User login
Nurse makes millions selling her licensing exam study sheets
Ms. Beggs, 28, sells one-page study sheets or bundles of sheets, sometimes with colorful drawings, conversation bubbles and underlining, that boil down concepts for particular conditions into easy-to-understand language.
The biggest seller on Ms. Beggs’ online marketplace Etsy site, RNExplained, is a bundle of study guides covering eight core nursing classes. The notes range in price from $2 to $150. More than 70,000 customers have bought the $60 bundle, according to the website.
Ms. Beggs’ business developed in a “very unintentional” way when COVID hit with just months left in her nursing program at Mount Saint Mary’s University, Los Angeles, she told this news organization.
Classes had switched to Zoom, and she had no one to study with as she prepared to take her board exams.
“The best way I know how to study is to teach things out loud. But because I had nobody to teach out loud to, I would literally teach them to the wall,” Ms. Beggs said. “I would record myself so I could play it back and teach myself these topics that were hard for me to understand.”
Just for fun, she says, she posted them on TikTok and the responses started flowing in, with followers asking where she was selling the sheets. She now has more than 660,000 TikTok followers and 9 million likes.
Ms. Beggs said that every sheet highlights a condition, and she has made 308 of them.
Traditional classroom lessons typically teach one medical condition in 5-6 pages, Ms. Beggs said. “I go straight to the point.”
One reviewer on Ms. Beggs’ Etsy site appreciated the handwritten notes, calling them “simplified and concise.” Another commented: “Definitely helped me pass my last exam.”
Ms. Beggs says that her notes may seem simple, but each page represents comprehensive research.
“I have to go through not just one source of information to make sure my information is factual,” Ms. Beggs says. “What you teach in California might be a little different than what you teach in Florida. It’s very meticulous. The lab values will be a little different everywhere you go.”
She acknowledges her competition, noting that there are many other study guides for the NCLEX and nursing courses.
Nursing groups weigh in
Dawn Kappel, spokesperson for the National Council of State Boards of Nursing, which oversees NCLEX, said in an interview that “NCSBN has no issue with the current content of Stephanee Beggs’ business venture.”
For many students, the study guides will be helpful, especially for visual learners, said Carole Kenner, PhD, RN, dean and professor in the School of Nursing and Health Sciences at The College of New Jersey.
But for students “who are less confident in their knowledge, I would want to see a lot more in-depth explanation and rationale,” Dr. Kenner said.
“Since the NCLEX is moving to more cased-based scenarios, the next-gen unfolding cases, you really have to understand a lot of the rationale.”
The notes remind Dr. Kenner of traditional flash cards. “I don’t think it will work for all students, but even the fanciest of onsite review courses are useful to everyone,” she said.
‘Not cutting corners’
As an emergency nurse, Ms. Beggs said, “I have the experience as a nurse to show people that what you are learning will be seen in real life.”
“The way I teach my brand is not to take shortcuts. I love to teach to understand rather than teaching to memorize for an exam.”
She said she sees her guides as a supplement to learning, not a replacement.
“It’s not cutting corners,” she says. “I condense a medical condition that could take a very long time to understand and break it into layman’s terms.”
Ms. Beggs said when people hear about the $2 million, they often ask her whether she plans to give up her shifts in the emergency department for the more lucrative venture.
The answer is no, at least not yet.
“Aside from teaching, I genuinely love being at the bedside,” Ms. Beggs said. “I don’t foresee myself leaving that for good for as long as I can handle both.” She acknowledged, though, that her business now takes up most of her time.
“I love everything about both aspects, so it’s hard for me to choose.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Ms. Beggs, 28, sells one-page study sheets or bundles of sheets, sometimes with colorful drawings, conversation bubbles and underlining, that boil down concepts for particular conditions into easy-to-understand language.
The biggest seller on Ms. Beggs’ online marketplace Etsy site, RNExplained, is a bundle of study guides covering eight core nursing classes. The notes range in price from $2 to $150. More than 70,000 customers have bought the $60 bundle, according to the website.
Ms. Beggs’ business developed in a “very unintentional” way when COVID hit with just months left in her nursing program at Mount Saint Mary’s University, Los Angeles, she told this news organization.
Classes had switched to Zoom, and she had no one to study with as she prepared to take her board exams.
“The best way I know how to study is to teach things out loud. But because I had nobody to teach out loud to, I would literally teach them to the wall,” Ms. Beggs said. “I would record myself so I could play it back and teach myself these topics that were hard for me to understand.”
Just for fun, she says, she posted them on TikTok and the responses started flowing in, with followers asking where she was selling the sheets. She now has more than 660,000 TikTok followers and 9 million likes.
Ms. Beggs said that every sheet highlights a condition, and she has made 308 of them.
Traditional classroom lessons typically teach one medical condition in 5-6 pages, Ms. Beggs said. “I go straight to the point.”
One reviewer on Ms. Beggs’ Etsy site appreciated the handwritten notes, calling them “simplified and concise.” Another commented: “Definitely helped me pass my last exam.”
Ms. Beggs says that her notes may seem simple, but each page represents comprehensive research.
“I have to go through not just one source of information to make sure my information is factual,” Ms. Beggs says. “What you teach in California might be a little different than what you teach in Florida. It’s very meticulous. The lab values will be a little different everywhere you go.”
She acknowledges her competition, noting that there are many other study guides for the NCLEX and nursing courses.
Nursing groups weigh in
Dawn Kappel, spokesperson for the National Council of State Boards of Nursing, which oversees NCLEX, said in an interview that “NCSBN has no issue with the current content of Stephanee Beggs’ business venture.”
For many students, the study guides will be helpful, especially for visual learners, said Carole Kenner, PhD, RN, dean and professor in the School of Nursing and Health Sciences at The College of New Jersey.
But for students “who are less confident in their knowledge, I would want to see a lot more in-depth explanation and rationale,” Dr. Kenner said.
“Since the NCLEX is moving to more cased-based scenarios, the next-gen unfolding cases, you really have to understand a lot of the rationale.”
The notes remind Dr. Kenner of traditional flash cards. “I don’t think it will work for all students, but even the fanciest of onsite review courses are useful to everyone,” she said.
‘Not cutting corners’
As an emergency nurse, Ms. Beggs said, “I have the experience as a nurse to show people that what you are learning will be seen in real life.”
“The way I teach my brand is not to take shortcuts. I love to teach to understand rather than teaching to memorize for an exam.”
She said she sees her guides as a supplement to learning, not a replacement.
“It’s not cutting corners,” she says. “I condense a medical condition that could take a very long time to understand and break it into layman’s terms.”
Ms. Beggs said when people hear about the $2 million, they often ask her whether she plans to give up her shifts in the emergency department for the more lucrative venture.
The answer is no, at least not yet.
“Aside from teaching, I genuinely love being at the bedside,” Ms. Beggs said. “I don’t foresee myself leaving that for good for as long as I can handle both.” She acknowledged, though, that her business now takes up most of her time.
“I love everything about both aspects, so it’s hard for me to choose.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Ms. Beggs, 28, sells one-page study sheets or bundles of sheets, sometimes with colorful drawings, conversation bubbles and underlining, that boil down concepts for particular conditions into easy-to-understand language.
The biggest seller on Ms. Beggs’ online marketplace Etsy site, RNExplained, is a bundle of study guides covering eight core nursing classes. The notes range in price from $2 to $150. More than 70,000 customers have bought the $60 bundle, according to the website.
Ms. Beggs’ business developed in a “very unintentional” way when COVID hit with just months left in her nursing program at Mount Saint Mary’s University, Los Angeles, she told this news organization.
Classes had switched to Zoom, and she had no one to study with as she prepared to take her board exams.
“The best way I know how to study is to teach things out loud. But because I had nobody to teach out loud to, I would literally teach them to the wall,” Ms. Beggs said. “I would record myself so I could play it back and teach myself these topics that were hard for me to understand.”
Just for fun, she says, she posted them on TikTok and the responses started flowing in, with followers asking where she was selling the sheets. She now has more than 660,000 TikTok followers and 9 million likes.
Ms. Beggs said that every sheet highlights a condition, and she has made 308 of them.
Traditional classroom lessons typically teach one medical condition in 5-6 pages, Ms. Beggs said. “I go straight to the point.”
One reviewer on Ms. Beggs’ Etsy site appreciated the handwritten notes, calling them “simplified and concise.” Another commented: “Definitely helped me pass my last exam.”
Ms. Beggs says that her notes may seem simple, but each page represents comprehensive research.
“I have to go through not just one source of information to make sure my information is factual,” Ms. Beggs says. “What you teach in California might be a little different than what you teach in Florida. It’s very meticulous. The lab values will be a little different everywhere you go.”
She acknowledges her competition, noting that there are many other study guides for the NCLEX and nursing courses.
Nursing groups weigh in
Dawn Kappel, spokesperson for the National Council of State Boards of Nursing, which oversees NCLEX, said in an interview that “NCSBN has no issue with the current content of Stephanee Beggs’ business venture.”
For many students, the study guides will be helpful, especially for visual learners, said Carole Kenner, PhD, RN, dean and professor in the School of Nursing and Health Sciences at The College of New Jersey.
But for students “who are less confident in their knowledge, I would want to see a lot more in-depth explanation and rationale,” Dr. Kenner said.
“Since the NCLEX is moving to more cased-based scenarios, the next-gen unfolding cases, you really have to understand a lot of the rationale.”
The notes remind Dr. Kenner of traditional flash cards. “I don’t think it will work for all students, but even the fanciest of onsite review courses are useful to everyone,” she said.
‘Not cutting corners’
As an emergency nurse, Ms. Beggs said, “I have the experience as a nurse to show people that what you are learning will be seen in real life.”
“The way I teach my brand is not to take shortcuts. I love to teach to understand rather than teaching to memorize for an exam.”
She said she sees her guides as a supplement to learning, not a replacement.
“It’s not cutting corners,” she says. “I condense a medical condition that could take a very long time to understand and break it into layman’s terms.”
Ms. Beggs said when people hear about the $2 million, they often ask her whether she plans to give up her shifts in the emergency department for the more lucrative venture.
The answer is no, at least not yet.
“Aside from teaching, I genuinely love being at the bedside,” Ms. Beggs said. “I don’t foresee myself leaving that for good for as long as I can handle both.” She acknowledged, though, that her business now takes up most of her time.
“I love everything about both aspects, so it’s hard for me to choose.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID can mimic prostate cancer symptoms
This patient has a strong likelihood of aggressive prostate cancer, right? If that same patient also presents with severe, burning bone pain with no precipitating trauma to the area and rest and over-the-counter painkillers are not helping, you’d think, “check for metastases,” right?
That patient was me in late January 2023.
As a research scientist member of the American Urological Association, I knew enough to know I had to consult my urologist ASAP.
With the above symptoms, I’ll admit I was scared. Fortunately, if that’s the right word, I was no stranger to a rapid, dramatic spike in PSA. In 2021 I was temporarily living in a new city, and I wanted to form a relationship with a good local urologist. The urologist that I was referred to gave me a thorough consultation, including a vigorous digital rectal exam (DRE) and sent me across the street for a blood draw.
To my shock, my PSA had spiked over 2 points, to 9.9 from 7.8 a few months earlier. I freaked. Had my 3-cm tumor burst out into an aggressive cancer? Research on PubMed provided an array of studies showing what could cause PSA to suddenly rise, including a DRE performed 72 hours before the blood draw.1 A week later, my PSA was back down to its normal 7.6.
But in January 2023, I had none of those previously reported experiences that could suddenly trigger a spike in PSA, like a DRE or riding on a thin bicycle seat for a few hours before the lab visit.
The COVID effect
I went back to PubMed and found a new circumstance that could cause a surge in PSA: COVID-19. A recent study2 of 91 men with benign prostatic hypertrophy by researchers in Turkey found that PSA spiked from 0 to 5 points during the COVID infection period and up to 2 points higher 3 months after the infection had cleared. I had tested positive for COVID-19 in mid-December 2022, 4 weeks before my 9.9 PSA reading.
Using Google translate, I communicated with the team in Turkey and found out that the PSA spike can last up to 6 months.
That study helps explain why my PSA dropped over 1.5 points to 8.5 just 2 weeks after the 9.9 reading, with the expectation that it would return to its previous normal of 7.8 within 6 months of infection with SARS-CoV-2. To be safe, my urologist scheduled another PSA test in May, along with an updated multiparametric MRI, which may be followed by an in-bore MRI-guided biopsy of the 3-cm tumor if the mass has enlarged.
COVID-19 pain
What about my burning bone pain in my upper right humerus and right rotator cuff that was not precipitated by trauma or strain? A radiograph found no evidence of metastasis, thank goodness. And my research showed that several studies3 have found that COVID-19 can cause burning musculoskeletal pain, including enthesopathy, which is what I had per the radiology report. So my PSA spike and searing pain were likely consequences of the infection.
To avoid the risk for a gross misdiagnosis after a radical spike in PSA, the informed urologist should ask the patient if he has had COVID-19 in the previous 6 months. Overlooking that question could lead to the wrong diagnostic decisions about a rapid jump in PSA or unexplained bone pain.
References
1. Bossens MM et al. Eur J Cancer. 1995;31A:682-5.
2. Cinislioglu AE et al. Urology. 2022;159:16-21.
3. Ciaffi J et al. Joint Bone Spine. 2021;88:105158.
Dr. Keller is founder of the Keller Research Institute, Jacksonville, Fla. He reported serving as a research scientist for the American Urological Association, serving on the advisory board of Active Surveillance Patient’s International, and serving on the boards of numerous nonprofit organizations.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This patient has a strong likelihood of aggressive prostate cancer, right? If that same patient also presents with severe, burning bone pain with no precipitating trauma to the area and rest and over-the-counter painkillers are not helping, you’d think, “check for metastases,” right?
That patient was me in late January 2023.
As a research scientist member of the American Urological Association, I knew enough to know I had to consult my urologist ASAP.
With the above symptoms, I’ll admit I was scared. Fortunately, if that’s the right word, I was no stranger to a rapid, dramatic spike in PSA. In 2021 I was temporarily living in a new city, and I wanted to form a relationship with a good local urologist. The urologist that I was referred to gave me a thorough consultation, including a vigorous digital rectal exam (DRE) and sent me across the street for a blood draw.
To my shock, my PSA had spiked over 2 points, to 9.9 from 7.8 a few months earlier. I freaked. Had my 3-cm tumor burst out into an aggressive cancer? Research on PubMed provided an array of studies showing what could cause PSA to suddenly rise, including a DRE performed 72 hours before the blood draw.1 A week later, my PSA was back down to its normal 7.6.
But in January 2023, I had none of those previously reported experiences that could suddenly trigger a spike in PSA, like a DRE or riding on a thin bicycle seat for a few hours before the lab visit.
The COVID effect
I went back to PubMed and found a new circumstance that could cause a surge in PSA: COVID-19. A recent study2 of 91 men with benign prostatic hypertrophy by researchers in Turkey found that PSA spiked from 0 to 5 points during the COVID infection period and up to 2 points higher 3 months after the infection had cleared. I had tested positive for COVID-19 in mid-December 2022, 4 weeks before my 9.9 PSA reading.
Using Google translate, I communicated with the team in Turkey and found out that the PSA spike can last up to 6 months.
That study helps explain why my PSA dropped over 1.5 points to 8.5 just 2 weeks after the 9.9 reading, with the expectation that it would return to its previous normal of 7.8 within 6 months of infection with SARS-CoV-2. To be safe, my urologist scheduled another PSA test in May, along with an updated multiparametric MRI, which may be followed by an in-bore MRI-guided biopsy of the 3-cm tumor if the mass has enlarged.
COVID-19 pain
What about my burning bone pain in my upper right humerus and right rotator cuff that was not precipitated by trauma or strain? A radiograph found no evidence of metastasis, thank goodness. And my research showed that several studies3 have found that COVID-19 can cause burning musculoskeletal pain, including enthesopathy, which is what I had per the radiology report. So my PSA spike and searing pain were likely consequences of the infection.
To avoid the risk for a gross misdiagnosis after a radical spike in PSA, the informed urologist should ask the patient if he has had COVID-19 in the previous 6 months. Overlooking that question could lead to the wrong diagnostic decisions about a rapid jump in PSA or unexplained bone pain.
References
1. Bossens MM et al. Eur J Cancer. 1995;31A:682-5.
2. Cinislioglu AE et al. Urology. 2022;159:16-21.
3. Ciaffi J et al. Joint Bone Spine. 2021;88:105158.
Dr. Keller is founder of the Keller Research Institute, Jacksonville, Fla. He reported serving as a research scientist for the American Urological Association, serving on the advisory board of Active Surveillance Patient’s International, and serving on the boards of numerous nonprofit organizations.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This patient has a strong likelihood of aggressive prostate cancer, right? If that same patient also presents with severe, burning bone pain with no precipitating trauma to the area and rest and over-the-counter painkillers are not helping, you’d think, “check for metastases,” right?
That patient was me in late January 2023.
As a research scientist member of the American Urological Association, I knew enough to know I had to consult my urologist ASAP.
With the above symptoms, I’ll admit I was scared. Fortunately, if that’s the right word, I was no stranger to a rapid, dramatic spike in PSA. In 2021 I was temporarily living in a new city, and I wanted to form a relationship with a good local urologist. The urologist that I was referred to gave me a thorough consultation, including a vigorous digital rectal exam (DRE) and sent me across the street for a blood draw.
