Emergency Medicine

PHOENIX — Thrombectomy is generally beneficial for patients from a low-income population who have a large vessel occlusion stroke presenting in the later time window and who can be identified as suitable for treatment without the need for advanced and costly imaging, a new Brazilian trial has shown.

“The RESILIENT-Extend trial is the first major study of thrombectomy in the late time window (8-24 h) conducted outside first-world countries and shows the procedure also has benefit in a lower socioeconomic status population without the need for costly imaging equipment,” said lead investigator Raul G. Nogueira, MD. 

“The trial expands the treatment window for thrombectomy globally with simplified selection criteria based on non-contrast CT, potentially altering current guidelines,” Dr. Nogueira said.

However, there were some caveats that need to be considered; in particular, a lack of benefit with thrombectomy in older patients (over 68 years of age), which Dr. Nogueira believes is a reflection of the particular population enrolled in this study. Specifically, he suggested that older age in this low socioeconomic status population is a surrogate for frailty, and the study may have identified frailty as a factor that correlates with reduced or lack of benefit of thrombectomy.

Dr. Nogueira, who is a professor of neurology and neurosurgery at the University of Pittsburgh, and Sheila Martins, MD, a professor of neurology at Hospital de Clinicas Porto Alegre in Brazil, presented the RESILIENT-Extend results at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Dr. Nogueira explained that the lack of available advanced imaging techniques is a major challenge for implementing endovascular therapy in an extended time window, especially in lower-income countries.

“Our main objective was to see if we could remove the need for advanced imaging to select patients with large vessel occlusion stroke in the late time window (8-24 h) for thrombectomy,” he said. “In this way, our trial overlaps somewhat with the MR CLEAN-LATE Trial conducted in the Netherlands, although the two trials were conducted in very different socioeconomic populations.”

The RESILIENT-Extend trial was conducted in the public health service of Brazil and involved a different population of people than have been included in other thrombectomy trials, which have mostly been conducted in first-world countries.

“The public health system in Brazil is not well-resourced and tends to care for patients at lower socioeconomic levels. These patients are fundamentally different from the average patients in the first-world recruited into most other thrombectomy trials,” Dr. Nogueira noted.

The trial enrolled 245 patients with a large vessel occlusion stroke within 8-24 hours of last known well. Patients were included who had a mismatch between the clinical severity as shown by the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score and the stroke burden on imaging as measured by ASPECTS scores.

They had to have relatively high NIHSS scores (8 or more) showing more severe strokes but also a high ASPECTS score (5-10) excluding patients with large areas of ischemic brain. There was also a sliding scale that adjusted for age to avoid enrolling elderly patients with large strokes.

These patients were identified exclusively using non-contrast CT and CT angiography imaging.

The median age of patients included was 62-63 years. Dr. Nogueira pointed out that patients were slightly younger than seen in other thrombectomy trials, perhaps because in lower-middle-income countries strokes occur at a younger age. They also have a higher case fatality rate.

The median baseline NIHSS score was 16, and the median ASPECTS score was 7-8.

The median time to treatment was 12.5 hours, which is similar to other late window thrombectomy trials.
 

Conflicting Results on Shift Analysis

The primary outcome was a shift analysis of the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) disability score at 90 days.

This showed a bidirectional result, with thrombectomy increasing the chances of a good or excellent outcome (mRS, 0-3), but there was also a nonsignificant increased risk for a bad outcome (mRS, 5-6).

“This bidirectional result prevents a common odds ratio from being calculated, so the primary endpoint is not applicable,” Dr. Nogueira reported.

The researchers therefore used the secondary outcomes as the main results of the study.

These showed that the number of patients achieving a good outcome (mRS, 0-2) was significantly increased with thrombectomy (25% vs. 14%, adjusted odds ratio, 2.56; P = .012).

The number of patients achieving an excellent outcome (mRS, 0-1) was also significantly increased.

But these increases in good outcomes came at the cost of some patients having an increased risk for severe disability or death (mRS, 5-6).

The odds ratio for an mRS of 0-4 versus 5-6 was 0.71, and for an mRS of 0-5 versus 6, the odds ratio was 0.58. Both these results were nonsignificant.

Another anomaly in the RESILIENT-Extend trial was the observation of no benefit of thrombectomy seen in older patients.

“In general, trials of thrombectomy in the first world have shown a greater treatment effect in older patients, but this was not seen in our trial, where older patients (over 68 years) did not derive any benefit from the procedure,” Dr. Nogueira noted.

A similar observation was also seen in the first RESILIENT trial in patients treated within 8 hours of stroke onset, which was also conducted in Brazil, leading to the suggestion that it is related to the patient population included.

“In the Brazilian public health service, older patients are very vulnerable and frail. They are different to older patients in first world countries. It appears they may be too fragile to withstand the thrombectomy process,” Dr. Nogueira said.
 

Frailty: A Ceiling Effect?

Results from the two RESILIENT trials give a word of caution to the thrombectomy field, Dr. Nogueira said.

“This procedure was initially thought suitable only for patients with small core strokes, but we now have a series of trials showing benefit of thrombectomy in large core strokes as well,” Dr. Nogueira said. “We have started to believe that this intervention will benefit almost all patients with large vessel occlusion stroke everywhere around the world, but our data suggest that we have to consider the specific populations that we are serving and that factors such as socioeconomic status and frailty have to be taken into account.

“Both the RESILIENT trials have shown that thrombectomy does not appear to be suitable for older patients, over 68-70 years of age, in the public health service in Brazil,” he noted. “In this population, a patient aged 70 can be quite different to a patient of the same age in a first-world country. I think in our population, an age of over 68-70 is a surrogate for frailty, which will not be the case in first-world countries. In this regard, I think we have found a ceiling effect for benefit of thrombectomy, which is frailty.”

Dr. Nogueira speculated that the bidirectional effect on the mRS shift analysis may also have been caused by the frailty of some of the patients.

“What the results may be showing is that for most of the population, there is a benefit of thrombectomy, but for some patients, possibly the most frail, then the procedure can be too overwhelming for them. But the suggestion of harm was not significant, so this observation could have also just been the play of chance,” he added.
 

Interpreting the Findings

Commenting on the RESILIENT-Extend study results, Michael Hill, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Calgary, Canada, pointed out that there was an absolute benefit of 11.1% on the mRS of 0-2 outcome but a similar signal of harm, with a 10.2% increase in mortality in the thrombectomy group, although that was not statistically significant.

“This signal of harm appears not to be due to an increase in intracranial hemorrhage or procedural mishap,” he said. “It is unclear why there were more deaths; the overall trial numbers are small enough that this could be a chance finding.”

Dr. Hill also noted that the absolute proportion of patients achieving an independent functional outcome was 50% less than in the DAWN trial of thrombectomy in the extended window. “This tells us that the patients selected for inclusion into RESILIENT-Extend were physiologically different from those in DAWN,” he said.

Also commenting on the study, Amrou Sarraj, MD, professor of neurology at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center–Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, said: “The RESILIENT-Extend investigators should be congratulated for the successful conduct of the trial and providing evidence of benefit of thrombectomy procedure with simplified neuroimaging protocol using CT and CTA in resource-limited settings. These findings will help support extending the access to thrombectomy in areas without availability of advanced imaging.”

He said the bidirectional effect on the primary endpoint and the positive interaction between age and thrombectomy treatment effect warranted further investigation.

The RESILIENT-Extend trial was sponsored by the Brazilian Ministry of Health.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX — Thrombectomy is generally beneficial for patients from a low-income population who have a large vessel occlusion stroke presenting in the later time window and who can be identified as suitable for treatment without the need for advanced and costly imaging, a new Brazilian trial has shown.

“The RESILIENT-Extend trial is the first major study of thrombectomy in the late time window (8-24 h) conducted outside first-world countries and shows the procedure also has benefit in a lower socioeconomic status population without the need for costly imaging equipment,” said lead investigator Raul G. Nogueira, MD. 

“The trial expands the treatment window for thrombectomy globally with simplified selection criteria based on non-contrast CT, potentially altering current guidelines,” Dr. Nogueira said.

However, there were some caveats that need to be considered; in particular, a lack of benefit with thrombectomy in older patients (over 68 years of age), which Dr. Nogueira believes is a reflection of the particular population enrolled in this study. Specifically, he suggested that older age in this low socioeconomic status population is a surrogate for frailty, and the study may have identified frailty as a factor that correlates with reduced or lack of benefit of thrombectomy.

Dr. Nogueira, who is a professor of neurology and neurosurgery at the University of Pittsburgh, and Sheila Martins, MD, a professor of neurology at Hospital de Clinicas Porto Alegre in Brazil, presented the RESILIENT-Extend results at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Dr. Nogueira explained that the lack of available advanced imaging techniques is a major challenge for implementing endovascular therapy in an extended time window, especially in lower-income countries.

“Our main objective was to see if we could remove the need for advanced imaging to select patients with large vessel occlusion stroke in the late time window (8-24 h) for thrombectomy,” he said. “In this way, our trial overlaps somewhat with the MR CLEAN-LATE Trial conducted in the Netherlands, although the two trials were conducted in very different socioeconomic populations.”

The RESILIENT-Extend trial was conducted in the public health service of Brazil and involved a different population of people than have been included in other thrombectomy trials, which have mostly been conducted in first-world countries.

“The public health system in Brazil is not well-resourced and tends to care for patients at lower socioeconomic levels. These patients are fundamentally different from the average patients in the first-world recruited into most other thrombectomy trials,” Dr. Nogueira noted.

The trial enrolled 245 patients with a large vessel occlusion stroke within 8-24 hours of last known well. Patients were included who had a mismatch between the clinical severity as shown by the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score and the stroke burden on imaging as measured by ASPECTS scores.

They had to have relatively high NIHSS scores (8 or more) showing more severe strokes but also a high ASPECTS score (5-10) excluding patients with large areas of ischemic brain. There was also a sliding scale that adjusted for age to avoid enrolling elderly patients with large strokes.

These patients were identified exclusively using non-contrast CT and CT angiography imaging.

The median age of patients included was 62-63 years. Dr. Nogueira pointed out that patients were slightly younger than seen in other thrombectomy trials, perhaps because in lower-middle-income countries strokes occur at a younger age. They also have a higher case fatality rate.

The median baseline NIHSS score was 16, and the median ASPECTS score was 7-8.

The median time to treatment was 12.5 hours, which is similar to other late window thrombectomy trials.
 

Conflicting Results on Shift Analysis

The primary outcome was a shift analysis of the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) disability score at 90 days.

This showed a bidirectional result, with thrombectomy increasing the chances of a good or excellent outcome (mRS, 0-3), but there was also a nonsignificant increased risk for a bad outcome (mRS, 5-6).

“This bidirectional result prevents a common odds ratio from being calculated, so the primary endpoint is not applicable,” Dr. Nogueira reported.

The researchers therefore used the secondary outcomes as the main results of the study.

These showed that the number of patients achieving a good outcome (mRS, 0-2) was significantly increased with thrombectomy (25% vs. 14%, adjusted odds ratio, 2.56; P = .012).

The number of patients achieving an excellent outcome (mRS, 0-1) was also significantly increased.

But these increases in good outcomes came at the cost of some patients having an increased risk for severe disability or death (mRS, 5-6).

The odds ratio for an mRS of 0-4 versus 5-6 was 0.71, and for an mRS of 0-5 versus 6, the odds ratio was 0.58. Both these results were nonsignificant.

Another anomaly in the RESILIENT-Extend trial was the observation of no benefit of thrombectomy seen in older patients.

“In general, trials of thrombectomy in the first world have shown a greater treatment effect in older patients, but this was not seen in our trial, where older patients (over 68 years) did not derive any benefit from the procedure,” Dr. Nogueira noted.

A similar observation was also seen in the first RESILIENT trial in patients treated within 8 hours of stroke onset, which was also conducted in Brazil, leading to the suggestion that it is related to the patient population included.

“In the Brazilian public health service, older patients are very vulnerable and frail. They are different to older patients in first world countries. It appears they may be too fragile to withstand the thrombectomy process,” Dr. Nogueira said.
 

Frailty: A Ceiling Effect?

Results from the two RESILIENT trials give a word of caution to the thrombectomy field, Dr. Nogueira said.

“This procedure was initially thought suitable only for patients with small core strokes, but we now have a series of trials showing benefit of thrombectomy in large core strokes as well,” Dr. Nogueira said. “We have started to believe that this intervention will benefit almost all patients with large vessel occlusion stroke everywhere around the world, but our data suggest that we have to consider the specific populations that we are serving and that factors such as socioeconomic status and frailty have to be taken into account.

“Both the RESILIENT trials have shown that thrombectomy does not appear to be suitable for older patients, over 68-70 years of age, in the public health service in Brazil,” he noted. “In this population, a patient aged 70 can be quite different to a patient of the same age in a first-world country. I think in our population, an age of over 68-70 is a surrogate for frailty, which will not be the case in first-world countries. In this regard, I think we have found a ceiling effect for benefit of thrombectomy, which is frailty.”

Dr. Nogueira speculated that the bidirectional effect on the mRS shift analysis may also have been caused by the frailty of some of the patients.

“What the results may be showing is that for most of the population, there is a benefit of thrombectomy, but for some patients, possibly the most frail, then the procedure can be too overwhelming for them. But the suggestion of harm was not significant, so this observation could have also just been the play of chance,” he added.
 

Interpreting the Findings

Commenting on the RESILIENT-Extend study results, Michael Hill, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Calgary, Canada, pointed out that there was an absolute benefit of 11.1% on the mRS of 0-2 outcome but a similar signal of harm, with a 10.2% increase in mortality in the thrombectomy group, although that was not statistically significant.

“This signal of harm appears not to be due to an increase in intracranial hemorrhage or procedural mishap,” he said. “It is unclear why there were more deaths; the overall trial numbers are small enough that this could be a chance finding.”

Dr. Hill also noted that the absolute proportion of patients achieving an independent functional outcome was 50% less than in the DAWN trial of thrombectomy in the extended window. “This tells us that the patients selected for inclusion into RESILIENT-Extend were physiologically different from those in DAWN,” he said.

Also commenting on the study, Amrou Sarraj, MD, professor of neurology at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center–Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, said: “The RESILIENT-Extend investigators should be congratulated for the successful conduct of the trial and providing evidence of benefit of thrombectomy procedure with simplified neuroimaging protocol using CT and CTA in resource-limited settings. These findings will help support extending the access to thrombectomy in areas without availability of advanced imaging.”

He said the bidirectional effect on the primary endpoint and the positive interaction between age and thrombectomy treatment effect warranted further investigation.

The RESILIENT-Extend trial was sponsored by the Brazilian Ministry of Health.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX — Thrombectomy is generally beneficial for patients from a low-income population who have a large vessel occlusion stroke presenting in the later time window and who can be identified as suitable for treatment without the need for advanced and costly imaging, a new Brazilian trial has shown.

“The RESILIENT-Extend trial is the first major study of thrombectomy in the late time window (8-24 h) conducted outside first-world countries and shows the procedure also has benefit in a lower socioeconomic status population without the need for costly imaging equipment,” said lead investigator Raul G. Nogueira, MD. 

“The trial expands the treatment window for thrombectomy globally with simplified selection criteria based on non-contrast CT, potentially altering current guidelines,” Dr. Nogueira said.

However, there were some caveats that need to be considered; in particular, a lack of benefit with thrombectomy in older patients (over 68 years of age), which Dr. Nogueira believes is a reflection of the particular population enrolled in this study. Specifically, he suggested that older age in this low socioeconomic status population is a surrogate for frailty, and the study may have identified frailty as a factor that correlates with reduced or lack of benefit of thrombectomy.

