COVID-19

Overall risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients is low, but some of those patients may have factors that increase the risk and warrant more surveillance, according to a new retrospective cohort study.

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.

Overall risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients is low, but some of those patients may have factors that increase the risk and warrant more surveillance, according to a new retrospective cohort study.

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.

Overall risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients is low, but some of those patients may have factors that increase the risk and warrant more surveillance, according to a new retrospective cohort study.

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.

Metformin appears to play a role in preventing long COVID when taken early during a COVID-19 infection, according to preprints 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.

Metformin appears to play a role in preventing long COVID when taken early during a COVID-19 infection, according to preprints 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.

Metformin appears to play a role in preventing long COVID when taken early during a COVID-19 infection, according to preprints 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.

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. 

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. 

Prone positioning significantly reduced the need for intubation among nonintubated adults with COVID-19, 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.

Prone positioning significantly reduced the need for intubation among nonintubated adults with COVID-19, 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.

Prone positioning significantly reduced the need for intubation among nonintubated adults with COVID-19, 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.

COVID-19 remains deadlier than influenza in severe cases requiring hospitalization, 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.

COVID-19 remains deadlier than influenza in severe cases requiring hospitalization, 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.

COVID-19 remains deadlier than influenza in severe cases requiring hospitalization, 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.

The natural immunity provided by a COVID infection protects a person against severe illness on a par with two doses of mRNA vaccine, a new study says. 

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.

The natural immunity provided by a COVID infection protects a person against severe illness on a par with two doses of mRNA vaccine, a new study says. 

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.

The natural immunity provided by a COVID infection protects a person against severe illness on a par with two doses of mRNA vaccine, a new study says. 

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.

Approximately one in four patients with untreated COVID-19 experience symptom relapse, while almost one in three exhibits relapse of viral load, a recent study finds.

These findings offer a natural history of COVID-19 that will inform discussions and research concerning antiviral therapy, lead author Jonathan Z. Li, MD, associate professor of infectious disease at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues reported in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“There are increasing reports that high-risk patients are avoiding nirmatrelvir-ritonavir due to concerns about post-Paxlovid rebound, but there remains a gap in our knowledge of the frequency of symptom and viral relapse during untreated natural infection,” Dr. Li said in a written comment.

To address this gap, Dr. Li and colleagues analyzed data from 563 participants from the placebo group of the Adaptive Platform Treatment Trial for Outpatients with COVID-19 (ACTIV-2/A5401).

From days 0-28, patients recorded severity of 13 symptoms, with scores ranging from absent to severe (absent = 0, mild = 1, moderate = 2, severe = 3). RNA testing was performed on samples from nasal swabs on days 0–14, 21, and 28.

“The symptom rebound definition was determined by consensus of the study team, which comprises more than 10 infectious disease, pulmonary, and critical care physicians, as likely representing a clinically meaningful change in symptoms,” Dr. Li said.

Symptom scores needed to increase by at least 4 points to reach the threshold. For instance, a patient would qualify for relapse if they had worsening of four symptoms from mild to moderate, emergence of two new moderate symptoms, or emergence of one new moderate and two new mild symptoms.

The threshold for viral relapse was defined by an increase of at least 0.5 log10 RNA copies/mL from one nasal swab to the next, while high-level viral relapse was defined by an increase of at least 5.0 log10 RNA copies/mL. The former threshold was chosen based on previous analysis of viral rebound after nirmatrelvir treatment in the EPIC-HR phase 3 trial, whereas the high-level relapse point was based on Dr. Li and colleagues’ previous work linking this cutoff with the presence of infectious virus.

Their present analysis revealed that 26% of patients had symptom relapse at a median of 11 days after first symptom onset. Viral relapse occurred in 31% of patients, while high-level viral relapse occurred in 13% of participants. In about 9 out 10 cases, these relapses were detected at only one time point, suggesting they were transient. Of note, symptom relapse and high-level viral relapse occurred simultaneously in only 3% of patients.

This lack of correlation was “surprising” and “highlights that recovery from any infection is not always a linear process,” Dr. Li said.

This finding also suggests that untreated patients with recurring symptoms probably pose a low risk of contagion, according to David Wohl, MD, coauthor of the paper and professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
 

Paxlovid may not be to blame for COVID-19 rebound

“These results provide important context for the reports of Paxlovid rebound and show that baseline rates of symptom and viral relapse should be accounted for when studying the risk of rebound after antiviral therapy,” Dr. Li said.

Dr. Wohl suggested that these data can also play a role in conversations with patients who experience rebound after taking antiviral therapy.

“Many who have a return of their symptoms after taking Paxlovid blame the drug, and that may be justified, but this study suggests it happens in untreated people too,” Dr. Wohl said in a written comment.
 

Longer antiviral therapy deserves investigation

This is a “very important study” because it offers a baseline for comparing the natural history of COVID-19 with clinical course after antiviral therapy, said Timothy Henrich, MD, associate professor in the division of experimental medicine at University of California, San Francisco.

“Unlike this natural history, where it’s kind of sputtering up and down as it goes down, [after antiviral therapy,] it goes away for several days, and then it comes back up; and when it comes up, people have symptoms again,” Dr. Henrich said in an interview.

This suggests that each type of rebound is a unique phenomenon and, from a clinical perspective, that antiviral therapy may need to be extended.

“We treat for too short a period of time,” Dr. Henrich said. “We’re able to suppress [SARS-CoV-2] to the point where we’re not detecting it in the nasal pharynx, but it’s clearly still there. And it’s clearly still in a place that can replicate without the drug.”

