Covid ICYMI

The last full week of September brought a 4th straight week of declines in the number of new COVID-19 cases reported among children, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The new-case total of 39,200 for the week of Sept. 23-29 was down by almost 28% from the previous week, with the month of September bringing a decline of about 57% in reported cases for the 45 states and territories that are still releasing pediatric COVID data on their health department websites, the AAP and CHA said in their joint weekly report.

New cases dropped in all four regions after the Northeast and West had seen increases the previous week, and the distribution of cases for the latest week was fairly even, with the Midwest and Northeast right around 10,000, the South slightly over 10,000, and the West under 10,000 by about the same amount. At the state level, the largest increases – around 1.5% – over the last 2 weeks occurred in Kentucky and Nevada, the AAP/CHA data show.

The cumulative number of COVID-19 cases in children was almost 14.8 million as of Sept. 29, with children representing 18.4% of all cases since the pandemic began, the AAP and CHA said. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is able to use a uniform age range of 0-17 years, puts total cases at 15.2 million and the proportion of child cases at 17.4%. Total deaths in children from COVID as of Oct. 3 were 1,745, the CDC reported.

New vaccinations, in the meantime, are being added in numbers only slightly higher than new cases. Initial COVID vaccinations for the week of Sept. 22-28 were about 44,000 for children under 5 years of age (down from 51,000 the week before), 24,000 for children aged 5-11 years (down from 28,000), and 17,000 for those aged 12-17 (down from 18,000), the AAP said in its weekly vaccination report.

To look at it another way, the total proportion of children under 5 years of age who had received at least one dose of COVID vaccine as of Sept. 28 was 6.5%, compared with 6.4% on Sept. 21, while the corresponding rates for children aged 5-11 and 12-17 were unchanged at 38.5% and 70.9%. The 12- to 17-year-olds, in fact, have been stuck at 70.9% since Sept. 13, according to data from the CDC.

In a recent study published in Vaccine, investigators attributed the discrepancies between age groups at least partly to the acceptance of misinformation about vaccine safety in general and the COVID-19 vaccines in particular.

“All of the misconceptions we studied focused in one way or another on the safety of vaccination, and that explains why people’s misbeliefs about vaccinating kids are so highly related to their concerns about vaccines in general. Unfortunately, those concerns weigh even more heavily when adults consider vaccinating children,” lead author Dan Romer, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in a written statement.

The last full week of September brought a 4th straight week of declines in the number of new COVID-19 cases reported among children, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The new-case total of 39,200 for the week of Sept. 23-29 was down by almost 28% from the previous week, with the month of September bringing a decline of about 57% in reported cases for the 45 states and territories that are still releasing pediatric COVID data on their health department websites, the AAP and CHA said in their joint weekly report.

New cases dropped in all four regions after the Northeast and West had seen increases the previous week, and the distribution of cases for the latest week was fairly even, with the Midwest and Northeast right around 10,000, the South slightly over 10,000, and the West under 10,000 by about the same amount. At the state level, the largest increases – around 1.5% – over the last 2 weeks occurred in Kentucky and Nevada, the AAP/CHA data show.

The cumulative number of COVID-19 cases in children was almost 14.8 million as of Sept. 29, with children representing 18.4% of all cases since the pandemic began, the AAP and CHA said. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is able to use a uniform age range of 0-17 years, puts total cases at 15.2 million and the proportion of child cases at 17.4%. Total deaths in children from COVID as of Oct. 3 were 1,745, the CDC reported.

New vaccinations, in the meantime, are being added in numbers only slightly higher than new cases. Initial COVID vaccinations for the week of Sept. 22-28 were about 44,000 for children under 5 years of age (down from 51,000 the week before), 24,000 for children aged 5-11 years (down from 28,000), and 17,000 for those aged 12-17 (down from 18,000), the AAP said in its weekly vaccination report.

To look at it another way, the total proportion of children under 5 years of age who had received at least one dose of COVID vaccine as of Sept. 28 was 6.5%, compared with 6.4% on Sept. 21, while the corresponding rates for children aged 5-11 and 12-17 were unchanged at 38.5% and 70.9%. The 12- to 17-year-olds, in fact, have been stuck at 70.9% since Sept. 13, according to data from the CDC.

In a recent study published in Vaccine, investigators attributed the discrepancies between age groups at least partly to the acceptance of misinformation about vaccine safety in general and the COVID-19 vaccines in particular.

“All of the misconceptions we studied focused in one way or another on the safety of vaccination, and that explains why people’s misbeliefs about vaccinating kids are so highly related to their concerns about vaccines in general. Unfortunately, those concerns weigh even more heavily when adults consider vaccinating children,” lead author Dan Romer, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in a written statement.

The last full week of September brought a 4th straight week of declines in the number of new COVID-19 cases reported among children, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The new-case total of 39,200 for the week of Sept. 23-29 was down by almost 28% from the previous week, with the month of September bringing a decline of about 57% in reported cases for the 45 states and territories that are still releasing pediatric COVID data on their health department websites, the AAP and CHA said in their joint weekly report.

New cases dropped in all four regions after the Northeast and West had seen increases the previous week, and the distribution of cases for the latest week was fairly even, with the Midwest and Northeast right around 10,000, the South slightly over 10,000, and the West under 10,000 by about the same amount. At the state level, the largest increases – around 1.5% – over the last 2 weeks occurred in Kentucky and Nevada, the AAP/CHA data show.

The cumulative number of COVID-19 cases in children was almost 14.8 million as of Sept. 29, with children representing 18.4% of all cases since the pandemic began, the AAP and CHA said. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is able to use a uniform age range of 0-17 years, puts total cases at 15.2 million and the proportion of child cases at 17.4%. Total deaths in children from COVID as of Oct. 3 were 1,745, the CDC reported.

New vaccinations, in the meantime, are being added in numbers only slightly higher than new cases. Initial COVID vaccinations for the week of Sept. 22-28 were about 44,000 for children under 5 years of age (down from 51,000 the week before), 24,000 for children aged 5-11 years (down from 28,000), and 17,000 for those aged 12-17 (down from 18,000), the AAP said in its weekly vaccination report.

To look at it another way, the total proportion of children under 5 years of age who had received at least one dose of COVID vaccine as of Sept. 28 was 6.5%, compared with 6.4% on Sept. 21, while the corresponding rates for children aged 5-11 and 12-17 were unchanged at 38.5% and 70.9%. The 12- to 17-year-olds, in fact, have been stuck at 70.9% since Sept. 13, according to data from the CDC.

In a recent study published in Vaccine, investigators attributed the discrepancies between age groups at least partly to the acceptance of misinformation about vaccine safety in general and the COVID-19 vaccines in particular.

“All of the misconceptions we studied focused in one way or another on the safety of vaccination, and that explains why people’s misbeliefs about vaccinating kids are so highly related to their concerns about vaccines in general. Unfortunately, those concerns weigh even more heavily when adults consider vaccinating children,” lead author Dan Romer, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in a written statement.

A higher percentage of family physicians quit during the early months of the pandemic than the average yearly percentage that did in the prior decade, according to data from Canada.

The researchers conducted two analyses of billing claims data for family physicians practicing in Ontario. They examined data for a period from 2010 to 2019 – before the onset of the pandemic – and from 2019 through 2020. The findings were published in Annals of Family Medicine.

Overall, the proportion of family physicians who stopped working rose from an average of 1.6% each year for the period between 2010 and 2019 to 3% in the period from 2019 to 2020. The pandemic data set included 12,247 physicians in Ontario. Of these, 385 (3.1%) reported no billings in the first 6 months of the pandemic.

Compared with family physicians billing for work during the pandemic, those reporting no billings were significantly more likely to be 75 years or older (13.0% vs. 3.4%), to have patient panels of less than 500 patients (40.0% vs. 25.8%), and to be eligible for fee-for-service reimbursement (37.7% vs. 24.9%; P less than .001 for all). The family physicians who reported no billing early in the pandemic also had fewer billing days in the previous year (mean of 73 days vs. 101 days, P less than .001).

In a regression analysis, the absolute increase in the percentage of family physicians who stopped working was 0.3% per year from 2010 to 2019, but rose to 1.2% between 2019 and 2020.

Challenges to family physicians in Ontario in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic included reduced revenue, inability to keep offices fully staffed, and problems obtaining enough personal protective equipment. Such challenges may have prompted some family physicians to stop working prematurely, but more research is needed in other settings, wrote study author Tara Kiran, MD, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues.

“There were a lot of stories and suggestions that more family physicians were choosing to retire due to COVID,” Michael Green, MD, a coauthor of the paper, said in an interview. “Given the preexisting shortages we thought it would be important to see if this was true, and how big of an issue it was,” he said.

Although the absolute number of primary care physicians who stopped working is small, the implications are large given the ongoing shortage of family physicians in Canada, the researchers wrote.

The characteristics of physicians stopping work, such as older age and smaller practice size, were consistent with that of physicians preparing for retirement, the researchers noted. In addition, 56% of the family physicians who stopped working during the pandemic practiced in a patient enrollment model, in which patients are enrolled and between 15% and 70% of payment is based on age and sex. In this study, approximately 80% of physicians worked in this model. The remaining 20% operated in independent, fee-for-service practices.

“Although we cannot directly attribute causation, we hypothesize that some family physicians accelerated their retirement plans because of the pandemic,” the researchers noted. They proposed that possible reasons include health concerns, increased costs of infection prevention and control, reduced revenue from office visits, and burnout. The current study did not examine these issues.

Additional studies are needed to understand the impact on population health, the researchers concluded, but they estimated that the number of family physicians who stopped work during the pandemic would have provided care for approximately 170,000 patients.

The study findings reflect a genuine turnover by family physicians, vs. a departure from family practice to a fellowship and practice in another specialty, Dr. Green said. “We looked at physician billings to determine who stopped practicing, so we report only on those who stopped billing the Ontario Health Insurance Program altogether,” he explained.

The ongoing pandemic accelerated the issue of an upcoming wave of physician retirements and added to an already large number of people without a family physician, Dr. Green noted.

“We know there will be significant shortages of family physicians if we don’t modernize our ways of delivering primary care,” said Dr. Green. More research is needed on how to support family doctors with teams and administrative supports to allow them to provide high quality care to more patients, he said. Better models to estimate health workforce needs in primary care are needed as well, he added.

In the United States, a physician shortage has been growing since before the pandemic, according to a report published in 2021 by the Association of American Medical Colleges. In this report, “The Complexities of Physician Supply and Demand: Projections from 2019 to 2034,” the authors specifically projected a primary care physician shortage of 17,800 to 48,000 by 2034. This projection is in part based on an increase in the percentage of the U.S. population aged 65 years and older, which will increase the demand for care, according to the authors. The report also confirmed that many U.S. physicians are approaching retirement age and that more than two of five active physicians will be 65 years or older within the next 10 years.

However, the authors of this U.S. report acknowledged that the impact of the pandemic on existing primary care shortages remains unclear.

“There are still many unknowns about the direct short-term and long-term impacts of COVID-19 on the physician workforce, and it may be several years before those impacts are clearly understood,” they said in the executive summary of their report.

Alison N. Huffstetler, MD, a coauthor of a recent report that tried to identify the active primary care workforce in Virginia, said, “We know from other research that there are not enough primary care doctors, right now, to do the work that needs to be done – some citations have noted it would take a primary care doc over 20 hours a day just to provide preventive care.

“As our population continues to age, live longer, and need more complex care management, we must ensure we have an accountable, accessible, and knowledgeable primary care network to care for our communities,” she said.
 

Current state of primary care in Virginia

The study by Dr. Huffstetler, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and colleagues was published in Annals of Family Medicine. It used a novel strategy involving the analysis of state all-payer claims data to determine how many physicians were practicing primary care in Virginia.

The researchers used the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System (NPPES) and the Virginia All-Payer Claims Database (VA-APCD) and identified all Virginia physicians and their specialties through the NPPES between 2015 and 2019. Active physicians were defined as those with at least one claim in the VA-APCD during the study period. They identified 20,976 active physicians in Virginia, 28.1% of whom were classified as primary care. Of these, 52% were family medicine physicians, 18.5% were internal medicine physicians, 16.8% were pediatricians, 11.8% were ob.gyns., and 0.5% were other specialists.

Clinician specialties were identified via specialty codes from the NPPES. Physicians were identified as primary care providers in two ways. The first way was by identifying those who had a National Uniform Claim Committee (NUCC) taxonomy of family medicine. The NUCC identifies a provider’s specialty using several levels of classification based on board certification and subspecialty certification data. The second identifier was having been a physician who had billed for at least 10 wellness visit codes from Jan. 1, 2019, through Dec. 31, 2019.

Over the 5-year study period (2015-2019), the counts and percentages of primary care physicians in the workforce remained stable, and the overall number of physicians in the state increased by 3.5%, the researchers noted. A total of 60.45% of all physicians and 60.87% of primary care physicians remained active, and 11.66% of all physicians had a claim in only 1 of the 5 years.
 

How distribution and access impact patients

In an interview, Dr. Huffstetler said the study she and colleagues authored “offers a transparent and reproducible process for identifying primary care physicians in a state, where they practice, and what changes in staffing occur over time.”

“In Virginia, this is particularly important, as we recently expanded Medicaid, making primary care more affordable for over 500,000 people,” she said. “We also saw the importance of distribution and accessibility to primary care over the past 3 years of COVID. In order to adequately prepare for community needs in the coming years, we must know who is providing primary care, and where they are.”

However, the model used in this study has its limitations, Dr. Huffstetler said, including the lack of a definitive definition of primary care using claims data.

“We used a data-informed wellness visit threshold, but it is likely that primary care is delivered in some locations without claims that are reflected by a wellness visit, and we hope to look at scope in the future to help refine these results,” she said.
 

Canadian study shows pandemic’s impact on patient care

“The pandemic’s impact on primary care remains palpable, and Dr. Kiran’s team has done an excellent analysis on the practice trends during the past several years,” Dr. Huffstetler said.

“The Canadian analysis uses claims in a similar manner to our study; however, it appears that they already knew who the FPs were in Ontario,” Dr. Huffstetler noted. “Their claims threshold of 50 for active practice was higher than ours, at only 1. Should those FPs have moved to a different specialty, the physicians would still have claims for the patients seen in other subspecialties. As such, I don’t suspect that their analysis miscalculated those that transitioned, rather than stopped practice,” she explained.

The Ontario study was supported by the Initial Credential Evaluation Service, which is funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care, as well as by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Additional support came from the INSPIRE Primary Health Care Research Program, which is also funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The Virginia study was supported by the Department of Medical Assistance Services and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The supply and demand report was conducted for the AAMC by IHS Markit, a global information company.

A higher percentage of family physicians quit during the early months of the pandemic than the average yearly percentage that did in the prior decade, according to data from Canada.

The researchers conducted two analyses of billing claims data for family physicians practicing in Ontario. They examined data for a period from 2010 to 2019 – before the onset of the pandemic – and from 2019 through 2020. The findings were published in Annals of Family Medicine.

Overall, the proportion of family physicians who stopped working rose from an average of 1.6% each year for the period between 2010 and 2019 to 3% in the period from 2019 to 2020. The pandemic data set included 12,247 physicians in Ontario. Of these, 385 (3.1%) reported no billings in the first 6 months of the pandemic.

Compared with family physicians billing for work during the pandemic, those reporting no billings were significantly more likely to be 75 years or older (13.0% vs. 3.4%), to have patient panels of less than 500 patients (40.0% vs. 25.8%), and to be eligible for fee-for-service reimbursement (37.7% vs. 24.9%; P less than .001 for all). The family physicians who reported no billing early in the pandemic also had fewer billing days in the previous year (mean of 73 days vs. 101 days, P less than .001).

In a regression analysis, the absolute increase in the percentage of family physicians who stopped working was 0.3% per year from 2010 to 2019, but rose to 1.2% between 2019 and 2020.

Challenges to family physicians in Ontario in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic included reduced revenue, inability to keep offices fully staffed, and problems obtaining enough personal protective equipment. Such challenges may have prompted some family physicians to stop working prematurely, but more research is needed in other settings, wrote study author Tara Kiran, MD, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues.

“There were a lot of stories and suggestions that more family physicians were choosing to retire due to COVID,” Michael Green, MD, a coauthor of the paper, said in an interview. “Given the preexisting shortages we thought it would be important to see if this was true, and how big of an issue it was,” he said.

Although the absolute number of primary care physicians who stopped working is small, the implications are large given the ongoing shortage of family physicians in Canada, the researchers wrote.

The characteristics of physicians stopping work, such as older age and smaller practice size, were consistent with that of physicians preparing for retirement, the researchers noted. In addition, 56% of the family physicians who stopped working during the pandemic practiced in a patient enrollment model, in which patients are enrolled and between 15% and 70% of payment is based on age and sex. In this study, approximately 80% of physicians worked in this model. The remaining 20% operated in independent, fee-for-service practices.

“Although we cannot directly attribute causation, we hypothesize that some family physicians accelerated their retirement plans because of the pandemic,” the researchers noted. They proposed that possible reasons include health concerns, increased costs of infection prevention and control, reduced revenue from office visits, and burnout. The current study did not examine these issues.

Additional studies are needed to understand the impact on population health, the researchers concluded, but they estimated that the number of family physicians who stopped work during the pandemic would have provided care for approximately 170,000 patients.

The study findings reflect a genuine turnover by family physicians, vs. a departure from family practice to a fellowship and practice in another specialty, Dr. Green said. “We looked at physician billings to determine who stopped practicing, so we report only on those who stopped billing the Ontario Health Insurance Program altogether,” he explained.

The ongoing pandemic accelerated the issue of an upcoming wave of physician retirements and added to an already large number of people without a family physician, Dr. Green noted.

“We know there will be significant shortages of family physicians if we don’t modernize our ways of delivering primary care,” said Dr. Green. More research is needed on how to support family doctors with teams and administrative supports to allow them to provide high quality care to more patients, he said. Better models to estimate health workforce needs in primary care are needed as well, he added.

In the United States, a physician shortage has been growing since before the pandemic, according to a report published in 2021 by the Association of American Medical Colleges. In this report, “The Complexities of Physician Supply and Demand: Projections from 2019 to 2034,” the authors specifically projected a primary care physician shortage of 17,800 to 48,000 by 2034. This projection is in part based on an increase in the percentage of the U.S. population aged 65 years and older, which will increase the demand for care, according to the authors. The report also confirmed that many U.S. physicians are approaching retirement age and that more than two of five active physicians will be 65 years or older within the next 10 years.