To my shock, my PSA had spiked over 2 points, to 9.9 from 7.8 a few months earlier. I freaked. Had my 3-cm tumor burst out into an aggressive cancer? Research on PubMed provided an array of studies showing what could cause PSA to suddenly rise, including a DRE performed 72 hours before the blood draw.1 A week later, my PSA was back down to its normal 7.6.
But in January 2023, I had none of those previously reported experiences that could suddenly trigger a spike in PSA, like a DRE or riding on a thin bicycle seat for a few hours before the lab visit.
The COVID effect
I went back to PubMed and found a new circumstance that could cause a surge in PSA: COVID-19. A recent study2 of 91 men with benign prostatic hypertrophy by researchers in Turkey found that PSA spiked from 0 to 5 points during the COVID infection period and up to 2 points higher 3 months after the infection had cleared. I had tested positive for COVID-19 in mid-December 2022, 4 weeks before my 9.9 PSA reading.
Using Google translate, I communicated with the team in Turkey and found out that the PSA spike can last up to 6 months.
That study helps explain why my PSA dropped over 1.5 points to 8.5 just 2 weeks after the 9.9 reading, with the expectation that it would return to its previous normal of 7.8 within 6 months of infection with SARS-CoV-2. To be safe, my urologist scheduled another PSA test in May, along with an updated multiparametric MRI, which may be followed by an in-bore MRI-guided biopsy of the 3-cm tumor if the mass has enlarged.
COVID-19 pain
What about my burning bone pain in my upper right humerus and right rotator cuff that was not precipitated by trauma or strain? A radiograph found no evidence of metastasis, thank goodness. And my research showed that several studies3 have found that COVID-19 can cause burning musculoskeletal pain, including enthesopathy, which is what I had per the radiology report. So my PSA spike and searing pain were likely consequences of the infection.
To avoid the risk for a gross misdiagnosis after a radical spike in PSA, the informed urologist should ask the patient if he has had COVID-19 in the previous 6 months. Overlooking that question could lead to the wrong diagnostic decisions about a rapid jump in PSA or unexplained bone pain.
References
1. Bossens MM et al. Eur J Cancer. 1995;31A:682-5.
2. Cinislioglu AE et al. Urology. 2022;159:16-21.
3. Ciaffi J et al. Joint Bone Spine. 2021;88:105158.
Dr. Keller is founder of the Keller Research Institute, Jacksonville, Fla. He reported serving as a research scientist for the American Urological Association, serving on the advisory board of Active Surveillance Patient’s International, and serving on the boards of numerous nonprofit organizations.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NOVIDs: Do some have the genes to dodge COVID?
As a field service representative for a slot machine company, Ryan Alexander, 37, of Louisville, Ky., spends his working hours in casinos, covering a large territory including Norfolk, Va., Indianapolis, and Charlotte. Social distancing in the casinos is not the norm. Despite all this up-close contact with people, he said he is still COVID-free, 3 years into the pandemic.
There was one nervous night when his temperature rose to 101° F, and he figured the virus had caught up with him. “I took a test and was fine,” he said, relieved that the result was negative. The fever disappeared, and he was back to normal soon. “Maybe it was just an exhausting day.”
Mr. Alexander is one of those people who have managed – or at least think they have managed – to avoid getting COVID-19.
He is, some say, a NOVID. While some scientists cringe at the term, it’s caught on to describe these virus super-dodgers. Online entrepreneurs offer NOVID-19 T-shirts, masks, and stickers, in case these super-healthy or super-lucky folks want to publicize their good luck. On Twitter, NOVIDs share stories of how they’ve done it.
How many NOVIDs?
As of March 16, according to the CDC, almost 104 million cases of COVID – about one-third of the U.S. population – have been reported, but many cases are known to go unreported. About half of American adults surveyed said they have had COVID, according to a December report by the COVID States Project, a multiuniversity effort to supply pandemic data.
As the numbers settle over time, though, it becomes clearer that some in the U.S. have apparently managed to avoid the virus.
But some scientists bristle at the term NOVIDs. They prefer the term “resisters,” according to Elena Hsieh, MD, associate professor of pediatrics and immunology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. Currently, she said, there is much more information on who is more susceptible to contracting severe COVID than who is resistant.
Dr. Hsieh is one of the regional coordinators for the COVID Human Genetic Effort, an international consortium of more than 250 researchers and doctors dedicated to discovering the genetic and immunological bases of the forms of SARS-CoV-2 infection. These researchers and others are looking for explanations for why some people get severe COVID while others seem resistant despite repeated exposure.
Resistance research
In determining explanations for resistance to infection, “the needle in the haystack that we are looking for is a change in the genetic code that would allow for you to avoid entry of the virus into the cell,” Dr. Hsieh said. “That is what being resistant to infection is.”
Part of the reason it’s so difficult to study resistance is defining a resister, she said. While many people consider themselves among that group because they’re been exposed multiple times – even with close family members infected and sick, yet they still felt fine – that doesn’t necessarily make them a resister, she said.
Those people could have been infected but remained without symptoms. “Resistance means the virus was inside you, it was near your cell and it did not infect your cell,” Dr. Hsieh said.
“I don’t think we know a lot so far,” Dr. Hsieh said about resisters. “I do believe that, just like there are genetic defects that make someone more susceptible, there are likely to be genetic defects that make somebody less susceptible.’’
“To identify genetic variants that are protective is a really challenging thing to do,” agreed Peter K. Gregersen, MD, professor of genetics at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y. Dr. Gregersen is also a regional coordinator for the COVID Human Genetic Effort.
He suspects the number found to be truly resistant to COVID – versus dodging it so far – is going to be very small or not found at all.
“It may exist for COVID or it may not,” he said. Some people may simply have what he calls a robust immune response in the upper part of the throat, perhaps killing off the virus quickly as soon as it enters, so they don’t get a positive test.
Genetic resistance has been found for other diseases, such as HIV.
“For HIV, scientists have been able to identify a specific gene that codes for a protein that can prevent individuals from getting infected,” said Sabrina Assoumou, MD, MPH, professor of medicine at Boston University, who researches HIV.
However, she said, “we haven’t yet found a similar gene or protein that can prevent people from getting infected with SARS-CoV-2.”
What has been found “is that some people might have a mutation in a gene that encodes for what’s called human leukocyte antigen (HLA),” Dr. Assoumou said. HLA, a molecule found on the surface of most cells, has a crucial role in the immune response to foreign substances. “A mutation in HLA can make people less likely to have symptoms if they get infected. Individuals still get infected, but they are less likely to have symptoms.”
Other research has found that those with food allergies are also less likely to be infected. The researchers have speculated that the inflammation characteristic of allergic conditions may reduce levels of a protein called the ACE2 receptor on the surface of airway cells. The SARS-CoV-2 virus uses the receptor to enter the cells, so if levels are low, that could reduce the ability of the virus to infect people.
The COVID Human Genetic Effort continues to search for participants, both those who were admitted to a hospital or repeatedly seen at a hospital because of COVID, as well as those who did not get infected, even after “intense and repeated” exposure.
The number of people likely to be resistant is much smaller, Dr. Hsieh said, than the number of people susceptible to severe disease.
The testing ... or lack thereof factor
The timing of testing and a person’s “infection profile” may be factors in people incorrectly declaring themselves NOVIDs, said Anne Wyllie, PhD, a research scientist in epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health in New Haven, Conn., and a codeveloper of a saliva PCR test for COVID.
“Infection profiles can vary between individuals,” she said. For some, the infection may start in the lower respiratory tract, others in the higher respiratory tract. “Depending on where the virus takes up residence, that can affect test results.”
Then there’s the following-instructions factor. “It’s very likely that due to tests not being done at the right time, with the right sample, or not repeated if there is ongoing evidence of symptoms, that there are individuals out there who believe they are NOVIDs but just missed catching their infection at the window of opportunity.” Dr. Wyllie said.
Susceptibility research
“The part we have proven is the genetic defect that would make you more susceptible to having severe disease,” Dr. Hsieh said.
Many published papers report that inherited and/or autoimmune deficiencies of type I interferon immunity, important for combating viral infections and modulating the immune response, can be a significant cause of life-threatening COVID pneumonia.
More recently, researchers, including Jean-Laurent Casanova, MD, PhD, professor at Rockefeller University, New York, and cofounder of the COVID Human Genome Effort, reported that deficiencies in a gene that plays a role in built-in immunity (the early response), and a gene involved in signaling within the immune cells, impair interferon production and may be the basis of severe COVID pneumonia.
NOVIDs’ habits run the gamut
As scientists continue their research, the NOVIDs have their own ideas about why they’ve dodged the pandemic bullet, and they have a variety of approaches to handling the pandemic now.
Ryan Alexander, the field rep who travels to casinos, is up to date on his vaccinations and has gotten all the recommended COVID shots. “I was wearing a mask when told to wear masks,” he said.
He still observes the social distance habit but lives life. “I’ve been to three or four concerts in the past couple of years.”
And does he worry his number will eventually be up? “Not at this point, no,” he said.
Joe Asher, 46, said he has not gotten COVID despite being in contact with about 100 people a day, on average. He works as a bartender at an Evansville, Ind., brewery.
“On a Friday night, we can get 500 people,” he said. “I feel like almost everyone at the brewery got it. There’s no way I wasn’t exposed to it all the time.”
However, he said, his coworkers who did get sick were very cautious about not infecting others, partly to help protect a coworker’s family with newborn twins, so that may have helped him stay uninfected, too.
Mr. Asher said he’s in good physical shape, and he’s worked around the public for a long time, so figures maybe that has strengthened his immune system. He’s always been careful about handwashing and said he’s perhaps a bit more conscious of germs than others might be.
Roselyn Mena, 68, a retired teacher in Richmond, Calif., about 16 miles northeast of San Francisco, said she’s managed to avoid the virus even though her husband, Jesus Mena, got infected, as did her two adult children. Now, she remains vigilant about wearing a mask. She tries not to eat inside at restaurants. “I’m super careful,” she said.
Besides her teacher training, Ms. Mena had training as a medical assistant and learned a lot about sanitizing methods. She gets an annual flu shot, washes her hands often, and uses hand sanitizer.
When she shops, she will ask salespeople not wearing masks to please mask. “Only one refused, and she got someone else [to wait on her].”
One reason she is always careful about hygiene, Ms. Mena said, is that “when I get a cold, I get really sick. It last and lasts.” Now, she does worry she might still get it, she said, with the prospect of getting long COVID driving that worry.
In the beginning of the pandemic, Rhonda Fleming, 68, of Los Angeles, lived in a “COVID bubble,” interacting with just a few close family members. As cases went down, she enlarged the bubble. Her two grown daughters got infected, but her granddaughter did not.
She has been vigilant about masking, she said, “and I do still mask in public places.” She has a mask wardrobe, including basic black as well as glittery masks for dressier occasions. “I always carry a mask because inevitably, a cougher surrounds me.”
Now, she will bypass restaurants if she doesn’t feel comfortable with the environment, choosing ones with good air flow. When she flew to Mexico recently, she masked on the plane.
At this point, she said she doesn’t worry about getting infected but remains careful.
Recently, two friends, who have been as diligent as she has about precautions, got infected, “and they don’t know how they got it.”
Bragging rights?
Until researchers separate out the true resisters from those who claim to be, some NOVIDs are simply quietly grateful for their luck, while others mention their COVID-free status to anyone who asks or who will listen, and are proud of it.
And what about those who wear a “NOVID” T-shirt?
“I would think they have a need to convey to the world they are different, perhaps special, because they beat COVID,” said Richard B. Joelson, a New York–based doctor of social work, a psychotherapist, and the author of Help Me! A Psychotherapist’s Tried-and-True Techniques for a Happier Relationship with Yourself and the People You Love. “They didn’t beat COVID, they just didn’t get it.”
Or they may be relieved they didn’t get sick, he said, because they feel defeated when they do. So “it’s a source of pride.” It might be the same people who tell anyone who will listen they never need a doctor or take no medicines, he said.
Even though science may prove many NOVIDs are inaccurate when they call themselves resisters, Dr. Hsieh understands the temptation to talk about it. “It’s kind of cool to think you are supernatural,” she said. “It’s much more attractive than being susceptible. It’s a lot sexier.” ■
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As a field service representative for a slot machine company, Ryan Alexander, 37, of Louisville, Ky., spends his working hours in casinos, covering a large territory including Norfolk, Va., Indianapolis, and Charlotte. Social distancing in the casinos is not the norm. Despite all this up-close contact with people, he said he is still COVID-free, 3 years into the pandemic.
There was one nervous night when his temperature rose to 101° F, and he figured the virus had caught up with him. “I took a test and was fine,” he said, relieved that the result was negative. The fever disappeared, and he was back to normal soon. “Maybe it was just an exhausting day.”
Mr. Alexander is one of those people who have managed – or at least think they have managed – to avoid getting COVID-19.
He is, some say, a NOVID. While some scientists cringe at the term, it’s caught on to describe these virus super-dodgers. Online entrepreneurs offer NOVID-19 T-shirts, masks, and stickers, in case these super-healthy or super-lucky folks want to publicize their good luck. On Twitter, NOVIDs share stories of how they’ve done it.
How many NOVIDs?
As of March 16, according to the CDC, almost 104 million cases of COVID – about one-third of the U.S. population – have been reported, but many cases are known to go unreported. About half of American adults surveyed said they have had COVID, according to a December report by the COVID States Project, a multiuniversity effort to supply pandemic data.
As the numbers settle over time, though, it becomes clearer that some in the U.S. have apparently managed to avoid the virus.
But some scientists bristle at the term NOVIDs. They prefer the term “resisters,” according to Elena Hsieh, MD, associate professor of pediatrics and immunology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. Currently, she said, there is much more information on who is more susceptible to contracting severe COVID than who is resistant.
Dr. Hsieh is one of the regional coordinators for the COVID Human Genetic Effort, an international consortium of more than 250 researchers and doctors dedicated to discovering the genetic and immunological bases of the forms of SARS-CoV-2 infection. These researchers and others are looking for explanations for why some people get severe COVID while others seem resistant despite repeated exposure.
Resistance research
In determining explanations for resistance to infection, “the needle in the haystack that we are looking for is a change in the genetic code that would allow for you to avoid entry of the virus into the cell,” Dr. Hsieh said. “That is what being resistant to infection is.”
Part of the reason it’s so difficult to study resistance is defining a resister, she said. While many people consider themselves among that group because they’re been exposed multiple times – even with close family members infected and sick, yet they still felt fine – that doesn’t necessarily make them a resister, she said.
Those people could have been infected but remained without symptoms. “Resistance means the virus was inside you, it was near your cell and it did not infect your cell,” Dr. Hsieh said.
“I don’t think we know a lot so far,” Dr. Hsieh said about resisters. “I do believe that, just like there are genetic defects that make someone more susceptible, there are likely to be genetic defects that make somebody less susceptible.’’
“To identify genetic variants that are protective is a really challenging thing to do,” agreed Peter K. Gregersen, MD, professor of genetics at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y. Dr. Gregersen is also a regional coordinator for the COVID Human Genetic Effort.
He suspects the number found to be truly resistant to COVID – versus dodging it so far – is going to be very small or not found at all.
“It may exist for COVID or it may not,” he said. Some people may simply have what he calls a robust immune response in the upper part of the throat, perhaps killing off the virus quickly as soon as it enters, so they don’t get a positive test.
Genetic resistance has been found for other diseases, such as HIV.
“For HIV, scientists have been able to identify a specific gene that codes for a protein that can prevent individuals from getting infected,” said Sabrina Assoumou, MD, MPH, professor of medicine at Boston University, who researches HIV.
However, she said, “we haven’t yet found a similar gene or protein that can prevent people from getting infected with SARS-CoV-2.”
What has been found “is that some people might have a mutation in a gene that encodes for what’s called human leukocyte antigen (HLA),” Dr. Assoumou said. HLA, a molecule found on the surface of most cells, has a crucial role in the immune response to foreign substances. “A mutation in HLA can make people less likely to have symptoms if they get infected. Individuals still get infected, but they are less likely to have symptoms.”
Other research has found that those with food allergies are also less likely to be infected. The researchers have speculated that the inflammation characteristic of allergic conditions may reduce levels of a protein called the ACE2 receptor on the surface of airway cells. The SARS-CoV-2 virus uses the receptor to enter the cells, so if levels are low, that could reduce the ability of the virus to infect people.
The COVID Human Genetic Effort continues to search for participants, both those who were admitted to a hospital or repeatedly seen at a hospital because of COVID, as well as those who did not get infected, even after “intense and repeated” exposure.
The number of people likely to be resistant is much smaller, Dr. Hsieh said, than the number of people susceptible to severe disease.
The testing ... or lack thereof factor
The timing of testing and a person’s “infection profile” may be factors in people incorrectly declaring themselves NOVIDs, said Anne Wyllie, PhD, a research scientist in epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health in New Haven, Conn., and a codeveloper of a saliva PCR test for COVID.
“Infection profiles can vary between individuals,” she said. For some, the infection may start in the lower respiratory tract, others in the higher respiratory tract. “Depending on where the virus takes up residence, that can affect test results.”
Then there’s the following-instructions factor. “It’s very likely that due to tests not being done at the right time, with the right sample, or not repeated if there is ongoing evidence of symptoms, that there are individuals out there who believe they are NOVIDs but just missed catching their infection at the window of opportunity.” Dr. Wyllie said.
Susceptibility research
“The part we have proven is the genetic defect that would make you more susceptible to having severe disease,” Dr. Hsieh said.
