User login
Analysis boosts fluvoxamine for COVID, but what’s the evidence?
a new systematic review and meta-analysis has found. But outside experts differ over whether the evidence from just three studies is strong enough to warrant adding the drug to the COVID-19 armamentarium.
The report, published online in JAMA Network Open, looked at three studies and estimated that the drug could reduce the relative risk of hospitalization by around 25% (likelihood of moderate effect, 81.6%-91.8%), depending on the type of analysis used.
“This research might be valuable, but the jury remains out until several other adequately powered and designed trials are completed,” said infectious disease specialist Carl J. Fichtenbaum, MD, of the University of Cincinnati, who’s familiar with the findings. “I’m not sure how useful this is given we have several antiviral agents available. Why would we choose this over Paxlovid, remdesivir, or molnupiravir?”
According to Dr. Fichtenbaum, researchers began focusing on fluvoxamine after case reports about patients improving while on the medication. This led to further interest, he said, boosted by the drug’s known ability to dampen the immune system.
A Silicon Valley investor and antivaccine activist named Steve Kirsch has been pushing the drug along with the debunked treatment hydroxychloroquine. He’s accused the government of a cover-up of fluvoxamine’s worth, according to MIT Technology Review, and he wrote a commentary that referred to the drug as “the fast, easy, safe, simple, low-cost solution to COVID that works 100% of the time that nobody wants to talk about.”
For the new analysis, researchers examined three randomized clinical trials with a total of 2,196 participants. The most extensive trial, the TOGETHER study in Brazil (n = 1,497), focused on an unusual outcome: It linked the drug to a 32% reduction in relative risk of patients with COVID-19 being hospitalized in an ED for fewer than 6 hours or transferred to a tertiary hospital because of the disease.
Another study, the STOP COVID 2 trial in the United States and Canada (n = 547), was stopped because too few patients could be recruited to provide useful results. The initial phase of this trial, STOP COVID 1 (n = 152), was also included in the analysis.
All participants in the three studies were unvaccinated. Their median age was 46-50 years, 55%-72% were women, and 44%-56% were obese. Most were multiracial due to the high number of participants from Brazil.
“In the Bayesian analyses, the pooled risk ratio in favor of fluvoxamine was 0.78 (95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.08) for the weakly neutral prior and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.53-1.01) for the moderately optimistic prior,” the researchers reported, referring to a reduction in risk of hospitalization. “In the frequentist meta-analysis, the pooled risk ratio in favor of fluvoxamine was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.58-0.97; I2, 0.2%).”
Two of the authors of the new analysis were also coauthors of the TOGETHER trial and both STOP COVID trials.
Corresponding author Emily G. McDonald, MD, division of experimental medicine at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview that the findings show fluvoxamine “very likely reduces hospitalization in high-risk outpatient adults with COVID-19. This effect varies depending on your baseline risk of developing complications in the first place.”
Dr. McDonald added that “fluvoxamine is an option to reduce hospitalizations in high-risk adults. It is likely effective, is inexpensive, and has a long safety track record.” She also noted that “not all countries have access to Paxlovid, and some people have drug interactions that preclude its use. Existing monoclonals are not effective with newer variants.”
The drug’s apparent anti-inflammatory properties seem to be key, she said. According to her, the next steps should be “testing lower doses to see if they remain effective, following patients long term to see what impact there is on long COVID symptoms, testing related medications in the drug class to see if they also show an effect, and testing in vaccinated people and with newer variants.”
In an interview, biostatistician James Watson, PhD, of the Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Bangkok, Thailand, and Nuffield department of medicine, University of Oxford, England, said the findings of the analysis are “not overwhelming data.”
He noted the TOGETHER study’s unusual focus on ED visits that latest fewer than 6 hours, which he described as “not a very objective endpoint.” The new meta-analysis focused instead on “outcome data on emergency department visits lasting more than 24 hours and used this as a more representative proxy for hospital admission than an ED visit alone.”
Dr. Fichtenbaum also highlighted the odd endpoint. “Most of us would have chosen something like use of oxygen, requirement for ventilation, or death,” he said. “There are many reasons why people go to the ED. This endpoint is not very strong.”
He also noted that the three studies “are very different in design and endpoints.”
Jeffrey S. Morris, PhD, a biostatistician at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, offered a different perspective about the findings in an interview. “There’s good evidence that it helps some,” he said, and may reduce hospitalizations by 10%. “If the pill is super cheap and toxicity is very acceptable, it’s not adding additional risk. Most clinicians would say that: ‘If I’m reducing risk by 10%, it’s worthwhile.’ ”
No funding was reported. Two authors report having a patent application filed by Washington University for methods of treating COVID-19 during the conduct of the study. Dr. Watson is an investigator for studies analyzing antiviral drugs and Prozac as COVID-19 treatments. Dr. Fichtenbaum and Dr. Morris disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
a new systematic review and meta-analysis has found. But outside experts differ over whether the evidence from just three studies is strong enough to warrant adding the drug to the COVID-19 armamentarium.
The report, published online in JAMA Network Open, looked at three studies and estimated that the drug could reduce the relative risk of hospitalization by around 25% (likelihood of moderate effect, 81.6%-91.8%), depending on the type of analysis used.
“This research might be valuable, but the jury remains out until several other adequately powered and designed trials are completed,” said infectious disease specialist Carl J. Fichtenbaum, MD, of the University of Cincinnati, who’s familiar with the findings. “I’m not sure how useful this is given we have several antiviral agents available. Why would we choose this over Paxlovid, remdesivir, or molnupiravir?”
According to Dr. Fichtenbaum, researchers began focusing on fluvoxamine after case reports about patients improving while on the medication. This led to further interest, he said, boosted by the drug’s known ability to dampen the immune system.
A Silicon Valley investor and antivaccine activist named Steve Kirsch has been pushing the drug along with the debunked treatment hydroxychloroquine. He’s accused the government of a cover-up of fluvoxamine’s worth, according to MIT Technology Review, and he wrote a commentary that referred to the drug as “the fast, easy, safe, simple, low-cost solution to COVID that works 100% of the time that nobody wants to talk about.”
For the new analysis, researchers examined three randomized clinical trials with a total of 2,196 participants. The most extensive trial, the TOGETHER study in Brazil (n = 1,497), focused on an unusual outcome: It linked the drug to a 32% reduction in relative risk of patients with COVID-19 being hospitalized in an ED for fewer than 6 hours or transferred to a tertiary hospital because of the disease.
Another study, the STOP COVID 2 trial in the United States and Canada (n = 547), was stopped because too few patients could be recruited to provide useful results. The initial phase of this trial, STOP COVID 1 (n = 152), was also included in the analysis.
All participants in the three studies were unvaccinated. Their median age was 46-50 years, 55%-72% were women, and 44%-56% were obese. Most were multiracial due to the high number of participants from Brazil.
“In the Bayesian analyses, the pooled risk ratio in favor of fluvoxamine was 0.78 (95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.08) for the weakly neutral prior and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.53-1.01) for the moderately optimistic prior,” the researchers reported, referring to a reduction in risk of hospitalization. “In the frequentist meta-analysis, the pooled risk ratio in favor of fluvoxamine was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.58-0.97; I2, 0.2%).”
Two of the authors of the new analysis were also coauthors of the TOGETHER trial and both STOP COVID trials.
Corresponding author Emily G. McDonald, MD, division of experimental medicine at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview that the findings show fluvoxamine “very likely reduces hospitalization in high-risk outpatient adults with COVID-19. This effect varies depending on your baseline risk of developing complications in the first place.”
Dr. McDonald added that “fluvoxamine is an option to reduce hospitalizations in high-risk adults. It is likely effective, is inexpensive, and has a long safety track record.” She also noted that “not all countries have access to Paxlovid, and some people have drug interactions that preclude its use. Existing monoclonals are not effective with newer variants.”
The drug’s apparent anti-inflammatory properties seem to be key, she said. According to her, the next steps should be “testing lower doses to see if they remain effective, following patients long term to see what impact there is on long COVID symptoms, testing related medications in the drug class to see if they also show an effect, and testing in vaccinated people and with newer variants.”
In an interview, biostatistician James Watson, PhD, of the Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Bangkok, Thailand, and Nuffield department of medicine, University of Oxford, England, said the findings of the analysis are “not overwhelming data.”
He noted the TOGETHER study’s unusual focus on ED visits that latest fewer than 6 hours, which he described as “not a very objective endpoint.” The new meta-analysis focused instead on “outcome data on emergency department visits lasting more than 24 hours and used this as a more representative proxy for hospital admission than an ED visit alone.”
Dr. Fichtenbaum also highlighted the odd endpoint. “Most of us would have chosen something like use of oxygen, requirement for ventilation, or death,” he said. “There are many reasons why people go to the ED. This endpoint is not very strong.”
He also noted that the three studies “are very different in design and endpoints.”
Jeffrey S. Morris, PhD, a biostatistician at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, offered a different perspective about the findings in an interview. “There’s good evidence that it helps some,” he said, and may reduce hospitalizations by 10%. “If the pill is super cheap and toxicity is very acceptable, it’s not adding additional risk. Most clinicians would say that: ‘If I’m reducing risk by 10%, it’s worthwhile.’ ”
No funding was reported. Two authors report having a patent application filed by Washington University for methods of treating COVID-19 during the conduct of the study. Dr. Watson is an investigator for studies analyzing antiviral drugs and Prozac as COVID-19 treatments. Dr. Fichtenbaum and Dr. Morris disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
a new systematic review and meta-analysis has found. But outside experts differ over whether the evidence from just three studies is strong enough to warrant adding the drug to the COVID-19 armamentarium.
The report, published online in JAMA Network Open, looked at three studies and estimated that the drug could reduce the relative risk of hospitalization by around 25% (likelihood of moderate effect, 81.6%-91.8%), depending on the type of analysis used.
“This research might be valuable, but the jury remains out until several other adequately powered and designed trials are completed,” said infectious disease specialist Carl J. Fichtenbaum, MD, of the University of Cincinnati, who’s familiar with the findings. “I’m not sure how useful this is given we have several antiviral agents available. Why would we choose this over Paxlovid, remdesivir, or molnupiravir?”
According to Dr. Fichtenbaum, researchers began focusing on fluvoxamine after case reports about patients improving while on the medication. This led to further interest, he said, boosted by the drug’s known ability to dampen the immune system.
A Silicon Valley investor and antivaccine activist named Steve Kirsch has been pushing the drug along with the debunked treatment hydroxychloroquine. He’s accused the government of a cover-up of fluvoxamine’s worth, according to MIT Technology Review, and he wrote a commentary that referred to the drug as “the fast, easy, safe, simple, low-cost solution to COVID that works 100% of the time that nobody wants to talk about.”
For the new analysis, researchers examined three randomized clinical trials with a total of 2,196 participants. The most extensive trial, the TOGETHER study in Brazil (n = 1,497), focused on an unusual outcome: It linked the drug to a 32% reduction in relative risk of patients with COVID-19 being hospitalized in an ED for fewer than 6 hours or transferred to a tertiary hospital because of the disease.
Another study, the STOP COVID 2 trial in the United States and Canada (n = 547), was stopped because too few patients could be recruited to provide useful results. The initial phase of this trial, STOP COVID 1 (n = 152), was also included in the analysis.
All participants in the three studies were unvaccinated. Their median age was 46-50 years, 55%-72% were women, and 44%-56% were obese. Most were multiracial due to the high number of participants from Brazil.
“In the Bayesian analyses, the pooled risk ratio in favor of fluvoxamine was 0.78 (95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.08) for the weakly neutral prior and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.53-1.01) for the moderately optimistic prior,” the researchers reported, referring to a reduction in risk of hospitalization. “In the frequentist meta-analysis, the pooled risk ratio in favor of fluvoxamine was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.58-0.97; I2, 0.2%).”
Two of the authors of the new analysis were also coauthors of the TOGETHER trial and both STOP COVID trials.
