Covid ICYMI

Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) treated with the B-cell-depleting medication rituximab who have not yet been vaccinated against COVID-19 should get the initial vaccination as soon as possible but wait to get a booster shot until B-cell levels increase, new research suggests.

In a prospective cohort study, 90% of patients taking rituximab whose B-cell level was at least 40 cells/mcL had a sufficient antibody response to the Pfizer vaccine, whereas among those with lower levels, the antibody response was significantly lower.

Results also showed a wide variation in the length of time needed for adequate B-cell restoration. Some patients needed a year or longer for levels to become adequate.

The findings led the hospital where the study was conducted to suspend rituximab therapy until patients could be vaccinated. The findings also prompted researchers to call for new guidelines on vaccine scheduling that are based on B-cell levels and not on the current criteria of length of time since last treatment.

“It’s meaningless to just go by some recommendation covering time since the last treatment,” study investigator Joachim Burman, MD, PhD, a consultant neurologist at Uppsala University Hospital and an associate professor at Uppsala University, both in Sweden, told this news organization.

“It’s misleading and potentially harmful for patients,” Dr. Burman said.

The findings were published online  in JAMA Network Open.
 

Finding the cutoff

Drugs such as rituximab target CD20, a protein found on the surface of B cells, resulting in B-cell depletion.

Rituximab is the most common MS therapy used in Sweden. The drug is approved in the United States to treat rheumatoid arthritis and some forms of cancer, but it is not approved for treatment of MS.

Prior research showed that antibody response to COVID-19 vaccines was lower in patients receiving B-cell therapy than in the general population. That was not altogether surprising, given the fact that studies have found a similarly weakened antibody response to other vaccines.

But before now, there was no known B-cell threshold sufficient to mount an acceptable antibody response following COVID vaccination.

Researchers enrolled 67 patients in the study. Of those patients, 60 had received rituximab treatment, and seven had not.

Approximately 6 months after the last rituximab dose, the B-cell count was lower than 10/mcL for 40% of patients. In that group, rituximab treatment duration was the only factor significantly associated with slower B-cell mobilization (median duration, 4.0 years, vs. 2.1; P = .002).
 

Close monitoring needed

Six weeks after vaccination with tozinameran, the mRNA vaccine manufactured by Pfizer, 28% of patients failed to generate a sufficient antibody response. Among those patients, the median B-cell count was 22/mcL, versus 51/mcL for the remainder of the cohort (P < .001).

A cutoff value of 40/mcL rendered adequate levels of anti-spike immunoglobulin G antibodies in 90% of patients and a strong response in anti-RBD antibodies in 72%.

Study participants did register an adequate T-cell response to the vaccine, suggesting at least some level of protection.

Because MS patients are at increased risk for serious illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection, the investigators recommend that patients with MS receive their initial COVID vaccines as soon as possible – but that they should hold off on receiving a booster until their B-cell counts reach 40/mcL.

Regarding when a clinician should re-vaccinate, “the results from our study strongly suggest that you should not do that right away or just follow some generic guideline,” Dr. Burman said.

“You should closely monitor the B-cell values, and re-vaccinate once those B- cells hit the level of 40 cells/mcL” he added.

Dr. Burman said he would expect that their findings would hold with the other mRNA vaccine and with any other B-cell therapy.
 

Too soon for B-cell measures?

Commenting for this news organization, Robert J. Fox, MD, staff neurologist at the Mellen Center for MS and vice-chair for research at the Neurological Institute at Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, said the B-cell threshold identified in the study is much higher than what is typically seen in patients who undergo treatment with ocrelizumab, an anti-CD20 B-cell therapy approved in the United States for treating MS.

“Decisions about treatment interval need to balance efficacy in treating MS with safety, including response to vaccines,” said Dr. Fox, who was not involved with the research.

“Given the unknown efficacy of these extended intervals, I don’t think we’re at the point of making management recommendations based upon B-cell counts,” he added.

And yet, Uppsala University Hospital, where the study was conducted, and other centers in Sweden decided to do just that. They suspended administering rituximab to patients with MS until the patients were vaccinated. For patients newly diagnosed with MS, therapy was initiated using another disease-modifying treatment, and for those who were due for a rituximab infusion, that treatment was delayed.

Only one patient experienced a mild MS relapse during the rituximab suspension, and that case went into remission within a week, Dr. Burman reported.

“Ever since the Bar-Or report showing that the humeral response to vaccines is markedly diminished in MS patients treated with anti-CD20 therapies, clinicians have been struggling to balance those safety concerns related to anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody treatments and the clinical benefit of this treatment class,” Dr. Fox said.

“Given the uncharted waters of the COVID pandemic, clinicians made judgments and decisions as best they could, given the paucity of data,” he noted.

“At this point, we don’t know which decisions were right or wrong, but I certainly don’t think we should judge clinicians for making decisions the best they could.”

The study was funded by the Engkvist Foundation, the Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation, and the Swedish Society for Medical Research. Dr. Burman reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fox has received consulting fees from Genentech/Roche, Biogen, and other companies that promote MS therapies.

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

Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) treated with the B-cell-depleting medication rituximab who have not yet been vaccinated against COVID-19 should get the initial vaccination as soon as possible but wait to get a booster shot until B-cell levels increase, new research suggests.

In a prospective cohort study, 90% of patients taking rituximab whose B-cell level was at least 40 cells/mcL had a sufficient antibody response to the Pfizer vaccine, whereas among those with lower levels, the antibody response was significantly lower.

Results also showed a wide variation in the length of time needed for adequate B-cell restoration. Some patients needed a year or longer for levels to become adequate.

The findings led the hospital where the study was conducted to suspend rituximab therapy until patients could be vaccinated. The findings also prompted researchers to call for new guidelines on vaccine scheduling that are based on B-cell levels and not on the current criteria of length of time since last treatment.

“It’s meaningless to just go by some recommendation covering time since the last treatment,” study investigator Joachim Burman, MD, PhD, a consultant neurologist at Uppsala University Hospital and an associate professor at Uppsala University, both in Sweden, told this news organization.

“It’s misleading and potentially harmful for patients,” Dr. Burman said.

The findings were published online  in JAMA Network Open.
 

Finding the cutoff

Drugs such as rituximab target CD20, a protein found on the surface of B cells, resulting in B-cell depletion.

Rituximab is the most common MS therapy used in Sweden. The drug is approved in the United States to treat rheumatoid arthritis and some forms of cancer, but it is not approved for treatment of MS.

Prior research showed that antibody response to COVID-19 vaccines was lower in patients receiving B-cell therapy than in the general population. That was not altogether surprising, given the fact that studies have found a similarly weakened antibody response to other vaccines.

But before now, there was no known B-cell threshold sufficient to mount an acceptable antibody response following COVID vaccination.

Researchers enrolled 67 patients in the study. Of those patients, 60 had received rituximab treatment, and seven had not.

Approximately 6 months after the last rituximab dose, the B-cell count was lower than 10/mcL for 40% of patients. In that group, rituximab treatment duration was the only factor significantly associated with slower B-cell mobilization (median duration, 4.0 years, vs. 2.1; P = .002).
 

Close monitoring needed

Six weeks after vaccination with tozinameran, the mRNA vaccine manufactured by Pfizer, 28% of patients failed to generate a sufficient antibody response. Among those patients, the median B-cell count was 22/mcL, versus 51/mcL for the remainder of the cohort (P < .001).

A cutoff value of 40/mcL rendered adequate levels of anti-spike immunoglobulin G antibodies in 90% of patients and a strong response in anti-RBD antibodies in 72%.

Study participants did register an adequate T-cell response to the vaccine, suggesting at least some level of protection.

Because MS patients are at increased risk for serious illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection, the investigators recommend that patients with MS receive their initial COVID vaccines as soon as possible – but that they should hold off on receiving a booster until their B-cell counts reach 40/mcL.

Regarding when a clinician should re-vaccinate, “the results from our study strongly suggest that you should not do that right away or just follow some generic guideline,” Dr. Burman said.

“You should closely monitor the B-cell values, and re-vaccinate once those B- cells hit the level of 40 cells/mcL” he added.

Dr. Burman said he would expect that their findings would hold with the other mRNA vaccine and with any other B-cell therapy.
 

Too soon for B-cell measures?

Commenting for this news organization, Robert J. Fox, MD, staff neurologist at the Mellen Center for MS and vice-chair for research at the Neurological Institute at Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, said the B-cell threshold identified in the study is much higher than what is typically seen in patients who undergo treatment with ocrelizumab, an anti-CD20 B-cell therapy approved in the United States for treating MS.

“Decisions about treatment interval need to balance efficacy in treating MS with safety, including response to vaccines,” said Dr. Fox, who was not involved with the research.

“Given the unknown efficacy of these extended intervals, I don’t think we’re at the point of making management recommendations based upon B-cell counts,” he added.

And yet, Uppsala University Hospital, where the study was conducted, and other centers in Sweden decided to do just that. They suspended administering rituximab to patients with MS until the patients were vaccinated. For patients newly diagnosed with MS, therapy was initiated using another disease-modifying treatment, and for those who were due for a rituximab infusion, that treatment was delayed.

Only one patient experienced a mild MS relapse during the rituximab suspension, and that case went into remission within a week, Dr. Burman reported.

“Ever since the Bar-Or report showing that the humeral response to vaccines is markedly diminished in MS patients treated with anti-CD20 therapies, clinicians have been struggling to balance those safety concerns related to anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody treatments and the clinical benefit of this treatment class,” Dr. Fox said.

“Given the uncharted waters of the COVID pandemic, clinicians made judgments and decisions as best they could, given the paucity of data,” he noted.

“At this point, we don’t know which decisions were right or wrong, but I certainly don’t think we should judge clinicians for making decisions the best they could.”

The study was funded by the Engkvist Foundation, the Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation, and the Swedish Society for Medical Research. Dr. Burman reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fox has received consulting fees from Genentech/Roche, Biogen, and other companies that promote MS therapies.

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

Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) treated with the B-cell-depleting medication rituximab who have not yet been vaccinated against COVID-19 should get the initial vaccination as soon as possible but wait to get a booster shot until B-cell levels increase, new research suggests.

In a prospective cohort study, 90% of patients taking rituximab whose B-cell level was at least 40 cells/mcL had a sufficient antibody response to the Pfizer vaccine, whereas among those with lower levels, the antibody response was significantly lower.

Results also showed a wide variation in the length of time needed for adequate B-cell restoration. Some patients needed a year or longer for levels to become adequate.

The findings led the hospital where the study was conducted to suspend rituximab therapy until patients could be vaccinated. The findings also prompted researchers to call for new guidelines on vaccine scheduling that are based on B-cell levels and not on the current criteria of length of time since last treatment.

“It’s meaningless to just go by some recommendation covering time since the last treatment,” study investigator Joachim Burman, MD, PhD, a consultant neurologist at Uppsala University Hospital and an associate professor at Uppsala University, both in Sweden, told this news organization.

“It’s misleading and potentially harmful for patients,” Dr. Burman said.

The findings were published online  in JAMA Network Open.
 

Finding the cutoff

Drugs such as rituximab target CD20, a protein found on the surface of B cells, resulting in B-cell depletion.

Rituximab is the most common MS therapy used in Sweden. The drug is approved in the United States to treat rheumatoid arthritis and some forms of cancer, but it is not approved for treatment of MS.

Prior research showed that antibody response to COVID-19 vaccines was lower in patients receiving B-cell therapy than in the general population. That was not altogether surprising, given the fact that studies have found a similarly weakened antibody response to other vaccines.

But before now, there was no known B-cell threshold sufficient to mount an acceptable antibody response following COVID vaccination.

Researchers enrolled 67 patients in the study. Of those patients, 60 had received rituximab treatment, and seven had not.

Approximately 6 months after the last rituximab dose, the B-cell count was lower than 10/mcL for 40% of patients. In that group, rituximab treatment duration was the only factor significantly associated with slower B-cell mobilization (median duration, 4.0 years, vs. 2.1; P = .002).
 

Close monitoring needed

Six weeks after vaccination with tozinameran, the mRNA vaccine manufactured by Pfizer, 28% of patients failed to generate a sufficient antibody response. Among those patients, the median B-cell count was 22/mcL, versus 51/mcL for the remainder of the cohort (P < .001).

A cutoff value of 40/mcL rendered adequate levels of anti-spike immunoglobulin G antibodies in 90% of patients and a strong response in anti-RBD antibodies in 72%.

Study participants did register an adequate T-cell response to the vaccine, suggesting at least some level of protection.

Because MS patients are at increased risk for serious illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection, the investigators recommend that patients with MS receive their initial COVID vaccines as soon as possible – but that they should hold off on receiving a booster until their B-cell counts reach 40/mcL.

Regarding when a clinician should re-vaccinate, “the results from our study strongly suggest that you should not do that right away or just follow some generic guideline,” Dr. Burman said.

“You should closely monitor the B-cell values, and re-vaccinate once those B- cells hit the level of 40 cells/mcL” he added.

Dr. Burman said he would expect that their findings would hold with the other mRNA vaccine and with any other B-cell therapy.
 

Too soon for B-cell measures?

Commenting for this news organization, Robert J. Fox, MD, staff neurologist at the Mellen Center for MS and vice-chair for research at the Neurological Institute at Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, said the B-cell threshold identified in the study is much higher than what is typically seen in patients who undergo treatment with ocrelizumab, an anti-CD20 B-cell therapy approved in the United States for treating MS.

“Decisions about treatment interval need to balance efficacy in treating MS with safety, including response to vaccines,” said Dr. Fox, who was not involved with the research.