However, the authors of this U.S. report acknowledged that the impact of the pandemic on existing primary care shortages remains unclear.

“There are still many unknowns about the direct short-term and long-term impacts of COVID-19 on the physician workforce, and it may be several years before those impacts are clearly understood,” they said in the executive summary of their report.

Alison N. Huffstetler, MD, a coauthor of a recent report that tried to identify the active primary care workforce in Virginia, said, “We know from other research that there are not enough primary care doctors, right now, to do the work that needs to be done – some citations have noted it would take a primary care doc over 20 hours a day just to provide preventive care.

“As our population continues to age, live longer, and need more complex care management, we must ensure we have an accountable, accessible, and knowledgeable primary care network to care for our communities,” she said.
 

Current state of primary care in Virginia

The study by Dr. Huffstetler, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and colleagues was published in Annals of Family Medicine. It used a novel strategy involving the analysis of state all-payer claims data to determine how many physicians were practicing primary care in Virginia.

The researchers used the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System (NPPES) and the Virginia All-Payer Claims Database (VA-APCD) and identified all Virginia physicians and their specialties through the NPPES between 2015 and 2019. Active physicians were defined as those with at least one claim in the VA-APCD during the study period. They identified 20,976 active physicians in Virginia, 28.1% of whom were classified as primary care. Of these, 52% were family medicine physicians, 18.5% were internal medicine physicians, 16.8% were pediatricians, 11.8% were ob.gyns., and 0.5% were other specialists.

Clinician specialties were identified via specialty codes from the NPPES. Physicians were identified as primary care providers in two ways. The first way was by identifying those who had a National Uniform Claim Committee (NUCC) taxonomy of family medicine. The NUCC identifies a provider’s specialty using several levels of classification based on board certification and subspecialty certification data. The second identifier was having been a physician who had billed for at least 10 wellness visit codes from Jan. 1, 2019, through Dec. 31, 2019.

Over the 5-year study period (2015-2019), the counts and percentages of primary care physicians in the workforce remained stable, and the overall number of physicians in the state increased by 3.5%, the researchers noted. A total of 60.45% of all physicians and 60.87% of primary care physicians remained active, and 11.66% of all physicians had a claim in only 1 of the 5 years.
 

How distribution and access impact patients

In an interview, Dr. Huffstetler said the study she and colleagues authored “offers a transparent and reproducible process for identifying primary care physicians in a state, where they practice, and what changes in staffing occur over time.”

“In Virginia, this is particularly important, as we recently expanded Medicaid, making primary care more affordable for over 500,000 people,” she said. “We also saw the importance of distribution and accessibility to primary care over the past 3 years of COVID. In order to adequately prepare for community needs in the coming years, we must know who is providing primary care, and where they are.”

However, the model used in this study has its limitations, Dr. Huffstetler said, including the lack of a definitive definition of primary care using claims data.

“We used a data-informed wellness visit threshold, but it is likely that primary care is delivered in some locations without claims that are reflected by a wellness visit, and we hope to look at scope in the future to help refine these results,” she said.
 

Canadian study shows pandemic’s impact on patient care

“The pandemic’s impact on primary care remains palpable, and Dr. Kiran’s team has done an excellent analysis on the practice trends during the past several years,” Dr. Huffstetler said.

“The Canadian analysis uses claims in a similar manner to our study; however, it appears that they already knew who the FPs were in Ontario,” Dr. Huffstetler noted. “Their claims threshold of 50 for active practice was higher than ours, at only 1. Should those FPs have moved to a different specialty, the physicians would still have claims for the patients seen in other subspecialties. As such, I don’t suspect that their analysis miscalculated those that transitioned, rather than stopped practice,” she explained.

The Ontario study was supported by the Initial Credential Evaluation Service, which is funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care, as well as by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Additional support came from the INSPIRE Primary Health Care Research Program, which is also funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The Virginia study was supported by the Department of Medical Assistance Services and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The supply and demand report was conducted for the AAMC by IHS Markit, a global information company.

A higher percentage of family physicians quit during the early months of the pandemic than the average yearly percentage that did in the prior decade, according to data from Canada.

The researchers conducted two analyses of billing claims data for family physicians practicing in Ontario. They examined data for a period from 2010 to 2019 – before the onset of the pandemic – and from 2019 through 2020. The findings were published in Annals of Family Medicine.

Overall, the proportion of family physicians who stopped working rose from an average of 1.6% each year for the period between 2010 and 2019 to 3% in the period from 2019 to 2020. The pandemic data set included 12,247 physicians in Ontario. Of these, 385 (3.1%) reported no billings in the first 6 months of the pandemic.

Compared with family physicians billing for work during the pandemic, those reporting no billings were significantly more likely to be 75 years or older (13.0% vs. 3.4%), to have patient panels of less than 500 patients (40.0% vs. 25.8%), and to be eligible for fee-for-service reimbursement (37.7% vs. 24.9%; P less than .001 for all). The family physicians who reported no billing early in the pandemic also had fewer billing days in the previous year (mean of 73 days vs. 101 days, P less than .001).

In a regression analysis, the absolute increase in the percentage of family physicians who stopped working was 0.3% per year from 2010 to 2019, but rose to 1.2% between 2019 and 2020.

Challenges to family physicians in Ontario in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic included reduced revenue, inability to keep offices fully staffed, and problems obtaining enough personal protective equipment. Such challenges may have prompted some family physicians to stop working prematurely, but more research is needed in other settings, wrote study author Tara Kiran, MD, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues.

“There were a lot of stories and suggestions that more family physicians were choosing to retire due to COVID,” Michael Green, MD, a coauthor of the paper, said in an interview. “Given the preexisting shortages we thought it would be important to see if this was true, and how big of an issue it was,” he said.

Although the absolute number of primary care physicians who stopped working is small, the implications are large given the ongoing shortage of family physicians in Canada, the researchers wrote.

The characteristics of physicians stopping work, such as older age and smaller practice size, were consistent with that of physicians preparing for retirement, the researchers noted. In addition, 56% of the family physicians who stopped working during the pandemic practiced in a patient enrollment model, in which patients are enrolled and between 15% and 70% of payment is based on age and sex. In this study, approximately 80% of physicians worked in this model. The remaining 20% operated in independent, fee-for-service practices.

“Although we cannot directly attribute causation, we hypothesize that some family physicians accelerated their retirement plans because of the pandemic,” the researchers noted. They proposed that possible reasons include health concerns, increased costs of infection prevention and control, reduced revenue from office visits, and burnout. The current study did not examine these issues.

Additional studies are needed to understand the impact on population health, the researchers concluded, but they estimated that the number of family physicians who stopped work during the pandemic would have provided care for approximately 170,000 patients.

The study findings reflect a genuine turnover by family physicians, vs. a departure from family practice to a fellowship and practice in another specialty, Dr. Green said. “We looked at physician billings to determine who stopped practicing, so we report only on those who stopped billing the Ontario Health Insurance Program altogether,” he explained.

The ongoing pandemic accelerated the issue of an upcoming wave of physician retirements and added to an already large number of people without a family physician, Dr. Green noted.

“We know there will be significant shortages of family physicians if we don’t modernize our ways of delivering primary care,” said Dr. Green. More research is needed on how to support family doctors with teams and administrative supports to allow them to provide high quality care to more patients, he said. Better models to estimate health workforce needs in primary care are needed as well, he added.

In the United States, a physician shortage has been growing since before the pandemic, according to a report published in 2021 by the Association of American Medical Colleges. In this report, “The Complexities of Physician Supply and Demand: Projections from 2019 to 2034,” the authors specifically projected a primary care physician shortage of 17,800 to 48,000 by 2034. This projection is in part based on an increase in the percentage of the U.S. population aged 65 years and older, which will increase the demand for care, according to the authors. The report also confirmed that many U.S. physicians are approaching retirement age and that more than two of five active physicians will be 65 years or older within the next 10 years.

However, the authors of this U.S. report acknowledged that the impact of the pandemic on existing primary care shortages remains unclear.

“There are still many unknowns about the direct short-term and long-term impacts of COVID-19 on the physician workforce, and it may be several years before those impacts are clearly understood,” they said in the executive summary of their report.

Alison N. Huffstetler, MD, a coauthor of a recent report that tried to identify the active primary care workforce in Virginia, said, “We know from other research that there are not enough primary care doctors, right now, to do the work that needs to be done – some citations have noted it would take a primary care doc over 20 hours a day just to provide preventive care.

“As our population continues to age, live longer, and need more complex care management, we must ensure we have an accountable, accessible, and knowledgeable primary care network to care for our communities,” she said.
 

Current state of primary care in Virginia

The study by Dr. Huffstetler, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and colleagues was published in Annals of Family Medicine. It used a novel strategy involving the analysis of state all-payer claims data to determine how many physicians were practicing primary care in Virginia.

The researchers used the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System (NPPES) and the Virginia All-Payer Claims Database (VA-APCD) and identified all Virginia physicians and their specialties through the NPPES between 2015 and 2019. Active physicians were defined as those with at least one claim in the VA-APCD during the study period. They identified 20,976 active physicians in Virginia, 28.1% of whom were classified as primary care. Of these, 52% were family medicine physicians, 18.5% were internal medicine physicians, 16.8% were pediatricians, 11.8% were ob.gyns., and 0.5% were other specialists.

Clinician specialties were identified via specialty codes from the NPPES. Physicians were identified as primary care providers in two ways. The first way was by identifying those who had a National Uniform Claim Committee (NUCC) taxonomy of family medicine. The NUCC identifies a provider’s specialty using several levels of classification based on board certification and subspecialty certification data. The second identifier was having been a physician who had billed for at least 10 wellness visit codes from Jan. 1, 2019, through Dec. 31, 2019.

Over the 5-year study period (2015-2019), the counts and percentages of primary care physicians in the workforce remained stable, and the overall number of physicians in the state increased by 3.5%, the researchers noted. A total of 60.45% of all physicians and 60.87% of primary care physicians remained active, and 11.66% of all physicians had a claim in only 1 of the 5 years.
 

How distribution and access impact patients

In an interview, Dr. Huffstetler said the study she and colleagues authored “offers a transparent and reproducible process for identifying primary care physicians in a state, where they practice, and what changes in staffing occur over time.”

“In Virginia, this is particularly important, as we recently expanded Medicaid, making primary care more affordable for over 500,000 people,” she said. “We also saw the importance of distribution and accessibility to primary care over the past 3 years of COVID. In order to adequately prepare for community needs in the coming years, we must know who is providing primary care, and where they are.”

However, the model used in this study has its limitations, Dr. Huffstetler said, including the lack of a definitive definition of primary care using claims data.

“We used a data-informed wellness visit threshold, but it is likely that primary care is delivered in some locations without claims that are reflected by a wellness visit, and we hope to look at scope in the future to help refine these results,” she said.
 

Canadian study shows pandemic’s impact on patient care

“The pandemic’s impact on primary care remains palpable, and Dr. Kiran’s team has done an excellent analysis on the practice trends during the past several years,” Dr. Huffstetler said.

“The Canadian analysis uses claims in a similar manner to our study; however, it appears that they already knew who the FPs were in Ontario,” Dr. Huffstetler noted. “Their claims threshold of 50 for active practice was higher than ours, at only 1. Should those FPs have moved to a different specialty, the physicians would still have claims for the patients seen in other subspecialties. As such, I don’t suspect that their analysis miscalculated those that transitioned, rather than stopped practice,” she explained.

The Ontario study was supported by the Initial Credential Evaluation Service, which is funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care, as well as by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Additional support came from the INSPIRE Primary Health Care Research Program, which is also funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The Virginia study was supported by the Department of Medical Assistance Services and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The supply and demand report was conducted for the AAMC by IHS Markit, a global information company.

Having a sore throat is becoming a dominant symptom of COVID-19 infection, with fever and loss of smell becoming less common, according to recent reports in the United Kingdom.

The shift could be a cause of concern for the fall. As the main symptoms of the coronavirus change, people could spread the virus without realizing it.

“Many people are still using the government guidelines about symptoms, which are wrong,” Tim Spector, a professor of genetic epidemiology at King’s College London, told the Independent.

Prof. Spector cofounded the COVID ZOE app, which is part of the world’s largest COVID-19 study. Throughout the pandemic, researchers have used data from the app to track changes in symptoms.

“At the moment, COVID starts in two-thirds of people with a sore throat,” he said. “Fever and loss of smell are really rare now, so many old people may not think they’ve got COVID. They’d say it’s a cold and not be tested.”

COVID-19 infections in the United Kingdom increased 14% at the end of September, according to data from the U.K.’s Office for National Statistics. More than 1.1 million people tested positive during the week ending Sept. 20, up from 927,000 cases the week before. The numbers continue to increase in England and Wales, with an uncertain trend in Northern Ireland and Scotland.

The fall wave of infections has likely arrived in the United Kingdom, Prof. Spector told the Independent. Omicron variants continue to evolve and are escaping immunity from previous infection and vaccination, which he expects to continue into the winter.

But with reduced testing and surveillance of new variants, public health experts have voiced concerns about tracking the latest variants and COVID-19 trends.

“We can only detect variants or know what’s coming by doing sequencing from PCR testing, and that’s not going on anywhere near the extent it was a year ago,” Lawrence Young, a professor of virology at the University of Warwick, Coventry, England, told the Independent.

“People are going to get various infections over the winter but won’t know what they are because free tests aren’t available,” he said. “It’s going to be a problem.” 

COVID-19 cases are also increasing across Europe, which could mark the first regional spike since the BA.5 wave, according to the latest data from the European CDC. (In the past, increases in Europe have signaled a trend to come in other regions.)

People aged 65 and older have been hit the hardest, the data shows, with cases rising 9% from the previous week. Hospitalizations remain stable for now, although 14 of 27 countries in the European region have noted an upward trend.

“Changes in population mixing following the summer break are likely to be the main driver of these increases, with no indication of changes in the distribution of circulating variants,” the European CDC said.

For now, most COVID-19 numbers are still falling in the United States, according to a weekly CDC update published Sept. 30. About 47,000 cases are being reported each day, marking a 13% decrease from the week before. Hospitalizations dropped 7%, and deaths dropped 6%.

At the same time, test positivity rose slightly last week, from 9.6% to 9.8%. Wastewater surveillance indicates that 53% of sites in the United States reported a decrease in virus levels, while 41% reported an increase last week.

The CDC encouraged people to get the updated Omicron-targeted booster shot for the fall. About 7.5 million Americans have received the updated vaccine. Half of the eligible population in the United States hasn’t received any booster dose yet.

“Bivalent boosters help restore protection that might have gone down since your last dose – and they also give extra protection for you and those around you against all lineages of the Omicron variant,” the CDC wrote. “The more people who stay up to date on vaccinations, the better chance we have of avoiding a possible surge in COVID-19 illness later this fall and winter.”

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

Having a sore throat is becoming a dominant symptom of COVID-19 infection, with fever and loss of smell becoming less common, according to recent reports in the United Kingdom.

The shift could be a cause of concern for the fall. As the main symptoms of the coronavirus change, people could spread the virus without realizing it.

“Many people are still using the government guidelines about symptoms, which are wrong,” Tim Spector, a professor of genetic epidemiology at King’s College London, told the Independent.

Prof. Spector cofounded the COVID ZOE app, which is part of the world’s largest COVID-19 study. Throughout the pandemic, researchers have used data from the app to track changes in symptoms.

“At the moment, COVID starts in two-thirds of people with a sore throat,” he said. “Fever and loss of smell are really rare now, so many old people may not think they’ve got COVID. They’d say it’s a cold and not be tested.”

COVID-19 infections in the United Kingdom increased 14% at the end of September, according to data from the U.K.’s Office for National Statistics. More than 1.1 million people tested positive during the week ending Sept. 20, up from 927,000 cases the week before. The numbers continue to increase in England and Wales, with an uncertain trend in Northern Ireland and Scotland.

The fall wave of infections has likely arrived in the United Kingdom, Prof. Spector told the Independent. Omicron variants continue to evolve and are escaping immunity from previous infection and vaccination, which he expects to continue into the winter.

But with reduced testing and surveillance of new variants, public health experts have voiced concerns about tracking the latest variants and COVID-19 trends.

“We can only detect variants or know what’s coming by doing sequencing from PCR testing, and that’s not going on anywhere near the extent it was a year ago,” Lawrence Young, a professor of virology at the University of Warwick, Coventry, England, told the Independent.

“People are going to get various infections over the winter but won’t know what they are because free tests aren’t available,” he said. “It’s going to be a problem.” 

COVID-19 cases are also increasing across Europe, which could mark the first regional spike since the BA.5 wave, according to the latest data from the European CDC. (In the past, increases in Europe have signaled a trend to come in other regions.)

People aged 65 and older have been hit the hardest, the data shows, with cases rising 9% from the previous week. Hospitalizations remain stable for now, although 14 of 27 countries in the European region have noted an upward trend.

“Changes in population mixing following the summer break are likely to be the main driver of these increases, with no indication of changes in the distribution of circulating variants,” the European CDC said.

For now, most COVID-19 numbers are still falling in the United States, according to a weekly CDC update published Sept. 30. About 47,000 cases are being reported each day, marking a 13% decrease from the week before. Hospitalizations dropped 7%, and deaths dropped 6%.

At the same time, test positivity rose slightly last week, from 9.6% to 9.8%. Wastewater surveillance indicates that 53% of sites in the United States reported a decrease in virus levels, while 41% reported an increase last week.

The CDC encouraged people to get the updated Omicron-targeted booster shot for the fall. About 7.5 million Americans have received the updated vaccine. Half of the eligible population in the United States hasn’t received any booster dose yet.

“Bivalent boosters help restore protection that might have gone down since your last dose – and they also give extra protection for you and those around you against all lineages of the Omicron variant,” the CDC wrote. “The more people who stay up to date on vaccinations, the better chance we have of avoiding a possible surge in COVID-19 illness later this fall and winter.”

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

Having a sore throat is becoming a dominant symptom of COVID-19 infection, with fever and loss of smell becoming less common, according to recent reports in the United Kingdom.

