digestive problems.

Long COVID is difficult to treat because researchers haven’t been able to pinpoint the underlying mechanisms that cause prolonged illness after a SARS-CoV-2 infection, said study author Christoph A. Thaiss, PhD, an assistant professor of microbiology at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

The hope is that this study could have implications for new treatments, he said.

“Long COVID can have manifestations not only in the brain but in many different parts of the body, so it’s possible that serotonin reductions are involved in many different aspects of the disease,” said Dr. Thaiss.

Dr. Thaiss’s study, published in the journal Cell, found lower serotonin levels in long COVID patients, compared with patients who were diagnosed with acute COVID-19 but who fully recovered.

His team found that reductions in serotonin were driven by low levels of circulating SARS-CoV-2 virus that caused persistent inflammation as well as an inability of the body to absorb tryptophan, an amino acid that’s a precursor to serotonin. Overactive blood platelets were also shown to play a role; they serve as the primary means of serotonin absorption.

The study doesn’t make any recommendations for treatment, but understanding the role of serotonin in long COVID opens the door to a host of novel ideas that could set the stage for clinical trials and affect care.

“The study gives us a few possible targets that could be used in future clinical studies,” Dr. Thaiss said.

Persistent circulating virus is one of the drivers of low serotonin levels, said study author Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant research professor of infectious medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine. This points to the need to reduce viral load using antiviral medications like nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid), which is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of COVID-19, and VV116, which has not yet been approved for use against COVID.

Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that the oral antiviral agent VV116 was as effective as nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in reducing the body’s viral load and aiding recovery from SARS-CoV-2 infection. Paxlovid has also been shown to reduce the likelihood of getting long COVID after an acute SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Researchers are investigating ways to target serotonin levels directly, potentially using SSRIs. But first they need to study whether improvement in serotonin level makes a difference.

“What we need now is a good clinical trial to see whether altering levels of serotonin in people with long COVID will lead to symptom relief,” Dr. Peluso said.

Indeed, the research did show that the SSRI fluoxetine, as well as a glycine-tryptophan supplement, improved cognitive function in SARS-CoV-2-infected rodent models, which were used in a portion of the study.

David F. Putrino, PhD, who runs the long COVID clinic at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, said the research is helping “to paint a biological picture” that’s in line with other research on the mechanisms that cause long COVID symptoms.

But Dr. Putrino, who was not involved in the study, cautions against treating long COVID patients with SSRIs or any other treatment that increases serotonin before testing patients to determine whether their serotonin levels are actually lower than those of healthy persons.

“We don’t want to assume that every patient with long COVID is going to have lower serotonin levels,” said Dr. Putrino.

What’s more, researchers need to investigate whether SSRIs increase levels of circulating serotonin. It’s important to note that researchers found lower levels of circulating serotonin but that serotonin levels in the brain remained normal.

Traditionally, SSRIs are used clinically for increasing the levels of serotonin in the brain, not the body.

“Whether that’s going to contribute to an increase in systemic levels of serotonin, that’s something that needs to be tested,” said Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, co-lead investigator of the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., COVID-19 Recovery Study, who was not involved in the research.

Thus far, investigators have not identified one unifying biomarker that seems to cause long COVID in all patients, said Dr. Iwasaki. Some research has found higher levels of certain immune cells and biomarkers: for example, monocytes and activated B lymphocytes, indicating a stronger and ongoing antibody response to the virus. Other recent research conducted by Dr. Iwasaki, Dr. Putrino, and others, published in the journal Nature, showed that long COVID patients tend to have lower levels of cortisol, which could be a factor in the extreme fatigue experienced by many who suffer from the condition.

The findings in the study in The Cell are promising, but they need to be replicated in more people, said Dr. Iwasaki. And even if they’re replicated in a larger study population, this would still be just one biomarker that is associated with one subtype of the disease. There is a need to better understand which biomarkers go with which symptoms so that the most effective treatments can be identified, she said.

Both Dr. Putrino and Dr. Iwasaki contended that there isn’t a single factor that can explain all of long COVID. It’s a complex disease caused by a host of different mechanisms.

Still, low levels of serotonin could be an important piece of the puzzle. The next step, said Dr. Iwasaki, is to uncover how many of the millions of Americans with long COVID have this biomarker.

“People working in the field of long COVID should now be considering this pathway and thinking of ways to measure serotonin in their patients.”

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

Could antidepressants hold the key to treating long COVID? University of Pennsylvania researchers have uncovered a link between long COVID and levels of serotonin in the body that may offer a new explanation for the condition. The study even points to a possible treatment.

Serotonin is a neurotransmitter that has many functions in the body and is targeted by the most commonly prescribed antidepressants – the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.

Serotonin is widely studied for its effects on the brain – it regulates the messaging between neurons, affecting sleep, mood, and memory. It is present in the gut, is found in cells along the gastrointestinal tract, and is absorbed by blood platelets. Gut serotonin, known as circulating serotonin, is responsible for a host of other functions, including the regulation of blood flow, body temperature, and digestion.

Low levels of serotonin could result in any number of seemingly unrelated symptoms, as in the case of long COVID, experts say. The condition affects about 7% of Americans and is associated with a wide range of health problems, including fatigue, shortness of breath, neurological symptoms, joint pain, blood clots, heart palpitations, and digestive problems.

Long COVID is difficult to treat because researchers haven’t been able to pinpoint the underlying mechanisms that cause prolonged illness after a SARS-CoV-2 infection, said study author Christoph A. Thaiss, PhD, an assistant professor of microbiology at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

The hope is that this study could have implications for new treatments, he said.

“Long COVID can have manifestations not only in the brain but in many different parts of the body, so it’s possible that serotonin reductions are involved in many different aspects of the disease,” said Dr. Thaiss.

Dr. Thaiss’s study, published in the journal Cell, found lower serotonin levels in long COVID patients, compared with patients who were diagnosed with acute COVID-19 but who fully recovered.

His team found that reductions in serotonin were driven by low levels of circulating SARS-CoV-2 virus that caused persistent inflammation as well as an inability of the body to absorb tryptophan, an amino acid that’s a precursor to serotonin. Overactive blood platelets were also shown to play a role; they serve as the primary means of serotonin absorption.

The study doesn’t make any recommendations for treatment, but understanding the role of serotonin in long COVID opens the door to a host of novel ideas that could set the stage for clinical trials and affect care.

“The study gives us a few possible targets that could be used in future clinical studies,” Dr. Thaiss said.

Persistent circulating virus is one of the drivers of low serotonin levels, said study author Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant research professor of infectious medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine. This points to the need to reduce viral load using antiviral medications like nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid), which is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of COVID-19, and VV116, which has not yet been approved for use against COVID.

Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that the oral antiviral agent VV116 was as effective as nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in reducing the body’s viral load and aiding recovery from SARS-CoV-2 infection. Paxlovid has also been shown to reduce the likelihood of getting long COVID after an acute SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Researchers are investigating ways to target serotonin levels directly, potentially using SSRIs. But first they need to study whether improvement in serotonin level makes a difference.

“What we need now is a good clinical trial to see whether altering levels of serotonin in people with long COVID will lead to symptom relief,” Dr. Peluso said.

Indeed, the research did show that the SSRI fluoxetine, as well as a glycine-tryptophan supplement, improved cognitive function in SARS-CoV-2-infected rodent models, which were used in a portion of the study.

David F. Putrino, PhD, who runs the long COVID clinic at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, said the research is helping “to paint a biological picture” that’s in line with other research on the mechanisms that cause long COVID symptoms.

But Dr. Putrino, who was not involved in the study, cautions against treating long COVID patients with SSRIs or any other treatment that increases serotonin before testing patients to determine whether their serotonin levels are actually lower than those of healthy persons.

“We don’t want to assume that every patient with long COVID is going to have lower serotonin levels,” said Dr. Putrino.

What’s more, researchers need to investigate whether SSRIs increase levels of circulating serotonin. It’s important to note that researchers found lower levels of circulating serotonin but that serotonin levels in the brain remained normal.

Traditionally, SSRIs are used clinically for increasing the levels of serotonin in the brain, not the body.

“Whether that’s going to contribute to an increase in systemic levels of serotonin, that’s something that needs to be tested,” said Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, co-lead investigator of the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., COVID-19 Recovery Study, who was not involved in the research.

Thus far, investigators have not identified one unifying biomarker that seems to cause long COVID in all patients, said Dr. Iwasaki. Some research has found higher levels of certain immune cells and biomarkers: for example, monocytes and activated B lymphocytes, indicating a stronger and ongoing antibody response to the virus. Other recent research conducted by Dr. Iwasaki, Dr. Putrino, and others, published in the journal Nature, showed that long COVID patients tend to have lower levels of cortisol, which could be a factor in the extreme fatigue experienced by many who suffer from the condition.

The findings in the study in The Cell are promising, but they need to be replicated in more people, said Dr. Iwasaki. And even if they’re replicated in a larger study population, this would still be just one biomarker that is associated with one subtype of the disease. There is a need to better understand which biomarkers go with which symptoms so that the most effective treatments can be identified, she said.

Both Dr. Putrino and Dr. Iwasaki contended that there isn’t a single factor that can explain all of long COVID. It’s a complex disease caused by a host of different mechanisms.

Still, low levels of serotonin could be an important piece of the puzzle. The next step, said Dr. Iwasaki, is to uncover how many of the millions of Americans with long COVID have this biomarker.

“People working in the field of long COVID should now be considering this pathway and thinking of ways to measure serotonin in their patients.”

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

Could antidepressants hold the key to treating long COVID? University of Pennsylvania researchers have uncovered a link between long COVID and levels of serotonin in the body that may offer a new explanation for the condition. The study even points to a possible treatment.

Serotonin is a neurotransmitter that has many functions in the body and is targeted by the most commonly prescribed antidepressants – the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.

Serotonin is widely studied for its effects on the brain – it regulates the messaging between neurons, affecting sleep, mood, and memory. It is present in the gut, is found in cells along the gastrointestinal tract, and is absorbed by blood platelets. Gut serotonin, known as circulating serotonin, is responsible for a host of other functions, including the regulation of blood flow, body temperature, and digestion.

Low levels of serotonin could result in any number of seemingly unrelated symptoms, as in the case of long COVID, experts say. The condition affects about 7% of Americans and is associated with a wide range of health problems, including fatigue, shortness of breath, neurological symptoms, joint pain, blood clots, heart palpitations, and digestive problems.

Long COVID is difficult to treat because researchers haven’t been able to pinpoint the underlying mechanisms that cause prolonged illness after a SARS-CoV-2 infection, said study author Christoph A. Thaiss, PhD, an assistant professor of microbiology at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

The hope is that this study could have implications for new treatments, he said.

“Long COVID can have manifestations not only in the brain but in many different parts of the body, so it’s possible that serotonin reductions are involved in many different aspects of the disease,” said Dr. Thaiss.

Dr. Thaiss’s study, published in the journal Cell, found lower serotonin levels in long COVID patients, compared with patients who were diagnosed with acute COVID-19 but who fully recovered.

His team found that reductions in serotonin were driven by low levels of circulating SARS-CoV-2 virus that caused persistent inflammation as well as an inability of the body to absorb tryptophan, an amino acid that’s a precursor to serotonin. Overactive blood platelets were also shown to play a role; they serve as the primary means of serotonin absorption.