“Given the unknown efficacy of these extended intervals, I don’t think we’re at the point of making management recommendations based upon B-cell counts,” he added.

And yet, Uppsala University Hospital, where the study was conducted, and other centers in Sweden decided to do just that. They suspended administering rituximab to patients with MS until the patients were vaccinated. For patients newly diagnosed with MS, therapy was initiated using another disease-modifying treatment, and for those who were due for a rituximab infusion, that treatment was delayed.

Only one patient experienced a mild MS relapse during the rituximab suspension, and that case went into remission within a week, Dr. Burman reported.

“Ever since the Bar-Or report showing that the humeral response to vaccines is markedly diminished in MS patients treated with anti-CD20 therapies, clinicians have been struggling to balance those safety concerns related to anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody treatments and the clinical benefit of this treatment class,” Dr. Fox said.

“Given the uncharted waters of the COVID pandemic, clinicians made judgments and decisions as best they could, given the paucity of data,” he noted.

“At this point, we don’t know which decisions were right or wrong, but I certainly don’t think we should judge clinicians for making decisions the best they could.”

The study was funded by the Engkvist Foundation, the Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation, and the Swedish Society for Medical Research. Dr. Burman reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fox has received consulting fees from Genentech/Roche, Biogen, and other companies that promote MS therapies.

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

The FDA has accepted Pfizer’s application for a COVID-19 vaccine for children under age 5, which clears the way for approval and distribution in June.

Pfizer announced June 1 that it completed the application for a three-dose vaccine for kids between 6 months and 5 years old, and the FDA said it received the emergency use application.

Children in this age group – the last to be eligible for COVID-19 vaccines – could begin getting shots as early as June 21, according to White House COVID-19 response coordinator Ashish Jha, MD.

Meanwhile, COVID-19 cases are still high – an average of 100,000 cases a day – but death numbers are about 90% lower than they were when President Joe Biden first took office, Dr. Jha said. 

The FDA’s advisory group, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, is scheduled to meet June 14 and June 15 to discuss data submitted by both Pfizer and Moderna.  

If the FDA gives them the green light, the CDC will then weigh in.

“We know that many, many parents are eager to vaccinate their youngest kids, and it’s important to do this right,” Dr. Jha said at a White House press briefing on June 2. “We expect that vaccinations will begin in earnest as early as June 21 and really roll on throughout that week.”

States can place their orders as early as June 3, Dr. Jha said, and there will initially be 10 million doses available. If the FDA gives emergency use authorization for the vaccines, the government will begin shipping doses to thousands of sites across the country.

“The good news is we have plenty of supply of Pfizer and Moderna vaccines,” Dr. Jha said. “We’ve asked states to distribute to their highest priority sites, serving the highest risk and hardest to reach areas.”

Pfizer’s clinical trials found that three doses of the vaccine for children 6 months to under 5 years were safe and effective and proved to be 80% effective against Omicron.

The FDA announced its meeting information with a conversation about the Moderna vaccine for ages 6-17 scheduled for June 14 and a conversation about the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines for young children scheduled for June 15.

Moderna applied for FDA authorization of its two-dose vaccine for children under age 6 on April 28. The company said the vaccine was 51% effective against infections with symptoms for children ages 6 months to 2 years and 37% effective for ages 2-5.

Pfizer’s 3-microgram dose is one-tenth of its adult dose. Moderna’s 25-microgram dose is one-quarter of its adult dose.

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

The FDA has accepted Pfizer’s application for a COVID-19 vaccine for children under age 5, which clears the way for approval and distribution in June.

Pfizer announced June 1 that it completed the application for a three-dose vaccine for kids between 6 months and 5 years old, and the FDA said it received the emergency use application.

Children in this age group – the last to be eligible for COVID-19 vaccines – could begin getting shots as early as June 21, according to White House COVID-19 response coordinator Ashish Jha, MD.

Meanwhile, COVID-19 cases are still high – an average of 100,000 cases a day – but death numbers are about 90% lower than they were when President Joe Biden first took office, Dr. Jha said. 

The FDA’s advisory group, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, is scheduled to meet June 14 and June 15 to discuss data submitted by both Pfizer and Moderna.  

If the FDA gives them the green light, the CDC will then weigh in.

“We know that many, many parents are eager to vaccinate their youngest kids, and it’s important to do this right,” Dr. Jha said at a White House press briefing on June 2. “We expect that vaccinations will begin in earnest as early as June 21 and really roll on throughout that week.”

States can place their orders as early as June 3, Dr. Jha said, and there will initially be 10 million doses available. If the FDA gives emergency use authorization for the vaccines, the government will begin shipping doses to thousands of sites across the country.

“The good news is we have plenty of supply of Pfizer and Moderna vaccines,” Dr. Jha said. “We’ve asked states to distribute to their highest priority sites, serving the highest risk and hardest to reach areas.”

Pfizer’s clinical trials found that three doses of the vaccine for children 6 months to under 5 years were safe and effective and proved to be 80% effective against Omicron.

The FDA announced its meeting information with a conversation about the Moderna vaccine for ages 6-17 scheduled for June 14 and a conversation about the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines for young children scheduled for June 15.

Moderna applied for FDA authorization of its two-dose vaccine for children under age 6 on April 28. The company said the vaccine was 51% effective against infections with symptoms for children ages 6 months to 2 years and 37% effective for ages 2-5.

Pfizer’s 3-microgram dose is one-tenth of its adult dose. Moderna’s 25-microgram dose is one-quarter of its adult dose.

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

The FDA has accepted Pfizer’s application for a COVID-19 vaccine for children under age 5, which clears the way for approval and distribution in June.

Pfizer announced June 1 that it completed the application for a three-dose vaccine for kids between 6 months and 5 years old, and the FDA said it received the emergency use application.

Children in this age group – the last to be eligible for COVID-19 vaccines – could begin getting shots as early as June 21, according to White House COVID-19 response coordinator Ashish Jha, MD.

Meanwhile, COVID-19 cases are still high – an average of 100,000 cases a day – but death numbers are about 90% lower than they were when President Joe Biden first took office, Dr. Jha said. 

The FDA’s advisory group, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, is scheduled to meet June 14 and June 15 to discuss data submitted by both Pfizer and Moderna.  

If the FDA gives them the green light, the CDC will then weigh in.

“We know that many, many parents are eager to vaccinate their youngest kids, and it’s important to do this right,” Dr. Jha said at a White House press briefing on June 2. “We expect that vaccinations will begin in earnest as early as June 21 and really roll on throughout that week.”

States can place their orders as early as June 3, Dr. Jha said, and there will initially be 10 million doses available. If the FDA gives emergency use authorization for the vaccines, the government will begin shipping doses to thousands of sites across the country.

“The good news is we have plenty of supply of Pfizer and Moderna vaccines,” Dr. Jha said. “We’ve asked states to distribute to their highest priority sites, serving the highest risk and hardest to reach areas.”

Pfizer’s clinical trials found that three doses of the vaccine for children 6 months to under 5 years were safe and effective and proved to be 80% effective against Omicron.

The FDA announced its meeting information with a conversation about the Moderna vaccine for ages 6-17 scheduled for June 14 and a conversation about the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines for young children scheduled for June 15.

Moderna applied for FDA authorization of its two-dose vaccine for children under age 6 on April 28. The company said the vaccine was 51% effective against infections with symptoms for children ages 6 months to 2 years and 37% effective for ages 2-5.

Pfizer’s 3-microgram dose is one-tenth of its adult dose. Moderna’s 25-microgram dose is one-quarter of its adult dose.

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

Two doses of either the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine or the Oxford AstraZeneca alternative provide equal and significant protection against severe disease in patients on hemodialysis who have contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection, results of a multicenter observational study indicate.

Following two doses of either vaccine, the risk of hospital admission was 75% lower among vaccinated patients while the risk of death was 88% lower, compared with those who remained unvaccinated.

No difference was seen between the two vaccine types in terms of outcome severity, and there was no loss of protection in patients over the age of 65 or with increasing time since vaccination, the authors add. The need for oxygen and ventilation was also halved among those who had received two shots, compared with those who had not.

“The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a devastating effect on the CKD (chronic kidney disease) community, particularly for individuals receiving maintenance dialysis,” Matthew Oliver, MD, University of Toronto, and Peter Blake, MD, Western University, London, Ont., write in an editorial published with the study.

“Overall, [this and other studies] show that COVID-19 vaccination in the maintenance dialysis population provides moderate protection against acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection but is highly protective against severe outcomes,” they conclude.

The study was published in the June issue of the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.
 

Severe outcomes observed less in patients who tested positive

The cohort included 1,323 patients on hemodialysis who tested positive on PCR testing to SARS-CoV-2 during a surveillance interval between December 2020 and September 2021, report, Damien Ashby, MD, Hammersmith Hospital, London, and colleagues report.

Among those who tested positive, 79% had not been vaccinated, 7% tested positive after their first dose of either vaccine, and 14% tested positive at least 10 days beyond their second dose.

The course of illness was mild in 61% of patients in that they did not require hospital admission, investigators note. Oxygen support was required by 29% of those who tested positive, and 13% died before 28 days, they added. Among those who died within 28 days of testing positive, 90% of the deaths were deemed to be caused by the virus itself.

“Compared with unvaccinated patients, severe COVID-19 outcomes were observed less than half as often in patients testing positive for SARS-Co-V-2 at least 10 days after the second dose,” Dr. Ashby and colleagues emphasize.

“And the protection from severe illness associated with vaccination was most obvious in patients over 65 years, in whom severe COVID-19 outcomes were reduced at least as much after vaccination as in their younger peers,” they add. Following vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, antibody levels in patients on dialysis were comparable with those of healthy controls.

In contrast, this was not the case for the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine where neutralizing titers in patients who received the vaccine were less effective against most variants. Despite its ability to produce comparable immunogenicity, the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine was clearly associated with clinical protection against severe illness, the authors stress.  

They also note that their results are relevant to vaccine uptake in the dialysis population where vaccine hesitancy remains a problem. “This study may, therefore, be useful in reducing vaccine hesitancy, which has resulted in low uptake in some countries (for example, Australia, where almost a quarter of patients on dialysis declined),” Dr. Ashby and colleagues point out.

Although significant vulnerability in the dialysis population remains, “this population has much to gain from vaccination, regardless of age or vaccine type,” the authors underscore.
 

CKD community quick to prioritize vaccine

As the editorialists point out, leaders in the CKD community were quick – and successful – in prioritizing vaccination in the dialysis population right from the beginning of the pandemic. For example, in Ontario, 90% of the maintenance dialysis population had received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine by September 2021 and 78% had received three doses by January 2022.

Moreover, in Ontario, “our group found that two doses of mRNA vaccine reduced the risk of infection by 69%,” Dr. Oliver and Dr. Blake point out. U.S. researchers also found that the Pfizer mRNA vaccine reduced infection risk from COVID-19 by 79% while the Moderna mRNA vaccine reduced that risk by 73%. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) in the real-world setting indicates that COVID-19 vaccines provide moderate protection against being infected with the SARS-Co-V-2 virus, as the editorialists note.

However, “the VE for preventing severe outcomes is clinically more important for patients on dialysis because their risk of [morbid] events is high,” Dr. Oliver and Dr. Blake write. Indeed, their own study estimated that two doses of an mRNA vaccine reduced severe outcomes by 83%, “a greater benefit than for infection prevention,” they stress.

The editorialists caution that the SARS-CoV-2 virus continues to mutate and serology studies do show that vaccine-induced immunity does wane over time. Thus, while the COVID-19 pandemic is ever-changing, “we should conduct [VE] studies rigorously and expeditiously to bolster the case for prioritizing vaccination in the dialysis population,” Dr. Oliver and Dr. Blake recommend.
 

Need to increase vaccine acceptance

Commenting on the study, Uwe K.H. Korst from Bensheim, Germany, notes that COVID-19 is a daily reminder of how fragile life is for people with CKD. “Daily, the virus continues its horrific and unprecedented course through immunocompromised and immunosuppressed patients with kidney disease,” he writes.

Thus, Mr. Korst continues to call for additional education for health care professionals, patients, and the public to increase vaccine acceptance as well as more research to better understand the virus and its long-term consequences.

“Finally, patients need to express their needs, and physicians need to listen to patients’ voices,” Mr. Korst advises.

Dr. Oliver is a contracted medical lead of Ontario Renal Network and owner of Oliver Medical Management for which he holds patents and has received royalties. He has also reported receiving honoraria for speaking from Baxter Healthcare and participating in advisory boards for Amgen and Janssen. Dr. Blake has reported receiving honoraria from Baxter Global for speaking engagements and serves on the editorial board for the American Journal of Nephrology. Dr. Ashby and Dr. Korst have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two doses of either the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine or the Oxford AstraZeneca alternative provide equal and significant protection against severe disease in patients on hemodialysis who have contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection, results of a multicenter observational study indicate.

Following two doses of either vaccine, the risk of hospital admission was 75% lower among vaccinated patients while the risk of death was 88% lower, compared with those who remained unvaccinated.

No difference was seen between the two vaccine types in terms of outcome severity, and there was no loss of protection in patients over the age of 65 or with increasing time since vaccination, the authors add. The need for oxygen and ventilation was also halved among those who had received two shots, compared with those who had not.

“The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a devastating effect on the CKD (chronic kidney disease) community, particularly for individuals receiving maintenance dialysis,” Matthew Oliver, MD, University of Toronto, and Peter Blake, MD, Western University, London, Ont., write in an editorial published with the study.