The shift could be a cause of concern for the fall. As the main symptoms of the coronavirus change, people could spread the virus without realizing it.

“Many people are still using the government guidelines about symptoms, which are wrong,” Tim Spector, a professor of genetic epidemiology at King’s College London, told the Independent.

Prof. Spector cofounded the COVID ZOE app, which is part of the world’s largest COVID-19 study. Throughout the pandemic, researchers have used data from the app to track changes in symptoms.

“At the moment, COVID starts in two-thirds of people with a sore throat,” he said. “Fever and loss of smell are really rare now, so many old people may not think they’ve got COVID. They’d say it’s a cold and not be tested.”

COVID-19 infections in the United Kingdom increased 14% at the end of September, according to data from the U.K.’s Office for National Statistics. More than 1.1 million people tested positive during the week ending Sept. 20, up from 927,000 cases the week before. The numbers continue to increase in England and Wales, with an uncertain trend in Northern Ireland and Scotland.

The fall wave of infections has likely arrived in the United Kingdom, Prof. Spector told the Independent. Omicron variants continue to evolve and are escaping immunity from previous infection and vaccination, which he expects to continue into the winter.

But with reduced testing and surveillance of new variants, public health experts have voiced concerns about tracking the latest variants and COVID-19 trends.

“We can only detect variants or know what’s coming by doing sequencing from PCR testing, and that’s not going on anywhere near the extent it was a year ago,” Lawrence Young, a professor of virology at the University of Warwick, Coventry, England, told the Independent.

“People are going to get various infections over the winter but won’t know what they are because free tests aren’t available,” he said. “It’s going to be a problem.” 

COVID-19 cases are also increasing across Europe, which could mark the first regional spike since the BA.5 wave, according to the latest data from the European CDC. (In the past, increases in Europe have signaled a trend to come in other regions.)

People aged 65 and older have been hit the hardest, the data shows, with cases rising 9% from the previous week. Hospitalizations remain stable for now, although 14 of 27 countries in the European region have noted an upward trend.

“Changes in population mixing following the summer break are likely to be the main driver of these increases, with no indication of changes in the distribution of circulating variants,” the European CDC said.

For now, most COVID-19 numbers are still falling in the United States, according to a weekly CDC update published Sept. 30. About 47,000 cases are being reported each day, marking a 13% decrease from the week before. Hospitalizations dropped 7%, and deaths dropped 6%.

At the same time, test positivity rose slightly last week, from 9.6% to 9.8%. Wastewater surveillance indicates that 53% of sites in the United States reported a decrease in virus levels, while 41% reported an increase last week.

The CDC encouraged people to get the updated Omicron-targeted booster shot for the fall. About 7.5 million Americans have received the updated vaccine. Half of the eligible population in the United States hasn’t received any booster dose yet.

“Bivalent boosters help restore protection that might have gone down since your last dose – and they also give extra protection for you and those around you against all lineages of the Omicron variant,” the CDC wrote. “The more people who stay up to date on vaccinations, the better chance we have of avoiding a possible surge in COVID-19 illness later this fall and winter.”

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

People with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases who are taking immunosuppressants don’t mount as strong of an immune defense against the Omicron variant as they did against the original SARS-CoV-2 wild-type virus, according to two studies published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. One of the studies further showed that vaccinated individuals taking immunosuppressants have poorer cross-neutralizing responses to Omicron than do healthy vaccinated individuals, even after three doses of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

filadendron/E+/Getty Images

“We carefully suggest that if Omicron-specific vaccination can be administered, it may be an effective way to reduce the risk of breakthrough infections in patients with autoimmune rheumatic disease,” Sang Tae Choi, MD, PhD, of the University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and one of the authors of the study on cross-neutralizing protection, told this news organization. “However, further research is needed on Omicron-specific vaccine effectiveness in patients with immune dysfunctions. We believe that these study results can be of great benefit in determining the strategy of vaccination in the future.”

The earlier study, published in July, examined the ability of COVID-19 vaccines to induce cross-reactive antibody responses against Omicron infections in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs). The observational study involved 149 patients with ARDs and 94 health care workers as controls, all of whom provided blood samples a median 15 weeks after their second COVID vaccine dose or a median 8 weeks after their third dose. A little more than two-thirds of the patients (68.5%) had received a third mRNA vaccine dose. None of the participants previously had COVID-19.

The researchers compared the rate of breakthrough infections with the Omicron variant to the neutralizing responses in patients’ blood, specifically the cross-neutralizing antibody responses because the original mRNA vaccines targeted a different variant than Omicron. Breakthrough infections were assessed by survey questions.

“Our findings suggested that neither primary series vaccinations nor booster doses are sufficient to induce Omicron-neutralizing responses above the threshold in patients with ARDs, although responses were noticeably increased following the third dose of an mRNA vaccine,” write Woo-Joong Kim, of the Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and his colleagues. “This impairment of cross-neutralization responses across most of our patients contrasts starkly with a potent elicitation of the Omicron-neutralizing responses after the third vaccination in healthy recipients.”

The average neutralizing responses against the original SARS-CoV-2 strain were similar in both groups: 76% in patients with ARDs and 72% in health care workers after the second dose. The mean response after a third dose was 97% in health care workers and 88% in patients.

The average cross-neutralizing response against the Omicron variant was far lower, particularly in those with rheumatic disease: only 11.5%, which rose to 27% after the third dose. Only 39% of the patient sera showed neutralization of Omicron, even after the third dose. Meanwhile, the mean cross-neutralizing response in health care workers was 18% after the second dose and 50% after the third.

When the researchers compared seropositivity rates against the original virus to neutralizing responses against Omicron, the association between these was stronger in health care workers than in those with ARDs. In fact, among patients with ARDs who seroconverted, only 41% showed any response against Omicron. Among all the patients, most of those who didn’t respond to Omicron (93.5%) had initially seroconverted.

The researchers also looked at the ability to neutralize Omicron on the basis of disease in those who received three doses of the vaccine. About half of those with lupus (52%) showed any neutralization against Omicron, compared with 25% of those with rheumatoid arthritis, 37.5% of those with ankylosing spondylitis, 33% of those with Behçet snydrome, and all of those with adult-onset Still’s disease.

The rate of breakthrough infections was lower in patients (19%) than in health care workers (33%). A similar pattern was seen in the more recent study published Sept. 5. Researchers used data from a prospective cohort study in the Netherlands to examine incidence and severity of Omicron breakthrough infections in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. The researchers compared infection rates and severity among 1,593 vaccinated patients with inflammatory disease who were taking immunosuppressants and 579 vaccinated controls (418 patients with inflammatory disease not on immunosuppressants and 161 healthy controls).

One in five patients with inflammatory disease (21%) were taking immunosuppressants that substantially impair antibodies, such as anti-CD20 therapy, S1P modulators, or mycophenolate mofetil combination therapy, and 48% of these patients seroconverted after primary vaccination, compared with 96% of patients taking other immunosuppressants and 98% of controls.

Breakthrough infection rates were similar between the control group (31%) and those taking immunosuppressants (30%). Only three participants had severe disease requiring hospitalization: one control and two patients taking immunosuppressants.

“In both studies, the controls had similar or higher rates of breakthrough infections, compared with the immunosuppressed,” noted Alfred Kim, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Washington University, St Louis, but he added, “one has to consider differences in mitigation strategies, such as masking, that may explain these findings.” That is, patients taking immunosuppressants may be taking fewer risks in the community or have fewer potential exposures, especially in the Korean study, wherein the controls were health care workers.

A greater disparity in infections occurred when considering seroconversion rates. Breakthrough incidence was 38% among those taking immunosuppressants who did not seroconvert, compared with 29% among those who did. A similar trend was seen in breakthrough incidence between those taking strongly antibody-impairing immunosuppressants (36% breakthrough rate) and those taking other immunosuppressants (28%).

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

People with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases who are taking immunosuppressants don’t mount as strong of an immune defense against the Omicron variant as they did against the original SARS-CoV-2 wild-type virus, according to two studies published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. One of the studies further showed that vaccinated individuals taking immunosuppressants have poorer cross-neutralizing responses to Omicron than do healthy vaccinated individuals, even after three doses of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

filadendron/E+/Getty Images

“We carefully suggest that if Omicron-specific vaccination can be administered, it may be an effective way to reduce the risk of breakthrough infections in patients with autoimmune rheumatic disease,” Sang Tae Choi, MD, PhD, of the University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and one of the authors of the study on cross-neutralizing protection, told this news organization. “However, further research is needed on Omicron-specific vaccine effectiveness in patients with immune dysfunctions. We believe that these study results can be of great benefit in determining the strategy of vaccination in the future.”

The earlier study, published in July, examined the ability of COVID-19 vaccines to induce cross-reactive antibody responses against Omicron infections in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs). The observational study involved 149 patients with ARDs and 94 health care workers as controls, all of whom provided blood samples a median 15 weeks after their second COVID vaccine dose or a median 8 weeks after their third dose. A little more than two-thirds of the patients (68.5%) had received a third mRNA vaccine dose. None of the participants previously had COVID-19.

The researchers compared the rate of breakthrough infections with the Omicron variant to the neutralizing responses in patients’ blood, specifically the cross-neutralizing antibody responses because the original mRNA vaccines targeted a different variant than Omicron. Breakthrough infections were assessed by survey questions.

“Our findings suggested that neither primary series vaccinations nor booster doses are sufficient to induce Omicron-neutralizing responses above the threshold in patients with ARDs, although responses were noticeably increased following the third dose of an mRNA vaccine,” write Woo-Joong Kim, of the Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and his colleagues. “This impairment of cross-neutralization responses across most of our patients contrasts starkly with a potent elicitation of the Omicron-neutralizing responses after the third vaccination in healthy recipients.”

The average neutralizing responses against the original SARS-CoV-2 strain were similar in both groups: 76% in patients with ARDs and 72% in health care workers after the second dose. The mean response after a third dose was 97% in health care workers and 88% in patients.

The average cross-neutralizing response against the Omicron variant was far lower, particularly in those with rheumatic disease: only 11.5%, which rose to 27% after the third dose. Only 39% of the patient sera showed neutralization of Omicron, even after the third dose. Meanwhile, the mean cross-neutralizing response in health care workers was 18% after the second dose and 50% after the third.

When the researchers compared seropositivity rates against the original virus to neutralizing responses against Omicron, the association between these was stronger in health care workers than in those with ARDs. In fact, among patients with ARDs who seroconverted, only 41% showed any response against Omicron. Among all the patients, most of those who didn’t respond to Omicron (93.5%) had initially seroconverted.

The researchers also looked at the ability to neutralize Omicron on the basis of disease in those who received three doses of the vaccine. About half of those with lupus (52%) showed any neutralization against Omicron, compared with 25% of those with rheumatoid arthritis, 37.5% of those with ankylosing spondylitis, 33% of those with Behçet snydrome, and all of those with adult-onset Still’s disease.

The rate of breakthrough infections was lower in patients (19%) than in health care workers (33%). A similar pattern was seen in the more recent study published Sept. 5. Researchers used data from a prospective cohort study in the Netherlands to examine incidence and severity of Omicron breakthrough infections in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. The researchers compared infection rates and severity among 1,593 vaccinated patients with inflammatory disease who were taking immunosuppressants and 579 vaccinated controls (418 patients with inflammatory disease not on immunosuppressants and 161 healthy controls).

One in five patients with inflammatory disease (21%) were taking immunosuppressants that substantially impair antibodies, such as anti-CD20 therapy, S1P modulators, or mycophenolate mofetil combination therapy, and 48% of these patients seroconverted after primary vaccination, compared with 96% of patients taking other immunosuppressants and 98% of controls.

Breakthrough infection rates were similar between the control group (31%) and those taking immunosuppressants (30%). Only three participants had severe disease requiring hospitalization: one control and two patients taking immunosuppressants.

“In both studies, the controls had similar or higher rates of breakthrough infections, compared with the immunosuppressed,” noted Alfred Kim, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Washington University, St Louis, but he added, “one has to consider differences in mitigation strategies, such as masking, that may explain these findings.” That is, patients taking immunosuppressants may be taking fewer risks in the community or have fewer potential exposures, especially in the Korean study, wherein the controls were health care workers.

A greater disparity in infections occurred when considering seroconversion rates. Breakthrough incidence was 38% among those taking immunosuppressants who did not seroconvert, compared with 29% among those who did. A similar trend was seen in breakthrough incidence between those taking strongly antibody-impairing immunosuppressants (36% breakthrough rate) and those taking other immunosuppressants (28%).

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

People with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases who are taking immunosuppressants don’t mount as strong of an immune defense against the Omicron variant as they did against the original SARS-CoV-2 wild-type virus, according to two studies published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. One of the studies further showed that vaccinated individuals taking immunosuppressants have poorer cross-neutralizing responses to Omicron than do healthy vaccinated individuals, even after three doses of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

filadendron/E+/Getty Images

“We carefully suggest that if Omicron-specific vaccination can be administered, it may be an effective way to reduce the risk of breakthrough infections in patients with autoimmune rheumatic disease,” Sang Tae Choi, MD, PhD, of the University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and one of the authors of the study on cross-neutralizing protection, told this news organization. “However, further research is needed on Omicron-specific vaccine effectiveness in patients with immune dysfunctions. We believe that these study results can be of great benefit in determining the strategy of vaccination in the future.”

The earlier study, published in July, examined the ability of COVID-19 vaccines to induce cross-reactive antibody responses against Omicron infections in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs). The observational study involved 149 patients with ARDs and 94 health care workers as controls, all of whom provided blood samples a median 15 weeks after their second COVID vaccine dose or a median 8 weeks after their third dose. A little more than two-thirds of the patients (68.5%) had received a third mRNA vaccine dose. None of the participants previously had COVID-19.

The researchers compared the rate of breakthrough infections with the Omicron variant to the neutralizing responses in patients’ blood, specifically the cross-neutralizing antibody responses because the original mRNA vaccines targeted a different variant than Omicron. Breakthrough infections were assessed by survey questions.

“Our findings suggested that neither primary series vaccinations nor booster doses are sufficient to induce Omicron-neutralizing responses above the threshold in patients with ARDs, although responses were noticeably increased following the third dose of an mRNA vaccine,” write Woo-Joong Kim, of the Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and his colleagues. “This impairment of cross-neutralization responses across most of our patients contrasts starkly with a potent elicitation of the Omicron-neutralizing responses after the third vaccination in healthy recipients.”

The average neutralizing responses against the original SARS-CoV-2 strain were similar in both groups: 76% in patients with ARDs and 72% in health care workers after the second dose. The mean response after a third dose was 97% in health care workers and 88% in patients.

The average cross-neutralizing response against the Omicron variant was far lower, particularly in those with rheumatic disease: only 11.5%, which rose to 27% after the third dose. Only 39% of the patient sera showed neutralization of Omicron, even after the third dose. Meanwhile, the mean cross-neutralizing response in health care workers was 18% after the second dose and 50% after the third.

When the researchers compared seropositivity rates against the original virus to neutralizing responses against Omicron, the association between these was stronger in health care workers than in those with ARDs. In fact, among patients with ARDs who seroconverted, only 41% showed any response against Omicron. Among all the patients, most of those who didn’t respond to Omicron (93.5%) had initially seroconverted.

The researchers also looked at the ability to neutralize Omicron on the basis of disease in those who received three doses of the vaccine. About half of those with lupus (52%) showed any neutralization against Omicron, compared with 25% of those with rheumatoid arthritis, 37.5% of those with ankylosing spondylitis, 33% of those with Behçet snydrome, and all of those with adult-onset Still’s disease.

The rate of breakthrough infections was lower in patients (19%) than in health care workers (33%). A similar pattern was seen in the more recent study published Sept. 5. Researchers used data from a prospective cohort study in the Netherlands to examine incidence and severity of Omicron breakthrough infections in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. The researchers compared infection rates and severity among 1,593 vaccinated patients with inflammatory disease who were taking immunosuppressants and 579 vaccinated controls (418 patients with inflammatory disease not on immunosuppressants and 161 healthy controls).

One in five patients with inflammatory disease (21%) were taking immunosuppressants that substantially impair antibodies, such as anti-CD20 therapy, S1P modulators, or mycophenolate mofetil combination therapy, and 48% of these patients seroconverted after primary vaccination, compared with 96% of patients taking other immunosuppressants and 98% of controls.

Breakthrough infection rates were similar between the control group (31%) and those taking immunosuppressants (30%). Only three participants had severe disease requiring hospitalization: one control and two patients taking immunosuppressants.

“In both studies, the controls had similar or higher rates of breakthrough infections, compared with the immunosuppressed,” noted Alfred Kim, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Washington University, St Louis, but he added, “one has to consider differences in mitigation strategies, such as masking, that may explain these findings.” That is, patients taking immunosuppressants may be taking fewer risks in the community or have fewer potential exposures, especially in the Korean study, wherein the controls were health care workers.

A greater disparity in infections occurred when considering seroconversion rates. Breakthrough incidence was 38% among those taking immunosuppressants who did not seroconvert, compared with 29% among those who did. A similar trend was seen in breakthrough incidence between those taking strongly antibody-impairing immunosuppressants (36% breakthrough rate) and those taking other immunosuppressants (28%).

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

COVID-19 causes DNA damage to the heart, affecting the body in a completely different way than the flu does, according to a study published in Immunology. 

The study looked at the hearts of patients who died from COVID-19, the flu, and other causes. The findings could provide clues about why coronavirus has led to complications such as ongoing heart issues.

“We found a lot of DNA damage that was unique to the COVID-19 patients, which wasn’t present in the flu patients,” Arutha Kulasinghe, one of the lead study authors and a research fellow at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, told the Brisbane Times.

“So in this study, COVID-19 and flu look very different in the way they affect the heart,” he said.

Dr. Kulasinghe and colleagues analyzed the hearts of seven COVID-19 patients, two flu patients, and six patients who died from other causes. They used transcriptomic profiling, which looks at the DNA landscape of an organ, to investigate heart tissue from the patients.

Because of previous studies about heart problems associated with COVID-19, he and colleagues expected to find extreme inflammation in the heart. Instead, they found that inflammation signals had been suppressed in the heart, and markers for DNA damage and repair were much higher. They’re still unsure of the underlying cause.