Dr. Nogueira, who is a professor of neurology and neurosurgery at the University of Pittsburgh, and Sheila Martins, MD, a professor of neurology at Hospital de Clinicas Porto Alegre in Brazil, presented the RESILIENT-Extend results at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Dr. Nogueira explained that the lack of available advanced imaging techniques is a major challenge for implementing endovascular therapy in an extended time window, especially in lower-income countries.

“Our main objective was to see if we could remove the need for advanced imaging to select patients with large vessel occlusion stroke in the late time window (8-24 h) for thrombectomy,” he said. “In this way, our trial overlaps somewhat with the MR CLEAN-LATE Trial conducted in the Netherlands, although the two trials were conducted in very different socioeconomic populations.”

The RESILIENT-Extend trial was conducted in the public health service of Brazil and involved a different population of people than have been included in other thrombectomy trials, which have mostly been conducted in first-world countries.

“The public health system in Brazil is not well-resourced and tends to care for patients at lower socioeconomic levels. These patients are fundamentally different from the average patients in the first-world recruited into most other thrombectomy trials,” Dr. Nogueira noted.

The trial enrolled 245 patients with a large vessel occlusion stroke within 8-24 hours of last known well. Patients were included who had a mismatch between the clinical severity as shown by the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score and the stroke burden on imaging as measured by ASPECTS scores.

They had to have relatively high NIHSS scores (8 or more) showing more severe strokes but also a high ASPECTS score (5-10) excluding patients with large areas of ischemic brain. There was also a sliding scale that adjusted for age to avoid enrolling elderly patients with large strokes.

These patients were identified exclusively using non-contrast CT and CT angiography imaging.

The median age of patients included was 62-63 years. Dr. Nogueira pointed out that patients were slightly younger than seen in other thrombectomy trials, perhaps because in lower-middle-income countries strokes occur at a younger age. They also have a higher case fatality rate.

The median baseline NIHSS score was 16, and the median ASPECTS score was 7-8.

The median time to treatment was 12.5 hours, which is similar to other late window thrombectomy trials.
 

Conflicting Results on Shift Analysis

The primary outcome was a shift analysis of the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) disability score at 90 days.

This showed a bidirectional result, with thrombectomy increasing the chances of a good or excellent outcome (mRS, 0-3), but there was also a nonsignificant increased risk for a bad outcome (mRS, 5-6).

“This bidirectional result prevents a common odds ratio from being calculated, so the primary endpoint is not applicable,” Dr. Nogueira reported.

The researchers therefore used the secondary outcomes as the main results of the study.

These showed that the number of patients achieving a good outcome (mRS, 0-2) was significantly increased with thrombectomy (25% vs. 14%, adjusted odds ratio, 2.56; P = .012).

The number of patients achieving an excellent outcome (mRS, 0-1) was also significantly increased.

But these increases in good outcomes came at the cost of some patients having an increased risk for severe disability or death (mRS, 5-6).

The odds ratio for an mRS of 0-4 versus 5-6 was 0.71, and for an mRS of 0-5 versus 6, the odds ratio was 0.58. Both these results were nonsignificant.

Another anomaly in the RESILIENT-Extend trial was the observation of no benefit of thrombectomy seen in older patients.

“In general, trials of thrombectomy in the first world have shown a greater treatment effect in older patients, but this was not seen in our trial, where older patients (over 68 years) did not derive any benefit from the procedure,” Dr. Nogueira noted.

A similar observation was also seen in the first RESILIENT trial in patients treated within 8 hours of stroke onset, which was also conducted in Brazil, leading to the suggestion that it is related to the patient population included.

“In the Brazilian public health service, older patients are very vulnerable and frail. They are different to older patients in first world countries. It appears they may be too fragile to withstand the thrombectomy process,” Dr. Nogueira said.
 

Frailty: A Ceiling Effect?

Results from the two RESILIENT trials give a word of caution to the thrombectomy field, Dr. Nogueira said.

“This procedure was initially thought suitable only for patients with small core strokes, but we now have a series of trials showing benefit of thrombectomy in large core strokes as well,” Dr. Nogueira said. “We have started to believe that this intervention will benefit almost all patients with large vessel occlusion stroke everywhere around the world, but our data suggest that we have to consider the specific populations that we are serving and that factors such as socioeconomic status and frailty have to be taken into account.

“Both the RESILIENT trials have shown that thrombectomy does not appear to be suitable for older patients, over 68-70 years of age, in the public health service in Brazil,” he noted. “In this population, a patient aged 70 can be quite different to a patient of the same age in a first-world country. I think in our population, an age of over 68-70 is a surrogate for frailty, which will not be the case in first-world countries. In this regard, I think we have found a ceiling effect for benefit of thrombectomy, which is frailty.”

Dr. Nogueira speculated that the bidirectional effect on the mRS shift analysis may also have been caused by the frailty of some of the patients.

“What the results may be showing is that for most of the population, there is a benefit of thrombectomy, but for some patients, possibly the most frail, then the procedure can be too overwhelming for them. But the suggestion of harm was not significant, so this observation could have also just been the play of chance,” he added.
 

Interpreting the Findings

Commenting on the RESILIENT-Extend study results, Michael Hill, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Calgary, Canada, pointed out that there was an absolute benefit of 11.1% on the mRS of 0-2 outcome but a similar signal of harm, with a 10.2% increase in mortality in the thrombectomy group, although that was not statistically significant.

“This signal of harm appears not to be due to an increase in intracranial hemorrhage or procedural mishap,” he said. “It is unclear why there were more deaths; the overall trial numbers are small enough that this could be a chance finding.”

Dr. Hill also noted that the absolute proportion of patients achieving an independent functional outcome was 50% less than in the DAWN trial of thrombectomy in the extended window. “This tells us that the patients selected for inclusion into RESILIENT-Extend were physiologically different from those in DAWN,” he said.

Also commenting on the study, Amrou Sarraj, MD, professor of neurology at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center–Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, said: “The RESILIENT-Extend investigators should be congratulated for the successful conduct of the trial and providing evidence of benefit of thrombectomy procedure with simplified neuroimaging protocol using CT and CTA in resource-limited settings. These findings will help support extending the access to thrombectomy in areas without availability of advanced imaging.”

He said the bidirectional effect on the primary endpoint and the positive interaction between age and thrombectomy treatment effect warranted further investigation.

The RESILIENT-Extend trial was sponsored by the Brazilian Ministry of Health.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New criteria for pediatric sepsis, based on a novel score that predicts mortality in children with suspected or confirmed infection, perform better than existing organ dysfunction scores and criteria and have the potential to improve clinical care globally, researchers say.

Current pediatric-specific criteria for sepsis were published in 2005, based on expert opinion. In 2016, sepsis was redefined for adults as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection, as opposed to an earlier focus on systemic inflammation. But the paradigm-shifting changes were not extended to children (< 18 years, but not newborns), setting the stage for the new initiative.

The new criteria, and their development and validation, were published in JAMA and presented the same day at the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s 2024 Critical Care Congress in Phoenix, Arizona.
 

International Consensus

“The new criteria we derived are based on data from electronic health records and analysis of more than 3 million pediatric healthcare encounters from 10 hospitals around the world, including in low-resource settings,” L. Nelson Sanchez-Pinto, MD, MBI, a critical care physician at the Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, told this news organization.

Dr. Sanchez-Pinto co-led the data group of the international expert task force convened by the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) to develop and validate the criteria, which are based on evidence from an international survey, systematic review and meta-analysis, a newly created organ dysfunction score (Phoenix Sepsis Score), and sites on four continents.

Based on the findings, the task force now suggests that pediatric sepsis be defined by a Phoenix Sepsis Score of at least 2 points in children with suspected infection, which indicates potentially life-threatening dysfunction of the respiratory, cardiovascular, coagulation, and/or neurological systems. Septic shock is defined as sepsis with at least 1 cardiovascular point in the score.
 

Disparities Across Settings

To derive and validate the new criteria across differently resourced settings, the researchers conducted a multicenter, international, retrospective cohort study involving 10 health systems in the United States, Colombia, Bangladesh, China, and Kenya, 3 of which were used as external validation sites.

Data were collected from pediatric emergency and inpatient encounters from 2010 to 2019. The development set comprised 3,049,699 children, and the external validation set included 581,317.

Stacked regression models to predict mortality in children with suspected infection were derived and validated using the best-performing organ dysfunction subscores from eight existing scores.

The final model was then translated into the integer-based Phoenix Sepsis Score and used to establish binary criteria for sepsis and septic shock.

Among 172,984 children with suspected infection in the first 24 hours (development set; 1.2% mortality), a four-organ-system model performed best. The Phoenix Sepsis Score — the integer version of the model — had areas under the precision recall curve of 0.23 to 0.38, and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.71 to 0.92 to predict mortality in the validation sets.

A Phoenix Sepsis Score of 2 points or higher in children with suspected infection as criteria for sepsis, plus 1 or more cardiovascular points as criteria for septic shock, resulted in a higher positive predictive value and higher or similar sensitivity compared with the 2005 International Pediatric Sepsis Consensus Conference criteria across differently resourced settings.

Specifically, children with a Phoenix Sepsis Score of at least 2 points had in-hospital mortality of 7.1% in higher-resource settings and 28.5% in lower-resource settings — more than 8 times that of children with suspected infection not meeting these criteria.

Mortality also was higher in children who had organ dysfunction in at least one of four organ systems — respiratory, cardiovascular, coagulation, and/or neurological — that was not the primary site of infection.

Children with septic shock, indicated by at least 1 cardiovascular point in the Phoenix Sepsis Score, had severe hypotension for age, blood lactate exceeding 5 mmol/L, or need for vasoactive medication. These children had an in-hospital mortality rate of 10.8% in higher-resource settings and 33.5% in lower-resource settings.
 

A Better Score

Given the findings, the task force recommends that “the former criteria based on systemic inflammatory response syndrome should not be used to diagnose sepsis in children [and] the former term severe sepsis should no longer be used because sepsis is life-threatening organ dysfunction associated with infection and is thus indicative of a severe disease state.”

The task force cautions that although the four organs in the Phoenix Sepsis Score are most commonly involved in sepsis, “this does not diminish the crucial importance of the assessment and management of other organ dysfunction.”

Furthermore, they emphasize that the Phoenix score was designed to identify sepsis in children, not to screen children at risk for developing sepsis or early identification of children with suspected sepsis.
 

Additional Considerations

In related editorials, commentators noted some caveats and concerns with regard to the study design and the new criteria.

Roberto Jabornisky, MD, PhD, of National University of the Northeast, Corrientes, Argentina, and colleagues pointed out that “all the low-resource validation sites were institutions with electronic health records and most had PICUs [pediatric intensive care units], which does not adequately reflect conditions in most low-resource settings. These factors introduce a distinct bias favoring a ‘PICU-based consensus,’ potentially limiting the generalizability and adoption of the new criteria by health care practitioners in non-PICU and nonhospital settings responsible for recognizing and managing children with sepsis.” The editorialists called for additional prospective validation in differently resourced settings, especially those with the highest disease burdens.

“Until then,” they wrote, “it is essential to refrain from considering these criteria as an inflexible directive governing medical interventions for pediatric sepsis. No definition can fully substitute for the clinical judgment of an experienced, vigilant clinician caring for an unwell child.”

Erin F. Carlton, MD, MSc of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues added in a separate editorial, “The Phoenix criteria identify a sicker subset of patients than prior SIRS [systemic inflammatory response syndrome]-based criteria. Some may worry this higher threshold could delay management of patients not meeting sepsis criteria. Just as patients with chest pain and a troponin leak warrant monitoring and treatment (but are not prioritized for immediate heart catheterization), patients with infection need monitoring and treatment. Improvements in care should thus be judged not only by improved outcomes among patients with sepsis but also by decreased progression to sepsis among patients with infection.”

The International Consensus Criteria paper was supported by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to Tellen C. Bennett, MD, MS, and Nelson Sanchez-Pinto, MD. Data for the Kenya site were collected with support of the Wellcome Trust to the Kenya Major Overseas Programme. Dr. Jabornisky reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Carlton reported serving on the Pediatric Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guideline committee and receiving grant support from the NIH.

New criteria for pediatric sepsis, based on a novel score that predicts mortality in children with suspected or confirmed infection, perform better than existing organ dysfunction scores and criteria and have the potential to improve clinical care globally, researchers say.

Current pediatric-specific criteria for sepsis were published in 2005, based on expert opinion. In 2016, sepsis was redefined for adults as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection, as opposed to an earlier focus on systemic inflammation. But the paradigm-shifting changes were not extended to children (< 18 years, but not newborns), setting the stage for the new initiative.

The new criteria, and their development and validation, were published in JAMA and presented the same day at the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s 2024 Critical Care Congress in Phoenix, Arizona.
 

International Consensus

“The new criteria we derived are based on data from electronic health records and analysis of more than 3 million pediatric healthcare encounters from 10 hospitals around the world, including in low-resource settings,” L. Nelson Sanchez-Pinto, MD, MBI, a critical care physician at the Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, told this news organization.

Dr. Sanchez-Pinto co-led the data group of the international expert task force convened by the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) to develop and validate the criteria, which are based on evidence from an international survey, systematic review and meta-analysis, a newly created organ dysfunction score (Phoenix Sepsis Score), and sites on four continents.

Based on the findings, the task force now suggests that pediatric sepsis be defined by a Phoenix Sepsis Score of at least 2 points in children with suspected infection, which indicates potentially life-threatening dysfunction of the respiratory, cardiovascular, coagulation, and/or neurological systems. Septic shock is defined as sepsis with at least 1 cardiovascular point in the score.
 

Disparities Across Settings

To derive and validate the new criteria across differently resourced settings, the researchers conducted a multicenter, international, retrospective cohort study involving 10 health systems in the United States, Colombia, Bangladesh, China, and Kenya, 3 of which were used as external validation sites.

Data were collected from pediatric emergency and inpatient encounters from 2010 to 2019. The development set comprised 3,049,699 children, and the external validation set included 581,317.

Stacked regression models to predict mortality in children with suspected infection were derived and validated using the best-performing organ dysfunction subscores from eight existing scores.

The final model was then translated into the integer-based Phoenix Sepsis Score and used to establish binary criteria for sepsis and septic shock.

Among 172,984 children with suspected infection in the first 24 hours (development set; 1.2% mortality), a four-organ-system model performed best. The Phoenix Sepsis Score — the integer version of the model — had areas under the precision recall curve of 0.23 to 0.38, and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.71 to 0.92 to predict mortality in the validation sets.

A Phoenix Sepsis Score of 2 points or higher in children with suspected infection as criteria for sepsis, plus 1 or more cardiovascular points as criteria for septic shock, resulted in a higher positive predictive value and higher or similar sensitivity compared with the 2005 International Pediatric Sepsis Consensus Conference criteria across differently resourced settings.

Specifically, children with a Phoenix Sepsis Score of at least 2 points had in-hospital mortality of 7.1% in higher-resource settings and 28.5% in lower-resource settings — more than 8 times that of children with suspected infection not meeting these criteria.

Mortality also was higher in children who had organ dysfunction in at least one of four organ systems — respiratory, cardiovascular, coagulation, and/or neurological — that was not the primary site of infection.

Children with septic shock, indicated by at least 1 cardiovascular point in the Phoenix Sepsis Score, had severe hypotension for age, blood lactate exceeding 5 mmol/L, or need for vasoactive medication. These children had an in-hospital mortality rate of 10.8% in higher-resource settings and 33.5% in lower-resource settings.
 

A Better Score

Given the findings, the task force recommends that “the former criteria based on systemic inflammatory response syndrome should not be used to diagnose sepsis in children [and] the former term severe sepsis should no longer be used because sepsis is life-threatening organ dysfunction associated with infection and is thus indicative of a severe disease state.”