“Overall, [this and other studies] show that COVID-19 vaccination in the maintenance dialysis population provides moderate protection against acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection but is highly protective against severe outcomes,” they conclude.

The study was published in the June issue of the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.
 

Severe outcomes observed less in patients who tested positive

The cohort included 1,323 patients on hemodialysis who tested positive on PCR testing to SARS-CoV-2 during a surveillance interval between December 2020 and September 2021, report, Damien Ashby, MD, Hammersmith Hospital, London, and colleagues report.

Among those who tested positive, 79% had not been vaccinated, 7% tested positive after their first dose of either vaccine, and 14% tested positive at least 10 days beyond their second dose.

The course of illness was mild in 61% of patients in that they did not require hospital admission, investigators note. Oxygen support was required by 29% of those who tested positive, and 13% died before 28 days, they added. Among those who died within 28 days of testing positive, 90% of the deaths were deemed to be caused by the virus itself.

“Compared with unvaccinated patients, severe COVID-19 outcomes were observed less than half as often in patients testing positive for SARS-Co-V-2 at least 10 days after the second dose,” Dr. Ashby and colleagues emphasize.

“And the protection from severe illness associated with vaccination was most obvious in patients over 65 years, in whom severe COVID-19 outcomes were reduced at least as much after vaccination as in their younger peers,” they add. Following vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, antibody levels in patients on dialysis were comparable with those of healthy controls.

In contrast, this was not the case for the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine where neutralizing titers in patients who received the vaccine were less effective against most variants. Despite its ability to produce comparable immunogenicity, the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine was clearly associated with clinical protection against severe illness, the authors stress.  

They also note that their results are relevant to vaccine uptake in the dialysis population where vaccine hesitancy remains a problem. “This study may, therefore, be useful in reducing vaccine hesitancy, which has resulted in low uptake in some countries (for example, Australia, where almost a quarter of patients on dialysis declined),” Dr. Ashby and colleagues point out.

Although significant vulnerability in the dialysis population remains, “this population has much to gain from vaccination, regardless of age or vaccine type,” the authors underscore.
 

CKD community quick to prioritize vaccine

As the editorialists point out, leaders in the CKD community were quick – and successful – in prioritizing vaccination in the dialysis population right from the beginning of the pandemic. For example, in Ontario, 90% of the maintenance dialysis population had received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine by September 2021 and 78% had received three doses by January 2022.

Moreover, in Ontario, “our group found that two doses of mRNA vaccine reduced the risk of infection by 69%,” Dr. Oliver and Dr. Blake point out. U.S. researchers also found that the Pfizer mRNA vaccine reduced infection risk from COVID-19 by 79% while the Moderna mRNA vaccine reduced that risk by 73%. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) in the real-world setting indicates that COVID-19 vaccines provide moderate protection against being infected with the SARS-Co-V-2 virus, as the editorialists note.

However, “the VE for preventing severe outcomes is clinically more important for patients on dialysis because their risk of [morbid] events is high,” Dr. Oliver and Dr. Blake write. Indeed, their own study estimated that two doses of an mRNA vaccine reduced severe outcomes by 83%, “a greater benefit than for infection prevention,” they stress.

The editorialists caution that the SARS-CoV-2 virus continues to mutate and serology studies do show that vaccine-induced immunity does wane over time. Thus, while the COVID-19 pandemic is ever-changing, “we should conduct [VE] studies rigorously and expeditiously to bolster the case for prioritizing vaccination in the dialysis population,” Dr. Oliver and Dr. Blake recommend.
 

Need to increase vaccine acceptance

Commenting on the study, Uwe K.H. Korst from Bensheim, Germany, notes that COVID-19 is a daily reminder of how fragile life is for people with CKD. “Daily, the virus continues its horrific and unprecedented course through immunocompromised and immunosuppressed patients with kidney disease,” he writes.

Thus, Mr. Korst continues to call for additional education for health care professionals, patients, and the public to increase vaccine acceptance as well as more research to better understand the virus and its long-term consequences.

“Finally, patients need to express their needs, and physicians need to listen to patients’ voices,” Mr. Korst advises.

Dr. Oliver is a contracted medical lead of Ontario Renal Network and owner of Oliver Medical Management for which he holds patents and has received royalties. He has also reported receiving honoraria for speaking from Baxter Healthcare and participating in advisory boards for Amgen and Janssen. Dr. Blake has reported receiving honoraria from Baxter Global for speaking engagements and serves on the editorial board for the American Journal of Nephrology. Dr. Ashby and Dr. Korst have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two doses of either the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine or the Oxford AstraZeneca alternative provide equal and significant protection against severe disease in patients on hemodialysis who have contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection, results of a multicenter observational study indicate.

Following two doses of either vaccine, the risk of hospital admission was 75% lower among vaccinated patients while the risk of death was 88% lower, compared with those who remained unvaccinated.

No difference was seen between the two vaccine types in terms of outcome severity, and there was no loss of protection in patients over the age of 65 or with increasing time since vaccination, the authors add. The need for oxygen and ventilation was also halved among those who had received two shots, compared with those who had not.

“The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a devastating effect on the CKD (chronic kidney disease) community, particularly for individuals receiving maintenance dialysis,” Matthew Oliver, MD, University of Toronto, and Peter Blake, MD, Western University, London, Ont., write in an editorial published with the study.

“Overall, [this and other studies] show that COVID-19 vaccination in the maintenance dialysis population provides moderate protection against acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection but is highly protective against severe outcomes,” they conclude.

The study was published in the June issue of the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.
 

Severe outcomes observed less in patients who tested positive

The cohort included 1,323 patients on hemodialysis who tested positive on PCR testing to SARS-CoV-2 during a surveillance interval between December 2020 and September 2021, report, Damien Ashby, MD, Hammersmith Hospital, London, and colleagues report.

Among those who tested positive, 79% had not been vaccinated, 7% tested positive after their first dose of either vaccine, and 14% tested positive at least 10 days beyond their second dose.

The course of illness was mild in 61% of patients in that they did not require hospital admission, investigators note. Oxygen support was required by 29% of those who tested positive, and 13% died before 28 days, they added. Among those who died within 28 days of testing positive, 90% of the deaths were deemed to be caused by the virus itself.

“Compared with unvaccinated patients, severe COVID-19 outcomes were observed less than half as often in patients testing positive for SARS-Co-V-2 at least 10 days after the second dose,” Dr. Ashby and colleagues emphasize.

“And the protection from severe illness associated with vaccination was most obvious in patients over 65 years, in whom severe COVID-19 outcomes were reduced at least as much after vaccination as in their younger peers,” they add. Following vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, antibody levels in patients on dialysis were comparable with those of healthy controls.

In contrast, this was not the case for the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine where neutralizing titers in patients who received the vaccine were less effective against most variants. Despite its ability to produce comparable immunogenicity, the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine was clearly associated with clinical protection against severe illness, the authors stress.  

They also note that their results are relevant to vaccine uptake in the dialysis population where vaccine hesitancy remains a problem. “This study may, therefore, be useful in reducing vaccine hesitancy, which has resulted in low uptake in some countries (for example, Australia, where almost a quarter of patients on dialysis declined),” Dr. Ashby and colleagues point out.

Although significant vulnerability in the dialysis population remains, “this population has much to gain from vaccination, regardless of age or vaccine type,” the authors underscore.
 

CKD community quick to prioritize vaccine

As the editorialists point out, leaders in the CKD community were quick – and successful – in prioritizing vaccination in the dialysis population right from the beginning of the pandemic. For example, in Ontario, 90% of the maintenance dialysis population had received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine by September 2021 and 78% had received three doses by January 2022.

Moreover, in Ontario, “our group found that two doses of mRNA vaccine reduced the risk of infection by 69%,” Dr. Oliver and Dr. Blake point out. U.S. researchers also found that the Pfizer mRNA vaccine reduced infection risk from COVID-19 by 79% while the Moderna mRNA vaccine reduced that risk by 73%. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) in the real-world setting indicates that COVID-19 vaccines provide moderate protection against being infected with the SARS-Co-V-2 virus, as the editorialists note.

However, “the VE for preventing severe outcomes is clinically more important for patients on dialysis because their risk of [morbid] events is high,” Dr. Oliver and Dr. Blake write. Indeed, their own study estimated that two doses of an mRNA vaccine reduced severe outcomes by 83%, “a greater benefit than for infection prevention,” they stress.

The editorialists caution that the SARS-CoV-2 virus continues to mutate and serology studies do show that vaccine-induced immunity does wane over time. Thus, while the COVID-19 pandemic is ever-changing, “we should conduct [VE] studies rigorously and expeditiously to bolster the case for prioritizing vaccination in the dialysis population,” Dr. Oliver and Dr. Blake recommend.
 

Need to increase vaccine acceptance

Commenting on the study, Uwe K.H. Korst from Bensheim, Germany, notes that COVID-19 is a daily reminder of how fragile life is for people with CKD. “Daily, the virus continues its horrific and unprecedented course through immunocompromised and immunosuppressed patients with kidney disease,” he writes.

Thus, Mr. Korst continues to call for additional education for health care professionals, patients, and the public to increase vaccine acceptance as well as more research to better understand the virus and its long-term consequences.

“Finally, patients need to express their needs, and physicians need to listen to patients’ voices,” Mr. Korst advises.

Dr. Oliver is a contracted medical lead of Ontario Renal Network and owner of Oliver Medical Management for which he holds patents and has received royalties. He has also reported receiving honoraria for speaking from Baxter Healthcare and participating in advisory boards for Amgen and Janssen. Dr. Blake has reported receiving honoraria from Baxter Global for speaking engagements and serves on the editorial board for the American Journal of Nephrology. Dr. Ashby and Dr. Korst have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

As the number of people reporting persistent, and sometimes debilitating, symptoms from COVID-19 increases, researchers have struggled to pinpoint exactly how common so-called “long COVID” is, as well as how to clearly define exactly who has it or who is likely to get it.

Now, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention researchers have concluded that one in five adults aged 18 and older have at least one health condition that might be related to their previous COVID-19 illness; that number goes up to one in four among those 65 and older. Their data was published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The conditions associated with what’s been officially termed postacute sequelae of COVID-19, or PASC, include kidney failure, blood clots, other vascular issues, respiratory issues, heart problems, mental health or neurologic problems, and musculoskeletal conditions. But none of those conditions is unique to long COVID.

Another new study, published in The Lancet Digital Health, is trying to help better characterize what long COVID is, and what it isn’t.

The research team, supported by the National Institutes of Health, used machine learning techniques to analyze electronic health record data to identify new information about long COVID and detect patterns that could help identify those likely to develop it.
 

CDC data

The CDC team came to its conclusions by evaluating the EHRs of more than 353,000 adults who were diagnosed with COVID-19 or got a positive test result, then comparing those records with 1.6 million patients who had a medical visit in the same month without a positive test result or a COVID-19 diagnosis.

They looked at data from March 2020 to November 2021, tagging 26 conditions often linked to post-COVID issues.

Overall, more than 38% of the COVID patients and 16% of those without COVID had at least one of these 26 conditions. They assessed the absolute risk difference between the patients and the non-COVID patients who developed one of the conditions, finding a 20.8–percentage point difference for those 18-64, yielding the one in five figure, and a 26.9–percentage point difference for those 65 and above, translating to about one in four.

“These findings suggest the need for increased awareness for post-COVID conditions so that improved post-COVID care and management of patients who survived COVID-19 can be developed and implemented,” said study author Lara Bull-Otterson, PhD, MPH, colead of data analytics at the Healthcare Data Advisory Unit of the CDC.
 

Pinpointing long COVID characteristics

Long COVID is difficult to identify, because many of its symptoms are similar to those of other conditions, so researchers are looking for better ways to characterize it to help improve both diagnosis and treatment.

Researchers on the Lancet study evaluated data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative, N3C, a national NIH database that includes information from more than 8 million people. The team looked at the health records of 98,000 adult COVID patients and used that information, along with data from about nearly 600 long-COVID patients treated at three long-COVID clinics, to create three machine learning models for identifying long-COVID patients.

The models aimed to identify long-COVID patients in three groups: all patients, those hospitalized with COVID, and those with COVID but not hospitalized. The models were judged by the researchers to be accurate because those identified at risk for long COVID from the database were similar to those actually treated for long COVID at the clinics.

“Our algorithm is not intended to diagnose long COVID,” said lead author Emily Pfaff, PhD, research assistant professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Rather, it is intended to identify patients in EHR data who ‘look like’ patients seen by physicians for long COVID.’’

Next, the researchers say, they will incorporate the new patterns they found with a diagnosis code for COVID and include it in the models to further test their accuracy. The models could also be used to help recruit patients for clinical trials, the researchers say.
 

Perspective and caveats

The figures of one in five and one in four found by the CDC researchers don’t surprise David Putrino, PT, PhD, director of rehabilitation innovation for Mount Sinai Health System in New York and director of its Abilities Research Center, which cares for long-COVID patients.

“Those numbers are high and it’s alarming,” he said. “But we’ve been sounding the alarm for quite some time, and we’ve been assuming that about one in five end up with long COVID.”

He does see a limitation to the CDC research – that some symptoms could have emerged later, and some in the control group could have had an undiagnosed COVID infection and gone on to develop long COVID.

As for machine learning, “this is something we need to approach with caution,” Dr. Putrino said. “There are a lot of variables we don’t understand about long COVID,’’ and that could result in spurious conclusions.

“Although I am supportive of this work going on, I am saying, ‘Scrutinize the tools with a grain of salt.’ Electronic records, Dr. Putrino points out, include information that the doctors enter, not what the patient says.