That said, treating for longer may not be a sure-fire solution, especially if antiviral therapy is started early in the clinical course, as this could delay SARS-CoV-2-specific immune responses that are necessary for resolution, Dr. Henrich added,

“We need further study of longer-term therapies,” he said.

An array of research questions need to be addressed, according to Aditya Shah, MBBS, an infectious disease specialist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. In a written comment, he probed the significance of rebound in various clinical scenarios.

“What [type of] rebound matters and what doesn’t?” Dr. Shah asked. “Does symptom rebound matter? How many untreated and treated ‘symptom rebounders’ need additional treatment or health care? If rebound does not really matter, but if Paxlovid helps in certain unvaccinated and high-risk patients, then does rebound matter? Future research should also focus on Paxlovid utility in vaccinated but high-risk patients. Is it as beneficial in them as it is in unvaccinated high-risk patients?”

While potentially regimen-altering questions like these remain unanswered, Dr. Henrich advised providers to keep patients focused on what we do know about the benefits of antiviral therapy given the current 5-day course, which is that it reduces the risk of severe disease and hospitalization.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Merck, Gilead, ViiV, and others. Dr. Henrich disclosed grant support from Merck and a consulting role with Roche. Dr. Shah disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Approximately one in four patients with untreated COVID-19 experience symptom relapse, while almost one in three exhibits relapse of viral load, a recent study finds.

These findings offer a natural history of COVID-19 that will inform discussions and research concerning antiviral therapy, lead author Jonathan Z. Li, MD, associate professor of infectious disease at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues reported in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“There are increasing reports that high-risk patients are avoiding nirmatrelvir-ritonavir due to concerns about post-Paxlovid rebound, but there remains a gap in our knowledge of the frequency of symptom and viral relapse during untreated natural infection,” Dr. Li said in a written comment.

To address this gap, Dr. Li and colleagues analyzed data from 563 participants from the placebo group of the Adaptive Platform Treatment Trial for Outpatients with COVID-19 (ACTIV-2/A5401).

From days 0-28, patients recorded severity of 13 symptoms, with scores ranging from absent to severe (absent = 0, mild = 1, moderate = 2, severe = 3). RNA testing was performed on samples from nasal swabs on days 0–14, 21, and 28.

“The symptom rebound definition was determined by consensus of the study team, which comprises more than 10 infectious disease, pulmonary, and critical care physicians, as likely representing a clinically meaningful change in symptoms,” Dr. Li said.

Symptom scores needed to increase by at least 4 points to reach the threshold. For instance, a patient would qualify for relapse if they had worsening of four symptoms from mild to moderate, emergence of two new moderate symptoms, or emergence of one new moderate and two new mild symptoms.

The threshold for viral relapse was defined by an increase of at least 0.5 log10 RNA copies/mL from one nasal swab to the next, while high-level viral relapse was defined by an increase of at least 5.0 log10 RNA copies/mL. The former threshold was chosen based on previous analysis of viral rebound after nirmatrelvir treatment in the EPIC-HR phase 3 trial, whereas the high-level relapse point was based on Dr. Li and colleagues’ previous work linking this cutoff with the presence of infectious virus.

Their present analysis revealed that 26% of patients had symptom relapse at a median of 11 days after first symptom onset. Viral relapse occurred in 31% of patients, while high-level viral relapse occurred in 13% of participants. In about 9 out 10 cases, these relapses were detected at only one time point, suggesting they were transient. Of note, symptom relapse and high-level viral relapse occurred simultaneously in only 3% of patients.

This lack of correlation was “surprising” and “highlights that recovery from any infection is not always a linear process,” Dr. Li said.

This finding also suggests that untreated patients with recurring symptoms probably pose a low risk of contagion, according to David Wohl, MD, coauthor of the paper and professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
 

Paxlovid may not be to blame for COVID-19 rebound

“These results provide important context for the reports of Paxlovid rebound and show that baseline rates of symptom and viral relapse should be accounted for when studying the risk of rebound after antiviral therapy,” Dr. Li said.

Dr. Wohl suggested that these data can also play a role in conversations with patients who experience rebound after taking antiviral therapy.

“Many who have a return of their symptoms after taking Paxlovid blame the drug, and that may be justified, but this study suggests it happens in untreated people too,” Dr. Wohl said in a written comment.
 

Longer antiviral therapy deserves investigation

This is a “very important study” because it offers a baseline for comparing the natural history of COVID-19 with clinical course after antiviral therapy, said Timothy Henrich, MD, associate professor in the division of experimental medicine at University of California, San Francisco.

“Unlike this natural history, where it’s kind of sputtering up and down as it goes down, [after antiviral therapy,] it goes away for several days, and then it comes back up; and when it comes up, people have symptoms again,” Dr. Henrich said in an interview.

This suggests that each type of rebound is a unique phenomenon and, from a clinical perspective, that antiviral therapy may need to be extended.

“We treat for too short a period of time,” Dr. Henrich said. “We’re able to suppress [SARS-CoV-2] to the point where we’re not detecting it in the nasal pharynx, but it’s clearly still there. And it’s clearly still in a place that can replicate without the drug.”

That said, treating for longer may not be a sure-fire solution, especially if antiviral therapy is started early in the clinical course, as this could delay SARS-CoV-2-specific immune responses that are necessary for resolution, Dr. Henrich added,

“We need further study of longer-term therapies,” he said.