The task force cautions that although the four organs in the Phoenix Sepsis Score are most commonly involved in sepsis, “this does not diminish the crucial importance of the assessment and management of other organ dysfunction.”

Furthermore, they emphasize that the Phoenix score was designed to identify sepsis in children, not to screen children at risk for developing sepsis or early identification of children with suspected sepsis.
 

Additional Considerations

In related editorials, commentators noted some caveats and concerns with regard to the study design and the new criteria.

Roberto Jabornisky, MD, PhD, of National University of the Northeast, Corrientes, Argentina, and colleagues pointed out that “all the low-resource validation sites were institutions with electronic health records and most had PICUs [pediatric intensive care units], which does not adequately reflect conditions in most low-resource settings. These factors introduce a distinct bias favoring a ‘PICU-based consensus,’ potentially limiting the generalizability and adoption of the new criteria by health care practitioners in non-PICU and nonhospital settings responsible for recognizing and managing children with sepsis.” The editorialists called for additional prospective validation in differently resourced settings, especially those with the highest disease burdens.

“Until then,” they wrote, “it is essential to refrain from considering these criteria as an inflexible directive governing medical interventions for pediatric sepsis. No definition can fully substitute for the clinical judgment of an experienced, vigilant clinician caring for an unwell child.”

Erin F. Carlton, MD, MSc of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues added in a separate editorial, “The Phoenix criteria identify a sicker subset of patients than prior SIRS [systemic inflammatory response syndrome]-based criteria. Some may worry this higher threshold could delay management of patients not meeting sepsis criteria. Just as patients with chest pain and a troponin leak warrant monitoring and treatment (but are not prioritized for immediate heart catheterization), patients with infection need monitoring and treatment. Improvements in care should thus be judged not only by improved outcomes among patients with sepsis but also by decreased progression to sepsis among patients with infection.”

The International Consensus Criteria paper was supported by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to Tellen C. Bennett, MD, MS, and Nelson Sanchez-Pinto, MD. Data for the Kenya site were collected with support of the Wellcome Trust to the Kenya Major Overseas Programme. Dr. Jabornisky reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Carlton reported serving on the Pediatric Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guideline committee and receiving grant support from the NIH.

New criteria for pediatric sepsis, based on a novel score that predicts mortality in children with suspected or confirmed infection, perform better than existing organ dysfunction scores and criteria and have the potential to improve clinical care globally, researchers say.

Current pediatric-specific criteria for sepsis were published in 2005, based on expert opinion. In 2016, sepsis was redefined for adults as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection, as opposed to an earlier focus on systemic inflammation. But the paradigm-shifting changes were not extended to children (< 18 years, but not newborns), setting the stage for the new initiative.

The new criteria, and their development and validation, were published in JAMA and presented the same day at the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s 2024 Critical Care Congress in Phoenix, Arizona.
 

International Consensus

“The new criteria we derived are based on data from electronic health records and analysis of more than 3 million pediatric healthcare encounters from 10 hospitals around the world, including in low-resource settings,” L. Nelson Sanchez-Pinto, MD, MBI, a critical care physician at the Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, told this news organization.

Dr. Sanchez-Pinto co-led the data group of the international expert task force convened by the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) to develop and validate the criteria, which are based on evidence from an international survey, systematic review and meta-analysis, a newly created organ dysfunction score (Phoenix Sepsis Score), and sites on four continents.

Based on the findings, the task force now suggests that pediatric sepsis be defined by a Phoenix Sepsis Score of at least 2 points in children with suspected infection, which indicates potentially life-threatening dysfunction of the respiratory, cardiovascular, coagulation, and/or neurological systems. Septic shock is defined as sepsis with at least 1 cardiovascular point in the score.
 

Disparities Across Settings

To derive and validate the new criteria across differently resourced settings, the researchers conducted a multicenter, international, retrospective cohort study involving 10 health systems in the United States, Colombia, Bangladesh, China, and Kenya, 3 of which were used as external validation sites.

Data were collected from pediatric emergency and inpatient encounters from 2010 to 2019. The development set comprised 3,049,699 children, and the external validation set included 581,317.

Stacked regression models to predict mortality in children with suspected infection were derived and validated using the best-performing organ dysfunction subscores from eight existing scores.

The final model was then translated into the integer-based Phoenix Sepsis Score and used to establish binary criteria for sepsis and septic shock.

Among 172,984 children with suspected infection in the first 24 hours (development set; 1.2% mortality), a four-organ-system model performed best. The Phoenix Sepsis Score — the integer version of the model — had areas under the precision recall curve of 0.23 to 0.38, and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.71 to 0.92 to predict mortality in the validation sets.

A Phoenix Sepsis Score of 2 points or higher in children with suspected infection as criteria for sepsis, plus 1 or more cardiovascular points as criteria for septic shock, resulted in a higher positive predictive value and higher or similar sensitivity compared with the 2005 International Pediatric Sepsis Consensus Conference criteria across differently resourced settings.

Specifically, children with a Phoenix Sepsis Score of at least 2 points had in-hospital mortality of 7.1% in higher-resource settings and 28.5% in lower-resource settings — more than 8 times that of children with suspected infection not meeting these criteria.

Mortality also was higher in children who had organ dysfunction in at least one of four organ systems — respiratory, cardiovascular, coagulation, and/or neurological — that was not the primary site of infection.

Children with septic shock, indicated by at least 1 cardiovascular point in the Phoenix Sepsis Score, had severe hypotension for age, blood lactate exceeding 5 mmol/L, or need for vasoactive medication. These children had an in-hospital mortality rate of 10.8% in higher-resource settings and 33.5% in lower-resource settings.
 

A Better Score

Given the findings, the task force recommends that “the former criteria based on systemic inflammatory response syndrome should not be used to diagnose sepsis in children [and] the former term severe sepsis should no longer be used because sepsis is life-threatening organ dysfunction associated with infection and is thus indicative of a severe disease state.”

The task force cautions that although the four organs in the Phoenix Sepsis Score are most commonly involved in sepsis, “this does not diminish the crucial importance of the assessment and management of other organ dysfunction.”

Furthermore, they emphasize that the Phoenix score was designed to identify sepsis in children, not to screen children at risk for developing sepsis or early identification of children with suspected sepsis.
 

Additional Considerations

In related editorials, commentators noted some caveats and concerns with regard to the study design and the new criteria.

Roberto Jabornisky, MD, PhD, of National University of the Northeast, Corrientes, Argentina, and colleagues pointed out that “all the low-resource validation sites were institutions with electronic health records and most had PICUs [pediatric intensive care units], which does not adequately reflect conditions in most low-resource settings. These factors introduce a distinct bias favoring a ‘PICU-based consensus,’ potentially limiting the generalizability and adoption of the new criteria by health care practitioners in non-PICU and nonhospital settings responsible for recognizing and managing children with sepsis.” The editorialists called for additional prospective validation in differently resourced settings, especially those with the highest disease burdens.

“Until then,” they wrote, “it is essential to refrain from considering these criteria as an inflexible directive governing medical interventions for pediatric sepsis. No definition can fully substitute for the clinical judgment of an experienced, vigilant clinician caring for an unwell child.”

Erin F. Carlton, MD, MSc of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues added in a separate editorial, “The Phoenix criteria identify a sicker subset of patients than prior SIRS [systemic inflammatory response syndrome]-based criteria. Some may worry this higher threshold could delay management of patients not meeting sepsis criteria. Just as patients with chest pain and a troponin leak warrant monitoring and treatment (but are not prioritized for immediate heart catheterization), patients with infection need monitoring and treatment. Improvements in care should thus be judged not only by improved outcomes among patients with sepsis but also by decreased progression to sepsis among patients with infection.”

The International Consensus Criteria paper was supported by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to Tellen C. Bennett, MD, MS, and Nelson Sanchez-Pinto, MD. Data for the Kenya site were collected with support of the Wellcome Trust to the Kenya Major Overseas Programme. Dr. Jabornisky reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Carlton reported serving on the Pediatric Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guideline committee and receiving grant support from the NIH.

A new federal rule opens the door for physicians in California and Texas to take advantage of student loan forgiveness, possibly bringing much-needed relief to those with cumbersome debt loads after repayments resumed last month. However, the timing is critical, as some doctors may need to consolidate their loans by December 31 to remain eligible.

Updated guidelines for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program (PSLF) took effect in July, expanding the number of potential borrowers who could have their federal student loan balances wiped clean after working full time in a government or nonprofit role and making 120 monthly loan payments.

But loan forgiveness also hinges on having the correct employment type and requires applicants to be a “direct hire” of the organization. State laws in California and Texas prohibit nonprofit hospitals and health care entities from directly hiring physicians — a loophole that has barred doctors in those locations from applying.

Both states’ medical and hospital associations worked with the US Department of Education (DOE) to offer an exception. California and Texas physicians can now satisfy the employment type condition by having a written contract or medical staff privileges with a nonprofit hospital or facility, even if the physician is part of a for-profit sole proprietorship, partnership, or medical group.

Eligible loans cannot be in default and must have been received through the Direct Loan Program, which includes Parent PLUS loans. Doctors with non-qualifying student loans, such as Federal Family Education Loans, can become PSLF-eligible and have past time worked counted toward the requirements if they consolidate into a direct loan by December 31.

The California Medical Association (CMA) has an online guide to help doctors and employers navigate the new rules.

The change comes just in time because California and Texas need to expand their physician workforces by tens of thousands over the next decade. “This program will allow us to retain and recruit new physicians to our states to address our growing physician shortages and access to care challenges for the patients who need us most,” Texas Medical Association president Rick W. Snyder II, MD, said in a statement.

Physicians should use the PSLF Help Tool to complete the forgiveness application, said Ashley Harrington, senior advisor at the DOE. During a free on-demand webinar hosted by CMA, she said the form has been streamlined and will ask applicants to list the nonprofit entity where they provide care, its employer identification number, the length of time worked there, and the average hours worked per week. The employer must sign to certify the physician’s reported hours.

Ideally, physicians should submit a PSLF form annually or each time they change jobs, but they can also wait until the end of the 10 years to submit the form, said Ms. Harrington.

With the average medical education loan debt exceeding $200,000, CMA president Donaldo Hernandez, MD, said the rule will ensure low-income and minority students can consider medical careers.

California family medicine physician Ashley Paydar, DO, said that she has already applied for PSLF and found the process relatively easy. While she awaits final approval, she’s planning for the future. “Loan forgiveness will allow me to do a fellowship and save for my children›s college so they can pursue higher education without the debt,” she said.

Still, employers have no legal obligation to certify physicians’ hours, and many may express hesitation as they try to understand the new guidelines, said Long Do, JD, partner at Athene Law in San Francisco and speaker during the webinar. He urged physicians to have patience when working through the application process.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new federal rule opens the door for physicians in California and Texas to take advantage of student loan forgiveness, possibly bringing much-needed relief to those with cumbersome debt loads after repayments resumed last month. However, the timing is critical, as some doctors may need to consolidate their loans by December 31 to remain eligible.

Updated guidelines for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program (PSLF) took effect in July, expanding the number of potential borrowers who could have their federal student loan balances wiped clean after working full time in a government or nonprofit role and making 120 monthly loan payments.

But loan forgiveness also hinges on having the correct employment type and requires applicants to be a “direct hire” of the organization. State laws in California and Texas prohibit nonprofit hospitals and health care entities from directly hiring physicians — a loophole that has barred doctors in those locations from applying.

Both states’ medical and hospital associations worked with the US Department of Education (DOE) to offer an exception. California and Texas physicians can now satisfy the employment type condition by having a written contract or medical staff privileges with a nonprofit hospital or facility, even if the physician is part of a for-profit sole proprietorship, partnership, or medical group.

Eligible loans cannot be in default and must have been received through the Direct Loan Program, which includes Parent PLUS loans. Doctors with non-qualifying student loans, such as Federal Family Education Loans, can become PSLF-eligible and have past time worked counted toward the requirements if they consolidate into a direct loan by December 31.

The California Medical Association (CMA) has an online guide to help doctors and employers navigate the new rules.

The change comes just in time because California and Texas need to expand their physician workforces by tens of thousands over the next decade. “This program will allow us to retain and recruit new physicians to our states to address our growing physician shortages and access to care challenges for the patients who need us most,” Texas Medical Association president Rick W. Snyder II, MD, said in a statement.

Physicians should use the PSLF Help Tool to complete the forgiveness application, said Ashley Harrington, senior advisor at the DOE. During a free on-demand webinar hosted by CMA, she said the form has been streamlined and will ask applicants to list the nonprofit entity where they provide care, its employer identification number, the length of time worked there, and the average hours worked per week. The employer must sign to certify the physician’s reported hours.

Ideally, physicians should submit a PSLF form annually or each time they change jobs, but they can also wait until the end of the 10 years to submit the form, said Ms. Harrington.

With the average medical education loan debt exceeding $200,000, CMA president Donaldo Hernandez, MD, said the rule will ensure low-income and minority students can consider medical careers.

California family medicine physician Ashley Paydar, DO, said that she has already applied for PSLF and found the process relatively easy. While she awaits final approval, she’s planning for the future. “Loan forgiveness will allow me to do a fellowship and save for my children›s college so they can pursue higher education without the debt,” she said.

Still, employers have no legal obligation to certify physicians’ hours, and many may express hesitation as they try to understand the new guidelines, said Long Do, JD, partner at Athene Law in San Francisco and speaker during the webinar. He urged physicians to have patience when working through the application process.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new federal rule opens the door for physicians in California and Texas to take advantage of student loan forgiveness, possibly bringing much-needed relief to those with cumbersome debt loads after repayments resumed last month. However, the timing is critical, as some doctors may need to consolidate their loans by December 31 to remain eligible.

Updated guidelines for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program (PSLF) took effect in July, expanding the number of potential borrowers who could have their federal student loan balances wiped clean after working full time in a government or nonprofit role and making 120 monthly loan payments.

But loan forgiveness also hinges on having the correct employment type and requires applicants to be a “direct hire” of the organization. State laws in California and Texas prohibit nonprofit hospitals and health care entities from directly hiring physicians — a loophole that has barred doctors in those locations from applying.

Both states’ medical and hospital associations worked with the US Department of Education (DOE) to offer an exception. California and Texas physicians can now satisfy the employment type condition by having a written contract or medical staff privileges with a nonprofit hospital or facility, even if the physician is part of a for-profit sole proprietorship, partnership, or medical group.

Eligible loans cannot be in default and must have been received through the Direct Loan Program, which includes Parent PLUS loans. Doctors with non-qualifying student loans, such as Federal Family Education Loans, can become PSLF-eligible and have past time worked counted toward the requirements if they consolidate into a direct loan by December 31.

The California Medical Association (CMA) has an online guide to help doctors and employers navigate the new rules.

The change comes just in time because California and Texas need to expand their physician workforces by tens of thousands over the next decade. “This program will allow us to retain and recruit new physicians to our states to address our growing physician shortages and access to care challenges for the patients who need us most,” Texas Medical Association president Rick W. Snyder II, MD, said in a statement.

Physicians should use the PSLF Help Tool to complete the forgiveness application, said Ashley Harrington, senior advisor at the DOE. During a free on-demand webinar hosted by CMA, she said the form has been streamlined and will ask applicants to list the nonprofit entity where they provide care, its employer identification number, the length of time worked there, and the average hours worked per week. The employer must sign to certify the physician’s reported hours.

Ideally, physicians should submit a PSLF form annually or each time they change jobs, but they can also wait until the end of the 10 years to submit the form, said Ms. Harrington.