Many published papers report that inherited and/or autoimmune deficiencies of type I interferon immunity, important for combating viral infections and modulating the immune response, can be a significant cause of life-threatening COVID pneumonia.
More recently, researchers, including Jean-Laurent Casanova, MD, PhD, professor at Rockefeller University, New York, and cofounder of the COVID Human Genome Effort, reported that deficiencies in a gene that plays a role in built-in immunity (the early response), and a gene involved in signaling within the immune cells, impair interferon production and may be the basis of severe COVID pneumonia.
NOVIDs’ habits run the gamut
As scientists continue their research, the NOVIDs have their own ideas about why they’ve dodged the pandemic bullet, and they have a variety of approaches to handling the pandemic now.
Ryan Alexander, the field rep who travels to casinos, is up to date on his vaccinations and has gotten all the recommended COVID shots. “I was wearing a mask when told to wear masks,” he said.
He still observes the social distance habit but lives life. “I’ve been to three or four concerts in the past couple of years.”
And does he worry his number will eventually be up? “Not at this point, no,” he said.
Joe Asher, 46, said he has not gotten COVID despite being in contact with about 100 people a day, on average. He works as a bartender at an Evansville, Ind., brewery.
“On a Friday night, we can get 500 people,” he said. “I feel like almost everyone at the brewery got it. There’s no way I wasn’t exposed to it all the time.”
However, he said, his coworkers who did get sick were very cautious about not infecting others, partly to help protect a coworker’s family with newborn twins, so that may have helped him stay uninfected, too.
Mr. Asher said he’s in good physical shape, and he’s worked around the public for a long time, so figures maybe that has strengthened his immune system. He’s always been careful about handwashing and said he’s perhaps a bit more conscious of germs than others might be.
Roselyn Mena, 68, a retired teacher in Richmond, Calif., about 16 miles northeast of San Francisco, said she’s managed to avoid the virus even though her husband, Jesus Mena, got infected, as did her two adult children. Now, she remains vigilant about wearing a mask. She tries not to eat inside at restaurants. “I’m super careful,” she said.
Besides her teacher training, Ms. Mena had training as a medical assistant and learned a lot about sanitizing methods. She gets an annual flu shot, washes her hands often, and uses hand sanitizer.
When she shops, she will ask salespeople not wearing masks to please mask. “Only one refused, and she got someone else [to wait on her].”
One reason she is always careful about hygiene, Ms. Mena said, is that “when I get a cold, I get really sick. It last and lasts.” Now, she does worry she might still get it, she said, with the prospect of getting long COVID driving that worry.
In the beginning of the pandemic, Rhonda Fleming, 68, of Los Angeles, lived in a “COVID bubble,” interacting with just a few close family members. As cases went down, she enlarged the bubble. Her two grown daughters got infected, but her granddaughter did not.
She has been vigilant about masking, she said, “and I do still mask in public places.” She has a mask wardrobe, including basic black as well as glittery masks for dressier occasions. “I always carry a mask because inevitably, a cougher surrounds me.”
Now, she will bypass restaurants if she doesn’t feel comfortable with the environment, choosing ones with good air flow. When she flew to Mexico recently, she masked on the plane.
At this point, she said she doesn’t worry about getting infected but remains careful.
Recently, two friends, who have been as diligent as she has about precautions, got infected, “and they don’t know how they got it.”
Bragging rights?
Until researchers separate out the true resisters from those who claim to be, some NOVIDs are simply quietly grateful for their luck, while others mention their COVID-free status to anyone who asks or who will listen, and are proud of it.
And what about those who wear a “NOVID” T-shirt?
“I would think they have a need to convey to the world they are different, perhaps special, because they beat COVID,” said Richard B. Joelson, a New York–based doctor of social work, a psychotherapist, and the author of Help Me! A Psychotherapist’s Tried-and-True Techniques for a Happier Relationship with Yourself and the People You Love. “They didn’t beat COVID, they just didn’t get it.”
Or they may be relieved they didn’t get sick, he said, because they feel defeated when they do. So “it’s a source of pride.” It might be the same people who tell anyone who will listen they never need a doctor or take no medicines, he said.
Even though science may prove many NOVIDs are inaccurate when they call themselves resisters, Dr. Hsieh understands the temptation to talk about it. “It’s kind of cool to think you are supernatural,” she said. “It’s much more attractive than being susceptible. It’s a lot sexier.” ■
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As a field service representative for a slot machine company, Ryan Alexander, 37, of Louisville, Ky., spends his working hours in casinos, covering a large territory including Norfolk, Va., Indianapolis, and Charlotte. Social distancing in the casinos is not the norm. Despite all this up-close contact with people, he said he is still COVID-free, 3 years into the pandemic.
There was one nervous night when his temperature rose to 101° F, and he figured the virus had caught up with him. “I took a test and was fine,” he said, relieved that the result was negative. The fever disappeared, and he was back to normal soon. “Maybe it was just an exhausting day.”
Mr. Alexander is one of those people who have managed – or at least think they have managed – to avoid getting COVID-19.
He is, some say, a NOVID. While some scientists cringe at the term, it’s caught on to describe these virus super-dodgers. Online entrepreneurs offer NOVID-19 T-shirts, masks, and stickers, in case these super-healthy or super-lucky folks want to publicize their good luck. On Twitter, NOVIDs share stories of how they’ve done it.
How many NOVIDs?
As of March 16, according to the CDC, almost 104 million cases of COVID – about one-third of the U.S. population – have been reported, but many cases are known to go unreported. About half of American adults surveyed said they have had COVID, according to a December report by the COVID States Project, a multiuniversity effort to supply pandemic data.
As the numbers settle over time, though, it becomes clearer that some in the U.S. have apparently managed to avoid the virus.
But some scientists bristle at the term NOVIDs. They prefer the term “resisters,” according to Elena Hsieh, MD, associate professor of pediatrics and immunology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. Currently, she said, there is much more information on who is more susceptible to contracting severe COVID than who is resistant.
Dr. Hsieh is one of the regional coordinators for the COVID Human Genetic Effort, an international consortium of more than 250 researchers and doctors dedicated to discovering the genetic and immunological bases of the forms of SARS-CoV-2 infection. These researchers and others are looking for explanations for why some people get severe COVID while others seem resistant despite repeated exposure.
Resistance research
In determining explanations for resistance to infection, “the needle in the haystack that we are looking for is a change in the genetic code that would allow for you to avoid entry of the virus into the cell,” Dr. Hsieh said. “That is what being resistant to infection is.”
Part of the reason it’s so difficult to study resistance is defining a resister, she said. While many people consider themselves among that group because they’re been exposed multiple times – even with close family members infected and sick, yet they still felt fine – that doesn’t necessarily make them a resister, she said.
Those people could have been infected but remained without symptoms. “Resistance means the virus was inside you, it was near your cell and it did not infect your cell,” Dr. Hsieh said.
“I don’t think we know a lot so far,” Dr. Hsieh said about resisters. “I do believe that, just like there are genetic defects that make someone more susceptible, there are likely to be genetic defects that make somebody less susceptible.’’
“To identify genetic variants that are protective is a really challenging thing to do,” agreed Peter K. Gregersen, MD, professor of genetics at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y. Dr. Gregersen is also a regional coordinator for the COVID Human Genetic Effort.
He suspects the number found to be truly resistant to COVID – versus dodging it so far – is going to be very small or not found at all.
“It may exist for COVID or it may not,” he said. Some people may simply have what he calls a robust immune response in the upper part of the throat, perhaps killing off the virus quickly as soon as it enters, so they don’t get a positive test.
Genetic resistance has been found for other diseases, such as HIV.
“For HIV, scientists have been able to identify a specific gene that codes for a protein that can prevent individuals from getting infected,” said Sabrina Assoumou, MD, MPH, professor of medicine at Boston University, who researches HIV.
However, she said, “we haven’t yet found a similar gene or protein that can prevent people from getting infected with SARS-CoV-2.”
What has been found “is that some people might have a mutation in a gene that encodes for what’s called human leukocyte antigen (HLA),” Dr. Assoumou said. HLA, a molecule found on the surface of most cells, has a crucial role in the immune response to foreign substances. “A mutation in HLA can make people less likely to have symptoms if they get infected. Individuals still get infected, but they are less likely to have symptoms.”
Other research has found that those with food allergies are also less likely to be infected. The researchers have speculated that the inflammation characteristic of allergic conditions may reduce levels of a protein called the ACE2 receptor on the surface of airway cells. The SARS-CoV-2 virus uses the receptor to enter the cells, so if levels are low, that could reduce the ability of the virus to infect people.
The COVID Human Genetic Effort continues to search for participants, both those who were admitted to a hospital or repeatedly seen at a hospital because of COVID, as well as those who did not get infected, even after “intense and repeated” exposure.
The number of people likely to be resistant is much smaller, Dr. Hsieh said, than the number of people susceptible to severe disease.
The testing ... or lack thereof factor
The timing of testing and a person’s “infection profile” may be factors in people incorrectly declaring themselves NOVIDs, said Anne Wyllie, PhD, a research scientist in epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health in New Haven, Conn., and a codeveloper of a saliva PCR test for COVID.
“Infection profiles can vary between individuals,” she said. For some, the infection may start in the lower respiratory tract, others in the higher respiratory tract. “Depending on where the virus takes up residence, that can affect test results.”
Then there’s the following-instructions factor. “It’s very likely that due to tests not being done at the right time, with the right sample, or not repeated if there is ongoing evidence of symptoms, that there are individuals out there who believe they are NOVIDs but just missed catching their infection at the window of opportunity.” Dr. Wyllie said.
Susceptibility research
“The part we have proven is the genetic defect that would make you more susceptible to having severe disease,” Dr. Hsieh said.
Many published papers report that inherited and/or autoimmune deficiencies of type I interferon immunity, important for combating viral infections and modulating the immune response, can be a significant cause of life-threatening COVID pneumonia.
More recently, researchers, including Jean-Laurent Casanova, MD, PhD, professor at Rockefeller University, New York, and cofounder of the COVID Human Genome Effort, reported that deficiencies in a gene that plays a role in built-in immunity (the early response), and a gene involved in signaling within the immune cells, impair interferon production and may be the basis of severe COVID pneumonia.
NOVIDs’ habits run the gamut
As scientists continue their research, the NOVIDs have their own ideas about why they’ve dodged the pandemic bullet, and they have a variety of approaches to handling the pandemic now.
Ryan Alexander, the field rep who travels to casinos, is up to date on his vaccinations and has gotten all the recommended COVID shots. “I was wearing a mask when told to wear masks,” he said.
He still observes the social distance habit but lives life. “I’ve been to three or four concerts in the past couple of years.”
And does he worry his number will eventually be up? “Not at this point, no,” he said.
Joe Asher, 46, said he has not gotten COVID despite being in contact with about 100 people a day, on average. He works as a bartender at an Evansville, Ind., brewery.
“On a Friday night, we can get 500 people,” he said. “I feel like almost everyone at the brewery got it. There’s no way I wasn’t exposed to it all the time.”
However, he said, his coworkers who did get sick were very cautious about not infecting others, partly to help protect a coworker’s family with newborn twins, so that may have helped him stay uninfected, too.
Mr. Asher said he’s in good physical shape, and he’s worked around the public for a long time, so figures maybe that has strengthened his immune system. He’s always been careful about handwashing and said he’s perhaps a bit more conscious of germs than others might be.
Roselyn Mena, 68, a retired teacher in Richmond, Calif., about 16 miles northeast of San Francisco, said she’s managed to avoid the virus even though her husband, Jesus Mena, got infected, as did her two adult children. Now, she remains vigilant about wearing a mask. She tries not to eat inside at restaurants. “I’m super careful,” she said.
Besides her teacher training, Ms. Mena had training as a medical assistant and learned a lot about sanitizing methods. She gets an annual flu shot, washes her hands often, and uses hand sanitizer.
When she shops, she will ask salespeople not wearing masks to please mask. “Only one refused, and she got someone else [to wait on her].”
One reason she is always careful about hygiene, Ms. Mena said, is that “when I get a cold, I get really sick. It last and lasts.” Now, she does worry she might still get it, she said, with the prospect of getting long COVID driving that worry.
In the beginning of the pandemic, Rhonda Fleming, 68, of Los Angeles, lived in a “COVID bubble,” interacting with just a few close family members. As cases went down, she enlarged the bubble. Her two grown daughters got infected, but her granddaughter did not.
She has been vigilant about masking, she said, “and I do still mask in public places.” She has a mask wardrobe, including basic black as well as glittery masks for dressier occasions. “I always carry a mask because inevitably, a cougher surrounds me.”
Now, she will bypass restaurants if she doesn’t feel comfortable with the environment, choosing ones with good air flow. When she flew to Mexico recently, she masked on the plane.
At this point, she said she doesn’t worry about getting infected but remains careful.
Recently, two friends, who have been as diligent as she has about precautions, got infected, “and they don’t know how they got it.”
Bragging rights?
Until researchers separate out the true resisters from those who claim to be, some NOVIDs are simply quietly grateful for their luck, while others mention their COVID-free status to anyone who asks or who will listen, and are proud of it.
And what about those who wear a “NOVID” T-shirt?
“I would think they have a need to convey to the world they are different, perhaps special, because they beat COVID,” said Richard B. Joelson, a New York–based doctor of social work, a psychotherapist, and the author of Help Me! A Psychotherapist’s Tried-and-True Techniques for a Happier Relationship with Yourself and the People You Love. “They didn’t beat COVID, they just didn’t get it.”
Or they may be relieved they didn’t get sick, he said, because they feel defeated when they do. So “it’s a source of pride.” It might be the same people who tell anyone who will listen they never need a doctor or take no medicines, he said.
Even though science may prove many NOVIDs are inaccurate when they call themselves resisters, Dr. Hsieh understands the temptation to talk about it. “It’s kind of cool to think you are supernatural,” she said. “It’s much more attractive than being susceptible. It’s a lot sexier.” ■
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Factors linked with increased VTE risk in COVID outpatients
Though VTE risk is well studied and significant in those hospitalized with COVID, little is known about the risk in the outpatient setting, said the authors of the new research published online in JAMA Network Open.
The study was conducted at two integrated health care delivery systems in northern and southern California. Data were gathered from the Kaiser Permanente Virtual Data Warehouse and electronic health records.
Nearly 400,000 patients studied
Researchers, led by Margaret Fang, MD, with the division of hospital medicine, University of California, San Francisco, identified 398,530 outpatients with COVID-19 from Jan. 1, 2020, through Jan. 31, 2021.
VTE risk was low overall for ambulatory COVID patients.
“It is a reassuring study,” Dr. Fang said in an interview.
The researchers found that the risk is highest in the first 30 days after COVID-19 diagnosis (unadjusted rate, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.67 per 100 person-years vs. 0.09; 95% CI, 0.08-0.11 per 100 person-years after 30 days).
Factors linked with high VTE risk
They also found that several factors were linked with a higher risk of blood clots in the study population, including being at least 55 years old; being male; having a history of blood clots or thrombophilia; and a body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m2.
The authors write, “These findings may help identify subsets of patients with COVID-19 who could benefit from VTE preventive strategies and more intensive short-term surveillance.”
Are routine anticoagulants justified?
Previously, randomized clinical trials have found that hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19 may benefit from therapeutically dosed heparin anticoagulants but that therapeutic anticoagulation had no net benefit – and perhaps could even harm – patients who were critically ill with COVID.
“[M]uch less is known about the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy for people with milder presentations of COVID-19 who do not require hospitalization,” they write.
Mild COVID VTE risk similar to general population
The authors note that rates of blood clots linked with COVID-19 are not much higher than the average blood clot rate in the general population, which is about 0.1-0.2 per 100 person-years.
Therefore, the results don’t justify routine administration of anticoagulation given the costs, inconvenience, and bleeding risks, they acknowledge.
Dr. Fang told this publication that it’s hard to know what to tell patients, given the overall low VTE risk. She said their study wasn’t designed to advise when to give prophylaxis.
Physicians should inform patients of their higher risk
“We should tell our patients who fall into these risk categories that blood clot is a concern after the development of COVID, especially in those first 30 days. And some people might benefit from increased surveillance,” Dr. Fang said.
”I think this study would support ongoing studies that look at whether selected patients benefit from VTE prophylaxis, for example low-dose anticoagulants,” she said.
Dr. Fang said the subgroup factors they found increased risk of blood clots for all patients, not just COVID-19 patients. It’s not clear why factors such as being male may increase blood clot risk, though that is consistent with previous literature, but higher risk with higher BMI might be related to a combination of inflammation or decreased mobility, she said.
Unanswered questions
Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, says the study helps answer a couple of important questions – that the VTE risk in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients is low and when and for which patients risk may be highest.
However, there are several unanswered questions that argue against routine initiation of anticoagulants, notes the professor of internal medicine and pediatrics chief, division of general internal medicine, at University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.
One is the change in the COVID variant landscape.
“We do not know whether rates of VTE are same or lower or higher with current circulating variants,” Dr. Hopkins said.
The authors acknowledge this as a limitation. Study data predate Omicron and subvariants, which appear to lower clinical severity, so it’s unclear whether VTE risk is different in this Omicron era.
Dr. Hopkins added another unknown: “We do not know whether vaccination affects rates of VTE in ambulatory breakthrough infection.”
Dr. Hopkins and the authors also note the lack of a control group in the study, to better compare risk.
Coauthor Dr. Prasad reports consultant fees from EpiExcellence LLC outside the submitted work. Coauthor Dr. Go reports grants paid to the division of research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, from CSL Behring, Novartis, Bristol Meyers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, and Janssen outside the submitted work.