An array of research questions need to be addressed, according to Aditya Shah, MBBS, an infectious disease specialist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. In a written comment, he probed the significance of rebound in various clinical scenarios.

“What [type of] rebound matters and what doesn’t?” Dr. Shah asked. “Does symptom rebound matter? How many untreated and treated ‘symptom rebounders’ need additional treatment or health care? If rebound does not really matter, but if Paxlovid helps in certain unvaccinated and high-risk patients, then does rebound matter? Future research should also focus on Paxlovid utility in vaccinated but high-risk patients. Is it as beneficial in them as it is in unvaccinated high-risk patients?”

While potentially regimen-altering questions like these remain unanswered, Dr. Henrich advised providers to keep patients focused on what we do know about the benefits of antiviral therapy given the current 5-day course, which is that it reduces the risk of severe disease and hospitalization.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Merck, Gilead, ViiV, and others. Dr. Henrich disclosed grant support from Merck and a consulting role with Roche. Dr. Shah disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Approximately one in four patients with untreated COVID-19 experience symptom relapse, while almost one in three exhibits relapse of viral load, a recent study finds.

These findings offer a natural history of COVID-19 that will inform discussions and research concerning antiviral therapy, lead author Jonathan Z. Li, MD, associate professor of infectious disease at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues reported in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“There are increasing reports that high-risk patients are avoiding nirmatrelvir-ritonavir due to concerns about post-Paxlovid rebound, but there remains a gap in our knowledge of the frequency of symptom and viral relapse during untreated natural infection,” Dr. Li said in a written comment.

To address this gap, Dr. Li and colleagues analyzed data from 563 participants from the placebo group of the Adaptive Platform Treatment Trial for Outpatients with COVID-19 (ACTIV-2/A5401).

From days 0-28, patients recorded severity of 13 symptoms, with scores ranging from absent to severe (absent = 0, mild = 1, moderate = 2, severe = 3). RNA testing was performed on samples from nasal swabs on days 0–14, 21, and 28.

“The symptom rebound definition was determined by consensus of the study team, which comprises more than 10 infectious disease, pulmonary, and critical care physicians, as likely representing a clinically meaningful change in symptoms,” Dr. Li said.

Symptom scores needed to increase by at least 4 points to reach the threshold. For instance, a patient would qualify for relapse if they had worsening of four symptoms from mild to moderate, emergence of two new moderate symptoms, or emergence of one new moderate and two new mild symptoms.

The threshold for viral relapse was defined by an increase of at least 0.5 log10 RNA copies/mL from one nasal swab to the next, while high-level viral relapse was defined by an increase of at least 5.0 log10 RNA copies/mL. The former threshold was chosen based on previous analysis of viral rebound after nirmatrelvir treatment in the EPIC-HR phase 3 trial, whereas the high-level relapse point was based on Dr. Li and colleagues’ previous work linking this cutoff with the presence of infectious virus.

Their present analysis revealed that 26% of patients had symptom relapse at a median of 11 days after first symptom onset. Viral relapse occurred in 31% of patients, while high-level viral relapse occurred in 13% of participants. In about 9 out 10 cases, these relapses were detected at only one time point, suggesting they were transient. Of note, symptom relapse and high-level viral relapse occurred simultaneously in only 3% of patients.

This lack of correlation was “surprising” and “highlights that recovery from any infection is not always a linear process,” Dr. Li said.

This finding also suggests that untreated patients with recurring symptoms probably pose a low risk of contagion, according to David Wohl, MD, coauthor of the paper and professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
 

Paxlovid may not be to blame for COVID-19 rebound

“These results provide important context for the reports of Paxlovid rebound and show that baseline rates of symptom and viral relapse should be accounted for when studying the risk of rebound after antiviral therapy,” Dr. Li said.

Dr. Wohl suggested that these data can also play a role in conversations with patients who experience rebound after taking antiviral therapy.

“Many who have a return of their symptoms after taking Paxlovid blame the drug, and that may be justified, but this study suggests it happens in untreated people too,” Dr. Wohl said in a written comment.
 

Longer antiviral therapy deserves investigation

This is a “very important study” because it offers a baseline for comparing the natural history of COVID-19 with clinical course after antiviral therapy, said Timothy Henrich, MD, associate professor in the division of experimental medicine at University of California, San Francisco.

“Unlike this natural history, where it’s kind of sputtering up and down as it goes down, [after antiviral therapy,] it goes away for several days, and then it comes back up; and when it comes up, people have symptoms again,” Dr. Henrich said in an interview.

This suggests that each type of rebound is a unique phenomenon and, from a clinical perspective, that antiviral therapy may need to be extended.

“We treat for too short a period of time,” Dr. Henrich said. “We’re able to suppress [SARS-CoV-2] to the point where we’re not detecting it in the nasal pharynx, but it’s clearly still there. And it’s clearly still in a place that can replicate without the drug.”

That said, treating for longer may not be a sure-fire solution, especially if antiviral therapy is started early in the clinical course, as this could delay SARS-CoV-2-specific immune responses that are necessary for resolution, Dr. Henrich added,

“We need further study of longer-term therapies,” he said.

An array of research questions need to be addressed, according to Aditya Shah, MBBS, an infectious disease specialist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. In a written comment, he probed the significance of rebound in various clinical scenarios.

“What [type of] rebound matters and what doesn’t?” Dr. Shah asked. “Does symptom rebound matter? How many untreated and treated ‘symptom rebounders’ need additional treatment or health care? If rebound does not really matter, but if Paxlovid helps in certain unvaccinated and high-risk patients, then does rebound matter? Future research should also focus on Paxlovid utility in vaccinated but high-risk patients. Is it as beneficial in them as it is in unvaccinated high-risk patients?”