With the average medical education loan debt exceeding $200,000, CMA president Donaldo Hernandez, MD, said the rule will ensure low-income and minority students can consider medical careers.

California family medicine physician Ashley Paydar, DO, said that she has already applied for PSLF and found the process relatively easy. While she awaits final approval, she’s planning for the future. “Loan forgiveness will allow me to do a fellowship and save for my children›s college so they can pursue higher education without the debt,” she said.

Still, employers have no legal obligation to certify physicians’ hours, and many may express hesitation as they try to understand the new guidelines, said Long Do, JD, partner at Athene Law in San Francisco and speaker during the webinar. He urged physicians to have patience when working through the application process.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A treatment used to treat acute COVID-19 infection has also been found to be effective against long COVID, a new small study has found. The research, which assessed the benefits of monoclonal antibodies, suggests relief may finally be ahead for millions of Americans with long COVID for whom treatment has remained elusive.

The study, published in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine, found three Florida patients with long COVID made complete — and sudden — recoveries after they were given the monoclonal antibody cocktail casirivimab/imdevimab (Regeneron).

“We were struck by how rapid and complete the remissions were,” said study coauthor Paul Pepe, MD, MPH, a professor of management, policy, and community health at the School of Public Health at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center. “We found that no matter how long the patients were sick for — whether it was 5, 8, or 18 months — within 5 days, they appeared to be completely cured.”

All three patients had been initially infected with COVID-19 early in the pandemic, in 2020 or the first half of 2021. They were given Regeneron either after a reinfection or exposure to COVID-19, as a preventative, at state-run COVID clinics in Florida.

“In each case, the infusions were given to help prevent their long COVID from worsening,” said Dr. Pepe.

The researchers collected medical histories for all three patients, asking about symptoms such as physical fatigue, exercise intolerance, chest pain, heart palpitations, shortness of breath, cognitive fatigue, and memory problems. They asked patients to rate symptoms pre-COVID (baseline), during the long COVID phase, post-vaccine, and finally a week after their monoclonal antibody treatment. They also interviewed family members.

They found that across the board, symptoms improved significantly and often completely vanished. Their loved ones corroborated these reports as well.

One of the patients, a 63-year-old Floridian woman, came down with a mild case of COVID-19 at the start of the pandemic in March 2020 that lasted about 2 weeks. But several weeks later, she developed extreme, debilitating fatigue, along with chest pain and shortness of breath.

“I was chasing my 6-pound Yorkie one day after she got loose, and I was struck with such intense chest pain I fell down,” the woman, asking not to be identified, said in an interview.

Her symptoms progressed to the point where she no longer felt safe babysitting her grandchildren or driving to the grocery store.

“My short-term memory was completely gone. I couldn’t even read more than a paragraph at a time,” she said.

When she was exposed to COVID-19 in October 2021, her doctor suggested Regeneron as a preventative. She agreed to it.

“I was terrified that a second round would leave me permanently disabled and stuck in bed for the rest of my life,” she said.

About 4 days after her monoclonal antibody treatment, she noticed that some of the brain fog that had persisted after COVID was lifting.

“By day 5, it felt almost like a heavy-weighted blanket had been lifted off of me,” she recalled. “I was able to take my dog for a walk and go to the grocery store. It felt like I had gone from 0 to 100. As quickly as I went downhill, I quickly went back up.”

Reasons for Recovery

Researchers have come up with a few theories about why monoclonal antibodies may help treat long COVID, said study coauthor Aileen Marty, MD, professor of translational medicine at the Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine at Florida International University. Among them:

• It stimulates the body to fight off any residual virus. “We suspect that many of these patients simply have levels of virus that are so low they can’t be picked up by conventional testing,” said Dr. Marty. “The virus lingers in their body and causes long COVID symptoms. The monoclonal antibodies can zero in on them and knock them out.” This may also help explain why some patients with long COVID reported a temporary improvement of symptoms after their COVID-19 vaccination.
• It combats dysfunctional antibodies. Another theory is that people with long COVID have symptoms “not because of residual virus but because of junky antibodies,” said Dr. Marty. These antibodies go into overdrive and attack your own cells, which is what causes long COVID symptoms. “This may be why monoclonal antibodies work because they displace the dysfunctional antibodies that are attached to a patient’s cells,” she explained.
• Reactivation of other viruses. Long COVID is very similar to chronic fatigue syndrome, which is often thought to be triggered by reactivation of viruses like the Epstein-Barr virus, noted coauthor Nancy Klimas, MD, director of the Institute for Neuro-Immune Medicine at Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale. “It may not explain all of the cases of long COVID, but it could make up a subgroup,” she said. It’s thought that the monoclonal antibodies may perhaps neutralize this reactivation.

Where Research Is Headed

While Regeneron worked well in all three patients, it may be because they developed long COVID from either the initial virus or from early variants like Alpha, Beta, and Delta, said Dr. Pepe. As a result, it’s unclear whether this treatment would work for patients who developed long COVID from newer strains like Omicron.

“What concerns me is I believe there may be many people walking around with mild long COVID from these strains who don’t realize it,” he said. “They may assume that if they have difficulty walking upstairs, or forget why they went into another room, that it’s age related.”

The next step, the researchers said, is to create a registry of volunteer patients with severe long COVID. Dr. Klimas plans to enroll 20 volunteers who were infected before September 2022 to see how they respond to another monoclonal antibody initially used to treat COVID-19, bebtelovimab. (Like Regeneron, bebtelovimab is no longer approved for use against COVID-19 by the US Food and Drug Administration because it is no longer effective against variants of the virus circulating today.)

As for patients who developed long COVID after September 2022, research is ongoing to see if they respond to other monoclonal antibodies that are in development. One such study is currently enrolling participants at the University of California San Francisco. The center is recruiting 30 patients with long COVID to try a monoclonal antibody developed by Aerium Therapeutics.

“They created an investigational monoclonal antibody to treat acute COVID, but it proved less effective against variants that emerged in late 2022,” said lead investigator Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant professor of medicine in the Division of HIV, Infectious Diseases, and Global Medicine at the University of California San Francisco. The hope is it may still work to fight long COVID among patients infected with those variants.

In the meantime, the three patients with long COVID who responded to Regeneron have resumed life as they knew it pre-COVID. Although two subsequently became infected with COVID again, they recovered quickly and did not see symptoms return, something which, for them, seems nothing short of miraculous.

“I had prepared myself to be disabled for life,” said one of the patients, a 46-year-old Floridian woman who developed long COVID after an infection in January 2021. “I had crippling fatigue and dizziness so intense I felt like I was walking on a trampoline. My brain fog was so pronounced I had to write everything down constantly. Otherwise, I’d forget.”

When she became infected with COVID again in September 2021, “I thought I was going to die because I had no idea how I could possibly get worse,” she recalled. Her doctors recommended Regeneron infusion treatment. Forty-eight hours later, her symptoms improved significantly.

“I was able to go out to a cocktail party and dinner for the first time in months,” she said. “I would not have been able to do either of those things a week before.”

It’s also profoundly affected her husband, who had had to take over running the household and raising their five children, aged 11-22 years, for months.

“I can’t tell you how many school events and sports games I missed because I physically didn’t have the strength to get to them,” she noted. “To this day, my husband gets upset whenever we talk about that time. Long COVID literally took over all of our lives. It was devastating to me, but it’s just as devastating for loved ones, too. My family is just grateful to have me back.”

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

A treatment used to treat acute COVID-19 infection has also been found to be effective against long COVID, a new small study has found. The research, which assessed the benefits of monoclonal antibodies, suggests relief may finally be ahead for millions of Americans with long COVID for whom treatment has remained elusive.

The study, published in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine, found three Florida patients with long COVID made complete — and sudden — recoveries after they were given the monoclonal antibody cocktail casirivimab/imdevimab (Regeneron).

“We were struck by how rapid and complete the remissions were,” said study coauthor Paul Pepe, MD, MPH, a professor of management, policy, and community health at the School of Public Health at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center. “We found that no matter how long the patients were sick for — whether it was 5, 8, or 18 months — within 5 days, they appeared to be completely cured.”

All three patients had been initially infected with COVID-19 early in the pandemic, in 2020 or the first half of 2021. They were given Regeneron either after a reinfection or exposure to COVID-19, as a preventative, at state-run COVID clinics in Florida.

“In each case, the infusions were given to help prevent their long COVID from worsening,” said Dr. Pepe.

The researchers collected medical histories for all three patients, asking about symptoms such as physical fatigue, exercise intolerance, chest pain, heart palpitations, shortness of breath, cognitive fatigue, and memory problems. They asked patients to rate symptoms pre-COVID (baseline), during the long COVID phase, post-vaccine, and finally a week after their monoclonal antibody treatment. They also interviewed family members.

They found that across the board, symptoms improved significantly and often completely vanished. Their loved ones corroborated these reports as well.

One of the patients, a 63-year-old Floridian woman, came down with a mild case of COVID-19 at the start of the pandemic in March 2020 that lasted about 2 weeks. But several weeks later, she developed extreme, debilitating fatigue, along with chest pain and shortness of breath.

“I was chasing my 6-pound Yorkie one day after she got loose, and I was struck with such intense chest pain I fell down,” the woman, asking not to be identified, said in an interview.

Her symptoms progressed to the point where she no longer felt safe babysitting her grandchildren or driving to the grocery store.

“My short-term memory was completely gone. I couldn’t even read more than a paragraph at a time,” she said.

When she was exposed to COVID-19 in October 2021, her doctor suggested Regeneron as a preventative. She agreed to it.

“I was terrified that a second round would leave me permanently disabled and stuck in bed for the rest of my life,” she said.

About 4 days after her monoclonal antibody treatment, she noticed that some of the brain fog that had persisted after COVID was lifting.

“By day 5, it felt almost like a heavy-weighted blanket had been lifted off of me,” she recalled. “I was able to take my dog for a walk and go to the grocery store. It felt like I had gone from 0 to 100. As quickly as I went downhill, I quickly went back up.”

Reasons for Recovery

Researchers have come up with a few theories about why monoclonal antibodies may help treat long COVID, said study coauthor Aileen Marty, MD, professor of translational medicine at the Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine at Florida International University. Among them:

• It stimulates the body to fight off any residual virus. “We suspect that many of these patients simply have levels of virus that are so low they can’t be picked up by conventional testing,” said Dr. Marty. “The virus lingers in their body and causes long COVID symptoms. The monoclonal antibodies can zero in on them and knock them out.” This may also help explain why some patients with long COVID reported a temporary improvement of symptoms after their COVID-19 vaccination.
• It combats dysfunctional antibodies. Another theory is that people with long COVID have symptoms “not because of residual virus but because of junky antibodies,” said Dr. Marty. These antibodies go into overdrive and attack your own cells, which is what causes long COVID symptoms. “This may be why monoclonal antibodies work because they displace the dysfunctional antibodies that are attached to a patient’s cells,” she explained.
• Reactivation of other viruses. Long COVID is very similar to chronic fatigue syndrome, which is often thought to be triggered by reactivation of viruses like the Epstein-Barr virus, noted coauthor Nancy Klimas, MD, director of the Institute for Neuro-Immune Medicine at Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale. “It may not explain all of the cases of long COVID, but it could make up a subgroup,” she said. It’s thought that the monoclonal antibodies may perhaps neutralize this reactivation.

Where Research Is Headed

While Regeneron worked well in all three patients, it may be because they developed long COVID from either the initial virus or from early variants like Alpha, Beta, and Delta, said Dr. Pepe. As a result, it’s unclear whether this treatment would work for patients who developed long COVID from newer strains like Omicron.

“What concerns me is I believe there may be many people walking around with mild long COVID from these strains who don’t realize it,” he said. “They may assume that if they have difficulty walking upstairs, or forget why they went into another room, that it’s age related.”

The next step, the researchers said, is to create a registry of volunteer patients with severe long COVID. Dr. Klimas plans to enroll 20 volunteers who were infected before September 2022 to see how they respond to another monoclonal antibody initially used to treat COVID-19, bebtelovimab. (Like Regeneron, bebtelovimab is no longer approved for use against COVID-19 by the US Food and Drug Administration because it is no longer effective against variants of the virus circulating today.)

As for patients who developed long COVID after September 2022, research is ongoing to see if they respond to other monoclonal antibodies that are in development. One such study is currently enrolling participants at the University of California San Francisco. The center is recruiting 30 patients with long COVID to try a monoclonal antibody developed by Aerium Therapeutics.

“They created an investigational monoclonal antibody to treat acute COVID, but it proved less effective against variants that emerged in late 2022,” said lead investigator Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant professor of medicine in the Division of HIV, Infectious Diseases, and Global Medicine at the University of California San Francisco. The hope is it may still work to fight long COVID among patients infected with those variants.

In the meantime, the three patients with long COVID who responded to Regeneron have resumed life as they knew it pre-COVID. Although two subsequently became infected with COVID again, they recovered quickly and did not see symptoms return, something which, for them, seems nothing short of miraculous.

“I had prepared myself to be disabled for life,” said one of the patients, a 46-year-old Floridian woman who developed long COVID after an infection in January 2021. “I had crippling fatigue and dizziness so intense I felt like I was walking on a trampoline. My brain fog was so pronounced I had to write everything down constantly. Otherwise, I’d forget.”

When she became infected with COVID again in September 2021, “I thought I was going to die because I had no idea how I could possibly get worse,” she recalled. Her doctors recommended Regeneron infusion treatment. Forty-eight hours later, her symptoms improved significantly.

“I was able to go out to a cocktail party and dinner for the first time in months,” she said. “I would not have been able to do either of those things a week before.”

It’s also profoundly affected her husband, who had had to take over running the household and raising their five children, aged 11-22 years, for months.

“I can’t tell you how many school events and sports games I missed because I physically didn’t have the strength to get to them,” she noted. “To this day, my husband gets upset whenever we talk about that time. Long COVID literally took over all of our lives. It was devastating to me, but it’s just as devastating for loved ones, too. My family is just grateful to have me back.”

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

A treatment used to treat acute COVID-19 infection has also been found to be effective against long COVID, a new small study has found. The research, which assessed the benefits of monoclonal antibodies, suggests relief may finally be ahead for millions of Americans with long COVID for whom treatment has remained elusive.

The study, published in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine, found three Florida patients with long COVID made complete — and sudden — recoveries after they were given the monoclonal antibody cocktail casirivimab/imdevimab (Regeneron).

“We were struck by how rapid and complete the remissions were,” said study coauthor Paul Pepe, MD, MPH, a professor of management, policy, and community health at the School of Public Health at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center. “We found that no matter how long the patients were sick for — whether it was 5, 8, or 18 months — within 5 days, they appeared to be completely cured.”

All three patients had been initially infected with COVID-19 early in the pandemic, in 2020 or the first half of 2021. They were given Regeneron either after a reinfection or exposure to COVID-19, as a preventative, at state-run COVID clinics in Florida.

“In each case, the infusions were given to help prevent their long COVID from worsening,” said Dr. Pepe.

The researchers collected medical histories for all three patients, asking about symptoms such as physical fatigue, exercise intolerance, chest pain, heart palpitations, shortness of breath, cognitive fatigue, and memory problems. They asked patients to rate symptoms pre-COVID (baseline), during the long COVID phase, post-vaccine, and finally a week after their monoclonal antibody treatment. They also interviewed family members.

They found that across the board, symptoms improved significantly and often completely vanished. Their loved ones corroborated these reports as well.

One of the patients, a 63-year-old Floridian woman, came down with a mild case of COVID-19 at the start of the pandemic in March 2020 that lasted about 2 weeks. But several weeks later, she developed extreme, debilitating fatigue, along with chest pain and shortness of breath.