The research was funded through Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
Dr. Hopkins reports no relevant financial relationships.
Though VTE risk is well studied and significant in those hospitalized with COVID, little is known about the risk in the outpatient setting, said the authors of the new research published online in JAMA Network Open.
The study was conducted at two integrated health care delivery systems in northern and southern California. Data were gathered from the Kaiser Permanente Virtual Data Warehouse and electronic health records.
Nearly 400,000 patients studied
Researchers, led by Margaret Fang, MD, with the division of hospital medicine, University of California, San Francisco, identified 398,530 outpatients with COVID-19 from Jan. 1, 2020, through Jan. 31, 2021.
VTE risk was low overall for ambulatory COVID patients.
“It is a reassuring study,” Dr. Fang said in an interview.
The researchers found that the risk is highest in the first 30 days after COVID-19 diagnosis (unadjusted rate, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.67 per 100 person-years vs. 0.09; 95% CI, 0.08-0.11 per 100 person-years after 30 days).
Factors linked with high VTE risk
They also found that several factors were linked with a higher risk of blood clots in the study population, including being at least 55 years old; being male; having a history of blood clots or thrombophilia; and a body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m2.
The authors write, “These findings may help identify subsets of patients with COVID-19 who could benefit from VTE preventive strategies and more intensive short-term surveillance.”
Are routine anticoagulants justified?
Previously, randomized clinical trials have found that hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19 may benefit from therapeutically dosed heparin anticoagulants but that therapeutic anticoagulation had no net benefit – and perhaps could even harm – patients who were critically ill with COVID.
“[M]uch less is known about the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy for people with milder presentations of COVID-19 who do not require hospitalization,” they write.
Mild COVID VTE risk similar to general population
The authors note that rates of blood clots linked with COVID-19 are not much higher than the average blood clot rate in the general population, which is about 0.1-0.2 per 100 person-years.
Therefore, the results don’t justify routine administration of anticoagulation given the costs, inconvenience, and bleeding risks, they acknowledge.
Dr. Fang told this publication that it’s hard to know what to tell patients, given the overall low VTE risk. She said their study wasn’t designed to advise when to give prophylaxis.
Physicians should inform patients of their higher risk
“We should tell our patients who fall into these risk categories that blood clot is a concern after the development of COVID, especially in those first 30 days. And some people might benefit from increased surveillance,” Dr. Fang said.
”I think this study would support ongoing studies that look at whether selected patients benefit from VTE prophylaxis, for example low-dose anticoagulants,” she said.
Dr. Fang said the subgroup factors they found increased risk of blood clots for all patients, not just COVID-19 patients. It’s not clear why factors such as being male may increase blood clot risk, though that is consistent with previous literature, but higher risk with higher BMI might be related to a combination of inflammation or decreased mobility, she said.
Unanswered questions
Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, says the study helps answer a couple of important questions – that the VTE risk in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients is low and when and for which patients risk may be highest.
However, there are several unanswered questions that argue against routine initiation of anticoagulants, notes the professor of internal medicine and pediatrics chief, division of general internal medicine, at University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.
One is the change in the COVID variant landscape.
“We do not know whether rates of VTE are same or lower or higher with current circulating variants,” Dr. Hopkins said.
The authors acknowledge this as a limitation. Study data predate Omicron and subvariants, which appear to lower clinical severity, so it’s unclear whether VTE risk is different in this Omicron era.
Dr. Hopkins added another unknown: “We do not know whether vaccination affects rates of VTE in ambulatory breakthrough infection.”
Dr. Hopkins and the authors also note the lack of a control group in the study, to better compare risk.
Coauthor Dr. Prasad reports consultant fees from EpiExcellence LLC outside the submitted work. Coauthor Dr. Go reports grants paid to the division of research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, from CSL Behring, Novartis, Bristol Meyers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, and Janssen outside the submitted work.
The research was funded through Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
Dr. Hopkins reports no relevant financial relationships.
Though VTE risk is well studied and significant in those hospitalized with COVID, little is known about the risk in the outpatient setting, said the authors of the new research published online in JAMA Network Open.
The study was conducted at two integrated health care delivery systems in northern and southern California. Data were gathered from the Kaiser Permanente Virtual Data Warehouse and electronic health records.
Nearly 400,000 patients studied
Researchers, led by Margaret Fang, MD, with the division of hospital medicine, University of California, San Francisco, identified 398,530 outpatients with COVID-19 from Jan. 1, 2020, through Jan. 31, 2021.
VTE risk was low overall for ambulatory COVID patients.
“It is a reassuring study,” Dr. Fang said in an interview.
The researchers found that the risk is highest in the first 30 days after COVID-19 diagnosis (unadjusted rate, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.67 per 100 person-years vs. 0.09; 95% CI, 0.08-0.11 per 100 person-years after 30 days).
Factors linked with high VTE risk
They also found that several factors were linked with a higher risk of blood clots in the study population, including being at least 55 years old; being male; having a history of blood clots or thrombophilia; and a body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m2.
The authors write, “These findings may help identify subsets of patients with COVID-19 who could benefit from VTE preventive strategies and more intensive short-term surveillance.”
Are routine anticoagulants justified?
Previously, randomized clinical trials have found that hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19 may benefit from therapeutically dosed heparin anticoagulants but that therapeutic anticoagulation had no net benefit – and perhaps could even harm – patients who were critically ill with COVID.
“[M]uch less is known about the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy for people with milder presentations of COVID-19 who do not require hospitalization,” they write.
Mild COVID VTE risk similar to general population
The authors note that rates of blood clots linked with COVID-19 are not much higher than the average blood clot rate in the general population, which is about 0.1-0.2 per 100 person-years.
Therefore, the results don’t justify routine administration of anticoagulation given the costs, inconvenience, and bleeding risks, they acknowledge.
Dr. Fang told this publication that it’s hard to know what to tell patients, given the overall low VTE risk. She said their study wasn’t designed to advise when to give prophylaxis.
Physicians should inform patients of their higher risk
“We should tell our patients who fall into these risk categories that blood clot is a concern after the development of COVID, especially in those first 30 days. And some people might benefit from increased surveillance,” Dr. Fang said.
”I think this study would support ongoing studies that look at whether selected patients benefit from VTE prophylaxis, for example low-dose anticoagulants,” she said.
Dr. Fang said the subgroup factors they found increased risk of blood clots for all patients, not just COVID-19 patients. It’s not clear why factors such as being male may increase blood clot risk, though that is consistent with previous literature, but higher risk with higher BMI might be related to a combination of inflammation or decreased mobility, she said.
Unanswered questions
Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, says the study helps answer a couple of important questions – that the VTE risk in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients is low and when and for which patients risk may be highest.
However, there are several unanswered questions that argue against routine initiation of anticoagulants, notes the professor of internal medicine and pediatrics chief, division of general internal medicine, at University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.
One is the change in the COVID variant landscape.
“We do not know whether rates of VTE are same or lower or higher with current circulating variants,” Dr. Hopkins said.
The authors acknowledge this as a limitation. Study data predate Omicron and subvariants, which appear to lower clinical severity, so it’s unclear whether VTE risk is different in this Omicron era.
Dr. Hopkins added another unknown: “We do not know whether vaccination affects rates of VTE in ambulatory breakthrough infection.”
Dr. Hopkins and the authors also note the lack of a control group in the study, to better compare risk.
Coauthor Dr. Prasad reports consultant fees from EpiExcellence LLC outside the submitted work. Coauthor Dr. Go reports grants paid to the division of research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, from CSL Behring, Novartis, Bristol Meyers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, and Janssen outside the submitted work.
The research was funded through Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
Dr. Hopkins reports no relevant financial relationships.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
‘Breakthrough’ study: Diabetes drug helps prevent long COVID
with The Lancet on SSRN. The preprint hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed or published in a journal.
In particular, metformin led to a 42% drop in long COVID among people who had a mild to moderate COVID-19 infection.
“Long COVID affects millions of people, and preventing long COVID through a treatment like metformin could prevent significant disruptions in people’s lives,” said lead author Carolyn Bramante, MD, assistant professor of internal medicine and pediatrics at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Between January 2021 and February 2022, Dr. Bramante and colleagues tested three oral medications – metformin (typically used to treat type 2 diabetes), ivermectin (an antiparasitic), and fluvoxamine (an antidepressant) – in a clinical trial across the United States called COVID-OUT. The people being studied, investigators, care providers, and others involved in the study were blinded to the randomized treatments. The trial was decentralized, with no in-person contact with participants.
The researchers included patients who were aged 30-85 with overweight or obesity, had documentation of a confirmed COVID-19 infection, had fewer than 7 days of symptoms, had no known prior infection, and joined the study within 3 days of their positive test. The study included monthly follow-up for 300 days, and participants indicated whether they received a long COVID diagnosis from a medical doctor, which the researchers confirmed in medical records after participants gave consent.
The medications were prepackaged into pill boxes for fast delivery to participants and to ensure they took the correct number of each type of pill. The packages were sent via same-day courier or overnight shipping.
The metformin doses were doled out over 14 days, with 500 milligrams on the first day, 500 milligrams twice a day for the next 4 days, and then 500 milligrams in the morning and 1,000 milligrams in the evening for the remaining 9 days.
Among the 1,323 people studied, 1,125 agreed to do long-term follow-up for long COVID: 564 in the metformin group and 561 in the blinded placebo group. The average age was 45, and 56% were women, including 7% who were pregnant.
The average time from the start of symptoms to starting medication was 5 days, and 47% began taking the drug within 4 days or less. About 55% had received the primary COVID-19 vaccination series, including 5.1% who received an initial booster, before enrolling in the study.
Overall, 8.4% of participants reported that a medical provider diagnosed them with long COVID. Of those who took metformin, 6.3% developed long COVID, compared to 10.6% among those who took the identical-matched placebo.
The risk reduction for metformin was 42% versus the placebo, which was consistent across subgroups, including vaccination status and different COVID-19 variants.
When metformin was started less than 4 days after COVID-19 symptoms started, the effect was potentially even greater, with a 64% reduction, as compared with a 36% reduction among those who started metformin after 4 or more days after symptoms.
Neither ivermectin nor fluvoxamine showed any benefits for preventing long COVID.
At the same time, the study authors caution that more research is needed.
“The COVID-OUT trial does not indicate whether or not metformin would be effective at preventing long COVID if started at the time of emergency department visit or hospitalization for COVID-19, nor whether metformin would be effective as treatment in persons who already have long COVID,” they wrote. “With the burden of long COVID on society, confirmation is urgently needed in a trial that addresses our study’s limitations in order to translate these results into practice and policy.”
Several risk factors for long COVID emerged in the analysis. About 11.1% of the women had a long COVID diagnosis, compared with 4.9% of the men. Also, those who had received at least the primary vaccine series had a lower risk of developing long COVID, at 6.6%, as compared with 10.5% among the unvaccinated. Only 1 of the 57 people who received a booster shot developed long COVID.
Notably, pregnant and lactating people were included in this study, which is important given that pregnant people face higher risks for poor COVID-19 outcomes and are excluded from most nonobstetric clinical trials, the study authors wrote. In this study, they were randomized to metformin or placebo but not ivermectin or fluvoxamine due to limited research about the safety of those drugs during pregnancy and lactation.
The results are now under journal review but show findings consistent with those from other recent studies. Also, in August 2022, the authors published results from COVID-OUT that showed metformin led to a 42% reduction in hospital visits, emergency department visits, and deaths related to severe COVID-19.
“Given the lack of side effects and cost for a 2-week course, I think these data support use of metformin now,” said Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute and editor-in-chief of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health care professionals.
Dr. Topol, who wasn’t involved with this study, has been a leading voice on COVID-19 research throughout the pandemic. He noted the need for more studies, including a factorial design trial to test metformin and Paxlovid, which has shown promise in preventing long COVID. Dr. Topol also wrote about the preprint in Ground Truths, his online newsletter.
“As I’ve written in the past, I don’t use the term ‘breakthrough’ lightly,” he wrote. “But to see such a pronounced benefit in the current randomized trial of metformin, in the context of its being so safe and low cost, I’d give it a breakthrough categorization.”
Another way to put it, Dr. Topol wrote, is that based on this study, he would take metformin if he became infected with COVID-19.
Jeremy Faust, MD, an emergency medicine doctor at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, also wrote about the study in his newsletter, Inside Medicine. He noted that the 42% reduction in long COVID means that 23 COVID-19 patients need to be treated with metformin to prevent one long COVID diagnosis, which is an “important reduction.”
“Bottom line: If a person who meets criteria for obesity or overweight status were to ask me if they should take metformin (for 2 weeks) starting as soon as they learn they have COVID-19, I would say yes in many if not most cases, based on this new data,” he wrote. “This is starting to look like a real win.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
with The Lancet on SSRN. The preprint hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed or published in a journal.
In particular, metformin led to a 42% drop in long COVID among people who had a mild to moderate COVID-19 infection.
“Long COVID affects millions of people, and preventing long COVID through a treatment like metformin could prevent significant disruptions in people’s lives,” said lead author Carolyn Bramante, MD, assistant professor of internal medicine and pediatrics at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Between January 2021 and February 2022, Dr. Bramante and colleagues tested three oral medications – metformin (typically used to treat type 2 diabetes), ivermectin (an antiparasitic), and fluvoxamine (an antidepressant) – in a clinical trial across the United States called COVID-OUT. The people being studied, investigators, care providers, and others involved in the study were blinded to the randomized treatments. The trial was decentralized, with no in-person contact with participants.
The researchers included patients who were aged 30-85 with overweight or obesity, had documentation of a confirmed COVID-19 infection, had fewer than 7 days of symptoms, had no known prior infection, and joined the study within 3 days of their positive test. The study included monthly follow-up for 300 days, and participants indicated whether they received a long COVID diagnosis from a medical doctor, which the researchers confirmed in medical records after participants gave consent.
The medications were prepackaged into pill boxes for fast delivery to participants and to ensure they took the correct number of each type of pill. The packages were sent via same-day courier or overnight shipping.
The metformin doses were doled out over 14 days, with 500 milligrams on the first day, 500 milligrams twice a day for the next 4 days, and then 500 milligrams in the morning and 1,000 milligrams in the evening for the remaining 9 days.
Among the 1,323 people studied, 1,125 agreed to do long-term follow-up for long COVID: 564 in the metformin group and 561 in the blinded placebo group. The average age was 45, and 56% were women, including 7% who were pregnant.
The average time from the start of symptoms to starting medication was 5 days, and 47% began taking the drug within 4 days or less. About 55% had received the primary COVID-19 vaccination series, including 5.1% who received an initial booster, before enrolling in the study.
Overall, 8.4% of participants reported that a medical provider diagnosed them with long COVID. Of those who took metformin, 6.3% developed long COVID, compared to 10.6% among those who took the identical-matched placebo.
The risk reduction for metformin was 42% versus the placebo, which was consistent across subgroups, including vaccination status and different COVID-19 variants.
When metformin was started less than 4 days after COVID-19 symptoms started, the effect was potentially even greater, with a 64% reduction, as compared with a 36% reduction among those who started metformin after 4 or more days after symptoms.
Neither ivermectin nor fluvoxamine showed any benefits for preventing long COVID.
At the same time, the study authors caution that more research is needed.
“The COVID-OUT trial does not indicate whether or not metformin would be effective at preventing long COVID if started at the time of emergency department visit or hospitalization for COVID-19, nor whether metformin would be effective as treatment in persons who already have long COVID,” they wrote. “With the burden of long COVID on society, confirmation is urgently needed in a trial that addresses our study’s limitations in order to translate these results into practice and policy.”
Several risk factors for long COVID emerged in the analysis. About 11.1% of the women had a long COVID diagnosis, compared with 4.9% of the men. Also, those who had received at least the primary vaccine series had a lower risk of developing long COVID, at 6.6%, as compared with 10.5% among the unvaccinated. Only 1 of the 57 people who received a booster shot developed long COVID.
Notably, pregnant and lactating people were included in this study, which is important given that pregnant people face higher risks for poor COVID-19 outcomes and are excluded from most nonobstetric clinical trials, the study authors wrote. In this study, they were randomized to metformin or placebo but not ivermectin or fluvoxamine due to limited research about the safety of those drugs during pregnancy and lactation.
The results are now under journal review but show findings consistent with those from other recent studies. Also, in August 2022, the authors published results from COVID-OUT that showed metformin led to a 42% reduction in hospital visits, emergency department visits, and deaths related to severe COVID-19.
“Given the lack of side effects and cost for a 2-week course, I think these data support use of metformin now,” said Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute and editor-in-chief of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health care professionals.
Dr. Topol, who wasn’t involved with this study, has been a leading voice on COVID-19 research throughout the pandemic. He noted the need for more studies, including a factorial design trial to test metformin and Paxlovid, which has shown promise in preventing long COVID. Dr. Topol also wrote about the preprint in Ground Truths, his online newsletter.
“As I’ve written in the past, I don’t use the term ‘breakthrough’ lightly,” he wrote. “But to see such a pronounced benefit in the current randomized trial of metformin, in the context of its being so safe and low cost, I’d give it a breakthrough categorization.”
Another way to put it, Dr. Topol wrote, is that based on this study, he would take metformin if he became infected with COVID-19.
Jeremy Faust, MD, an emergency medicine doctor at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, also wrote about the study in his newsletter, Inside Medicine. He noted that the 42% reduction in long COVID means that 23 COVID-19 patients need to be treated with metformin to prevent one long COVID diagnosis, which is an “important reduction.”