“The indications here are that there’s DNA damage here, it’s not inflammation,” Dr. Kulasinghe said. “There’s something else going on that we need to figure out.”

The damage was similar to the way chronic diseases such as diabetes and cancer appear in the heart, he said, with heart tissue showing DNA damage signals. 

Dr. Kulasinghe said he hopes other studies can build on the findings to develop risk models to understand which patients may face a higher risk of serious COVID-19 complications. In turn, this could help doctors provide early treatment. For instance, all seven COVID-19 patients had other chronic diseases, such as diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease. 

“Ideally in the future, if you have cardiovascular disease, if you’re obese or have other complications, and you’ve got a signature in your blood that indicates you are at risk of severe disease, then we can risk-stratify patients when they are diagnosed,” he said. 

The research is a preliminary step, Dr. Kulasinghe said, because of the small sample size. This type of study is often difficult to conduct because researchers have to wait for the availability of organs, as well as request permission from families for postmortem autopsies and biopsies, to be able to look at the effects on dead tissues.

“Our challenge now is to draw a clinical finding from this, which we can’t at this stage,” he added. “But it’s a really fundamental biological difference we’re observing [between COVID-19 and flu], which we need to validate with larger studies.”

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

COVID-19 causes DNA damage to the heart, affecting the body in a completely different way than the flu does, according to a study published in Immunology. 

The study looked at the hearts of patients who died from COVID-19, the flu, and other causes. The findings could provide clues about why coronavirus has led to complications such as ongoing heart issues.

“We found a lot of DNA damage that was unique to the COVID-19 patients, which wasn’t present in the flu patients,” Arutha Kulasinghe, one of the lead study authors and a research fellow at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, told the Brisbane Times.

“So in this study, COVID-19 and flu look very different in the way they affect the heart,” he said.

Dr. Kulasinghe and colleagues analyzed the hearts of seven COVID-19 patients, two flu patients, and six patients who died from other causes. They used transcriptomic profiling, which looks at the DNA landscape of an organ, to investigate heart tissue from the patients.

Because of previous studies about heart problems associated with COVID-19, he and colleagues expected to find extreme inflammation in the heart. Instead, they found that inflammation signals had been suppressed in the heart, and markers for DNA damage and repair were much higher. They’re still unsure of the underlying cause.

“The indications here are that there’s DNA damage here, it’s not inflammation,” Dr. Kulasinghe said. “There’s something else going on that we need to figure out.”

The damage was similar to the way chronic diseases such as diabetes and cancer appear in the heart, he said, with heart tissue showing DNA damage signals. 

Dr. Kulasinghe said he hopes other studies can build on the findings to develop risk models to understand which patients may face a higher risk of serious COVID-19 complications. In turn, this could help doctors provide early treatment. For instance, all seven COVID-19 patients had other chronic diseases, such as diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease. 

“Ideally in the future, if you have cardiovascular disease, if you’re obese or have other complications, and you’ve got a signature in your blood that indicates you are at risk of severe disease, then we can risk-stratify patients when they are diagnosed,” he said. 

The research is a preliminary step, Dr. Kulasinghe said, because of the small sample size. This type of study is often difficult to conduct because researchers have to wait for the availability of organs, as well as request permission from families for postmortem autopsies and biopsies, to be able to look at the effects on dead tissues.

“Our challenge now is to draw a clinical finding from this, which we can’t at this stage,” he added. “But it’s a really fundamental biological difference we’re observing [between COVID-19 and flu], which we need to validate with larger studies.”

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

COVID-19 causes DNA damage to the heart, affecting the body in a completely different way than the flu does, according to a study published in Immunology. 

The study looked at the hearts of patients who died from COVID-19, the flu, and other causes. The findings could provide clues about why coronavirus has led to complications such as ongoing heart issues.

“We found a lot of DNA damage that was unique to the COVID-19 patients, which wasn’t present in the flu patients,” Arutha Kulasinghe, one of the lead study authors and a research fellow at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, told the Brisbane Times.

“So in this study, COVID-19 and flu look very different in the way they affect the heart,” he said.

Dr. Kulasinghe and colleagues analyzed the hearts of seven COVID-19 patients, two flu patients, and six patients who died from other causes. They used transcriptomic profiling, which looks at the DNA landscape of an organ, to investigate heart tissue from the patients.

Because of previous studies about heart problems associated with COVID-19, he and colleagues expected to find extreme inflammation in the heart. Instead, they found that inflammation signals had been suppressed in the heart, and markers for DNA damage and repair were much higher. They’re still unsure of the underlying cause.

“The indications here are that there’s DNA damage here, it’s not inflammation,” Dr. Kulasinghe said. “There’s something else going on that we need to figure out.”

The damage was similar to the way chronic diseases such as diabetes and cancer appear in the heart, he said, with heart tissue showing DNA damage signals. 

Dr. Kulasinghe said he hopes other studies can build on the findings to develop risk models to understand which patients may face a higher risk of serious COVID-19 complications. In turn, this could help doctors provide early treatment. For instance, all seven COVID-19 patients had other chronic diseases, such as diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease. 

“Ideally in the future, if you have cardiovascular disease, if you’re obese or have other complications, and you’ve got a signature in your blood that indicates you are at risk of severe disease, then we can risk-stratify patients when they are diagnosed,” he said. 

The research is a preliminary step, Dr. Kulasinghe said, because of the small sample size. This type of study is often difficult to conduct because researchers have to wait for the availability of organs, as well as request permission from families for postmortem autopsies and biopsies, to be able to look at the effects on dead tissues.

“Our challenge now is to draw a clinical finding from this, which we can’t at this stage,” he added. “But it’s a really fundamental biological difference we’re observing [between COVID-19 and flu], which we need to validate with larger studies.”

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m David Kerr, professor of cancer medicine at Oxford. As I’m gearing up to have my autumnal COVID-19 booster vaccine, there’s a small controversy raging in the United Kingdom about access to a medicine called Evusheld.

This was developed by AstraZeneca. It’s a combination of two relatively long-acting antibodies (tixagevimab and cilgavimab) that bind to the spike protein on the outside of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the virus that causes COVID-19. The antibody binds to the spike protein and prevents it from binding to and infecting or damaging cells, so it’s what’s called preexposure prophylaxis.

Although vaccination is still the best approach to protecting against and, one would hope, conferring a degree of herd protection to our population as a whole, there are some people who cannot mount an appropriate immune response and we have to take care of these folks. Because the vaccines don’t work very well for them, the vaccine itself is not sufficient to protect them.

Evusheld, in trials that have been done hitherto, can protect people who can’t mount an immune response from being infected. Between 75% and 80% of patients treated with Evusheld didn’t get COVID-19. The duration of effect seemed to be at least for 6 months, possibly longer, so it’s a really good result. This caused our medicines regulatory authority in the United Kingdom to approve the drug in March of this year. Although the drug has been approved, it’s not yet funded and not yet available for vulnerable patients.

These are patients who, for reasons of inborn genetic diseases, cannot mount an immune response; patients who are pharmacologically immune depleted; patients who have had transplants and are on immunosuppressive drugs; and some of our cancer patients, particularly those with blood or hematologic malignancies, who can receive very heavy treatment that can pound the immune system to bits.

These are, in the population as a whole, relatively small numbers, but an important number of people who are still vulnerable to developing COVID-19 despite vaccination.

Why isn’t the drug available? We have a two-stage process in the United Kingdom. We have the scientists and regulatory authorities looking at the evidence and data and saying, “Yes, it stacks up. This drug is effective and safe to some extent.”

The second phase is a health technology assessment undertaken by NICE, our National Institute for Health and Care Excellence – something that I’ve talked about a number of times before and the sometimes seemingly arbitrary decisions that they make. NICE hasn’t evaluated the drug yet, and the British government has held out because they are arguing that we don’t have enough data.

The trials with Evusheld were done before the Omicron variant dominated, as it does now; therefore, they are looking to try to work with AstraZeneca to generate more real-world data to show that Evusheld would prevent infection from the Omicron variant of the virus. Equally as important, how long does that protection last? Is it as protective against Omicron, and what’s the duration of that protection? Those bits of work are going on now.

Some real-world data are starting to emerge, showing that Evusheld will offer some degree of protection against Omicron, but there are still question marks about duration and the proportion of the population that would benefit.

NICE aren’t due to report on this – although the drug was approved in March of this year – until next year some time. That’s what’s caused a degree of consternation in the community of patients that we serve. Some of my clinical colleagues are beating the drum, saying, “We must have this drug now.” We’re still waiting on NICE to announce.

One obvious way to go around this is the government, which has bent over backwards in the United Kingdom to do as much as it can to protect the population from COVID-19. There was fantastic vaccine rollout and an extraordinary economic package to support individuals during lockdown to maintain the workforce, to support families and people at home. They’ve done a fantastic job.

Wanting to damp down this controversy, perhaps the sensible thing would be to ask NICE to evaluate the data that they have just now, to allow AstraZeneca to present whatever real-world evidence they have, and although it may not be perfect, it may be sufficient – we don’t know – to pass the NICE health technology assessment.

Watch this space. Let’s see what happens. If I were government, that’s what I would do. I would ask NICE to bring their appraisal forward. I would ask them to work with AstraZeneca to go over every ounce and iota of data that they have to see if this drug will be sufficiently effective and sufficiently cost-effective to be used before winter comes. I think the whole world is holding its breath, expecting another COVID-19 winter surge. Now would be the time to act.

What do you think? Here we are in the United Kingdom discussing yet another quasi–”health-rationing” problem. It’s not. This is about collecting more data and being as rational as possible. Can we accelerate that process? Perhaps.

Thanks for listening. I’d be very grateful for any comments that you might choose to make.
 

David J. Kerr, MD, DSc, is a professor of cancer medicine at the University of Oxford (England). He disclosed financial relationships with Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Genomic Health, Merck Serono, Roche, and Celleron Therapeutics.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m David Kerr, professor of cancer medicine at Oxford. As I’m gearing up to have my autumnal COVID-19 booster vaccine, there’s a small controversy raging in the United Kingdom about access to a medicine called Evusheld.

This was developed by AstraZeneca. It’s a combination of two relatively long-acting antibodies (tixagevimab and cilgavimab) that bind to the spike protein on the outside of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the virus that causes COVID-19. The antibody binds to the spike protein and prevents it from binding to and infecting or damaging cells, so it’s what’s called preexposure prophylaxis.

Although vaccination is still the best approach to protecting against and, one would hope, conferring a degree of herd protection to our population as a whole, there are some people who cannot mount an appropriate immune response and we have to take care of these folks. Because the vaccines don’t work very well for them, the vaccine itself is not sufficient to protect them.

Evusheld, in trials that have been done hitherto, can protect people who can’t mount an immune response from being infected. Between 75% and 80% of patients treated with Evusheld didn’t get COVID-19. The duration of effect seemed to be at least for 6 months, possibly longer, so it’s a really good result. This caused our medicines regulatory authority in the United Kingdom to approve the drug in March of this year. Although the drug has been approved, it’s not yet funded and not yet available for vulnerable patients.

These are patients who, for reasons of inborn genetic diseases, cannot mount an immune response; patients who are pharmacologically immune depleted; patients who have had transplants and are on immunosuppressive drugs; and some of our cancer patients, particularly those with blood or hematologic malignancies, who can receive very heavy treatment that can pound the immune system to bits.

These are, in the population as a whole, relatively small numbers, but an important number of people who are still vulnerable to developing COVID-19 despite vaccination.

Why isn’t the drug available? We have a two-stage process in the United Kingdom. We have the scientists and regulatory authorities looking at the evidence and data and saying, “Yes, it stacks up. This drug is effective and safe to some extent.”

The second phase is a health technology assessment undertaken by NICE, our National Institute for Health and Care Excellence – something that I’ve talked about a number of times before and the sometimes seemingly arbitrary decisions that they make. NICE hasn’t evaluated the drug yet, and the British government has held out because they are arguing that we don’t have enough data.

The trials with Evusheld were done before the Omicron variant dominated, as it does now; therefore, they are looking to try to work with AstraZeneca to generate more real-world data to show that Evusheld would prevent infection from the Omicron variant of the virus. Equally as important, how long does that protection last? Is it as protective against Omicron, and what’s the duration of that protection? Those bits of work are going on now.

Some real-world data are starting to emerge, showing that Evusheld will offer some degree of protection against Omicron, but there are still question marks about duration and the proportion of the population that would benefit.

NICE aren’t due to report on this – although the drug was approved in March of this year – until next year some time. That’s what’s caused a degree of consternation in the community of patients that we serve. Some of my clinical colleagues are beating the drum, saying, “We must have this drug now.” We’re still waiting on NICE to announce.

One obvious way to go around this is the government, which has bent over backwards in the United Kingdom to do as much as it can to protect the population from COVID-19. There was fantastic vaccine rollout and an extraordinary economic package to support individuals during lockdown to maintain the workforce, to support families and people at home. They’ve done a fantastic job.

Wanting to damp down this controversy, perhaps the sensible thing would be to ask NICE to evaluate the data that they have just now, to allow AstraZeneca to present whatever real-world evidence they have, and although it may not be perfect, it may be sufficient – we don’t know – to pass the NICE health technology assessment.

Watch this space. Let’s see what happens. If I were government, that’s what I would do. I would ask NICE to bring their appraisal forward. I would ask them to work with AstraZeneca to go over every ounce and iota of data that they have to see if this drug will be sufficiently effective and sufficiently cost-effective to be used before winter comes. I think the whole world is holding its breath, expecting another COVID-19 winter surge. Now would be the time to act.

What do you think? Here we are in the United Kingdom discussing yet another quasi–”health-rationing” problem. It’s not. This is about collecting more data and being as rational as possible. Can we accelerate that process? Perhaps.

Thanks for listening. I’d be very grateful for any comments that you might choose to make.
 

David J. Kerr, MD, DSc, is a professor of cancer medicine at the University of Oxford (England). He disclosed financial relationships with Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Genomic Health, Merck Serono, Roche, and Celleron Therapeutics.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m David Kerr, professor of cancer medicine at Oxford. As I’m gearing up to have my autumnal COVID-19 booster vaccine, there’s a small controversy raging in the United Kingdom about access to a medicine called Evusheld.

This was developed by AstraZeneca. It’s a combination of two relatively long-acting antibodies (tixagevimab and cilgavimab) that bind to the spike protein on the outside of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the virus that causes COVID-19. The antibody binds to the spike protein and prevents it from binding to and infecting or damaging cells, so it’s what’s called preexposure prophylaxis.

Although vaccination is still the best approach to protecting against and, one would hope, conferring a degree of herd protection to our population as a whole, there are some people who cannot mount an appropriate immune response and we have to take care of these folks. Because the vaccines don’t work very well for them, the vaccine itself is not sufficient to protect them.

Evusheld, in trials that have been done hitherto, can protect people who can’t mount an immune response from being infected. Between 75% and 80% of patients treated with Evusheld didn’t get COVID-19. The duration of effect seemed to be at least for 6 months, possibly longer, so it’s a really good result. This caused our medicines regulatory authority in the United Kingdom to approve the drug in March of this year. Although the drug has been approved, it’s not yet funded and not yet available for vulnerable patients.

These are patients who, for reasons of inborn genetic diseases, cannot mount an immune response; patients who are pharmacologically immune depleted; patients who have had transplants and are on immunosuppressive drugs; and some of our cancer patients, particularly those with blood or hematologic malignancies, who can receive very heavy treatment that can pound the immune system to bits.

These are, in the population as a whole, relatively small numbers, but an important number of people who are still vulnerable to developing COVID-19 despite vaccination.

Why isn’t the drug available? We have a two-stage process in the United Kingdom. We have the scientists and regulatory authorities looking at the evidence and data and saying, “Yes, it stacks up. This drug is effective and safe to some extent.”

The second phase is a health technology assessment undertaken by NICE, our National Institute for Health and Care Excellence – something that I’ve talked about a number of times before and the sometimes seemingly arbitrary decisions that they make. NICE hasn’t evaluated the drug yet, and the British government has held out because they are arguing that we don’t have enough data.

The trials with Evusheld were done before the Omicron variant dominated, as it does now; therefore, they are looking to try to work with AstraZeneca to generate more real-world data to show that Evusheld would prevent infection from the Omicron variant of the virus. Equally as important, how long does that protection last? Is it as protective against Omicron, and what’s the duration of that protection? Those bits of work are going on now.

Some real-world data are starting to emerge, showing that Evusheld will offer some degree of protection against Omicron, but there are still question marks about duration and the proportion of the population that would benefit.

NICE aren’t due to report on this – although the drug was approved in March of this year – until next year some time. That’s what’s caused a degree of consternation in the community of patients that we serve. Some of my clinical colleagues are beating the drum, saying, “We must have this drug now.” We’re still waiting on NICE to announce.

One obvious way to go around this is the government, which has bent over backwards in the United Kingdom to do as much as it can to protect the population from COVID-19. There was fantastic vaccine rollout and an extraordinary economic package to support individuals during lockdown to maintain the workforce, to support families and people at home. They’ve done a fantastic job.

Wanting to damp down this controversy, perhaps the sensible thing would be to ask NICE to evaluate the data that they have just now, to allow AstraZeneca to present whatever real-world evidence they have, and although it may not be perfect, it may be sufficient – we don’t know – to pass the NICE health technology assessment.

Watch this space. Let’s see what happens. If I were government, that’s what I would do. I would ask NICE to bring their appraisal forward. I would ask them to work with AstraZeneca to go over every ounce and iota of data that they have to see if this drug will be sufficiently effective and sufficiently cost-effective to be used before winter comes. I think the whole world is holding its breath, expecting another COVID-19 winter surge. Now would be the time to act.

What do you think? Here we are in the United Kingdom discussing yet another quasi–”health-rationing” problem. It’s not. This is about collecting more data and being as rational as possible. Can we accelerate that process? Perhaps.

Thanks for listening. I’d be very grateful for any comments that you might choose to make.
 

David J. Kerr, MD, DSc, is a professor of cancer medicine at the University of Oxford (England). He disclosed financial relationships with Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Genomic Health, Merck Serono, Roche, and Celleron Therapeutics.

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

A retrospective study that analyzed sex disparities in patients with COVID-19 and rheumatoid arthritis found that men had more baseline comorbidities and increased risk of COVID-19–related outcomes, compared with women.