“I was chasing my 6-pound Yorkie one day after she got loose, and I was struck with such intense chest pain I fell down,” the woman, asking not to be identified, said in an interview.

Her symptoms progressed to the point where she no longer felt safe babysitting her grandchildren or driving to the grocery store.

“My short-term memory was completely gone. I couldn’t even read more than a paragraph at a time,” she said.

When she was exposed to COVID-19 in October 2021, her doctor suggested Regeneron as a preventative. She agreed to it.

“I was terrified that a second round would leave me permanently disabled and stuck in bed for the rest of my life,” she said.

About 4 days after her monoclonal antibody treatment, she noticed that some of the brain fog that had persisted after COVID was lifting.

“By day 5, it felt almost like a heavy-weighted blanket had been lifted off of me,” she recalled. “I was able to take my dog for a walk and go to the grocery store. It felt like I had gone from 0 to 100. As quickly as I went downhill, I quickly went back up.”

Reasons for Recovery

Researchers have come up with a few theories about why monoclonal antibodies may help treat long COVID, said study coauthor Aileen Marty, MD, professor of translational medicine at the Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine at Florida International University. Among them:

• It stimulates the body to fight off any residual virus. “We suspect that many of these patients simply have levels of virus that are so low they can’t be picked up by conventional testing,” said Dr. Marty. “The virus lingers in their body and causes long COVID symptoms. The monoclonal antibodies can zero in on them and knock them out.” This may also help explain why some patients with long COVID reported a temporary improvement of symptoms after their COVID-19 vaccination.
• It combats dysfunctional antibodies. Another theory is that people with long COVID have symptoms “not because of residual virus but because of junky antibodies,” said Dr. Marty. These antibodies go into overdrive and attack your own cells, which is what causes long COVID symptoms. “This may be why monoclonal antibodies work because they displace the dysfunctional antibodies that are attached to a patient’s cells,” she explained.
• Reactivation of other viruses. Long COVID is very similar to chronic fatigue syndrome, which is often thought to be triggered by reactivation of viruses like the Epstein-Barr virus, noted coauthor Nancy Klimas, MD, director of the Institute for Neuro-Immune Medicine at Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale. “It may not explain all of the cases of long COVID, but it could make up a subgroup,” she said. It’s thought that the monoclonal antibodies may perhaps neutralize this reactivation.

Where Research Is Headed

While Regeneron worked well in all three patients, it may be because they developed long COVID from either the initial virus or from early variants like Alpha, Beta, and Delta, said Dr. Pepe. As a result, it’s unclear whether this treatment would work for patients who developed long COVID from newer strains like Omicron.

“What concerns me is I believe there may be many people walking around with mild long COVID from these strains who don’t realize it,” he said. “They may assume that if they have difficulty walking upstairs, or forget why they went into another room, that it’s age related.”

The next step, the researchers said, is to create a registry of volunteer patients with severe long COVID. Dr. Klimas plans to enroll 20 volunteers who were infected before September 2022 to see how they respond to another monoclonal antibody initially used to treat COVID-19, bebtelovimab. (Like Regeneron, bebtelovimab is no longer approved for use against COVID-19 by the US Food and Drug Administration because it is no longer effective against variants of the virus circulating today.)

As for patients who developed long COVID after September 2022, research is ongoing to see if they respond to other monoclonal antibodies that are in development. One such study is currently enrolling participants at the University of California San Francisco. The center is recruiting 30 patients with long COVID to try a monoclonal antibody developed by Aerium Therapeutics.

“They created an investigational monoclonal antibody to treat acute COVID, but it proved less effective against variants that emerged in late 2022,” said lead investigator Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant professor of medicine in the Division of HIV, Infectious Diseases, and Global Medicine at the University of California San Francisco. The hope is it may still work to fight long COVID among patients infected with those variants.

In the meantime, the three patients with long COVID who responded to Regeneron have resumed life as they knew it pre-COVID. Although two subsequently became infected with COVID again, they recovered quickly and did not see symptoms return, something which, for them, seems nothing short of miraculous.

“I had prepared myself to be disabled for life,” said one of the patients, a 46-year-old Floridian woman who developed long COVID after an infection in January 2021. “I had crippling fatigue and dizziness so intense I felt like I was walking on a trampoline. My brain fog was so pronounced I had to write everything down constantly. Otherwise, I’d forget.”

When she became infected with COVID again in September 2021, “I thought I was going to die because I had no idea how I could possibly get worse,” she recalled. Her doctors recommended Regeneron infusion treatment. Forty-eight hours later, her symptoms improved significantly.

“I was able to go out to a cocktail party and dinner for the first time in months,” she said. “I would not have been able to do either of those things a week before.”

It’s also profoundly affected her husband, who had had to take over running the household and raising their five children, aged 11-22 years, for months.

“I can’t tell you how many school events and sports games I missed because I physically didn’t have the strength to get to them,” she noted. “To this day, my husband gets upset whenever we talk about that time. Long COVID literally took over all of our lives. It was devastating to me, but it’s just as devastating for loved ones, too. My family is just grateful to have me back.”

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

Long COVID can exacerbate existing mental health disorders or cause new-onset psychiatric symptoms, but mental illness does not cause long COVID, experts say.

The consensus guidance statement on the assessment and treatment of mental health symptoms in patients with post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), also known as long COVID, was published online in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, the journal of the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R).

The statement was developed by a task force that included experts from physical medicine, neurology, neuropsychiatry, neuropsychology, rehabilitation psychology, and primary care. It is the eighth guidance statement on long COVID published by AAPM&R).

“Many of our patients have reported experiences in which their symptoms of long COVID have been dismissed either by loved ones in the community, or also amongst health care providers, and they’ve been told their symptoms are in their head or due to a mental health condition, but that’s simply not true,” Abby L. Cheng, MD, a physiatrist at Barnes Jewish Hospital in St. Louis and a coauthor of the new guidance, said in a press briefing.

“Long COVID is real, and mental health conditions do not cause long COVID,” Dr. Cheng added.
 

Millions of Americans affected

Anxiety and depression have been reported as the second and third most common symptoms of long COVID, according to the guidance statement.

There is some evidence that the body’s inflammatory response – specifically, circulating cytokines – may contribute to the worsening of mental health symptoms or may bring on new symptoms of anxiety or depression, said Dr. Cheng. Cytokines may also affect levels of brain chemicals, such as serotonin, she said.

Researchers are also exploring whether the persistence of virus in the body, miniature blood clots in the body and brain, and changes to the gut microbiome affect the mental health of people with long COVID.

Some mental health symptoms – such as fatigue, brain fog, sleep disturbances, and tachycardia – can mimic long COVID symptoms, said Dr. Cheng.

The treatment is the same for someone with or without long COVID who has anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, or other mental health conditions and includes treatment of coexisting medical conditions, supportive therapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy, and pharmacologic interventions, she said.

“Group therapy may have a particular role in the long COVID population because it really provides that social connection and awareness of additional resources in addition to validation of their experiences,” Dr. Cheng said.

The guidance suggests that primary care practitioners – if it’s within their comfort zone and they have the training – can be the first line for managing mental health symptoms.

But for patients whose symptoms are interfering with functioning and their ability to interact with the community, the guidance urges primary care clinicians to refer the patient to a specialist.

“It leaves the door open to them to practice within their scope but also gives guidance as to how, why, and who should be referred to the next level of care,” said Dr. Cheng.

Coauthor Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, chair of rehabilitation medicine at UT Health San Antonio, Texas, said that although fewer people are now getting long COVID, “it’s still an impactful number.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently estimated that about 7% of American adults (18 million) and 1.3% of children had experienced long COVID.

Dr. Gutierrez said that it’s an evolving number, as some patients who have a second or third or fourth SARS-CoV-2 infection experience exacerbations of previous bouts of long COVID or develop long COVID for the first time.

“We are still getting new patients on a regular basis with long COVID,” said AAPM&R President Steven R. Flanagan, MD, a physical medicine specialist.

“This is a problem that really is not going away. It is still real and still ever-present,” said Dr. Flanagan, chair of rehabilitation medicine at NYU Langone Health.
 

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

Long COVID can exacerbate existing mental health disorders or cause new-onset psychiatric symptoms, but mental illness does not cause long COVID, experts say.

The consensus guidance statement on the assessment and treatment of mental health symptoms in patients with post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), also known as long COVID, was published online in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, the journal of the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R).

The statement was developed by a task force that included experts from physical medicine, neurology, neuropsychiatry, neuropsychology, rehabilitation psychology, and primary care. It is the eighth guidance statement on long COVID published by AAPM&R).

“Many of our patients have reported experiences in which their symptoms of long COVID have been dismissed either by loved ones in the community, or also amongst health care providers, and they’ve been told their symptoms are in their head or due to a mental health condition, but that’s simply not true,” Abby L. Cheng, MD, a physiatrist at Barnes Jewish Hospital in St. Louis and a coauthor of the new guidance, said in a press briefing.

“Long COVID is real, and mental health conditions do not cause long COVID,” Dr. Cheng added.
 

Millions of Americans affected

Anxiety and depression have been reported as the second and third most common symptoms of long COVID, according to the guidance statement.

There is some evidence that the body’s inflammatory response – specifically, circulating cytokines – may contribute to the worsening of mental health symptoms or may bring on new symptoms of anxiety or depression, said Dr. Cheng. Cytokines may also affect levels of brain chemicals, such as serotonin, she said.

Researchers are also exploring whether the persistence of virus in the body, miniature blood clots in the body and brain, and changes to the gut microbiome affect the mental health of people with long COVID.

Some mental health symptoms – such as fatigue, brain fog, sleep disturbances, and tachycardia – can mimic long COVID symptoms, said Dr. Cheng.

The treatment is the same for someone with or without long COVID who has anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, or other mental health conditions and includes treatment of coexisting medical conditions, supportive therapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy, and pharmacologic interventions, she said.

“Group therapy may have a particular role in the long COVID population because it really provides that social connection and awareness of additional resources in addition to validation of their experiences,” Dr. Cheng said.

The guidance suggests that primary care practitioners – if it’s within their comfort zone and they have the training – can be the first line for managing mental health symptoms.

But for patients whose symptoms are interfering with functioning and their ability to interact with the community, the guidance urges primary care clinicians to refer the patient to a specialist.

“It leaves the door open to them to practice within their scope but also gives guidance as to how, why, and who should be referred to the next level of care,” said Dr. Cheng.

Coauthor Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, chair of rehabilitation medicine at UT Health San Antonio, Texas, said that although fewer people are now getting long COVID, “it’s still an impactful number.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently estimated that about 7% of American adults (18 million) and 1.3% of children had experienced long COVID.

Dr. Gutierrez said that it’s an evolving number, as some patients who have a second or third or fourth SARS-CoV-2 infection experience exacerbations of previous bouts of long COVID or develop long COVID for the first time.

“We are still getting new patients on a regular basis with long COVID,” said AAPM&R President Steven R. Flanagan, MD, a physical medicine specialist.

“This is a problem that really is not going away. It is still real and still ever-present,” said Dr. Flanagan, chair of rehabilitation medicine at NYU Langone Health.
 

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

Long COVID can exacerbate existing mental health disorders or cause new-onset psychiatric symptoms, but mental illness does not cause long COVID, experts say.

The consensus guidance statement on the assessment and treatment of mental health symptoms in patients with post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), also known as long COVID, was published online in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, the journal of the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R).

The statement was developed by a task force that included experts from physical medicine, neurology, neuropsychiatry, neuropsychology, rehabilitation psychology, and primary care. It is the eighth guidance statement on long COVID published by AAPM&R).

“Many of our patients have reported experiences in which their symptoms of long COVID have been dismissed either by loved ones in the community, or also amongst health care providers, and they’ve been told their symptoms are in their head or due to a mental health condition, but that’s simply not true,” Abby L. Cheng, MD, a physiatrist at Barnes Jewish Hospital in St. Louis and a coauthor of the new guidance, said in a press briefing.

“Long COVID is real, and mental health conditions do not cause long COVID,” Dr. Cheng added.
 

Millions of Americans affected

Anxiety and depression have been reported as the second and third most common symptoms of long COVID, according to the guidance statement.

There is some evidence that the body’s inflammatory response – specifically, circulating cytokines – may contribute to the worsening of mental health symptoms or may bring on new symptoms of anxiety or depression, said Dr. Cheng. Cytokines may also affect levels of brain chemicals, such as serotonin, she said.

Researchers are also exploring whether the persistence of virus in the body, miniature blood clots in the body and brain, and changes to the gut microbiome affect the mental health of people with long COVID.

Some mental health symptoms – such as fatigue, brain fog, sleep disturbances, and tachycardia – can mimic long COVID symptoms, said Dr. Cheng.

The treatment is the same for someone with or without long COVID who has anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, or other mental health conditions and includes treatment of coexisting medical conditions, supportive therapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy, and pharmacologic interventions, she said.

“Group therapy may have a particular role in the long COVID population because it really provides that social connection and awareness of additional resources in addition to validation of their experiences,” Dr. Cheng said.

The guidance suggests that primary care practitioners – if it’s within their comfort zone and they have the training – can be the first line for managing mental health symptoms.

But for patients whose symptoms are interfering with functioning and their ability to interact with the community, the guidance urges primary care clinicians to refer the patient to a specialist.

“It leaves the door open to them to practice within their scope but also gives guidance as to how, why, and who should be referred to the next level of care,” said Dr. Cheng.

Coauthor Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, chair of rehabilitation medicine at UT Health San Antonio, Texas, said that although fewer people are now getting long COVID, “it’s still an impactful number.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently estimated that about 7% of American adults (18 million) and 1.3% of children had experienced long COVID.

Dr. Gutierrez said that it’s an evolving number, as some patients who have a second or third or fourth SARS-CoV-2 infection experience exacerbations of previous bouts of long COVID or develop long COVID for the first time.

“We are still getting new patients on a regular basis with long COVID,” said AAPM&R President Steven R. Flanagan, MD, a physical medicine specialist.

“This is a problem that really is not going away. It is still real and still ever-present,” said Dr. Flanagan, chair of rehabilitation medicine at NYU Langone Health.
 

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

Good news for people struggling with sensory problems after a bout of COVID-19. Although mild cases of the disease often impair the ability to taste and smell, and the problem can drag on for months, a new study from Italy shows that most people return to their senses, as it were, within 3 years.

“In the vast majority of cases, the loss of the sense of smell is not irreversible,” said Paolo Boscolo-Rizzo, MD, a professor of medicine, surgery, and health sciences at the University of Trieste (Italy), and a co-author of the study, published as a research letter in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery.

Dr. Boscolo-Rizzo and his colleagues analyzed data from 88 adults with mild COVID-19, which was defined as having no lower respiratory disease and blood oxygen saturation of 94% or greater. Another group of 88 adults who never contracted the virus but sometimes had difficulties with smell and taste were also studied. In both groups, the average age was 49 years, all participants were White, and 58% were women.

The researchers tested participants’ sense of smell with sticks that contained different odors and checked their sense of taste with strips that had different tastes. Over time, fewer people had difficulty distinguishing odors. Three years after developing COVID-19, only 12 people had impaired smell, compared with 36 people at year 1 and 24 people at year 2. And at the 3-year mark, all participants had at least a partial ability to smell. 

The story was similar with sense of taste, with 10 of 88 people reporting impairments 3 years later. By then, people with COVID-19 were no more likely to have trouble with smell or taste than people who did not get the virus. 

A study this past June showed a strong correlation between severity of COVID-19 symptoms and impaired sense of taste and smell and estimated that millions of Americans maintained altered senses. More than 10% of people in the Italian study still had trouble with smell or taste 3 years later.
 