Corresponding author Emily G. McDonald, MD, division of experimental medicine at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview that the findings show fluvoxamine “very likely reduces hospitalization in high-risk outpatient adults with COVID-19. This effect varies depending on your baseline risk of developing complications in the first place.”
Dr. McDonald added that “fluvoxamine is an option to reduce hospitalizations in high-risk adults. It is likely effective, is inexpensive, and has a long safety track record.” She also noted that “not all countries have access to Paxlovid, and some people have drug interactions that preclude its use. Existing monoclonals are not effective with newer variants.”
The drug’s apparent anti-inflammatory properties seem to be key, she said. According to her, the next steps should be “testing lower doses to see if they remain effective, following patients long term to see what impact there is on long COVID symptoms, testing related medications in the drug class to see if they also show an effect, and testing in vaccinated people and with newer variants.”
In an interview, biostatistician James Watson, PhD, of the Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Bangkok, Thailand, and Nuffield department of medicine, University of Oxford, England, said the findings of the analysis are “not overwhelming data.”
He noted the TOGETHER study’s unusual focus on ED visits that latest fewer than 6 hours, which he described as “not a very objective endpoint.” The new meta-analysis focused instead on “outcome data on emergency department visits lasting more than 24 hours and used this as a more representative proxy for hospital admission than an ED visit alone.”
Dr. Fichtenbaum also highlighted the odd endpoint. “Most of us would have chosen something like use of oxygen, requirement for ventilation, or death,” he said. “There are many reasons why people go to the ED. This endpoint is not very strong.”
He also noted that the three studies “are very different in design and endpoints.”
Jeffrey S. Morris, PhD, a biostatistician at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, offered a different perspective about the findings in an interview. “There’s good evidence that it helps some,” he said, and may reduce hospitalizations by 10%. “If the pill is super cheap and toxicity is very acceptable, it’s not adding additional risk. Most clinicians would say that: ‘If I’m reducing risk by 10%, it’s worthwhile.’ ”
No funding was reported. Two authors report having a patent application filed by Washington University for methods of treating COVID-19 during the conduct of the study. Dr. Watson is an investigator for studies analyzing antiviral drugs and Prozac as COVID-19 treatments. Dr. Fichtenbaum and Dr. Morris disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
COVID cases rising in about half of states
About half the states have reported increases in COVID cases fueled by the Omicron subvariant, Axios reported. Alaska, Vermont, and Rhode Island had the highest increases, with more than 20 new cases per 100,000 people.
Nationally, the statistics are encouraging, with the 7-day average of daily cases around 26,000 on April 6, down from around 41,000 on March 6, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The number of deaths has dropped to an average of around 600 a day, down 34% from 2 weeks ago.
National health officials have said some spots would have a lot of COVID cases.
“Looking across the country, we see that 95% of counties are reporting low COVID-19 community levels, which represent over 97% of the U.S. population,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said April 5 at a White House news briefing.
“If we look more closely at the local level, we find a handful of counties where we are seeing increases in both cases and markers of more severe disease, like hospitalizations and in-patient bed capacity, which have resulted in an increased COVID-19 community level in some areas.”
Meanwhile, the Commonwealth Fund issued a report April 8 saying the U.S. vaccine program had prevented an estimated 2.2 million deaths and 17 million hospitalizations.
If the vaccine program didn’t exist, the United States would have had another 66 million COVID infections and spent about $900 billion more on health care, the foundation said.
The United States has reported about 982,000 COVID-related deaths so far with about 80 million COVID cases, according to the CDC.
“Our findings highlight the profound and ongoing impact of the vaccination program in reducing infections, hospitalizations, and deaths,” the Commonwealth Fund said.
“Investing in vaccination programs also has produced substantial cost savings – approximately the size of one-fifth of annual national health expenditures – by dramatically reducing the amount spent on COVID-19 hospitalizations.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
About half the states have reported increases in COVID cases fueled by the Omicron subvariant, Axios reported. Alaska, Vermont, and Rhode Island had the highest increases, with more than 20 new cases per 100,000 people.
Nationally, the statistics are encouraging, with the 7-day average of daily cases around 26,000 on April 6, down from around 41,000 on March 6, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The number of deaths has dropped to an average of around 600 a day, down 34% from 2 weeks ago.
National health officials have said some spots would have a lot of COVID cases.
“Looking across the country, we see that 95% of counties are reporting low COVID-19 community levels, which represent over 97% of the U.S. population,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said April 5 at a White House news briefing.
“If we look more closely at the local level, we find a handful of counties where we are seeing increases in both cases and markers of more severe disease, like hospitalizations and in-patient bed capacity, which have resulted in an increased COVID-19 community level in some areas.”
Meanwhile, the Commonwealth Fund issued a report April 8 saying the U.S. vaccine program had prevented an estimated 2.2 million deaths and 17 million hospitalizations.
If the vaccine program didn’t exist, the United States would have had another 66 million COVID infections and spent about $900 billion more on health care, the foundation said.
The United States has reported about 982,000 COVID-related deaths so far with about 80 million COVID cases, according to the CDC.
“Our findings highlight the profound and ongoing impact of the vaccination program in reducing infections, hospitalizations, and deaths,” the Commonwealth Fund said.
“Investing in vaccination programs also has produced substantial cost savings – approximately the size of one-fifth of annual national health expenditures – by dramatically reducing the amount spent on COVID-19 hospitalizations.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
About half the states have reported increases in COVID cases fueled by the Omicron subvariant, Axios reported. Alaska, Vermont, and Rhode Island had the highest increases, with more than 20 new cases per 100,000 people.
Nationally, the statistics are encouraging, with the 7-day average of daily cases around 26,000 on April 6, down from around 41,000 on March 6, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The number of deaths has dropped to an average of around 600 a day, down 34% from 2 weeks ago.
National health officials have said some spots would have a lot of COVID cases.
“Looking across the country, we see that 95% of counties are reporting low COVID-19 community levels, which represent over 97% of the U.S. population,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said April 5 at a White House news briefing.
“If we look more closely at the local level, we find a handful of counties where we are seeing increases in both cases and markers of more severe disease, like hospitalizations and in-patient bed capacity, which have resulted in an increased COVID-19 community level in some areas.”
Meanwhile, the Commonwealth Fund issued a report April 8 saying the U.S. vaccine program had prevented an estimated 2.2 million deaths and 17 million hospitalizations.
If the vaccine program didn’t exist, the United States would have had another 66 million COVID infections and spent about $900 billion more on health care, the foundation said.
The United States has reported about 982,000 COVID-related deaths so far with about 80 million COVID cases, according to the CDC.
“Our findings highlight the profound and ongoing impact of the vaccination program in reducing infections, hospitalizations, and deaths,” the Commonwealth Fund said.
“Investing in vaccination programs also has produced substantial cost savings – approximately the size of one-fifth of annual national health expenditures – by dramatically reducing the amount spent on COVID-19 hospitalizations.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
About 19% of COVID-19 headaches become chronic
Approximately one in five patients who presented with headache during the acute phase of COVID-19 developed chronic daily headache, according to a study published in Cephalalgia. The greater the headache’s intensity during the acute phase, the greater the likelihood that it would persist.
The research, carried out by members of the Headache Study Group of the Spanish Society of Neurology, evaluated the evolution of headache in more than 900 Spanish patients. Because they found that headache intensity during the acute phase was associated with a more prolonged duration of headache, the team stressed the importance of promptly evaluating patients who have had COVID-19 and who then experience persistent headache.
Long-term evolution unknown
Headache is a common symptom of COVID-19, but its long-term evolution remains unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term duration of headache in patients who presented with this symptom during the acute phase of the disease.
Recruitment for this multicenter study took place in March and April 2020. The 905 patients who were enrolled came from six level 3 hospitals in Spain. All completed 9 months of neurologic follow-up.
Their median age was 51 years, 66.5% were women, and more than half (52.7%) had a history of primary headache. About half of the patients required hospitalization (50.5%); the rest were treated as outpatients. The most common headache phenotype was holocranial (67.8%) of severe intensity (50.6%).
Persistent headache common
In the 96.6% cases for which data were available, the median duration of headache was 14 days. The headache persisted at 1 month in 31.1% of patients, at 2 months in 21.5%, at 3 months in 19%, at 6 months in 16.8%, and at 9 months in 16.0%.
“The median duration of COVID-19 headache is around 2 weeks,” David García Azorín, MD, PhD, a member of the Spanish Society of Neurology and one of the coauthors of the study, said in an interview. “However, almost 20% of patients experience it for longer than that. When still present at 2 months, the headache is more likely to follow a chronic daily pattern.” Dr. García Azorín is a neurologist and clinical researcher at the headache unit of the Hospital Clínico Universitario in Valladolid, Spain.
“So, if the headache isn’t letting up, it’s important to make the most of that window of opportunity and provide treatment in that period of 6-12 weeks,” he continued. “To do this, the best option is to carry out preventive treatment so that the patient will have a better chance of recovering.”
Study participants whose headache persisted at 9 months were older and were mostly women. They were less likely to have had pneumonia or to have experienced stabbing pain, photophobia, or phonophobia. They reported that the headache got worse when they engaged in physical activity but less frequently manifested as a throbbing headache.
Secondary tension headaches
On the other hand, Jaime Rodríguez Vico, MD, head of the headache unit at the Jiménez Díaz Foundation Hospital in Madrid, said in an interview that, according to his case studies, the most striking characteristics of post–COVID-19 headaches “in general are secondary, with similarities to tension headaches that patients are able to differentiate from other clinical types of headache. In patients with migraine, very often we see that we’re dealing with a trigger. In other words, more migraines – and more intense ones at that – are brought about.”
He added: “Generally, post–COVID-19 headache usually lasts 1-2 weeks, but we have cases of it lasting several months and even over a year with persistent daily headache. These more persistent cases are probably connected to another type of pathology that makes them more susceptible to becoming chronic, something that occurs in another type of primary headache known as new daily persistent headache.”
Primary headache exacerbation
Dr. García Azorín pointed out that it’s not uncommon that among people who already have primary headache, their condition worsens after they become infected with SARS-CoV-2. However, many people differentiate the headache associated with the infection from their usual headache because after becoming infected, their headache is predominantly frontal, oppressive, and chronic.
“Having a prior history of headache is one of the factors that can increase the likelihood that a headache experienced while suffering from COVID-19 will become chronic,” he noted.
This study also found that, more often than not, patients with persistent headache at 9 months had migraine-like pain.
As for headaches in these patients beyond 9 months, “based on our research, the evolution is quite variable,” said Dr. Rodríguez Vico. “Our unit’s numbers are skewed due to the high number of migraine cases that we follow, and therefore our high volume of migraine patients who’ve gotten worse. The same thing happens with COVID-19 vaccines. Migraine is a polygenic disorder with multiple variants and a pathophysiology that we are just beginning to describe. This is why one patient is completely different from another. It’s a real challenge.”
Infections are a common cause of acute and chronic headache. The persistence of a headache after an infection may be caused by the infection becoming chronic, as happens in some types of chronic meningitis, such as tuberculous meningitis. It may also be caused by the persistence of a certain response and activation of the immune system or to the uncovering or worsening of a primary headache coincident with the infection, added Dr. García Azorín.
“Likewise, there are other people who have a biological predisposition to headache as a multifactorial disorder and polygenic disorder, such that a particular stimulus – from trauma or an infection to alcohol consumption – can cause them to develop a headache very similar to a migraine,” he said.
Providing prognosis and treatment
Certain factors can give an idea of how long the headache might last. The study’s univariate analysis showed that age, female sex, headache intensity, pressure-like quality, the presence of photophobia/phonophobia, and worsening with physical activity were associated with headache of longer duration. But in the multivariate analysis, only headache intensity during the acute phase remained statistically significant (hazard ratio, 0.655; 95% confidence interval, 0.582-0.737; P < .001).
When asked whether they planned to continue the study, Dr. García Azorín commented, “The main questions that have arisen from this study have been, above all: ‘Why does this headache happen?’ and ‘How can it be treated or avoided?’ To answer them, we’re looking into pain: which factors could predispose a person to it and which changes may be associated with its presence.”