“Differences in genetics between sex and sex steroid hormones may play a role in predisposition to COVID-19 infection as well as modulating the disease progression,” according to Xiaofeng Zhou, PhD, senior director at Pfizer, New York, and the study’s lead author.

Dr. Zhou presented her findings at The Lancet Summit on Sex and Gender in Rheumatology.

Patients with chronic rheumatic diseases treated with immunomodulatory therapies may be at higher risk for more severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization, complications, and death. Research on sex-based disparities in RA patients with COVID-19 in the United States is limited, said Dr. Zhou, who embarked on a retrospective cohort study to examine the demographic and clinical characteristics of RA patients with COVID-19 and estimate the risk of possible COVID-19 outcomes by sex.

Dr. Zhou and colleagues used U.S. COVID-19 data collected through electronic health records by Optum during 2020 to June 2021. The study included adult patients with RA and a COVID-19 diagnosis (≥ 1 diagnosis code or positive SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test) and greater than or equal to 183 days of database enrollment who received treatment with immunomodulatory therapies prior to the diagnosis date. They were stratified by sex.

Investigators used logistic regression to estimate the risk of 11 possible COVID-19–related outcomes within 30 days of the COVID-19 diagnosis (hospitalization, ICU admission, pneumonia, kidney failure, thrombotic event, heart failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS], sepsis/septic shock, mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO], in-hospital death, and all-cause mortality), adjusting for demographics and baseline clinical covariates.

A total of 4,476 COVID-19 patients with RA (78% female) took part in the study. Male patients trended older (64 vs. 60 years) and had lower African American representation and Medicaid enrollment than female patients, but they had more baseline comorbidities such as hypertension (55% vs. 45%), hyperlipidemia (45% vs. 33%), diabetes (25% vs. 20%), coronary artery disease (28% vs. 12%), and chronic kidney disease (20% vs. 15%).

Eight of the eleven COVID-19 outcomes were significantly more likely to occur in men than women (hospitalization: odds ratio, 1.32 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11-1.56]; ICU admission: OR, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.36-2.40]; mechanical ventilation/ECMO: OR, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.04-2.11]; in-hospital death: OR, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.13-2.07]; all-cause mortality: OR, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.09-1.86]; sepsis: OR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.20-2.02]; kidney failure: OR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.15-1.85]; ARDS: OR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.15-1.69]).

Sex hormones factor into risk

The data illustrated that men with RA had more baseline comorbidities and increased risk of COVID-19 outcomes than women.

Sex hormones regulate virus entry into host cells, respiratory function, immune response, the cardiovascular system, and coagulation, explained Dr. Zhou.

Estrogen and progesterone in women could help develop stronger and efficient immune responses to viruses and reduce virus entry into the host cells. Also, “[the] larger number of copies of ACE2 genes in women, [which] is linked with protection in the lungs against edema, permeability, and pulmonary damage, could be associated with lower incidence of severe COVID-19 outcomes, such as respiratory-related mortality and mortality,” Dr. Zhou said.

By comparison, androgens in men may increase virus entry into the host cells and promote unfavorable immune response through the induction of cytokine production and reducing the antibody response to the virus. This could lead to severe infection, Dr. Zhou said.

Sex-based differences in steroid hormones may also explain the higher incidence of morbidity and fatality that’s been observed in other studies of male patients with other infectious diseases, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome.
 

Study bolsters evidence on sex disparities

The results add real-world evidence to the limited literature on sex disparities in COVID-19 outcomes among patients with RA in the United States, Dr. Zhou said. “The differential role in sex steroid hormones among women and men may shed light on clinical management of COVID-19 patients and the need to consider sex-specific approaches in clinical trials in preventing and treating COVID-19 patients,” she said.

Considering that all patients are recommended to get COVID-19 vaccinations, “it is difficult to say how this impacts clinical practice,” said Janet Pope, MD, MPH, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Western Ontario, London, who was not involved with the study.

Sharing results with some patients may help to encourage vaccination, thus reducing risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes, Dr. Pope said.

In future studies, Dr. Zhou suggests using multiple databases and considering other geographies beyond the United States to further understand the etiology of sexual dimorphism in COVID-19 and expand generalizability. “In addition, future research will seek to provide insights into health equity gaps in the management of COVID-19. This may inform development of precision medicines and vaccines, especially among patients on immunosuppressive treatments,” she said.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Zhou and other study authors are Pfizer employees and hold Pfizer stock.

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

A retrospective study that analyzed sex disparities in patients with COVID-19 and rheumatoid arthritis found that men had more baseline comorbidities and increased risk of COVID-19–related outcomes, compared with women.

“Differences in genetics between sex and sex steroid hormones may play a role in predisposition to COVID-19 infection as well as modulating the disease progression,” according to Xiaofeng Zhou, PhD, senior director at Pfizer, New York, and the study’s lead author.

Dr. Zhou presented her findings at The Lancet Summit on Sex and Gender in Rheumatology.

Patients with chronic rheumatic diseases treated with immunomodulatory therapies may be at higher risk for more severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization, complications, and death. Research on sex-based disparities in RA patients with COVID-19 in the United States is limited, said Dr. Zhou, who embarked on a retrospective cohort study to examine the demographic and clinical characteristics of RA patients with COVID-19 and estimate the risk of possible COVID-19 outcomes by sex.

Dr. Zhou and colleagues used U.S. COVID-19 data collected through electronic health records by Optum during 2020 to June 2021. The study included adult patients with RA and a COVID-19 diagnosis (≥ 1 diagnosis code or positive SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test) and greater than or equal to 183 days of database enrollment who received treatment with immunomodulatory therapies prior to the diagnosis date. They were stratified by sex.

Investigators used logistic regression to estimate the risk of 11 possible COVID-19–related outcomes within 30 days of the COVID-19 diagnosis (hospitalization, ICU admission, pneumonia, kidney failure, thrombotic event, heart failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS], sepsis/septic shock, mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO], in-hospital death, and all-cause mortality), adjusting for demographics and baseline clinical covariates.

A total of 4,476 COVID-19 patients with RA (78% female) took part in the study. Male patients trended older (64 vs. 60 years) and had lower African American representation and Medicaid enrollment than female patients, but they had more baseline comorbidities such as hypertension (55% vs. 45%), hyperlipidemia (45% vs. 33%), diabetes (25% vs. 20%), coronary artery disease (28% vs. 12%), and chronic kidney disease (20% vs. 15%).

Eight of the eleven COVID-19 outcomes were significantly more likely to occur in men than women (hospitalization: odds ratio, 1.32 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11-1.56]; ICU admission: OR, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.36-2.40]; mechanical ventilation/ECMO: OR, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.04-2.11]; in-hospital death: OR, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.13-2.07]; all-cause mortality: OR, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.09-1.86]; sepsis: OR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.20-2.02]; kidney failure: OR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.15-1.85]; ARDS: OR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.15-1.69]).

Sex hormones factor into risk

The data illustrated that men with RA had more baseline comorbidities and increased risk of COVID-19 outcomes than women.

Sex hormones regulate virus entry into host cells, respiratory function, immune response, the cardiovascular system, and coagulation, explained Dr. Zhou.

Estrogen and progesterone in women could help develop stronger and efficient immune responses to viruses and reduce virus entry into the host cells. Also, “[the] larger number of copies of ACE2 genes in women, [which] is linked with protection in the lungs against edema, permeability, and pulmonary damage, could be associated with lower incidence of severe COVID-19 outcomes, such as respiratory-related mortality and mortality,” Dr. Zhou said.

By comparison, androgens in men may increase virus entry into the host cells and promote unfavorable immune response through the induction of cytokine production and reducing the antibody response to the virus. This could lead to severe infection, Dr. Zhou said.

Sex-based differences in steroid hormones may also explain the higher incidence of morbidity and fatality that’s been observed in other studies of male patients with other infectious diseases, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome.
 

Study bolsters evidence on sex disparities

The results add real-world evidence to the limited literature on sex disparities in COVID-19 outcomes among patients with RA in the United States, Dr. Zhou said. “The differential role in sex steroid hormones among women and men may shed light on clinical management of COVID-19 patients and the need to consider sex-specific approaches in clinical trials in preventing and treating COVID-19 patients,” she said.

Considering that all patients are recommended to get COVID-19 vaccinations, “it is difficult to say how this impacts clinical practice,” said Janet Pope, MD, MPH, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Western Ontario, London, who was not involved with the study.

Sharing results with some patients may help to encourage vaccination, thus reducing risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes, Dr. Pope said.

In future studies, Dr. Zhou suggests using multiple databases and considering other geographies beyond the United States to further understand the etiology of sexual dimorphism in COVID-19 and expand generalizability. “In addition, future research will seek to provide insights into health equity gaps in the management of COVID-19. This may inform development of precision medicines and vaccines, especially among patients on immunosuppressive treatments,” she said.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Zhou and other study authors are Pfizer employees and hold Pfizer stock.

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

A retrospective study that analyzed sex disparities in patients with COVID-19 and rheumatoid arthritis found that men had more baseline comorbidities and increased risk of COVID-19–related outcomes, compared with women.

“Differences in genetics between sex and sex steroid hormones may play a role in predisposition to COVID-19 infection as well as modulating the disease progression,” according to Xiaofeng Zhou, PhD, senior director at Pfizer, New York, and the study’s lead author.

Dr. Zhou presented her findings at The Lancet Summit on Sex and Gender in Rheumatology.

Patients with chronic rheumatic diseases treated with immunomodulatory therapies may be at higher risk for more severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization, complications, and death. Research on sex-based disparities in RA patients with COVID-19 in the United States is limited, said Dr. Zhou, who embarked on a retrospective cohort study to examine the demographic and clinical characteristics of RA patients with COVID-19 and estimate the risk of possible COVID-19 outcomes by sex.

Dr. Zhou and colleagues used U.S. COVID-19 data collected through electronic health records by Optum during 2020 to June 2021. The study included adult patients with RA and a COVID-19 diagnosis (≥ 1 diagnosis code or positive SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test) and greater than or equal to 183 days of database enrollment who received treatment with immunomodulatory therapies prior to the diagnosis date. They were stratified by sex.

Investigators used logistic regression to estimate the risk of 11 possible COVID-19–related outcomes within 30 days of the COVID-19 diagnosis (hospitalization, ICU admission, pneumonia, kidney failure, thrombotic event, heart failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS], sepsis/septic shock, mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO], in-hospital death, and all-cause mortality), adjusting for demographics and baseline clinical covariates.

A total of 4,476 COVID-19 patients with RA (78% female) took part in the study. Male patients trended older (64 vs. 60 years) and had lower African American representation and Medicaid enrollment than female patients, but they had more baseline comorbidities such as hypertension (55% vs. 45%), hyperlipidemia (45% vs. 33%), diabetes (25% vs. 20%), coronary artery disease (28% vs. 12%), and chronic kidney disease (20% vs. 15%).

Eight of the eleven COVID-19 outcomes were significantly more likely to occur in men than women (hospitalization: odds ratio, 1.32 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11-1.56]; ICU admission: OR, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.36-2.40]; mechanical ventilation/ECMO: OR, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.04-2.11]; in-hospital death: OR, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.13-2.07]; all-cause mortality: OR, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.09-1.86]; sepsis: OR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.20-2.02]; kidney failure: OR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.15-1.85]; ARDS: OR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.15-1.69]).

Sex hormones factor into risk

The data illustrated that men with RA had more baseline comorbidities and increased risk of COVID-19 outcomes than women.

Sex hormones regulate virus entry into host cells, respiratory function, immune response, the cardiovascular system, and coagulation, explained Dr. Zhou.

Estrogen and progesterone in women could help develop stronger and efficient immune responses to viruses and reduce virus entry into the host cells. Also, “[the] larger number of copies of ACE2 genes in women, [which] is linked with protection in the lungs against edema, permeability, and pulmonary damage, could be associated with lower incidence of severe COVID-19 outcomes, such as respiratory-related mortality and mortality,” Dr. Zhou said.

By comparison, androgens in men may increase virus entry into the host cells and promote unfavorable immune response through the induction of cytokine production and reducing the antibody response to the virus. This could lead to severe infection, Dr. Zhou said.

Sex-based differences in steroid hormones may also explain the higher incidence of morbidity and fatality that’s been observed in other studies of male patients with other infectious diseases, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome.
 

Study bolsters evidence on sex disparities

The results add real-world evidence to the limited literature on sex disparities in COVID-19 outcomes among patients with RA in the United States, Dr. Zhou said. “The differential role in sex steroid hormones among women and men may shed light on clinical management of COVID-19 patients and the need to consider sex-specific approaches in clinical trials in preventing and treating COVID-19 patients,” she said.

Considering that all patients are recommended to get COVID-19 vaccinations, “it is difficult to say how this impacts clinical practice,” said Janet Pope, MD, MPH, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Western Ontario, London, who was not involved with the study.

Sharing results with some patients may help to encourage vaccination, thus reducing risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes, Dr. Pope said.

In future studies, Dr. Zhou suggests using multiple databases and considering other geographies beyond the United States to further understand the etiology of sexual dimorphism in COVID-19 and expand generalizability. “In addition, future research will seek to provide insights into health equity gaps in the management of COVID-19. This may inform development of precision medicines and vaccines, especially among patients on immunosuppressive treatments,” she said.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Zhou and other study authors are Pfizer employees and hold Pfizer stock.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with the development of anorexia nervosa in Canadian children and adolescents, data suggest.

Preliminary results of the Canadian Paediatric Surveillance Program (CPSP) indicate that the pandemic has been a precipitating factor in the development of anorexia nervosa in almost half of children and adolescents studied. The pandemic also has precipitated hospitalizations for anorexia in more than one-third of cases.

“Data globally, and certainly our data here in Canada, have shown a real increase in health care utilization with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic,” study author Debra Katzman, MD, professor of pediatrics at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “And when I talk about health care utilization, I’m talking about hospitalizations for eating disorders.”

The data were included in the 2021 results of the CPSP.
 

Focus on appearance

CPSP is a collaboration between the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Canadian Pediatric Society that consists of a network of 2,800 pediatricians and pediatric subspecialists across Canada. The latest results include surveillance studies on 14 diseases and conditions, with data collected during various periods.

From April 2020 to May 2021, researchers identified 1,800 COVID-19 cases in children and collected detailed information on 1,456 of them, including 405 cases hospitalized with pediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome (PIMS). The median age of hospitalized cases was 3.2 years for SARS-CoV-2 infection and 5.4 years for PIMS.

Dr. Katzman and colleagues observed 118 first-time hospitalizations for anorexia nervosa between Sept. 1 and Dec. 31, 2021. More than 90% of reported cases were female, with 66% of verified cases in teens aged 14-17 years and the remainder in adolescents aged 11-13 years.

In 49% of cases, the reporting physician identified the COVID-19 pandemic as a precipitating factor in the development of anorexia nervosa. In 37% of cases, the reporting physician identified the pandemic as having precipitated the anorexia-related hospitalization.

Last year, a cross-sectional analysis of children in Canada reported that monthly hospitalizations for anorexia nervosa increased from 7.5 to 20 from March through November 2020. The monthly rate in the CPSP study was closer to 30 for first-time hospitalizations.

Dr. Katzman said that the findings about anorexia nervosa didn’t surprise her. “There was so much disruption and [so many] restrictions to young peoples’ daily routines – closures of schools and recreational activities – they lost regular connection with their peers, and they lost extracurricular and social activities,” she said. “That led to heightened anxiety and depression and really a lack of control.”

Adolescents and teens were also spending more time on social media than they were before the pandemic, she noted. “They were looking at themselves all the time, so they were getting preoccupied with their body image. There was a heightened focus on appearance, and I think that things like public-health mitigation strategies – things like hand washing, social distancing, mask wearing – may have impacted the psychological well-being of young people.”

The closure of outpatient facilities, long waiting lists to get into facilities that were opened, and “coronaphobia” about going to physicians’ offices and emergency departments compounded the problem, Dr. Katzman added.

The long-term effects of COVID and eating disorders in children are unknown, Dr. Katzman said. “This is sort of a wake-up call for the health care system that during times of stress or pandemics or crises, these kinds of things can happen, and we need to be prepared to provide the resources for vulnerable populations moving forward,” she said.
 

Heightened anxiety

Commenting on the data, Margaret Thew, APNP, director of the eating disorders program at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee, said that isolation due to school closures and negative social media messages created the “perfect storm” for eating disorders in adolescents and teenagers because of higher rates of anxiety and depression. Ms. Thew was not involved in the research.

The storm is not over yet, she said. “What everyone needs to keep in mind is that we still have this very heightened state of anxiety and depression ... for adolescents, teenagers, and preteens alike,” Ms. Thew said in an interview, “and we know that many of them are not coping with their anxiety very well.”

In her experience, since the start of the pandemic, the average age of pediatric patients with eating disorders declined from 16 to 15 years, and the youngest age declined from 12 to 11 years.

Overall, the CPSP results show that children are affected by mental health issues at an earlier age than before the pandemic, said Ms. Thew. “Years ago, we wouldn’t have thought that an 8-year-old needed to be screened for some of these risk factors, but now we’re definitely getting more younger children who are struggling, and I think it’s taking too long for them to get the care they need because it’s being overlooked,” she said.

The report was funded by the Public Health Agency of Canada, Health Canada, Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute, Bethanys Hope Foundation, CHEO Research Institute, and Children’s Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba. Dr. Katzman and Ms. Thew have no relevant disclosures.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with the development of anorexia nervosa in Canadian children and adolescents, data suggest.

Preliminary results of the Canadian Paediatric Surveillance Program (CPSP) indicate that the pandemic has been a precipitating factor in the development of anorexia nervosa in almost half of children and adolescents studied. The pandemic also has precipitated hospitalizations for anorexia in more than one-third of cases.

“Data globally, and certainly our data here in Canada, have shown a real increase in health care utilization with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic,” study author Debra Katzman, MD, professor of pediatrics at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “And when I talk about health care utilization, I’m talking about hospitalizations for eating disorders.”

The data were included in the 2021 results of the CPSP.
 

Focus on appearance

CPSP is a collaboration between the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Canadian Pediatric Society that consists of a network of 2,800 pediatricians and pediatric subspecialists across Canada. The latest results include surveillance studies on 14 diseases and conditions, with data collected during various periods.

From April 2020 to May 2021, researchers identified 1,800 COVID-19 cases in children and collected detailed information on 1,456 of them, including 405 cases hospitalized with pediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome (PIMS). The median age of hospitalized cases was 3.2 years for SARS-CoV-2 infection and 5.4 years for PIMS.

Dr. Katzman and colleagues observed 118 first-time hospitalizations for anorexia nervosa between Sept. 1 and Dec. 31, 2021. More than 90% of reported cases were female, with 66% of verified cases in teens aged 14-17 years and the remainder in adolescents aged 11-13 years.

In 49% of cases, the reporting physician identified the COVID-19 pandemic as a precipitating factor in the development of anorexia nervosa. In 37% of cases, the reporting physician identified the pandemic as having precipitated the anorexia-related hospitalization.

Last year, a cross-sectional analysis of children in Canada reported that monthly hospitalizations for anorexia nervosa increased from 7.5 to 20 from March through November 2020. The monthly rate in the CPSP study was closer to 30 for first-time hospitalizations.

Dr. Katzman said that the findings about anorexia nervosa didn’t surprise her. “There was so much disruption and [so many] restrictions to young peoples’ daily routines – closures of schools and recreational activities – they lost regular connection with their peers, and they lost extracurricular and social activities,” she said. “That led to heightened anxiety and depression and really a lack of control.”

Adolescents and teens were also spending more time on social media than they were before the pandemic, she noted. “They were looking at themselves all the time, so they were getting preoccupied with their body image. There was a heightened focus on appearance, and I think that things like public-health mitigation strategies – things like hand washing, social distancing, mask wearing – may have impacted the psychological well-being of young people.”

The closure of outpatient facilities, long waiting lists to get into facilities that were opened, and “coronaphobia” about going to physicians’ offices and emergency departments compounded the problem, Dr. Katzman added.

The long-term effects of COVID and eating disorders in children are unknown, Dr. Katzman said. “This is sort of a wake-up call for the health care system that during times of stress or pandemics or crises, these kinds of things can happen, and we need to be prepared to provide the resources for vulnerable populations moving forward,” she said.
 

Heightened anxiety

Commenting on the data, Margaret Thew, APNP, director of the eating disorders program at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee, said that isolation due to school closures and negative social media messages created the “perfect storm” for eating disorders in adolescents and teenagers because of higher rates of anxiety and depression. Ms. Thew was not involved in the research.

The storm is not over yet, she said. “What everyone needs to keep in mind is that we still have this very heightened state of anxiety and depression ... for adolescents, teenagers, and preteens alike,” Ms. Thew said in an interview, “and we know that many of them are not coping with their anxiety very well.”

In her experience, since the start of the pandemic, the average age of pediatric patients with eating disorders declined from 16 to 15 years, and the youngest age declined from 12 to 11 years.

Overall, the CPSP results show that children are affected by mental health issues at an earlier age than before the pandemic, said Ms. Thew. “Years ago, we wouldn’t have thought that an 8-year-old needed to be screened for some of these risk factors, but now we’re definitely getting more younger children who are struggling, and I think it’s taking too long for them to get the care they need because it’s being overlooked,” she said.

The report was funded by the Public Health Agency of Canada, Health Canada, Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute, Bethanys Hope Foundation, CHEO Research Institute, and Children’s Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba. Dr. Katzman and Ms. Thew have no relevant disclosures.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with the development of anorexia nervosa in Canadian children and adolescents, data suggest.

Preliminary results of the Canadian Paediatric Surveillance Program (CPSP) indicate that the pandemic has been a precipitating factor in the development of anorexia nervosa in almost half of children and adolescents studied. The pandemic also has precipitated hospitalizations for anorexia in more than one-third of cases.

“Data globally, and certainly our data here in Canada, have shown a real increase in health care utilization with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic,” study author Debra Katzman, MD, professor of pediatrics at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “And when I talk about health care utilization, I’m talking about hospitalizations for eating disorders.”

The data were included in the 2021 results of the CPSP.
 

Focus on appearance

CPSP is a collaboration between the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Canadian Pediatric Society that consists of a network of 2,800 pediatricians and pediatric subspecialists across Canada. The latest results include surveillance studies on 14 diseases and conditions, with data collected during various periods.

From April 2020 to May 2021, researchers identified 1,800 COVID-19 cases in children and collected detailed information on 1,456 of them, including 405 cases hospitalized with pediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome (PIMS). The median age of hospitalized cases was 3.2 years for SARS-CoV-2 infection and 5.4 years for PIMS.

Dr. Katzman and colleagues observed 118 first-time hospitalizations for anorexia nervosa between Sept. 1 and Dec. 31, 2021. More than 90% of reported cases were female, with 66% of verified cases in teens aged 14-17 years and the remainder in adolescents aged 11-13 years.

In 49% of cases, the reporting physician identified the COVID-19 pandemic as a precipitating factor in the development of anorexia nervosa. In 37% of cases, the reporting physician identified the pandemic as having precipitated the anorexia-related hospitalization.

Last year, a cross-sectional analysis of children in Canada reported that monthly hospitalizations for anorexia nervosa increased from 7.5 to 20 from March through November 2020. The monthly rate in the CPSP study was closer to 30 for first-time hospitalizations.

Dr. Katzman said that the findings about anorexia nervosa didn’t surprise her. “There was so much disruption and [so many] restrictions to young peoples’ daily routines – closures of schools and recreational activities – they lost regular connection with their peers, and they lost extracurricular and social activities,” she said. “That led to heightened anxiety and depression and really a lack of control.”

Adolescents and teens were also spending more time on social media than they were before the pandemic, she noted. “They were looking at themselves all the time, so they were getting preoccupied with their body image. There was a heightened focus on appearance, and I think that things like public-health mitigation strategies – things like hand washing, social distancing, mask wearing – may have impacted the psychological well-being of young people.”

The closure of outpatient facilities, long waiting lists to get into facilities that were opened, and “coronaphobia” about going to physicians’ offices and emergency departments compounded the problem, Dr. Katzman added.

The long-term effects of COVID and eating disorders in children are unknown, Dr. Katzman said. “This is sort of a wake-up call for the health care system that during times of stress or pandemics or crises, these kinds of things can happen, and we need to be prepared to provide the resources for vulnerable populations moving forward,” she said.
 

Heightened anxiety

Commenting on the data, Margaret Thew, APNP, director of the eating disorders program at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee, said that isolation due to school closures and negative social media messages created the “perfect storm” for eating disorders in adolescents and teenagers because of higher rates of anxiety and depression. Ms. Thew was not involved in the research.

The storm is not over yet, she said. “What everyone needs to keep in mind is that we still have this very heightened state of anxiety and depression ... for adolescents, teenagers, and preteens alike,” Ms. Thew said in an interview, “and we know that many of them are not coping with their anxiety very well.”

In her experience, since the start of the pandemic, the average age of pediatric patients with eating disorders declined from 16 to 15 years, and the youngest age declined from 12 to 11 years.

Overall, the CPSP results show that children are affected by mental health issues at an earlier age than before the pandemic, said Ms. Thew. “Years ago, we wouldn’t have thought that an 8-year-old needed to be screened for some of these risk factors, but now we’re definitely getting more younger children who are struggling, and I think it’s taking too long for them to get the care they need because it’s being overlooked,” she said.

The report was funded by the Public Health Agency of Canada, Health Canada, Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute, Bethanys Hope Foundation, CHEO Research Institute, and Children’s Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba. Dr. Katzman and Ms. Thew have no relevant disclosures.

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

Long COVID is likely to cost the U.S. economy trillions of dollars and will almost certainly affect multiple industries, from restaurants struggling to replace low-wage workers, to airlines scrambling to replace crew, to overwhelmed hospitals, experts are predicting.

“There’s a lot we need to do to understand what it takes to enable disabled people to participate more in the economy,” said Katie Bach, a senior fellow with Brookings Institution and the author of a study looking into long COVID’s impact on the labor market.

Data from June 2022 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that, of the 40% of American adults who contracted COVID-19, nearly one in five still have long COVID symptoms. That works out to 1 in 13, or 7.5%, of the overall U.S. adult population.

Drawing from the CDC data, Ms. Bach estimates in her August 2022 report that as many as 4 million working-age Americans are too sick with long COVID to perform their jobs. That works out to as much as $230 billion in lost wages, or almost 1% of the U.S. GDP.

“This is a big deal,” she said. “We’re talking potentially hundreds of billions of dollars a year and that this is big enough to have a measurable impact on the labor market.”

Other sources have suggested lower figures, but the conclusions are the same: Long COVID is an urgent issue that will cost tens of billions of dollars a year in lost wages alone, Ms. Bach said. But it’s not just lost income for workers. There is a cost for businesses and the public.

Throughout the pandemic, COVID-19’s crippling force could be felt across multiple industries. While business has picked up again, staffing shortages remain a challenge. At some airports this summer, air passengers spent hours in security lines; were stranded for days as flights were canceled, rebooked, and canceled again on short notice; and waited weeks for lost luggage. Restaurants have had to cut back their hours. Those seeking medical care had longer than usual wait times in EDs and urgent care clinics. Some EDs temporarily closed.

These challenges have been attributed in part to the “great resignation” and in part because so many infected workers were out, especially during the Omicron waves. But increasingly, economists and health care professionals alike worry about long COVID’s impact on employers and the broader economy.

David Cutler, PhD, a professor of economics at Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., believes the total economic loss could be as high as $3.7 trillion, when factoring in the lost quality of life, the cost in lost earnings, and the cost of higher spending on medical care. His estimate is more than a trillion dollars higher than a previous projection he and fellow economist Lawrence Summers, PhD, made in 2020. The reason? Long COVID.

“The higher estimate is largely a result of the greater prevalence of long COVID than we had guessed at the time,” Dr. Cutler wrote in a paper released in July.

“There are about 10 times the number of people with long COVID as have died of COVID. Because long COVID is so new, there is uncertainty about all of the numbers involved in the calculations. Still, the costs here are conservative, based on only cases to date.”

In Ms. Bach’s Brookings report, she projected that, if recovery from long COVID does not pick up and the population of Americans with long COVID were to grow by 10% a year, the annual cost of lost wages alone could reach half a trillion dollars in a decade.

Meanwhile, a working paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that workers who missed an entire week of work because of probable COVID-19 illnesses were roughly 7 percentage points less likely to be working a year later, compared with those who did not miss work for health reasons.

“It’s not just individuals with long COVID who are suffering from this. It impacts their families, their livelihoods, and the economy on a global scale. So, we have to raise awareness about those ripple effects,” said Linda Geng, MD, a clinical assistant professor of medicine with Stanford (Calif.) University’s Primary Care and Population Health. 

“I think it’s hard for the public to grasp ... and understand the scale of this public health crisis.”
 

Debilitating fatigue

Long COVID is roughly defined; the CDC defines it as symptoms that linger 3 or more months after a patient first catches the virus.

The symptoms vary and include profound fatigue and brain issues.

“It’s a new degree of extreme and debilitating fatigue and exhaustion, to the point where you can’t do your daily tasks,” said Dr. Geng, who is also the codirector of Stanford’s Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome Clinic.

“People can be so debilitated, they can’t even do basic things, like the activities of daily living, let alone do their job, particularly if it’s physically or mentally demanding.”

Patients can also have postexertional malaise, where they feel especially bad and symptoms worsen when they exert themselves physically or mentally, Dr. Geng said. Compounding the issue for many long COVID patients is their trouble getting restful sleep. Those with brain fog have issues with memory, processing information, focused concentration, confusion, making mistakes, and multitasking. Pain is another debilitating symptom that can disrupt daily life and ability to work.

Even people with relatively mild infections can end up with long COVID, Dr. Geng said, noting that many of the patients at the Stanford clinic were never hospitalized with their initial infections. While existing research and Dr. Geng’s clinical experience show that long COVID can hit any age, she most commonly sees patients from ages 20 to their 60s, with an average age in the 40s – people in their prime working ages.

Jason Furman, PhD, a former White House economic adviser who is now a professor at Harvard University, noted in August that the labor force participation rate was far below what could be explained by standard demographic changes like an aging population, with the decline evident across all age groups. Dr. Furman does not speculate about why, but others have.

“We are pessimistic: Both the aging of the population and the impact of long COVID imply that the participation rate will be slow to return to its prepandemic level,” Anna Wong, Yelena Shulyatyeva, Andrew Husby, and Eliza Winger, economists with Bloomberg Economics, wrote in a research note. 
 

Supportive policies 

There is some evidence that vaccination reduces the risk of long COVID, but not completely, and it is too early to know if repeat infections increase long COVID risks. There is also no definitive data on how fast or how many people are recovering. Economists often assume that those with long COVID will recover at some point, Ms. Bach noted, but she is careful not to make assumptions.

“If people aren’t recovering, then this group keeps getting bigger,” she said. “We’re still adding, and if people aren’t coming out of that group, this becomes a bigger and bigger problem.”

For now, the number of new people being diagnosed with long COVID appears to have slowed, Ms. Bach said, but it remains to be seen whether the trend can be sustained.

“If people are impaired longer than we think and if the impairment turns out to be severe, then we can have a lot of people who need services like disability insurance,” Dr. Cutler said.

“That could put a really big strain on public sector programs and our ability to meet those needs.”

Policies that support the research and clinical work necessary to prevent and treat long COVID are essential, experts say.

“To me, that is the biggest economic imperative, to say nothing of human suffering,” said Ms. Bach. 

Employers also have a role, and experts say there are a number of accommodations businesses should consider. What happens when an employee has long COVID? Can accommodations be made that allow them to continue working productively? If they spend a great deal of time commuting, can they work from home? What can employers do so that family members do not have to drop out of the workforce to take care of loved ones with long COVID? 
 

Disability insurance

To be sure, there is one piece of the puzzle that does not quite fit, according to Dr. Cutler and Ms. Bach. There is no sign yet of a large increase in federal disability insurance applications, and no one quite knows why. Publicly available government data shows that online applications actually dipped by about 4% each year between 2019 and 2021. Applications in 2022 appear on track to remain slightly below prepandemic levels. 

To qualify for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), people need to have a disability that lasts at least a year. 

“If you’re disabled with long COVID, who knows, right? You don’t know,” said Ms. Bach. “Two of the most dominant symptoms of long COVID are fatigue and brain fog. So, I’ve heard from people that the process of going through an SSDI application is really hard.”

Some long COVID patients told Ms. Bach they simply assumed they would not get SSDI and did not even bother applying. She stressed that working Americans with debilitating long COVID should be aware that their condition is protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act. But the challenge, based on guidance issued by the government, is that not all cases of long COVID qualify as a disability and that individual assessments are necessary.

While more long COVID data are needed, Ms. Bach believes there is enough information for decisionmakers to go after the issue more aggressively. She pointed to the $1.15 billion in funding that Congress earmarked for the National Institutes of Health over the course of 4 years in support of research into the long-term health effects of COVID-19.

“Now, $250 million a year sounds like a lot of money until you start talking about the cost of lost wages – just lost wages,” Ms. Bach said. “That’s not lost productivity. That’s not the cost of people whose family members are sick. Who have to reduce their own labor force participation. That’s not medical costs. Suddenly, $250 million doesn’t really sound like that much.”

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

Long COVID is likely to cost the U.S. economy trillions of dollars and will almost certainly affect multiple industries, from restaurants struggling to replace low-wage workers, to airlines scrambling to replace crew, to overwhelmed hospitals, experts are predicting.

“There’s a lot we need to do to understand what it takes to enable disabled people to participate more in the economy,” said Katie Bach, a senior fellow with Brookings Institution and the author of a study looking into long COVID’s impact on the labor market.

Data from June 2022 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that, of the 40% of American adults who contracted COVID-19, nearly one in five still have long COVID symptoms. That works out to 1 in 13, or 7.5%, of the overall U.S. adult population.

Drawing from the CDC data, Ms. Bach estimates in her August 2022 report that as many as 4 million working-age Americans are too sick with long COVID to perform their jobs. That works out to as much as $230 billion in lost wages, or almost 1% of the U.S. GDP.

“This is a big deal,” she said. “We’re talking potentially hundreds of billions of dollars a year and that this is big enough to have a measurable impact on the labor market.”

Other sources have suggested lower figures, but the conclusions are the same: Long COVID is an urgent issue that will cost tens of billions of dollars a year in lost wages alone, Ms. Bach said. But it’s not just lost income for workers. There is a cost for businesses and the public.

Throughout the pandemic, COVID-19’s crippling force could be felt across multiple industries. While business has picked up again, staffing shortages remain a challenge. At some airports this summer, air passengers spent hours in security lines; were stranded for days as flights were canceled, rebooked, and canceled again on short notice; and waited weeks for lost luggage. Restaurants have had to cut back their hours. Those seeking medical care had longer than usual wait times in EDs and urgent care clinics. Some EDs temporarily closed.

These challenges have been attributed in part to the “great resignation” and in part because so many infected workers were out, especially during the Omicron waves. But increasingly, economists and health care professionals alike worry about long COVID’s impact on employers and the broader economy.

David Cutler, PhD, a professor of economics at Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., believes the total economic loss could be as high as $3.7 trillion, when factoring in the lost quality of life, the cost in lost earnings, and the cost of higher spending on medical care. His estimate is more than a trillion dollars higher than a previous projection he and fellow economist Lawrence Summers, PhD, made in 2020. The reason? Long COVID.

“The higher estimate is largely a result of the greater prevalence of long COVID than we had guessed at the time,” Dr. Cutler wrote in a paper released in July.

“There are about 10 times the number of people with long COVID as have died of COVID. Because long COVID is so new, there is uncertainty about all of the numbers involved in the calculations. Still, the costs here are conservative, based on only cases to date.”

In Ms. Bach’s Brookings report, she projected that, if recovery from long COVID does not pick up and the population of Americans with long COVID were to grow by 10% a year, the annual cost of lost wages alone could reach half a trillion dollars in a decade.

Meanwhile, a working paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that workers who missed an entire week of work because of probable COVID-19 illnesses were roughly 7 percentage points less likely to be working a year later, compared with those who did not miss work for health reasons.

“It’s not just individuals with long COVID who are suffering from this. It impacts their families, their livelihoods, and the economy on a global scale. So, we have to raise awareness about those ripple effects,” said Linda Geng, MD, a clinical assistant professor of medicine with Stanford (Calif.) University’s Primary Care and Population Health. 