Emerging treatments, psychological concerns

“We’re seeing fewer people with this problem, but there are still people suffering from it,” said Fernando Carnavali, MD, an internal medicine physician and a site director for the Center for Post-COVID Care at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City.

Dr. Carnavali wasn’t part of this study, but he did find the new results encouraging, and he called for similar studies in diverse populations that have experienced COVID-19. He also noted that an impaired sense of smell is distressing.

“It really has a significant psychological impact,” Dr. Carnavali said.

He recalled a patient crying in his office because her inability to smell made it impossible for her to cook. Dr. Carnavali recommended clinicians refer patients facing protracted loss of smell or taste to mental health professionals for support.

Treatments are emerging for COVID-19 smell loss. One approach is to inject platelet-rich plasma into a patient’s nasal cavities to help neurons related to smell repair themselves.

A randomized trial showed platelet-rich plasma significantly outperformed placebo in patients with smell loss up to a year after getting COVID-19.

“I wish more people would do it,” said Zara Patel, MD, an otolaryngologist at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine, who helped conduct that trial. She said some physicians may be nervous about injecting plasma so close to the skull and are therefore hesitant to try this approach. 

Another technique may help to address the olfactory condition known as parosmia, in which patients generally experience a benign odor as rancid, according to otolaryngologist Nyssa Farrell, MD, of Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis. Dr. Farrell said around two-thirds of patients who contract COVID-19 develop the condition, and the rates of long-term parosmia range from 10%-50% depending on various studies.

“It is almost always foul; this can profoundly affect someone’s quality of life,” impairing their ability to eat or to be intimate with a partner who now smells unpleasant, said Dr. Farrell, who wasn’t associated with this research.

The treatment, called a stellate ganglion block, is provided through a shot into nerves in the neck. People with parosmia associated with COVID-19 often report that this method cures them. Dr. Patel said that may be because their psychological health is improving, not their sense of smell, because the area of the body where the stellate ganglion block is applied is not part of the olfactory system.

Earlier this year, Dr. Farrell and colleagues reported that parosmia linked to COVID-19 is associated with an increased risk for depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. 

One coauthor reported receiving grants from Smell and Taste Lab, Takasago, Baia Foods, and Frequency Therapeutics. The other authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Good news for people struggling with sensory problems after a bout of COVID-19. Although mild cases of the disease often impair the ability to taste and smell, and the problem can drag on for months, a new study from Italy shows that most people return to their senses, as it were, within 3 years.

“In the vast majority of cases, the loss of the sense of smell is not irreversible,” said Paolo Boscolo-Rizzo, MD, a professor of medicine, surgery, and health sciences at the University of Trieste (Italy), and a co-author of the study, published as a research letter in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery.

Dr. Boscolo-Rizzo and his colleagues analyzed data from 88 adults with mild COVID-19, which was defined as having no lower respiratory disease and blood oxygen saturation of 94% or greater. Another group of 88 adults who never contracted the virus but sometimes had difficulties with smell and taste were also studied. In both groups, the average age was 49 years, all participants were White, and 58% were women.

The researchers tested participants’ sense of smell with sticks that contained different odors and checked their sense of taste with strips that had different tastes. Over time, fewer people had difficulty distinguishing odors. Three years after developing COVID-19, only 12 people had impaired smell, compared with 36 people at year 1 and 24 people at year 2. And at the 3-year mark, all participants had at least a partial ability to smell. 

The story was similar with sense of taste, with 10 of 88 people reporting impairments 3 years later. By then, people with COVID-19 were no more likely to have trouble with smell or taste than people who did not get the virus. 

A study this past June showed a strong correlation between severity of COVID-19 symptoms and impaired sense of taste and smell and estimated that millions of Americans maintained altered senses. More than 10% of people in the Italian study still had trouble with smell or taste 3 years later.
 

Emerging treatments, psychological concerns

“We’re seeing fewer people with this problem, but there are still people suffering from it,” said Fernando Carnavali, MD, an internal medicine physician and a site director for the Center for Post-COVID Care at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City.

Dr. Carnavali wasn’t part of this study, but he did find the new results encouraging, and he called for similar studies in diverse populations that have experienced COVID-19. He also noted that an impaired sense of smell is distressing.

“It really has a significant psychological impact,” Dr. Carnavali said.

He recalled a patient crying in his office because her inability to smell made it impossible for her to cook. Dr. Carnavali recommended clinicians refer patients facing protracted loss of smell or taste to mental health professionals for support.

Treatments are emerging for COVID-19 smell loss. One approach is to inject platelet-rich plasma into a patient’s nasal cavities to help neurons related to smell repair themselves.

A randomized trial showed platelet-rich plasma significantly outperformed placebo in patients with smell loss up to a year after getting COVID-19.

“I wish more people would do it,” said Zara Patel, MD, an otolaryngologist at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine, who helped conduct that trial. She said some physicians may be nervous about injecting plasma so close to the skull and are therefore hesitant to try this approach. 

Another technique may help to address the olfactory condition known as parosmia, in which patients generally experience a benign odor as rancid, according to otolaryngologist Nyssa Farrell, MD, of Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis. Dr. Farrell said around two-thirds of patients who contract COVID-19 develop the condition, and the rates of long-term parosmia range from 10%-50% depending on various studies.

“It is almost always foul; this can profoundly affect someone’s quality of life,” impairing their ability to eat or to be intimate with a partner who now smells unpleasant, said Dr. Farrell, who wasn’t associated with this research.

The treatment, called a stellate ganglion block, is provided through a shot into nerves in the neck. People with parosmia associated with COVID-19 often report that this method cures them. Dr. Patel said that may be because their psychological health is improving, not their sense of smell, because the area of the body where the stellate ganglion block is applied is not part of the olfactory system.

Earlier this year, Dr. Farrell and colleagues reported that parosmia linked to COVID-19 is associated with an increased risk for depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. 

One coauthor reported receiving grants from Smell and Taste Lab, Takasago, Baia Foods, and Frequency Therapeutics. The other authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Good news for people struggling with sensory problems after a bout of COVID-19. Although mild cases of the disease often impair the ability to taste and smell, and the problem can drag on for months, a new study from Italy shows that most people return to their senses, as it were, within 3 years.

“In the vast majority of cases, the loss of the sense of smell is not irreversible,” said Paolo Boscolo-Rizzo, MD, a professor of medicine, surgery, and health sciences at the University of Trieste (Italy), and a co-author of the study, published as a research letter in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery.

Dr. Boscolo-Rizzo and his colleagues analyzed data from 88 adults with mild COVID-19, which was defined as having no lower respiratory disease and blood oxygen saturation of 94% or greater. Another group of 88 adults who never contracted the virus but sometimes had difficulties with smell and taste were also studied. In both groups, the average age was 49 years, all participants were White, and 58% were women.

The researchers tested participants’ sense of smell with sticks that contained different odors and checked their sense of taste with strips that had different tastes. Over time, fewer people had difficulty distinguishing odors. Three years after developing COVID-19, only 12 people had impaired smell, compared with 36 people at year 1 and 24 people at year 2. And at the 3-year mark, all participants had at least a partial ability to smell. 

The story was similar with sense of taste, with 10 of 88 people reporting impairments 3 years later. By then, people with COVID-19 were no more likely to have trouble with smell or taste than people who did not get the virus. 

A study this past June showed a strong correlation between severity of COVID-19 symptoms and impaired sense of taste and smell and estimated that millions of Americans maintained altered senses. More than 10% of people in the Italian study still had trouble with smell or taste 3 years later.
 

Emerging treatments, psychological concerns

“We’re seeing fewer people with this problem, but there are still people suffering from it,” said Fernando Carnavali, MD, an internal medicine physician and a site director for the Center for Post-COVID Care at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City.

Dr. Carnavali wasn’t part of this study, but he did find the new results encouraging, and he called for similar studies in diverse populations that have experienced COVID-19. He also noted that an impaired sense of smell is distressing.

“It really has a significant psychological impact,” Dr. Carnavali said.

He recalled a patient crying in his office because her inability to smell made it impossible for her to cook. Dr. Carnavali recommended clinicians refer patients facing protracted loss of smell or taste to mental health professionals for support.

Treatments are emerging for COVID-19 smell loss. One approach is to inject platelet-rich plasma into a patient’s nasal cavities to help neurons related to smell repair themselves.

A randomized trial showed platelet-rich plasma significantly outperformed placebo in patients with smell loss up to a year after getting COVID-19.

“I wish more people would do it,” said Zara Patel, MD, an otolaryngologist at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine, who helped conduct that trial. She said some physicians may be nervous about injecting plasma so close to the skull and are therefore hesitant to try this approach. 

Another technique may help to address the olfactory condition known as parosmia, in which patients generally experience a benign odor as rancid, according to otolaryngologist Nyssa Farrell, MD, of Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis. Dr. Farrell said around two-thirds of patients who contract COVID-19 develop the condition, and the rates of long-term parosmia range from 10%-50% depending on various studies.

“It is almost always foul; this can profoundly affect someone’s quality of life,” impairing their ability to eat or to be intimate with a partner who now smells unpleasant, said Dr. Farrell, who wasn’t associated with this research.

The treatment, called a stellate ganglion block, is provided through a shot into nerves in the neck. People with parosmia associated with COVID-19 often report that this method cures them. Dr. Patel said that may be because their psychological health is improving, not their sense of smell, because the area of the body where the stellate ganglion block is applied is not part of the olfactory system.

Earlier this year, Dr. Farrell and colleagues reported that parosmia linked to COVID-19 is associated with an increased risk for depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. 

One coauthor reported receiving grants from Smell and Taste Lab, Takasago, Baia Foods, and Frequency Therapeutics. The other authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Could antidepressants hold the key to treating long COVID? University of Pennsylvania researchers have uncovered a link between long COVID and levels of serotonin in the body that may offer a new explanation for the condition. The study even points to a possible treatment.

Serotonin is a neurotransmitter that has many functions in the body and is targeted by the most commonly prescribed antidepressants – the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.

Serotonin is widely studied for its effects on the brain – it regulates the messaging between neurons, affecting sleep, mood, and memory. It is present in the gut, is found in cells along the gastrointestinal tract, and is absorbed by blood platelets. Gut serotonin, known as circulating serotonin, is responsible for a host of other functions, including the regulation of blood flow, body temperature, and digestion.

Low levels of serotonin could result in any number of seemingly unrelated symptoms, as in the case of long COVID, experts say. The condition affects about 7% of Americans and is associated with a wide range of health problems, including fatigue, shortness of breath, neurological symptoms, joint pain, blood clots, heart palpitations, and digestive problems.

Long COVID is difficult to treat because researchers haven’t been able to pinpoint the underlying mechanisms that cause prolonged illness after a SARS-CoV-2 infection, said study author Christoph A. Thaiss, PhD, an assistant professor of microbiology at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

The hope is that this study could have implications for new treatments, he said.

“Long COVID can have manifestations not only in the brain but in many different parts of the body, so it’s possible that serotonin reductions are involved in many different aspects of the disease,” said Dr. Thaiss.

Dr. Thaiss’s study, published in the journal Cell, found lower serotonin levels in long COVID patients, compared with patients who were diagnosed with acute COVID-19 but who fully recovered.

His team found that reductions in serotonin were driven by low levels of circulating SARS-CoV-2 virus that caused persistent inflammation as well as an inability of the body to absorb tryptophan, an amino acid that’s a precursor to serotonin. Overactive blood platelets were also shown to play a role; they serve as the primary means of serotonin absorption.

The study doesn’t make any recommendations for treatment, but understanding the role of serotonin in long COVID opens the door to a host of novel ideas that could set the stage for clinical trials and affect care.

“The study gives us a few possible targets that could be used in future clinical studies,” Dr. Thaiss said.

Persistent circulating virus is one of the drivers of low serotonin levels, said study author Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant research professor of infectious medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine. This points to the need to reduce viral load using antiviral medications like nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid), which is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of COVID-19, and VV116, which has not yet been approved for use against COVID.

Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that the oral antiviral agent VV116 was as effective as nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in reducing the body’s viral load and aiding recovery from SARS-CoV-2 infection. Paxlovid has also been shown to reduce the likelihood of getting long COVID after an acute SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Researchers are investigating ways to target serotonin levels directly, potentially using SSRIs. But first they need to study whether improvement in serotonin level makes a difference.

“What we need now is a good clinical trial to see whether altering levels of serotonin in people with long COVID will lead to symptom relief,” Dr. Peluso said.

Indeed, the research did show that the SSRI fluoxetine, as well as a glycine-tryptophan supplement, improved cognitive function in SARS-CoV-2-infected rodent models, which were used in a portion of the study.

David F. Putrino, PhD, who runs the long COVID clinic at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, said the research is helping “to paint a biological picture” that’s in line with other research on the mechanisms that cause long COVID symptoms.

But Dr. Putrino, who was not involved in the study, cautions against treating long COVID patients with SSRIs or any other treatment that increases serotonin before testing patients to determine whether their serotonin levels are actually lower than those of healthy persons.

“We don’t want to assume that every patient with long COVID is going to have lower serotonin levels,” said Dr. Putrino.

What’s more, researchers need to investigate whether SSRIs increase levels of circulating serotonin. It’s important to note that researchers found lower levels of circulating serotonin but that serotonin levels in the brain remained normal.

Traditionally, SSRIs are used clinically for increasing the levels of serotonin in the brain, not the body.

“Whether that’s going to contribute to an increase in systemic levels of serotonin, that’s something that needs to be tested,” said Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, co-lead investigator of the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., COVID-19 Recovery Study, who was not involved in the research.

Thus far, investigators have not identified one unifying biomarker that seems to cause long COVID in all patients, said Dr. Iwasaki. Some research has found higher levels of certain immune cells and biomarkers: for example, monocytes and activated B lymphocytes, indicating a stronger and ongoing antibody response to the virus. Other recent research conducted by Dr. Iwasaki, Dr. Putrino, and others, published in the journal Nature, showed that long COVID patients tend to have lower levels of cortisol, which could be a factor in the extreme fatigue experienced by many who suffer from the condition.

The findings in the study in The Cell are promising, but they need to be replicated in more people, said Dr. Iwasaki. And even if they’re replicated in a larger study population, this would still be just one biomarker that is associated with one subtype of the disease. There is a need to better understand which biomarkers go with which symptoms so that the most effective treatments can be identified, she said.

Both Dr. Putrino and Dr. Iwasaki contended that there isn’t a single factor that can explain all of long COVID. It’s a complex disease caused by a host of different mechanisms.

Still, low levels of serotonin could be an important piece of the puzzle. The next step, said Dr. Iwasaki, is to uncover how many of the millions of Americans with long COVID have this biomarker.

“People working in the field of long COVID should now be considering this pathway and thinking of ways to measure serotonin in their patients.”

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

Could antidepressants hold the key to treating long COVID? University of Pennsylvania researchers have uncovered a link between long COVID and levels of serotonin in the body that may offer a new explanation for the condition. The study even points to a possible treatment.

Serotonin is a neurotransmitter that has many functions in the body and is targeted by the most commonly prescribed antidepressants – the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.

Serotonin is widely studied for its effects on the brain – it regulates the messaging between neurons, affecting sleep, mood, and memory. It is present in the gut, is found in cells along the gastrointestinal tract, and is absorbed by blood platelets. Gut serotonin, known as circulating serotonin, is responsible for a host of other functions, including the regulation of blood flow, body temperature, and digestion.

Low levels of serotonin could result in any number of seemingly unrelated symptoms, as in the case of long COVID, experts say. The condition affects about 7% of Americans and is associated with a wide range of health problems, including fatigue, shortness of breath, neurological symptoms, joint pain, blood clots, heart palpitations, and digestive problems.