“Bottom line: If a person who meets criteria for obesity or overweight status were to ask me if they should take metformin (for 2 weeks) starting as soon as they learn they have COVID-19, I would say yes in many if not most cases, based on this new data,” he wrote. “This is starting to look like a real win.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
with The Lancet on SSRN. The preprint hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed or published in a journal.
In particular, metformin led to a 42% drop in long COVID among people who had a mild to moderate COVID-19 infection.
“Long COVID affects millions of people, and preventing long COVID through a treatment like metformin could prevent significant disruptions in people’s lives,” said lead author Carolyn Bramante, MD, assistant professor of internal medicine and pediatrics at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Between January 2021 and February 2022, Dr. Bramante and colleagues tested three oral medications – metformin (typically used to treat type 2 diabetes), ivermectin (an antiparasitic), and fluvoxamine (an antidepressant) – in a clinical trial across the United States called COVID-OUT. The people being studied, investigators, care providers, and others involved in the study were blinded to the randomized treatments. The trial was decentralized, with no in-person contact with participants.
The researchers included patients who were aged 30-85 with overweight or obesity, had documentation of a confirmed COVID-19 infection, had fewer than 7 days of symptoms, had no known prior infection, and joined the study within 3 days of their positive test. The study included monthly follow-up for 300 days, and participants indicated whether they received a long COVID diagnosis from a medical doctor, which the researchers confirmed in medical records after participants gave consent.
The medications were prepackaged into pill boxes for fast delivery to participants and to ensure they took the correct number of each type of pill. The packages were sent via same-day courier or overnight shipping.
The metformin doses were doled out over 14 days, with 500 milligrams on the first day, 500 milligrams twice a day for the next 4 days, and then 500 milligrams in the morning and 1,000 milligrams in the evening for the remaining 9 days.
Among the 1,323 people studied, 1,125 agreed to do long-term follow-up for long COVID: 564 in the metformin group and 561 in the blinded placebo group. The average age was 45, and 56% were women, including 7% who were pregnant.
The average time from the start of symptoms to starting medication was 5 days, and 47% began taking the drug within 4 days or less. About 55% had received the primary COVID-19 vaccination series, including 5.1% who received an initial booster, before enrolling in the study.
Overall, 8.4% of participants reported that a medical provider diagnosed them with long COVID. Of those who took metformin, 6.3% developed long COVID, compared to 10.6% among those who took the identical-matched placebo.
The risk reduction for metformin was 42% versus the placebo, which was consistent across subgroups, including vaccination status and different COVID-19 variants.
When metformin was started less than 4 days after COVID-19 symptoms started, the effect was potentially even greater, with a 64% reduction, as compared with a 36% reduction among those who started metformin after 4 or more days after symptoms.
Neither ivermectin nor fluvoxamine showed any benefits for preventing long COVID.
At the same time, the study authors caution that more research is needed.
“The COVID-OUT trial does not indicate whether or not metformin would be effective at preventing long COVID if started at the time of emergency department visit or hospitalization for COVID-19, nor whether metformin would be effective as treatment in persons who already have long COVID,” they wrote. “With the burden of long COVID on society, confirmation is urgently needed in a trial that addresses our study’s limitations in order to translate these results into practice and policy.”
Several risk factors for long COVID emerged in the analysis. About 11.1% of the women had a long COVID diagnosis, compared with 4.9% of the men. Also, those who had received at least the primary vaccine series had a lower risk of developing long COVID, at 6.6%, as compared with 10.5% among the unvaccinated. Only 1 of the 57 people who received a booster shot developed long COVID.
Notably, pregnant and lactating people were included in this study, which is important given that pregnant people face higher risks for poor COVID-19 outcomes and are excluded from most nonobstetric clinical trials, the study authors wrote. In this study, they were randomized to metformin or placebo but not ivermectin or fluvoxamine due to limited research about the safety of those drugs during pregnancy and lactation.
The results are now under journal review but show findings consistent with those from other recent studies. Also, in August 2022, the authors published results from COVID-OUT that showed metformin led to a 42% reduction in hospital visits, emergency department visits, and deaths related to severe COVID-19.
“Given the lack of side effects and cost for a 2-week course, I think these data support use of metformin now,” said Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute and editor-in-chief of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health care professionals.
Dr. Topol, who wasn’t involved with this study, has been a leading voice on COVID-19 research throughout the pandemic. He noted the need for more studies, including a factorial design trial to test metformin and Paxlovid, which has shown promise in preventing long COVID. Dr. Topol also wrote about the preprint in Ground Truths, his online newsletter.
“As I’ve written in the past, I don’t use the term ‘breakthrough’ lightly,” he wrote. “But to see such a pronounced benefit in the current randomized trial of metformin, in the context of its being so safe and low cost, I’d give it a breakthrough categorization.”
Another way to put it, Dr. Topol wrote, is that based on this study, he would take metformin if he became infected with COVID-19.
Jeremy Faust, MD, an emergency medicine doctor at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, also wrote about the study in his newsletter, Inside Medicine. He noted that the 42% reduction in long COVID means that 23 COVID-19 patients need to be treated with metformin to prevent one long COVID diagnosis, which is an “important reduction.”
“Bottom line: If a person who meets criteria for obesity or overweight status were to ask me if they should take metformin (for 2 weeks) starting as soon as they learn they have COVID-19, I would say yes in many if not most cases, based on this new data,” he wrote. “This is starting to look like a real win.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Resources, Other Diseases, and Healthcare Workers’ Experience
Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the healthcare system in a multitude of ways, affecting healthcare capacity, treatment of other illnesses, and wellness as well as professional retention of healthcare workers.1-3 During the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare capacity was tested and resources were used up quickly.1 As the pandemic has progressed, healthcare systems have had to decide how to proceed with lessons learned, reassessing the environment of care delivery, healthcare supply chains, workforce structures, communication systems, and scientific collaboration as well as policy frameworks in healthcare.4
There have been both immediate effects and long-term consequences of the delay in care for other conditions.2,5 One stark example of this is in cancer care, where screening and procedures were postponed or canceled due to the pandemic with a resulting predicted 2% increase in cancer mortality in the next 10 years.2 The care of heart disease, chronic illnesses, and other viruses has also been similarly negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic due to similar delays in diagnosis and treatment.5-7
The impact on healthcare workers has also been profound.3 Occupational stress from the pandemic has correlated with increased depression and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among other mental health diseases in healthcare workers.3 In a survey of neurosurgery residents, 26.1% of physicians reported feeling burnt out, and 65.8% were worried that they would not be able to reach surgical milestones.8,9 Among respiratory therapists, a hard hit group during this time, 79% reported burnout.10 Additionally, more healthcare workers left the field during the pandemic, with 15 million lost jobs. Future recovery of jobs looks bleak in some settings, like long-term care and among assistants and aides.11 Overall, the long-term outcomes of these resource, disease, and mental health disruptions need to be assessed and solutions created to maintain a quality and effective healthcare system, with ample resources and measures to account for disease increases and address the impact on providers.
Healthcare Capacity and Resources
With COVID-19 affecting over 100 million in the United States as of March 1, 2023, the impact on healthcare resources since the start of the pandemic has been immense.12 With 5% to 38% of hospitalized patients being admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and 75% to 88% of those patients requiring mechanical ventilation, a huge strain was placed on resources during and after the pandemic.1
The question of balancing resources for other hospital needs while tending to patients with COVID-19 has been an ongoing discussion at many levels.1 One core resource concern is the lack of staff. In a survey of 77 different countries, including physicians (41%), nurses (40%), respiratory therapists (11%), and advanced practice providers (8%), 15% reported insufficient intensivists and 32% reported insufficient ICU nursing staff during March and April of 2020.1 A lack of hospital and care space that led to reallocation of limited-care acute care space was a concern. Thirteen percent reported a shortage of hospital ICU beds, while others reported the conversion of postoperative recovery rooms (20%) and operating rooms (12%) for patients with COVID-19.1
Along with staff and care space concerns, hospital survey respondents reported that healthcare equipment was also challenged. Access to COVID-19 testing was one concern, with only 35% of respondents reporting availability for all patients at the beginning of the pandemic, and 56% reporting availability for only select patients based on symptom severity.1 Access to personal protective equipment (PPE) was also affected, with PPE always available according to 83% to 95% of respondents but just 35% having access to N95 masks.1 Additionally, 26% reported that there were no respirators in their hospital, and 11% reported limited ventilators.1
Although resource depletion is a problem, studies have looked at public health measures that helped to mitigate this issue. With proper public health planning and implementation, such as physical distancing, aggressive testing, contact tracing, and increased hospital capacity, by freeing up existing resources or adding additional support, public health modeling showed that resources may be able to withstand the increase.13 Development of reallocation models at local, state, national, and international levels is an important step to be able to deal with future public health crises.14
The long-term impact from the pandemic includes disruption in the physical environment of healthcare, production, supply chain, staff structure, and workforce alterations.4 For example, the physical shape of healthcare facilities is changing to accommodate increasing volumes and decrease the risk of spreading disease.4 To accommodate the burden on staffing structure and workforce alteration, telehealth gained a prominent role.4 All in all, the pandemic has changed the healthcare system; however, institutions, organizations, and policy makers need to evaluate which measures were impactful and should be considered for long-term inclusion in healthcare practice.
Impact on Other Diseases: Cancer, Heart Disease, Chronic Illnesses, and Other Viruses
The treatment of other new and existing conditions has also been affected by the pandemic. Cancer, especially, is a disease of concern. Elective surgeries and screening were halted or altered during the pandemic, which is modeled to lead to higher cancer mortality in years to come.2 The most affected cancers were breast, lung, and colorectal cancer.2 A study of colorectal cancer screening showed that colonoscopies were delayed due to COVID-19 and that gastroenterology visits declined by 49% to 61%.15 This will likely lead to delayed cancer diagnoses and possible increases in mortality.15 Breast cancer screening was also delayed and many patients continued to avoid it for various reasons such as fears of contracting COVID-19 infection in healthcare facilities, and the economic effects of the pandemic such as job loss and healthcare coverage loss.16 These delays will result in an estimated potential 0.52% overall increase in breast cancer deaths by 2030.17
A study of 368 patients from Spain showed a 56.5% decrease in hospital admissions, usually related to heart attacks, in March and April of 2020, compared to January and February 2020.18,19 For other chronic illnesses, the pandemic resulted in decreased preventative care and management.20 The care of other infections similarly suffered. The World Health Organization announced that the number of patients receiving treatment for tuberculosis (TB) dropped by 1 million, setting the disease mitigation back considerably.20 An estimated 500,000 more people died in 2020 from TB.21 The drastic shift in focus to COVID-19 care during this period will continue to have a profound impact on other diseases like these for many years post-pandemic.
Provider Experience and Mental Health Outcomes
The impact on provider experiences and mental health has been immense. One study of 510 healthcare providers (HCPs) and first responders found that occupational stress from the pandemic correlated with psychiatric symptoms, including depression, PTSD, insomnia, and generalized anxiety.3 Occupational stress also correlated with one’s likelihood to leave the medical field and trouble doing work they had once loved.3 Half of the healthcare workers surveyed indicated a decreased likelihood of staying in their current profession after the pandemic.3
Other studies have also looked at specific subspecialties and impact on trainees during the pandemic. In neurosurgery, for example, resident burnout is high, at 26.1%.9 Additionally, the lack of surgeries in the pandemic made 65.8% of neurosurgery residents anxious about meeting career milestones.9 Respiratory therapists, a highly impacted group, also experienced burnout, reporting higher levels in those who worked more in the ICU. Another study identified several themes in the concerns reported by healthcare workers during the pandemic era including “changes in personal life and enhanced negative affect,” “gaining experience, normalization, and adaptation to the pandemic,” and “mental health considerations.”22
Some studies have investigated ways to mitigate this dissatisfaction with the healthcare field post-pandemic. Intrapreneurship, reverse mentoring, and democratized learning all had a reported positive impact on employee experience and retention during this time.23 Intrapreneurship describes entrepreneurship within an existing organization, while reverse mentoring and democratized learning refer to newer employees teaching older employees and communicative learning on a breadth of topics. Other studies have examined the necessity of having mental health resources available, and that these resources need to be multi-stage and individualistic as well as specific to certain stressors HCPs faced during the pandemic.22
Conclusion and Future Directions
The COVID-19 pandemic had stark effects on the healthcare system, impacting resources and capacity, care of other diseases, and provider mental health and experiences.1-3 After the chaos of the pandemic, many questions remain. What needs to be done now by health systems and HCPs? How can we learn from the challenges and the effects on capacity to change the healthcare workflow in times of crisis and in the present? How do we mitigate the impact of the pandemic on diagnosis and management of diseases? And how do we continue to provide healthcare workers with proper mental health and professional resources now, not just in times of stress, and encourage the future generation to pursue careers in healthcare?
These are all the questions the pandemic has left us with, and more studies and initiatives are needed to investigate solutions to these issues. The COVID-19 pandemic left behind valuable lessons and changed the healthcare system, disease management, and staffing for many. Now is the time to pick up the pieces and strategize on how to make our existing system more effective for workers and patients post pandemic.
Wahlster S, Sharma M, Lewis AK, et al. The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic's effect on critical care resources and health-care providers: a global survey. Chest. 2021;159(2):619-633. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2020.09.070
Malagón T, Yong JHE, Tope P, Miller WH Jr, Franco EL; McGill task force on the impact of COVID-19 on cancer control and care. Predicted long-term impact of COVID-19 pandemic-related care delays on cancer mortality in Canada. Int J Cancer. 2022;150(8):1244-1254. doi:10.1002/ijc.33884
Hendrickson RC, Slevin RA, Hoerster KD, et al. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health, occupational functioning, and professional retention among health care workers and first responders. J Gen Intern Med. 2022;37(2):397-408. doi:10.1007/s11606-021-07252-z
Davis B, Bankhead-Kendall BK, Dumas RP. A review of COVID-19's impact on modern medical systems from a health organization management perspective. Health Technol (Berl). 2022;12(4):815-824. doi:10.1007/s12553-022-00660-z
Rosenbaum L. The untold toll - the pandemic's effects on patients without COVID-19. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(24):2368-2371. doi:10.1056/NEJMms2009984
Hacker KA, Briss PA, Richardson L, Wright J, Petersen R. COVID-19 and chronic disease: the impact now and in the future. Prev Chronic Dis. 2021;18:E62. doi:10.5888/pcd18.210086
Roberts L. How COVID hurt the fight against other dangerous diseases. Nature. 2021;592(7855):502-504. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-01022-x
Jalili M, Niroomand M, Hadavand F, Zeinali K, Fotouhi A. Burnout among healthcare professionals during COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2021;94(6):1345-1352. doi:10.1007/s00420-021-01695-x
Khalafallah AM, Lam S, Gami A, et al. A national survey on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic upon burnout and career satisfaction among neurosurgery residents. J Clin Neurosci. 2020;80:137-142. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2020.08.012
Miller AG, Roberts KJ, Smith BJ, et al. Prevalence of burnout among respiratory therapists amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Respir Care. 2021;respcare.09283. doi:10.4187/respcare.09283
Frogner BK, Dill JS. Tracking turnover among health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study. JAMA Health Forum. 2022;3(4):e220371. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2022.0371
CDC COVID data tracker. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Accessed December 22, 2022. http://covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home.
Barrett K, Khan YA, Mac S, Ximenes R, Naimark DMJ, Sander B. Estimation of COVID-19-induced depletion of hospital resources in Ontario, Canada. CMAJ. 2020;192(24):E640-E646. doi:10.1503/cmaj.200715
Kaul V, Chahal J, Schrarstzhaupt IN, et al. Lessons learned from a global perspective of COVID-19. Clin Chest Med. 2022 Nov. 24. [online ahead of print]. doi:10.1016/j.ccm.2022.11.020
Issaka RB, Somsouk M. Colorectal cancer screening and prevention in the COVID-19 Era. JAMA Health Forum. 2020;1(5):e200588. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2020.0588
Freer PE. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on breast imaging. Radiol Clin North Am. 2021;59(1):1-11. doi:10.1016/j.rcl.2020.09.008
Alagoz O, Lowry KP, Kurian AW, et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on breast cancer mortality in the US: estimates from collaborative simulation modeling. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021;113(11):1484-1494. doi:10.1093/jnci/djab097
Jiménez-Blanco Bravo M, Cordero Pereda D, Sánchez Vega D, et al. Heart failure in the time of COVID-19. Cardiology. 2020;145(8):481-484. doi:10.1159/000509181
Frankfurter C, Buchan TA, Kobulnik J, et al. Reduced rate of hospital presentations for heart failure during the COVID-19 pandemic in Toronto, Canada. Can J Cardiol. 2020;36(10):1680-1684. doi:10.1016/j.cjca.2020.07.006
Hacker KA, Briss PA, Richardson L, Wright J, Petersen R. COVID-19 and chronic disease: The impact now and in the future. Prev Chronic Dis. 2021;18:E62. doi:10.5888/pcd18.210086
Roberts L. How COVID hurt the fight against other dangerous diseases. Nature. 2021;592(7855):502-504. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-01022-x
Eftekhar Ardebili M, Naserbakht M, Bernstein C, Alazmani-Noodeh F, Hakimi H, Ranjbar H. Healthcare providers experience of working during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study. Am J Infect Control. 2021;49(5):547-554. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2020.10.001
Jayathilake HD, Daud D, Eaw HC, Annuar N. Employee development and retention of generation-Z employees in the post-covid-19 workplace: a conceptual framework. Benchmarking: An International Journal. 2021;28(7):2343-2364. doi:10.1108/bij-06-2020-0311
Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the healthcare system in a multitude of ways, affecting healthcare capacity, treatment of other illnesses, and wellness as well as professional retention of healthcare workers.1-3 During the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare capacity was tested and resources were used up quickly.1 As the pandemic has progressed, healthcare systems have had to decide how to proceed with lessons learned, reassessing the environment of care delivery, healthcare supply chains, workforce structures, communication systems, and scientific collaboration as well as policy frameworks in healthcare.4
There have been both immediate effects and long-term consequences of the delay in care for other conditions.2,5 One stark example of this is in cancer care, where screening and procedures were postponed or canceled due to the pandemic with a resulting predicted 2% increase in cancer mortality in the next 10 years.2 The care of heart disease, chronic illnesses, and other viruses has also been similarly negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic due to similar delays in diagnosis and treatment.5-7
The impact on healthcare workers has also been profound.3 Occupational stress from the pandemic has correlated with increased depression and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among other mental health diseases in healthcare workers.3 In a survey of neurosurgery residents, 26.1% of physicians reported feeling burnt out, and 65.8% were worried that they would not be able to reach surgical milestones.8,9 Among respiratory therapists, a hard hit group during this time, 79% reported burnout.10 Additionally, more healthcare workers left the field during the pandemic, with 15 million lost jobs. Future recovery of jobs looks bleak in some settings, like long-term care and among assistants and aides.11 Overall, the long-term outcomes of these resource, disease, and mental health disruptions need to be assessed and solutions created to maintain a quality and effective healthcare system, with ample resources and measures to account for disease increases and address the impact on providers.
Healthcare Capacity and Resources
With COVID-19 affecting over 100 million in the United States as of March 1, 2023, the impact on healthcare resources since the start of the pandemic has been immense.12 With 5% to 38% of hospitalized patients being admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and 75% to 88% of those patients requiring mechanical ventilation, a huge strain was placed on resources during and after the pandemic.1
The question of balancing resources for other hospital needs while tending to patients with COVID-19 has been an ongoing discussion at many levels.1 One core resource concern is the lack of staff. In a survey of 77 different countries, including physicians (41%), nurses (40%), respiratory therapists (11%), and advanced practice providers (8%), 15% reported insufficient intensivists and 32% reported insufficient ICU nursing staff during March and April of 2020.1 A lack of hospital and care space that led to reallocation of limited-care acute care space was a concern. Thirteen percent reported a shortage of hospital ICU beds, while others reported the conversion of postoperative recovery rooms (20%) and operating rooms (12%) for patients with COVID-19.1
Along with staff and care space concerns, hospital survey respondents reported that healthcare equipment was also challenged. Access to COVID-19 testing was one concern, with only 35% of respondents reporting availability for all patients at the beginning of the pandemic, and 56% reporting availability for only select patients based on symptom severity.1 Access to personal protective equipment (PPE) was also affected, with PPE always available according to 83% to 95% of respondents but just 35% having access to N95 masks.1 Additionally, 26% reported that there were no respirators in their hospital, and 11% reported limited ventilators.1
Although resource depletion is a problem, studies have looked at public health measures that helped to mitigate this issue. With proper public health planning and implementation, such as physical distancing, aggressive testing, contact tracing, and increased hospital capacity, by freeing up existing resources or adding additional support, public health modeling showed that resources may be able to withstand the increase.13 Development of reallocation models at local, state, national, and international levels is an important step to be able to deal with future public health crises.14
The long-term impact from the pandemic includes disruption in the physical environment of healthcare, production, supply chain, staff structure, and workforce alterations.4 For example, the physical shape of healthcare facilities is changing to accommodate increasing volumes and decrease the risk of spreading disease.4 To accommodate the burden on staffing structure and workforce alteration, telehealth gained a prominent role.4 All in all, the pandemic has changed the healthcare system; however, institutions, organizations, and policy makers need to evaluate which measures were impactful and should be considered for long-term inclusion in healthcare practice.
Impact on Other Diseases: Cancer, Heart Disease, Chronic Illnesses, and Other Viruses
The treatment of other new and existing conditions has also been affected by the pandemic. Cancer, especially, is a disease of concern. Elective surgeries and screening were halted or altered during the pandemic, which is modeled to lead to higher cancer mortality in years to come.2 The most affected cancers were breast, lung, and colorectal cancer.2 A study of colorectal cancer screening showed that colonoscopies were delayed due to COVID-19 and that gastroenterology visits declined by 49% to 61%.15 This will likely lead to delayed cancer diagnoses and possible increases in mortality.15 Breast cancer screening was also delayed and many patients continued to avoid it for various reasons such as fears of contracting COVID-19 infection in healthcare facilities, and the economic effects of the pandemic such as job loss and healthcare coverage loss.16 These delays will result in an estimated potential 0.52% overall increase in breast cancer deaths by 2030.17
A study of 368 patients from Spain showed a 56.5% decrease in hospital admissions, usually related to heart attacks, in March and April of 2020, compared to January and February 2020.18,19 For other chronic illnesses, the pandemic resulted in decreased preventative care and management.20 The care of other infections similarly suffered. The World Health Organization announced that the number of patients receiving treatment for tuberculosis (TB) dropped by 1 million, setting the disease mitigation back considerably.20 An estimated 500,000 more people died in 2020 from TB.21 The drastic shift in focus to COVID-19 care during this period will continue to have a profound impact on other diseases like these for many years post-pandemic.
Provider Experience and Mental Health Outcomes
The impact on provider experiences and mental health has been immense. One study of 510 healthcare providers (HCPs) and first responders found that occupational stress from the pandemic correlated with psychiatric symptoms, including depression, PTSD, insomnia, and generalized anxiety.3 Occupational stress also correlated with one’s likelihood to leave the medical field and trouble doing work they had once loved.3 Half of the healthcare workers surveyed indicated a decreased likelihood of staying in their current profession after the pandemic.3
Other studies have also looked at specific subspecialties and impact on trainees during the pandemic. In neurosurgery, for example, resident burnout is high, at 26.1%.9 Additionally, the lack of surgeries in the pandemic made 65.8% of neurosurgery residents anxious about meeting career milestones.9 Respiratory therapists, a highly impacted group, also experienced burnout, reporting higher levels in those who worked more in the ICU. Another study identified several themes in the concerns reported by healthcare workers during the pandemic era including “changes in personal life and enhanced negative affect,” “gaining experience, normalization, and adaptation to the pandemic,” and “mental health considerations.”22
Some studies have investigated ways to mitigate this dissatisfaction with the healthcare field post-pandemic. Intrapreneurship, reverse mentoring, and democratized learning all had a reported positive impact on employee experience and retention during this time.23 Intrapreneurship describes entrepreneurship within an existing organization, while reverse mentoring and democratized learning refer to newer employees teaching older employees and communicative learning on a breadth of topics. Other studies have examined the necessity of having mental health resources available, and that these resources need to be multi-stage and individualistic as well as specific to certain stressors HCPs faced during the pandemic.22
Conclusion and Future Directions
The COVID-19 pandemic had stark effects on the healthcare system, impacting resources and capacity, care of other diseases, and provider mental health and experiences.1-3 After the chaos of the pandemic, many questions remain. What needs to be done now by health systems and HCPs? How can we learn from the challenges and the effects on capacity to change the healthcare workflow in times of crisis and in the present? How do we mitigate the impact of the pandemic on diagnosis and management of diseases? And how do we continue to provide healthcare workers with proper mental health and professional resources now, not just in times of stress, and encourage the future generation to pursue careers in healthcare?
These are all the questions the pandemic has left us with, and more studies and initiatives are needed to investigate solutions to these issues. The COVID-19 pandemic left behind valuable lessons and changed the healthcare system, disease management, and staffing for many. Now is the time to pick up the pieces and strategize on how to make our existing system more effective for workers and patients post pandemic.
Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the healthcare system in a multitude of ways, affecting healthcare capacity, treatment of other illnesses, and wellness as well as professional retention of healthcare workers.1-3 During the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare capacity was tested and resources were used up quickly.1 As the pandemic has progressed, healthcare systems have had to decide how to proceed with lessons learned, reassessing the environment of care delivery, healthcare supply chains, workforce structures, communication systems, and scientific collaboration as well as policy frameworks in healthcare.4
There have been both immediate effects and long-term consequences of the delay in care for other conditions.2,5 One stark example of this is in cancer care, where screening and procedures were postponed or canceled due to the pandemic with a resulting predicted 2% increase in cancer mortality in the next 10 years.2 The care of heart disease, chronic illnesses, and other viruses has also been similarly negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic due to similar delays in diagnosis and treatment.5-7
The impact on healthcare workers has also been profound.3 Occupational stress from the pandemic has correlated with increased depression and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among other mental health diseases in healthcare workers.3 In a survey of neurosurgery residents, 26.1% of physicians reported feeling burnt out, and 65.8% were worried that they would not be able to reach surgical milestones.8,9 Among respiratory therapists, a hard hit group during this time, 79% reported burnout.10 Additionally, more healthcare workers left the field during the pandemic, with 15 million lost jobs. Future recovery of jobs looks bleak in some settings, like long-term care and among assistants and aides.11 Overall, the long-term outcomes of these resource, disease, and mental health disruptions need to be assessed and solutions created to maintain a quality and effective healthcare system, with ample resources and measures to account for disease increases and address the impact on providers.
Healthcare Capacity and Resources
With COVID-19 affecting over 100 million in the United States as of March 1, 2023, the impact on healthcare resources since the start of the pandemic has been immense.12 With 5% to 38% of hospitalized patients being admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and 75% to 88% of those patients requiring mechanical ventilation, a huge strain was placed on resources during and after the pandemic.1
The question of balancing resources for other hospital needs while tending to patients with COVID-19 has been an ongoing discussion at many levels.1 One core resource concern is the lack of staff. In a survey of 77 different countries, including physicians (41%), nurses (40%), respiratory therapists (11%), and advanced practice providers (8%), 15% reported insufficient intensivists and 32% reported insufficient ICU nursing staff during March and April of 2020.1 A lack of hospital and care space that led to reallocation of limited-care acute care space was a concern. Thirteen percent reported a shortage of hospital ICU beds, while others reported the conversion of postoperative recovery rooms (20%) and operating rooms (12%) for patients with COVID-19.1
Along with staff and care space concerns, hospital survey respondents reported that healthcare equipment was also challenged. Access to COVID-19 testing was one concern, with only 35% of respondents reporting availability for all patients at the beginning of the pandemic, and 56% reporting availability for only select patients based on symptom severity.1 Access to personal protective equipment (PPE) was also affected, with PPE always available according to 83% to 95% of respondents but just 35% having access to N95 masks.1 Additionally, 26% reported that there were no respirators in their hospital, and 11% reported limited ventilators.1
Although resource depletion is a problem, studies have looked at public health measures that helped to mitigate this issue. With proper public health planning and implementation, such as physical distancing, aggressive testing, contact tracing, and increased hospital capacity, by freeing up existing resources or adding additional support, public health modeling showed that resources may be able to withstand the increase.13 Development of reallocation models at local, state, national, and international levels is an important step to be able to deal with future public health crises.14
The long-term impact from the pandemic includes disruption in the physical environment of healthcare, production, supply chain, staff structure, and workforce alterations.4 For example, the physical shape of healthcare facilities is changing to accommodate increasing volumes and decrease the risk of spreading disease.4 To accommodate the burden on staffing structure and workforce alteration, telehealth gained a prominent role.4 All in all, the pandemic has changed the healthcare system; however, institutions, organizations, and policy makers need to evaluate which measures were impactful and should be considered for long-term inclusion in healthcare practice.
Impact on Other Diseases: Cancer, Heart Disease, Chronic Illnesses, and Other Viruses
The treatment of other new and existing conditions has also been affected by the pandemic. Cancer, especially, is a disease of concern. Elective surgeries and screening were halted or altered during the pandemic, which is modeled to lead to higher cancer mortality in years to come.2 The most affected cancers were breast, lung, and colorectal cancer.2 A study of colorectal cancer screening showed that colonoscopies were delayed due to COVID-19 and that gastroenterology visits declined by 49% to 61%.15 This will likely lead to delayed cancer diagnoses and possible increases in mortality.15 Breast cancer screening was also delayed and many patients continued to avoid it for various reasons such as fears of contracting COVID-19 infection in healthcare facilities, and the economic effects of the pandemic such as job loss and healthcare coverage loss.16 These delays will result in an estimated potential 0.52% overall increase in breast cancer deaths by 2030.17
A study of 368 patients from Spain showed a 56.5% decrease in hospital admissions, usually related to heart attacks, in March and April of 2020, compared to January and February 2020.18,19 For other chronic illnesses, the pandemic resulted in decreased preventative care and management.20 The care of other infections similarly suffered. The World Health Organization announced that the number of patients receiving treatment for tuberculosis (TB) dropped by 1 million, setting the disease mitigation back considerably.20 An estimated 500,000 more people died in 2020 from TB.21 The drastic shift in focus to COVID-19 care during this period will continue to have a profound impact on other diseases like these for many years post-pandemic.
Provider Experience and Mental Health Outcomes
The impact on provider experiences and mental health has been immense. One study of 510 healthcare providers (HCPs) and first responders found that occupational stress from the pandemic correlated with psychiatric symptoms, including depression, PTSD, insomnia, and generalized anxiety.3 Occupational stress also correlated with one’s likelihood to leave the medical field and trouble doing work they had once loved.3 Half of the healthcare workers surveyed indicated a decreased likelihood of staying in their current profession after the pandemic.3
Other studies have also looked at specific subspecialties and impact on trainees during the pandemic. In neurosurgery, for example, resident burnout is high, at 26.1%.9 Additionally, the lack of surgeries in the pandemic made 65.8% of neurosurgery residents anxious about meeting career milestones.9 Respiratory therapists, a highly impacted group, also experienced burnout, reporting higher levels in those who worked more in the ICU. Another study identified several themes in the concerns reported by healthcare workers during the pandemic era including “changes in personal life and enhanced negative affect,” “gaining experience, normalization, and adaptation to the pandemic,” and “mental health considerations.”22
Some studies have investigated ways to mitigate this dissatisfaction with the healthcare field post-pandemic. Intrapreneurship, reverse mentoring, and democratized learning all had a reported positive impact on employee experience and retention during this time.23 Intrapreneurship describes entrepreneurship within an existing organization, while reverse mentoring and democratized learning refer to newer employees teaching older employees and communicative learning on a breadth of topics. Other studies have examined the necessity of having mental health resources available, and that these resources need to be multi-stage and individualistic as well as specific to certain stressors HCPs faced during the pandemic.22
Conclusion and Future Directions
The COVID-19 pandemic had stark effects on the healthcare system, impacting resources and capacity, care of other diseases, and provider mental health and experiences.1-3 After the chaos of the pandemic, many questions remain. What needs to be done now by health systems and HCPs? How can we learn from the challenges and the effects on capacity to change the healthcare workflow in times of crisis and in the present? How do we mitigate the impact of the pandemic on diagnosis and management of diseases? And how do we continue to provide healthcare workers with proper mental health and professional resources now, not just in times of stress, and encourage the future generation to pursue careers in healthcare?
These are all the questions the pandemic has left us with, and more studies and initiatives are needed to investigate solutions to these issues. The COVID-19 pandemic left behind valuable lessons and changed the healthcare system, disease management, and staffing for many. Now is the time to pick up the pieces and strategize on how to make our existing system more effective for workers and patients post pandemic.
Wahlster S, Sharma M, Lewis AK, et al. The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic's effect on critical care resources and health-care providers: a global survey. Chest. 2021;159(2):619-633. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2020.09.070
Malagón T, Yong JHE, Tope P, Miller WH Jr, Franco EL; McGill task force on the impact of COVID-19 on cancer control and care. Predicted long-term impact of COVID-19 pandemic-related care delays on cancer mortality in Canada. Int J Cancer. 2022;150(8):1244-1254. doi:10.1002/ijc.33884
Hendrickson RC, Slevin RA, Hoerster KD, et al. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health, occupational functioning, and professional retention among health care workers and first responders. J Gen Intern Med. 2022;37(2):397-408. doi:10.1007/s11606-021-07252-z
Davis B, Bankhead-Kendall BK, Dumas RP. A review of COVID-19's impact on modern medical systems from a health organization management perspective. Health Technol (Berl). 2022;12(4):815-824. doi:10.1007/s12553-022-00660-z
Rosenbaum L. The untold toll - the pandemic's effects on patients without COVID-19. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(24):2368-2371. doi:10.1056/NEJMms2009984
Hacker KA, Briss PA, Richardson L, Wright J, Petersen R. COVID-19 and chronic disease: the impact now and in the future. Prev Chronic Dis. 2021;18:E62. doi:10.5888/pcd18.210086
Roberts L. How COVID hurt the fight against other dangerous diseases. Nature. 2021;592(7855):502-504. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-01022-x
Jalili M, Niroomand M, Hadavand F, Zeinali K, Fotouhi A. Burnout among healthcare professionals during COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2021;94(6):1345-1352. doi:10.1007/s00420-021-01695-x
Khalafallah AM, Lam S, Gami A, et al. A national survey on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic upon burnout and career satisfaction among neurosurgery residents. J Clin Neurosci. 2020;80:137-142. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2020.08.012
Miller AG, Roberts KJ, Smith BJ, et al. Prevalence of burnout among respiratory therapists amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Respir Care. 2021;respcare.09283. doi:10.4187/respcare.09283
Frogner BK, Dill JS. Tracking turnover among health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study. JAMA Health Forum. 2022;3(4):e220371. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2022.0371
CDC COVID data tracker. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Accessed December 22, 2022. http://covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home.