“I think it’s hard for the public to grasp ... and understand the scale of this public health crisis.”
 

Debilitating fatigue

Long COVID is roughly defined; the CDC defines it as symptoms that linger 3 or more months after a patient first catches the virus.

The symptoms vary and include profound fatigue and brain issues.

“It’s a new degree of extreme and debilitating fatigue and exhaustion, to the point where you can’t do your daily tasks,” said Dr. Geng, who is also the codirector of Stanford’s Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome Clinic.

“People can be so debilitated, they can’t even do basic things, like the activities of daily living, let alone do their job, particularly if it’s physically or mentally demanding.”

Patients can also have postexertional malaise, where they feel especially bad and symptoms worsen when they exert themselves physically or mentally, Dr. Geng said. Compounding the issue for many long COVID patients is their trouble getting restful sleep. Those with brain fog have issues with memory, processing information, focused concentration, confusion, making mistakes, and multitasking. Pain is another debilitating symptom that can disrupt daily life and ability to work.

Even people with relatively mild infections can end up with long COVID, Dr. Geng said, noting that many of the patients at the Stanford clinic were never hospitalized with their initial infections. While existing research and Dr. Geng’s clinical experience show that long COVID can hit any age, she most commonly sees patients from ages 20 to their 60s, with an average age in the 40s – people in their prime working ages.

Jason Furman, PhD, a former White House economic adviser who is now a professor at Harvard University, noted in August that the labor force participation rate was far below what could be explained by standard demographic changes like an aging population, with the decline evident across all age groups. Dr. Furman does not speculate about why, but others have.

“We are pessimistic: Both the aging of the population and the impact of long COVID imply that the participation rate will be slow to return to its prepandemic level,” Anna Wong, Yelena Shulyatyeva, Andrew Husby, and Eliza Winger, economists with Bloomberg Economics, wrote in a research note. 
 

Supportive policies 

There is some evidence that vaccination reduces the risk of long COVID, but not completely, and it is too early to know if repeat infections increase long COVID risks. There is also no definitive data on how fast or how many people are recovering. Economists often assume that those with long COVID will recover at some point, Ms. Bach noted, but she is careful not to make assumptions.

“If people aren’t recovering, then this group keeps getting bigger,” she said. “We’re still adding, and if people aren’t coming out of that group, this becomes a bigger and bigger problem.”

For now, the number of new people being diagnosed with long COVID appears to have slowed, Ms. Bach said, but it remains to be seen whether the trend can be sustained.

“If people are impaired longer than we think and if the impairment turns out to be severe, then we can have a lot of people who need services like disability insurance,” Dr. Cutler said.

“That could put a really big strain on public sector programs and our ability to meet those needs.”

Policies that support the research and clinical work necessary to prevent and treat long COVID are essential, experts say.

“To me, that is the biggest economic imperative, to say nothing of human suffering,” said Ms. Bach. 

Employers also have a role, and experts say there are a number of accommodations businesses should consider. What happens when an employee has long COVID? Can accommodations be made that allow them to continue working productively? If they spend a great deal of time commuting, can they work from home? What can employers do so that family members do not have to drop out of the workforce to take care of loved ones with long COVID? 
 

Disability insurance

To be sure, there is one piece of the puzzle that does not quite fit, according to Dr. Cutler and Ms. Bach. There is no sign yet of a large increase in federal disability insurance applications, and no one quite knows why. Publicly available government data shows that online applications actually dipped by about 4% each year between 2019 and 2021. Applications in 2022 appear on track to remain slightly below prepandemic levels. 

To qualify for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), people need to have a disability that lasts at least a year. 

“If you’re disabled with long COVID, who knows, right? You don’t know,” said Ms. Bach. “Two of the most dominant symptoms of long COVID are fatigue and brain fog. So, I’ve heard from people that the process of going through an SSDI application is really hard.”

Some long COVID patients told Ms. Bach they simply assumed they would not get SSDI and did not even bother applying. She stressed that working Americans with debilitating long COVID should be aware that their condition is protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act. But the challenge, based on guidance issued by the government, is that not all cases of long COVID qualify as a disability and that individual assessments are necessary.

While more long COVID data are needed, Ms. Bach believes there is enough information for decisionmakers to go after the issue more aggressively. She pointed to the $1.15 billion in funding that Congress earmarked for the National Institutes of Health over the course of 4 years in support of research into the long-term health effects of COVID-19.

“Now, $250 million a year sounds like a lot of money until you start talking about the cost of lost wages – just lost wages,” Ms. Bach said. “That’s not lost productivity. That’s not the cost of people whose family members are sick. Who have to reduce their own labor force participation. That’s not medical costs. Suddenly, $250 million doesn’t really sound like that much.”

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

Long COVID is likely to cost the U.S. economy trillions of dollars and will almost certainly affect multiple industries, from restaurants struggling to replace low-wage workers, to airlines scrambling to replace crew, to overwhelmed hospitals, experts are predicting.

“There’s a lot we need to do to understand what it takes to enable disabled people to participate more in the economy,” said Katie Bach, a senior fellow with Brookings Institution and the author of a study looking into long COVID’s impact on the labor market.

Data from June 2022 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that, of the 40% of American adults who contracted COVID-19, nearly one in five still have long COVID symptoms. That works out to 1 in 13, or 7.5%, of the overall U.S. adult population.

Drawing from the CDC data, Ms. Bach estimates in her August 2022 report that as many as 4 million working-age Americans are too sick with long COVID to perform their jobs. That works out to as much as $230 billion in lost wages, or almost 1% of the U.S. GDP.

“This is a big deal,” she said. “We’re talking potentially hundreds of billions of dollars a year and that this is big enough to have a measurable impact on the labor market.”

Other sources have suggested lower figures, but the conclusions are the same: Long COVID is an urgent issue that will cost tens of billions of dollars a year in lost wages alone, Ms. Bach said. But it’s not just lost income for workers. There is a cost for businesses and the public.

Throughout the pandemic, COVID-19’s crippling force could be felt across multiple industries. While business has picked up again, staffing shortages remain a challenge. At some airports this summer, air passengers spent hours in security lines; were stranded for days as flights were canceled, rebooked, and canceled again on short notice; and waited weeks for lost luggage. Restaurants have had to cut back their hours. Those seeking medical care had longer than usual wait times in EDs and urgent care clinics. Some EDs temporarily closed.

These challenges have been attributed in part to the “great resignation” and in part because so many infected workers were out, especially during the Omicron waves. But increasingly, economists and health care professionals alike worry about long COVID’s impact on employers and the broader economy.

David Cutler, PhD, a professor of economics at Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., believes the total economic loss could be as high as $3.7 trillion, when factoring in the lost quality of life, the cost in lost earnings, and the cost of higher spending on medical care. His estimate is more than a trillion dollars higher than a previous projection he and fellow economist Lawrence Summers, PhD, made in 2020. The reason? Long COVID.

“The higher estimate is largely a result of the greater prevalence of long COVID than we had guessed at the time,” Dr. Cutler wrote in a paper released in July.

“There are about 10 times the number of people with long COVID as have died of COVID. Because long COVID is so new, there is uncertainty about all of the numbers involved in the calculations. Still, the costs here are conservative, based on only cases to date.”

In Ms. Bach’s Brookings report, she projected that, if recovery from long COVID does not pick up and the population of Americans with long COVID were to grow by 10% a year, the annual cost of lost wages alone could reach half a trillion dollars in a decade.

Meanwhile, a working paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that workers who missed an entire week of work because of probable COVID-19 illnesses were roughly 7 percentage points less likely to be working a year later, compared with those who did not miss work for health reasons.

“It’s not just individuals with long COVID who are suffering from this. It impacts their families, their livelihoods, and the economy on a global scale. So, we have to raise awareness about those ripple effects,” said Linda Geng, MD, a clinical assistant professor of medicine with Stanford (Calif.) University’s Primary Care and Population Health. 

“I think it’s hard for the public to grasp ... and understand the scale of this public health crisis.”
 

Debilitating fatigue

Long COVID is roughly defined; the CDC defines it as symptoms that linger 3 or more months after a patient first catches the virus.

The symptoms vary and include profound fatigue and brain issues.

“It’s a new degree of extreme and debilitating fatigue and exhaustion, to the point where you can’t do your daily tasks,” said Dr. Geng, who is also the codirector of Stanford’s Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome Clinic.

“People can be so debilitated, they can’t even do basic things, like the activities of daily living, let alone do their job, particularly if it’s physically or mentally demanding.”

Patients can also have postexertional malaise, where they feel especially bad and symptoms worsen when they exert themselves physically or mentally, Dr. Geng said. Compounding the issue for many long COVID patients is their trouble getting restful sleep. Those with brain fog have issues with memory, processing information, focused concentration, confusion, making mistakes, and multitasking. Pain is another debilitating symptom that can disrupt daily life and ability to work.

Even people with relatively mild infections can end up with long COVID, Dr. Geng said, noting that many of the patients at the Stanford clinic were never hospitalized with their initial infections. While existing research and Dr. Geng’s clinical experience show that long COVID can hit any age, she most commonly sees patients from ages 20 to their 60s, with an average age in the 40s – people in their prime working ages.

Jason Furman, PhD, a former White House economic adviser who is now a professor at Harvard University, noted in August that the labor force participation rate was far below what could be explained by standard demographic changes like an aging population, with the decline evident across all age groups. Dr. Furman does not speculate about why, but others have.

“We are pessimistic: Both the aging of the population and the impact of long COVID imply that the participation rate will be slow to return to its prepandemic level,” Anna Wong, Yelena Shulyatyeva, Andrew Husby, and Eliza Winger, economists with Bloomberg Economics, wrote in a research note. 
 

Supportive policies 

There is some evidence that vaccination reduces the risk of long COVID, but not completely, and it is too early to know if repeat infections increase long COVID risks. There is also no definitive data on how fast or how many people are recovering. Economists often assume that those with long COVID will recover at some point, Ms. Bach noted, but she is careful not to make assumptions.

“If people aren’t recovering, then this group keeps getting bigger,” she said. “We’re still adding, and if people aren’t coming out of that group, this becomes a bigger and bigger problem.”

For now, the number of new people being diagnosed with long COVID appears to have slowed, Ms. Bach said, but it remains to be seen whether the trend can be sustained.

“If people are impaired longer than we think and if the impairment turns out to be severe, then we can have a lot of people who need services like disability insurance,” Dr. Cutler said.

“That could put a really big strain on public sector programs and our ability to meet those needs.”

Policies that support the research and clinical work necessary to prevent and treat long COVID are essential, experts say.

“To me, that is the biggest economic imperative, to say nothing of human suffering,” said Ms. Bach. 

Employers also have a role, and experts say there are a number of accommodations businesses should consider. What happens when an employee has long COVID? Can accommodations be made that allow them to continue working productively? If they spend a great deal of time commuting, can they work from home? What can employers do so that family members do not have to drop out of the workforce to take care of loved ones with long COVID? 
 

Disability insurance

To be sure, there is one piece of the puzzle that does not quite fit, according to Dr. Cutler and Ms. Bach. There is no sign yet of a large increase in federal disability insurance applications, and no one quite knows why. Publicly available government data shows that online applications actually dipped by about 4% each year between 2019 and 2021. Applications in 2022 appear on track to remain slightly below prepandemic levels. 

To qualify for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), people need to have a disability that lasts at least a year. 

“If you’re disabled with long COVID, who knows, right? You don’t know,” said Ms. Bach. “Two of the most dominant symptoms of long COVID are fatigue and brain fog. So, I’ve heard from people that the process of going through an SSDI application is really hard.”

Some long COVID patients told Ms. Bach they simply assumed they would not get SSDI and did not even bother applying. She stressed that working Americans with debilitating long COVID should be aware that their condition is protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act. But the challenge, based on guidance issued by the government, is that not all cases of long COVID qualify as a disability and that individual assessments are necessary.

While more long COVID data are needed, Ms. Bach believes there is enough information for decisionmakers to go after the issue more aggressively. She pointed to the $1.15 billion in funding that Congress earmarked for the National Institutes of Health over the course of 4 years in support of research into the long-term health effects of COVID-19.

“Now, $250 million a year sounds like a lot of money until you start talking about the cost of lost wages – just lost wages,” Ms. Bach said. “That’s not lost productivity. That’s not the cost of people whose family members are sick. Who have to reduce their own labor force participation. That’s not medical costs. Suddenly, $250 million doesn’t really sound like that much.”

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

Long COVID: The name says it all. It’s an illness that, for many people, has not yet stopped.

Eric Roach became ill with COVID-19 in November 2020, and he’s still sick. “I have brain fog, memory loss,” says the 67-year-old Navy veteran from Spearfish, S.D. “The fatigue has just been insane.” 

Long COVID, more formally known as post-acute sequelae of COVID (PASC), is the lay term to describe when people start to recover, or seem to recover, from a bout of COVID-19 but then continue to suffer from symptoms. For some, it’s gone on for 2 years or longer. While the governments of the United Statesand several other countries formally recognize the existence of long COVID, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has yet to formally define it. There’s no approved treatment, and the causes are not understood.

Here’s what is known: Long COVID is a postviral condition affecting a large percentage of people who become infected with the coronavirus. It can be utterly debilitating or mildly annoying, and it is affecting enough people to cause concern for employers, health insurers, and governments.
 

First, the many symptoms

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prvention, long COVID symptoms may include:

• Tiredness or fatigue that interferes with daily life.
• Symptoms that get worse after physical or mental effort.
• Fever.
• Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath.
• Cough.
• Chest pain.
• Heart palpitations.
• Difficulty thinking or concentrating (sometimes referred to as “brain fog”).
• Headache.
• Sleep problems.
• Dizziness when standing.
• Pins-and-needles feelings.
• Change in smell or taste.
• Depression or anxiety.
• Diarrhea.
• Stomach pain.
• Joint or muscle pain.
• Rash.
• Changes in menstrual cycles.

“People with post-COVID conditions may develop or continue to have symptoms that are hard to explain and manage,” the CDC says on its website. “Clinical evaluations and results of routine blood tests, chest x-rays, and electrocardiograms may be normal. The symptoms are similar to those reported by people with ME/CFS (myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome) and other poorly understood chronic illnesses that may occur after other infections.” 

Doctors may not fully appreciate the subtle nature of some of the symptoms. 

“People with these unexplained symptoms may be misunderstood by their health care providers, which can result in a long time for them to get a diagnosis and receive appropriate care or treatment,” the CDC says.

Health professionals should recognize that long COVID can be disabling, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services says. “Long COVID can substantially limit a major life activity,” HHS says in civil rights guidance. One possible example: “A person with long COVID who has lung damage that causes shortness of breath, fatigue, and related effects is substantially limited in respiratory function, among other major life activities,” the HHS notes.
 

How many people are affected?

This has been difficult to judge because not everyone who has had COVID-19 gets tested for it and there are no formal diagnostic criteria yet for long COVID. The CDC estimates that 19% of patients in the United States who have ever had COVID-19 have long COVID symptoms. 

Some estimates go higher. A University of Oxford study in September 2021 found more than a third of patients had symptoms of long COVID between 3 months and 6 months after a COVID-19 diagnosis. As many as 55% of COVID-19 patients in one Chinese study had one or more lingering symptoms 2 years later, Lixue Huang, MD, of the China-Japan Friendship Hospital in Beijing, and colleagues reported in the journal Lancet Respiratory Medicine in May.

According to the CDC, age is a factor. “Older adults are less likely to have long COVID than younger adults. Nearly three times as many adults ages 50-59 currently have long COVID than those age 80 and older,” the CDC says. Women and racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to be affected.

Many people are experiencing neurological effects, such as the so-called brain fog, according to Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, of Washington University and the VA St. Louis Health Care System, and colleagues, whose report was published in Nature Medicine in September. They estimated that 6.6 million Americans have brain impairments associated with COVID infection.

“Some of the neurologic disorders reported here are serious chronic conditions that will impact some people for a lifetime,” they wrote. “Given the colossal scale of the pandemic, and even though the absolute numbers reported in this work are small, these may translate into a large number of affected individuals around the world – and this will likely contribute to a rise in the burden of neurologic diseases.”
 

Causes

It’s not clear what the underlying causes are, but most research points to a combination of factors. Suspects include ongoing inflammation, tiny blood clots, and reactivation of latent viruses. In May, Brent Palmer, PhD, of the University of Colorado, Denver, and colleagues found people with long COVID had persistent activation of T-cells that were specific for SARS-CoV-2.

COVID-19 itself can damage organs, and long COVID might be caused by ongoing damage. In August, Alexandros Rovas, MD, of University Hospital Munster in Germany, and colleagues found patients with long COVID had evidence of damage to their capillaries. “Whether, to what extent, and when the observed damage might be reversible remains unclear,” they wrote in the journal Angiogenesis.

People with long COVID have immune responses to other viruses, such as Epstein-Barr – evidence that COVID-19 might reactivate latent viruses. “Our data suggest the involvement of persistent antigen, reactivation of latent herpesviruses, and chronic inflammation,” immunobiologist Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues wrote in a study posted in August that had not yet been peer-reviewed for publication.

This might be causing an autoimmune response. “The infection may cause the immune system to start making autoantibodies that attack a person’s own organs and tissues,” the NIH says.

There could be other factors. A study by Harvard researchers found that people who felt stressed, depressed, or lonely before catching COVID-19 were more likely to develop long COVID afterward. “Distress was more strongly associated with developing long COVID than physical health risk factors such as obesity, asthma, and hypertension,” Siwen Wang, MD, a research fellow with Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, said in a statement.  Plus, nearly 44% of those in the study developed COVID-19 infections after having been assessed for stress, Dr. Wang and colleagues reported in the journal JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Vaccine protection 

There’s evidence that vaccination protects against long COVID, both by preventing infection in the first place, but also even for people who have breakthrough infections.

A meta-analysis covering studies involving 17 million people found evidence vaccination might reduce the severity of COVID-19 or might help the body clear any lingering virus after an infection.

“Overall, vaccination was associated with reduced risks or odds of long COVID, with preliminary evidence suggesting that two doses are more effective than one dose,” wrote Cesar Fernandez de las Penas, PhD, of King Juan Carlos University in Madrid, and colleagues. Their report is in The Lancet’s eClinicalMedicine.