Long COVID is difficult to treat because researchers haven’t been able to pinpoint the underlying mechanisms that cause prolonged illness after a SARS-CoV-2 infection, said study author Christoph A. Thaiss, PhD, an assistant professor of microbiology at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

The hope is that this study could have implications for new treatments, he said.

“Long COVID can have manifestations not only in the brain but in many different parts of the body, so it’s possible that serotonin reductions are involved in many different aspects of the disease,” said Dr. Thaiss.

Dr. Thaiss’s study, published in the journal Cell, found lower serotonin levels in long COVID patients, compared with patients who were diagnosed with acute COVID-19 but who fully recovered.

His team found that reductions in serotonin were driven by low levels of circulating SARS-CoV-2 virus that caused persistent inflammation as well as an inability of the body to absorb tryptophan, an amino acid that’s a precursor to serotonin. Overactive blood platelets were also shown to play a role; they serve as the primary means of serotonin absorption.

The study doesn’t make any recommendations for treatment, but understanding the role of serotonin in long COVID opens the door to a host of novel ideas that could set the stage for clinical trials and affect care.

“The study gives us a few possible targets that could be used in future clinical studies,” Dr. Thaiss said.

Persistent circulating virus is one of the drivers of low serotonin levels, said study author Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant research professor of infectious medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine. This points to the need to reduce viral load using antiviral medications like nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid), which is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of COVID-19, and VV116, which has not yet been approved for use against COVID.

Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that the oral antiviral agent VV116 was as effective as nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in reducing the body’s viral load and aiding recovery from SARS-CoV-2 infection. Paxlovid has also been shown to reduce the likelihood of getting long COVID after an acute SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Researchers are investigating ways to target serotonin levels directly, potentially using SSRIs. But first they need to study whether improvement in serotonin level makes a difference.

“What we need now is a good clinical trial to see whether altering levels of serotonin in people with long COVID will lead to symptom relief,” Dr. Peluso said.

Indeed, the research did show that the SSRI fluoxetine, as well as a glycine-tryptophan supplement, improved cognitive function in SARS-CoV-2-infected rodent models, which were used in a portion of the study.

David F. Putrino, PhD, who runs the long COVID clinic at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, said the research is helping “to paint a biological picture” that’s in line with other research on the mechanisms that cause long COVID symptoms.

But Dr. Putrino, who was not involved in the study, cautions against treating long COVID patients with SSRIs or any other treatment that increases serotonin before testing patients to determine whether their serotonin levels are actually lower than those of healthy persons.

“We don’t want to assume that every patient with long COVID is going to have lower serotonin levels,” said Dr. Putrino.

What’s more, researchers need to investigate whether SSRIs increase levels of circulating serotonin. It’s important to note that researchers found lower levels of circulating serotonin but that serotonin levels in the brain remained normal.

Traditionally, SSRIs are used clinically for increasing the levels of serotonin in the brain, not the body.

“Whether that’s going to contribute to an increase in systemic levels of serotonin, that’s something that needs to be tested,” said Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, co-lead investigator of the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., COVID-19 Recovery Study, who was not involved in the research.

Thus far, investigators have not identified one unifying biomarker that seems to cause long COVID in all patients, said Dr. Iwasaki. Some research has found higher levels of certain immune cells and biomarkers: for example, monocytes and activated B lymphocytes, indicating a stronger and ongoing antibody response to the virus. Other recent research conducted by Dr. Iwasaki, Dr. Putrino, and others, published in the journal Nature, showed that long COVID patients tend to have lower levels of cortisol, which could be a factor in the extreme fatigue experienced by many who suffer from the condition.

The findings in the study in The Cell are promising, but they need to be replicated in more people, said Dr. Iwasaki. And even if they’re replicated in a larger study population, this would still be just one biomarker that is associated with one subtype of the disease. There is a need to better understand which biomarkers go with which symptoms so that the most effective treatments can be identified, she said.

Both Dr. Putrino and Dr. Iwasaki contended that there isn’t a single factor that can explain all of long COVID. It’s a complex disease caused by a host of different mechanisms.

Still, low levels of serotonin could be an important piece of the puzzle. The next step, said Dr. Iwasaki, is to uncover how many of the millions of Americans with long COVID have this biomarker.

“People working in the field of long COVID should now be considering this pathway and thinking of ways to measure serotonin in their patients.”

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

Could antidepressants hold the key to treating long COVID? University of Pennsylvania researchers have uncovered a link between long COVID and levels of serotonin in the body that may offer a new explanation for the condition. The study even points to a possible treatment.

Serotonin is a neurotransmitter that has many functions in the body and is targeted by the most commonly prescribed antidepressants – the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.

Serotonin is widely studied for its effects on the brain – it regulates the messaging between neurons, affecting sleep, mood, and memory. It is present in the gut, is found in cells along the gastrointestinal tract, and is absorbed by blood platelets. Gut serotonin, known as circulating serotonin, is responsible for a host of other functions, including the regulation of blood flow, body temperature, and digestion.

Low levels of serotonin could result in any number of seemingly unrelated symptoms, as in the case of long COVID, experts say. The condition affects about 7% of Americans and is associated with a wide range of health problems, including fatigue, shortness of breath, neurological symptoms, joint pain, blood clots, heart palpitations, and digestive problems.

Long COVID is difficult to treat because researchers haven’t been able to pinpoint the underlying mechanisms that cause prolonged illness after a SARS-CoV-2 infection, said study author Christoph A. Thaiss, PhD, an assistant professor of microbiology at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

The hope is that this study could have implications for new treatments, he said.

“Long COVID can have manifestations not only in the brain but in many different parts of the body, so it’s possible that serotonin reductions are involved in many different aspects of the disease,” said Dr. Thaiss.

Dr. Thaiss’s study, published in the journal Cell, found lower serotonin levels in long COVID patients, compared with patients who were diagnosed with acute COVID-19 but who fully recovered.

His team found that reductions in serotonin were driven by low levels of circulating SARS-CoV-2 virus that caused persistent inflammation as well as an inability of the body to absorb tryptophan, an amino acid that’s a precursor to serotonin. Overactive blood platelets were also shown to play a role; they serve as the primary means of serotonin absorption.

The study doesn’t make any recommendations for treatment, but understanding the role of serotonin in long COVID opens the door to a host of novel ideas that could set the stage for clinical trials and affect care.

“The study gives us a few possible targets that could be used in future clinical studies,” Dr. Thaiss said.

Persistent circulating virus is one of the drivers of low serotonin levels, said study author Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant research professor of infectious medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine. This points to the need to reduce viral load using antiviral medications like nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid), which is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of COVID-19, and VV116, which has not yet been approved for use against COVID.

Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that the oral antiviral agent VV116 was as effective as nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in reducing the body’s viral load and aiding recovery from SARS-CoV-2 infection. Paxlovid has also been shown to reduce the likelihood of getting long COVID after an acute SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Researchers are investigating ways to target serotonin levels directly, potentially using SSRIs. But first they need to study whether improvement in serotonin level makes a difference.

“What we need now is a good clinical trial to see whether altering levels of serotonin in people with long COVID will lead to symptom relief,” Dr. Peluso said.

Indeed, the research did show that the SSRI fluoxetine, as well as a glycine-tryptophan supplement, improved cognitive function in SARS-CoV-2-infected rodent models, which were used in a portion of the study.

David F. Putrino, PhD, who runs the long COVID clinic at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, said the research is helping “to paint a biological picture” that’s in line with other research on the mechanisms that cause long COVID symptoms.

But Dr. Putrino, who was not involved in the study, cautions against treating long COVID patients with SSRIs or any other treatment that increases serotonin before testing patients to determine whether their serotonin levels are actually lower than those of healthy persons.

“We don’t want to assume that every patient with long COVID is going to have lower serotonin levels,” said Dr. Putrino.

What’s more, researchers need to investigate whether SSRIs increase levels of circulating serotonin. It’s important to note that researchers found lower levels of circulating serotonin but that serotonin levels in the brain remained normal.

Traditionally, SSRIs are used clinically for increasing the levels of serotonin in the brain, not the body.

“Whether that’s going to contribute to an increase in systemic levels of serotonin, that’s something that needs to be tested,” said Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, co-lead investigator of the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., COVID-19 Recovery Study, who was not involved in the research.

Thus far, investigators have not identified one unifying biomarker that seems to cause long COVID in all patients, said Dr. Iwasaki. Some research has found higher levels of certain immune cells and biomarkers: for example, monocytes and activated B lymphocytes, indicating a stronger and ongoing antibody response to the virus. Other recent research conducted by Dr. Iwasaki, Dr. Putrino, and others, published in the journal Nature, showed that long COVID patients tend to have lower levels of cortisol, which could be a factor in the extreme fatigue experienced by many who suffer from the condition.

The findings in the study in The Cell are promising, but they need to be replicated in more people, said Dr. Iwasaki. And even if they’re replicated in a larger study population, this would still be just one biomarker that is associated with one subtype of the disease. There is a need to better understand which biomarkers go with which symptoms so that the most effective treatments can be identified, she said.

Both Dr. Putrino and Dr. Iwasaki contended that there isn’t a single factor that can explain all of long COVID. It’s a complex disease caused by a host of different mechanisms.

Still, low levels of serotonin could be an important piece of the puzzle. The next step, said Dr. Iwasaki, is to uncover how many of the millions of Americans with long COVID have this biomarker.

“People working in the field of long COVID should now be considering this pathway and thinking of ways to measure serotonin in their patients.”

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

People infected multiple times with COVID-19 are more likely to develop long COVID, and most never fully recover from the condition. Those are two of the most striking findings of a comprehensive new research study of 138,000 veterans.

Lead researcher Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, chief of research at Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care and clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St. Louis, spoke with this news organization about his team’s findings, what we know – and don’t – about long COVID, and what it means for physicians treating patients with the condition.

Excerpts of the interview follow.

Your research concluded that for those infected early in the pandemic, some long COVID symptoms declined over 2 years, but some did not. You have also concluded that long COVID is a chronic disease. Why?

We’ve been in this journey a little bit more than three and a half years. Some patients do experience some recovery. But that’s not the norm. Most people do not really fully recover. The health trajectory for people with long COVID is really very heterogeneous. There is no one-size-fits-all. There’s really no one line that I could give you that could cover all your patients. But it is very, very, very clear that a bunch of them experienced long COVID for sure; that’s really happening.

It happened in the pre-Delta era and in the Delta era, and with Omicron subvariants, even now. There are people who think, “This is a nothing-burger anymore,” or “It’s not an issue anymore.” It’s still happening with the current variants. Vaccines do reduce risk for long COVID, but do not completely eliminate the risk for long COVID.

You work with patients with long COVID in the clinic and also analyze data from thousands more. If long COVID does not go away, what should doctors look for in everyday practice that will help them recognize and help patients with long COVID?

Long COVID is not uncommon. We see it in the clinic in large numbers. Whatever clinic you’re running – if you’re running a cardiology clinic, or a nephrology clinic, or diabetes, or primary care – probably some of your people have it. You may not know about it. They may not tell you about it. You may not recognize it.

Not all long COVID is the same, and that’s really what makes it complex and makes it really hard to deal with in the clinic. But that’s the reality that we’re all dealing with. And it’s multisystemic; it’s not like it affects the heart only, the brain only, or the autonomic nervous system only. It does not behave in the same way in different individuals – they may have different manifestations, various health trajectories, and different outcomes. It’s important for doctors to get up to speed on long COVID as a multisystem illness.

Management at this point is really managing the symptoms. We don’t have a treatment for it; we don’t have a cure for it.

Some patients experience what you’ve described as partial recovery. What does that look like?

Some individuals do experience some recovery over time, but for most individuals, the recovery is long and arduous. Long COVID can last with them for many years. Some people may come back to the clinic and say, “I’m doing better,” but if you really flesh it out and dig deeper, they didn’t do better; they adjusted to a new baseline. They used to walk the dog three to four blocks, and now they walk the dog only half a block. They used to do an activity with their partner every Saturday or Sunday, and now they do half of that.

If you’re a physician, a primary care provider, or any other provider who is dealing with a patient with long COVID, know that this is really happening. It can happen even in vaccinated individuals. The presentation is heterogeneous. Some people may present to you with and say. “Well, before I had COVID I was mentally sharp and now having I’m having difficulty with memory, etc.” It can sometimes present as fatigue or postexertional malaise.

In some instances, it can present as sleep problems. It can present as what we call postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS). Those people get a significant increase in heart rate with postural changes.

What the most important thing we can we learn from the emergence of long COVID?

This whole thing taught us that infections can cause chronic disease. That’s really the No. 1 lesson that I take from this pandemic – that infections can cause chronic disease.

Looking at only acute illness from COVID is really only looking at the tip of the iceberg. Beneath that tip of the iceberg lies this hidden toll of disease that we don’t really talk about that much.

This pandemic shone a very, very good light on the idea that there is really an intimate connection between infections and chronic disease. It was really hardwired into our medical training as doctors that most infections, when people get over the hump of the acute phase of the disease, it’s all behind them. I think long COVID has humbled us in many, many ways, but chief among those is the realization – the stark realization – that infections can cause chronic disease.

That’s really going back to your [first] question: What does it mean that some people are not recovering? They actually have chronic illness. I’m hoping that we will find a treatment, that we’ll start finding things that would help them get back to baseline. But at this point in time, what we’re dealing with is people with chronic illness or chronic disease that may continue to affect them for many years to come in the absence of a treatment or a cure.

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

People infected multiple times with COVID-19 are more likely to develop long COVID, and most never fully recover from the condition. Those are two of the most striking findings of a comprehensive new research study of 138,000 veterans.

Lead researcher Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, chief of research at Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care and clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St. Louis, spoke with this news organization about his team’s findings, what we know – and don’t – about long COVID, and what it means for physicians treating patients with the condition.

Excerpts of the interview follow.

Your research concluded that for those infected early in the pandemic, some long COVID symptoms declined over 2 years, but some did not. You have also concluded that long COVID is a chronic disease. Why?

We’ve been in this journey a little bit more than three and a half years. Some patients do experience some recovery. But that’s not the norm. Most people do not really fully recover. The health trajectory for people with long COVID is really very heterogeneous. There is no one-size-fits-all. There’s really no one line that I could give you that could cover all your patients. But it is very, very, very clear that a bunch of them experienced long COVID for sure; that’s really happening.

It happened in the pre-Delta era and in the Delta era, and with Omicron subvariants, even now. There are people who think, “This is a nothing-burger anymore,” or “It’s not an issue anymore.” It’s still happening with the current variants. Vaccines do reduce risk for long COVID, but do not completely eliminate the risk for long COVID.

You work with patients with long COVID in the clinic and also analyze data from thousands more. If long COVID does not go away, what should doctors look for in everyday practice that will help them recognize and help patients with long COVID?

Long COVID is not uncommon. We see it in the clinic in large numbers. Whatever clinic you’re running – if you’re running a cardiology clinic, or a nephrology clinic, or diabetes, or primary care – probably some of your people have it. You may not know about it. They may not tell you about it. You may not recognize it.

Not all long COVID is the same, and that’s really what makes it complex and makes it really hard to deal with in the clinic. But that’s the reality that we’re all dealing with. And it’s multisystemic; it’s not like it affects the heart only, the brain only, or the autonomic nervous system only. It does not behave in the same way in different individuals – they may have different manifestations, various health trajectories, and different outcomes. It’s important for doctors to get up to speed on long COVID as a multisystem illness.

Management at this point is really managing the symptoms. We don’t have a treatment for it; we don’t have a cure for it.