Barrett K, Khan YA, Mac S, Ximenes R, Naimark DMJ, Sander B. Estimation of COVID-19-induced depletion of hospital resources in Ontario, Canada. CMAJ. 2020;192(24):E640-E646. doi:10.1503/cmaj.200715
Kaul V, Chahal J, Schrarstzhaupt IN, et al. Lessons learned from a global perspective of COVID-19. Clin Chest Med. 2022 Nov. 24. [online ahead of print]. doi:10.1016/j.ccm.2022.11.020
Issaka RB, Somsouk M. Colorectal cancer screening and prevention in the COVID-19 Era. JAMA Health Forum. 2020;1(5):e200588. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2020.0588
Freer PE. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on breast imaging. Radiol Clin North Am. 2021;59(1):1-11. doi:10.1016/j.rcl.2020.09.008
Alagoz O, Lowry KP, Kurian AW, et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on breast cancer mortality in the US: estimates from collaborative simulation modeling. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021;113(11):1484-1494. doi:10.1093/jnci/djab097
Jiménez-Blanco Bravo M, Cordero Pereda D, Sánchez Vega D, et al. Heart failure in the time of COVID-19. Cardiology. 2020;145(8):481-484. doi:10.1159/000509181
Frankfurter C, Buchan TA, Kobulnik J, et al. Reduced rate of hospital presentations for heart failure during the COVID-19 pandemic in Toronto, Canada. Can J Cardiol. 2020;36(10):1680-1684. doi:10.1016/j.cjca.2020.07.006
Hacker KA, Briss PA, Richardson L, Wright J, Petersen R. COVID-19 and chronic disease: The impact now and in the future. Prev Chronic Dis. 2021;18:E62. doi:10.5888/pcd18.210086
Roberts L. How COVID hurt the fight against other dangerous diseases. Nature. 2021;592(7855):502-504. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-01022-x
Eftekhar Ardebili M, Naserbakht M, Bernstein C, Alazmani-Noodeh F, Hakimi H, Ranjbar H. Healthcare providers experience of working during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study. Am J Infect Control. 2021;49(5):547-554. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2020.10.001
Jayathilake HD, Daud D, Eaw HC, Annuar N. Employee development and retention of generation-Z employees in the post-covid-19 workplace: a conceptual framework. Benchmarking: An International Journal. 2021;28(7):2343-2364. doi:10.1108/bij-06-2020-0311
Wahlster S, Sharma M, Lewis AK, et al. The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic's effect on critical care resources and health-care providers: a global survey. Chest. 2021;159(2):619-633. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2020.09.070
Malagón T, Yong JHE, Tope P, Miller WH Jr, Franco EL; McGill task force on the impact of COVID-19 on cancer control and care. Predicted long-term impact of COVID-19 pandemic-related care delays on cancer mortality in Canada. Int J Cancer. 2022;150(8):1244-1254. doi:10.1002/ijc.33884
Hendrickson RC, Slevin RA, Hoerster KD, et al. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health, occupational functioning, and professional retention among health care workers and first responders. J Gen Intern Med. 2022;37(2):397-408. doi:10.1007/s11606-021-07252-z
Davis B, Bankhead-Kendall BK, Dumas RP. A review of COVID-19's impact on modern medical systems from a health organization management perspective. Health Technol (Berl). 2022;12(4):815-824. doi:10.1007/s12553-022-00660-z
Rosenbaum L. The untold toll - the pandemic's effects on patients without COVID-19. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(24):2368-2371. doi:10.1056/NEJMms2009984
Hacker KA, Briss PA, Richardson L, Wright J, Petersen R. COVID-19 and chronic disease: the impact now and in the future. Prev Chronic Dis. 2021;18:E62. doi:10.5888/pcd18.210086
Roberts L. How COVID hurt the fight against other dangerous diseases. Nature. 2021;592(7855):502-504. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-01022-x
Jalili M, Niroomand M, Hadavand F, Zeinali K, Fotouhi A. Burnout among healthcare professionals during COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2021;94(6):1345-1352. doi:10.1007/s00420-021-01695-x
Khalafallah AM, Lam S, Gami A, et al. A national survey on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic upon burnout and career satisfaction among neurosurgery residents. J Clin Neurosci. 2020;80:137-142. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2020.08.012
Miller AG, Roberts KJ, Smith BJ, et al. Prevalence of burnout among respiratory therapists amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Respir Care. 2021;respcare.09283. doi:10.4187/respcare.09283
Frogner BK, Dill JS. Tracking turnover among health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study. JAMA Health Forum. 2022;3(4):e220371. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2022.0371
CDC COVID data tracker. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Accessed December 22, 2022. http://covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home.
Barrett K, Khan YA, Mac S, Ximenes R, Naimark DMJ, Sander B. Estimation of COVID-19-induced depletion of hospital resources in Ontario, Canada. CMAJ. 2020;192(24):E640-E646. doi:10.1503/cmaj.200715
Kaul V, Chahal J, Schrarstzhaupt IN, et al. Lessons learned from a global perspective of COVID-19. Clin Chest Med. 2022 Nov. 24. [online ahead of print]. doi:10.1016/j.ccm.2022.11.020
Issaka RB, Somsouk M. Colorectal cancer screening and prevention in the COVID-19 Era. JAMA Health Forum. 2020;1(5):e200588. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2020.0588
Freer PE. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on breast imaging. Radiol Clin North Am. 2021;59(1):1-11. doi:10.1016/j.rcl.2020.09.008
Alagoz O, Lowry KP, Kurian AW, et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on breast cancer mortality in the US: estimates from collaborative simulation modeling. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021;113(11):1484-1494. doi:10.1093/jnci/djab097
Jiménez-Blanco Bravo M, Cordero Pereda D, Sánchez Vega D, et al. Heart failure in the time of COVID-19. Cardiology. 2020;145(8):481-484. doi:10.1159/000509181
Frankfurter C, Buchan TA, Kobulnik J, et al. Reduced rate of hospital presentations for heart failure during the COVID-19 pandemic in Toronto, Canada. Can J Cardiol. 2020;36(10):1680-1684. doi:10.1016/j.cjca.2020.07.006
Hacker KA, Briss PA, Richardson L, Wright J, Petersen R. COVID-19 and chronic disease: The impact now and in the future. Prev Chronic Dis. 2021;18:E62. doi:10.5888/pcd18.210086
Roberts L. How COVID hurt the fight against other dangerous diseases. Nature. 2021;592(7855):502-504. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-01022-x
Eftekhar Ardebili M, Naserbakht M, Bernstein C, Alazmani-Noodeh F, Hakimi H, Ranjbar H. Healthcare providers experience of working during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study. Am J Infect Control. 2021;49(5):547-554. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2020.10.001
Jayathilake HD, Daud D, Eaw HC, Annuar N. Employee development and retention of generation-Z employees in the post-covid-19 workplace: a conceptual framework. Benchmarking: An International Journal. 2021;28(7):2343-2364. doi:10.1108/bij-06-2020-0311
Even mild COVID is hard on the brain
early research suggests.
“Our results suggest a severe pattern of changes in how the brain communicates as well as its structure, mainly in people with anxiety and depression with long-COVID syndrome, which affects so many people,” study investigator Clarissa Yasuda, MD, PhD, from University of Campinas, São Paulo, said in a news release.
“The magnitude of these changes suggests that they could lead to problems with memory and thinking skills, so we need to be exploring holistic treatments even for people mildly affected by COVID-19,” Dr. Yasuda added.
The findings were released March 6 ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
Brain shrinkage
Some studies have shown a high prevalence of symptoms of anxiety and depression in COVID-19 survivors, but few have investigated the associated cerebral changes, Dr. Yasuda told this news organization.
The study included 254 adults (177 women, 77 men, median age 41 years) who had mild COVID-19 a median of 82 days earlier. A total of 102 had symptoms of both anxiety and depression, and 152 had no such symptoms.
On brain imaging, those with COVID-19 and anxiety and depression had atrophy in the limbic area of the brain, which plays a role in memory and emotional processing.
No shrinkage in this area was evident in people who had COVID-19 without anxiety and depression or in a healthy control group of individuals without COVID-19.
The researchers also observed a “severe” pattern of abnormal cerebral functional connectivity in those with COVID-19 and anxiety and depression.
In this functional connectivity analysis, individuals with COVID-19 and anxiety and depression had widespread functional changes in each of the 12 networks assessed, while those with COVID-19 but without symptoms of anxiety and depression showed changes in only 5 networks.
Mechanisms unclear
“Unfortunately, the underpinning mechanisms associated with brain changes and neuropsychiatric dysfunction after COVID-19 infection are unclear,” Dr. Yasuda told this news organization.
“Some studies have demonstrated an association between symptoms of anxiety and depression with inflammation. However, we hypothesize that these cerebral alterations may result from a more complex interaction of social, psychological, and systemic stressors, including inflammation. It is indeed intriguing that such alterations are present in individuals who presented mild acute infection,” Dr. Yasuda added.
“Symptoms of anxiety and depression are frequently observed after COVID-19 and are part of long-COVID syndrome for some individuals. These symptoms require adequate treatment to improve the quality of life, cognition, and work capacity,” she said.
Treating these symptoms may induce “brain plasticity, which may result in some degree of gray matter increase and eventually prevent further structural and functional damage,” Dr. Yasuda said.
A limitation of the study was that symptoms of anxiety and depression were self-reported, meaning people may have misjudged or misreported symptoms.
Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Cyrus Raji, MD, PhD, with the Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University, St. Louis, said the idea that COVID-19 is bad for the brain isn’t new. Dr. Raji was not involved with the study.
Early in the pandemic, Dr. Raji and colleagues published a paper detailing COVID-19’s effects on the brain, and Dr. Raji followed it up with a TED talk on the subject.
“Within the growing framework of what we already know about COVID-19 infection and its adverse effects on the brain, this work incrementally adds to this knowledge by identifying functional and structural neuroimaging abnormalities related to anxiety and depression in persons suffering from COVID-19 infection,” Dr. Raji said.
The study was supported by the São Paulo Research Foundation. The authors have no relevant disclosures. Raji is a consultant for Brainreader, Apollo Health, Pacific Neuroscience Foundation, and Neurevolution LLC.
early research suggests.
“Our results suggest a severe pattern of changes in how the brain communicates as well as its structure, mainly in people with anxiety and depression with long-COVID syndrome, which affects so many people,” study investigator Clarissa Yasuda, MD, PhD, from University of Campinas, São Paulo, said in a news release.
“The magnitude of these changes suggests that they could lead to problems with memory and thinking skills, so we need to be exploring holistic treatments even for people mildly affected by COVID-19,” Dr. Yasuda added.
The findings were released March 6 ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
Brain shrinkage
Some studies have shown a high prevalence of symptoms of anxiety and depression in COVID-19 survivors, but few have investigated the associated cerebral changes, Dr. Yasuda told this news organization.
The study included 254 adults (177 women, 77 men, median age 41 years) who had mild COVID-19 a median of 82 days earlier. A total of 102 had symptoms of both anxiety and depression, and 152 had no such symptoms.
On brain imaging, those with COVID-19 and anxiety and depression had atrophy in the limbic area of the brain, which plays a role in memory and emotional processing.
No shrinkage in this area was evident in people who had COVID-19 without anxiety and depression or in a healthy control group of individuals without COVID-19.
The researchers also observed a “severe” pattern of abnormal cerebral functional connectivity in those with COVID-19 and anxiety and depression.
In this functional connectivity analysis, individuals with COVID-19 and anxiety and depression had widespread functional changes in each of the 12 networks assessed, while those with COVID-19 but without symptoms of anxiety and depression showed changes in only 5 networks.
Mechanisms unclear
“Unfortunately, the underpinning mechanisms associated with brain changes and neuropsychiatric dysfunction after COVID-19 infection are unclear,” Dr. Yasuda told this news organization.
“Some studies have demonstrated an association between symptoms of anxiety and depression with inflammation. However, we hypothesize that these cerebral alterations may result from a more complex interaction of social, psychological, and systemic stressors, including inflammation. It is indeed intriguing that such alterations are present in individuals who presented mild acute infection,” Dr. Yasuda added.
“Symptoms of anxiety and depression are frequently observed after COVID-19 and are part of long-COVID syndrome for some individuals. These symptoms require adequate treatment to improve the quality of life, cognition, and work capacity,” she said.
Treating these symptoms may induce “brain plasticity, which may result in some degree of gray matter increase and eventually prevent further structural and functional damage,” Dr. Yasuda said.
A limitation of the study was that symptoms of anxiety and depression were self-reported, meaning people may have misjudged or misreported symptoms.
Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Cyrus Raji, MD, PhD, with the Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University, St. Louis, said the idea that COVID-19 is bad for the brain isn’t new. Dr. Raji was not involved with the study.
Early in the pandemic, Dr. Raji and colleagues published a paper detailing COVID-19’s effects on the brain, and Dr. Raji followed it up with a TED talk on the subject.
“Within the growing framework of what we already know about COVID-19 infection and its adverse effects on the brain, this work incrementally adds to this knowledge by identifying functional and structural neuroimaging abnormalities related to anxiety and depression in persons suffering from COVID-19 infection,” Dr. Raji said.
The study was supported by the São Paulo Research Foundation. The authors have no relevant disclosures. Raji is a consultant for Brainreader, Apollo Health, Pacific Neuroscience Foundation, and Neurevolution LLC.
early research suggests.
“Our results suggest a severe pattern of changes in how the brain communicates as well as its structure, mainly in people with anxiety and depression with long-COVID syndrome, which affects so many people,” study investigator Clarissa Yasuda, MD, PhD, from University of Campinas, São Paulo, said in a news release.
“The magnitude of these changes suggests that they could lead to problems with memory and thinking skills, so we need to be exploring holistic treatments even for people mildly affected by COVID-19,” Dr. Yasuda added.
The findings were released March 6 ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
Brain shrinkage
Some studies have shown a high prevalence of symptoms of anxiety and depression in COVID-19 survivors, but few have investigated the associated cerebral changes, Dr. Yasuda told this news organization.
The study included 254 adults (177 women, 77 men, median age 41 years) who had mild COVID-19 a median of 82 days earlier. A total of 102 had symptoms of both anxiety and depression, and 152 had no such symptoms.
On brain imaging, those with COVID-19 and anxiety and depression had atrophy in the limbic area of the brain, which plays a role in memory and emotional processing.
No shrinkage in this area was evident in people who had COVID-19 without anxiety and depression or in a healthy control group of individuals without COVID-19.
The researchers also observed a “severe” pattern of abnormal cerebral functional connectivity in those with COVID-19 and anxiety and depression.
In this functional connectivity analysis, individuals with COVID-19 and anxiety and depression had widespread functional changes in each of the 12 networks assessed, while those with COVID-19 but without symptoms of anxiety and depression showed changes in only 5 networks.
Mechanisms unclear
“Unfortunately, the underpinning mechanisms associated with brain changes and neuropsychiatric dysfunction after COVID-19 infection are unclear,” Dr. Yasuda told this news organization.
“Some studies have demonstrated an association between symptoms of anxiety and depression with inflammation. However, we hypothesize that these cerebral alterations may result from a more complex interaction of social, psychological, and systemic stressors, including inflammation. It is indeed intriguing that such alterations are present in individuals who presented mild acute infection,” Dr. Yasuda added.
“Symptoms of anxiety and depression are frequently observed after COVID-19 and are part of long-COVID syndrome for some individuals. These symptoms require adequate treatment to improve the quality of life, cognition, and work capacity,” she said.
Treating these symptoms may induce “brain plasticity, which may result in some degree of gray matter increase and eventually prevent further structural and functional damage,” Dr. Yasuda said.
A limitation of the study was that symptoms of anxiety and depression were self-reported, meaning people may have misjudged or misreported symptoms.
Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Cyrus Raji, MD, PhD, with the Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University, St. Louis, said the idea that COVID-19 is bad for the brain isn’t new. Dr. Raji was not involved with the study.
Early in the pandemic, Dr. Raji and colleagues published a paper detailing COVID-19’s effects on the brain, and Dr. Raji followed it up with a TED talk on the subject.
“Within the growing framework of what we already know about COVID-19 infection and its adverse effects on the brain, this work incrementally adds to this knowledge by identifying functional and structural neuroimaging abnormalities related to anxiety and depression in persons suffering from COVID-19 infection,” Dr. Raji said.
The study was supported by the São Paulo Research Foundation. The authors have no relevant disclosures. Raji is a consultant for Brainreader, Apollo Health, Pacific Neuroscience Foundation, and Neurevolution LLC.
Prone positioning curbs need for intubation in nonintubated COVID-19 patients
as indicated by data from a new meta-analysis of more than 2,000 individuals.
The use of prone positioning for nonintubated patients (so-called “awake prone positioning”) has been common since the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. Prone positioning is more comfortable for patients, and it entails no additional cost. Also, awake prone positioning is less labor intensive than prone positioning for intubated patients, said Jie Li, PhD, in a presentation at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.
However, data on the specific benefits of prone positioning are lacking and contradictory, said Dr. Li, a respiratory care specialist at Rush University, Chicago.
Dr. Li and colleagues from a multinational research group found that outcomes were improved for patients who were treated with awake prone positioning – notably, fewer treatment failures at day 28 – but a pair of subsequent studies by other researchers showed contradictory outcomes.