While potentially regimen-altering questions like these remain unanswered, Dr. Henrich advised providers to keep patients focused on what we do know about the benefits of antiviral therapy given the current 5-day course, which is that it reduces the risk of severe disease and hospitalization.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Merck, Gilead, ViiV, and others. Dr. Henrich disclosed grant support from Merck and a consulting role with Roche. Dr. Shah disclosed no conflicts of interest.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dear colleagues, I am Christoph Diener from the medical faculty of the University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany. Today, I would like to discuss what happened in neurology in the past month.
 

Treatment of tension-type headache

I would like to start with headache. You are all aware that we have several new studies regarding the prevention of migraine, but very few studies involving nondrug treatments for tension-type headache.

A working group in Göttingen, Germany, conducted a study in people with frequent episodic and chronic tension-type headache. The first of the four randomized groups received traditional Chinese acupuncture for 3 months. The second group received physical therapy and exercise for 1 hour per week for 12 weeks. The third group received a combination of acupuncture and exercise. The last was a control group that received only standard care.

The outcome parameters of tension-type headache were evaluated after 6 months and again after 12 months. Previously, these same researchers published that the intensity but not the frequency of tension-type headache was reduced by active therapy.

In Cephalalgia, they published the outcome for the endpoints of depression, anxiety, and quality of life. Acupuncture, exercise, and the combination of the two improved depression, anxiety, and quality of life. This shows that nonmedical treatment is effective in people with frequent episodic and chronic tension-type headache.
 

Headache after COVID-19

The next study was published in Headache and discusses headache after COVID-19. In this review of published studies, more than 50% of people with COVID-19 develop headache. It is more frequent in young patients and people with preexisting primary headaches, such as migraine and tension-type headache. Prognosis is usually good, but some patients develop new, daily persistent headache, which is a major problem because treatment is unclear. We desperately need studies investigating how to treat this new, daily persistent headache after COVID-19.

SSRIs during COVID-19 infection

The next study also focuses on COVID-19. We have conflicting results from several studies suggesting that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors might be effective in people with mild COVID-19 infection. This hypothesis was tested in a study in Brazil and was published in JAMA, The study included 1,288 outpatients with mild COVID-19 who either received 50 mg of fluvoxamine twice daily for 10 days or placebo. There was no benefit of the treatment for any outcome.

Preventing dementia with antihypertensive treatment

The next study was published in the European Heart Journal and addresses the question of whether effective antihypertensive treatment in elderly persons can prevent dementia. This is a meta-analysis of five placebo-controlled trials with more than 28,000 patients. The meta-analysis clearly shows that treating hypertension in elderly patients does prevent dementia. The benefit is higher if the blood pressure is lowered by a larger amount which also stays true for elderly patients. There is no negative impact of lowering blood pressure in this population.

Antiplatelet therapy

The next study was published in Stroke and reexamines whether resumption of antiplatelet therapy should be early or late in people who had an intracerebral hemorrhage while on antiplatelet therapy. In the Taiwanese Health Registry, this was studied in 1,584 patients. The researchers divided participants into groups based on whether antiplatelet therapy was resumed within 30 days or after 30 days. In 1 year, the rate of recurrent intracerebral hemorrhage was 3.2%. There was no difference whether antiplatelet therapy was resumed early or late.

Regular exercise in Parkinson’s disease

The final study is a review of nonmedical therapy. This meta-analysis of 19 randomized trials looked at the benefit of regular exercise in patients with Parkinson’s disease and depression. The analysis clearly showed that rigorous and moderate exercise improved depression in patients with Parkinson’s disease. This is very important because exercise improves not only the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease but also comorbid depression while presenting no serious adverse events or side effects.

Dr. Diener is a professor in the department of neurology at Stroke Center–Headache Center, University Duisburg-Essen, Germany. He disclosed ties with Abbott, Addex Pharma, Alder, Allergan, Almirall, Amgen, Autonomic Technology, AstraZeneca, Bayer Vital, Berlin Chemie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chordate, CoAxia, Corimmun, Covidien, Coherex, CoLucid, Daiichi Sankyo, D-Pharm, Electrocore, Fresenius, GlaxoSmithKline, Grunenthal, Janssen-Cilag, Labrys Biologics Lilly, La Roche, Lundbeck, 3M Medica, MSD, Medtronic, Menarini, MindFrame, Minster, Neuroscore, Neurobiological Technologies, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Johnson & Johnson, Knoll, Paion, Parke-Davis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer Inc, Schaper and Brummer, Sanofi-Aventis, Schering-Plough, Servier, Solvay, St. Jude, Talecris, Thrombogenics, WebMD Global, Weber and Weber, Wyeth, and Yamanouchi. Dr. Diener has served as editor of Aktuelle Neurologie, Arzneimitteltherapie, Kopfschmerz News, Stroke News, and the Treatment Guidelines of the German Neurological Society; as co-editor of Cephalalgia; and on the editorial board of The Lancet Neurology, Stroke, European Neurology, and Cerebrovascular Disorders. The department of neurology in Essen is supported by the German Research Council, the German Ministry of Education and Research, European Union, National Institutes of Health, Bertelsmann Foundation, and Heinz Nixdorf Foundation. Dr. Diener has no ownership interest and does not own stocks in any pharmaceutical company. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dear colleagues, I am Christoph Diener from the medical faculty of the University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany. Today, I would like to discuss what happened in neurology in the past month.
 