In addition, different treatments that may improve patient outcomes are being evaluated, because to date, treatment has been empirical and based on the predominant pain phenotype.
In any case, most doctors currently treat post–COVID-19 headache on the basis of how similar the symptoms are to those of other primary headaches. “Given the impact that headache has on patients’ quality of life, there’s a pressing need for controlled studies on possible treatments and their effectiveness,” noted Patricia Pozo Rosich, MD, PhD, one of the coauthors of the study.
“We at the Spanish Society of Neurology truly believe that if these patients were to have this symptom correctly addressed from the start, they could avoid many of the problems that arise in the situation becoming chronic,” she concluded.
Dr. García Azorín and Dr. Rodríguez Vico disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Approximately one in five patients who presented with headache during the acute phase of COVID-19 developed chronic daily headache, according to a study published in Cephalalgia. The greater the headache’s intensity during the acute phase, the greater the likelihood that it would persist.
The research, carried out by members of the Headache Study Group of the Spanish Society of Neurology, evaluated the evolution of headache in more than 900 Spanish patients. Because they found that headache intensity during the acute phase was associated with a more prolonged duration of headache, the team stressed the importance of promptly evaluating patients who have had COVID-19 and who then experience persistent headache.
Long-term evolution unknown
Headache is a common symptom of COVID-19, but its long-term evolution remains unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term duration of headache in patients who presented with this symptom during the acute phase of the disease.
Recruitment for this multicenter study took place in March and April 2020. The 905 patients who were enrolled came from six level 3 hospitals in Spain. All completed 9 months of neurologic follow-up.
Their median age was 51 years, 66.5% were women, and more than half (52.7%) had a history of primary headache. About half of the patients required hospitalization (50.5%); the rest were treated as outpatients. The most common headache phenotype was holocranial (67.8%) of severe intensity (50.6%).
Persistent headache common
In the 96.6% cases for which data were available, the median duration of headache was 14 days. The headache persisted at 1 month in 31.1% of patients, at 2 months in 21.5%, at 3 months in 19%, at 6 months in 16.8%, and at 9 months in 16.0%.
“The median duration of COVID-19 headache is around 2 weeks,” David García Azorín, MD, PhD, a member of the Spanish Society of Neurology and one of the coauthors of the study, said in an interview. “However, almost 20% of patients experience it for longer than that. When still present at 2 months, the headache is more likely to follow a chronic daily pattern.” Dr. García Azorín is a neurologist and clinical researcher at the headache unit of the Hospital Clínico Universitario in Valladolid, Spain.
“So, if the headache isn’t letting up, it’s important to make the most of that window of opportunity and provide treatment in that period of 6-12 weeks,” he continued. “To do this, the best option is to carry out preventive treatment so that the patient will have a better chance of recovering.”
Study participants whose headache persisted at 9 months were older and were mostly women. They were less likely to have had pneumonia or to have experienced stabbing pain, photophobia, or phonophobia. They reported that the headache got worse when they engaged in physical activity but less frequently manifested as a throbbing headache.
Secondary tension headaches
On the other hand, Jaime Rodríguez Vico, MD, head of the headache unit at the Jiménez Díaz Foundation Hospital in Madrid, said in an interview that, according to his case studies, the most striking characteristics of post–COVID-19 headaches “in general are secondary, with similarities to tension headaches that patients are able to differentiate from other clinical types of headache. In patients with migraine, very often we see that we’re dealing with a trigger. In other words, more migraines – and more intense ones at that – are brought about.”
He added: “Generally, post–COVID-19 headache usually lasts 1-2 weeks, but we have cases of it lasting several months and even over a year with persistent daily headache. These more persistent cases are probably connected to another type of pathology that makes them more susceptible to becoming chronic, something that occurs in another type of primary headache known as new daily persistent headache.”
Primary headache exacerbation
Dr. García Azorín pointed out that it’s not uncommon that among people who already have primary headache, their condition worsens after they become infected with SARS-CoV-2. However, many people differentiate the headache associated with the infection from their usual headache because after becoming infected, their headache is predominantly frontal, oppressive, and chronic.
“Having a prior history of headache is one of the factors that can increase the likelihood that a headache experienced while suffering from COVID-19 will become chronic,” he noted.
This study also found that, more often than not, patients with persistent headache at 9 months had migraine-like pain.
As for headaches in these patients beyond 9 months, “based on our research, the evolution is quite variable,” said Dr. Rodríguez Vico. “Our unit’s numbers are skewed due to the high number of migraine cases that we follow, and therefore our high volume of migraine patients who’ve gotten worse. The same thing happens with COVID-19 vaccines. Migraine is a polygenic disorder with multiple variants and a pathophysiology that we are just beginning to describe. This is why one patient is completely different from another. It’s a real challenge.”
Infections are a common cause of acute and chronic headache. The persistence of a headache after an infection may be caused by the infection becoming chronic, as happens in some types of chronic meningitis, such as tuberculous meningitis. It may also be caused by the persistence of a certain response and activation of the immune system or to the uncovering or worsening of a primary headache coincident with the infection, added Dr. García Azorín.
“Likewise, there are other people who have a biological predisposition to headache as a multifactorial disorder and polygenic disorder, such that a particular stimulus – from trauma or an infection to alcohol consumption – can cause them to develop a headache very similar to a migraine,” he said.
Providing prognosis and treatment
Certain factors can give an idea of how long the headache might last. The study’s univariate analysis showed that age, female sex, headache intensity, pressure-like quality, the presence of photophobia/phonophobia, and worsening with physical activity were associated with headache of longer duration. But in the multivariate analysis, only headache intensity during the acute phase remained statistically significant (hazard ratio, 0.655; 95% confidence interval, 0.582-0.737; P < .001).
When asked whether they planned to continue the study, Dr. García Azorín commented, “The main questions that have arisen from this study have been, above all: ‘Why does this headache happen?’ and ‘How can it be treated or avoided?’ To answer them, we’re looking into pain: which factors could predispose a person to it and which changes may be associated with its presence.”
In addition, different treatments that may improve patient outcomes are being evaluated, because to date, treatment has been empirical and based on the predominant pain phenotype.
In any case, most doctors currently treat post–COVID-19 headache on the basis of how similar the symptoms are to those of other primary headaches. “Given the impact that headache has on patients’ quality of life, there’s a pressing need for controlled studies on possible treatments and their effectiveness,” noted Patricia Pozo Rosich, MD, PhD, one of the coauthors of the study.
“We at the Spanish Society of Neurology truly believe that if these patients were to have this symptom correctly addressed from the start, they could avoid many of the problems that arise in the situation becoming chronic,” she concluded.
Dr. García Azorín and Dr. Rodríguez Vico disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Approximately one in five patients who presented with headache during the acute phase of COVID-19 developed chronic daily headache, according to a study published in Cephalalgia. The greater the headache’s intensity during the acute phase, the greater the likelihood that it would persist.
The research, carried out by members of the Headache Study Group of the Spanish Society of Neurology, evaluated the evolution of headache in more than 900 Spanish patients. Because they found that headache intensity during the acute phase was associated with a more prolonged duration of headache, the team stressed the importance of promptly evaluating patients who have had COVID-19 and who then experience persistent headache.
Long-term evolution unknown
Headache is a common symptom of COVID-19, but its long-term evolution remains unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term duration of headache in patients who presented with this symptom during the acute phase of the disease.
Recruitment for this multicenter study took place in March and April 2020. The 905 patients who were enrolled came from six level 3 hospitals in Spain. All completed 9 months of neurologic follow-up.
Their median age was 51 years, 66.5% were women, and more than half (52.7%) had a history of primary headache. About half of the patients required hospitalization (50.5%); the rest were treated as outpatients. The most common headache phenotype was holocranial (67.8%) of severe intensity (50.6%).
Persistent headache common
In the 96.6% cases for which data were available, the median duration of headache was 14 days. The headache persisted at 1 month in 31.1% of patients, at 2 months in 21.5%, at 3 months in 19%, at 6 months in 16.8%, and at 9 months in 16.0%.
“The median duration of COVID-19 headache is around 2 weeks,” David García Azorín, MD, PhD, a member of the Spanish Society of Neurology and one of the coauthors of the study, said in an interview. “However, almost 20% of patients experience it for longer than that. When still present at 2 months, the headache is more likely to follow a chronic daily pattern.” Dr. García Azorín is a neurologist and clinical researcher at the headache unit of the Hospital Clínico Universitario in Valladolid, Spain.
“So, if the headache isn’t letting up, it’s important to make the most of that window of opportunity and provide treatment in that period of 6-12 weeks,” he continued. “To do this, the best option is to carry out preventive treatment so that the patient will have a better chance of recovering.”
Study participants whose headache persisted at 9 months were older and were mostly women. They were less likely to have had pneumonia or to have experienced stabbing pain, photophobia, or phonophobia. They reported that the headache got worse when they engaged in physical activity but less frequently manifested as a throbbing headache.
Secondary tension headaches
On the other hand, Jaime Rodríguez Vico, MD, head of the headache unit at the Jiménez Díaz Foundation Hospital in Madrid, said in an interview that, according to his case studies, the most striking characteristics of post–COVID-19 headaches “in general are secondary, with similarities to tension headaches that patients are able to differentiate from other clinical types of headache. In patients with migraine, very often we see that we’re dealing with a trigger. In other words, more migraines – and more intense ones at that – are brought about.”
He added: “Generally, post–COVID-19 headache usually lasts 1-2 weeks, but we have cases of it lasting several months and even over a year with persistent daily headache. These more persistent cases are probably connected to another type of pathology that makes them more susceptible to becoming chronic, something that occurs in another type of primary headache known as new daily persistent headache.”
Primary headache exacerbation
Dr. García Azorín pointed out that it’s not uncommon that among people who already have primary headache, their condition worsens after they become infected with SARS-CoV-2. However, many people differentiate the headache associated with the infection from their usual headache because after becoming infected, their headache is predominantly frontal, oppressive, and chronic.
“Having a prior history of headache is one of the factors that can increase the likelihood that a headache experienced while suffering from COVID-19 will become chronic,” he noted.
This study also found that, more often than not, patients with persistent headache at 9 months had migraine-like pain.
As for headaches in these patients beyond 9 months, “based on our research, the evolution is quite variable,” said Dr. Rodríguez Vico. “Our unit’s numbers are skewed due to the high number of migraine cases that we follow, and therefore our high volume of migraine patients who’ve gotten worse. The same thing happens with COVID-19 vaccines. Migraine is a polygenic disorder with multiple variants and a pathophysiology that we are just beginning to describe. This is why one patient is completely different from another. It’s a real challenge.”
Infections are a common cause of acute and chronic headache. The persistence of a headache after an infection may be caused by the infection becoming chronic, as happens in some types of chronic meningitis, such as tuberculous meningitis. It may also be caused by the persistence of a certain response and activation of the immune system or to the uncovering or worsening of a primary headache coincident with the infection, added Dr. García Azorín.
“Likewise, there are other people who have a biological predisposition to headache as a multifactorial disorder and polygenic disorder, such that a particular stimulus – from trauma or an infection to alcohol consumption – can cause them to develop a headache very similar to a migraine,” he said.
Providing prognosis and treatment
Certain factors can give an idea of how long the headache might last. The study’s univariate analysis showed that age, female sex, headache intensity, pressure-like quality, the presence of photophobia/phonophobia, and worsening with physical activity were associated with headache of longer duration. But in the multivariate analysis, only headache intensity during the acute phase remained statistically significant (hazard ratio, 0.655; 95% confidence interval, 0.582-0.737; P < .001).
When asked whether they planned to continue the study, Dr. García Azorín commented, “The main questions that have arisen from this study have been, above all: ‘Why does this headache happen?’ and ‘How can it be treated or avoided?’ To answer them, we’re looking into pain: which factors could predispose a person to it and which changes may be associated with its presence.”
In addition, different treatments that may improve patient outcomes are being evaluated, because to date, treatment has been empirical and based on the predominant pain phenotype.