For more definitive evidence, Dr. Li and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 randomized, controlled trials and one unpublished study of awake prone positioning for patients with COVID-19. The studies were published between Jan. 1, 2020, and July 1, 2022, and included a total of 2,886 adult patients.
The primary outcome was the reported cumulative risk of intubation among nonintubated COVID-19 patients. Secondary outcomes included mortality, the need for escalating respiratory support, length of hospital length of stay, ICU admission, and adverse events.
Overall, awake prone positioning significantly reduced the intubation risk among nonintubated patients compared to standard care (risk ratio, 0.85).
A further subgroup analysis showed a significant reduction in risk for intubation among patients supported by high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive ventilation (RR, 0.83).
However, no additional reduction in intubation risk occurred among patients who received conventional oxygen therapy (RR, 1.02).
Mortality rates were similar for patients who underwent awake prone positioning and those who underwent supine positioning (RR, 0.96), as was the need for additional respiratory support (RR, 1.03). The length of hospital stay, ICU admission, and adverse events were similar between the patients who underwent prone positioning and those who underwent supine positioning.
The findings were limited by several factors. There was a potential for confounding by disease severity, which may have increased the use of respiratory support devices, Li said in her presentation.
“Another factor we should not ignore is the daily duration of prone positioning,” said Dr. Li. More research is needed to identify which factors play the greatest roles in treatment success.
The current study was important in that it evaluated the current evidence of awake prone positioning, “particularly to identify the patients who benefit most from this treatment, in order to guide clinical practice,” Dr. Li said in an interview.
“Since early in the pandemic, awake prone positioning has been broadly utilized to treat patients with COVID-19,” she said. “In 2021, we published a multinational randomized controlled trial with over 1,100 patients enrolled and reported lower treatment failure. However, no significant differences of treatment failure were reported in several subsequent multicenter randomized, controlled trials published after our study.”
Dr. Li said she was not surprised by the findings, which reflect those of her team’s previously published meta-analysis. “The increased number of patients helps confirm our previous finding, even with the inclusion of several recently published randomized controlled trials,” she said.
For clinicians, “the current evidence supports the use of awake prone positioning for patients with COVID-19, particularly those who require advanced respiratory support from high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive ventilation,” Dr. Li said.
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Li has relationships with AARC, Heyer, Aeorgen, the Rice Foundation, and Fisher & Paykel Healthcare.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
as indicated by data from a new meta-analysis of more than 2,000 individuals.
The use of prone positioning for nonintubated patients (so-called “awake prone positioning”) has been common since the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. Prone positioning is more comfortable for patients, and it entails no additional cost. Also, awake prone positioning is less labor intensive than prone positioning for intubated patients, said Jie Li, PhD, in a presentation at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.
However, data on the specific benefits of prone positioning are lacking and contradictory, said Dr. Li, a respiratory care specialist at Rush University, Chicago.
Dr. Li and colleagues from a multinational research group found that outcomes were improved for patients who were treated with awake prone positioning – notably, fewer treatment failures at day 28 – but a pair of subsequent studies by other researchers showed contradictory outcomes.
For more definitive evidence, Dr. Li and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 randomized, controlled trials and one unpublished study of awake prone positioning for patients with COVID-19. The studies were published between Jan. 1, 2020, and July 1, 2022, and included a total of 2,886 adult patients.
The primary outcome was the reported cumulative risk of intubation among nonintubated COVID-19 patients. Secondary outcomes included mortality, the need for escalating respiratory support, length of hospital length of stay, ICU admission, and adverse events.
Overall, awake prone positioning significantly reduced the intubation risk among nonintubated patients compared to standard care (risk ratio, 0.85).
A further subgroup analysis showed a significant reduction in risk for intubation among patients supported by high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive ventilation (RR, 0.83).
However, no additional reduction in intubation risk occurred among patients who received conventional oxygen therapy (RR, 1.02).
Mortality rates were similar for patients who underwent awake prone positioning and those who underwent supine positioning (RR, 0.96), as was the need for additional respiratory support (RR, 1.03). The length of hospital stay, ICU admission, and adverse events were similar between the patients who underwent prone positioning and those who underwent supine positioning.
The findings were limited by several factors. There was a potential for confounding by disease severity, which may have increased the use of respiratory support devices, Li said in her presentation.
“Another factor we should not ignore is the daily duration of prone positioning,” said Dr. Li. More research is needed to identify which factors play the greatest roles in treatment success.
The current study was important in that it evaluated the current evidence of awake prone positioning, “particularly to identify the patients who benefit most from this treatment, in order to guide clinical practice,” Dr. Li said in an interview.
“Since early in the pandemic, awake prone positioning has been broadly utilized to treat patients with COVID-19,” she said. “In 2021, we published a multinational randomized controlled trial with over 1,100 patients enrolled and reported lower treatment failure. However, no significant differences of treatment failure were reported in several subsequent multicenter randomized, controlled trials published after our study.”
Dr. Li said she was not surprised by the findings, which reflect those of her team’s previously published meta-analysis. “The increased number of patients helps confirm our previous finding, even with the inclusion of several recently published randomized controlled trials,” she said.
For clinicians, “the current evidence supports the use of awake prone positioning for patients with COVID-19, particularly those who require advanced respiratory support from high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive ventilation,” Dr. Li said.
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Li has relationships with AARC, Heyer, Aeorgen, the Rice Foundation, and Fisher & Paykel Healthcare.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
as indicated by data from a new meta-analysis of more than 2,000 individuals.
The use of prone positioning for nonintubated patients (so-called “awake prone positioning”) has been common since the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. Prone positioning is more comfortable for patients, and it entails no additional cost. Also, awake prone positioning is less labor intensive than prone positioning for intubated patients, said Jie Li, PhD, in a presentation at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.
However, data on the specific benefits of prone positioning are lacking and contradictory, said Dr. Li, a respiratory care specialist at Rush University, Chicago.
Dr. Li and colleagues from a multinational research group found that outcomes were improved for patients who were treated with awake prone positioning – notably, fewer treatment failures at day 28 – but a pair of subsequent studies by other researchers showed contradictory outcomes.
For more definitive evidence, Dr. Li and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 randomized, controlled trials and one unpublished study of awake prone positioning for patients with COVID-19. The studies were published between Jan. 1, 2020, and July 1, 2022, and included a total of 2,886 adult patients.
The primary outcome was the reported cumulative risk of intubation among nonintubated COVID-19 patients. Secondary outcomes included mortality, the need for escalating respiratory support, length of hospital length of stay, ICU admission, and adverse events.
Overall, awake prone positioning significantly reduced the intubation risk among nonintubated patients compared to standard care (risk ratio, 0.85).
A further subgroup analysis showed a significant reduction in risk for intubation among patients supported by high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive ventilation (RR, 0.83).
However, no additional reduction in intubation risk occurred among patients who received conventional oxygen therapy (RR, 1.02).
Mortality rates were similar for patients who underwent awake prone positioning and those who underwent supine positioning (RR, 0.96), as was the need for additional respiratory support (RR, 1.03). The length of hospital stay, ICU admission, and adverse events were similar between the patients who underwent prone positioning and those who underwent supine positioning.
The findings were limited by several factors. There was a potential for confounding by disease severity, which may have increased the use of respiratory support devices, Li said in her presentation.
“Another factor we should not ignore is the daily duration of prone positioning,” said Dr. Li. More research is needed to identify which factors play the greatest roles in treatment success.
The current study was important in that it evaluated the current evidence of awake prone positioning, “particularly to identify the patients who benefit most from this treatment, in order to guide clinical practice,” Dr. Li said in an interview.
“Since early in the pandemic, awake prone positioning has been broadly utilized to treat patients with COVID-19,” she said. “In 2021, we published a multinational randomized controlled trial with over 1,100 patients enrolled and reported lower treatment failure. However, no significant differences of treatment failure were reported in several subsequent multicenter randomized, controlled trials published after our study.”
Dr. Li said she was not surprised by the findings, which reflect those of her team’s previously published meta-analysis. “The increased number of patients helps confirm our previous finding, even with the inclusion of several recently published randomized controlled trials,” she said.
For clinicians, “the current evidence supports the use of awake prone positioning for patients with COVID-19, particularly those who require advanced respiratory support from high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive ventilation,” Dr. Li said.
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Li has relationships with AARC, Heyer, Aeorgen, the Rice Foundation, and Fisher & Paykel Healthcare.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM SCCM 2023
COVID vs. flu: Which is deadlier?
a new study shows.
People who were hospitalized with Omicron COVID-19 infections were 54% more likely to die, compared with people who were hospitalized with the flu, Swiss researchers found.
The results of the study continue to debunk an earlier belief from the start of the pandemic that the flu was the more dangerous of the two respiratory viruses. The researchers noted that the deadliness of COVID-19, compared with flu, persisted “despite virus evolution and improved management strategies.”
The study was published in JAMA Network Open and included 5,212 patients in Switzerland hospitalized with COVID-19 or the flu. All the COVID patients were infected with the Omicron variant and hospitalized between Jan. 15, 2022, and March 15, 2022. Flu data included cases from January 2018 to March 15, 2022.
Overall, 7% of COVID-19 patients died, compared with 4.4% of flu patients. Researchers noted that the death rate for hospitalized COVID patients had declined since their previous study, which was conducted during the first COVID wave in the first half of 2020. At that time, the death rate of hospitalized COVID patients was 12.8%.
Since then, 98% of the Swiss population has been vaccinated. “Vaccination still plays a significant role regarding the main outcome,” the authors concluded, since a secondary analysis in this most recent study showed that unvaccinated COVID patients were twice as likely to die, compared with flu patients.
“Our results demonstrate that COVID-19 still cannot simply be compared with influenza,” they wrote.
While the death rate among COVID patients was significantly higher, there was no difference in the rate that COVID or flu patients were admitted to the ICU, which was around 8%.
A limitation of the study was that all the COVID cases did not have laboratory testing to confirm the Omicron variant. However, the study authors noted that Omicron accounted for at least 95% of cases during the time the patients were hospitalized. The authors were confident that their results were not biased by the potential for other variants being included in the data.
Four coauthors reported receiving grants and personal fees from various sources.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
a new study shows.
People who were hospitalized with Omicron COVID-19 infections were 54% more likely to die, compared with people who were hospitalized with the flu, Swiss researchers found.
The results of the study continue to debunk an earlier belief from the start of the pandemic that the flu was the more dangerous of the two respiratory viruses. The researchers noted that the deadliness of COVID-19, compared with flu, persisted “despite virus evolution and improved management strategies.”
The study was published in JAMA Network Open and included 5,212 patients in Switzerland hospitalized with COVID-19 or the flu. All the COVID patients were infected with the Omicron variant and hospitalized between Jan. 15, 2022, and March 15, 2022. Flu data included cases from January 2018 to March 15, 2022.
Overall, 7% of COVID-19 patients died, compared with 4.4% of flu patients. Researchers noted that the death rate for hospitalized COVID patients had declined since their previous study, which was conducted during the first COVID wave in the first half of 2020. At that time, the death rate of hospitalized COVID patients was 12.8%.
Since then, 98% of the Swiss population has been vaccinated. “Vaccination still plays a significant role regarding the main outcome,” the authors concluded, since a secondary analysis in this most recent study showed that unvaccinated COVID patients were twice as likely to die, compared with flu patients.
“Our results demonstrate that COVID-19 still cannot simply be compared with influenza,” they wrote.
While the death rate among COVID patients was significantly higher, there was no difference in the rate that COVID or flu patients were admitted to the ICU, which was around 8%.
A limitation of the study was that all the COVID cases did not have laboratory testing to confirm the Omicron variant. However, the study authors noted that Omicron accounted for at least 95% of cases during the time the patients were hospitalized. The authors were confident that their results were not biased by the potential for other variants being included in the data.
Four coauthors reported receiving grants and personal fees from various sources.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
a new study shows.
People who were hospitalized with Omicron COVID-19 infections were 54% more likely to die, compared with people who were hospitalized with the flu, Swiss researchers found.
The results of the study continue to debunk an earlier belief from the start of the pandemic that the flu was the more dangerous of the two respiratory viruses. The researchers noted that the deadliness of COVID-19, compared with flu, persisted “despite virus evolution and improved management strategies.”
The study was published in JAMA Network Open and included 5,212 patients in Switzerland hospitalized with COVID-19 or the flu. All the COVID patients were infected with the Omicron variant and hospitalized between Jan. 15, 2022, and March 15, 2022. Flu data included cases from January 2018 to March 15, 2022.
Overall, 7% of COVID-19 patients died, compared with 4.4% of flu patients. Researchers noted that the death rate for hospitalized COVID patients had declined since their previous study, which was conducted during the first COVID wave in the first half of 2020. At that time, the death rate of hospitalized COVID patients was 12.8%.
Since then, 98% of the Swiss population has been vaccinated. “Vaccination still plays a significant role regarding the main outcome,” the authors concluded, since a secondary analysis in this most recent study showed that unvaccinated COVID patients were twice as likely to die, compared with flu patients.
“Our results demonstrate that COVID-19 still cannot simply be compared with influenza,” they wrote.
While the death rate among COVID patients was significantly higher, there was no difference in the rate that COVID or flu patients were admitted to the ICU, which was around 8%.
A limitation of the study was that all the COVID cases did not have laboratory testing to confirm the Omicron variant. However, the study authors noted that Omicron accounted for at least 95% of cases during the time the patients were hospitalized. The authors were confident that their results were not biased by the potential for other variants being included in the data.
Four coauthors reported receiving grants and personal fees from various sources.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
COVID infection provides immunity equal to vaccination: Study
People who’ve been infected with COVID reduced their chances of hospitalization and death by 88% over 10 months compared to somebody who hasn’t been infected, according to the study, published in The Lancet.
The natural immunity provided by infection was “at least as high, if not higher” than the immunity provided by two doses of Moderna or Pfizer mRNA vaccines against the ancestral, Alpha, Delta, and Omicron BA.1 variants, the researchers reported.
But protection against the BA.1 subvariant of Omicron was not as high – 36% at 10 months after infection, wrote the research team from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington.
They examined 65 studies from 19 countries through Sept. 31, 2022. They did not study data about infection from Omicron XBB and its sub-lineages. People who had immunity from both infection and vaccination, known as hybrid immunity, were not studied.
The findings don’t mean people should skip the vaccines and get COVID on purpose, one of the researchers told NBC News.
“The problem of saying ‘I’m gonna get infected to get immunity’ is you might be one of those people that end up in the hospital or die,” said Christopher Murray, MD, DPhil, director of the IHME. “Why would you take the risk when you can get immunity through vaccination quite safely?”
The findings could help people figure out the most effective time to get vaccinated or boosted and guide officials in setting policies on workplace vaccine mandates and rules for high-occupancy indoor settings, the researchers concluded.
This was the largest meta-analysis of immunity following infection to date, NBC News reports.
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
People who’ve been infected with COVID reduced their chances of hospitalization and death by 88% over 10 months compared to somebody who hasn’t been infected, according to the study, published in The Lancet.
The natural immunity provided by infection was “at least as high, if not higher” than the immunity provided by two doses of Moderna or Pfizer mRNA vaccines against the ancestral, Alpha, Delta, and Omicron BA.1 variants, the researchers reported.
But protection against the BA.1 subvariant of Omicron was not as high – 36% at 10 months after infection, wrote the research team from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington.
They examined 65 studies from 19 countries through Sept. 31, 2022. They did not study data about infection from Omicron XBB and its sub-lineages. People who had immunity from both infection and vaccination, known as hybrid immunity, were not studied.
The findings don’t mean people should skip the vaccines and get COVID on purpose, one of the researchers told NBC News.
“The problem of saying ‘I’m gonna get infected to get immunity’ is you might be one of those people that end up in the hospital or die,” said Christopher Murray, MD, DPhil, director of the IHME. “Why would you take the risk when you can get immunity through vaccination quite safely?”
The findings could help people figure out the most effective time to get vaccinated or boosted and guide officials in setting policies on workplace vaccine mandates and rules for high-occupancy indoor settings, the researchers concluded.
This was the largest meta-analysis of immunity following infection to date, NBC News reports.
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
People who’ve been infected with COVID reduced their chances of hospitalization and death by 88% over 10 months compared to somebody who hasn’t been infected, according to the study, published in The Lancet.
The natural immunity provided by infection was “at least as high, if not higher” than the immunity provided by two doses of Moderna or Pfizer mRNA vaccines against the ancestral, Alpha, Delta, and Omicron BA.1 variants, the researchers reported.
But protection against the BA.1 subvariant of Omicron was not as high – 36% at 10 months after infection, wrote the research team from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington.
They examined 65 studies from 19 countries through Sept. 31, 2022. They did not study data about infection from Omicron XBB and its sub-lineages. People who had immunity from both infection and vaccination, known as hybrid immunity, were not studied.
The findings don’t mean people should skip the vaccines and get COVID on purpose, one of the researchers told NBC News.
“The problem of saying ‘I’m gonna get infected to get immunity’ is you might be one of those people that end up in the hospital or die,” said Christopher Murray, MD, DPhil, director of the IHME. “Why would you take the risk when you can get immunity through vaccination quite safely?”
The findings could help people figure out the most effective time to get vaccinated or boosted and guide officials in setting policies on workplace vaccine mandates and rules for high-occupancy indoor settings, the researchers concluded.
This was the largest meta-analysis of immunity following infection to date, NBC News reports.
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM THE LANCET