Treatment of tension-type headache

I would like to start with headache. You are all aware that we have several new studies regarding the prevention of migraine, but very few studies involving nondrug treatments for tension-type headache.

A working group in Göttingen, Germany, conducted a study in people with frequent episodic and chronic tension-type headache. The first of the four randomized groups received traditional Chinese acupuncture for 3 months. The second group received physical therapy and exercise for 1 hour per week for 12 weeks. The third group received a combination of acupuncture and exercise. The last was a control group that received only standard care.

The outcome parameters of tension-type headache were evaluated after 6 months and again after 12 months. Previously, these same researchers published that the intensity but not the frequency of tension-type headache was reduced by active therapy.

In Cephalalgia, they published the outcome for the endpoints of depression, anxiety, and quality of life. Acupuncture, exercise, and the combination of the two improved depression, anxiety, and quality of life. This shows that nonmedical treatment is effective in people with frequent episodic and chronic tension-type headache.
 

Headache after COVID-19

The next study was published in Headache and discusses headache after COVID-19. In this review of published studies, more than 50% of people with COVID-19 develop headache. It is more frequent in young patients and people with preexisting primary headaches, such as migraine and tension-type headache. Prognosis is usually good, but some patients develop new, daily persistent headache, which is a major problem because treatment is unclear. We desperately need studies investigating how to treat this new, daily persistent headache after COVID-19.

SSRIs during COVID-19 infection

The next study also focuses on COVID-19. We have conflicting results from several studies suggesting that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors might be effective in people with mild COVID-19 infection. This hypothesis was tested in a study in Brazil and was published in JAMA, The study included 1,288 outpatients with mild COVID-19 who either received 50 mg of fluvoxamine twice daily for 10 days or placebo. There was no benefit of the treatment for any outcome.

Preventing dementia with antihypertensive treatment

The next study was published in the European Heart Journal and addresses the question of whether effective antihypertensive treatment in elderly persons can prevent dementia. This is a meta-analysis of five placebo-controlled trials with more than 28,000 patients. The meta-analysis clearly shows that treating hypertension in elderly patients does prevent dementia. The benefit is higher if the blood pressure is lowered by a larger amount which also stays true for elderly patients. There is no negative impact of lowering blood pressure in this population.

Antiplatelet therapy

The next study was published in Stroke and reexamines whether resumption of antiplatelet therapy should be early or late in people who had an intracerebral hemorrhage while on antiplatelet therapy. In the Taiwanese Health Registry, this was studied in 1,584 patients. The researchers divided participants into groups based on whether antiplatelet therapy was resumed within 30 days or after 30 days. In 1 year, the rate of recurrent intracerebral hemorrhage was 3.2%. There was no difference whether antiplatelet therapy was resumed early or late.

Regular exercise in Parkinson’s disease

The final study is a review of nonmedical therapy. This meta-analysis of 19 randomized trials looked at the benefit of regular exercise in patients with Parkinson’s disease and depression. The analysis clearly showed that rigorous and moderate exercise improved depression in patients with Parkinson’s disease. This is very important because exercise improves not only the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease but also comorbid depression while presenting no serious adverse events or side effects.

Dr. Diener is a professor in the department of neurology at Stroke Center–Headache Center, University Duisburg-Essen, Germany. He disclosed ties with Abbott, Addex Pharma, Alder, Allergan, Almirall, Amgen, Autonomic Technology, AstraZeneca, Bayer Vital, Berlin Chemie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chordate, CoAxia, Corimmun, Covidien, Coherex, CoLucid, Daiichi Sankyo, D-Pharm, Electrocore, Fresenius, GlaxoSmithKline, Grunenthal, Janssen-Cilag, Labrys Biologics Lilly, La Roche, Lundbeck, 3M Medica, MSD, Medtronic, Menarini, MindFrame, Minster, Neuroscore, Neurobiological Technologies, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Johnson & Johnson, Knoll, Paion, Parke-Davis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer Inc, Schaper and Brummer, Sanofi-Aventis, Schering-Plough, Servier, Solvay, St. Jude, Talecris, Thrombogenics, WebMD Global, Weber and Weber, Wyeth, and Yamanouchi. Dr. Diener has served as editor of Aktuelle Neurologie, Arzneimitteltherapie, Kopfschmerz News, Stroke News, and the Treatment Guidelines of the German Neurological Society; as co-editor of Cephalalgia; and on the editorial board of The Lancet Neurology, Stroke, European Neurology, and Cerebrovascular Disorders. The department of neurology in Essen is supported by the German Research Council, the German Ministry of Education and Research, European Union, National Institutes of Health, Bertelsmann Foundation, and Heinz Nixdorf Foundation. Dr. Diener has no ownership interest and does not own stocks in any pharmaceutical company. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dear colleagues, I am Christoph Diener from the medical faculty of the University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany. Today, I would like to discuss what happened in neurology in the past month.
 

Treatment of tension-type headache

I would like to start with headache. You are all aware that we have several new studies regarding the prevention of migraine, but very few studies involving nondrug treatments for tension-type headache.

A working group in Göttingen, Germany, conducted a study in people with frequent episodic and chronic tension-type headache. The first of the four randomized groups received traditional Chinese acupuncture for 3 months. The second group received physical therapy and exercise for 1 hour per week for 12 weeks. The third group received a combination of acupuncture and exercise. The last was a control group that received only standard care.

The outcome parameters of tension-type headache were evaluated after 6 months and again after 12 months. Previously, these same researchers published that the intensity but not the frequency of tension-type headache was reduced by active therapy.

In Cephalalgia, they published the outcome for the endpoints of depression, anxiety, and quality of life. Acupuncture, exercise, and the combination of the two improved depression, anxiety, and quality of life. This shows that nonmedical treatment is effective in people with frequent episodic and chronic tension-type headache.
 

Headache after COVID-19

The next study was published in Headache and discusses headache after COVID-19. In this review of published studies, more than 50% of people with COVID-19 develop headache. It is more frequent in young patients and people with preexisting primary headaches, such as migraine and tension-type headache. Prognosis is usually good, but some patients develop new, daily persistent headache, which is a major problem because treatment is unclear. We desperately need studies investigating how to treat this new, daily persistent headache after COVID-19.

SSRIs during COVID-19 infection

The next study also focuses on COVID-19. We have conflicting results from several studies suggesting that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors might be effective in people with mild COVID-19 infection. This hypothesis was tested in a study in Brazil and was published in JAMA, The study included 1,288 outpatients with mild COVID-19 who either received 50 mg of fluvoxamine twice daily for 10 days or placebo. There was no benefit of the treatment for any outcome.

Preventing dementia with antihypertensive treatment

The next study was published in the European Heart Journal and addresses the question of whether effective antihypertensive treatment in elderly persons can prevent dementia. This is a meta-analysis of five placebo-controlled trials with more than 28,000 patients. The meta-analysis clearly shows that treating hypertension in elderly patients does prevent dementia. The benefit is higher if the blood pressure is lowered by a larger amount which also stays true for elderly patients. There is no negative impact of lowering blood pressure in this population.

Antiplatelet therapy

The next study was published in Stroke and reexamines whether resumption of antiplatelet therapy should be early or late in people who had an intracerebral hemorrhage while on antiplatelet therapy. In the Taiwanese Health Registry, this was studied in 1,584 patients. The researchers divided participants into groups based on whether antiplatelet therapy was resumed within 30 days or after 30 days. In 1 year, the rate of recurrent intracerebral hemorrhage was 3.2%. There was no difference whether antiplatelet therapy was resumed early or late.

Regular exercise in Parkinson’s disease

The final study is a review of nonmedical therapy. This meta-analysis of 19 randomized trials looked at the benefit of regular exercise in patients with Parkinson’s disease and depression. The analysis clearly showed that rigorous and moderate exercise improved depression in patients with Parkinson’s disease. This is very important because exercise improves not only the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease but also comorbid depression while presenting no serious adverse events or side effects.

Dr. Diener is a professor in the department of neurology at Stroke Center–Headache Center, University Duisburg-Essen, Germany. He disclosed ties with Abbott, Addex Pharma, Alder, Allergan, Almirall, Amgen, Autonomic Technology, AstraZeneca, Bayer Vital, Berlin Chemie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chordate, CoAxia, Corimmun, Covidien, Coherex, CoLucid, Daiichi Sankyo, D-Pharm, Electrocore, Fresenius, GlaxoSmithKline, Grunenthal, Janssen-Cilag, Labrys Biologics Lilly, La Roche, Lundbeck, 3M Medica, MSD, Medtronic, Menarini, MindFrame, Minster, Neuroscore, Neurobiological Technologies, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Johnson & Johnson, Knoll, Paion, Parke-Davis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer Inc, Schaper and Brummer, Sanofi-Aventis, Schering-Plough, Servier, Solvay, St. Jude, Talecris, Thrombogenics, WebMD Global, Weber and Weber, Wyeth, and Yamanouchi. Dr. Diener has served as editor of Aktuelle Neurologie, Arzneimitteltherapie, Kopfschmerz News, Stroke News, and the Treatment Guidelines of the German Neurological Society; as co-editor of Cephalalgia; and on the editorial board of The Lancet Neurology, Stroke, European Neurology, and Cerebrovascular Disorders. The department of neurology in Essen is supported by the German Research Council, the German Ministry of Education and Research, European Union, National Institutes of Health, Bertelsmann Foundation, and Heinz Nixdorf Foundation. Dr. Diener has no ownership interest and does not own stocks in any pharmaceutical company. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The increased risk for diabetes following COVID-19 infection has persisted into the Omicron era, but vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 appears to diminish that likelihood, new data suggest.

The findings, from more than 20,000 patients in the Cedars-Sinai Health System in Los Angeles, suggest that “continued efforts to prevent COVID-19 infection may be beneficial to patient health until we develop better understanding of the effects of potential long-term effects of COVID-19,” lead author Alan C. Kwan, MD, of the department of cardiology at Cedars Sinai’s Smidt Heart Institute, said in an interview.

Several studies conducted early in the pandemic suggested increased risks for both new-onset diabetes and cardiometabolic diseases following COVID-19 infection, possibly because of persistent inflammation contributing to insulin resistance.

However, it hasn’t been clear if those risks have persisted with the more recent predominance of the less-virulent Omicron variant or whether the COVID-19 vaccine influences the risk. This new study suggests that both are the case.

“Our results verify that the risk of developing type 2 diabetes after a COVID-19 infection was not just an early observation but, in fact, a real risk that has, unfortunately, persisted through the Omicron era,” Dr. Kwan noted.

“While the level of evidence by our study and others may not reach the degree needed to affect formal guidelines at this time, we believe it is reasonable to have increased clinical suspicion for diabetes after COVID-19 infection and a lower threshold for testing,” he added.