Dr. Pfaff responds: “It is entirely appropriate to approach both machine learning and EHR data with relevant caveats in mind. There are many clinical factors that are not recorded in the EHR, and the EHR is not representative of all persons with long COVID.” Those data can only reflect those who seek care for a condition, a natural limitation.

When it comes to algorithms, they are limited by data they have access to, such as the electronic health records in this research. However, the immense size and diversity in the data used “does allow us to make some assertations with much more confidence than if we were using data from a single or small number of health care systems,” she said.

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

As the number of people reporting persistent, and sometimes debilitating, symptoms from COVID-19 increases, researchers have struggled to pinpoint exactly how common so-called “long COVID” is, as well as how to clearly define exactly who has it or who is likely to get it.

Now, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention researchers have concluded that one in five adults aged 18 and older have at least one health condition that might be related to their previous COVID-19 illness; that number goes up to one in four among those 65 and older. Their data was published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The conditions associated with what’s been officially termed postacute sequelae of COVID-19, or PASC, include kidney failure, blood clots, other vascular issues, respiratory issues, heart problems, mental health or neurologic problems, and musculoskeletal conditions. But none of those conditions is unique to long COVID.

Another new study, published in The Lancet Digital Health, is trying to help better characterize what long COVID is, and what it isn’t.

The research team, supported by the National Institutes of Health, used machine learning techniques to analyze electronic health record data to identify new information about long COVID and detect patterns that could help identify those likely to develop it.
 

CDC data

The CDC team came to its conclusions by evaluating the EHRs of more than 353,000 adults who were diagnosed with COVID-19 or got a positive test result, then comparing those records with 1.6 million patients who had a medical visit in the same month without a positive test result or a COVID-19 diagnosis.

They looked at data from March 2020 to November 2021, tagging 26 conditions often linked to post-COVID issues.

Overall, more than 38% of the COVID patients and 16% of those without COVID had at least one of these 26 conditions. They assessed the absolute risk difference between the patients and the non-COVID patients who developed one of the conditions, finding a 20.8–percentage point difference for those 18-64, yielding the one in five figure, and a 26.9–percentage point difference for those 65 and above, translating to about one in four.

“These findings suggest the need for increased awareness for post-COVID conditions so that improved post-COVID care and management of patients who survived COVID-19 can be developed and implemented,” said study author Lara Bull-Otterson, PhD, MPH, colead of data analytics at the Healthcare Data Advisory Unit of the CDC.
 

Pinpointing long COVID characteristics

Long COVID is difficult to identify, because many of its symptoms are similar to those of other conditions, so researchers are looking for better ways to characterize it to help improve both diagnosis and treatment.

Researchers on the Lancet study evaluated data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative, N3C, a national NIH database that includes information from more than 8 million people. The team looked at the health records of 98,000 adult COVID patients and used that information, along with data from about nearly 600 long-COVID patients treated at three long-COVID clinics, to create three machine learning models for identifying long-COVID patients.

The models aimed to identify long-COVID patients in three groups: all patients, those hospitalized with COVID, and those with COVID but not hospitalized. The models were judged by the researchers to be accurate because those identified at risk for long COVID from the database were similar to those actually treated for long COVID at the clinics.

“Our algorithm is not intended to diagnose long COVID,” said lead author Emily Pfaff, PhD, research assistant professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Rather, it is intended to identify patients in EHR data who ‘look like’ patients seen by physicians for long COVID.’’

Next, the researchers say, they will incorporate the new patterns they found with a diagnosis code for COVID and include it in the models to further test their accuracy. The models could also be used to help recruit patients for clinical trials, the researchers say.
 

Perspective and caveats

The figures of one in five and one in four found by the CDC researchers don’t surprise David Putrino, PT, PhD, director of rehabilitation innovation for Mount Sinai Health System in New York and director of its Abilities Research Center, which cares for long-COVID patients.

“Those numbers are high and it’s alarming,” he said. “But we’ve been sounding the alarm for quite some time, and we’ve been assuming that about one in five end up with long COVID.”

He does see a limitation to the CDC research – that some symptoms could have emerged later, and some in the control group could have had an undiagnosed COVID infection and gone on to develop long COVID.

As for machine learning, “this is something we need to approach with caution,” Dr. Putrino said. “There are a lot of variables we don’t understand about long COVID,’’ and that could result in spurious conclusions.

“Although I am supportive of this work going on, I am saying, ‘Scrutinize the tools with a grain of salt.’ Electronic records, Dr. Putrino points out, include information that the doctors enter, not what the patient says.

Dr. Pfaff responds: “It is entirely appropriate to approach both machine learning and EHR data with relevant caveats in mind. There are many clinical factors that are not recorded in the EHR, and the EHR is not representative of all persons with long COVID.” Those data can only reflect those who seek care for a condition, a natural limitation.

When it comes to algorithms, they are limited by data they have access to, such as the electronic health records in this research. However, the immense size and diversity in the data used “does allow us to make some assertations with much more confidence than if we were using data from a single or small number of health care systems,” she said.

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

As the number of people reporting persistent, and sometimes debilitating, symptoms from COVID-19 increases, researchers have struggled to pinpoint exactly how common so-called “long COVID” is, as well as how to clearly define exactly who has it or who is likely to get it.

Now, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention researchers have concluded that one in five adults aged 18 and older have at least one health condition that might be related to their previous COVID-19 illness; that number goes up to one in four among those 65 and older. Their data was published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The conditions associated with what’s been officially termed postacute sequelae of COVID-19, or PASC, include kidney failure, blood clots, other vascular issues, respiratory issues, heart problems, mental health or neurologic problems, and musculoskeletal conditions. But none of those conditions is unique to long COVID.

Another new study, published in The Lancet Digital Health, is trying to help better characterize what long COVID is, and what it isn’t.

The research team, supported by the National Institutes of Health, used machine learning techniques to analyze electronic health record data to identify new information about long COVID and detect patterns that could help identify those likely to develop it.
 

CDC data

The CDC team came to its conclusions by evaluating the EHRs of more than 353,000 adults who were diagnosed with COVID-19 or got a positive test result, then comparing those records with 1.6 million patients who had a medical visit in the same month without a positive test result or a COVID-19 diagnosis.

They looked at data from March 2020 to November 2021, tagging 26 conditions often linked to post-COVID issues.

Overall, more than 38% of the COVID patients and 16% of those without COVID had at least one of these 26 conditions. They assessed the absolute risk difference between the patients and the non-COVID patients who developed one of the conditions, finding a 20.8–percentage point difference for those 18-64, yielding the one in five figure, and a 26.9–percentage point difference for those 65 and above, translating to about one in four.

“These findings suggest the need for increased awareness for post-COVID conditions so that improved post-COVID care and management of patients who survived COVID-19 can be developed and implemented,” said study author Lara Bull-Otterson, PhD, MPH, colead of data analytics at the Healthcare Data Advisory Unit of the CDC.
 

Pinpointing long COVID characteristics

Long COVID is difficult to identify, because many of its symptoms are similar to those of other conditions, so researchers are looking for better ways to characterize it to help improve both diagnosis and treatment.

Researchers on the Lancet study evaluated data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative, N3C, a national NIH database that includes information from more than 8 million people. The team looked at the health records of 98,000 adult COVID patients and used that information, along with data from about nearly 600 long-COVID patients treated at three long-COVID clinics, to create three machine learning models for identifying long-COVID patients.

The models aimed to identify long-COVID patients in three groups: all patients, those hospitalized with COVID, and those with COVID but not hospitalized. The models were judged by the researchers to be accurate because those identified at risk for long COVID from the database were similar to those actually treated for long COVID at the clinics.

“Our algorithm is not intended to diagnose long COVID,” said lead author Emily Pfaff, PhD, research assistant professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Rather, it is intended to identify patients in EHR data who ‘look like’ patients seen by physicians for long COVID.’’

Next, the researchers say, they will incorporate the new patterns they found with a diagnosis code for COVID and include it in the models to further test their accuracy. The models could also be used to help recruit patients for clinical trials, the researchers say.
 

Perspective and caveats

The figures of one in five and one in four found by the CDC researchers don’t surprise David Putrino, PT, PhD, director of rehabilitation innovation for Mount Sinai Health System in New York and director of its Abilities Research Center, which cares for long-COVID patients.

“Those numbers are high and it’s alarming,” he said. “But we’ve been sounding the alarm for quite some time, and we’ve been assuming that about one in five end up with long COVID.”

He does see a limitation to the CDC research – that some symptoms could have emerged later, and some in the control group could have had an undiagnosed COVID infection and gone on to develop long COVID.

As for machine learning, “this is something we need to approach with caution,” Dr. Putrino said. “There are a lot of variables we don’t understand about long COVID,’’ and that could result in spurious conclusions.

“Although I am supportive of this work going on, I am saying, ‘Scrutinize the tools with a grain of salt.’ Electronic records, Dr. Putrino points out, include information that the doctors enter, not what the patient says.

Dr. Pfaff responds: “It is entirely appropriate to approach both machine learning and EHR data with relevant caveats in mind. There are many clinical factors that are not recorded in the EHR, and the EHR is not representative of all persons with long COVID.” Those data can only reflect those who seek care for a condition, a natural limitation.

When it comes to algorithms, they are limited by data they have access to, such as the electronic health records in this research. However, the immense size and diversity in the data used “does allow us to make some assertations with much more confidence than if we were using data from a single or small number of health care systems,” she said.

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

The 2022 Pediatric Academic Societies meeting included an excellent session on the acute and delayed effects of COVID-19 on children’s hearts. Data on the risk for cardiac injury during acute COVID-19, return-to-play guidelines after COVID-19–related heart injury, and post–vaccine-associated myocarditis were reviewed.

COVID-induced cardiac injury

The risk for COVID-induced cardiac injury is directly associated with age. Recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data revealed a “myocarditis or pericarditis” rate in the range of 12-17 cases per 100,000 SARS-CoV-2 infections among male children aged 5-11 years (lower rates for females); the rate jumps to 50-65 cases per 100,000 infections among male children aged 12-17 years. So cardiac injury caused by acute COVID-19 appears rare, but the risk is clearly associated with male sex and adolescent age.

Return to play after COVID-19

Clinicians may be pressed by patients and parents for advice on return to play after illness with COVID-19. In July 2020, the American College of Cardiology published an algorithm that has been adjusted over time, most recently in 2022 by the American Academy of Pediatrics. These algorithms stratify recommendations by degree of illness. One rule of thumb: Patients with severe COVID-19 (ICU care or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children [MIS-C]) have only one box on the algorithm, and that is to rest for 3-6 months and only return to usual activity after cardiac clearance. Moderate disease (defined as ≥ 4 days of fever > 100.4 °F; ≥ 1 week of myalgia, chills, lethargy, or any non-ICU hospital stay; and no evidence of MIS-C) require undergoing an ECG to look for cardiac dysfunction, followed by at least 10 days of rest if the ECG is negative or referral for cardiac evaluation if either ECG or exam by a pediatric cardiologist is abnormal.

Clinicians can perhaps be more permissible with patients who are younger or who have had less severe disease. For example, if a patient aged younger than 12 years is asymptomatic with routine activity at the time of evaluation, an ECG is not indicated. For patients aged 12-15 years who are asymptomatic at the time of evaluation but participate in a high-intensity sport, clinicians might consider obtaining an ECG. As few as 3 days of rest might be enough for select patients who are asymptomatic at presentation. For other patients, clinicians should work with parents to introduce activity gradually and make it clear to parents that any activity intolerance requires quick reevaluation. On existing athlete registries, no deaths that are attributable to post–COVID-19 cardiac effects have been confirmed in children; however, all data presented during the session were from prior to the Omicron variant surge in early 2022, so more information may be forthcoming.
 

Considerations for MIS-C

Among children experiencing MIS-C, 35% had ECG changes, 40% exhibited left ventricular systolic or diastolic dysfunction, and 30% had mitral regurgitation, meaning that a large percentage of patients with MIS-C show some degree of cardiac dysfunction. Unfortunately, we are still in the data-gathering phase for long-term outcomes. Functional parameters tend to improve within a week, and most patients will return to normal cardiac function by 3-4 months.

Return to play after MIS-C is quite different from that for acute COVID-19. Patients with MIS-C should be treated much like other patients with myocarditis with an expected return to play in 3-6 months and only after cardiac follow-up. Another good-to-remember recommendation is to delay COVID-19 vaccination for at least 90 days after an episode of MIS-C.
 

Vaccine-related myocarditis

Once again, older age appears to be a risk factor because most patients with postvaccine myocarditis have been in their mid-teens to early 20s, with events more likely after the second vaccine dose and also more likely in male children (4:1 ratio to female children). No deaths have occurred from postvaccination myocarditis in patients younger than 30 years. Still, many individuals have exhibited residual MRI enhancement in the cardiac tissue for some time after experiencing postvaccination myocarditis; it’s currently unclear whether that has clinical implications. By comparison, CDC data demonstrates convincingly that the risk for cardiac effects is much greater after acute COVID-19 than after COVID-19 vaccination, with risk ratios often higher than 20, depending on age and condition (for example, myocarditis vs. pericarditis). Data are still insufficient to determine whether clinicians should recommend or avoid COVID-19 vaccination in children with congenital heart disease.

In summary, administering COVID-19 vaccines requires a great deal of shared decision-making with parents, and the clinician’s role is to educate parents about all potential risks related to both the vaccine and COVID-19 illness. Research has consistently shown that acute COVID-19 myocarditis and myocarditis associated with MIS-C are much more likely to occur in unvaccinated youth and more likely than postvaccination myocarditis, regardless of age.