In any case, most doctors currently treat post–COVID-19 headache on the basis of how similar the symptoms are to those of other primary headaches. “Given the impact that headache has on patients’ quality of life, there’s a pressing need for controlled studies on possible treatments and their effectiveness,” noted Patricia Pozo Rosich, MD, PhD, one of the coauthors of the study.
“We at the Spanish Society of Neurology truly believe that if these patients were to have this symptom correctly addressed from the start, they could avoid many of the problems that arise in the situation becoming chronic,” she concluded.
Dr. García Azorín and Dr. Rodríguez Vico disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CEPHALALGIA
Preterm C-sections, induced deliveries dropped during COVID-19 pandemic
Premature births from cesarean (C-section) and induced deliveries dropped abruptly by 6.5% from the projected number in the first month of the COVID-19 pandemic and stayed at the lower rate consistently throughout the year, researchers have found.
Results of the study, led by Daniel Dench, PhD, assistant professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology School of Economics in Atlanta, were published online in Pediatrics.
The authors say their findings help answer the question of whether numbers of preterm (less than 37 weeks gestation) C-sections and induced deliveries would change if women didn’t see their physicians during pregnancy as often, especially in person, and raise the question of whether some birth interventions by physicians may not be necessary. The pandemic gave researchers a natural, ethical way to study the question.
The researchers found that in March 2020 – the start of business closures and stay-at-home orders around the country – preterm births from C-sections or induced deliveries immediately fell from the forecast number for the month by 0.4 percentage points. For the rest of 2020, the number remained on average 0.35 percentage points below the numbers predicted.
That means 350 fewer preterm C-sections and induced deliveries per 100,000 live births, or 10,000 fewer overall, the authors said.
Dr. Dench told this publication the numbers for those births had been steady from January 2010 to February 2020, but the pattern “diverges from this trend very clearly beginning exactly in March 2020 and does not return to trend by December 2020.”
Meanwhile, during the study period, the number of full-term cesarean and induced deliveries stayed steady and started to increase slightly in 2020. Researchers also adjusted for seasonality as, for example, preterm births are higher on average in February than in March.
So far, Dr. Dench said in a press release, it’s not clear whether the lower numbers mean physicians didn’t deliver babies that ended up surviving in the womb anyway or if they missed some that would die in the womb without intervention.
To better understand those implications, Dr. Dench says he is turning to fetal death records for March-December 2020 and he said he expects to have those results analyzed by the end of the year.
If there was no change in fetal deaths at the same time as the drop in preterm births, Dr. Dench said, that could point to physician interventions that may not have been necessary.
Mya R. Zapata, MD, an obstetrician-gynecologist with UCLA Health, who was not involved with the study, told this publication that checking the fetal deaths is a good start and an objective outcome in answering the question, but she points out there are other outcomes that will take a deeper analysis, such as whether there are differences later in developmental outcomes after fewer physician visits.
“It’s always a good question for health care,” she said, “are we doing more than we need to?”
Dr. Zapata is the obstetrics service chief for UCLA’s labor and delivery unit and was an integral part of decision-making as to what services were essential and for which patients. She said the fewer visits and fewer ultrasounds the researchers describe fit with what ob.gyns. at UCLA experienced as the pandemic hit.
“We really tried to hone in on people who were at highest risk for an adverse outcome,” she said. “I still have the question of whether there were things we missed in low-risk people. It will take time to get the entire answer. But it does make us reflect that perhaps less intervention could be better for patients and easier. It’s our job in medicine to keep asking the question of what is essential and safe and not just continue with current practice because that’s what we’ve always done.”
The amount of data gave the researchers an unusual view. They studied 38,891,271 singleton births in the United States from 2010 to 2020 with data from the National Center for Health Statistics.
“If you look at 1,000 births in a single hospital, or even at 30,000 births across a hospital system, you wouldn’t be able to see the drop as clearly,” Dr. Dench said. “The drop we detected is a huge change, but you might miss it in a small sample.”
The researchers acknowledge a limitation of the study is that half of all preterm C-sections and induced deliveries happen because of a ruptured membrane, a spontaneous cause. Those instances can’t be distinguished from the ones caused by doctors’ interventions in this study.
“Still, these findings are significant because the causes for preterm births are not always known,” the authors wrote in the press release.
The study authors and Dr. Zapata reported no relevant financial relationships.
Premature births from cesarean (C-section) and induced deliveries dropped abruptly by 6.5% from the projected number in the first month of the COVID-19 pandemic and stayed at the lower rate consistently throughout the year, researchers have found.
Results of the study, led by Daniel Dench, PhD, assistant professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology School of Economics in Atlanta, were published online in Pediatrics.
The authors say their findings help answer the question of whether numbers of preterm (less than 37 weeks gestation) C-sections and induced deliveries would change if women didn’t see their physicians during pregnancy as often, especially in person, and raise the question of whether some birth interventions by physicians may not be necessary. The pandemic gave researchers a natural, ethical way to study the question.
The researchers found that in March 2020 – the start of business closures and stay-at-home orders around the country – preterm births from C-sections or induced deliveries immediately fell from the forecast number for the month by 0.4 percentage points. For the rest of 2020, the number remained on average 0.35 percentage points below the numbers predicted.
That means 350 fewer preterm C-sections and induced deliveries per 100,000 live births, or 10,000 fewer overall, the authors said.
Dr. Dench told this publication the numbers for those births had been steady from January 2010 to February 2020, but the pattern “diverges from this trend very clearly beginning exactly in March 2020 and does not return to trend by December 2020.”
Meanwhile, during the study period, the number of full-term cesarean and induced deliveries stayed steady and started to increase slightly in 2020. Researchers also adjusted for seasonality as, for example, preterm births are higher on average in February than in March.
So far, Dr. Dench said in a press release, it’s not clear whether the lower numbers mean physicians didn’t deliver babies that ended up surviving in the womb anyway or if they missed some that would die in the womb without intervention.
To better understand those implications, Dr. Dench says he is turning to fetal death records for March-December 2020 and he said he expects to have those results analyzed by the end of the year.
If there was no change in fetal deaths at the same time as the drop in preterm births, Dr. Dench said, that could point to physician interventions that may not have been necessary.
Mya R. Zapata, MD, an obstetrician-gynecologist with UCLA Health, who was not involved with the study, told this publication that checking the fetal deaths is a good start and an objective outcome in answering the question, but she points out there are other outcomes that will take a deeper analysis, such as whether there are differences later in developmental outcomes after fewer physician visits.
“It’s always a good question for health care,” she said, “are we doing more than we need to?”
Dr. Zapata is the obstetrics service chief for UCLA’s labor and delivery unit and was an integral part of decision-making as to what services were essential and for which patients. She said the fewer visits and fewer ultrasounds the researchers describe fit with what ob.gyns. at UCLA experienced as the pandemic hit.
“We really tried to hone in on people who were at highest risk for an adverse outcome,” she said. “I still have the question of whether there were things we missed in low-risk people. It will take time to get the entire answer. But it does make us reflect that perhaps less intervention could be better for patients and easier. It’s our job in medicine to keep asking the question of what is essential and safe and not just continue with current practice because that’s what we’ve always done.”
The amount of data gave the researchers an unusual view. They studied 38,891,271 singleton births in the United States from 2010 to 2020 with data from the National Center for Health Statistics.
“If you look at 1,000 births in a single hospital, or even at 30,000 births across a hospital system, you wouldn’t be able to see the drop as clearly,” Dr. Dench said. “The drop we detected is a huge change, but you might miss it in a small sample.”
The researchers acknowledge a limitation of the study is that half of all preterm C-sections and induced deliveries happen because of a ruptured membrane, a spontaneous cause. Those instances can’t be distinguished from the ones caused by doctors’ interventions in this study.
“Still, these findings are significant because the causes for preterm births are not always known,” the authors wrote in the press release.
The study authors and Dr. Zapata reported no relevant financial relationships.
Premature births from cesarean (C-section) and induced deliveries dropped abruptly by 6.5% from the projected number in the first month of the COVID-19 pandemic and stayed at the lower rate consistently throughout the year, researchers have found.
Results of the study, led by Daniel Dench, PhD, assistant professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology School of Economics in Atlanta, were published online in Pediatrics.
The authors say their findings help answer the question of whether numbers of preterm (less than 37 weeks gestation) C-sections and induced deliveries would change if women didn’t see their physicians during pregnancy as often, especially in person, and raise the question of whether some birth interventions by physicians may not be necessary. The pandemic gave researchers a natural, ethical way to study the question.
The researchers found that in March 2020 – the start of business closures and stay-at-home orders around the country – preterm births from C-sections or induced deliveries immediately fell from the forecast number for the month by 0.4 percentage points. For the rest of 2020, the number remained on average 0.35 percentage points below the numbers predicted.
That means 350 fewer preterm C-sections and induced deliveries per 100,000 live births, or 10,000 fewer overall, the authors said.
Dr. Dench told this publication the numbers for those births had been steady from January 2010 to February 2020, but the pattern “diverges from this trend very clearly beginning exactly in March 2020 and does not return to trend by December 2020.”
Meanwhile, during the study period, the number of full-term cesarean and induced deliveries stayed steady and started to increase slightly in 2020. Researchers also adjusted for seasonality as, for example, preterm births are higher on average in February than in March.
So far, Dr. Dench said in a press release, it’s not clear whether the lower numbers mean physicians didn’t deliver babies that ended up surviving in the womb anyway or if they missed some that would die in the womb without intervention.
To better understand those implications, Dr. Dench says he is turning to fetal death records for March-December 2020 and he said he expects to have those results analyzed by the end of the year.
If there was no change in fetal deaths at the same time as the drop in preterm births, Dr. Dench said, that could point to physician interventions that may not have been necessary.
Mya R. Zapata, MD, an obstetrician-gynecologist with UCLA Health, who was not involved with the study, told this publication that checking the fetal deaths is a good start and an objective outcome in answering the question, but she points out there are other outcomes that will take a deeper analysis, such as whether there are differences later in developmental outcomes after fewer physician visits.
“It’s always a good question for health care,” she said, “are we doing more than we need to?”
Dr. Zapata is the obstetrics service chief for UCLA’s labor and delivery unit and was an integral part of decision-making as to what services were essential and for which patients. She said the fewer visits and fewer ultrasounds the researchers describe fit with what ob.gyns. at UCLA experienced as the pandemic hit.
“We really tried to hone in on people who were at highest risk for an adverse outcome,” she said. “I still have the question of whether there were things we missed in low-risk people. It will take time to get the entire answer. But it does make us reflect that perhaps less intervention could be better for patients and easier. It’s our job in medicine to keep asking the question of what is essential and safe and not just continue with current practice because that’s what we’ve always done.”
The amount of data gave the researchers an unusual view. They studied 38,891,271 singleton births in the United States from 2010 to 2020 with data from the National Center for Health Statistics.
“If you look at 1,000 births in a single hospital, or even at 30,000 births across a hospital system, you wouldn’t be able to see the drop as clearly,” Dr. Dench said. “The drop we detected is a huge change, but you might miss it in a small sample.”
The researchers acknowledge a limitation of the study is that half of all preterm C-sections and induced deliveries happen because of a ruptured membrane, a spontaneous cause. Those instances can’t be distinguished from the ones caused by doctors’ interventions in this study.
“Still, these findings are significant because the causes for preterm births are not always known,” the authors wrote in the press release.
The study authors and Dr. Zapata reported no relevant financial relationships.
FROM PEDIATRICS
White House announces long-COVID action plan
The National Research Action Plan on Long COVID will gather experts from various agencies, including the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs, to expand existing long-COVID clinics and broaden research on symptoms of the virus that persist long after infection.
“We’ll collaborate with academic, industry, state and local partners to better understand long COVID,” Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said at a White House briefing April 5. “We need to work as aggressively as we can to make sure no American is left behind.”
The plan will build on the RECOVER Initiative, a $1.15 billion effort announced last year that will study long COVID.
The COVID-19 Response Team also announced that the United States will donate tens of millions of pediatric coronavirus vaccines to other countries. More than 20 countries have asked for the donations, the team said.