The study doesn’t make any recommendations for treatment, but understanding the role of serotonin in long COVID opens the door to a host of novel ideas that could set the stage for clinical trials and affect care.

“The study gives us a few possible targets that could be used in future clinical studies,” Dr. Thaiss said.

Persistent circulating virus is one of the drivers of low serotonin levels, said study author Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant research professor of infectious medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine. This points to the need to reduce viral load using antiviral medications like nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid), which is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of COVID-19, and VV116, which has not yet been approved for use against COVID.

Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that the oral antiviral agent VV116 was as effective as nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in reducing the body’s viral load and aiding recovery from SARS-CoV-2 infection. Paxlovid has also been shown to reduce the likelihood of getting long COVID after an acute SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Researchers are investigating ways to target serotonin levels directly, potentially using SSRIs. But first they need to study whether improvement in serotonin level makes a difference.

“What we need now is a good clinical trial to see whether altering levels of serotonin in people with long COVID will lead to symptom relief,” Dr. Peluso said.

Indeed, the research did show that the SSRI fluoxetine, as well as a glycine-tryptophan supplement, improved cognitive function in SARS-CoV-2-infected rodent models, which were used in a portion of the study.

David F. Putrino, PhD, who runs the long COVID clinic at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, said the research is helping “to paint a biological picture” that’s in line with other research on the mechanisms that cause long COVID symptoms.

But Dr. Putrino, who was not involved in the study, cautions against treating long COVID patients with SSRIs or any other treatment that increases serotonin before testing patients to determine whether their serotonin levels are actually lower than those of healthy persons.

“We don’t want to assume that every patient with long COVID is going to have lower serotonin levels,” said Dr. Putrino.

What’s more, researchers need to investigate whether SSRIs increase levels of circulating serotonin. It’s important to note that researchers found lower levels of circulating serotonin but that serotonin levels in the brain remained normal.

Traditionally, SSRIs are used clinically for increasing the levels of serotonin in the brain, not the body.

“Whether that’s going to contribute to an increase in systemic levels of serotonin, that’s something that needs to be tested,” said Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, co-lead investigator of the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., COVID-19 Recovery Study, who was not involved in the research.

Thus far, investigators have not identified one unifying biomarker that seems to cause long COVID in all patients, said Dr. Iwasaki. Some research has found higher levels of certain immune cells and biomarkers: for example, monocytes and activated B lymphocytes, indicating a stronger and ongoing antibody response to the virus. Other recent research conducted by Dr. Iwasaki, Dr. Putrino, and others, published in the journal Nature, showed that long COVID patients tend to have lower levels of cortisol, which could be a factor in the extreme fatigue experienced by many who suffer from the condition.

The findings in the study in The Cell are promising, but they need to be replicated in more people, said Dr. Iwasaki. And even if they’re replicated in a larger study population, this would still be just one biomarker that is associated with one subtype of the disease. There is a need to better understand which biomarkers go with which symptoms so that the most effective treatments can be identified, she said.

Both Dr. Putrino and Dr. Iwasaki contended that there isn’t a single factor that can explain all of long COVID. It’s a complex disease caused by a host of different mechanisms.

Still, low levels of serotonin could be an important piece of the puzzle. The next step, said Dr. Iwasaki, is to uncover how many of the millions of Americans with long COVID have this biomarker.

“People working in the field of long COVID should now be considering this pathway and thinking of ways to measure serotonin in their patients.”

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

People infected multiple times with COVID-19 are more likely to develop long COVID, and most never fully recover from the condition. Those are two of the most striking findings of a comprehensive new research study of 138,000 veterans.

Lead researcher Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, chief of research at Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care and clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St. Louis, spoke with this news organization about his team’s findings, what we know – and don’t – about long COVID, and what it means for physicians treating patients with the condition.

Excerpts of the interview follow.

Your research concluded that for those infected early in the pandemic, some long COVID symptoms declined over 2 years, but some did not. You have also concluded that long COVID is a chronic disease. Why?

We’ve been in this journey a little bit more than three and a half years. Some patients do experience some recovery. But that’s not the norm. Most people do not really fully recover. The health trajectory for people with long COVID is really very heterogeneous. There is no one-size-fits-all. There’s really no one line that I could give you that could cover all your patients. But it is very, very, very clear that a bunch of them experienced long COVID for sure; that’s really happening.

It happened in the pre-Delta era and in the Delta era, and with Omicron subvariants, even now. There are people who think, “This is a nothing-burger anymore,” or “It’s not an issue anymore.” It’s still happening with the current variants. Vaccines do reduce risk for long COVID, but do not completely eliminate the risk for long COVID.

You work with patients with long COVID in the clinic and also analyze data from thousands more. If long COVID does not go away, what should doctors look for in everyday practice that will help them recognize and help patients with long COVID?

Long COVID is not uncommon. We see it in the clinic in large numbers. Whatever clinic you’re running – if you’re running a cardiology clinic, or a nephrology clinic, or diabetes, or primary care – probably some of your people have it. You may not know about it. They may not tell you about it. You may not recognize it.

Not all long COVID is the same, and that’s really what makes it complex and makes it really hard to deal with in the clinic. But that’s the reality that we’re all dealing with. And it’s multisystemic; it’s not like it affects the heart only, the brain only, or the autonomic nervous system only. It does not behave in the same way in different individuals – they may have different manifestations, various health trajectories, and different outcomes. It’s important for doctors to get up to speed on long COVID as a multisystem illness.

Management at this point is really managing the symptoms. We don’t have a treatment for it; we don’t have a cure for it.

Some patients experience what you’ve described as partial recovery. What does that look like?

Some individuals do experience some recovery over time, but for most individuals, the recovery is long and arduous. Long COVID can last with them for many years. Some people may come back to the clinic and say, “I’m doing better,” but if you really flesh it out and dig deeper, they didn’t do better; they adjusted to a new baseline. They used to walk the dog three to four blocks, and now they walk the dog only half a block. They used to do an activity with their partner every Saturday or Sunday, and now they do half of that.

If you’re a physician, a primary care provider, or any other provider who is dealing with a patient with long COVID, know that this is really happening. It can happen even in vaccinated individuals. The presentation is heterogeneous. Some people may present to you with and say. “Well, before I had COVID I was mentally sharp and now having I’m having difficulty with memory, etc.” It can sometimes present as fatigue or postexertional malaise.

In some instances, it can present as sleep problems. It can present as what we call postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS). Those people get a significant increase in heart rate with postural changes.

What the most important thing we can we learn from the emergence of long COVID?

This whole thing taught us that infections can cause chronic disease. That’s really the No. 1 lesson that I take from this pandemic – that infections can cause chronic disease.

Looking at only acute illness from COVID is really only looking at the tip of the iceberg. Beneath that tip of the iceberg lies this hidden toll of disease that we don’t really talk about that much.

This pandemic shone a very, very good light on the idea that there is really an intimate connection between infections and chronic disease. It was really hardwired into our medical training as doctors that most infections, when people get over the hump of the acute phase of the disease, it’s all behind them. I think long COVID has humbled us in many, many ways, but chief among those is the realization – the stark realization – that infections can cause chronic disease.

That’s really going back to your [first] question: What does it mean that some people are not recovering? They actually have chronic illness. I’m hoping that we will find a treatment, that we’ll start finding things that would help them get back to baseline. But at this point in time, what we’re dealing with is people with chronic illness or chronic disease that may continue to affect them for many years to come in the absence of a treatment or a cure.

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

People infected multiple times with COVID-19 are more likely to develop long COVID, and most never fully recover from the condition. Those are two of the most striking findings of a comprehensive new research study of 138,000 veterans.

Lead researcher Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, chief of research at Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care and clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St. Louis, spoke with this news organization about his team’s findings, what we know – and don’t – about long COVID, and what it means for physicians treating patients with the condition.

Excerpts of the interview follow.

Your research concluded that for those infected early in the pandemic, some long COVID symptoms declined over 2 years, but some did not. You have also concluded that long COVID is a chronic disease. Why?

We’ve been in this journey a little bit more than three and a half years. Some patients do experience some recovery. But that’s not the norm. Most people do not really fully recover. The health trajectory for people with long COVID is really very heterogeneous. There is no one-size-fits-all. There’s really no one line that I could give you that could cover all your patients. But it is very, very, very clear that a bunch of them experienced long COVID for sure; that’s really happening.

It happened in the pre-Delta era and in the Delta era, and with Omicron subvariants, even now. There are people who think, “This is a nothing-burger anymore,” or “It’s not an issue anymore.” It’s still happening with the current variants. Vaccines do reduce risk for long COVID, but do not completely eliminate the risk for long COVID.

You work with patients with long COVID in the clinic and also analyze data from thousands more. If long COVID does not go away, what should doctors look for in everyday practice that will help them recognize and help patients with long COVID?

Long COVID is not uncommon. We see it in the clinic in large numbers. Whatever clinic you’re running – if you’re running a cardiology clinic, or a nephrology clinic, or diabetes, or primary care – probably some of your people have it. You may not know about it. They may not tell you about it. You may not recognize it.

Not all long COVID is the same, and that’s really what makes it complex and makes it really hard to deal with in the clinic. But that’s the reality that we’re all dealing with. And it’s multisystemic; it’s not like it affects the heart only, the brain only, or the autonomic nervous system only. It does not behave in the same way in different individuals – they may have different manifestations, various health trajectories, and different outcomes. It’s important for doctors to get up to speed on long COVID as a multisystem illness.

Management at this point is really managing the symptoms. We don’t have a treatment for it; we don’t have a cure for it.

Some patients experience what you’ve described as partial recovery. What does that look like?

Some individuals do experience some recovery over time, but for most individuals, the recovery is long and arduous. Long COVID can last with them for many years. Some people may come back to the clinic and say, “I’m doing better,” but if you really flesh it out and dig deeper, they didn’t do better; they adjusted to a new baseline. They used to walk the dog three to four blocks, and now they walk the dog only half a block. They used to do an activity with their partner every Saturday or Sunday, and now they do half of that.

If you’re a physician, a primary care provider, or any other provider who is dealing with a patient with long COVID, know that this is really happening. It can happen even in vaccinated individuals. The presentation is heterogeneous. Some people may present to you with and say. “Well, before I had COVID I was mentally sharp and now having I’m having difficulty with memory, etc.” It can sometimes present as fatigue or postexertional malaise.

In some instances, it can present as sleep problems. It can present as what we call postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS). Those people get a significant increase in heart rate with postural changes.

What the most important thing we can we learn from the emergence of long COVID?

This whole thing taught us that infections can cause chronic disease. That’s really the No. 1 lesson that I take from this pandemic – that infections can cause chronic disease.

Looking at only acute illness from COVID is really only looking at the tip of the iceberg. Beneath that tip of the iceberg lies this hidden toll of disease that we don’t really talk about that much.

This pandemic shone a very, very good light on the idea that there is really an intimate connection between infections and chronic disease. It was really hardwired into our medical training as doctors that most infections, when people get over the hump of the acute phase of the disease, it’s all behind them. I think long COVID has humbled us in many, many ways, but chief among those is the realization – the stark realization – that infections can cause chronic disease.

That’s really going back to your [first] question: What does it mean that some people are not recovering? They actually have chronic illness. I’m hoping that we will find a treatment, that we’ll start finding things that would help them get back to baseline. But at this point in time, what we’re dealing with is people with chronic illness or chronic disease that may continue to affect them for many years to come in the absence of a treatment or a cure.

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

People infected multiple times with COVID-19 are more likely to develop long COVID, and most never fully recover from the condition. Those are two of the most striking findings of a comprehensive new research study of 138,000 veterans.

Lead researcher Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, chief of research at Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care and clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St. Louis, spoke with this news organization about his team’s findings, what we know – and don’t – about long COVID, and what it means for physicians treating patients with the condition.

Excerpts of the interview follow.

Your research concluded that for those infected early in the pandemic, some long COVID symptoms declined over 2 years, but some did not. You have also concluded that long COVID is a chronic disease. Why?

We’ve been in this journey a little bit more than three and a half years. Some patients do experience some recovery. But that’s not the norm. Most people do not really fully recover. The health trajectory for people with long COVID is really very heterogeneous. There is no one-size-fits-all. There’s really no one line that I could give you that could cover all your patients. But it is very, very, very clear that a bunch of them experienced long COVID for sure; that’s really happening.

It happened in the pre-Delta era and in the Delta era, and with Omicron subvariants, even now. There are people who think, “This is a nothing-burger anymore,” or “It’s not an issue anymore.” It’s still happening with the current variants. Vaccines do reduce risk for long COVID, but do not completely eliminate the risk for long COVID.

You work with patients with long COVID in the clinic and also analyze data from thousands more. If long COVID does not go away, what should doctors look for in everyday practice that will help them recognize and help patients with long COVID?

Long COVID is not uncommon. We see it in the clinic in large numbers. Whatever clinic you’re running – if you’re running a cardiology clinic, or a nephrology clinic, or diabetes, or primary care – probably some of your people have it. You may not know about it. They may not tell you about it. You may not recognize it.

Not all long COVID is the same, and that’s really what makes it complex and makes it really hard to deal with in the clinic. But that’s the reality that we’re all dealing with. And it’s multisystemic; it’s not like it affects the heart only, the brain only, or the autonomic nervous system only. It does not behave in the same way in different individuals – they may have different manifestations, various health trajectories, and different outcomes. It’s important for doctors to get up to speed on long COVID as a multisystem illness.

Management at this point is really managing the symptoms. We don’t have a treatment for it; we don’t have a cure for it.

Some patients experience what you’ve described as partial recovery. What does that look like?

Some individuals do experience some recovery over time, but for most individuals, the recovery is long and arduous. Long COVID can last with them for many years. Some people may come back to the clinic and say, “I’m doing better,” but if you really flesh it out and dig deeper, they didn’t do better; they adjusted to a new baseline. They used to walk the dog three to four blocks, and now they walk the dog only half a block. They used to do an activity with their partner every Saturday or Sunday, and now they do half of that.

If you’re a physician, a primary care provider, or any other provider who is dealing with a patient with long COVID, know that this is really happening. It can happen even in vaccinated individuals. The presentation is heterogeneous. Some people may present to you with and say. “Well, before I had COVID I was mentally sharp and now having I’m having difficulty with memory, etc.” It can sometimes present as fatigue or postexertional malaise.

In some instances, it can present as sleep problems. It can present as what we call postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS). Those people get a significant increase in heart rate with postural changes.

What the most important thing we can we learn from the emergence of long COVID?

This whole thing taught us that infections can cause chronic disease. That’s really the No. 1 lesson that I take from this pandemic – that infections can cause chronic disease.

Looking at only acute illness from COVID is really only looking at the tip of the iceberg. Beneath that tip of the iceberg lies this hidden toll of disease that we don’t really talk about that much.

This pandemic shone a very, very good light on the idea that there is really an intimate connection between infections and chronic disease. It was really hardwired into our medical training as doctors that most infections, when people get over the hump of the acute phase of the disease, it’s all behind them. I think long COVID has humbled us in many, many ways, but chief among those is the realization – the stark realization – that infections can cause chronic disease.

That’s really going back to your [first] question: What does it mean that some people are not recovering? They actually have chronic illness. I’m hoping that we will find a treatment, that we’ll start finding things that would help them get back to baseline. But at this point in time, what we’re dealing with is people with chronic illness or chronic disease that may continue to affect them for many years to come in the absence of a treatment or a cure.

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

TOPLINE:

Severe mental illness (SMI) has been linked to a 50% increased risk for all-cause mortality risk after COVID-19, a large population-based study suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators analyzed data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink database, which contains health information on 13.5 million patients receiving care from family practices in England and Northern Ireland.
• The study included participants with SMI, including schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and bipolar disorder.
• Participants were aged 5 years or older with a SARS-CoV-2 infection recorded between Feb. 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021, spanning two waves of the pandemic.
• Death rates among participants with SMI and COVID-19 (n = 7,150; 56% female) were compared with those in a control group of participants without SMI who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 (n = 650,000; 55% female).

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants with SMI and COVID-19 had a 53% higher risk for death than those in the non-SMI control group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-1.68).
• Black Caribbean/Black African participants were more likely than White participants to die of COVID-19 (aHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.12-1.34), although ethnicity was not recorded in 30% of participants.
• After SARS-CoV-2 infection, for every additional multimorbid condition, the aHR for death increased by 6% in the SMI group and 16% in the non-SMI group (P = .001). Some of these conditions included hypertension, heart disease, diabetes, kidney disease, depression, and anxiety.

IN PRACTICE:

“From a public health perspective, our study has emphasized the need for early and timely preventative interventions (e.g. vaccination) for the SMI population. Future studies are needed to disentangle the complex biological and psychosocial factors, and health care pathways, that have led to the greater mortality rates in the SMI population,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

Jayati Das-Munshi, MD, of Kings College London, led the study, which was published online in the British Journal of Psychiatry. The study was funded by the Health Foundation.

LIMITATIONS:

COVID-19 may have been underdiagnosed or underreported in the records studied. Also, investigators did not have information about cause of death.

DISCLOSURES:

One author received funding from Janssen, GSK, and Takeda. All other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Severe mental illness (SMI) has been linked to a 50% increased risk for all-cause mortality risk after COVID-19, a large population-based study suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators analyzed data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink database, which contains health information on 13.5 million patients receiving care from family practices in England and Northern Ireland.
• The study included participants with SMI, including schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and bipolar disorder.
• Participants were aged 5 years or older with a SARS-CoV-2 infection recorded between Feb. 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021, spanning two waves of the pandemic.
• Death rates among participants with SMI and COVID-19 (n = 7,150; 56% female) were compared with those in a control group of participants without SMI who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 (n = 650,000; 55% female).

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants with SMI and COVID-19 had a 53% higher risk for death than those in the non-SMI control group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-1.68).
• Black Caribbean/Black African participants were more likely than White participants to die of COVID-19 (aHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.12-1.34), although ethnicity was not recorded in 30% of participants.
• After SARS-CoV-2 infection, for every additional multimorbid condition, the aHR for death increased by 6% in the SMI group and 16% in the non-SMI group (P = .001). Some of these conditions included hypertension, heart disease, diabetes, kidney disease, depression, and anxiety.

IN PRACTICE:

“From a public health perspective, our study has emphasized the need for early and timely preventative interventions (e.g. vaccination) for the SMI population. Future studies are needed to disentangle the complex biological and psychosocial factors, and health care pathways, that have led to the greater mortality rates in the SMI population,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

Jayati Das-Munshi, MD, of Kings College London, led the study, which was published online in the British Journal of Psychiatry. The study was funded by the Health Foundation.

LIMITATIONS:

COVID-19 may have been underdiagnosed or underreported in the records studied. Also, investigators did not have information about cause of death.

DISCLOSURES:

One author received funding from Janssen, GSK, and Takeda. All other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Severe mental illness (SMI) has been linked to a 50% increased risk for all-cause mortality risk after COVID-19, a large population-based study suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators analyzed data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink database, which contains health information on 13.5 million patients receiving care from family practices in England and Northern Ireland.
• The study included participants with SMI, including schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and bipolar disorder.
• Participants were aged 5 years or older with a SARS-CoV-2 infection recorded between Feb. 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021, spanning two waves of the pandemic.
• Death rates among participants with SMI and COVID-19 (n = 7,150; 56% female) were compared with those in a control group of participants without SMI who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 (n = 650,000; 55% female).

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants with SMI and COVID-19 had a 53% higher risk for death than those in the non-SMI control group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-1.68).
• Black Caribbean/Black African participants were more likely than White participants to die of COVID-19 (aHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.12-1.34), although ethnicity was not recorded in 30% of participants.
• After SARS-CoV-2 infection, for every additional multimorbid condition, the aHR for death increased by 6% in the SMI group and 16% in the non-SMI group (P = .001). Some of these conditions included hypertension, heart disease, diabetes, kidney disease, depression, and anxiety.

IN PRACTICE:

“From a public health perspective, our study has emphasized the need for early and timely preventative interventions (e.g. vaccination) for the SMI population. Future studies are needed to disentangle the complex biological and psychosocial factors, and health care pathways, that have led to the greater mortality rates in the SMI population,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

Jayati Das-Munshi, MD, of Kings College London, led the study, which was published online in the British Journal of Psychiatry. The study was funded by the Health Foundation.

LIMITATIONS:

COVID-19 may have been underdiagnosed or underreported in the records studied. Also, investigators did not have information about cause of death.

DISCLOSURES:

One author received funding from Janssen, GSK, and Takeda. All other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir doesn’t reduce the incidence of most post-COVID conditions, according to a new study. Thromboembolic events are the exception.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective study of 9,593 veterans older than 65 years examined the impact of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in comparison with no treatment on post–COVID-19 conditions (PCCs).
• Researchers coded 31 conditions, including those that fell into cardiac, pulmonary, renal, thromboembolic, gastrointestinal, neurologic, mental health, musculoskeletal, and endocrine categories.
• The incidence of PCCs was analyzed 31-180 days after treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• The combined incidence of venous thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism was reduced among patients given nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.
• No statistically significant reduction of other conditions was found.
• Results differ from the conclusions of a smaller study that found that the incidence of 10 of 13 PCCs was lower.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that considerations about PCCs may not be an important factor in COVID-19 treatment decisions,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs and was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine. George Ioannou, MD, director of hepatology at the VA Puget Sound Health Care System in Seattle, led the study.

LIMITATIONS:

A large number of outcomes were observed, so it’s possible that the association between treatment with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and reduced incidence of thromboembolic events occurred by chance.

Data on COVID-19 treatments and PCCs may be incomplete. The long-term effects of PCCs may not have been fully captured by the ICD-10, which was used for diagnosis codes.

Electronic health records did not accurately capture the symptom burden or the date symptoms began. Patients in the treatment arm may have had more symptoms than matched control persons who were not treated.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported relationships with the Korean Diabetes Association, the American Diabetes Association, the International Society for the Diabetic Foot, Quality Insights, Brown University, and the Society for Women in Urology, among others.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir doesn’t reduce the incidence of most post-COVID conditions, according to a new study. Thromboembolic events are the exception.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective study of 9,593 veterans older than 65 years examined the impact of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in comparison with no treatment on post–COVID-19 conditions (PCCs).
• Researchers coded 31 conditions, including those that fell into cardiac, pulmonary, renal, thromboembolic, gastrointestinal, neurologic, mental health, musculoskeletal, and endocrine categories.
• The incidence of PCCs was analyzed 31-180 days after treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• The combined incidence of venous thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism was reduced among patients given nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.
• No statistically significant reduction of other conditions was found.
• Results differ from the conclusions of a smaller study that found that the incidence of 10 of 13 PCCs was lower.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that considerations about PCCs may not be an important factor in COVID-19 treatment decisions,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs and was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine. George Ioannou, MD, director of hepatology at the VA Puget Sound Health Care System in Seattle, led the study.

LIMITATIONS:

A large number of outcomes were observed, so it’s possible that the association between treatment with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and reduced incidence of thromboembolic events occurred by chance.

Data on COVID-19 treatments and PCCs may be incomplete. The long-term effects of PCCs may not have been fully captured by the ICD-10, which was used for diagnosis codes.

Electronic health records did not accurately capture the symptom burden or the date symptoms began. Patients in the treatment arm may have had more symptoms than matched control persons who were not treated.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported relationships with the Korean Diabetes Association, the American Diabetes Association, the International Society for the Diabetic Foot, Quality Insights, Brown University, and the Society for Women in Urology, among others.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir doesn’t reduce the incidence of most post-COVID conditions, according to a new study. Thromboembolic events are the exception.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective study of 9,593 veterans older than 65 years examined the impact of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in comparison with no treatment on post–COVID-19 conditions (PCCs).
• Researchers coded 31 conditions, including those that fell into cardiac, pulmonary, renal, thromboembolic, gastrointestinal, neurologic, mental health, musculoskeletal, and endocrine categories.
• The incidence of PCCs was analyzed 31-180 days after treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• The combined incidence of venous thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism was reduced among patients given nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.
• No statistically significant reduction of other conditions was found.
• Results differ from the conclusions of a smaller study that found that the incidence of 10 of 13 PCCs was lower.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that considerations about PCCs may not be an important factor in COVID-19 treatment decisions,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs and was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine. George Ioannou, MD, director of hepatology at the VA Puget Sound Health Care System in Seattle, led the study.

LIMITATIONS:

A large number of outcomes were observed, so it’s possible that the association between treatment with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and reduced incidence of thromboembolic events occurred by chance.

Data on COVID-19 treatments and PCCs may be incomplete. The long-term effects of PCCs may not have been fully captured by the ICD-10, which was used for diagnosis codes.

Electronic health records did not accurately capture the symptom burden or the date symptoms began. Patients in the treatment arm may have had more symptoms than matched control persons who were not treated.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported relationships with the Korean Diabetes Association, the American Diabetes Association, the International Society for the Diabetic Foot, Quality Insights, Brown University, and the Society for Women in Urology, among others.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is six times higher in people with COVID-19 in the 6 weeks following infection, according to a new study that also showed receipt of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine reduced GSB risk by 59%.

METHODOLOGY:

• The nested-case control study analyzed data from the largest healthcare provider in Israel for 3.2 million patients aged 16 years and older, with no history of GBS.
• GBS cases (n = 76) were identified based on hospital discharge data from January 2021 to June 2022.
• For every GBS case, investigators chose 10 controls at random, matched for age, gender, and follow-up duration (n = 760).
• Investigators examined the association between GBS and SARS-CoV-2 infection, established through documentation of prior positive SARS-CoV-2 test (PCR or antigen), and any COVID-19 vaccine administration.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among those diagnosed with GBS, 8 were exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection only, 7 were exposed to COVID-19 vaccination only, and 1 patient was exposed to both SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination in the prior 6 weeks, leaving 60 GBS patients without exposure to either infection or vaccination.
• All COVID-19 vaccine doses administered in GBS cases within 6 weeks of the index date, and all but two doses administered in controls in the same timeframe, were Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines.
• Compared with people without GBS, those with the condition were more than six times as likely to have had SARS-CoV-2 infection within 6 weeks of GBS diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 6.30; 95% confidence interval, 2.55-15.56).
• People who received the COVID-19 vaccine were 59% less likely to develop GBS than those who did not get the vaccine (aOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.17-0.96).

IN PRACTICE:

“While Guillain-Barré is extremely rare, people should be aware that having a COVID infection can increase their risk of developing the disorder, and receiving an mRNA vaccine can decrease their risk,” study author Anat Arbel, MD, of Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center and the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

In addition to Dr. Arbel, the other lead author is Haya Bishara, MD, of Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center. The research was published online  in the journal Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

There is a possibility of misclassification of SARS-CoV-2 infection, which could lead to an overestimation of the magnitude of association between infection and GBS. The diagnosis of GBS relied solely on ICD-9 coding, which has been shown in prior studies to contain errors.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was unfunded. Dr. Bishara and Dr. Arbel report no relevant financial relationships. One co-author, Eitan Auriel, MD, has received lecturer fees from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Medison.

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

TOPLINE:

The risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is six times higher in people with COVID-19 in the 6 weeks following infection, according to a new study that also showed receipt of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine reduced GSB risk by 59%.

METHODOLOGY:

• The nested-case control study analyzed data from the largest healthcare provider in Israel for 3.2 million patients aged 16 years and older, with no history of GBS.
• GBS cases (n = 76) were identified based on hospital discharge data from January 2021 to June 2022.
• For every GBS case, investigators chose 10 controls at random, matched for age, gender, and follow-up duration (n = 760).
• Investigators examined the association between GBS and SARS-CoV-2 infection, established through documentation of prior positive SARS-CoV-2 test (PCR or antigen), and any COVID-19 vaccine administration.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among those diagnosed with GBS, 8 were exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection only, 7 were exposed to COVID-19 vaccination only, and 1 patient was exposed to both SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination in the prior 6 weeks, leaving 60 GBS patients without exposure to either infection or vaccination.
• All COVID-19 vaccine doses administered in GBS cases within 6 weeks of the index date, and all but two doses administered in controls in the same timeframe, were Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines.
• Compared with people without GBS, those with the condition were more than six times as likely to have had SARS-CoV-2 infection within 6 weeks of GBS diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 6.30; 95% confidence interval, 2.55-15.56).
• People who received the COVID-19 vaccine were 59% less likely to develop GBS than those who did not get the vaccine (aOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.17-0.96).

IN PRACTICE:

“While Guillain-Barré is extremely rare, people should be aware that having a COVID infection can increase their risk of developing the disorder, and receiving an mRNA vaccine can decrease their risk,” study author Anat Arbel, MD, of Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center and the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

In addition to Dr. Arbel, the other lead author is Haya Bishara, MD, of Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center. The research was published online  in the journal Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

There is a possibility of misclassification of SARS-CoV-2 infection, which could lead to an overestimation of the magnitude of association between infection and GBS. The diagnosis of GBS relied solely on ICD-9 coding, which has been shown in prior studies to contain errors.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was unfunded. Dr. Bishara and Dr. Arbel report no relevant financial relationships. One co-author, Eitan Auriel, MD, has received lecturer fees from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Medison.

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

TOPLINE:

The risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is six times higher in people with COVID-19 in the 6 weeks following infection, according to a new study that also showed receipt of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine reduced GSB risk by 59%.

METHODOLOGY:

• The nested-case control study analyzed data from the largest healthcare provider in Israel for 3.2 million patients aged 16 years and older, with no history of GBS.
• GBS cases (n = 76) were identified based on hospital discharge data from January 2021 to June 2022.
• For every GBS case, investigators chose 10 controls at random, matched for age, gender, and follow-up duration (n = 760).
• Investigators examined the association between GBS and SARS-CoV-2 infection, established through documentation of prior positive SARS-CoV-2 test (PCR or antigen), and any COVID-19 vaccine administration.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among those diagnosed with GBS, 8 were exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection only, 7 were exposed to COVID-19 vaccination only, and 1 patient was exposed to both SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination in the prior 6 weeks, leaving 60 GBS patients without exposure to either infection or vaccination.
• All COVID-19 vaccine doses administered in GBS cases within 6 weeks of the index date, and all but two doses administered in controls in the same timeframe, were Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines.
• Compared with people without GBS, those with the condition were more than six times as likely to have had SARS-CoV-2 infection within 6 weeks of GBS diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 6.30; 95% confidence interval, 2.55-15.56).
• People who received the COVID-19 vaccine were 59% less likely to develop GBS than those who did not get the vaccine (aOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.17-0.96).

IN PRACTICE:

“While Guillain-Barré is extremely rare, people should be aware that having a COVID infection can increase their risk of developing the disorder, and receiving an mRNA vaccine can decrease their risk,” study author Anat Arbel, MD, of Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center and the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

In addition to Dr. Arbel, the other lead author is Haya Bishara, MD, of Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center. The research was published online  in the journal Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

There is a possibility of misclassification of SARS-CoV-2 infection, which could lead to an overestimation of the magnitude of association between infection and GBS. The diagnosis of GBS relied solely on ICD-9 coding, which has been shown in prior studies to contain errors.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was unfunded. Dr. Bishara and Dr. Arbel report no relevant financial relationships. One co-author, Eitan Auriel, MD, has received lecturer fees from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Medison.

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

Taking creatine as a supplement for 6 months appears to significantly improve clinical features of post–COVID-19 fatigue syndrome (PVFS or long COVID), a small randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded study suggests.

Researchers, led by Jelena Slankamenac, with Applied Bioenergetics Lab, Faculty of Sport and PE, University of Novi Sad, Serbia, published their findings in Food, Science & Nutrition .

“This is the first human study known to the authors that evaluated the efficacy and safety of supplemental creatine for fatigue, tissue bioenergetics, and patient-reported outcomes in patients with post–COVID-19 fatigue syndrome,” the authors write.

They say the findings may be attributed to creatine’s “energy-replenishing and neuroprotective activity.”
 

Significant reductions in symptoms

Researchers randomized the 12 participants into two groups of 6 each. The creatine group received 4 g creatine monohydrate per day, while the placebo group received the same amount of inulin.

At 3 months, dietary creatine supplements produced a significant reduction in fatigue, compared with baseline values ( P = .04) and significantly improved scores for several long COVID–related symptoms, including loss of taste, breathing difficulties, body aches, headache, and difficulties concentrating) ( P < .05), the researchers report.

Intervention effect sizes were assessed by Cohen statistics, with a d of at least 0.8 indicating a large effect.

Among highlights of the results were that patients reported a significant 77.8% drop in scores for concentration difficulties at the 3-month follow-up (Cohen’s effect, d = 1.19) and no concentration difficulties at the 6-month follow-up (Cohen’s effect, d = 2.46).

Total creatine levels increased in several locations across the brain (as much as 33% for right parietal white matter). No changes in tissue creatine levels were found in the placebo group during the trial.

“Since PVFS is characterized by impaired tissue bioenergetics ..., supplemental creatine might be an effective dietary intervention to uphold brain creatine in post–COVID-19 fatigue syndrome,” the authors write.

The authors add that creatine supplements for long COVID patients could benefit organs beyond the brain as participants saw “a significant drop in lung and body pain after the intervention.”
 

Unanswered questions

Some experts said the results should be interpreted with caution.

“This research paper is very interesting,” says Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the long COVID program at University of California, Los Angeles, “but the limited number of patients makes the results difficult to generalize.”

Dr. Viswanathan, who was not part of the study, pointed out that the patients included in this study had a recent COVID infection (under 3 months).

“Acute COVID infection can take up to 3 months to resolve,” she says. “We define patients with long COVID as those with symptoms lasting greater than 3 months. Therefore, these patients could have had improvements in their fatigue due to the natural course of the illness rather than creatine supplementation.”

Alba Azola, MD, assistant professor in the department of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said she also was troubled by the window of 3 months for recent COVID infection.

She said she would like to see results for patients who have ongoing symptoms for at least 6 months after infection, especially given creatine supplements’ history in research.

Creatine supplements for other conditions, such as fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome, have been tested for nearly 2 decades, she pointed out, with conflicting findings, something the authors acknowledge in the paper.

“I think it’s premature to say (creatine) is the key,” she says. She added that the small sample size is important to consider given the heterogeneity of patients with long COVID.

That said, Dr. Azola says, she applauds all efforts to find treatments for long COVID, especially randomized, controlled studies like this one.
 

No major side effects

No major side effects were reported for either intervention, except for transient mild nausea reported by one patient after taking creatine.

Compliance with the intervention was 90.6% ± 3.5% in the creatine group and 95.3% ± 5.0% in the control group (P = .04).

Participants were eligible for inclusion if they were 18-65 years old, had a positive COVID test within the last 3 months (documented by a valid polymerase chain reaction [PCR] or antigen test performed in a COVID-19–certified lab); had moderate to severe fatigue; and at least one additional COVID-related symptom, including loss of taste or smell, breathing trouble, lung pain, body aches, headaches, or difficulties concentrating.

The authors acknowledge that they selected a sample of young to middle-aged adults experiencing moderate long COVID symptoms, and it’s unknown whether creatine is equally effective in other PVFS populations, such as elderly people, children, or patients with less or more severe disease.

Senior author Dr. Sergei Ostojic serves as a member of the Scientific Advisory Board on creatine in health and medicine (AlzChem LLC). He co-owns a patent for “Supplements Based on Liquid Creatine” at the European Patent Office. He has received research support related to creatine during the past 36 months from the Serbian Ministry of Education, Science, and Technological Development; Provincial Secretariat for Higher Education and Scientific Research; Alzchem GmbH; ThermoLife International; and Hueston Hennigan LLP. He does not own stocks and shares in any organization. Other authors declare no known relevant financial interests. Dr. Viswanathan and Dr. Azola report no relevant financial relationships.
 

Taking creatine as a supplement for 6 months appears to significantly improve clinical features of post–COVID-19 fatigue syndrome (PVFS or long COVID), a small randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded study suggests.

Researchers, led by Jelena Slankamenac, with Applied Bioenergetics Lab, Faculty of Sport and PE, University of Novi Sad, Serbia, published their findings in Food, Science & Nutrition .

“This is the first human study known to the authors that evaluated the efficacy and safety of supplemental creatine for fatigue, tissue bioenergetics, and patient-reported outcomes in patients with post–COVID-19 fatigue syndrome,” the authors write.

They say the findings may be attributed to creatine’s “energy-replenishing and neuroprotective activity.”
 

Significant reductions in symptoms

Researchers randomized the 12 participants into two groups of 6 each. The creatine group received 4 g creatine monohydrate per day, while the placebo group received the same amount of inulin.

At 3 months, dietary creatine supplements produced a significant reduction in fatigue, compared with baseline values ( P = .04) and significantly improved scores for several long COVID–related symptoms, including loss of taste, breathing difficulties, body aches, headache, and difficulties concentrating) ( P < .05), the researchers report.

Intervention effect sizes were assessed by Cohen statistics, with a d of at least 0.8 indicating a large effect.

Among highlights of the results were that patients reported a significant 77.8% drop in scores for concentration difficulties at the 3-month follow-up (Cohen’s effect, d = 1.19) and no concentration difficulties at the 6-month follow-up (Cohen’s effect, d = 2.46).

Total creatine levels increased in several locations across the brain (as much as 33% for right parietal white matter). No changes in tissue creatine levels were found in the placebo group during the trial.

“Since PVFS is characterized by impaired tissue bioenergetics ..., supplemental creatine might be an effective dietary intervention to uphold brain creatine in post–COVID-19 fatigue syndrome,” the authors write.

The authors add that creatine supplements for long COVID patients could benefit organs beyond the brain as participants saw “a significant drop in lung and body pain after the intervention.”
 

Unanswered questions

Some experts said the results should be interpreted with caution.

“This research paper is very interesting,” says Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the long COVID program at University of California, Los Angeles, “but the limited number of patients makes the results difficult to generalize.”

Dr. Viswanathan, who was not part of the study, pointed out that the patients included in this study had a recent COVID infection (under 3 months).

“Acute COVID infection can take up to 3 months to resolve,” she says. “We define patients with long COVID as those with symptoms lasting greater than 3 months. Therefore, these patients could have had improvements in their fatigue due to the natural course of the illness rather than creatine supplementation.”

Alba Azola, MD, assistant professor in the department of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said she also was troubled by the window of 3 months for recent COVID infection.

She said she would like to see results for patients who have ongoing symptoms for at least 6 months after infection, especially given creatine supplements’ history in research.

Creatine supplements for other conditions, such as fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome, have been tested for nearly 2 decades, she pointed out, with conflicting findings, something the authors acknowledge in the paper.

“I think it’s premature to say (creatine) is the key,” she says. She added that the small sample size is important to consider given the heterogeneity of patients with long COVID.

That said, Dr. Azola says, she applauds all efforts to find treatments for long COVID, especially randomized, controlled studies like this one.
 

No major side effects

No major side effects were reported for either intervention, except for transient mild nausea reported by one patient after taking creatine.

Compliance with the intervention was 90.6% ± 3.5% in the creatine group and 95.3% ± 5.0% in the control group (P = .04).

Participants were eligible for inclusion if they were 18-65 years old, had a positive COVID test within the last 3 months (documented by a valid polymerase chain reaction [PCR] or antigen test performed in a COVID-19–certified lab); had moderate to severe fatigue; and at least one additional COVID-related symptom, including loss of taste or smell, breathing trouble, lung pain, body aches, headaches, or difficulties concentrating.

The authors acknowledge that they selected a sample of young to middle-aged adults experiencing moderate long COVID symptoms, and it’s unknown whether creatine is equally effective in other PVFS populations, such as elderly people, children, or patients with less or more severe disease.

Senior author Dr. Sergei Ostojic serves as a member of the Scientific Advisory Board on creatine in health and medicine (AlzChem LLC). He co-owns a patent for “Supplements Based on Liquid Creatine” at the European Patent Office. He has received research support related to creatine during the past 36 months from the Serbian Ministry of Education, Science, and Technological Development; Provincial Secretariat for Higher Education and Scientific Research; Alzchem GmbH; ThermoLife International; and Hueston Hennigan LLP. He does not own stocks and shares in any organization. Other authors declare no known relevant financial interests. Dr. Viswanathan and Dr. Azola report no relevant financial relationships.
 

Taking creatine as a supplement for 6 months appears to significantly improve clinical features of post–COVID-19 fatigue syndrome (PVFS or long COVID), a small randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded study suggests.

Researchers, led by Jelena Slankamenac, with Applied Bioenergetics Lab, Faculty of Sport and PE, University of Novi Sad, Serbia, published their findings in Food, Science & Nutrition .

“This is the first human study known to the authors that evaluated the efficacy and safety of supplemental creatine for fatigue, tissue bioenergetics, and patient-reported outcomes in patients with post–COVID-19 fatigue syndrome,” the authors write.

They say the findings may be attributed to creatine’s “energy-replenishing and neuroprotective activity.”
 

Significant reductions in symptoms

Researchers randomized the 12 participants into two groups of 6 each. The creatine group received 4 g creatine monohydrate per day, while the placebo group received the same amount of inulin.

At 3 months, dietary creatine supplements produced a significant reduction in fatigue, compared with baseline values ( P = .04) and significantly improved scores for several long COVID–related symptoms, including loss of taste, breathing difficulties, body aches, headache, and difficulties concentrating) ( P < .05), the researchers report.

Intervention effect sizes were assessed by Cohen statistics, with a d of at least 0.8 indicating a large effect.

Among highlights of the results were that patients reported a significant 77.8% drop in scores for concentration difficulties at the 3-month follow-up (Cohen’s effect, d = 1.19) and no concentration difficulties at the 6-month follow-up (Cohen’s effect, d = 2.46).

Total creatine levels increased in several locations across the brain (as much as 33% for right parietal white matter). No changes in tissue creatine levels were found in the placebo group during the trial.

“Since PVFS is characterized by impaired tissue bioenergetics ..., supplemental creatine might be an effective dietary intervention to uphold brain creatine in post–COVID-19 fatigue syndrome,” the authors write.

The authors add that creatine supplements for long COVID patients could benefit organs beyond the brain as participants saw “a significant drop in lung and body pain after the intervention.”
 

Unanswered questions

Some experts said the results should be interpreted with caution.

“This research paper is very interesting,” says Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the long COVID program at University of California, Los Angeles, “but the limited number of patients makes the results difficult to generalize.”

Dr. Viswanathan, who was not part of the study, pointed out that the patients included in this study had a recent COVID infection (under 3 months).

“Acute COVID infection can take up to 3 months to resolve,” she says. “We define patients with long COVID as those with symptoms lasting greater than 3 months. Therefore, these patients could have had improvements in their fatigue due to the natural course of the illness rather than creatine supplementation.”

Alba Azola, MD, assistant professor in the department of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said she also was troubled by the window of 3 months for recent COVID infection.

She said she would like to see results for patients who have ongoing symptoms for at least 6 months after infection, especially given creatine supplements’ history in research.

Creatine supplements for other conditions, such as fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome, have been tested for nearly 2 decades, she pointed out, with conflicting findings, something the authors acknowledge in the paper.

“I think it’s premature to say (creatine) is the key,” she says. She added that the small sample size is important to consider given the heterogeneity of patients with long COVID.

That said, Dr. Azola says, she applauds all efforts to find treatments for long COVID, especially randomized, controlled studies like this one.
 

No major side effects

No major side effects were reported for either intervention, except for transient mild nausea reported by one patient after taking creatine.

Compliance with the intervention was 90.6% ± 3.5% in the creatine group and 95.3% ± 5.0% in the control group (P = .04).

Participants were eligible for inclusion if they were 18-65 years old, had a positive COVID test within the last 3 months (documented by a valid polymerase chain reaction [PCR] or antigen test performed in a COVID-19–certified lab); had moderate to severe fatigue; and at least one additional COVID-related symptom, including loss of taste or smell, breathing trouble, lung pain, body aches, headaches, or difficulties concentrating.

The authors acknowledge that they selected a sample of young to middle-aged adults experiencing moderate long COVID symptoms, and it’s unknown whether creatine is equally effective in other PVFS populations, such as elderly people, children, or patients with less or more severe disease.

Senior author Dr. Sergei Ostojic serves as a member of the Scientific Advisory Board on creatine in health and medicine (AlzChem LLC). He co-owns a patent for “Supplements Based on Liquid Creatine” at the European Patent Office. He has received research support related to creatine during the past 36 months from the Serbian Ministry of Education, Science, and Technological Development; Provincial Secretariat for Higher Education and Scientific Research; Alzchem GmbH; ThermoLife International; and Hueston Hennigan LLP. He does not own stocks and shares in any organization. Other authors declare no known relevant financial interests. Dr. Viswanathan and Dr. Azola report no relevant financial relationships.
 

The American College of Physicians has issued an updated version of its living, rapid practice point guideline on the best treatment options for outpatients with confirmed COVID-19 in the era of the dominant Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. The recommendations in version 2 apply to persons presenting with mild to moderate infection and symptom onset in the past 5 days who are at high risk for progression to severe disease and potential hospitalization or death.

Version 1 appeared in late 2022.

While outpatient management is appropriate for most patients, treatment should be personalized and based on careful risk stratification and informed decision-making, said the guideline authors, led by Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, MHA, vice president of clinical policy and the Center for Evidence Reviews at the ACP in Philadelphia.
 

Practice points

• Consider the oral antivirals nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid) or molnupiravir (Lagevrio) for symptomatic outpatients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 who are within 5 days of the onset of symptoms and at high risk for progressing to severe disease.

New evidence for the Omicron variant suggests a possible net benefit of the antiviral molnupiravir versus standard or no treatment in terms of reducing recovery time if treatment is initiated within 5 days of symptom onset. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with reductions in COVID-19 hospitalization and all-cause mortality.

“The practice points only address [whether] treatments work compared to placebo, no treatment, or usual care,” cautioned Linda L. Humphrey, MD, MPH, MACP, chair of the ACP’s Population Health and Medical Science Committee and a professor of medicine at Oregon Health and Science University VA Portland Health Care System. The ACP continues to monitor the evidence. “Once enough evidence has emerged, it will be possible to compare treatments to each other. Until that time we are unable to determine if there is an advantage to using one treatment over another.”

• Do not use the antiparasitic ivermectin (Stromectol) or the monoclonal antibody sotrovimab (Xevudy) to treat this patient population. “It is not expected to be effective against the Omicron variant,” Dr. Humphrey said.

There was no evidence to support the use of medications such as corticosteroids, antibiotics, antihistamines, SSRIs, and multiple other agents.

“The guideline is not a departure from previous knowledge and reflects what appears in other guidelines and is already being done generally in practice,” said Mirella Salvatore, MD, an associate professor of medicine and population health sciences at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was not involved in the ACP statement. It is therefore unlikely the recommendations will trigger controversy or negative feedback, added Dr. Salvatore, who is also a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. “We believe that our evidence-based approach, which considers the balance of benefits and harms of various treatments, will be embraced by the physician community,” Dr. Humphrey said.

The updated recommendations are based on new data from the evidence review of multiple treatments, which concluded that both nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir likely improve outcomes for outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. The review was conducted after the emergence of the Omicron variant by the ACP Center for Evidence Reviews at Cochrane Austria/University for Continuing Education Krems (Austria).


 

Review details

Inclusion criteria were modified to focus on the Omicron variant by limiting eligible studies to only those enrolling patients on or after Nov. 26, 2021. The investigators included two randomized controlled trials and six retrospective cohort studies and ranked quality of evidence for the effectiveness of the following treatments, compared with usual care or no treatment: azithromycin, camostat mesylate, chloroquine-hydroxychloroquine, chlorpheniramine, colchicine, convalescent plasma, corticosteroids, ensitrelvir, favipiravir, fluvoxamine, ivermectin, lopinavir-ritonavir, molnupiravir, neutralizing monoclonal antibodies, metformin, niclosamide, nitazoxanide, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, and remdesivir.

It compared results for all-cause and COVID-specific mortality, recovery, time to recovery, COVID hospitalization, and adverse and serious adverse events.

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with a reduction in hospitalization caused by COVID-19 of 0.7% versus 1.2% (moderate certainty of evidence [COE]) and a reduction in all-cause mortality of less than 0.1% versus 0.2% (moderate COE).

Molnupiravir led to a higher recovery rate of 31.8% versus 22.6% (moderate COE) and a reduced time to recovery of 9 versus 15 median days (moderate COE). It had no effect, however, on all-cause mortality: 0.02% versus 0.04% (moderate COE). Nor did it affect the incidence of serious adverse events: 0.4% versus 0.3% (moderate COE).

“There have been no head-to-head comparative studies of these two treatments, but nirmatrelvir-ritonavir appears to be the preferred treatment,” Dr. Salvatore said. She noted that molnupiravir cannot be used in pregnant women or young persons under age 18, while nirmatrelvir-ritonavir carries the risk of drug interactions. Viral rebound and recurrence of symptoms have been reported in some patients receiving nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.

In other review findings, ivermectin had no effect on time to recovery (moderate COE) and adverse events versus placebo (low COE). Sotrovimab resulted in no difference in all-cause mortality, compared with no treatment (low COE). There were no eligible studies for all of the other treatments of interest nor were there any that specifically evaluated the benefits and harms of treatments for the Omicron variant.

The panel pointed to the need for more evaluation of the efficacy, effectiveness, and comparative effectiveness, as well as harms of pharmacologic and biologic treatments of COVID-19 in the outpatient setting, particularly in the context of changing dominant SARS-CoV-2 variants and subvariants.

Another area requiring further research is the effectiveness of retreatment in patients with previous COVID-19 infection. Subgroup analyses are also needed to assess whether the efficacy and effectiveness of outpatient treatments vary by age, sex, socioeconomic status, and comorbid conditions – or by SARS-CoV-2 variant, immunity status (prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, vaccination status, or time since infection or vaccination), symptom duration, or disease severity.

Dr. Salvatore agreed that more research is needed in special convalescent groups. “For instance, those with cancer who are immunocompromised may need longer treatment and adjunctive treatment with convalescent plasma. But is difficult to find a large enough study with 5,000 immunocompromised patients.”

Financial support for the development of the practice points came exclusively from the ACP operating budget. The evidence review was funded by the ACP. The authors disclosed no relevant high-level competing interests with regard to this guidance, although several authors reported intellectual interests in various areas of research. Dr. Salvatore disclosed no conflicts of interest relevant to her comments but is engaged in influenza research for Genentech.

The American College of Physicians has issued an updated version of its living, rapid practice point guideline on the best treatment options for outpatients with confirmed COVID-19 in the era of the dominant Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. The recommendations in version 2 apply to persons presenting with mild to moderate infection and symptom onset in the past 5 days who are at high risk for progression to severe disease and potential hospitalization or death.

Version 1 appeared in late 2022.

While outpatient management is appropriate for most patients, treatment should be personalized and based on careful risk stratification and informed decision-making, said the guideline authors, led by Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, MHA, vice president of clinical policy and the Center for Evidence Reviews at the ACP in Philadelphia.
 

Practice points

• Consider the oral antivirals nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid) or molnupiravir (Lagevrio) for symptomatic outpatients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 who are within 5 days of the onset of symptoms and at high risk for progressing to severe disease.

New evidence for the Omicron variant suggests a possible net benefit of the antiviral molnupiravir versus standard or no treatment in terms of reducing recovery time if treatment is initiated within 5 days of symptom onset. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with reductions in COVID-19 hospitalization and all-cause mortality.

“The practice points only address [whether] treatments work compared to placebo, no treatment, or usual care,” cautioned Linda L. Humphrey, MD, MPH, MACP, chair of the ACP’s Population Health and Medical Science Committee and a professor of medicine at Oregon Health and Science University VA Portland Health Care System. The ACP continues to monitor the evidence. “Once enough evidence has emerged, it will be possible to compare treatments to each other. Until that time we are unable to determine if there is an advantage to using one treatment over another.”

• Do not use the antiparasitic ivermectin (Stromectol) or the monoclonal antibody sotrovimab (Xevudy) to treat this patient population. “It is not expected to be effective against the Omicron variant,” Dr. Humphrey said.

There was no evidence to support the use of medications such as corticosteroids, antibiotics, antihistamines, SSRIs, and multiple other agents.

“The guideline is not a departure from previous knowledge and reflects what appears in other guidelines and is already being done generally in practice,” said Mirella Salvatore, MD, an associate professor of medicine and population health sciences at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was not involved in the ACP statement. It is therefore unlikely the recommendations will trigger controversy or negative feedback, added Dr. Salvatore, who is also a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. “We believe that our evidence-based approach, which considers the balance of benefits and harms of various treatments, will be embraced by the physician community,” Dr. Humphrey said.

The updated recommendations are based on new data from the evidence review of multiple treatments, which concluded that both nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir likely improve outcomes for outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. The review was conducted after the emergence of the Omicron variant by the ACP Center for Evidence Reviews at Cochrane Austria/University for Continuing Education Krems (Austria).


 

Review details

Inclusion criteria were modified to focus on the Omicron variant by limiting eligible studies to only those enrolling patients on or after Nov. 26, 2021. The investigators included two randomized controlled trials and six retrospective cohort studies and ranked quality of evidence for the effectiveness of the following treatments, compared with usual care or no treatment: azithromycin, camostat mesylate, chloroquine-hydroxychloroquine, chlorpheniramine, colchicine, convalescent plasma, corticosteroids, ensitrelvir, favipiravir, fluvoxamine, ivermectin, lopinavir-ritonavir, molnupiravir, neutralizing monoclonal antibodies, metformin, niclosamide, nitazoxanide, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, and remdesivir.

It compared results for all-cause and COVID-specific mortality, recovery, time to recovery, COVID hospitalization, and adverse and serious adverse events.

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with a reduction in hospitalization caused by COVID-19 of 0.7% versus 1.2% (moderate certainty of evidence [COE]) and a reduction in all-cause mortality of less than 0.1% versus 0.2% (moderate COE).

Molnupiravir led to a higher recovery rate of 31.8% versus 22.6% (moderate COE) and a reduced time to recovery of 9 versus 15 median days (moderate COE). It had no effect, however, on all-cause mortality: 0.02% versus 0.04% (moderate COE). Nor did it affect the incidence of serious adverse events: 0.4% versus 0.3% (moderate COE).

“There have been no head-to-head comparative studies of these two treatments, but nirmatrelvir-ritonavir appears to be the preferred treatment,” Dr. Salvatore said. She noted that molnupiravir cannot be used in pregnant women or young persons under age 18, while nirmatrelvir-ritonavir carries the risk of drug interactions. Viral rebound and recurrence of symptoms have been reported in some patients receiving nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.

In other review findings, ivermectin had no effect on time to recovery (moderate COE) and adverse events versus placebo (low COE). Sotrovimab resulted in no difference in all-cause mortality, compared with no treatment (low COE). There were no eligible studies for all of the other treatments of interest nor were there any that specifically evaluated the benefits and harms of treatments for the Omicron variant.

The panel pointed to the need for more evaluation of the efficacy, effectiveness, and comparative effectiveness, as well as harms of pharmacologic and biologic treatments of COVID-19 in the outpatient setting, particularly in the context of changing dominant SARS-CoV-2 variants and subvariants.

Another area requiring further research is the effectiveness of retreatment in patients with previous COVID-19 infection. Subgroup analyses are also needed to assess whether the efficacy and effectiveness of outpatient treatments vary by age, sex, socioeconomic status, and comorbid conditions – or by SARS-CoV-2 variant, immunity status (prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, vaccination status, or time since infection or vaccination), symptom duration, or disease severity.

Dr. Salvatore agreed that more research is needed in special convalescent groups. “For instance, those with cancer who are immunocompromised may need longer treatment and adjunctive treatment with convalescent plasma. But is difficult to find a large enough study with 5,000 immunocompromised patients.”

Financial support for the development of the practice points came exclusively from the ACP operating budget. The evidence review was funded by the ACP. The authors disclosed no relevant high-level competing interests with regard to this guidance, although several authors reported intellectual interests in various areas of research. Dr. Salvatore disclosed no conflicts of interest relevant to her comments but is engaged in influenza research for Genentech.

The American College of Physicians has issued an updated version of its living, rapid practice point guideline on the best treatment options for outpatients with confirmed COVID-19 in the era of the dominant Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. The recommendations in version 2 apply to persons presenting with mild to moderate infection and symptom onset in the past 5 days who are at high risk for progression to severe disease and potential hospitalization or death.

Version 1 appeared in late 2022.

While outpatient management is appropriate for most patients, treatment should be personalized and based on careful risk stratification and informed decision-making, said the guideline authors, led by Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, MHA, vice president of clinical policy and the Center for Evidence Reviews at the ACP in Philadelphia.
 

Practice points

• Consider the oral antivirals nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid) or molnupiravir (Lagevrio) for symptomatic outpatients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 who are within 5 days of the onset of symptoms and at high risk for progressing to severe disease.

New evidence for the Omicron variant suggests a possible net benefit of the antiviral molnupiravir versus standard or no treatment in terms of reducing recovery time if treatment is initiated within 5 days of symptom onset. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with reductions in COVID-19 hospitalization and all-cause mortality.

“The practice points only address [whether] treatments work compared to placebo, no treatment, or usual care,” cautioned Linda L. Humphrey, MD, MPH, MACP, chair of the ACP’s Population Health and Medical Science Committee and a professor of medicine at Oregon Health and Science University VA Portland Health Care System. The ACP continues to monitor the evidence. “Once enough evidence has emerged, it will be possible to compare treatments to each other. Until that time we are unable to determine if there is an advantage to using one treatment over another.”

• Do not use the antiparasitic ivermectin (Stromectol) or the monoclonal antibody sotrovimab (Xevudy) to treat this patient population. “It is not expected to be effective against the Omicron variant,” Dr. Humphrey said.

There was no evidence to support the use of medications such as corticosteroids, antibiotics, antihistamines, SSRIs, and multiple other agents.

“The guideline is not a departure from previous knowledge and reflects what appears in other guidelines and is already being done generally in practice,” said Mirella Salvatore, MD, an associate professor of medicine and population health sciences at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was not involved in the ACP statement. It is therefore unlikely the recommendations will trigger controversy or negative feedback, added Dr. Salvatore, who is also a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. “We believe that our evidence-based approach, which considers the balance of benefits and harms of various treatments, will be embraced by the physician community,” Dr. Humphrey said.

The updated recommendations are based on new data from the evidence review of multiple treatments, which concluded that both nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir likely improve outcomes for outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. The review was conducted after the emergence of the Omicron variant by the ACP Center for Evidence Reviews at Cochrane Austria/University for Continuing Education Krems (Austria).


 

Review details

Inclusion criteria were modified to focus on the Omicron variant by limiting eligible studies to only those enrolling patients on or after Nov. 26, 2021. The investigators included two randomized controlled trials and six retrospective cohort studies and ranked quality of evidence for the effectiveness of the following treatments, compared with usual care or no treatment: azithromycin, camostat mesylate, chloroquine-hydroxychloroquine, chlorpheniramine, colchicine, convalescent plasma, corticosteroids, ensitrelvir, favipiravir, fluvoxamine, ivermectin, lopinavir-ritonavir, molnupiravir, neutralizing monoclonal antibodies, metformin, niclosamide, nitazoxanide, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, and remdesivir.

It compared results for all-cause and COVID-specific mortality, recovery, time to recovery, COVID hospitalization, and adverse and serious adverse events.

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with a reduction in hospitalization caused by COVID-19 of 0.7% versus 1.2% (moderate certainty of evidence [COE]) and a reduction in all-cause mortality of less than 0.1% versus 0.2% (moderate COE).

Molnupiravir led to a higher recovery rate of 31.8% versus 22.6% (moderate COE) and a reduced time to recovery of 9 versus 15 median days (moderate COE). It had no effect, however, on all-cause mortality: 0.02% versus 0.04% (moderate COE). Nor did it affect the incidence of serious adverse events: 0.4% versus 0.3% (moderate COE).

“There have been no head-to-head comparative studies of these two treatments, but nirmatrelvir-ritonavir appears to be the preferred treatment,” Dr. Salvatore said. She noted that molnupiravir cannot be used in pregnant women or young persons under age 18, while nirmatrelvir-ritonavir carries the risk of drug interactions. Viral rebound and recurrence of symptoms have been reported in some patients receiving nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.

In other review findings, ivermectin had no effect on time to recovery (moderate COE) and adverse events versus placebo (low COE). Sotrovimab resulted in no difference in all-cause mortality, compared with no treatment (low COE). There were no eligible studies for all of the other treatments of interest nor were there any that specifically evaluated the benefits and harms of treatments for the Omicron variant.

The panel pointed to the need for more evaluation of the efficacy, effectiveness, and comparative effectiveness, as well as harms of pharmacologic and biologic treatments of COVID-19 in the outpatient setting, particularly in the context of changing dominant SARS-CoV-2 variants and subvariants.

Another area requiring further research is the effectiveness of retreatment in patients with previous COVID-19 infection. Subgroup analyses are also needed to assess whether the efficacy and effectiveness of outpatient treatments vary by age, sex, socioeconomic status, and comorbid conditions – or by SARS-CoV-2 variant, immunity status (prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, vaccination status, or time since infection or vaccination), symptom duration, or disease severity.

Dr. Salvatore agreed that more research is needed in special convalescent groups. “For instance, those with cancer who are immunocompromised may need longer treatment and adjunctive treatment with convalescent plasma. But is difficult to find a large enough study with 5,000 immunocompromised patients.”

Financial support for the development of the practice points came exclusively from the ACP operating budget. The evidence review was funded by the ACP. The authors disclosed no relevant high-level competing interests with regard to this guidance, although several authors reported intellectual interests in various areas of research. Dr. Salvatore disclosed no conflicts of interest relevant to her comments but is engaged in influenza research for Genentech.

New research hints at the possibility that cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA), a cause of spontaneous brain hemorrhage, can be transmitted via blood transfusion, raising the risk for spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) in transfusion recipients.

In an exploratory analysis, patients receiving red blood cell transfusions from donors who later developed multiple spontaneous ICHs, and were assumed to have CAA, were at a significantly increased risk of developing spontaneous ICH themselves.

“This may suggest a transfusion-transmissible agent associated with some types of spontaneous ICH, although the findings may be susceptible to selection bias and residual confounding, and further research is needed to investigate if transfusion transmission of CAA might explain this association,” the investigators noted.

“We do not think that the findings motivate a change in practice, and we should not let these results discourage otherwise indicated blood transfusion,” said lead author Jingcheng Zhao, MD, PhD, with Karolinska University Hospital Solna, Stockholm.

The study was published online  in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
 

Novel finding

Recent evidence suggests that CAA exhibits “prion-like” transmissivity, with reports of transmission through cadaveric pituitary hormone contaminated with amyloid-beta and tau protein, dura mater grafts, and possibly neurosurgical instruments.

CAA, which is characterized by the deposition of amyloid protein in the brain, is the second most common cause of spontaneous ICH. 

The researchers hypothesized that transfusion transmission of CAA may manifest through an increased risk for spontaneous ICH among transfusion recipients given blood from a donor with spontaneous ICH. To explore this hypothesis, they analyzed national registry data from Sweden and Denmark for ICH in recipients of red blood cell transfusion from donors who themselves had ICH over the years after their blood donations, with the assumption that donors with two or more ICHs would likely have CAA.

The cohort included nearly 760,000 individuals in Sweden (median age, 65 years; 59% women) and 330,000 in Denmark (median age, 64 years; 58% women), with a median follow-up of 5.8 and 6.1 years, respectively.

Receiving red blood cell transfusions from donors who later developed multiple spontaneous ICHs was associated with a greater than twofold increased risk of developing spontaneous ICH, compared with receiving a transfusion from donors without subsequent ICH (hazard ratio, 2.73; P < .001 in the Swedish cohort and HR, 2.32; P = .04 in the Danish cohort).

“The observed increased risk of spontaneous ICH associated with receiving a red blood cell transfusion from a donor who later developed multiple spontaneous ICHs, corresponding to a 30-year cumulative incidence difference of 2.3%, is a novel finding,” the researchers wrote.

There was no increase in post-transfusion ICH risk among recipients whose donors had a single post–blood-donation ICH.

The findings were robust to several of the sensitivity analyses.

A “negative” control analysis of post-transfusion ischemic stroke (instead of ICH) found no increased risk among recipients of blood from donors who had single or multiple ICHs.

This study provides “exploratory evidence of possible transfusion-transmission of a factor that causes ICHs, but more research is needed to confirm and to understand the mechanism,” said Dr. Zhao.

The researchers noted that they did not directly assess CAA but expect it would be more common among donors who develop multiple spontaneous ICHs, “as CAA-related ICH has been reported to have a 7-fold increase for recurrent ICHs, compared with non–CAA-related ICH.”
 

Worrisome finding or false alarm?

In an accompanying editorial, Steven Greenberg, MD, PhD, with the department of neurology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said there are “good reasons to treat the possibility of CAA transmission via blood transfusion seriously – and good reasons to remain skeptical, at least for the present.”

“Powerful” arguments in support of the findings include the robust study methodology and the “striking” similarity in results from the two registries, which argues against a chance finding. Another is the negative control with ischemic stroke as the outcome, which argues against unsuspected confounding-causing associations with all types of stroke, Dr. Greenberg noted.

Arguments for remaining “unconvinced” of the association center on the weakness of evidence for a plausible biological mechanism for the finding, he points out. Another is the short-time course of ICHs after blood transfusion, which is “quite challenging to explain,” Dr. Greenberg said. Nearly half of the ICHs among blood recipients occurred within 5 years of transfusion, which is “dramatically” faster than the 30- to 40-year interval reported between neurosurgical exposure to cadaveric tissue and first ICH, he added.

Another related “mechanistic reservation” is the plausibility that a transmissible species of amyloid-beta could travel from blood to brain in sufficient quantities to trigger advanced CAA or Alzheimer disease pathology, he wrote.

He added the current study leaves him “squarely at the corner of anxiety and skepticism.”

With more than 10 million units of blood transfused in the United States each year, even a modest increase in risk for future brain hemorrhages or dementia conferred by “an uncommon – but as of now undetectable – donor trait would represent a substantial public health concern,” Dr. Greenberg wrote.

“From the standpoint of scientific plausibility, however, even this well-conducted analysis is at risk of representing a false alarm,” he cautioned.

Looking ahead, Dr. Greenberg said one clear direction is independent replication, ideally with datasets in which donor and recipient dementia can be reliably ascertained to assess the possibility of Alzheimer’s disease as well as CAA transmissibility.

“The other challenge is for experimental biologists to consider the alternative possibility of transfusion-related acceleration of downstream steps in the CAA-ICH pathway, such as the vessel remodeling by which amyloid beta–laden vessels proceed to rupture and bleed.”

“The current study is not yet a reason for alarm, certainly not a reason to avoid otherwise indicated blood transfusion, but it is a strong call for more scientific digging,” Dr. Greenberg concluded.

The study was funded by grants from the Karolinska Institute, the Swedish Research Council, and Region Stockholm. Dr. Zhao and Dr. Greenberg report no relevant financial relationships.

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

New research hints at the possibility that cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA), a cause of spontaneous brain hemorrhage, can be transmitted via blood transfusion, raising the risk for spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) in transfusion recipients.

In an exploratory analysis, patients receiving red blood cell transfusions from donors who later developed multiple spontaneous ICHs, and were assumed to have CAA, were at a significantly increased risk of developing spontaneous ICH themselves.

“This may suggest a transfusion-transmissible agent associated with some types of spontaneous ICH, although the findings may be susceptible to selection bias and residual confounding, and further research is needed to investigate if transfusion transmission of CAA might explain this association,” the investigators noted.

“We do not think that the findings motivate a change in practice, and we should not let these results discourage otherwise indicated blood transfusion,” said lead author Jingcheng Zhao, MD, PhD, with Karolinska University Hospital Solna, Stockholm.

The study was published online  in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
 

Novel finding

Recent evidence suggests that CAA exhibits “prion-like” transmissivity, with reports of transmission through cadaveric pituitary hormone contaminated with amyloid-beta and tau protein, dura mater grafts, and possibly neurosurgical instruments.

CAA, which is characterized by the deposition of amyloid protein in the brain, is the second most common cause of spontaneous ICH. 

The researchers hypothesized that transfusion transmission of CAA may manifest through an increased risk for spontaneous ICH among transfusion recipients given blood from a donor with spontaneous ICH. To explore this hypothesis, they analyzed national registry data from Sweden and Denmark for ICH in recipients of red blood cell transfusion from donors who themselves had ICH over the years after their blood donations, with the assumption that donors with two or more ICHs would likely have CAA.

The cohort included nearly 760,000 individuals in Sweden (median age, 65 years; 59% women) and 330,000 in Denmark (median age, 64 years; 58% women), with a median follow-up of 5.8 and 6.1 years, respectively.

Receiving red blood cell transfusions from donors who later developed multiple spontaneous ICHs was associated with a greater than twofold increased risk of developing spontaneous ICH, compared with receiving a transfusion from donors without subsequent ICH (hazard ratio, 2.73; P < .001 in the Swedish cohort and HR, 2.32; P = .04 in the Danish cohort).

“The observed increased risk of spontaneous ICH associated with receiving a red blood cell transfusion from a donor who later developed multiple spontaneous ICHs, corresponding to a 30-year cumulative incidence difference of 2.3%, is a novel finding,” the researchers wrote.

There was no increase in post-transfusion ICH risk among recipients whose donors had a single post–blood-donation ICH.

The findings were robust to several of the sensitivity analyses.

A “negative” control analysis of post-transfusion ischemic stroke (instead of ICH) found no increased risk among recipients of blood from donors who had single or multiple ICHs.

This study provides “exploratory evidence of possible transfusion-transmission of a factor that causes ICHs, but more research is needed to confirm and to understand the mechanism,” said Dr. Zhao.

The researchers noted that they did not directly assess CAA but expect it would be more common among donors who develop multiple spontaneous ICHs, “as CAA-related ICH has been reported to have a 7-fold increase for recurrent ICHs, compared with non–CAA-related ICH.”
 

Worrisome finding or false alarm?

In an accompanying editorial, Steven Greenberg, MD, PhD, with the department of neurology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said there are “good reasons to treat the possibility of CAA transmission via blood transfusion seriously – and good reasons to remain skeptical, at least for the present.”

“Powerful” arguments in support of the findings include the robust study methodology and the “striking” similarity in results from the two registries, which argues against a chance finding. Another is the negative control with ischemic stroke as the outcome, which argues against unsuspected confounding-causing associations with all types of stroke, Dr. Greenberg noted.

Arguments for remaining “unconvinced” of the association center on the weakness of evidence for a plausible biological mechanism for the finding, he points out. Another is the short-time course of ICHs after blood transfusion, which is “quite challenging to explain,” Dr. Greenberg said. Nearly half of the ICHs among blood recipients occurred within 5 years of transfusion, which is “dramatically” faster than the 30- to 40-year interval reported between neurosurgical exposure to cadaveric tissue and first ICH, he added.

Another related “mechanistic reservation” is the plausibility that a transmissible species of amyloid-beta could travel from blood to brain in sufficient quantities to trigger advanced CAA or Alzheimer disease pathology, he wrote.

He added the current study leaves him “squarely at the corner of anxiety and skepticism.”

With more than 10 million units of blood transfused in the United States each year, even a modest increase in risk for future brain hemorrhages or dementia conferred by “an uncommon – but as of now undetectable – donor trait would represent a substantial public health concern,” Dr. Greenberg wrote.

“From the standpoint of scientific plausibility, however, even this well-conducted analysis is at risk of representing a false alarm,” he cautioned.

Looking ahead, Dr. Greenberg said one clear direction is independent replication, ideally with datasets in which donor and recipient dementia can be reliably ascertained to assess the possibility of Alzheimer’s disease as well as CAA transmissibility.

“The other challenge is for experimental biologists to consider the alternative possibility of transfusion-related acceleration of downstream steps in the CAA-ICH pathway, such as the vessel remodeling by which amyloid beta–laden vessels proceed to rupture and bleed.”

“The current study is not yet a reason for alarm, certainly not a reason to avoid otherwise indicated blood transfusion, but it is a strong call for more scientific digging,” Dr. Greenberg concluded.

The study was funded by grants from the Karolinska Institute, the Swedish Research Council, and Region Stockholm. Dr. Zhao and Dr. Greenberg report no relevant financial relationships.

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

New research hints at the possibility that cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA), a cause of spontaneous brain hemorrhage, can be transmitted via blood transfusion, raising the risk for spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) in transfusion recipients.

In an exploratory analysis, patients receiving red blood cell transfusions from donors who later developed multiple spontaneous ICHs, and were assumed to have CAA, were at a significantly increased risk of developing spontaneous ICH themselves.

“This may suggest a transfusion-transmissible agent associated with some types of spontaneous ICH, although the findings may be susceptible to selection bias and residual confounding, and further research is needed to investigate if transfusion transmission of CAA might explain this association,” the investigators noted.

“We do not think that the findings motivate a change in practice, and we should not let these results discourage otherwise indicated blood transfusion,” said lead author Jingcheng Zhao, MD, PhD, with Karolinska University Hospital Solna, Stockholm.

The study was published online  in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
 

Novel finding

Recent evidence suggests that CAA exhibits “prion-like” transmissivity, with reports of transmission through cadaveric pituitary hormone contaminated with amyloid-beta and tau protein, dura mater grafts, and possibly neurosurgical instruments.

CAA, which is characterized by the deposition of amyloid protein in the brain, is the second most common cause of spontaneous ICH. 

The researchers hypothesized that transfusion transmission of CAA may manifest through an increased risk for spontaneous ICH among transfusion recipients given blood from a donor with spontaneous ICH. To explore this hypothesis, they analyzed national registry data from Sweden and Denmark for ICH in recipients of red blood cell transfusion from donors who themselves had ICH over the years after their blood donations, with the assumption that donors with two or more ICHs would likely have CAA.

The cohort included nearly 760,000 individuals in Sweden (median age, 65 years; 59% women) and 330,000 in Denmark (median age, 64 years; 58% women), with a median follow-up of 5.8 and 6.1 years, respectively.

Receiving red blood cell transfusions from donors who later developed multiple spontaneous ICHs was associated with a greater than twofold increased risk of developing spontaneous ICH, compared with receiving a transfusion from donors without subsequent ICH (hazard ratio, 2.73; P < .001 in the Swedish cohort and HR, 2.32; P = .04 in the Danish cohort).

“The observed increased risk of spontaneous ICH associated with receiving a red blood cell transfusion from a donor who later developed multiple spontaneous ICHs, corresponding to a 30-year cumulative incidence difference of 2.3%, is a novel finding,” the researchers wrote.

There was no increase in post-transfusion ICH risk among recipients whose donors had a single post–blood-donation ICH.

The findings were robust to several of the sensitivity analyses.

A “negative” control analysis of post-transfusion ischemic stroke (instead of ICH) found no increased risk among recipients of blood from donors who had single or multiple ICHs.

This study provides “exploratory evidence of possible transfusion-transmission of a factor that causes ICHs, but more research is needed to confirm and to understand the mechanism,” said Dr. Zhao.

The researchers noted that they did not directly assess CAA but expect it would be more common among donors who develop multiple spontaneous ICHs, “as CAA-related ICH has been reported to have a 7-fold increase for recurrent ICHs, compared with non–CAA-related ICH.”
 

Worrisome finding or false alarm?

In an accompanying editorial, Steven Greenberg, MD, PhD, with the department of neurology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said there are “good reasons to treat the possibility of CAA transmission via blood transfusion seriously – and good reasons to remain skeptical, at least for the present.”

“Powerful” arguments in support of the findings include the robust study methodology and the “striking” similarity in results from the two registries, which argues against a chance finding. Another is the negative control with ischemic stroke as the outcome, which argues against unsuspected confounding-causing associations with all types of stroke, Dr. Greenberg noted.

Arguments for remaining “unconvinced” of the association center on the weakness of evidence for a plausible biological mechanism for the finding, he points out. Another is the short-time course of ICHs after blood transfusion, which is “quite challenging to explain,” Dr. Greenberg said. Nearly half of the ICHs among blood recipients occurred within 5 years of transfusion, which is “dramatically” faster than the 30- to 40-year interval reported between neurosurgical exposure to cadaveric tissue and first ICH, he added.

Another related “mechanistic reservation” is the plausibility that a transmissible species of amyloid-beta could travel from blood to brain in sufficient quantities to trigger advanced CAA or Alzheimer disease pathology, he wrote.

He added the current study leaves him “squarely at the corner of anxiety and skepticism.”

With more than 10 million units of blood transfused in the United States each year, even a modest increase in risk for future brain hemorrhages or dementia conferred by “an uncommon – but as of now undetectable – donor trait would represent a substantial public health concern,” Dr. Greenberg wrote.

“From the standpoint of scientific plausibility, however, even this well-conducted analysis is at risk of representing a false alarm,” he cautioned.

Looking ahead, Dr. Greenberg said one clear direction is independent replication, ideally with datasets in which donor and recipient dementia can be reliably ascertained to assess the possibility of Alzheimer’s disease as well as CAA transmissibility.

“The other challenge is for experimental biologists to consider the alternative possibility of transfusion-related acceleration of downstream steps in the CAA-ICH pathway, such as the vessel remodeling by which amyloid beta–laden vessels proceed to rupture and bleed.”

“The current study is not yet a reason for alarm, certainly not a reason to avoid otherwise indicated blood transfusion, but it is a strong call for more scientific digging,” Dr. Greenberg concluded.

The study was funded by grants from the Karolinska Institute, the Swedish Research Council, and Region Stockholm. Dr. Zhao and Dr. Greenberg report no relevant financial relationships.

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