William T. Basco, Jr., MD, MS, is a professor of pediatrics at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and director of the division of general pediatrics. He is an active health services researcher and has published more than 60 manuscripts in the peer-reviewed literature.

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

The 2022 Pediatric Academic Societies meeting included an excellent session on the acute and delayed effects of COVID-19 on children’s hearts. Data on the risk for cardiac injury during acute COVID-19, return-to-play guidelines after COVID-19–related heart injury, and post–vaccine-associated myocarditis were reviewed.

COVID-induced cardiac injury

The risk for COVID-induced cardiac injury is directly associated with age. Recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data revealed a “myocarditis or pericarditis” rate in the range of 12-17 cases per 100,000 SARS-CoV-2 infections among male children aged 5-11 years (lower rates for females); the rate jumps to 50-65 cases per 100,000 infections among male children aged 12-17 years. So cardiac injury caused by acute COVID-19 appears rare, but the risk is clearly associated with male sex and adolescent age.

Return to play after COVID-19

Clinicians may be pressed by patients and parents for advice on return to play after illness with COVID-19. In July 2020, the American College of Cardiology published an algorithm that has been adjusted over time, most recently in 2022 by the American Academy of Pediatrics. These algorithms stratify recommendations by degree of illness. One rule of thumb: Patients with severe COVID-19 (ICU care or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children [MIS-C]) have only one box on the algorithm, and that is to rest for 3-6 months and only return to usual activity after cardiac clearance. Moderate disease (defined as ≥ 4 days of fever > 100.4 °F; ≥ 1 week of myalgia, chills, lethargy, or any non-ICU hospital stay; and no evidence of MIS-C) require undergoing an ECG to look for cardiac dysfunction, followed by at least 10 days of rest if the ECG is negative or referral for cardiac evaluation if either ECG or exam by a pediatric cardiologist is abnormal.

Clinicians can perhaps be more permissible with patients who are younger or who have had less severe disease. For example, if a patient aged younger than 12 years is asymptomatic with routine activity at the time of evaluation, an ECG is not indicated. For patients aged 12-15 years who are asymptomatic at the time of evaluation but participate in a high-intensity sport, clinicians might consider obtaining an ECG. As few as 3 days of rest might be enough for select patients who are asymptomatic at presentation. For other patients, clinicians should work with parents to introduce activity gradually and make it clear to parents that any activity intolerance requires quick reevaluation. On existing athlete registries, no deaths that are attributable to post–COVID-19 cardiac effects have been confirmed in children; however, all data presented during the session were from prior to the Omicron variant surge in early 2022, so more information may be forthcoming.
 

Considerations for MIS-C

Among children experiencing MIS-C, 35% had ECG changes, 40% exhibited left ventricular systolic or diastolic dysfunction, and 30% had mitral regurgitation, meaning that a large percentage of patients with MIS-C show some degree of cardiac dysfunction. Unfortunately, we are still in the data-gathering phase for long-term outcomes. Functional parameters tend to improve within a week, and most patients will return to normal cardiac function by 3-4 months.

Return to play after MIS-C is quite different from that for acute COVID-19. Patients with MIS-C should be treated much like other patients with myocarditis with an expected return to play in 3-6 months and only after cardiac follow-up. Another good-to-remember recommendation is to delay COVID-19 vaccination for at least 90 days after an episode of MIS-C.
 

Vaccine-related myocarditis

Once again, older age appears to be a risk factor because most patients with postvaccine myocarditis have been in their mid-teens to early 20s, with events more likely after the second vaccine dose and also more likely in male children (4:1 ratio to female children). No deaths have occurred from postvaccination myocarditis in patients younger than 30 years. Still, many individuals have exhibited residual MRI enhancement in the cardiac tissue for some time after experiencing postvaccination myocarditis; it’s currently unclear whether that has clinical implications. By comparison, CDC data demonstrates convincingly that the risk for cardiac effects is much greater after acute COVID-19 than after COVID-19 vaccination, with risk ratios often higher than 20, depending on age and condition (for example, myocarditis vs. pericarditis). Data are still insufficient to determine whether clinicians should recommend or avoid COVID-19 vaccination in children with congenital heart disease.

In summary, administering COVID-19 vaccines requires a great deal of shared decision-making with parents, and the clinician’s role is to educate parents about all potential risks related to both the vaccine and COVID-19 illness. Research has consistently shown that acute COVID-19 myocarditis and myocarditis associated with MIS-C are much more likely to occur in unvaccinated youth and more likely than postvaccination myocarditis, regardless of age.

William T. Basco, Jr., MD, MS, is a professor of pediatrics at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and director of the division of general pediatrics. He is an active health services researcher and has published more than 60 manuscripts in the peer-reviewed literature.

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

The 2022 Pediatric Academic Societies meeting included an excellent session on the acute and delayed effects of COVID-19 on children’s hearts. Data on the risk for cardiac injury during acute COVID-19, return-to-play guidelines after COVID-19–related heart injury, and post–vaccine-associated myocarditis were reviewed.

COVID-induced cardiac injury

The risk for COVID-induced cardiac injury is directly associated with age. Recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data revealed a “myocarditis or pericarditis” rate in the range of 12-17 cases per 100,000 SARS-CoV-2 infections among male children aged 5-11 years (lower rates for females); the rate jumps to 50-65 cases per 100,000 infections among male children aged 12-17 years. So cardiac injury caused by acute COVID-19 appears rare, but the risk is clearly associated with male sex and adolescent age.

Return to play after COVID-19

Clinicians may be pressed by patients and parents for advice on return to play after illness with COVID-19. In July 2020, the American College of Cardiology published an algorithm that has been adjusted over time, most recently in 2022 by the American Academy of Pediatrics. These algorithms stratify recommendations by degree of illness. One rule of thumb: Patients with severe COVID-19 (ICU care or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children [MIS-C]) have only one box on the algorithm, and that is to rest for 3-6 months and only return to usual activity after cardiac clearance. Moderate disease (defined as ≥ 4 days of fever > 100.4 °F; ≥ 1 week of myalgia, chills, lethargy, or any non-ICU hospital stay; and no evidence of MIS-C) require undergoing an ECG to look for cardiac dysfunction, followed by at least 10 days of rest if the ECG is negative or referral for cardiac evaluation if either ECG or exam by a pediatric cardiologist is abnormal.

Clinicians can perhaps be more permissible with patients who are younger or who have had less severe disease. For example, if a patient aged younger than 12 years is asymptomatic with routine activity at the time of evaluation, an ECG is not indicated. For patients aged 12-15 years who are asymptomatic at the time of evaluation but participate in a high-intensity sport, clinicians might consider obtaining an ECG. As few as 3 days of rest might be enough for select patients who are asymptomatic at presentation. For other patients, clinicians should work with parents to introduce activity gradually and make it clear to parents that any activity intolerance requires quick reevaluation. On existing athlete registries, no deaths that are attributable to post–COVID-19 cardiac effects have been confirmed in children; however, all data presented during the session were from prior to the Omicron variant surge in early 2022, so more information may be forthcoming.
 

Considerations for MIS-C

Among children experiencing MIS-C, 35% had ECG changes, 40% exhibited left ventricular systolic or diastolic dysfunction, and 30% had mitral regurgitation, meaning that a large percentage of patients with MIS-C show some degree of cardiac dysfunction. Unfortunately, we are still in the data-gathering phase for long-term outcomes. Functional parameters tend to improve within a week, and most patients will return to normal cardiac function by 3-4 months.

Return to play after MIS-C is quite different from that for acute COVID-19. Patients with MIS-C should be treated much like other patients with myocarditis with an expected return to play in 3-6 months and only after cardiac follow-up. Another good-to-remember recommendation is to delay COVID-19 vaccination for at least 90 days after an episode of MIS-C.
 

Vaccine-related myocarditis

Once again, older age appears to be a risk factor because most patients with postvaccine myocarditis have been in their mid-teens to early 20s, with events more likely after the second vaccine dose and also more likely in male children (4:1 ratio to female children). No deaths have occurred from postvaccination myocarditis in patients younger than 30 years. Still, many individuals have exhibited residual MRI enhancement in the cardiac tissue for some time after experiencing postvaccination myocarditis; it’s currently unclear whether that has clinical implications. By comparison, CDC data demonstrates convincingly that the risk for cardiac effects is much greater after acute COVID-19 than after COVID-19 vaccination, with risk ratios often higher than 20, depending on age and condition (for example, myocarditis vs. pericarditis). Data are still insufficient to determine whether clinicians should recommend or avoid COVID-19 vaccination in children with congenital heart disease.

In summary, administering COVID-19 vaccines requires a great deal of shared decision-making with parents, and the clinician’s role is to educate parents about all potential risks related to both the vaccine and COVID-19 illness. Research has consistently shown that acute COVID-19 myocarditis and myocarditis associated with MIS-C are much more likely to occur in unvaccinated youth and more likely than postvaccination myocarditis, regardless of age.

William T. Basco, Jr., MD, MS, is a professor of pediatrics at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and director of the division of general pediatrics. He is an active health services researcher and has published more than 60 manuscripts in the peer-reviewed literature.

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

New cases of COVID-19 in children climbed for the seventh consecutive week, but the latest increase was the smallest of the seven, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

There were 112,496 new child COVID cases reported during the week of May 20-26, an increase of 5.0% from the previous week. Since the weekly total bottomed out at just under 26,000 in early April, the new-case count has risen by 28.0%, 11.8%, 43.5%, 17.4%, 50%, 14.6%, and 5.0%, based on data from the AAP/CHA weekly COVID-19 report.

The cumulative number of pediatric cases is almost 13.4 million since the pandemic began, and those infected children represent 18.9% of all cases, the AAP and CHA said based on data from 49 states, New York City, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

That 18.9% is noteworthy because it marks the first decline in that particular measure since the AAP and CHA started keeping track in April of 2020. Children’s share of the overall COVID burden had been holding at 19.0% for 14 straight weeks, the AAP/CHA data show.

Regionally, new cases were up in the South and the West, where recent rising trends continued, and down in the Midwest and Northeast, where the recent rising trends were reversed for the first time. At the state/territory level, Puerto Rico had the largest percent increase over the last 2 weeks, followed by Maryland and Delaware, the organizations noted in their joint report.

Hospital admissions in children aged 0-17 have changed little in the last week, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reporting rates of 0.25 per 100,000 population on May 23 and 0.25 per 100,000 on May 29, the latest date available. There was, however, a move up to 0.26 per 100,000 from May 24 to May 28, and the CDC acknowledges a possible reporting delay over the most recent 7-day period.

Emergency department visits have dipped slightly in recent days, with children aged 0-11 years at a 7-day average of 2.0% of ED visits with diagnosed COVID on May 28, down from a 5-day stretch at 2.2% from May 19 to May 23. Children aged 12-15 years were at 1.8% on May 28, compared with 2.0% on May 23-24, and 15- to 17-year-olds were at 2.0% on May 28, down from the 2.1% reached over the previous 2 days, the CDC reported on its COVID Data Tracker.

[email protected]

New cases of COVID-19 in children climbed for the seventh consecutive week, but the latest increase was the smallest of the seven, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

There were 112,496 new child COVID cases reported during the week of May 20-26, an increase of 5.0% from the previous week. Since the weekly total bottomed out at just under 26,000 in early April, the new-case count has risen by 28.0%, 11.8%, 43.5%, 17.4%, 50%, 14.6%, and 5.0%, based on data from the AAP/CHA weekly COVID-19 report.

The cumulative number of pediatric cases is almost 13.4 million since the pandemic began, and those infected children represent 18.9% of all cases, the AAP and CHA said based on data from 49 states, New York City, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

That 18.9% is noteworthy because it marks the first decline in that particular measure since the AAP and CHA started keeping track in April of 2020. Children’s share of the overall COVID burden had been holding at 19.0% for 14 straight weeks, the AAP/CHA data show.

Regionally, new cases were up in the South and the West, where recent rising trends continued, and down in the Midwest and Northeast, where the recent rising trends were reversed for the first time. At the state/territory level, Puerto Rico had the largest percent increase over the last 2 weeks, followed by Maryland and Delaware, the organizations noted in their joint report.

Hospital admissions in children aged 0-17 have changed little in the last week, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reporting rates of 0.25 per 100,000 population on May 23 and 0.25 per 100,000 on May 29, the latest date available. There was, however, a move up to 0.26 per 100,000 from May 24 to May 28, and the CDC acknowledges a possible reporting delay over the most recent 7-day period.

Emergency department visits have dipped slightly in recent days, with children aged 0-11 years at a 7-day average of 2.0% of ED visits with diagnosed COVID on May 28, down from a 5-day stretch at 2.2% from May 19 to May 23. Children aged 12-15 years were at 1.8% on May 28, compared with 2.0% on May 23-24, and 15- to 17-year-olds were at 2.0% on May 28, down from the 2.1% reached over the previous 2 days, the CDC reported on its COVID Data Tracker.

[email protected]

New cases of COVID-19 in children climbed for the seventh consecutive week, but the latest increase was the smallest of the seven, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

There were 112,496 new child COVID cases reported during the week of May 20-26, an increase of 5.0% from the previous week. Since the weekly total bottomed out at just under 26,000 in early April, the new-case count has risen by 28.0%, 11.8%, 43.5%, 17.4%, 50%, 14.6%, and 5.0%, based on data from the AAP/CHA weekly COVID-19 report.