The United States has delivered more than 500 million vaccine doses to 114 countries.
Meanwhile, national COVID-19 numbers continue to fall. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, reported that average daily cases are down 4% this week to 25,000; hospitalizations have dropped 17% to 1,400 per day; and daily deaths are down to 570 a day, which is a decrease of about 17%.
New national estimates show that Omicron’s subvariant BA.2 now accounts for 72% of circulating variants nationally, she said.
Top infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci, MD, reported that recent data supports the need for a second booster among certain people 50 and older – a move authorized by the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last week.
“The effectiveness of the first booster dose we know wanes over time, and growing evidence shows a second dose can restore vaccine effectiveness for certain populations,” he said.
Dr. Fauci reported findings from an Israeli study of more than 1 million people 60 and older, which showed that an additional booster dose after 4 months lowered the rate of infection by two times and lowered the rate of severe infection by more than four times.
Another study from Israeli scientists showed that out of half a million people 60 and older, a second booster after 4 months brought a 78% reduction in death, compared to those who received only the first boost.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The National Research Action Plan on Long COVID will gather experts from various agencies, including the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs, to expand existing long-COVID clinics and broaden research on symptoms of the virus that persist long after infection.
“We’ll collaborate with academic, industry, state and local partners to better understand long COVID,” Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said at a White House briefing April 5. “We need to work as aggressively as we can to make sure no American is left behind.”
The plan will build on the RECOVER Initiative, a $1.15 billion effort announced last year that will study long COVID.
The COVID-19 Response Team also announced that the United States will donate tens of millions of pediatric coronavirus vaccines to other countries. More than 20 countries have asked for the donations, the team said.
The United States has delivered more than 500 million vaccine doses to 114 countries.
Meanwhile, national COVID-19 numbers continue to fall. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, reported that average daily cases are down 4% this week to 25,000; hospitalizations have dropped 17% to 1,400 per day; and daily deaths are down to 570 a day, which is a decrease of about 17%.
New national estimates show that Omicron’s subvariant BA.2 now accounts for 72% of circulating variants nationally, she said.
Top infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci, MD, reported that recent data supports the need for a second booster among certain people 50 and older – a move authorized by the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last week.
“The effectiveness of the first booster dose we know wanes over time, and growing evidence shows a second dose can restore vaccine effectiveness for certain populations,” he said.
Dr. Fauci reported findings from an Israeli study of more than 1 million people 60 and older, which showed that an additional booster dose after 4 months lowered the rate of infection by two times and lowered the rate of severe infection by more than four times.
Another study from Israeli scientists showed that out of half a million people 60 and older, a second booster after 4 months brought a 78% reduction in death, compared to those who received only the first boost.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The National Research Action Plan on Long COVID will gather experts from various agencies, including the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs, to expand existing long-COVID clinics and broaden research on symptoms of the virus that persist long after infection.
“We’ll collaborate with academic, industry, state and local partners to better understand long COVID,” Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said at a White House briefing April 5. “We need to work as aggressively as we can to make sure no American is left behind.”
The plan will build on the RECOVER Initiative, a $1.15 billion effort announced last year that will study long COVID.
The COVID-19 Response Team also announced that the United States will donate tens of millions of pediatric coronavirus vaccines to other countries. More than 20 countries have asked for the donations, the team said.
The United States has delivered more than 500 million vaccine doses to 114 countries.
Meanwhile, national COVID-19 numbers continue to fall. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, reported that average daily cases are down 4% this week to 25,000; hospitalizations have dropped 17% to 1,400 per day; and daily deaths are down to 570 a day, which is a decrease of about 17%.
New national estimates show that Omicron’s subvariant BA.2 now accounts for 72% of circulating variants nationally, she said.
Top infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci, MD, reported that recent data supports the need for a second booster among certain people 50 and older – a move authorized by the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last week.
“The effectiveness of the first booster dose we know wanes over time, and growing evidence shows a second dose can restore vaccine effectiveness for certain populations,” he said.
Dr. Fauci reported findings from an Israeli study of more than 1 million people 60 and older, which showed that an additional booster dose after 4 months lowered the rate of infection by two times and lowered the rate of severe infection by more than four times.
Another study from Israeli scientists showed that out of half a million people 60 and older, a second booster after 4 months brought a 78% reduction in death, compared to those who received only the first boost.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
New COVID combo-variant XE found in U.K.
As of last week, the U.K. Health Security Agency had found 637 cases of the variant, known as XE. The earliest case was found Jan. 19.
The new strain is known as a recombinant, which means it is a combination of two variants or viruses.
XE makes up less than 1% of sequenced cases in the United Kingdom so far, and there is no evidence yet that the strain leads to more severe disease or less vaccine protection.
“Right now, there’s really no public health concern,” John Brownstein, PhD, an epidemiologist and chief innovation officer at Boston Children’s Hospital, told ABC. “Recombinant variants happen over and over. In fact, the reason that this is the XE variant recombinant is that we’ve had XA, XB, XC, XD already, and none of those have turned out to be any real concern.”
A World Health Organization update published March 29 notes XE’s high transmissibility and says it may have a growth advantage of 10% over the BA.2 subvariant that now makes up more than 70% of cases in the United States.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
As of last week, the U.K. Health Security Agency had found 637 cases of the variant, known as XE. The earliest case was found Jan. 19.
The new strain is known as a recombinant, which means it is a combination of two variants or viruses.
XE makes up less than 1% of sequenced cases in the United Kingdom so far, and there is no evidence yet that the strain leads to more severe disease or less vaccine protection.
“Right now, there’s really no public health concern,” John Brownstein, PhD, an epidemiologist and chief innovation officer at Boston Children’s Hospital, told ABC. “Recombinant variants happen over and over. In fact, the reason that this is the XE variant recombinant is that we’ve had XA, XB, XC, XD already, and none of those have turned out to be any real concern.”
A World Health Organization update published March 29 notes XE’s high transmissibility and says it may have a growth advantage of 10% over the BA.2 subvariant that now makes up more than 70% of cases in the United States.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
As of last week, the U.K. Health Security Agency had found 637 cases of the variant, known as XE. The earliest case was found Jan. 19.
The new strain is known as a recombinant, which means it is a combination of two variants or viruses.
XE makes up less than 1% of sequenced cases in the United Kingdom so far, and there is no evidence yet that the strain leads to more severe disease or less vaccine protection.
“Right now, there’s really no public health concern,” John Brownstein, PhD, an epidemiologist and chief innovation officer at Boston Children’s Hospital, told ABC. “Recombinant variants happen over and over. In fact, the reason that this is the XE variant recombinant is that we’ve had XA, XB, XC, XD already, and none of those have turned out to be any real concern.”
A World Health Organization update published March 29 notes XE’s high transmissibility and says it may have a growth advantage of 10% over the BA.2 subvariant that now makes up more than 70% of cases in the United States.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Children and COVID-19: Decline in new cases may be leveling off
Even as a number of states see increases in new COVID-19 cases among all ages, the trend remains downward for children, albeit at a slower pace than in recent weeks, based on data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
New pediatric cases in the United States totaled 27,521 for the most recent week, March 25-31, down by 5.2% from the previous week. Earlier weekly declines, going backward through March and into late February, were 9.3%, 23%, 39.5%, and 46%, according to data collected by the AAP and CHA from state and territorial health agencies. The lowest weekly total recorded since the initial wave in 2020 was just under 8,500 during the week of June 18-24, 2021.
Reported COVID-19 cases in children now total over 12.8 million since the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020, and those infections represent 19.0% of all cases. That share of new cases has not increased in the last 7 weeks, the AAP and CHA noted in their weekly COVID report, suggesting that children have not been bearing a disproportionate share of the declining Omicron burden.
As for Omicron, the BA.2 subvariant now makes up about 55% of COVID-19 infections, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in its COVID Data Tracker Weekly Review, and New York, Massachusetts, and New Jersey are among the states reporting BA.2-driven increases in new cases of as much as 30%, the New York Times said.
Rates of new cases for the latest week available (March 27 to April 2) and at their Omicron peaks in January were 11.3 per 100,000 and 1,011 per 100,000 (ages 0-4 years), 12.5 and 1,505 per 100,000 (5-11 years), 12.7 and 1,779 per 100,000 (12-15 years), and 13.1 and 1,982 per 100,000 (16-17 years), the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.
Hospitalization rates, however, were a bit of a mixed bag. The last 2 weeks (March 13-19 and March 20-26) of data available from the CDC’s COVID-NET show that hospitalizations were up slightly in children aged 0-4 years (1.3 per 100,000 to 1.4 per 100,000), down for 5- to 11-year-olds (0.6 to 0.2), and steady for those aged 12-17 (0.4 to 0.4). COVID-NET collects data from nearly 100 counties in 10 states and from a separate four-state network.
Vaccinations got a small boost in the last week, the first one since early February. Initial doses and completions climbed slightly in the 12- to 17-year-olds, while just first doses were up a bit among the 5- to 11-year-olds during the week of March 24-30, compared with the previous week, although both groups are still well below the highest counts recorded so far in 2022, which are, in turn, far short of 2021’s peaks, according to CDC data analyzed by the AAP.
Even as a number of states see increases in new COVID-19 cases among all ages, the trend remains downward for children, albeit at a slower pace than in recent weeks, based on data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
New pediatric cases in the United States totaled 27,521 for the most recent week, March 25-31, down by 5.2% from the previous week. Earlier weekly declines, going backward through March and into late February, were 9.3%, 23%, 39.5%, and 46%, according to data collected by the AAP and CHA from state and territorial health agencies. The lowest weekly total recorded since the initial wave in 2020 was just under 8,500 during the week of June 18-24, 2021.
Reported COVID-19 cases in children now total over 12.8 million since the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020, and those infections represent 19.0% of all cases. That share of new cases has not increased in the last 7 weeks, the AAP and CHA noted in their weekly COVID report, suggesting that children have not been bearing a disproportionate share of the declining Omicron burden.
As for Omicron, the BA.2 subvariant now makes up about 55% of COVID-19 infections, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in its COVID Data Tracker Weekly Review, and New York, Massachusetts, and New Jersey are among the states reporting BA.2-driven increases in new cases of as much as 30%, the New York Times said.
Rates of new cases for the latest week available (March 27 to April 2) and at their Omicron peaks in January were 11.3 per 100,000 and 1,011 per 100,000 (ages 0-4 years), 12.5 and 1,505 per 100,000 (5-11 years), 12.7 and 1,779 per 100,000 (12-15 years), and 13.1 and 1,982 per 100,000 (16-17 years), the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.
Hospitalization rates, however, were a bit of a mixed bag. The last 2 weeks (March 13-19 and March 20-26) of data available from the CDC’s COVID-NET show that hospitalizations were up slightly in children aged 0-4 years (1.3 per 100,000 to 1.4 per 100,000), down for 5- to 11-year-olds (0.6 to 0.2), and steady for those aged 12-17 (0.4 to 0.4). COVID-NET collects data from nearly 100 counties in 10 states and from a separate four-state network.
Vaccinations got a small boost in the last week, the first one since early February. Initial doses and completions climbed slightly in the 12- to 17-year-olds, while just first doses were up a bit among the 5- to 11-year-olds during the week of March 24-30, compared with the previous week, although both groups are still well below the highest counts recorded so far in 2022, which are, in turn, far short of 2021’s peaks, according to CDC data analyzed by the AAP.
Even as a number of states see increases in new COVID-19 cases among all ages, the trend remains downward for children, albeit at a slower pace than in recent weeks, based on data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
New pediatric cases in the United States totaled 27,521 for the most recent week, March 25-31, down by 5.2% from the previous week. Earlier weekly declines, going backward through March and into late February, were 9.3%, 23%, 39.5%, and 46%, according to data collected by the AAP and CHA from state and territorial health agencies. The lowest weekly total recorded since the initial wave in 2020 was just under 8,500 during the week of June 18-24, 2021.