Moreover, “we believe that our study and others suggest the potential role of COVID-19 to affect cardiovascular risk, and so both prevention of COVID-19 infection, through reasonable personal practices and vaccination, and an increased attention to cardiovascular health after COVID-19 infection is warranted.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.

Dr. Kwan and colleagues analyzed data for a total of 23,709 patients treated (inpatient and outpatient) for at least one COVID-19 infection between March 2020 and June 2022.

Rates of new-onset diabetes (using ICD-10 codes, primarily type 2 diabetes), hypertension, and hyperlipidemia were all elevated in the 90 days following COVID-19 infection compared with the 90 days prior. The same was true of two diagnoses unrelated to COVID-19, urinary tract infection and gastroesophageal reflux, used as benchmarks of health care engagement.

The highest odds for post versus preinfection were for diabetes (odds ratio, 2.35; P < .001), followed by hypertension (OR, 1.54; P < .001), the benchmark diagnoses (OR, 1.42; P < .001), and hyperlipidemia (OR, 1.22; P = .03).

Following adjustments, the risk versus the benchmark conditions for new-onset diabetes before versus after COVID-19 was significantly elevated (OR, 1.58; P < .001), while the risks for hypertension and hyperlipidemia versus benchmark diagnoses were not (OR, 1.06; P = .52 and 0.91, P = .43, respectively).

The diabetes risk after versus before COVID-19 infection was higher among those who had not been vaccinated (OR, 1.78; P < .001), compared with those who had received the vaccine (OR, 1.07; P = .80).

However, there was no significant interaction between vaccination and diabetes diagnosis (P = .08). “For this reason, we believe our data are suggestive of a protective effect in the population who received vaccination prior to infection, but [this is] not definitive,” Dr. Kwan said.

There were no apparent interactions by age, sex, or pre-existing cardiovascular risk factors, including hypertension or hyperlipidemia. Age, sex, and timing of index infection regarding the Omicron variant were not associated with an increased risk of a new cardiometabolic diagnosis before or after COVID-19 infection in any of the models.

Dr. Kwan said in an interview: “We have continued to be surprised by the evolving understanding of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the effects on human health. In the beginning of the pandemic it was framed as a purely respiratory virus, which we now know to be a severely limited description of all of its potential effects on the human body. We believe that our research and others raise a concern for increased cardiometabolic risk after COVID infection.”

He added that, “while knowledge is incomplete on this topic, we believe that clinical providers may wish to have a higher degree of suspicion for both diabetes and risk of future cardiac events in patients after COVID infection, and that continued efforts to prevent COVID infection may be beneficial to patient health until we develop better understanding of the potential long-term effects of COVID.”

This study was funded by the Erika J. Glazer Family Foundation, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, and grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Kwan reported receiving grants from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation during the conduct of the study.

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

The increased risk for diabetes following COVID-19 infection has persisted into the Omicron era, but vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 appears to diminish that likelihood, new data suggest.

The findings, from more than 20,000 patients in the Cedars-Sinai Health System in Los Angeles, suggest that “continued efforts to prevent COVID-19 infection may be beneficial to patient health until we develop better understanding of the effects of potential long-term effects of COVID-19,” lead author Alan C. Kwan, MD, of the department of cardiology at Cedars Sinai’s Smidt Heart Institute, said in an interview.

Several studies conducted early in the pandemic suggested increased risks for both new-onset diabetes and cardiometabolic diseases following COVID-19 infection, possibly because of persistent inflammation contributing to insulin resistance.

However, it hasn’t been clear if those risks have persisted with the more recent predominance of the less-virulent Omicron variant or whether the COVID-19 vaccine influences the risk. This new study suggests that both are the case.

“Our results verify that the risk of developing type 2 diabetes after a COVID-19 infection was not just an early observation but, in fact, a real risk that has, unfortunately, persisted through the Omicron era,” Dr. Kwan noted.

“While the level of evidence by our study and others may not reach the degree needed to affect formal guidelines at this time, we believe it is reasonable to have increased clinical suspicion for diabetes after COVID-19 infection and a lower threshold for testing,” he added.

Moreover, “we believe that our study and others suggest the potential role of COVID-19 to affect cardiovascular risk, and so both prevention of COVID-19 infection, through reasonable personal practices and vaccination, and an increased attention to cardiovascular health after COVID-19 infection is warranted.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.

Dr. Kwan and colleagues analyzed data for a total of 23,709 patients treated (inpatient and outpatient) for at least one COVID-19 infection between March 2020 and June 2022.

Rates of new-onset diabetes (using ICD-10 codes, primarily type 2 diabetes), hypertension, and hyperlipidemia were all elevated in the 90 days following COVID-19 infection compared with the 90 days prior. The same was true of two diagnoses unrelated to COVID-19, urinary tract infection and gastroesophageal reflux, used as benchmarks of health care engagement.

The highest odds for post versus preinfection were for diabetes (odds ratio, 2.35; P < .001), followed by hypertension (OR, 1.54; P < .001), the benchmark diagnoses (OR, 1.42; P < .001), and hyperlipidemia (OR, 1.22; P = .03).

Following adjustments, the risk versus the benchmark conditions for new-onset diabetes before versus after COVID-19 was significantly elevated (OR, 1.58; P < .001), while the risks for hypertension and hyperlipidemia versus benchmark diagnoses were not (OR, 1.06; P = .52 and 0.91, P = .43, respectively).