Some patients experience what you’ve described as partial recovery. What does that look like?

Some individuals do experience some recovery over time, but for most individuals, the recovery is long and arduous. Long COVID can last with them for many years. Some people may come back to the clinic and say, “I’m doing better,” but if you really flesh it out and dig deeper, they didn’t do better; they adjusted to a new baseline. They used to walk the dog three to four blocks, and now they walk the dog only half a block. They used to do an activity with their partner every Saturday or Sunday, and now they do half of that.

If you’re a physician, a primary care provider, or any other provider who is dealing with a patient with long COVID, know that this is really happening. It can happen even in vaccinated individuals. The presentation is heterogeneous. Some people may present to you with and say. “Well, before I had COVID I was mentally sharp and now having I’m having difficulty with memory, etc.” It can sometimes present as fatigue or postexertional malaise.

In some instances, it can present as sleep problems. It can present as what we call postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS). Those people get a significant increase in heart rate with postural changes.

What the most important thing we can we learn from the emergence of long COVID?

This whole thing taught us that infections can cause chronic disease. That’s really the No. 1 lesson that I take from this pandemic – that infections can cause chronic disease.

Looking at only acute illness from COVID is really only looking at the tip of the iceberg. Beneath that tip of the iceberg lies this hidden toll of disease that we don’t really talk about that much.

This pandemic shone a very, very good light on the idea that there is really an intimate connection between infections and chronic disease. It was really hardwired into our medical training as doctors that most infections, when people get over the hump of the acute phase of the disease, it’s all behind them. I think long COVID has humbled us in many, many ways, but chief among those is the realization – the stark realization – that infections can cause chronic disease.

That’s really going back to your [first] question: What does it mean that some people are not recovering? They actually have chronic illness. I’m hoping that we will find a treatment, that we’ll start finding things that would help them get back to baseline. But at this point in time, what we’re dealing with is people with chronic illness or chronic disease that may continue to affect them for many years to come in the absence of a treatment or a cure.

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

People infected multiple times with COVID-19 are more likely to develop long COVID, and most never fully recover from the condition. Those are two of the most striking findings of a comprehensive new research study of 138,000 veterans.

Lead researcher Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, chief of research at Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care and clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St. Louis, spoke with this news organization about his team’s findings, what we know – and don’t – about long COVID, and what it means for physicians treating patients with the condition.

Excerpts of the interview follow.

Your research concluded that for those infected early in the pandemic, some long COVID symptoms declined over 2 years, but some did not. You have also concluded that long COVID is a chronic disease. Why?

We’ve been in this journey a little bit more than three and a half years. Some patients do experience some recovery. But that’s not the norm. Most people do not really fully recover. The health trajectory for people with long COVID is really very heterogeneous. There is no one-size-fits-all. There’s really no one line that I could give you that could cover all your patients. But it is very, very, very clear that a bunch of them experienced long COVID for sure; that’s really happening.

It happened in the pre-Delta era and in the Delta era, and with Omicron subvariants, even now. There are people who think, “This is a nothing-burger anymore,” or “It’s not an issue anymore.” It’s still happening with the current variants. Vaccines do reduce risk for long COVID, but do not completely eliminate the risk for long COVID.

You work with patients with long COVID in the clinic and also analyze data from thousands more. If long COVID does not go away, what should doctors look for in everyday practice that will help them recognize and help patients with long COVID?

Long COVID is not uncommon. We see it in the clinic in large numbers. Whatever clinic you’re running – if you’re running a cardiology clinic, or a nephrology clinic, or diabetes, or primary care – probably some of your people have it. You may not know about it. They may not tell you about it. You may not recognize it.

Not all long COVID is the same, and that’s really what makes it complex and makes it really hard to deal with in the clinic. But that’s the reality that we’re all dealing with. And it’s multisystemic; it’s not like it affects the heart only, the brain only, or the autonomic nervous system only. It does not behave in the same way in different individuals – they may have different manifestations, various health trajectories, and different outcomes. It’s important for doctors to get up to speed on long COVID as a multisystem illness.

Management at this point is really managing the symptoms. We don’t have a treatment for it; we don’t have a cure for it.

Some patients experience what you’ve described as partial recovery. What does that look like?

Some individuals do experience some recovery over time, but for most individuals, the recovery is long and arduous. Long COVID can last with them for many years. Some people may come back to the clinic and say, “I’m doing better,” but if you really flesh it out and dig deeper, they didn’t do better; they adjusted to a new baseline. They used to walk the dog three to four blocks, and now they walk the dog only half a block. They used to do an activity with their partner every Saturday or Sunday, and now they do half of that.

If you’re a physician, a primary care provider, or any other provider who is dealing with a patient with long COVID, know that this is really happening. It can happen even in vaccinated individuals. The presentation is heterogeneous. Some people may present to you with and say. “Well, before I had COVID I was mentally sharp and now having I’m having difficulty with memory, etc.” It can sometimes present as fatigue or postexertional malaise.

In some instances, it can present as sleep problems. It can present as what we call postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS). Those people get a significant increase in heart rate with postural changes.

What the most important thing we can we learn from the emergence of long COVID?

This whole thing taught us that infections can cause chronic disease. That’s really the No. 1 lesson that I take from this pandemic – that infections can cause chronic disease.

Looking at only acute illness from COVID is really only looking at the tip of the iceberg. Beneath that tip of the iceberg lies this hidden toll of disease that we don’t really talk about that much.

This pandemic shone a very, very good light on the idea that there is really an intimate connection between infections and chronic disease. It was really hardwired into our medical training as doctors that most infections, when people get over the hump of the acute phase of the disease, it’s all behind them. I think long COVID has humbled us in many, many ways, but chief among those is the realization – the stark realization – that infections can cause chronic disease.

That’s really going back to your [first] question: What does it mean that some people are not recovering? They actually have chronic illness. I’m hoping that we will find a treatment, that we’ll start finding things that would help them get back to baseline. But at this point in time, what we’re dealing with is people with chronic illness or chronic disease that may continue to affect them for many years to come in the absence of a treatment or a cure.

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

TOPLINE:

Severe mental illness (SMI) has been linked to a 50% increased risk for all-cause mortality risk after COVID-19, a large population-based study suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators analyzed data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink database, which contains health information on 13.5 million patients receiving care from family practices in England and Northern Ireland.
• The study included participants with SMI, including schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and bipolar disorder.
• Participants were aged 5 years or older with a SARS-CoV-2 infection recorded between Feb. 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021, spanning two waves of the pandemic.
• Death rates among participants with SMI and COVID-19 (n = 7,150; 56% female) were compared with those in a control group of participants without SMI who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 (n = 650,000; 55% female).

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants with SMI and COVID-19 had a 53% higher risk for death than those in the non-SMI control group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-1.68).
• Black Caribbean/Black African participants were more likely than White participants to die of COVID-19 (aHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.12-1.34), although ethnicity was not recorded in 30% of participants.
• After SARS-CoV-2 infection, for every additional multimorbid condition, the aHR for death increased by 6% in the SMI group and 16% in the non-SMI group (P = .001). Some of these conditions included hypertension, heart disease, diabetes, kidney disease, depression, and anxiety.

IN PRACTICE:

“From a public health perspective, our study has emphasized the need for early and timely preventative interventions (e.g. vaccination) for the SMI population. Future studies are needed to disentangle the complex biological and psychosocial factors, and health care pathways, that have led to the greater mortality rates in the SMI population,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

Jayati Das-Munshi, MD, of Kings College London, led the study, which was published online in the British Journal of Psychiatry. The study was funded by the Health Foundation.

LIMITATIONS:

COVID-19 may have been underdiagnosed or underreported in the records studied. Also, investigators did not have information about cause of death.

DISCLOSURES:

One author received funding from Janssen, GSK, and Takeda. All other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Severe mental illness (SMI) has been linked to a 50% increased risk for all-cause mortality risk after COVID-19, a large population-based study suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators analyzed data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink database, which contains health information on 13.5 million patients receiving care from family practices in England and Northern Ireland.
• The study included participants with SMI, including schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and bipolar disorder.
• Participants were aged 5 years or older with a SARS-CoV-2 infection recorded between Feb. 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021, spanning two waves of the pandemic.
• Death rates among participants with SMI and COVID-19 (n = 7,150; 56% female) were compared with those in a control group of participants without SMI who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 (n = 650,000; 55% female).

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants with SMI and COVID-19 had a 53% higher risk for death than those in the non-SMI control group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-1.68).
• Black Caribbean/Black African participants were more likely than White participants to die of COVID-19 (aHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.12-1.34), although ethnicity was not recorded in 30% of participants.
• After SARS-CoV-2 infection, for every additional multimorbid condition, the aHR for death increased by 6% in the SMI group and 16% in the non-SMI group (P = .001). Some of these conditions included hypertension, heart disease, diabetes, kidney disease, depression, and anxiety.

IN PRACTICE:

“From a public health perspective, our study has emphasized the need for early and timely preventative interventions (e.g. vaccination) for the SMI population. Future studies are needed to disentangle the complex biological and psychosocial factors, and health care pathways, that have led to the greater mortality rates in the SMI population,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

Jayati Das-Munshi, MD, of Kings College London, led the study, which was published online in the British Journal of Psychiatry. The study was funded by the Health Foundation.

LIMITATIONS:

COVID-19 may have been underdiagnosed or underreported in the records studied. Also, investigators did not have information about cause of death.

DISCLOSURES:

One author received funding from Janssen, GSK, and Takeda. All other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Severe mental illness (SMI) has been linked to a 50% increased risk for all-cause mortality risk after COVID-19, a large population-based study suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators analyzed data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink database, which contains health information on 13.5 million patients receiving care from family practices in England and Northern Ireland.
• The study included participants with SMI, including schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and bipolar disorder.
• Participants were aged 5 years or older with a SARS-CoV-2 infection recorded between Feb. 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021, spanning two waves of the pandemic.
• Death rates among participants with SMI and COVID-19 (n = 7,150; 56% female) were compared with those in a control group of participants without SMI who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 (n = 650,000; 55% female).

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants with SMI and COVID-19 had a 53% higher risk for death than those in the non-SMI control group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-1.68).
• Black Caribbean/Black African participants were more likely than White participants to die of COVID-19 (aHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.12-1.34), although ethnicity was not recorded in 30% of participants.
• After SARS-CoV-2 infection, for every additional multimorbid condition, the aHR for death increased by 6% in the SMI group and 16% in the non-SMI group (P = .001). Some of these conditions included hypertension, heart disease, diabetes, kidney disease, depression, and anxiety.

IN PRACTICE:

“From a public health perspective, our study has emphasized the need for early and timely preventative interventions (e.g. vaccination) for the SMI population. Future studies are needed to disentangle the complex biological and psychosocial factors, and health care pathways, that have led to the greater mortality rates in the SMI population,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

Jayati Das-Munshi, MD, of Kings College London, led the study, which was published online in the British Journal of Psychiatry. The study was funded by the Health Foundation.

LIMITATIONS:

COVID-19 may have been underdiagnosed or underreported in the records studied. Also, investigators did not have information about cause of death.

DISCLOSURES:

One author received funding from Janssen, GSK, and Takeda. All other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir doesn’t reduce the incidence of most post-COVID conditions, according to a new study. Thromboembolic events are the exception.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective study of 9,593 veterans older than 65 years examined the impact of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in comparison with no treatment on post–COVID-19 conditions (PCCs).
• Researchers coded 31 conditions, including those that fell into cardiac, pulmonary, renal, thromboembolic, gastrointestinal, neurologic, mental health, musculoskeletal, and endocrine categories.
• The incidence of PCCs was analyzed 31-180 days after treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• The combined incidence of venous thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism was reduced among patients given nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.
• No statistically significant reduction of other conditions was found.
• Results differ from the conclusions of a smaller study that found that the incidence of 10 of 13 PCCs was lower.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that considerations about PCCs may not be an important factor in COVID-19 treatment decisions,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs and was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine. George Ioannou, MD, director of hepatology at the VA Puget Sound Health Care System in Seattle, led the study.

LIMITATIONS:

A large number of outcomes were observed, so it’s possible that the association between treatment with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and reduced incidence of thromboembolic events occurred by chance.

Data on COVID-19 treatments and PCCs may be incomplete. The long-term effects of PCCs may not have been fully captured by the ICD-10, which was used for diagnosis codes.

Electronic health records did not accurately capture the symptom burden or the date symptoms began. Patients in the treatment arm may have had more symptoms than matched control persons who were not treated.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported relationships with the Korean Diabetes Association, the American Diabetes Association, the International Society for the Diabetic Foot, Quality Insights, Brown University, and the Society for Women in Urology, among others.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir doesn’t reduce the incidence of most post-COVID conditions, according to a new study. Thromboembolic events are the exception.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective study of 9,593 veterans older than 65 years examined the impact of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in comparison with no treatment on post–COVID-19 conditions (PCCs).
• Researchers coded 31 conditions, including those that fell into cardiac, pulmonary, renal, thromboembolic, gastrointestinal, neurologic, mental health, musculoskeletal, and endocrine categories.
• The incidence of PCCs was analyzed 31-180 days after treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• The combined incidence of venous thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism was reduced among patients given nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.
• No statistically significant reduction of other conditions was found.
• Results differ from the conclusions of a smaller study that found that the incidence of 10 of 13 PCCs was lower.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that considerations about PCCs may not be an important factor in COVID-19 treatment decisions,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs and was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine. George Ioannou, MD, director of hepatology at the VA Puget Sound Health Care System in Seattle, led the study.

LIMITATIONS:

A large number of outcomes were observed, so it’s possible that the association between treatment with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and reduced incidence of thromboembolic events occurred by chance.

Data on COVID-19 treatments and PCCs may be incomplete. The long-term effects of PCCs may not have been fully captured by the ICD-10, which was used for diagnosis codes.

Electronic health records did not accurately capture the symptom burden or the date symptoms began. Patients in the treatment arm may have had more symptoms than matched control persons who were not treated.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported relationships with the Korean Diabetes Association, the American Diabetes Association, the International Society for the Diabetic Foot, Quality Insights, Brown University, and the Society for Women in Urology, among others.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir doesn’t reduce the incidence of most post-COVID conditions, according to a new study. Thromboembolic events are the exception.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective study of 9,593 veterans older than 65 years examined the impact of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in comparison with no treatment on post–COVID-19 conditions (PCCs).
• Researchers coded 31 conditions, including those that fell into cardiac, pulmonary, renal, thromboembolic, gastrointestinal, neurologic, mental health, musculoskeletal, and endocrine categories.
• The incidence of PCCs was analyzed 31-180 days after treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• The combined incidence of venous thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism was reduced among patients given nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.
• No statistically significant reduction of other conditions was found.
• Results differ from the conclusions of a smaller study that found that the incidence of 10 of 13 PCCs was lower.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that considerations about PCCs may not be an important factor in COVID-19 treatment decisions,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs and was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine. George Ioannou, MD, director of hepatology at the VA Puget Sound Health Care System in Seattle, led the study.

LIMITATIONS:

A large number of outcomes were observed, so it’s possible that the association between treatment with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and reduced incidence of thromboembolic events occurred by chance.

Data on COVID-19 treatments and PCCs may be incomplete. The long-term effects of PCCs may not have been fully captured by the ICD-10, which was used for diagnosis codes.

Electronic health records did not accurately capture the symptom burden or the date symptoms began. Patients in the treatment arm may have had more symptoms than matched control persons who were not treated.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported relationships with the Korean Diabetes Association, the American Diabetes Association, the International Society for the Diabetic Foot, Quality Insights, Brown University, and the Society for Women in Urology, among others.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.