Reported COVID-19 cases in children now total over 12.8 million since the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020, and those infections represent 19.0% of all cases. That share of new cases has not increased in the last 7 weeks, the AAP and CHA noted in their weekly COVID report, suggesting that children have not been bearing a disproportionate share of the declining Omicron burden.
As for Omicron, the BA.2 subvariant now makes up about 55% of COVID-19 infections, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in its COVID Data Tracker Weekly Review, and New York, Massachusetts, and New Jersey are among the states reporting BA.2-driven increases in new cases of as much as 30%, the New York Times said.
Rates of new cases for the latest week available (March 27 to April 2) and at their Omicron peaks in January were 11.3 per 100,000 and 1,011 per 100,000 (ages 0-4 years), 12.5 and 1,505 per 100,000 (5-11 years), 12.7 and 1,779 per 100,000 (12-15 years), and 13.1 and 1,982 per 100,000 (16-17 years), the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.
Hospitalization rates, however, were a bit of a mixed bag. The last 2 weeks (March 13-19 and March 20-26) of data available from the CDC’s COVID-NET show that hospitalizations were up slightly in children aged 0-4 years (1.3 per 100,000 to 1.4 per 100,000), down for 5- to 11-year-olds (0.6 to 0.2), and steady for those aged 12-17 (0.4 to 0.4). COVID-NET collects data from nearly 100 counties in 10 states and from a separate four-state network.
Vaccinations got a small boost in the last week, the first one since early February. Initial doses and completions climbed slightly in the 12- to 17-year-olds, while just first doses were up a bit among the 5- to 11-year-olds during the week of March 24-30, compared with the previous week, although both groups are still well below the highest counts recorded so far in 2022, which are, in turn, far short of 2021’s peaks, according to CDC data analyzed by the AAP.
More evidence that COVID ‘brain fog’ is biologically based
Researchers found elevated levels of CSF immune activation and immunovascular markers in individuals with cognitive postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC). Patients whose cognitive symptoms developed during the acute phase of COVID-19 had the highest levels of brain inflammation.
The findings add to a growing body of evidence that suggests the condition often referred to as “brain fog” has a neurologic basis, said lead author Joanna Hellmuth, MD, MHS, assistant professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco Weill Institute of Neurosciences and the UCSF Memory and Aging Center.
The findings will be presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
Inflammatory response
There are no effective diagnostic tests or treatments for cognitive PASC, which prompted the investigators to study inflammation in patients with the condition. Initial findings were reported earlier in 2022, which showed abnormalities in the CSF in 77% of patients with cognitive impairment. Patients without cognitive impairments had normal CSF.
Extending that work in this new study, researchers studied patients from the Long-term Impact of Infection With Novel Coronavirus (LIINC) study with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who were not hospitalized. They conducted 2-hour neurocognitive interviews and identified 23 people with new, persistent cognitive symptoms (cognitive PASC) and 10 with no cognitive symptoms who served as controls.
All participants underwent additional neurologic examination and neuropsychological testing, and half agreed to a lumbar puncture to allow researchers to collect CSF samples. The CSF was collected a median of 10.2 months after initial COVID symptoms began.
Participants with cognitive PASC had higher median levels of CSF acute phase reactants C-reactive protein (0.007 mg/L vs. 0.000 mg/L; P =.004) and serum amyloid A (0.001 mg/L vs. 0.000 mg/L; P = .001), compared with COVID controls.
The PASC group also had elevated levels of CSF immune activation markers interferon gamma–inducible protein (IP-10), interleukin-8, and immunovascular markers vascular endothelial growth factor-C and VEGFR-1, although the differences with the control group were not statistically significant.
The timing of the onset of cognitive problems was also associated with higher levels of immune activation and immunovascular markers. Patients with brain fog that developed during the acute phase of COVID-19 had higher levels of CSF VEGF-C, compared with patients whose cognitive symptoms developed more than a month after initial COVID symptoms (173 pg/mL vs. 99 pg/mL; P = .048) and COVID controls (79 pg/mL; P = .048).
Acute onset cognitive PASC participants had higher CSF levels of IP-10 (P = .030), IL-8 (P = .048), placental growth factor (P = .030) and intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (P = .045), compared with COVID controls.
Researchers believe these new findings could mean that intrathecal immune activation and endothelial activation/dysfunction may contribute to cognitive PASC and that the mechanisms involved may be different in patients with acute cognitive PASC versus those with delayed onset.
“Our data suggests that perhaps in these people with more acute cognitive changes they don’t have the return to homeostasis,” Dr. Hellmuth said, while patients with delayed onset cognitive PASC had levels more in line with COVID patients who had no cognitive issues.
Moving the needle forward
Commenting on the findings, William Schaffner, MD, professor of infectious diseases, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said that, while the study doesn’t rule out a possible psychological basis for cognitive PASC, it adds more weight to the biological argument.
“When you have nonspecific symptoms for which specific tests are unavailable,” Dr. Schaffner explained, “there is a natural question that always comes up: Is this principally a biologically induced phenomenon or psychological? This moves the needle substantially in the direction of a biological phenomenon.”
Another important element to the study, Dr. Schaffner said, is that the patients involved had mild COVID.
“Not every patient with long COVID symptoms had been hospitalized with severe disease,” he said. “There are inflammatory phenomenon in various organ systems such that even if the inflammatory response in the lung was not severe enough to get you into the hospital, there were inflammatory responses in other organ systems that could persist once the acute infection resolved.”
Although the small size of the study is a limitation, Dr. Schaffner said that shouldn’t minimize the importance of these findings.
“That it’s small doesn’t diminish its value,” he said. “The next step forward might be to try to associate the markers more specifically with COVID. The more precise we can be, the more convincing the story will become.”
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Hellmuth received grant support from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Mental Health supporting this work and personal fees for medical-legal consultation outside of the submitted work. Dr. Schaffner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Researchers found elevated levels of CSF immune activation and immunovascular markers in individuals with cognitive postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC). Patients whose cognitive symptoms developed during the acute phase of COVID-19 had the highest levels of brain inflammation.
The findings add to a growing body of evidence that suggests the condition often referred to as “brain fog” has a neurologic basis, said lead author Joanna Hellmuth, MD, MHS, assistant professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco Weill Institute of Neurosciences and the UCSF Memory and Aging Center.
The findings will be presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
Inflammatory response
There are no effective diagnostic tests or treatments for cognitive PASC, which prompted the investigators to study inflammation in patients with the condition. Initial findings were reported earlier in 2022, which showed abnormalities in the CSF in 77% of patients with cognitive impairment. Patients without cognitive impairments had normal CSF.
Extending that work in this new study, researchers studied patients from the Long-term Impact of Infection With Novel Coronavirus (LIINC) study with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who were not hospitalized. They conducted 2-hour neurocognitive interviews and identified 23 people with new, persistent cognitive symptoms (cognitive PASC) and 10 with no cognitive symptoms who served as controls.
All participants underwent additional neurologic examination and neuropsychological testing, and half agreed to a lumbar puncture to allow researchers to collect CSF samples. The CSF was collected a median of 10.2 months after initial COVID symptoms began.
Participants with cognitive PASC had higher median levels of CSF acute phase reactants C-reactive protein (0.007 mg/L vs. 0.000 mg/L; P =.004) and serum amyloid A (0.001 mg/L vs. 0.000 mg/L; P = .001), compared with COVID controls.
The PASC group also had elevated levels of CSF immune activation markers interferon gamma–inducible protein (IP-10), interleukin-8, and immunovascular markers vascular endothelial growth factor-C and VEGFR-1, although the differences with the control group were not statistically significant.
The timing of the onset of cognitive problems was also associated with higher levels of immune activation and immunovascular markers. Patients with brain fog that developed during the acute phase of COVID-19 had higher levels of CSF VEGF-C, compared with patients whose cognitive symptoms developed more than a month after initial COVID symptoms (173 pg/mL vs. 99 pg/mL; P = .048) and COVID controls (79 pg/mL; P = .048).
Acute onset cognitive PASC participants had higher CSF levels of IP-10 (P = .030), IL-8 (P = .048), placental growth factor (P = .030) and intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (P = .045), compared with COVID controls.
Researchers believe these new findings could mean that intrathecal immune activation and endothelial activation/dysfunction may contribute to cognitive PASC and that the mechanisms involved may be different in patients with acute cognitive PASC versus those with delayed onset.
“Our data suggests that perhaps in these people with more acute cognitive changes they don’t have the return to homeostasis,” Dr. Hellmuth said, while patients with delayed onset cognitive PASC had levels more in line with COVID patients who had no cognitive issues.
Moving the needle forward
Commenting on the findings, William Schaffner, MD, professor of infectious diseases, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said that, while the study doesn’t rule out a possible psychological basis for cognitive PASC, it adds more weight to the biological argument.
“When you have nonspecific symptoms for which specific tests are unavailable,” Dr. Schaffner explained, “there is a natural question that always comes up: Is this principally a biologically induced phenomenon or psychological? This moves the needle substantially in the direction of a biological phenomenon.”
Another important element to the study, Dr. Schaffner said, is that the patients involved had mild COVID.
“Not every patient with long COVID symptoms had been hospitalized with severe disease,” he said. “There are inflammatory phenomenon in various organ systems such that even if the inflammatory response in the lung was not severe enough to get you into the hospital, there were inflammatory responses in other organ systems that could persist once the acute infection resolved.”
Although the small size of the study is a limitation, Dr. Schaffner said that shouldn’t minimize the importance of these findings.
“That it’s small doesn’t diminish its value,” he said. “The next step forward might be to try to associate the markers more specifically with COVID. The more precise we can be, the more convincing the story will become.”
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Hellmuth received grant support from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Mental Health supporting this work and personal fees for medical-legal consultation outside of the submitted work. Dr. Schaffner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Researchers found elevated levels of CSF immune activation and immunovascular markers in individuals with cognitive postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC). Patients whose cognitive symptoms developed during the acute phase of COVID-19 had the highest levels of brain inflammation.
The findings add to a growing body of evidence that suggests the condition often referred to as “brain fog” has a neurologic basis, said lead author Joanna Hellmuth, MD, MHS, assistant professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco Weill Institute of Neurosciences and the UCSF Memory and Aging Center.
The findings will be presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
Inflammatory response
There are no effective diagnostic tests or treatments for cognitive PASC, which prompted the investigators to study inflammation in patients with the condition. Initial findings were reported earlier in 2022, which showed abnormalities in the CSF in 77% of patients with cognitive impairment. Patients without cognitive impairments had normal CSF.
Extending that work in this new study, researchers studied patients from the Long-term Impact of Infection With Novel Coronavirus (LIINC) study with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who were not hospitalized. They conducted 2-hour neurocognitive interviews and identified 23 people with new, persistent cognitive symptoms (cognitive PASC) and 10 with no cognitive symptoms who served as controls.
All participants underwent additional neurologic examination and neuropsychological testing, and half agreed to a lumbar puncture to allow researchers to collect CSF samples. The CSF was collected a median of 10.2 months after initial COVID symptoms began.
Participants with cognitive PASC had higher median levels of CSF acute phase reactants C-reactive protein (0.007 mg/L vs. 0.000 mg/L; P =.004) and serum amyloid A (0.001 mg/L vs. 0.000 mg/L; P = .001), compared with COVID controls.
The PASC group also had elevated levels of CSF immune activation markers interferon gamma–inducible protein (IP-10), interleukin-8, and immunovascular markers vascular endothelial growth factor-C and VEGFR-1, although the differences with the control group were not statistically significant.
The timing of the onset of cognitive problems was also associated with higher levels of immune activation and immunovascular markers. Patients with brain fog that developed during the acute phase of COVID-19 had higher levels of CSF VEGF-C, compared with patients whose cognitive symptoms developed more than a month after initial COVID symptoms (173 pg/mL vs. 99 pg/mL; P = .048) and COVID controls (79 pg/mL; P = .048).
Acute onset cognitive PASC participants had higher CSF levels of IP-10 (P = .030), IL-8 (P = .048), placental growth factor (P = .030) and intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (P = .045), compared with COVID controls.