The cumulative number of pediatric cases is almost 13.4 million since the pandemic began, and those infected children represent 18.9% of all cases, the AAP and CHA said based on data from 49 states, New York City, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

That 18.9% is noteworthy because it marks the first decline in that particular measure since the AAP and CHA started keeping track in April of 2020. Children’s share of the overall COVID burden had been holding at 19.0% for 14 straight weeks, the AAP/CHA data show.

Regionally, new cases were up in the South and the West, where recent rising trends continued, and down in the Midwest and Northeast, where the recent rising trends were reversed for the first time. At the state/territory level, Puerto Rico had the largest percent increase over the last 2 weeks, followed by Maryland and Delaware, the organizations noted in their joint report.

Hospital admissions in children aged 0-17 have changed little in the last week, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reporting rates of 0.25 per 100,000 population on May 23 and 0.25 per 100,000 on May 29, the latest date available. There was, however, a move up to 0.26 per 100,000 from May 24 to May 28, and the CDC acknowledges a possible reporting delay over the most recent 7-day period.

Emergency department visits have dipped slightly in recent days, with children aged 0-11 years at a 7-day average of 2.0% of ED visits with diagnosed COVID on May 28, down from a 5-day stretch at 2.2% from May 19 to May 23. Children aged 12-15 years were at 1.8% on May 28, compared with 2.0% on May 23-24, and 15- to 17-year-olds were at 2.0% on May 28, down from the 2.1% reached over the previous 2 days, the CDC reported on its COVID Data Tracker.

[email protected]

NEW ORLEANS – Patients experiencing brain fog and other persistent symptoms of long COVID show significant deficits on neuropsychiatric testing that correspond with prior acute COVID-19 infection, adding to mounting evidence of the significant toll the chronic condition can have on mental health.

“Many clinicians have observed the symptoms we describe in this study, however this report is among the first which identify the specific deficits using neuropsychological testing to better characterize the syndrome,” Sean T. Lynch, MD, first author of a study on the issue presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, said in an interview.

Dr. Lynch, of the department of psychiatry, Westchester Medical Center Health System, Valhalla, N.Y., and his colleagues enrolled 60 participants who had experienced acute COVID-19 disease 6-8 months earlier and had undergone neuropsychological, psychiatric, medical, functional, and quality-of-life assessments. Results from the study were published online in the Journal of the Academy of Consultation–Liaison Psychiatry (2022 Jan 25. doi: 10.1016/j.jaclp.2022.01.003).

Among the study participants, 32 were seeking treatment for brain fog in a clinical program for survivors of COVID-19, while the remaining 28 were part of an ongoing longitudinal investigation of neuropsychological, medical, and psychiatric sequelae of COVID-19, but were not seeking care for the persistent symptoms.

Assessments for neurocognitive impairment included a battery of tests used in infectious and other diseases, including the Test of Premorbid Function, the Patient Assessment of Own Function, the Trail Making Test parts A and B, the Stroop Color and Word Test, and others.

Overall, the battery of assessments showed that 37 (62%) of participants had neuropsychological test impairment, with results below the 16th percentile in two tests, while 16 (27%) showed scores indicative of severe impairment (below the second percentile in at least one test and below the 16th percentile in one test).

Those reporting brain fog had scores that were even lower than expected on tests of attention, processing speed, memory, and executive function. And among those reporting brain fog, significantly more had scores reflecting severe impairment compared with the controls (38% vs. 14%; P < .04).

“Based on what we’ve observed in our patients and what others have previously reported, we did expect to find some impairment in this study sample,” Dr. Lynch noted.

“However, we were surprised to find that 27% of the study sample had extremely low neuropsychological test scores, meaning that they scored at least two standard deviations below the expected score on at least one neuropsychological test based on their age and level of education.”

The brain fog group also reported significantly higher levels of depression, fatigue, PTSD, and functional difficulties, and lower quality of life.

Severe impairment on the neuropsychological tests correlated with the extent of acute COVID-19 symptoms, as well as depression scores, number of medical comorbidities, and subjective cognitive complaints.

An analysis of serum levels of the inflammatory markers among 50 of the 60 participants showed that 45% of the patients had an elevated IL-6, 20% had elevated TNF-alpha, and 41% had elevated CRP, compared with reference ranges.

IL-6 levels were found to correlate with acute COVID-19 symptoms, the number of medical comorbidities, fatigue, and measures of executive function, while C-reactive protein (CRP) correlated with current COVID-19 symptoms and depression scores.

In terms of clinical factors that might predict low neuropsychological test scores, Dr. Lynch noted that the “markers that we found to be significant included severity of acute COVID-19 illness, current post-COVID-19 symptoms, measures of depression and anxiety, level of fatigue, and number of medical comorbidities.”

Dr. Lynch noted that the ongoing study will include up to 18-month follow-ups that are currently underway. “The [follow-ups] will examine if symptoms improve over time and evaluate if any intervention that took place was successful,” he said.


 

Survey supports findings

The detrimental effects of mental health symptoms in long COVID were further supported in another study at the APA meeting, an online survey of 787 survivors of acute COVID-19.

In the community survey, presented by Michael Van Ameringen, MD, a professor in the department of psychiatry and behavioral neurosciences at McMaster University, in Hamilton, Ont., all respondents (100%) reported having persistent symptoms of the virus, and as many as 68% indicated that they had not returned to normal functioning, despite only 15% of the respondents having been hospitalized with COVID-19.

A large proportion showed significant depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and the most commonly reported persistent symptoms were fatigue in 75.9% of respondents, brain fog in 67.9%, concentration difficulties in 61.1%, and weakness in 51.2%.

As many as 88.2% of patients said they experienced persistent neurocognitive symptoms, with poor memory and concentration; 56% reported problems with word finding; and 54.1% had slowed thinking.

The respondents showed high rates of anxiety (41.7%) as well as depression (61.4%) as determined by scores above 9 on the Generalized Anxiety Disorder–7 (GAD-7) and Patient Health Questionnaires (PHQ-9).

As many as 40.5% of respondents showed probable PTSD, with scores above 30 on the PTSD checklist (PCL-5). Their mean resilience score on the Brief Resilient Coping Scale was 13.5, suggesting low resilience.

Among the respondents, 43.3% said they had received past treatment for mental health, while 33.5% were currently receiving mental health treatment.

Dr. Van Ameringen noted the important limitation of the study being an online survey with no control group, but said the responses nevertheless raise the question of the role of prior psychiatric disorders in long COVID.

“In our sample, 40% of respondents had a past psychiatric history, so you wonder if that also makes you vulnerable to long COVID,” he said in an interview.

“About a third were getting psychiatric help, but I think the more impaired you are, the more likely you are to seek help.”

Those who were hospitalized with COVID-19 were at a higher risk of PTSD compared with those not hospitalized (P < .001), as were those under the age of 30 (P < .05) or between 31 and 50 vs. over 50 (P < .01).

Dr. Van Ameringen noted that the survey’s high rate of subjects who had not returned to normal functioning was especially striking.

“This is not a minor issue – these are people who are no longer functioning in society,” he said.
 

In pandemics, the brain tends to be ‘overlooked’

Further addressing the neurological effects of COVID-19 at the APA meeting, Avindra Nath, MD, clinical director of the National Institutes of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke in Bethesda, Md., noted that the persisting cognitive and psychiatric symptoms after illness, such as brain fog and depression and anxiety, are not necessarily unique to COVID-19.

“We have seen this before,” he said. “There have been at least seven or eight human coronaviruses, and the interesting thing is each one affects the brain and causes neurological complications.”

The effects are classified differently and have slightly different receptors, “but the consequences are the same.”

Of note, however, research published in The Lancet Psychiatry (2021 May. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366[21]00084-5) revealed that symptoms such as dementia, mood, and anxiety are significantly higher after COVID-19 compared with other respiratory infections, with the differences increasing at 180 days since the index event.

Dr. Nath noted that, over the decades, he has observed that in pandemics “the brain tends to get overlooked.” He explained that “what can be most important in the end is what happened in the brain, because those are the things that really cause the long-term consequences.”

“These patients are depressed; they have dementia, they have brain fog, and even now that we recognize these issues, we haven’t done a very good job of studying them,” he said. “There’s so much we still don’t know, and a lot of patients are left with these symptoms and nowhere to go.”

Dr. Lynch, Dr. Van Ameringen, and Dr. Nath had no disclosures to report.

NEW ORLEANS – Patients experiencing brain fog and other persistent symptoms of long COVID show significant deficits on neuropsychiatric testing that correspond with prior acute COVID-19 infection, adding to mounting evidence of the significant toll the chronic condition can have on mental health.

“Many clinicians have observed the symptoms we describe in this study, however this report is among the first which identify the specific deficits using neuropsychological testing to better characterize the syndrome,” Sean T. Lynch, MD, first author of a study on the issue presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, said in an interview.

Dr. Lynch, of the department of psychiatry, Westchester Medical Center Health System, Valhalla, N.Y., and his colleagues enrolled 60 participants who had experienced acute COVID-19 disease 6-8 months earlier and had undergone neuropsychological, psychiatric, medical, functional, and quality-of-life assessments. Results from the study were published online in the Journal of the Academy of Consultation–Liaison Psychiatry (2022 Jan 25. doi: 10.1016/j.jaclp.2022.01.003).

Among the study participants, 32 were seeking treatment for brain fog in a clinical program for survivors of COVID-19, while the remaining 28 were part of an ongoing longitudinal investigation of neuropsychological, medical, and psychiatric sequelae of COVID-19, but were not seeking care for the persistent symptoms.

Assessments for neurocognitive impairment included a battery of tests used in infectious and other diseases, including the Test of Premorbid Function, the Patient Assessment of Own Function, the Trail Making Test parts A and B, the Stroop Color and Word Test, and others.

Overall, the battery of assessments showed that 37 (62%) of participants had neuropsychological test impairment, with results below the 16th percentile in two tests, while 16 (27%) showed scores indicative of severe impairment (below the second percentile in at least one test and below the 16th percentile in one test).

Those reporting brain fog had scores that were even lower than expected on tests of attention, processing speed, memory, and executive function. And among those reporting brain fog, significantly more had scores reflecting severe impairment compared with the controls (38% vs. 14%; P < .04).

“Based on what we’ve observed in our patients and what others have previously reported, we did expect to find some impairment in this study sample,” Dr. Lynch noted.

“However, we were surprised to find that 27% of the study sample had extremely low neuropsychological test scores, meaning that they scored at least two standard deviations below the expected score on at least one neuropsychological test based on their age and level of education.”

The brain fog group also reported significantly higher levels of depression, fatigue, PTSD, and functional difficulties, and lower quality of life.

Severe impairment on the neuropsychological tests correlated with the extent of acute COVID-19 symptoms, as well as depression scores, number of medical comorbidities, and subjective cognitive complaints.

An analysis of serum levels of the inflammatory markers among 50 of the 60 participants showed that 45% of the patients had an elevated IL-6, 20% had elevated TNF-alpha, and 41% had elevated CRP, compared with reference ranges.

IL-6 levels were found to correlate with acute COVID-19 symptoms, the number of medical comorbidities, fatigue, and measures of executive function, while C-reactive protein (CRP) correlated with current COVID-19 symptoms and depression scores.

In terms of clinical factors that might predict low neuropsychological test scores, Dr. Lynch noted that the “markers that we found to be significant included severity of acute COVID-19 illness, current post-COVID-19 symptoms, measures of depression and anxiety, level of fatigue, and number of medical comorbidities.”

Dr. Lynch noted that the ongoing study will include up to 18-month follow-ups that are currently underway. “The [follow-ups] will examine if symptoms improve over time and evaluate if any intervention that took place was successful,” he said.


 

Survey supports findings

The detrimental effects of mental health symptoms in long COVID were further supported in another study at the APA meeting, an online survey of 787 survivors of acute COVID-19.

In the community survey, presented by Michael Van Ameringen, MD, a professor in the department of psychiatry and behavioral neurosciences at McMaster University, in Hamilton, Ont., all respondents (100%) reported having persistent symptoms of the virus, and as many as 68% indicated that they had not returned to normal functioning, despite only 15% of the respondents having been hospitalized with COVID-19.

A large proportion showed significant depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and the most commonly reported persistent symptoms were fatigue in 75.9% of respondents, brain fog in 67.9%, concentration difficulties in 61.1%, and weakness in 51.2%.

As many as 88.2% of patients said they experienced persistent neurocognitive symptoms, with poor memory and concentration; 56% reported problems with word finding; and 54.1% had slowed thinking.

The respondents showed high rates of anxiety (41.7%) as well as depression (61.4%) as determined by scores above 9 on the Generalized Anxiety Disorder–7 (GAD-7) and Patient Health Questionnaires (PHQ-9).

As many as 40.5% of respondents showed probable PTSD, with scores above 30 on the PTSD checklist (PCL-5). Their mean resilience score on the Brief Resilient Coping Scale was 13.5, suggesting low resilience.

Among the respondents, 43.3% said they had received past treatment for mental health, while 33.5% were currently receiving mental health treatment.

Dr. Van Ameringen noted the important limitation of the study being an online survey with no control group, but said the responses nevertheless raise the question of the role of prior psychiatric disorders in long COVID.

“In our sample, 40% of respondents had a past psychiatric history, so you wonder if that also makes you vulnerable to long COVID,” he said in an interview.

“About a third were getting psychiatric help, but I think the more impaired you are, the more likely you are to seek help.”

Those who were hospitalized with COVID-19 were at a higher risk of PTSD compared with those not hospitalized (P < .001), as were those under the age of 30 (P < .05) or between 31 and 50 vs. over 50 (P < .01).