The diabetes risk after versus before COVID-19 infection was higher among those who had not been vaccinated (OR, 1.78; P < .001), compared with those who had received the vaccine (OR, 1.07; P = .80).

However, there was no significant interaction between vaccination and diabetes diagnosis (P = .08). “For this reason, we believe our data are suggestive of a protective effect in the population who received vaccination prior to infection, but [this is] not definitive,” Dr. Kwan said.

There were no apparent interactions by age, sex, or pre-existing cardiovascular risk factors, including hypertension or hyperlipidemia. Age, sex, and timing of index infection regarding the Omicron variant were not associated with an increased risk of a new cardiometabolic diagnosis before or after COVID-19 infection in any of the models.

Dr. Kwan said in an interview: “We have continued to be surprised by the evolving understanding of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the effects on human health. In the beginning of the pandemic it was framed as a purely respiratory virus, which we now know to be a severely limited description of all of its potential effects on the human body. We believe that our research and others raise a concern for increased cardiometabolic risk after COVID infection.”

He added that, “while knowledge is incomplete on this topic, we believe that clinical providers may wish to have a higher degree of suspicion for both diabetes and risk of future cardiac events in patients after COVID infection, and that continued efforts to prevent COVID infection may be beneficial to patient health until we develop better understanding of the potential long-term effects of COVID.”

This study was funded by the Erika J. Glazer Family Foundation, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, and grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Kwan reported receiving grants from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation during the conduct of the study.

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

The increased risk for diabetes following COVID-19 infection has persisted into the Omicron era, but vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 appears to diminish that likelihood, new data suggest.

The findings, from more than 20,000 patients in the Cedars-Sinai Health System in Los Angeles, suggest that “continued efforts to prevent COVID-19 infection may be beneficial to patient health until we develop better understanding of the effects of potential long-term effects of COVID-19,” lead author Alan C. Kwan, MD, of the department of cardiology at Cedars Sinai’s Smidt Heart Institute, said in an interview.

Several studies conducted early in the pandemic suggested increased risks for both new-onset diabetes and cardiometabolic diseases following COVID-19 infection, possibly because of persistent inflammation contributing to insulin resistance.

However, it hasn’t been clear if those risks have persisted with the more recent predominance of the less-virulent Omicron variant or whether the COVID-19 vaccine influences the risk. This new study suggests that both are the case.

“Our results verify that the risk of developing type 2 diabetes after a COVID-19 infection was not just an early observation but, in fact, a real risk that has, unfortunately, persisted through the Omicron era,” Dr. Kwan noted.

“While the level of evidence by our study and others may not reach the degree needed to affect formal guidelines at this time, we believe it is reasonable to have increased clinical suspicion for diabetes after COVID-19 infection and a lower threshold for testing,” he added.

Moreover, “we believe that our study and others suggest the potential role of COVID-19 to affect cardiovascular risk, and so both prevention of COVID-19 infection, through reasonable personal practices and vaccination, and an increased attention to cardiovascular health after COVID-19 infection is warranted.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.

Dr. Kwan and colleagues analyzed data for a total of 23,709 patients treated (inpatient and outpatient) for at least one COVID-19 infection between March 2020 and June 2022.

Rates of new-onset diabetes (using ICD-10 codes, primarily type 2 diabetes), hypertension, and hyperlipidemia were all elevated in the 90 days following COVID-19 infection compared with the 90 days prior. The same was true of two diagnoses unrelated to COVID-19, urinary tract infection and gastroesophageal reflux, used as benchmarks of health care engagement.

The highest odds for post versus preinfection were for diabetes (odds ratio, 2.35; P < .001), followed by hypertension (OR, 1.54; P < .001), the benchmark diagnoses (OR, 1.42; P < .001), and hyperlipidemia (OR, 1.22; P = .03).

Following adjustments, the risk versus the benchmark conditions for new-onset diabetes before versus after COVID-19 was significantly elevated (OR, 1.58; P < .001), while the risks for hypertension and hyperlipidemia versus benchmark diagnoses were not (OR, 1.06; P = .52 and 0.91, P = .43, respectively).

The diabetes risk after versus before COVID-19 infection was higher among those who had not been vaccinated (OR, 1.78; P < .001), compared with those who had received the vaccine (OR, 1.07; P = .80).

However, there was no significant interaction between vaccination and diabetes diagnosis (P = .08). “For this reason, we believe our data are suggestive of a protective effect in the population who received vaccination prior to infection, but [this is] not definitive,” Dr. Kwan said.

There were no apparent interactions by age, sex, or pre-existing cardiovascular risk factors, including hypertension or hyperlipidemia. Age, sex, and timing of index infection regarding the Omicron variant were not associated with an increased risk of a new cardiometabolic diagnosis before or after COVID-19 infection in any of the models.

Dr. Kwan said in an interview: “We have continued to be surprised by the evolving understanding of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the effects on human health. In the beginning of the pandemic it was framed as a purely respiratory virus, which we now know to be a severely limited description of all of its potential effects on the human body. We believe that our research and others raise a concern for increased cardiometabolic risk after COVID infection.”

He added that, “while knowledge is incomplete on this topic, we believe that clinical providers may wish to have a higher degree of suspicion for both diabetes and risk of future cardiac events in patients after COVID infection, and that continued efforts to prevent COVID infection may be beneficial to patient health until we develop better understanding of the potential long-term effects of COVID.”

This study was funded by the Erika J. Glazer Family Foundation, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, and grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Kwan reported receiving grants from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation during the conduct of the study.

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