Researchers believe these new findings could mean that intrathecal immune activation and endothelial activation/dysfunction may contribute to cognitive PASC and that the mechanisms involved may be different in patients with acute cognitive PASC versus those with delayed onset.
“Our data suggests that perhaps in these people with more acute cognitive changes they don’t have the return to homeostasis,” Dr. Hellmuth said, while patients with delayed onset cognitive PASC had levels more in line with COVID patients who had no cognitive issues.
Moving the needle forward
Commenting on the findings, William Schaffner, MD, professor of infectious diseases, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said that, while the study doesn’t rule out a possible psychological basis for cognitive PASC, it adds more weight to the biological argument.
“When you have nonspecific symptoms for which specific tests are unavailable,” Dr. Schaffner explained, “there is a natural question that always comes up: Is this principally a biologically induced phenomenon or psychological? This moves the needle substantially in the direction of a biological phenomenon.”
Another important element to the study, Dr. Schaffner said, is that the patients involved had mild COVID.
“Not every patient with long COVID symptoms had been hospitalized with severe disease,” he said. “There are inflammatory phenomenon in various organ systems such that even if the inflammatory response in the lung was not severe enough to get you into the hospital, there were inflammatory responses in other organ systems that could persist once the acute infection resolved.”
Although the small size of the study is a limitation, Dr. Schaffner said that shouldn’t minimize the importance of these findings.
“That it’s small doesn’t diminish its value,” he said. “The next step forward might be to try to associate the markers more specifically with COVID. The more precise we can be, the more convincing the story will become.”
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Hellmuth received grant support from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Mental Health supporting this work and personal fees for medical-legal consultation outside of the submitted work. Dr. Schaffner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AAN 2022
First COVID-19 human challenge study provides insights
A small droplet that contains the coronavirus can infect someone with COVID-19, according to recent results from the first COVID-19 human challenge study, which were published in Nature Medicine.
Human challenge trials deliberately infect healthy volunteers to understand how an infection occurs and develops. In the first human challenge study for COVID-19, people were infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus to better understand what has happened during the pandemic.
“Really, there’s no other type of study where you can do that, because normally, patients only come to your attention if they have developed symptoms, and so you miss all of those preceding days when the infection is brewing,” Christopher Chiu, MD, PhD, the lead study author and an infectious disease doctor and immunologist at Imperial College London, told CNN.
Starting in March 2021, Dr. Chiu and colleagues carefully selected 36 volunteers aged 18-30 years who didn’t have any risk factors for severe COVID-19, such as being overweight or having kidney, liver, heart, lung or blood problems. Participants also signed an extensive informed consent form, CNN reported.
The researchers conducted the trial in phases for safety. The first 10 participants who were infected received remdesivir, the antiviral drug, to reduce their chances of progressing to severe COVID-19. The research team also had monoclonal antibodies on hand in case any volunteers developed more severe symptoms. Ultimately, the researchers said, remdesivir was unnecessary, and they didn’t need to use the antibodies.
As part of the study, the participants had a small droplet of fluid that contained the original coronavirus strain inserted into their nose through a long tube. They stayed at London’s Royal Free Hospital for 2 weeks and were monitored by doctors 24 hours a day in rooms that had special air flow to keep the virus from spreading.
Of the 36 participants, 18 became infected, including two who never developed symptoms. The others had mild cases with symptoms such as congestion, sneezing, stuffy nose, and sore throat. Some also had headaches, muscle and joint pain, fatigue, and fever.
About 83% of participants who contracted COVID-19 lost their sense of smell to some degree, and nine people couldn’t smell at all. The symptom improved for most participants within 90 days, though one person still hadn’t fully regained their sense of smell about six months after the study ended.
The research team reported several other findings:
- Small amounts of the virus can make someone sick. About 10 mcm, or the amount in a single droplet that someone sneezes or coughs, can lead to infection.
- About 40 hours after the virus was inserted into a participant’s nose, the virus could be detected in the back of the throat.
- It took about 58 hours for the virus to appear on swabs from the nose, where the viral load eventually increased even more.
- COVID-19 has a short incubation period. It takes about 2 days after infection for someone to begin shedding the virus to others.
- People become contagious and shed high amounts of the virus before they show symptoms.
- In addition, infected people can shed high levels of the virus even if they don’t develop any symptoms.
- The study volunteers shed the virus for about 6 days on average, though some shed the virus for up to 12 days, even if they didn’t have symptoms.
- Lateral flow tests, which are used for rapid at-home tests, work well when an infected person is contagious. These tests could diagnose infection before 70%-80% of the viable virus had been generated.
The findings emphasized the importance of contagious people covering their mouth and nose when sick to protect others, Dr. Chiu told CNN.
None of the study volunteers developed lung issues as part of their infection, CNN reported. Dr. Chiu said that’s likely because they were young, healthy and received tiny amounts of the virus. All of the participants will be followed for a year to monitor for potential long-term effects.
Throughout the study, the research team also conducted cognitive tests to check the participants’ short-term memory and reaction time. The researchers are still analyzing the data, but the results “will really be informative,” Dr. Chiu told CNN.
Now the research team will conduct another human challenge trial, which will include vaccinated people who will be infected with the Delta variant. The researchers intend to study participants’ immune responses, which could provide valuable insights about new variants and vaccines.
“While there are differences in transmissibility due to the emergence of variants, such as Delta and Omicron, fundamentally, this is the same disease and the same factors will be responsible for protecting it,” Dr. Chiu said in a statement.
The research team will also study the 18 participants who didn’t get sick in the first human challenge trial. They didn’t develop antibodies, Dr. Chiu told CNN, despite receiving the same dose of the virus as those who got sick.
Before the study, all of the participants were screened for antibodies to other viruses, such as the original SARS virus. That means the volunteers weren’t cross-protected, and other factors may play into why some people don’t contract COVID-19. Future studies could help researchers provide better advice about protection if new variants emerge or a future pandemic occurs.
“There are lots of other things that help protect us,” Dr. Chiu said. “There are barriers in the nose. There are different kinds of proteins and things which are very ancient, primordial, protective systems ... and we’re really interested in trying to understand what those are.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
A small droplet that contains the coronavirus can infect someone with COVID-19, according to recent results from the first COVID-19 human challenge study, which were published in Nature Medicine.
Human challenge trials deliberately infect healthy volunteers to understand how an infection occurs and develops. In the first human challenge study for COVID-19, people were infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus to better understand what has happened during the pandemic.
“Really, there’s no other type of study where you can do that, because normally, patients only come to your attention if they have developed symptoms, and so you miss all of those preceding days when the infection is brewing,” Christopher Chiu, MD, PhD, the lead study author and an infectious disease doctor and immunologist at Imperial College London, told CNN.
Starting in March 2021, Dr. Chiu and colleagues carefully selected 36 volunteers aged 18-30 years who didn’t have any risk factors for severe COVID-19, such as being overweight or having kidney, liver, heart, lung or blood problems. Participants also signed an extensive informed consent form, CNN reported.
The researchers conducted the trial in phases for safety. The first 10 participants who were infected received remdesivir, the antiviral drug, to reduce their chances of progressing to severe COVID-19. The research team also had monoclonal antibodies on hand in case any volunteers developed more severe symptoms. Ultimately, the researchers said, remdesivir was unnecessary, and they didn’t need to use the antibodies.
As part of the study, the participants had a small droplet of fluid that contained the original coronavirus strain inserted into their nose through a long tube. They stayed at London’s Royal Free Hospital for 2 weeks and were monitored by doctors 24 hours a day in rooms that had special air flow to keep the virus from spreading.
Of the 36 participants, 18 became infected, including two who never developed symptoms. The others had mild cases with symptoms such as congestion, sneezing, stuffy nose, and sore throat. Some also had headaches, muscle and joint pain, fatigue, and fever.
About 83% of participants who contracted COVID-19 lost their sense of smell to some degree, and nine people couldn’t smell at all. The symptom improved for most participants within 90 days, though one person still hadn’t fully regained their sense of smell about six months after the study ended.
The research team reported several other findings:
- Small amounts of the virus can make someone sick. About 10 mcm, or the amount in a single droplet that someone sneezes or coughs, can lead to infection.
- About 40 hours after the virus was inserted into a participant’s nose, the virus could be detected in the back of the throat.
- It took about 58 hours for the virus to appear on swabs from the nose, where the viral load eventually increased even more.
- COVID-19 has a short incubation period. It takes about 2 days after infection for someone to begin shedding the virus to others.
- People become contagious and shed high amounts of the virus before they show symptoms.
- In addition, infected people can shed high levels of the virus even if they don’t develop any symptoms.
- The study volunteers shed the virus for about 6 days on average, though some shed the virus for up to 12 days, even if they didn’t have symptoms.
- Lateral flow tests, which are used for rapid at-home tests, work well when an infected person is contagious. These tests could diagnose infection before 70%-80% of the viable virus had been generated.
The findings emphasized the importance of contagious people covering their mouth and nose when sick to protect others, Dr. Chiu told CNN.
None of the study volunteers developed lung issues as part of their infection, CNN reported. Dr. Chiu said that’s likely because they were young, healthy and received tiny amounts of the virus. All of the participants will be followed for a year to monitor for potential long-term effects.
Throughout the study, the research team also conducted cognitive tests to check the participants’ short-term memory and reaction time. The researchers are still analyzing the data, but the results “will really be informative,” Dr. Chiu told CNN.
Now the research team will conduct another human challenge trial, which will include vaccinated people who will be infected with the Delta variant. The researchers intend to study participants’ immune responses, which could provide valuable insights about new variants and vaccines.
“While there are differences in transmissibility due to the emergence of variants, such as Delta and Omicron, fundamentally, this is the same disease and the same factors will be responsible for protecting it,” Dr. Chiu said in a statement.
The research team will also study the 18 participants who didn’t get sick in the first human challenge trial. They didn’t develop antibodies, Dr. Chiu told CNN, despite receiving the same dose of the virus as those who got sick.
Before the study, all of the participants were screened for antibodies to other viruses, such as the original SARS virus. That means the volunteers weren’t cross-protected, and other factors may play into why some people don’t contract COVID-19. Future studies could help researchers provide better advice about protection if new variants emerge or a future pandemic occurs.
“There are lots of other things that help protect us,” Dr. Chiu said. “There are barriers in the nose. There are different kinds of proteins and things which are very ancient, primordial, protective systems ... and we’re really interested in trying to understand what those are.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
A small droplet that contains the coronavirus can infect someone with COVID-19, according to recent results from the first COVID-19 human challenge study, which were published in Nature Medicine.
Human challenge trials deliberately infect healthy volunteers to understand how an infection occurs and develops. In the first human challenge study for COVID-19, people were infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus to better understand what has happened during the pandemic.
“Really, there’s no other type of study where you can do that, because normally, patients only come to your attention if they have developed symptoms, and so you miss all of those preceding days when the infection is brewing,” Christopher Chiu, MD, PhD, the lead study author and an infectious disease doctor and immunologist at Imperial College London, told CNN.
Starting in March 2021, Dr. Chiu and colleagues carefully selected 36 volunteers aged 18-30 years who didn’t have any risk factors for severe COVID-19, such as being overweight or having kidney, liver, heart, lung or blood problems. Participants also signed an extensive informed consent form, CNN reported.
The researchers conducted the trial in phases for safety. The first 10 participants who were infected received remdesivir, the antiviral drug, to reduce their chances of progressing to severe COVID-19. The research team also had monoclonal antibodies on hand in case any volunteers developed more severe symptoms. Ultimately, the researchers said, remdesivir was unnecessary, and they didn’t need to use the antibodies.
As part of the study, the participants had a small droplet of fluid that contained the original coronavirus strain inserted into their nose through a long tube. They stayed at London’s Royal Free Hospital for 2 weeks and were monitored by doctors 24 hours a day in rooms that had special air flow to keep the virus from spreading.
Of the 36 participants, 18 became infected, including two who never developed symptoms. The others had mild cases with symptoms such as congestion, sneezing, stuffy nose, and sore throat. Some also had headaches, muscle and joint pain, fatigue, and fever.