A team in Milan found that unvaccinated people in their study were nearly three times as likely to have serious symptoms for longer than 4 weeks compared to vaccinated volunteers. According to their report in JAMA, Elena Azzolini, MD, PhD, assistant professor at Humanitas Research Hospital, and colleagues found two or three doses of vaccine reduced the risk of hospitalization from COVID to 16% or 17% compared to 42% for the unvaccinated.
 

Treatments

With no diagnostic criteria and no understanding of the causes, it’s hard for doctors to determine treatments.

Most experts dealing with long COVID, even those at the specialty centers that have been set up at hospitals and health systems in the United States, recommend that patients start with their primary care doctors before moving on to specialists.

“The mainstay of management is supportive, holistic care, symptom control, and detection of treatable complications,” Trish Greenhalgh, MD, professor of primary care health sciences at the University of Oxford, England, and colleagues wrote in the journal The BMJ in September. “Patients with long COVID greatly value input from their primary care clinician. Generalist clinicians can help patients considerably by hearing the patient’s story and validating their experience … (and) making the diagnosis of long COVID (which does not have to be by exclusion) and excluding alternative diagnoses.”

Evidence is building that long COVID closely resembles other postviral conditions – something that can provide clues for treatment. For example, several studies indicate that exercise doesn’t help most patients.

But there are approaches that can work. Treatments may include pulmonary rehabilitation; autonomic conditioning therapy, which includes breathing therapy; and cognitive rehabilitation to relieve brain fog. Doctors are also trying the antidepressant amitriptyline to help with sleep disturbances and headaches; the antiseizure medication gabapentin to help with pain, numbness, and other neurological symptoms; and drugs to relieve low blood pressure in patients experiencing postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).

The NIH is sponsoring studies that have recruited just over 8,200 adults. And more than two dozen researchers from Harvard; Stanford; the University of California, San Francisco; the J. Craig Venter Institute; Johns Hopkins University; the University of Pennsylvania; Mount Sinai Hospitals; Cardiff University; and Yale announced in September they were forming the Long COVID Research Initiative to speed up studies.

The group, with funding from private enterprise, plans to conduct tissue biopsy, imaging studies, and autopsies and will search for potential biomarkers in the blood of patients.

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

Long COVID: The name says it all. It’s an illness that, for many people, has not yet stopped.

Eric Roach became ill with COVID-19 in November 2020, and he’s still sick. “I have brain fog, memory loss,” says the 67-year-old Navy veteran from Spearfish, S.D. “The fatigue has just been insane.” 

Long COVID, more formally known as post-acute sequelae of COVID (PASC), is the lay term to describe when people start to recover, or seem to recover, from a bout of COVID-19 but then continue to suffer from symptoms. For some, it’s gone on for 2 years or longer. While the governments of the United Statesand several other countries formally recognize the existence of long COVID, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has yet to formally define it. There’s no approved treatment, and the causes are not understood.

Here’s what is known: Long COVID is a postviral condition affecting a large percentage of people who become infected with the coronavirus. It can be utterly debilitating or mildly annoying, and it is affecting enough people to cause concern for employers, health insurers, and governments.
 

First, the many symptoms

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prvention, long COVID symptoms may include:

• Tiredness or fatigue that interferes with daily life.
• Symptoms that get worse after physical or mental effort.
• Fever.
• Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath.
• Cough.
• Chest pain.
• Heart palpitations.
• Difficulty thinking or concentrating (sometimes referred to as “brain fog”).
• Headache.
• Sleep problems.
• Dizziness when standing.
• Pins-and-needles feelings.
• Change in smell or taste.
• Depression or anxiety.
• Diarrhea.
• Stomach pain.
• Joint or muscle pain.
• Rash.
• Changes in menstrual cycles.

“People with post-COVID conditions may develop or continue to have symptoms that are hard to explain and manage,” the CDC says on its website. “Clinical evaluations and results of routine blood tests, chest x-rays, and electrocardiograms may be normal. The symptoms are similar to those reported by people with ME/CFS (myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome) and other poorly understood chronic illnesses that may occur after other infections.” 

Doctors may not fully appreciate the subtle nature of some of the symptoms. 

“People with these unexplained symptoms may be misunderstood by their health care providers, which can result in a long time for them to get a diagnosis and receive appropriate care or treatment,” the CDC says.

Health professionals should recognize that long COVID can be disabling, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services says. “Long COVID can substantially limit a major life activity,” HHS says in civil rights guidance. One possible example: “A person with long COVID who has lung damage that causes shortness of breath, fatigue, and related effects is substantially limited in respiratory function, among other major life activities,” the HHS notes.
 

How many people are affected?

This has been difficult to judge because not everyone who has had COVID-19 gets tested for it and there are no formal diagnostic criteria yet for long COVID. The CDC estimates that 19% of patients in the United States who have ever had COVID-19 have long COVID symptoms. 

Some estimates go higher. A University of Oxford study in September 2021 found more than a third of patients had symptoms of long COVID between 3 months and 6 months after a COVID-19 diagnosis. As many as 55% of COVID-19 patients in one Chinese study had one or more lingering symptoms 2 years later, Lixue Huang, MD, of the China-Japan Friendship Hospital in Beijing, and colleagues reported in the journal Lancet Respiratory Medicine in May.

According to the CDC, age is a factor. “Older adults are less likely to have long COVID than younger adults. Nearly three times as many adults ages 50-59 currently have long COVID than those age 80 and older,” the CDC says. Women and racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to be affected.

Many people are experiencing neurological effects, such as the so-called brain fog, according to Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, of Washington University and the VA St. Louis Health Care System, and colleagues, whose report was published in Nature Medicine in September. They estimated that 6.6 million Americans have brain impairments associated with COVID infection.

“Some of the neurologic disorders reported here are serious chronic conditions that will impact some people for a lifetime,” they wrote. “Given the colossal scale of the pandemic, and even though the absolute numbers reported in this work are small, these may translate into a large number of affected individuals around the world – and this will likely contribute to a rise in the burden of neurologic diseases.”
 

Causes

It’s not clear what the underlying causes are, but most research points to a combination of factors. Suspects include ongoing inflammation, tiny blood clots, and reactivation of latent viruses. In May, Brent Palmer, PhD, of the University of Colorado, Denver, and colleagues found people with long COVID had persistent activation of T-cells that were specific for SARS-CoV-2.

COVID-19 itself can damage organs, and long COVID might be caused by ongoing damage. In August, Alexandros Rovas, MD, of University Hospital Munster in Germany, and colleagues found patients with long COVID had evidence of damage to their capillaries. “Whether, to what extent, and when the observed damage might be reversible remains unclear,” they wrote in the journal Angiogenesis.

People with long COVID have immune responses to other viruses, such as Epstein-Barr – evidence that COVID-19 might reactivate latent viruses. “Our data suggest the involvement of persistent antigen, reactivation of latent herpesviruses, and chronic inflammation,” immunobiologist Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues wrote in a study posted in August that had not yet been peer-reviewed for publication.

This might be causing an autoimmune response. “The infection may cause the immune system to start making autoantibodies that attack a person’s own organs and tissues,” the NIH says.

There could be other factors. A study by Harvard researchers found that people who felt stressed, depressed, or lonely before catching COVID-19 were more likely to develop long COVID afterward. “Distress was more strongly associated with developing long COVID than physical health risk factors such as obesity, asthma, and hypertension,” Siwen Wang, MD, a research fellow with Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, said in a statement.  Plus, nearly 44% of those in the study developed COVID-19 infections after having been assessed for stress, Dr. Wang and colleagues reported in the journal JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Vaccine protection 

There’s evidence that vaccination protects against long COVID, both by preventing infection in the first place, but also even for people who have breakthrough infections.

A meta-analysis covering studies involving 17 million people found evidence vaccination might reduce the severity of COVID-19 or might help the body clear any lingering virus after an infection.

“Overall, vaccination was associated with reduced risks or odds of long COVID, with preliminary evidence suggesting that two doses are more effective than one dose,” wrote Cesar Fernandez de las Penas, PhD, of King Juan Carlos University in Madrid, and colleagues. Their report is in The Lancet’s eClinicalMedicine.

A team in Milan found that unvaccinated people in their study were nearly three times as likely to have serious symptoms for longer than 4 weeks compared to vaccinated volunteers. According to their report in JAMA, Elena Azzolini, MD, PhD, assistant professor at Humanitas Research Hospital, and colleagues found two or three doses of vaccine reduced the risk of hospitalization from COVID to 16% or 17% compared to 42% for the unvaccinated.
 

Treatments

With no diagnostic criteria and no understanding of the causes, it’s hard for doctors to determine treatments.

Most experts dealing with long COVID, even those at the specialty centers that have been set up at hospitals and health systems in the United States, recommend that patients start with their primary care doctors before moving on to specialists.

“The mainstay of management is supportive, holistic care, symptom control, and detection of treatable complications,” Trish Greenhalgh, MD, professor of primary care health sciences at the University of Oxford, England, and colleagues wrote in the journal The BMJ in September. “Patients with long COVID greatly value input from their primary care clinician. Generalist clinicians can help patients considerably by hearing the patient’s story and validating their experience … (and) making the diagnosis of long COVID (which does not have to be by exclusion) and excluding alternative diagnoses.”

Evidence is building that long COVID closely resembles other postviral conditions – something that can provide clues for treatment. For example, several studies indicate that exercise doesn’t help most patients.

But there are approaches that can work. Treatments may include pulmonary rehabilitation; autonomic conditioning therapy, which includes breathing therapy; and cognitive rehabilitation to relieve brain fog. Doctors are also trying the antidepressant amitriptyline to help with sleep disturbances and headaches; the antiseizure medication gabapentin to help with pain, numbness, and other neurological symptoms; and drugs to relieve low blood pressure in patients experiencing postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).

The NIH is sponsoring studies that have recruited just over 8,200 adults. And more than two dozen researchers from Harvard; Stanford; the University of California, San Francisco; the J. Craig Venter Institute; Johns Hopkins University; the University of Pennsylvania; Mount Sinai Hospitals; Cardiff University; and Yale announced in September they were forming the Long COVID Research Initiative to speed up studies.

The group, with funding from private enterprise, plans to conduct tissue biopsy, imaging studies, and autopsies and will search for potential biomarkers in the blood of patients.

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

Long COVID: The name says it all. It’s an illness that, for many people, has not yet stopped.

Eric Roach became ill with COVID-19 in November 2020, and he’s still sick. “I have brain fog, memory loss,” says the 67-year-old Navy veteran from Spearfish, S.D. “The fatigue has just been insane.” 

Long COVID, more formally known as post-acute sequelae of COVID (PASC), is the lay term to describe when people start to recover, or seem to recover, from a bout of COVID-19 but then continue to suffer from symptoms. For some, it’s gone on for 2 years or longer. While the governments of the United Statesand several other countries formally recognize the existence of long COVID, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has yet to formally define it. There’s no approved treatment, and the causes are not understood.

Here’s what is known: Long COVID is a postviral condition affecting a large percentage of people who become infected with the coronavirus. It can be utterly debilitating or mildly annoying, and it is affecting enough people to cause concern for employers, health insurers, and governments.
 

First, the many symptoms

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prvention, long COVID symptoms may include:

• Tiredness or fatigue that interferes with daily life.
• Symptoms that get worse after physical or mental effort.
• Fever.
• Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath.
• Cough.
• Chest pain.
• Heart palpitations.
• Difficulty thinking or concentrating (sometimes referred to as “brain fog”).
• Headache.
• Sleep problems.
• Dizziness when standing.
• Pins-and-needles feelings.
• Change in smell or taste.
• Depression or anxiety.
• Diarrhea.
• Stomach pain.
• Joint or muscle pain.
• Rash.
• Changes in menstrual cycles.

“People with post-COVID conditions may develop or continue to have symptoms that are hard to explain and manage,” the CDC says on its website. “Clinical evaluations and results of routine blood tests, chest x-rays, and electrocardiograms may be normal. The symptoms are similar to those reported by people with ME/CFS (myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome) and other poorly understood chronic illnesses that may occur after other infections.” 

Doctors may not fully appreciate the subtle nature of some of the symptoms. 

“People with these unexplained symptoms may be misunderstood by their health care providers, which can result in a long time for them to get a diagnosis and receive appropriate care or treatment,” the CDC says.

Health professionals should recognize that long COVID can be disabling, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services says. “Long COVID can substantially limit a major life activity,” HHS says in civil rights guidance. One possible example: “A person with long COVID who has lung damage that causes shortness of breath, fatigue, and related effects is substantially limited in respiratory function, among other major life activities,” the HHS notes.
 

How many people are affected?

This has been difficult to judge because not everyone who has had COVID-19 gets tested for it and there are no formal diagnostic criteria yet for long COVID. The CDC estimates that 19% of patients in the United States who have ever had COVID-19 have long COVID symptoms. 

Some estimates go higher. A University of Oxford study in September 2021 found more than a third of patients had symptoms of long COVID between 3 months and 6 months after a COVID-19 diagnosis. As many as 55% of COVID-19 patients in one Chinese study had one or more lingering symptoms 2 years later, Lixue Huang, MD, of the China-Japan Friendship Hospital in Beijing, and colleagues reported in the journal Lancet Respiratory Medicine in May.

According to the CDC, age is a factor. “Older adults are less likely to have long COVID than younger adults. Nearly three times as many adults ages 50-59 currently have long COVID than those age 80 and older,” the CDC says. Women and racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to be affected.

Many people are experiencing neurological effects, such as the so-called brain fog, according to Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, of Washington University and the VA St. Louis Health Care System, and colleagues, whose report was published in Nature Medicine in September. They estimated that 6.6 million Americans have brain impairments associated with COVID infection.

“Some of the neurologic disorders reported here are serious chronic conditions that will impact some people for a lifetime,” they wrote. “Given the colossal scale of the pandemic, and even though the absolute numbers reported in this work are small, these may translate into a large number of affected individuals around the world – and this will likely contribute to a rise in the burden of neurologic diseases.”
 

Causes

It’s not clear what the underlying causes are, but most research points to a combination of factors. Suspects include ongoing inflammation, tiny blood clots, and reactivation of latent viruses. In May, Brent Palmer, PhD, of the University of Colorado, Denver, and colleagues found people with long COVID had persistent activation of T-cells that were specific for SARS-CoV-2.

COVID-19 itself can damage organs, and long COVID might be caused by ongoing damage. In August, Alexandros Rovas, MD, of University Hospital Munster in Germany, and colleagues found patients with long COVID had evidence of damage to their capillaries. “Whether, to what extent, and when the observed damage might be reversible remains unclear,” they wrote in the journal Angiogenesis.

People with long COVID have immune responses to other viruses, such as Epstein-Barr – evidence that COVID-19 might reactivate latent viruses. “Our data suggest the involvement of persistent antigen, reactivation of latent herpesviruses, and chronic inflammation,” immunobiologist Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues wrote in a study posted in August that had not yet been peer-reviewed for publication.

This might be causing an autoimmune response. “The infection may cause the immune system to start making autoantibodies that attack a person’s own organs and tissues,” the NIH says.

There could be other factors. A study by Harvard researchers found that people who felt stressed, depressed, or lonely before catching COVID-19 were more likely to develop long COVID afterward. “Distress was more strongly associated with developing long COVID than physical health risk factors such as obesity, asthma, and hypertension,” Siwen Wang, MD, a research fellow with Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, said in a statement.  Plus, nearly 44% of those in the study developed COVID-19 infections after having been assessed for stress, Dr. Wang and colleagues reported in the journal JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Vaccine protection 

There’s evidence that vaccination protects against long COVID, both by preventing infection in the first place, but also even for people who have breakthrough infections.

A meta-analysis covering studies involving 17 million people found evidence vaccination might reduce the severity of COVID-19 or might help the body clear any lingering virus after an infection.

“Overall, vaccination was associated with reduced risks or odds of long COVID, with preliminary evidence suggesting that two doses are more effective than one dose,” wrote Cesar Fernandez de las Penas, PhD, of King Juan Carlos University in Madrid, and colleagues. Their report is in The Lancet’s eClinicalMedicine.

A team in Milan found that unvaccinated people in their study were nearly three times as likely to have serious symptoms for longer than 4 weeks compared to vaccinated volunteers. According to their report in JAMA, Elena Azzolini, MD, PhD, assistant professor at Humanitas Research Hospital, and colleagues found two or three doses of vaccine reduced the risk of hospitalization from COVID to 16% or 17% compared to 42% for the unvaccinated.
 

Treatments

With no diagnostic criteria and no understanding of the causes, it’s hard for doctors to determine treatments.

Most experts dealing with long COVID, even those at the specialty centers that have been set up at hospitals and health systems in the United States, recommend that patients start with their primary care doctors before moving on to specialists.

“The mainstay of management is supportive, holistic care, symptom control, and detection of treatable complications,” Trish Greenhalgh, MD, professor of primary care health sciences at the University of Oxford, England, and colleagues wrote in the journal The BMJ in September. “Patients with long COVID greatly value input from their primary care clinician. Generalist clinicians can help patients considerably by hearing the patient’s story and validating their experience … (and) making the diagnosis of long COVID (which does not have to be by exclusion) and excluding alternative diagnoses.”

Evidence is building that long COVID closely resembles other postviral conditions – something that can provide clues for treatment. For example, several studies indicate that exercise doesn’t help most patients.

But there are approaches that can work. Treatments may include pulmonary rehabilitation; autonomic conditioning therapy, which includes breathing therapy; and cognitive rehabilitation to relieve brain fog. Doctors are also trying the antidepressant amitriptyline to help with sleep disturbances and headaches; the antiseizure medication gabapentin to help with pain, numbness, and other neurological symptoms; and drugs to relieve low blood pressure in patients experiencing postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).

The NIH is sponsoring studies that have recruited just over 8,200 adults. And more than two dozen researchers from Harvard; Stanford; the University of California, San Francisco; the J. Craig Venter Institute; Johns Hopkins University; the University of Pennsylvania; Mount Sinai Hospitals; Cardiff University; and Yale announced in September they were forming the Long COVID Research Initiative to speed up studies.

The group, with funding from private enterprise, plans to conduct tissue biopsy, imaging studies, and autopsies and will search for potential biomarkers in the blood of patients.

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