Dr. Van Ameringen noted that the survey’s high rate of subjects who had not returned to normal functioning was especially striking.

“This is not a minor issue – these are people who are no longer functioning in society,” he said.
 

In pandemics, the brain tends to be ‘overlooked’

Further addressing the neurological effects of COVID-19 at the APA meeting, Avindra Nath, MD, clinical director of the National Institutes of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke in Bethesda, Md., noted that the persisting cognitive and psychiatric symptoms after illness, such as brain fog and depression and anxiety, are not necessarily unique to COVID-19.

“We have seen this before,” he said. “There have been at least seven or eight human coronaviruses, and the interesting thing is each one affects the brain and causes neurological complications.”

The effects are classified differently and have slightly different receptors, “but the consequences are the same.”

Of note, however, research published in The Lancet Psychiatry (2021 May. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366[21]00084-5) revealed that symptoms such as dementia, mood, and anxiety are significantly higher after COVID-19 compared with other respiratory infections, with the differences increasing at 180 days since the index event.

Dr. Nath noted that, over the decades, he has observed that in pandemics “the brain tends to get overlooked.” He explained that “what can be most important in the end is what happened in the brain, because those are the things that really cause the long-term consequences.”

“These patients are depressed; they have dementia, they have brain fog, and even now that we recognize these issues, we haven’t done a very good job of studying them,” he said. “There’s so much we still don’t know, and a lot of patients are left with these symptoms and nowhere to go.”

Dr. Lynch, Dr. Van Ameringen, and Dr. Nath had no disclosures to report.

NEW ORLEANS – Patients experiencing brain fog and other persistent symptoms of long COVID show significant deficits on neuropsychiatric testing that correspond with prior acute COVID-19 infection, adding to mounting evidence of the significant toll the chronic condition can have on mental health.

“Many clinicians have observed the symptoms we describe in this study, however this report is among the first which identify the specific deficits using neuropsychological testing to better characterize the syndrome,” Sean T. Lynch, MD, first author of a study on the issue presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, said in an interview.

Dr. Lynch, of the department of psychiatry, Westchester Medical Center Health System, Valhalla, N.Y., and his colleagues enrolled 60 participants who had experienced acute COVID-19 disease 6-8 months earlier and had undergone neuropsychological, psychiatric, medical, functional, and quality-of-life assessments. Results from the study were published online in the Journal of the Academy of Consultation–Liaison Psychiatry (2022 Jan 25. doi: 10.1016/j.jaclp.2022.01.003).

Among the study participants, 32 were seeking treatment for brain fog in a clinical program for survivors of COVID-19, while the remaining 28 were part of an ongoing longitudinal investigation of neuropsychological, medical, and psychiatric sequelae of COVID-19, but were not seeking care for the persistent symptoms.

Assessments for neurocognitive impairment included a battery of tests used in infectious and other diseases, including the Test of Premorbid Function, the Patient Assessment of Own Function, the Trail Making Test parts A and B, the Stroop Color and Word Test, and others.

Overall, the battery of assessments showed that 37 (62%) of participants had neuropsychological test impairment, with results below the 16th percentile in two tests, while 16 (27%) showed scores indicative of severe impairment (below the second percentile in at least one test and below the 16th percentile in one test).

Those reporting brain fog had scores that were even lower than expected on tests of attention, processing speed, memory, and executive function. And among those reporting brain fog, significantly more had scores reflecting severe impairment compared with the controls (38% vs. 14%; P < .04).

“Based on what we’ve observed in our patients and what others have previously reported, we did expect to find some impairment in this study sample,” Dr. Lynch noted.

“However, we were surprised to find that 27% of the study sample had extremely low neuropsychological test scores, meaning that they scored at least two standard deviations below the expected score on at least one neuropsychological test based on their age and level of education.”

The brain fog group also reported significantly higher levels of depression, fatigue, PTSD, and functional difficulties, and lower quality of life.

Severe impairment on the neuropsychological tests correlated with the extent of acute COVID-19 symptoms, as well as depression scores, number of medical comorbidities, and subjective cognitive complaints.

An analysis of serum levels of the inflammatory markers among 50 of the 60 participants showed that 45% of the patients had an elevated IL-6, 20% had elevated TNF-alpha, and 41% had elevated CRP, compared with reference ranges.

IL-6 levels were found to correlate with acute COVID-19 symptoms, the number of medical comorbidities, fatigue, and measures of executive function, while C-reactive protein (CRP) correlated with current COVID-19 symptoms and depression scores.

In terms of clinical factors that might predict low neuropsychological test scores, Dr. Lynch noted that the “markers that we found to be significant included severity of acute COVID-19 illness, current post-COVID-19 symptoms, measures of depression and anxiety, level of fatigue, and number of medical comorbidities.”

Dr. Lynch noted that the ongoing study will include up to 18-month follow-ups that are currently underway. “The [follow-ups] will examine if symptoms improve over time and evaluate if any intervention that took place was successful,” he said.


 

Survey supports findings

The detrimental effects of mental health symptoms in long COVID were further supported in another study at the APA meeting, an online survey of 787 survivors of acute COVID-19.

In the community survey, presented by Michael Van Ameringen, MD, a professor in the department of psychiatry and behavioral neurosciences at McMaster University, in Hamilton, Ont., all respondents (100%) reported having persistent symptoms of the virus, and as many as 68% indicated that they had not returned to normal functioning, despite only 15% of the respondents having been hospitalized with COVID-19.

A large proportion showed significant depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and the most commonly reported persistent symptoms were fatigue in 75.9% of respondents, brain fog in 67.9%, concentration difficulties in 61.1%, and weakness in 51.2%.

As many as 88.2% of patients said they experienced persistent neurocognitive symptoms, with poor memory and concentration; 56% reported problems with word finding; and 54.1% had slowed thinking.

The respondents showed high rates of anxiety (41.7%) as well as depression (61.4%) as determined by scores above 9 on the Generalized Anxiety Disorder–7 (GAD-7) and Patient Health Questionnaires (PHQ-9).

As many as 40.5% of respondents showed probable PTSD, with scores above 30 on the PTSD checklist (PCL-5). Their mean resilience score on the Brief Resilient Coping Scale was 13.5, suggesting low resilience.

Among the respondents, 43.3% said they had received past treatment for mental health, while 33.5% were currently receiving mental health treatment.

Dr. Van Ameringen noted the important limitation of the study being an online survey with no control group, but said the responses nevertheless raise the question of the role of prior psychiatric disorders in long COVID.

“In our sample, 40% of respondents had a past psychiatric history, so you wonder if that also makes you vulnerable to long COVID,” he said in an interview.

“About a third were getting psychiatric help, but I think the more impaired you are, the more likely you are to seek help.”

Those who were hospitalized with COVID-19 were at a higher risk of PTSD compared with those not hospitalized (P < .001), as were those under the age of 30 (P < .05) or between 31 and 50 vs. over 50 (P < .01).

Dr. Van Ameringen noted that the survey’s high rate of subjects who had not returned to normal functioning was especially striking.

“This is not a minor issue – these are people who are no longer functioning in society,” he said.
 

In pandemics, the brain tends to be ‘overlooked’

Further addressing the neurological effects of COVID-19 at the APA meeting, Avindra Nath, MD, clinical director of the National Institutes of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke in Bethesda, Md., noted that the persisting cognitive and psychiatric symptoms after illness, such as brain fog and depression and anxiety, are not necessarily unique to COVID-19.

“We have seen this before,” he said. “There have been at least seven or eight human coronaviruses, and the interesting thing is each one affects the brain and causes neurological complications.”

The effects are classified differently and have slightly different receptors, “but the consequences are the same.”

Of note, however, research published in The Lancet Psychiatry (2021 May. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366[21]00084-5) revealed that symptoms such as dementia, mood, and anxiety are significantly higher after COVID-19 compared with other respiratory infections, with the differences increasing at 180 days since the index event.

Dr. Nath noted that, over the decades, he has observed that in pandemics “the brain tends to get overlooked.” He explained that “what can be most important in the end is what happened in the brain, because those are the things that really cause the long-term consequences.”

“These patients are depressed; they have dementia, they have brain fog, and even now that we recognize these issues, we haven’t done a very good job of studying them,” he said. “There’s so much we still don’t know, and a lot of patients are left with these symptoms and nowhere to go.”

Dr. Lynch, Dr. Van Ameringen, and Dr. Nath had no disclosures to report.

Most COVID-19 long-haulers continue to have brain fog, fatigue, and compromised quality of life more than a year after the initial infection, results from the most extensive follow-up to date of a group of long COVID patients show.

Most patients continue to experience debilitating neurologic symptoms an average of 15 months from symptom onset, Igor Koralnik, MD, who oversees the Neuro COVID-19 Clinic at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, said during a press briefing.

Surprisingly, in some cases, new symptoms appear that didn’t exist before, including variation of heart rate and blood pressure, and gastrointestinal symptoms, indicating there may be a late appearance in dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system in those patients, Dr. Koralnik said.

The study was published online in Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology.
 

Evolving symptoms

The investigators evaluated the evolution of neurologic symptoms in 52 adults who had mild COVID-19 symptoms and were not admitted to the hospital.

Their mean age was 43 years, 73% were women and 77% had received a COVID-19 vaccine. These patients have now been followed for between 11 and 18 months since their initial infection.

Overall, between first and follow-up evaluations, there was no significant change in the frequency of most neurologic symptoms, including brain fog (81% vs. 71%), numbness/tingling (69% vs. 65%), headache (67% vs. 54%), dizziness (50% vs. 54%), blurred vision (34% vs. 44%), tinnitus (33% vs. 42%), and fatigue (87% vs. 81%).

The only neurologic symptoms that decreased over time were loss of taste (63% vs. 27%) and smell (58% vs. 21%).

Conversely, heart rate and blood pressure variation (35% vs. 56%) and gastrointestinal symptoms (27% vs. 48%; P = .04) increased at follow-up evaluations.

Patients reported subjective improvements in their recovery, cognitive function and fatigue, but quality of life measures remained lower than the average population of the United States.

There was a neutral effect of COVID vaccination on long COVID symptoms – it didn’t cure long COVID or make long COVID worse, which is a reason given by some long-haulers for not getting vaccinated, Dr. Koralnik told the briefing.

Therefore, “we continue to encourage our patients to get vaccinated and boosted according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendation,” he said.
 

Escape from the ‘pit of despair’

To date, the Northwestern Medicine Neuro COVID-19 Clinic has treated nearly 1,400 COVID long-haulers from across the United States.

Emily Caffee, a physical therapist from Wheaton, Ill., is one of them.

Speaking at the briefing, the 36-year-old described her saga and roller coaster of recovering from long COVID in three acts: her initial infection, followed by a descent into a pit of physical and emotional despair, followed by her eventual escape from that pit more than two years later.

Following a fairly mild case of COVID, Ms. Caffee said worsening neurologic symptoms forced her to take medical leave from her very physical and cognitively demanding job. 

Ms. Caffee said she experienced crushing fatigue and brain fog, as well as rapid heart rate and blood pressure changes going from sitting to standing position.

She went from being a competitive athlete to someone who could barely get off the couch or empty the dishwasher.

With the ongoing help of her medical team, she slowly returned to daily activities and eventually to work on a limited basis.

Today, Ms. Caffee says she’s 90%-95% better but still she has some lingering symptoms and does not yet feel like her pre-COVID self.

It’s been a very slow climb out of the pit, Ms. Caffee said.

This study has no specific funding. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Most COVID-19 long-haulers continue to have brain fog, fatigue, and compromised quality of life more than a year after the initial infection, results from the most extensive follow-up to date of a group of long COVID patients show.

Most patients continue to experience debilitating neurologic symptoms an average of 15 months from symptom onset, Igor Koralnik, MD, who oversees the Neuro COVID-19 Clinic at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, said during a press briefing.

Surprisingly, in some cases, new symptoms appear that didn’t exist before, including variation of heart rate and blood pressure, and gastrointestinal symptoms, indicating there may be a late appearance in dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system in those patients, Dr. Koralnik said.

The study was published online in Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology.
 

Evolving symptoms

The investigators evaluated the evolution of neurologic symptoms in 52 adults who had mild COVID-19 symptoms and were not admitted to the hospital.

Their mean age was 43 years, 73% were women and 77% had received a COVID-19 vaccine. These patients have now been followed for between 11 and 18 months since their initial infection.

Overall, between first and follow-up evaluations, there was no significant change in the frequency of most neurologic symptoms, including brain fog (81% vs. 71%), numbness/tingling (69% vs. 65%), headache (67% vs. 54%), dizziness (50% vs. 54%), blurred vision (34% vs. 44%), tinnitus (33% vs. 42%), and fatigue (87% vs. 81%).

The only neurologic symptoms that decreased over time were loss of taste (63% vs. 27%) and smell (58% vs. 21%).

Conversely, heart rate and blood pressure variation (35% vs. 56%) and gastrointestinal symptoms (27% vs. 48%; P = .04) increased at follow-up evaluations.

Patients reported subjective improvements in their recovery, cognitive function and fatigue, but quality of life measures remained lower than the average population of the United States.

There was a neutral effect of COVID vaccination on long COVID symptoms – it didn’t cure long COVID or make long COVID worse, which is a reason given by some long-haulers for not getting vaccinated, Dr. Koralnik told the briefing.

Therefore, “we continue to encourage our patients to get vaccinated and boosted according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendation,” he said.
 

Escape from the ‘pit of despair’

To date, the Northwestern Medicine Neuro COVID-19 Clinic has treated nearly 1,400 COVID long-haulers from across the United States.

Emily Caffee, a physical therapist from Wheaton, Ill., is one of them.

Speaking at the briefing, the 36-year-old described her saga and roller coaster of recovering from long COVID in three acts: her initial infection, followed by a descent into a pit of physical and emotional despair, followed by her eventual escape from that pit more than two years later.

Following a fairly mild case of COVID, Ms. Caffee said worsening neurologic symptoms forced her to take medical leave from her very physical and cognitively demanding job. 

Ms. Caffee said she experienced crushing fatigue and brain fog, as well as rapid heart rate and blood pressure changes going from sitting to standing position.

She went from being a competitive athlete to someone who could barely get off the couch or empty the dishwasher.

With the ongoing help of her medical team, she slowly returned to daily activities and eventually to work on a limited basis.

Today, Ms. Caffee says she’s 90%-95% better but still she has some lingering symptoms and does not yet feel like her pre-COVID self.

It’s been a very slow climb out of the pit, Ms. Caffee said.

This study has no specific funding. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Most COVID-19 long-haulers continue to have brain fog, fatigue, and compromised quality of life more than a year after the initial infection, results from the most extensive follow-up to date of a group of long COVID patients show.

Most patients continue to experience debilitating neurologic symptoms an average of 15 months from symptom onset, Igor Koralnik, MD, who oversees the Neuro COVID-19 Clinic at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, said during a press briefing.

Surprisingly, in some cases, new symptoms appear that didn’t exist before, including variation of heart rate and blood pressure, and gastrointestinal symptoms, indicating there may be a late appearance in dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system in those patients, Dr. Koralnik said.

The study was published online in Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology.
 

Evolving symptoms

The investigators evaluated the evolution of neurologic symptoms in 52 adults who had mild COVID-19 symptoms and were not admitted to the hospital.

Their mean age was 43 years, 73% were women and 77% had received a COVID-19 vaccine. These patients have now been followed for between 11 and 18 months since their initial infection.

Overall, between first and follow-up evaluations, there was no significant change in the frequency of most neurologic symptoms, including brain fog (81% vs. 71%), numbness/tingling (69% vs. 65%), headache (67% vs. 54%), dizziness (50% vs. 54%), blurred vision (34% vs. 44%), tinnitus (33% vs. 42%), and fatigue (87% vs. 81%).

The only neurologic symptoms that decreased over time were loss of taste (63% vs. 27%) and smell (58% vs. 21%).

Conversely, heart rate and blood pressure variation (35% vs. 56%) and gastrointestinal symptoms (27% vs. 48%; P = .04) increased at follow-up evaluations.

Patients reported subjective improvements in their recovery, cognitive function and fatigue, but quality of life measures remained lower than the average population of the United States.

There was a neutral effect of COVID vaccination on long COVID symptoms – it didn’t cure long COVID or make long COVID worse, which is a reason given by some long-haulers for not getting vaccinated, Dr. Koralnik told the briefing.

Therefore, “we continue to encourage our patients to get vaccinated and boosted according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendation,” he said.
 

Escape from the ‘pit of despair’

To date, the Northwestern Medicine Neuro COVID-19 Clinic has treated nearly 1,400 COVID long-haulers from across the United States.

Emily Caffee, a physical therapist from Wheaton, Ill., is one of them.

Speaking at the briefing, the 36-year-old described her saga and roller coaster of recovering from long COVID in three acts: her initial infection, followed by a descent into a pit of physical and emotional despair, followed by her eventual escape from that pit more than two years later.

Following a fairly mild case of COVID, Ms. Caffee said worsening neurologic symptoms forced her to take medical leave from her very physical and cognitively demanding job. 

Ms. Caffee said she experienced crushing fatigue and brain fog, as well as rapid heart rate and blood pressure changes going from sitting to standing position.

She went from being a competitive athlete to someone who could barely get off the couch or empty the dishwasher.

With the ongoing help of her medical team, she slowly returned to daily activities and eventually to work on a limited basis.

Today, Ms. Caffee says she’s 90%-95% better but still she has some lingering symptoms and does not yet feel like her pre-COVID self.

It’s been a very slow climb out of the pit, Ms. Caffee said.

This study has no specific funding. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The Catholic University of Louvain (Belgium) announced that its researchers have managed to identify the key that allows the COVID-19 virus to attack cells. What’s more, they have succeeded in closing the lock to block the virus and prevent it from interacting with the cell, thereby preventing infection.

UCLouvain emphasized that this discovery, which was published in Nature Communications, is sparking hope that an aerosol antiviral therapy can be developed that would eradicate the virus in the case of an infection or a high-risk contact.

For 2 years, the team under David Alsteens, PhD, a researcher at the UCLouvain Institute of Biomolecular Science and Technology, has been working hard to understand the precise molecular mechanisms the virus uses to infect a cell. They investigated the interaction between sialic acids, a kind of sugar residue present on the surface of cells, and the SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein to clarify its role in the infection process.

It was already known that the function of the sugar residues that coat the cells is to promote cell recognition, thus enabling, in particular, viruses to identify their targets more easily, but also to provide them with a point of attachment and to facilitate infection of the cells.

The researchers have now revealed a variant of these sugars that interacts more strongly with the S protein than other sugars do.

In other words, the university explained, they found the set of keys that allows the virus to open the cell door. So, the researchers decided to catch the virus in its own trap, by preventing it from attaching to its host cell. To do this, they blocked the S protein’s points of attachment, thus suppressing any interaction with the cell surface, as if a padlock had been placed on the lock on the cell’s entry door.

Th researchers added that the advantage of this discovery is that it acts on the virus, irrespective of mutations.

The team of researchers will now conduct tests on mice to apply this blocking of virus binding sites and observe whether it works on the body. The results should make it possible to develop an antiviral therapy administered by aerosol in the case of infection or at-risk contact.

This discovery is also of interest for the future to counter other viruses with similar attachment factors.

This article was translated from MediQuality; a version appeared on Medscape.com.

The Catholic University of Louvain (Belgium) announced that its researchers have managed to identify the key that allows the COVID-19 virus to attack cells. What’s more, they have succeeded in closing the lock to block the virus and prevent it from interacting with the cell, thereby preventing infection.

UCLouvain emphasized that this discovery, which was published in Nature Communications, is sparking hope that an aerosol antiviral therapy can be developed that would eradicate the virus in the case of an infection or a high-risk contact.

For 2 years, the team under David Alsteens, PhD, a researcher at the UCLouvain Institute of Biomolecular Science and Technology, has been working hard to understand the precise molecular mechanisms the virus uses to infect a cell. They investigated the interaction between sialic acids, a kind of sugar residue present on the surface of cells, and the SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein to clarify its role in the infection process.

It was already known that the function of the sugar residues that coat the cells is to promote cell recognition, thus enabling, in particular, viruses to identify their targets more easily, but also to provide them with a point of attachment and to facilitate infection of the cells.

The researchers have now revealed a variant of these sugars that interacts more strongly with the S protein than other sugars do.

In other words, the university explained, they found the set of keys that allows the virus to open the cell door. So, the researchers decided to catch the virus in its own trap, by preventing it from attaching to its host cell. To do this, they blocked the S protein’s points of attachment, thus suppressing any interaction with the cell surface, as if a padlock had been placed on the lock on the cell’s entry door.

Th researchers added that the advantage of this discovery is that it acts on the virus, irrespective of mutations.

The team of researchers will now conduct tests on mice to apply this blocking of virus binding sites and observe whether it works on the body. The results should make it possible to develop an antiviral therapy administered by aerosol in the case of infection or at-risk contact.

This discovery is also of interest for the future to counter other viruses with similar attachment factors.

This article was translated from MediQuality; a version appeared on Medscape.com.

The Catholic University of Louvain (Belgium) announced that its researchers have managed to identify the key that allows the COVID-19 virus to attack cells. What’s more, they have succeeded in closing the lock to block the virus and prevent it from interacting with the cell, thereby preventing infection.

UCLouvain emphasized that this discovery, which was published in Nature Communications, is sparking hope that an aerosol antiviral therapy can be developed that would eradicate the virus in the case of an infection or a high-risk contact.

For 2 years, the team under David Alsteens, PhD, a researcher at the UCLouvain Institute of Biomolecular Science and Technology, has been working hard to understand the precise molecular mechanisms the virus uses to infect a cell. They investigated the interaction between sialic acids, a kind of sugar residue present on the surface of cells, and the SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein to clarify its role in the infection process.

It was already known that the function of the sugar residues that coat the cells is to promote cell recognition, thus enabling, in particular, viruses to identify their targets more easily, but also to provide them with a point of attachment and to facilitate infection of the cells.

The researchers have now revealed a variant of these sugars that interacts more strongly with the S protein than other sugars do.

In other words, the university explained, they found the set of keys that allows the virus to open the cell door. So, the researchers decided to catch the virus in its own trap, by preventing it from attaching to its host cell. To do this, they blocked the S protein’s points of attachment, thus suppressing any interaction with the cell surface, as if a padlock had been placed on the lock on the cell’s entry door.

Th researchers added that the advantage of this discovery is that it acts on the virus, irrespective of mutations.

The team of researchers will now conduct tests on mice to apply this blocking of virus binding sites and observe whether it works on the body. The results should make it possible to develop an antiviral therapy administered by aerosol in the case of infection or at-risk contact.

This discovery is also of interest for the future to counter other viruses with similar attachment factors.

This article was translated from MediQuality; a version appeared on Medscape.com.

More than 3 million live births occurred in the United States in 2021, the largest increase in the nation’s birth rate since 2014, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Provisional data showed a 1% uptick in births, to 3.66 million, after 6 years of dropping by approximately 2% per year. The gains were concentrated among birthing people ages 25 and older. Teenage births, on the other hand, are at their lowest level since the 1990s, according to the CDC. The agency reported a record 6% decrease in births for teenagers aged 15 to 19 years between 2020 and 2021. Women ages 20 to 25 years also had a record decrease in births of 4% during that period.

Brady E. Hamilton, PhD, of the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics, and the lead author of the new report, said the rise in births points to childbearing that was postponed during the pandemic. Data from 2021 showed a 4% drop in the nation’s birth rate between 2019 and 2020.

“The option to forgo birth is not always viable for older women, but you saw a lot of that during the pandemic,” Dr. Hamilton said. “Events happened related to job security and the economy that caused people to wait to have a child.”

Dr. Hamilton said more data are needed to determine the full impact of increased overall birth rates on individuals. The final report, which will be released in July, will delve deeper into the influence increased birth rates had on demographics and preterm births, which Dr. Hamilton and his team found have increased by 4%.

“For those beginning to have children, we see these trends, but it will be interesting to see what happens to younger women in the future,” Dr. Hamilton said. “Once we have the final data for 2021, we will be able to see a more detailed pattern emerge and draw conclusions from that.”

Dr. Hamilton has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

More than 3 million live births occurred in the United States in 2021, the largest increase in the nation’s birth rate since 2014, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Provisional data showed a 1% uptick in births, to 3.66 million, after 6 years of dropping by approximately 2% per year. The gains were concentrated among birthing people ages 25 and older. Teenage births, on the other hand, are at their lowest level since the 1990s, according to the CDC. The agency reported a record 6% decrease in births for teenagers aged 15 to 19 years between 2020 and 2021. Women ages 20 to 25 years also had a record decrease in births of 4% during that period.

Brady E. Hamilton, PhD, of the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics, and the lead author of the new report, said the rise in births points to childbearing that was postponed during the pandemic. Data from 2021 showed a 4% drop in the nation’s birth rate between 2019 and 2020.

“The option to forgo birth is not always viable for older women, but you saw a lot of that during the pandemic,” Dr. Hamilton said. “Events happened related to job security and the economy that caused people to wait to have a child.”

Dr. Hamilton said more data are needed to determine the full impact of increased overall birth rates on individuals. The final report, which will be released in July, will delve deeper into the influence increased birth rates had on demographics and preterm births, which Dr. Hamilton and his team found have increased by 4%.

“For those beginning to have children, we see these trends, but it will be interesting to see what happens to younger women in the future,” Dr. Hamilton said. “Once we have the final data for 2021, we will be able to see a more detailed pattern emerge and draw conclusions from that.”

Dr. Hamilton has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

More than 3 million live births occurred in the United States in 2021, the largest increase in the nation’s birth rate since 2014, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Provisional data showed a 1% uptick in births, to 3.66 million, after 6 years of dropping by approximately 2% per year. The gains were concentrated among birthing people ages 25 and older. Teenage births, on the other hand, are at their lowest level since the 1990s, according to the CDC. The agency reported a record 6% decrease in births for teenagers aged 15 to 19 years between 2020 and 2021. Women ages 20 to 25 years also had a record decrease in births of 4% during that period.

Brady E. Hamilton, PhD, of the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics, and the lead author of the new report, said the rise in births points to childbearing that was postponed during the pandemic. Data from 2021 showed a 4% drop in the nation’s birth rate between 2019 and 2020.

“The option to forgo birth is not always viable for older women, but you saw a lot of that during the pandemic,” Dr. Hamilton said. “Events happened related to job security and the economy that caused people to wait to have a child.”

Dr. Hamilton said more data are needed to determine the full impact of increased overall birth rates on individuals. The final report, which will be released in July, will delve deeper into the influence increased birth rates had on demographics and preterm births, which Dr. Hamilton and his team found have increased by 4%.

“For those beginning to have children, we see these trends, but it will be interesting to see what happens to younger women in the future,” Dr. Hamilton said. “Once we have the final data for 2021, we will be able to see a more detailed pattern emerge and draw conclusions from that.”

Dr. Hamilton has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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