About 83% of participants who contracted COVID-19 lost their sense of smell to some degree, and nine people couldn’t smell at all. The symptom improved for most participants within 90 days, though one person still hadn’t fully regained their sense of smell about six months after the study ended.
The research team reported several other findings:
- Small amounts of the virus can make someone sick. About 10 mcm, or the amount in a single droplet that someone sneezes or coughs, can lead to infection.
- About 40 hours after the virus was inserted into a participant’s nose, the virus could be detected in the back of the throat.
- It took about 58 hours for the virus to appear on swabs from the nose, where the viral load eventually increased even more.
- COVID-19 has a short incubation period. It takes about 2 days after infection for someone to begin shedding the virus to others.
- People become contagious and shed high amounts of the virus before they show symptoms.
- In addition, infected people can shed high levels of the virus even if they don’t develop any symptoms.
- The study volunteers shed the virus for about 6 days on average, though some shed the virus for up to 12 days, even if they didn’t have symptoms.
- Lateral flow tests, which are used for rapid at-home tests, work well when an infected person is contagious. These tests could diagnose infection before 70%-80% of the viable virus had been generated.
The findings emphasized the importance of contagious people covering their mouth and nose when sick to protect others, Dr. Chiu told CNN.
None of the study volunteers developed lung issues as part of their infection, CNN reported. Dr. Chiu said that’s likely because they were young, healthy and received tiny amounts of the virus. All of the participants will be followed for a year to monitor for potential long-term effects.
Throughout the study, the research team also conducted cognitive tests to check the participants’ short-term memory and reaction time. The researchers are still analyzing the data, but the results “will really be informative,” Dr. Chiu told CNN.
Now the research team will conduct another human challenge trial, which will include vaccinated people who will be infected with the Delta variant. The researchers intend to study participants’ immune responses, which could provide valuable insights about new variants and vaccines.
“While there are differences in transmissibility due to the emergence of variants, such as Delta and Omicron, fundamentally, this is the same disease and the same factors will be responsible for protecting it,” Dr. Chiu said in a statement.
The research team will also study the 18 participants who didn’t get sick in the first human challenge trial. They didn’t develop antibodies, Dr. Chiu told CNN, despite receiving the same dose of the virus as those who got sick.
Before the study, all of the participants were screened for antibodies to other viruses, such as the original SARS virus. That means the volunteers weren’t cross-protected, and other factors may play into why some people don’t contract COVID-19. Future studies could help researchers provide better advice about protection if new variants emerge or a future pandemic occurs.
“There are lots of other things that help protect us,” Dr. Chiu said. “There are barriers in the nose. There are different kinds of proteins and things which are very ancient, primordial, protective systems ... and we’re really interested in trying to understand what those are.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM NATURE MEDICINE
Ivermectin doesn’t help treat COVID-19, large study finds
according to results from a large clinical trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The findings pretty much rule out the drug as a treatment for COVID-19, the study authors wrote.
“There’s really no sign of any benefit,” David Boulware, MD, one of the coauthors and an infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the New York Times.
The researchers shared a summary of the results in August 2021 during an online presentation hosted by the National Institutes of Health. The full data hadn’t been published until now.
“Now that people can dive into the details and the data, hopefully that will steer the majority of doctors away from ivermectin toward other therapies,” Dr. Boulware said.
In the trial, the research team compared more than 1,350 people infected with the coronavirus in Brazil who received either ivermectin or a placebo as treatment.
Between March and August 2021, 679 patients received a daily dose of ivermectin over the course of 3 days. The researchers found that ivermectin didn’t reduce the risk that people with COVID-19 would be hospitalized or go to an ED within 28 days after treatment.
In addition, the researchers looked at particular groups to understand if some patients benefited for some reason, such as taking ivermectin sooner after testing positive for COVID-19. But those who took the drug during the first 3 days after a positive coronavirus test ended up doing worse than those in the placebo group. The drug also didn’t help patients recover sooner.
The researchers found “no important effects” of treatment with ivermectin on the number of days people spent in the hospital, the number of days hospitalized people needed mechanical ventilation, or the risk of death.
Ivermectin has become a controversial focal point during the pandemic.
For decades, the drug has been widely used to treat parasitic infections. At the beginning of the pandemic, researchers checked thousands of existing drugs against the coronavirus to determine if a potential treatment already existed. Laboratory experiments on cells suggested that ivermectin might work, the New York Times reported.
But some researchers noted that the experiments worked because a high concentration of ivermectin was used, a much higher dose than would be safe for people. Despite the concerns, some doctors began prescribing ivermectin to patients. After receiving reports of people who needed medical attention, particularly after using formulations intended for livestock, the Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that the drug wasn’t approved to be used for COVID-19.
Researchers around the world have done small clinical trials to understand whether ivermectin treats COVID-19, the newspaper reported. At the end of 2020, Andrew Hill, MD, a virologist at the University of Liverpool in England, reviewed the results from 23 trials and concluded that the drug could lower the risk of death from COVID-19. He published the results in July 2021, but later reports found that many of the studies were flawed, and at least one was fraudulent.
Dr. Hill retracted his original study and began another analysis, which was published in January 2022. In this review, he and his colleagues focused on studies that were least likely to be biased. They found that ivermectin was not helpful.
Recently, Dr. Hill and associates ran another analysis using the new data from the Brazil trial, and once again they saw no benefit.
Several clinical trials are still testing ivermectin as a treatment, the New York Times reported, with results expected in upcoming months. After reviewing the data from the Brazil trial, which tested ivermectin and a variety of other drugs against COVID-19, some infectious disease experts say they’ll likely see more of the same – that ivermectin doesn’t help people with COVID-19.
“I welcome the results of the other clinical trials and will view them with an open mind,” Paul Sax, MD, an infectious disease expert at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who has been watching the data on the drug throughout the pandemic, told the New York Times.
“But at some point, it will become a waste of resources to continue studying an unpromising approach,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
according to results from a large clinical trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The findings pretty much rule out the drug as a treatment for COVID-19, the study authors wrote.
“There’s really no sign of any benefit,” David Boulware, MD, one of the coauthors and an infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the New York Times.
The researchers shared a summary of the results in August 2021 during an online presentation hosted by the National Institutes of Health. The full data hadn’t been published until now.
“Now that people can dive into the details and the data, hopefully that will steer the majority of doctors away from ivermectin toward other therapies,” Dr. Boulware said.
In the trial, the research team compared more than 1,350 people infected with the coronavirus in Brazil who received either ivermectin or a placebo as treatment.
Between March and August 2021, 679 patients received a daily dose of ivermectin over the course of 3 days. The researchers found that ivermectin didn’t reduce the risk that people with COVID-19 would be hospitalized or go to an ED within 28 days after treatment.
In addition, the researchers looked at particular groups to understand if some patients benefited for some reason, such as taking ivermectin sooner after testing positive for COVID-19. But those who took the drug during the first 3 days after a positive coronavirus test ended up doing worse than those in the placebo group. The drug also didn’t help patients recover sooner.
The researchers found “no important effects” of treatment with ivermectin on the number of days people spent in the hospital, the number of days hospitalized people needed mechanical ventilation, or the risk of death.
Ivermectin has become a controversial focal point during the pandemic.
For decades, the drug has been widely used to treat parasitic infections. At the beginning of the pandemic, researchers checked thousands of existing drugs against the coronavirus to determine if a potential treatment already existed. Laboratory experiments on cells suggested that ivermectin might work, the New York Times reported.
But some researchers noted that the experiments worked because a high concentration of ivermectin was used, a much higher dose than would be safe for people. Despite the concerns, some doctors began prescribing ivermectin to patients. After receiving reports of people who needed medical attention, particularly after using formulations intended for livestock, the Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that the drug wasn’t approved to be used for COVID-19.
Researchers around the world have done small clinical trials to understand whether ivermectin treats COVID-19, the newspaper reported. At the end of 2020, Andrew Hill, MD, a virologist at the University of Liverpool in England, reviewed the results from 23 trials and concluded that the drug could lower the risk of death from COVID-19. He published the results in July 2021, but later reports found that many of the studies were flawed, and at least one was fraudulent.
Dr. Hill retracted his original study and began another analysis, which was published in January 2022. In this review, he and his colleagues focused on studies that were least likely to be biased. They found that ivermectin was not helpful.
Recently, Dr. Hill and associates ran another analysis using the new data from the Brazil trial, and once again they saw no benefit.
Several clinical trials are still testing ivermectin as a treatment, the New York Times reported, with results expected in upcoming months. After reviewing the data from the Brazil trial, which tested ivermectin and a variety of other drugs against COVID-19, some infectious disease experts say they’ll likely see more of the same – that ivermectin doesn’t help people with COVID-19.
“I welcome the results of the other clinical trials and will view them with an open mind,” Paul Sax, MD, an infectious disease expert at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who has been watching the data on the drug throughout the pandemic, told the New York Times.
“But at some point, it will become a waste of resources to continue studying an unpromising approach,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
according to results from a large clinical trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The findings pretty much rule out the drug as a treatment for COVID-19, the study authors wrote.
“There’s really no sign of any benefit,” David Boulware, MD, one of the coauthors and an infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the New York Times.
The researchers shared a summary of the results in August 2021 during an online presentation hosted by the National Institutes of Health. The full data hadn’t been published until now.
“Now that people can dive into the details and the data, hopefully that will steer the majority of doctors away from ivermectin toward other therapies,” Dr. Boulware said.
In the trial, the research team compared more than 1,350 people infected with the coronavirus in Brazil who received either ivermectin or a placebo as treatment.
Between March and August 2021, 679 patients received a daily dose of ivermectin over the course of 3 days. The researchers found that ivermectin didn’t reduce the risk that people with COVID-19 would be hospitalized or go to an ED within 28 days after treatment.
In addition, the researchers looked at particular groups to understand if some patients benefited for some reason, such as taking ivermectin sooner after testing positive for COVID-19. But those who took the drug during the first 3 days after a positive coronavirus test ended up doing worse than those in the placebo group. The drug also didn’t help patients recover sooner.
The researchers found “no important effects” of treatment with ivermectin on the number of days people spent in the hospital, the number of days hospitalized people needed mechanical ventilation, or the risk of death.
Ivermectin has become a controversial focal point during the pandemic.
For decades, the drug has been widely used to treat parasitic infections. At the beginning of the pandemic, researchers checked thousands of existing drugs against the coronavirus to determine if a potential treatment already existed. Laboratory experiments on cells suggested that ivermectin might work, the New York Times reported.
But some researchers noted that the experiments worked because a high concentration of ivermectin was used, a much higher dose than would be safe for people. Despite the concerns, some doctors began prescribing ivermectin to patients. After receiving reports of people who needed medical attention, particularly after using formulations intended for livestock, the Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that the drug wasn’t approved to be used for COVID-19.
Researchers around the world have done small clinical trials to understand whether ivermectin treats COVID-19, the newspaper reported. At the end of 2020, Andrew Hill, MD, a virologist at the University of Liverpool in England, reviewed the results from 23 trials and concluded that the drug could lower the risk of death from COVID-19. He published the results in July 2021, but later reports found that many of the studies were flawed, and at least one was fraudulent.
Dr. Hill retracted his original study and began another analysis, which was published in January 2022. In this review, he and his colleagues focused on studies that were least likely to be biased. They found that ivermectin was not helpful.
Recently, Dr. Hill and associates ran another analysis using the new data from the Brazil trial, and once again they saw no benefit.
Several clinical trials are still testing ivermectin as a treatment, the New York Times reported, with results expected in upcoming months. After reviewing the data from the Brazil trial, which tested ivermectin and a variety of other drugs against COVID-19, some infectious disease experts say they’ll likely see more of the same – that ivermectin doesn’t help people with COVID-19.
“I welcome the results of the other clinical trials and will view them with an open mind,” Paul Sax, MD, an infectious disease expert at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who has been watching the data on the drug throughout the pandemic, told the New York Times.
“But at some point, it will become a waste of resources to continue studying an unpromising approach,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE