COVID-19 Updates

New child cases of COVID-19 made at least a temporary transition from slow increase to decrease, and emergency department visits and new admissions seem to be following a downward trend.

There were almost 87,000 new cases reported during the week of Aug. 5-11, which is down by 10% from the previous week after 4 consecutive weeks of increases, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association. For some historical perspective, the latest weekly count falls below last year’s Delta surge figure of 121,000 (Aug. 6-12) but above the summer 2020 total of 26,000 (Aug. 7-13).

Measures of serious illness finally head downward

The prolonged rise in ED visits and new admissions over the last 5 months, which continued even through late spring when cases were declining, seems to have peaked, CDC data suggest.

That upward trend, driven largely by continued increases among younger children, peaked in late July, when 6.7% of all ED visits for children aged 0-11 years involved diagnosed COVID-19. The corresponding peaks for older children occurred around the same time but were only about half as high: 3.4% for 12- to 15-year-olds and 3.6% for those aged 16-17, the CDC reported.

The data for new admissions present a similar scenario: an increase starting in mid-April that continued unabated into late July despite the decline in new cases. By the time admissions among children aged 0-17 years peaked at 0.46 per 100,000 population in late July, they had reached the same level seen during the Delta surge. By Aug. 7, the rate of new hospitalizations was down to 0.42 per 100,000, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.
 

The vaccine is ready for all students, but …

As children all over the country start or get ready to start a new school year, the only large-scale student vaccine mandate belongs to the District of Columbia. California has a mandate pending, but it will not go into effect until after July 1, 2023. There are, however, 20 states that have banned vaccine mandates for students, according to the National Academy for State Health Policy.

Nonmandated vaccination of the youngest children against COVID-19 continues to be slow. In the approximately 7 weeks (June 19 to Aug. 9) since the vaccine was approved for use in children younger than 5 years, just 4.4% of that age group has received at least one dose and 0.7% are fully vaccinated. Among those aged 5-11 years, who have been vaccine-eligible since early November of last year, 37.6% have received at least one dose and 30.2% are fully vaccinated, the CDC said.

New child cases of COVID-19 made at least a temporary transition from slow increase to decrease, and emergency department visits and new admissions seem to be following a downward trend.

There were almost 87,000 new cases reported during the week of Aug. 5-11, which is down by 10% from the previous week after 4 consecutive weeks of increases, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association. For some historical perspective, the latest weekly count falls below last year’s Delta surge figure of 121,000 (Aug. 6-12) but above the summer 2020 total of 26,000 (Aug. 7-13).

Measures of serious illness finally head downward

The prolonged rise in ED visits and new admissions over the last 5 months, which continued even through late spring when cases were declining, seems to have peaked, CDC data suggest.

That upward trend, driven largely by continued increases among younger children, peaked in late July, when 6.7% of all ED visits for children aged 0-11 years involved diagnosed COVID-19. The corresponding peaks for older children occurred around the same time but were only about half as high: 3.4% for 12- to 15-year-olds and 3.6% for those aged 16-17, the CDC reported.

The data for new admissions present a similar scenario: an increase starting in mid-April that continued unabated into late July despite the decline in new cases. By the time admissions among children aged 0-17 years peaked at 0.46 per 100,000 population in late July, they had reached the same level seen during the Delta surge. By Aug. 7, the rate of new hospitalizations was down to 0.42 per 100,000, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.
 

The vaccine is ready for all students, but …

As children all over the country start or get ready to start a new school year, the only large-scale student vaccine mandate belongs to the District of Columbia. California has a mandate pending, but it will not go into effect until after July 1, 2023. There are, however, 20 states that have banned vaccine mandates for students, according to the National Academy for State Health Policy.

Nonmandated vaccination of the youngest children against COVID-19 continues to be slow. In the approximately 7 weeks (June 19 to Aug. 9) since the vaccine was approved for use in children younger than 5 years, just 4.4% of that age group has received at least one dose and 0.7% are fully vaccinated. Among those aged 5-11 years, who have been vaccine-eligible since early November of last year, 37.6% have received at least one dose and 30.2% are fully vaccinated, the CDC said.

New child cases of COVID-19 made at least a temporary transition from slow increase to decrease, and emergency department visits and new admissions seem to be following a downward trend.

There were almost 87,000 new cases reported during the week of Aug. 5-11, which is down by 10% from the previous week after 4 consecutive weeks of increases, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association. For some historical perspective, the latest weekly count falls below last year’s Delta surge figure of 121,000 (Aug. 6-12) but above the summer 2020 total of 26,000 (Aug. 7-13).

Measures of serious illness finally head downward

The prolonged rise in ED visits and new admissions over the last 5 months, which continued even through late spring when cases were declining, seems to have peaked, CDC data suggest.

That upward trend, driven largely by continued increases among younger children, peaked in late July, when 6.7% of all ED visits for children aged 0-11 years involved diagnosed COVID-19. The corresponding peaks for older children occurred around the same time but were only about half as high: 3.4% for 12- to 15-year-olds and 3.6% for those aged 16-17, the CDC reported.

The data for new admissions present a similar scenario: an increase starting in mid-April that continued unabated into late July despite the decline in new cases. By the time admissions among children aged 0-17 years peaked at 0.46 per 100,000 population in late July, they had reached the same level seen during the Delta surge. By Aug. 7, the rate of new hospitalizations was down to 0.42 per 100,000, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.
 

The vaccine is ready for all students, but …

As children all over the country start or get ready to start a new school year, the only large-scale student vaccine mandate belongs to the District of Columbia. California has a mandate pending, but it will not go into effect until after July 1, 2023. There are, however, 20 states that have banned vaccine mandates for students, according to the National Academy for State Health Policy.

Nonmandated vaccination of the youngest children against COVID-19 continues to be slow. In the approximately 7 weeks (June 19 to Aug. 9) since the vaccine was approved for use in children younger than 5 years, just 4.4% of that age group has received at least one dose and 0.7% are fully vaccinated. Among those aged 5-11 years, who have been vaccine-eligible since early November of last year, 37.6% have received at least one dose and 30.2% are fully vaccinated, the CDC said.

When Spencer Siedlecki got COVID-19 in March 2021, he was sick for weeks with extreme fatigue, fevers, a sore throat, bad headaches, nausea, and eventually, pneumonia.

That was scary enough for the then-13-year-old and his parents, who live in Ohio. More than a year later, Spencer still had many of the symptoms and, more alarming, the once-healthy teen had postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, a condition that has caused dizziness, a racing heart when he stands, and fainting. Spencer missed most of the last few months of eighth grade because of long COVID.

“He gets sick very easily,” said his mother, Melissa Siedlecki, who works in technology sales. “The common cold that he would shake off in a few days takes weeks for him to feel better.”

The transformation from regular teen life to someone with a chronic illness “sucked,” said Spencer, who will turn 15 in August. “I felt like I was never going to get better.” Fortunately, after some therapy at a specialized clinic, Spencer is back to playing baseball and golf.

Spencer’s journey to better health was difficult; his regular pediatrician told the family at first that there were no treatments to help him – a reaction that is not uncommon. “I still get a lot of parents who heard of me through the grapevine,” said Amy Edwards, MD, director of the pediatric COVID clinic at University Hospitals Rainbow Babies & Children’s and an assistant professor of pediatrics at Case Western Reserve University, both in Cleveland. “The pediatricians either are unsure of what is wrong, or worse, tell children ‘there is nothing wrong with you. Stop faking it.’ ” Dr. Edwards treated Spencer after his mother found the clinic through an internet search.

Alexandra Yonts, MD, a pediatric infectious diseases doctor and director of the post-COVID program clinic at Children’s National Medical Center in Washington, has seen this too. They’ve had “a lot of kids coming in and saying we’ve been passed around from doctor to doctor, and some of them don’t even believe long COVID exists,” she said.

But those who do get attention tend to be White and affluent, something Dr. Yonts said “doesn’t jibe with the epidemiologic data of who COVID has affected the most.” Black, Latino, and American Indian and Alaska Native children are more likely to be infected with COVID than White children, and have higher rates of hospitalization and death than White children.

It’s not clear whether these children have a particular risk factor, or if they are just the ones who have the resources to get to the clinics. But Dr. Yonts and Dr. Edwards believe many children are not getting the help they need. High-performing kids are coming in “because they are the ones whose symptoms are most obvious,” said Dr. Edwards. “I think there are kids out there who are getting missed because they’re already struggling because of socioeconomic reasons.”

Spencer is one of 14 million children who have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 since the start of the pandemic. Many pediatricians are still grappling with how to address cases like Spencer’s. The American Academy of Pediatrics has issued only brief guidance on long COVID in children, in part because there have been so few studies to use as a basis for guidance.

The federal government is aiming to change that with a newly launched National Research Action Plan on Long COVID that includes speeding up research on how the condition affects children and youths, including their ability to learn and thrive.

A CDC study found children with COVID were significantly more likely to have smell and taste disturbances, circulatory system problems, fatigue and malaise, and pain. Those who had been infected had higher rates of acute blockage of a lung artery, myocarditis and weakening of the heart, kidney failure, and type 1 diabetes.
 

Difficult to diagnose

Even with increased media attention and more published studies on pediatric long COVID, it’s still hard for a busy primary care doctor “to sort through what could just be a cold or what could be a series of colds and trying to look at the bigger picture of what’s been going on in a 1- to 3-month period with a kid,” Dr. Yonts said.

Most children with potential or definite long COVID are still being seen by individual pediatricians, not in a specialized clinic with easy access to an army of specialists. It’s not clear how many of those pediatric clinics exist. Survivor Corps, an advocacy group for people with long COVID, has posted a map of locations providing care, but few are specialized or focus on pediatric long COVID.

Long COVID is different from multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), which occurs within a month or so of infection, triggers high fevers and severe symptoms in the gut, and often results in hospitalization. MIS-C “is not subtle,” said Dr. Edwards.

The long COVID clinic doctors said most of their patients were not very sick at first. “Anecdotally, of the 83 kids that we’ve seen, most have had mild, very mild, or even asymptomatic infections initially,” and then went on to have long COVID, said Dr. Yonts.

“We see it even in children who have very mild disease or even are asymptomatic,” agreed Allison Eckard, MD, director of pediatric infectious diseases at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.
 

Fatigue, mood problems

Dr. Yonts said 90% of her patients have fatigue, and many also have severe symptoms in their gut. Those and other long COVID symptoms will be looked at more closely in a 3-year study the Children’s National Medical Center is doing along with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

There are no treatments for long COVID itself.

“Management is probably more the correct term for what we do in our clinic at this point,” said Dr. Yonts. That means dealing with fatigue and managing headache and digestive symptoms with medications or coping strategies. Guidelines from the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation help inform how to help kids safely resume exercise.

At the Children’s National Medical Center clinic, children will typically meet with a team of specialists including infectious diseases doctors on the same day, said Dr. Yonts. Psychologists help children with coping skills. Dr. Yonts is careful not to imply that long COVID is a psychological illness. Parents “will just shut down, because for so long, they’ve been told this is all a mental thing.”

In about a third of children, symptoms get better on their own, and most kids get better over time. But many still struggle. “We don’t talk about cure, because we don’t know what cure looks like,” said Dr. Edwards.
 

Vaccination may be best protection

Vaccination seems to help reduce the risk of long COVID, perhaps by as much as half. But parents have been slow to vaccinate children, especially the very young. The AAP reported that, as of Aug. 3, just 5% of children under age 5, 37% of those ages 5-11, and 69% of 12- to 17-year-olds have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.

“We have tried to really push vaccine as one of the ways to help prevent some of these long COVID syndromes,” said Dr. Eckard. But that advice is not always welcome. Dr. Eckard told the story of a mother who refused to have her autistic son vaccinated, even as she tearfully pleaded for help with his long COVID symptoms, which had also worsened his autism. The woman told Dr. Eckard: “Nothing you can say will convince me to get him vaccinated.” She thought a vaccine could make his symptoms even worse.

The best prevention is to avoid being infected in the first place.

“The more times you get COVID, the more you increase your risk of getting long COVID,” said Dr. Yonts. “The more times you roll the dice, eventually your number could come up.

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

When Spencer Siedlecki got COVID-19 in March 2021, he was sick for weeks with extreme fatigue, fevers, a sore throat, bad headaches, nausea, and eventually, pneumonia.

That was scary enough for the then-13-year-old and his parents, who live in Ohio. More than a year later, Spencer still had many of the symptoms and, more alarming, the once-healthy teen had postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, a condition that has caused dizziness, a racing heart when he stands, and fainting. Spencer missed most of the last few months of eighth grade because of long COVID.

“He gets sick very easily,” said his mother, Melissa Siedlecki, who works in technology sales. “The common cold that he would shake off in a few days takes weeks for him to feel better.”

The transformation from regular teen life to someone with a chronic illness “sucked,” said Spencer, who will turn 15 in August. “I felt like I was never going to get better.” Fortunately, after some therapy at a specialized clinic, Spencer is back to playing baseball and golf.

Spencer’s journey to better health was difficult; his regular pediatrician told the family at first that there were no treatments to help him – a reaction that is not uncommon. “I still get a lot of parents who heard of me through the grapevine,” said Amy Edwards, MD, director of the pediatric COVID clinic at University Hospitals Rainbow Babies & Children’s and an assistant professor of pediatrics at Case Western Reserve University, both in Cleveland. “The pediatricians either are unsure of what is wrong, or worse, tell children ‘there is nothing wrong with you. Stop faking it.’ ” Dr. Edwards treated Spencer after his mother found the clinic through an internet search.

Alexandra Yonts, MD, a pediatric infectious diseases doctor and director of the post-COVID program clinic at Children’s National Medical Center in Washington, has seen this too. They’ve had “a lot of kids coming in and saying we’ve been passed around from doctor to doctor, and some of them don’t even believe long COVID exists,” she said.

But those who do get attention tend to be White and affluent, something Dr. Yonts said “doesn’t jibe with the epidemiologic data of who COVID has affected the most.” Black, Latino, and American Indian and Alaska Native children are more likely to be infected with COVID than White children, and have higher rates of hospitalization and death than White children.

It’s not clear whether these children have a particular risk factor, or if they are just the ones who have the resources to get to the clinics. But Dr. Yonts and Dr. Edwards believe many children are not getting the help they need. High-performing kids are coming in “because they are the ones whose symptoms are most obvious,” said Dr. Edwards. “I think there are kids out there who are getting missed because they’re already struggling because of socioeconomic reasons.”

Spencer is one of 14 million children who have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 since the start of the pandemic. Many pediatricians are still grappling with how to address cases like Spencer’s. The American Academy of Pediatrics has issued only brief guidance on long COVID in children, in part because there have been so few studies to use as a basis for guidance.

The federal government is aiming to change that with a newly launched National Research Action Plan on Long COVID that includes speeding up research on how the condition affects children and youths, including their ability to learn and thrive.

A CDC study found children with COVID were significantly more likely to have smell and taste disturbances, circulatory system problems, fatigue and malaise, and pain. Those who had been infected had higher rates of acute blockage of a lung artery, myocarditis and weakening of the heart, kidney failure, and type 1 diabetes.
 

Difficult to diagnose

Even with increased media attention and more published studies on pediatric long COVID, it’s still hard for a busy primary care doctor “to sort through what could just be a cold or what could be a series of colds and trying to look at the bigger picture of what’s been going on in a 1- to 3-month period with a kid,” Dr. Yonts said.

Most children with potential or definite long COVID are still being seen by individual pediatricians, not in a specialized clinic with easy access to an army of specialists. It’s not clear how many of those pediatric clinics exist. Survivor Corps, an advocacy group for people with long COVID, has posted a map of locations providing care, but few are specialized or focus on pediatric long COVID.

Long COVID is different from multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), which occurs within a month or so of infection, triggers high fevers and severe symptoms in the gut, and often results in hospitalization. MIS-C “is not subtle,” said Dr. Edwards.

The long COVID clinic doctors said most of their patients were not very sick at first. “Anecdotally, of the 83 kids that we’ve seen, most have had mild, very mild, or even asymptomatic infections initially,” and then went on to have long COVID, said Dr. Yonts.

“We see it even in children who have very mild disease or even are asymptomatic,” agreed Allison Eckard, MD, director of pediatric infectious diseases at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.
 

Fatigue, mood problems

Dr. Yonts said 90% of her patients have fatigue, and many also have severe symptoms in their gut. Those and other long COVID symptoms will be looked at more closely in a 3-year study the Children’s National Medical Center is doing along with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

There are no treatments for long COVID itself.

“Management is probably more the correct term for what we do in our clinic at this point,” said Dr. Yonts. That means dealing with fatigue and managing headache and digestive symptoms with medications or coping strategies. Guidelines from the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation help inform how to help kids safely resume exercise.

At the Children’s National Medical Center clinic, children will typically meet with a team of specialists including infectious diseases doctors on the same day, said Dr. Yonts. Psychologists help children with coping skills. Dr. Yonts is careful not to imply that long COVID is a psychological illness. Parents “will just shut down, because for so long, they’ve been told this is all a mental thing.”

In about a third of children, symptoms get better on their own, and most kids get better over time. But many still struggle. “We don’t talk about cure, because we don’t know what cure looks like,” said Dr. Edwards.
 

Vaccination may be best protection

Vaccination seems to help reduce the risk of long COVID, perhaps by as much as half. But parents have been slow to vaccinate children, especially the very young. The AAP reported that, as of Aug. 3, just 5% of children under age 5, 37% of those ages 5-11, and 69% of 12- to 17-year-olds have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.

“We have tried to really push vaccine as one of the ways to help prevent some of these long COVID syndromes,” said Dr. Eckard. But that advice is not always welcome. Dr. Eckard told the story of a mother who refused to have her autistic son vaccinated, even as she tearfully pleaded for help with his long COVID symptoms, which had also worsened his autism. The woman told Dr. Eckard: “Nothing you can say will convince me to get him vaccinated.” She thought a vaccine could make his symptoms even worse.

The best prevention is to avoid being infected in the first place.

“The more times you get COVID, the more you increase your risk of getting long COVID,” said Dr. Yonts. “The more times you roll the dice, eventually your number could come up.

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

When Spencer Siedlecki got COVID-19 in March 2021, he was sick for weeks with extreme fatigue, fevers, a sore throat, bad headaches, nausea, and eventually, pneumonia.

That was scary enough for the then-13-year-old and his parents, who live in Ohio. More than a year later, Spencer still had many of the symptoms and, more alarming, the once-healthy teen had postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, a condition that has caused dizziness, a racing heart when he stands, and fainting. Spencer missed most of the last few months of eighth grade because of long COVID.

“He gets sick very easily,” said his mother, Melissa Siedlecki, who works in technology sales. “The common cold that he would shake off in a few days takes weeks for him to feel better.”

The transformation from regular teen life to someone with a chronic illness “sucked,” said Spencer, who will turn 15 in August. “I felt like I was never going to get better.” Fortunately, after some therapy at a specialized clinic, Spencer is back to playing baseball and golf.

Spencer’s journey to better health was difficult; his regular pediatrician told the family at first that there were no treatments to help him – a reaction that is not uncommon. “I still get a lot of parents who heard of me through the grapevine,” said Amy Edwards, MD, director of the pediatric COVID clinic at University Hospitals Rainbow Babies & Children’s and an assistant professor of pediatrics at Case Western Reserve University, both in Cleveland. “The pediatricians either are unsure of what is wrong, or worse, tell children ‘there is nothing wrong with you. Stop faking it.’ ” Dr. Edwards treated Spencer after his mother found the clinic through an internet search.

Alexandra Yonts, MD, a pediatric infectious diseases doctor and director of the post-COVID program clinic at Children’s National Medical Center in Washington, has seen this too. They’ve had “a lot of kids coming in and saying we’ve been passed around from doctor to doctor, and some of them don’t even believe long COVID exists,” she said.

But those who do get attention tend to be White and affluent, something Dr. Yonts said “doesn’t jibe with the epidemiologic data of who COVID has affected the most.” Black, Latino, and American Indian and Alaska Native children are more likely to be infected with COVID than White children, and have higher rates of hospitalization and death than White children.

It’s not clear whether these children have a particular risk factor, or if they are just the ones who have the resources to get to the clinics. But Dr. Yonts and Dr. Edwards believe many children are not getting the help they need. High-performing kids are coming in “because they are the ones whose symptoms are most obvious,” said Dr. Edwards. “I think there are kids out there who are getting missed because they’re already struggling because of socioeconomic reasons.”

Spencer is one of 14 million children who have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 since the start of the pandemic. Many pediatricians are still grappling with how to address cases like Spencer’s. The American Academy of Pediatrics has issued only brief guidance on long COVID in children, in part because there have been so few studies to use as a basis for guidance.

The federal government is aiming to change that with a newly launched National Research Action Plan on Long COVID that includes speeding up research on how the condition affects children and youths, including their ability to learn and thrive.

A CDC study found children with COVID were significantly more likely to have smell and taste disturbances, circulatory system problems, fatigue and malaise, and pain. Those who had been infected had higher rates of acute blockage of a lung artery, myocarditis and weakening of the heart, kidney failure, and type 1 diabetes.
 

Difficult to diagnose

Even with increased media attention and more published studies on pediatric long COVID, it’s still hard for a busy primary care doctor “to sort through what could just be a cold or what could be a series of colds and trying to look at the bigger picture of what’s been going on in a 1- to 3-month period with a kid,” Dr. Yonts said.

Most children with potential or definite long COVID are still being seen by individual pediatricians, not in a specialized clinic with easy access to an army of specialists. It’s not clear how many of those pediatric clinics exist. Survivor Corps, an advocacy group for people with long COVID, has posted a map of locations providing care, but few are specialized or focus on pediatric long COVID.

Long COVID is different from multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), which occurs within a month or so of infection, triggers high fevers and severe symptoms in the gut, and often results in hospitalization. MIS-C “is not subtle,” said Dr. Edwards.

The long COVID clinic doctors said most of their patients were not very sick at first. “Anecdotally, of the 83 kids that we’ve seen, most have had mild, very mild, or even asymptomatic infections initially,” and then went on to have long COVID, said Dr. Yonts.

“We see it even in children who have very mild disease or even are asymptomatic,” agreed Allison Eckard, MD, director of pediatric infectious diseases at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.
 

Fatigue, mood problems

Dr. Yonts said 90% of her patients have fatigue, and many also have severe symptoms in their gut. Those and other long COVID symptoms will be looked at more closely in a 3-year study the Children’s National Medical Center is doing along with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

There are no treatments for long COVID itself.

“Management is probably more the correct term for what we do in our clinic at this point,” said Dr. Yonts. That means dealing with fatigue and managing headache and digestive symptoms with medications or coping strategies. Guidelines from the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation help inform how to help kids safely resume exercise.

At the Children’s National Medical Center clinic, children will typically meet with a team of specialists including infectious diseases doctors on the same day, said Dr. Yonts. Psychologists help children with coping skills. Dr. Yonts is careful not to imply that long COVID is a psychological illness. Parents “will just shut down, because for so long, they’ve been told this is all a mental thing.”

In about a third of children, symptoms get better on their own, and most kids get better over time. But many still struggle. “We don’t talk about cure, because we don’t know what cure looks like,” said Dr. Edwards.
 

Vaccination may be best protection

Vaccination seems to help reduce the risk of long COVID, perhaps by as much as half. But parents have been slow to vaccinate children, especially the very young. The AAP reported that, as of Aug. 3, just 5% of children under age 5, 37% of those ages 5-11, and 69% of 12- to 17-year-olds have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.

“We have tried to really push vaccine as one of the ways to help prevent some of these long COVID syndromes,” said Dr. Eckard. But that advice is not always welcome. Dr. Eckard told the story of a mother who refused to have her autistic son vaccinated, even as she tearfully pleaded for help with his long COVID symptoms, which had also worsened his autism. The woman told Dr. Eckard: “Nothing you can say will convince me to get him vaccinated.” She thought a vaccine could make his symptoms even worse.

The best prevention is to avoid being infected in the first place.

“The more times you get COVID, the more you increase your risk of getting long COVID,” said Dr. Yonts. “The more times you roll the dice, eventually your number could come up.

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

The Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies has released clinical practice guidelines for using COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) in hospital and outpatient settings.

In summarizing the practice statement, the authors write, “CCP is most effective when transfused with high neutralizing titers early after symptom onset.”

The five guidelines, were published in Annals of Internal Medicine. The guidelines and strength of recommendations are:

• Nonhospitalized patients at high risk for disease progression should have CCP transfusion in addition to usual standard of care. (weak)
• CCP transfusion should not be done for unselected hospitalized patients with moderate or severe disease. This does not apply to immunosuppressed patients or those who lack antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. (strong)
• CCP transfusion is suggested in addition to the usual standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who do not have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at admission. (weak)
• Prophylactic CCP transfusion is not recommended for uninfected people with close contact exposure to someone with COVID-19. (weak)
• The AABB suggests CCP transfusion along with standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and preexisting immunosuppression. (weak)

Multiple guidelines for use of CCP are similar

In an accompanying editorial, Jason V. Baker, MD, MS, and H. Clifford Lane, MD, who are part of the National Institutes of Health Treatment Guidelines Panel, say guidelines from that organization around CCP generally align with those of the AABB and the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

They all note CCP’s potential for helping immunocompromised patients and they recommend against CCP in unselected, hospitalized patients.

The main difference is that the AABB also “suggests” using CCP in combination with other standard treatments for outpatients at high risk for disease progression, regardless of their immune status, write Dr. Baker, who is with Hennepin Healthcare and the department of medicine at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, and Dr. Lane, who is with the National Institutes of Health.

The precise circumstance for recommending CCP remains unclear, Dr. Baker and Dr. Lane write. That’s because most available evidence has come in the absence of vaccines and antiviral agents, including nirmatrelvir–ritonavir (Paxlovid), they explain.

“At this point in the pandemic, it seems that the patient most likely to benefit from passive antibody therapy is the immunocompromised host with COVID-19 who cannot mount their own antibody response to vaccine or prior infection,” they write.

“In that setting, and in the absence of other antiviral treatments or progression despite receipt of standard treatments, high-titer CCP from a recently recovered donor is a reasonable approach,” they conclude.

Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, said in an interview that “clinical guidelines like this really help practicing physicians as we navigate the explosion of research findings since the start of the pandemic.”

One strong recommendation

Dr. Barrett pointed out that four of the five recommendations are rated “weak.”

“The weak recommendations for convalescent plasma in most situations is very humbling,” she said, “particularly as we recall the earliest days of the pandemic when many hospitalized patients received this treatment when little was known about what could help.”

She highlighted the paper’s only strong recommendation, which was against convalescent plasma use for the vast majority of hospitalized patients with COVID.

“That clinical bottom line is what most clinicians will look for,” she said.

“Similarly,” she said, “the accompanying editorial is so helpful in reminding the reader that, despite some possible benefit to convalescent plasma in a smaller subgroup of patients, variant-appropriate monoclonal antibodies and antivirals are better options.”

The disclosures for lead author of the guidelines, Lise J. Estcourt, MB BChir, DPhil, with the National Health Service Blood and Transplant Department and Radcliffe department of medicine at the University of Oxford (England) and her colleagues are available at https://rmed.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M22-1079. The editorialists and Dr. Barrett declare no relevant financial relationships.

The Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies has released clinical practice guidelines for using COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) in hospital and outpatient settings.

In summarizing the practice statement, the authors write, “CCP is most effective when transfused with high neutralizing titers early after symptom onset.”

The five guidelines, were published in Annals of Internal Medicine. The guidelines and strength of recommendations are:

• Nonhospitalized patients at high risk for disease progression should have CCP transfusion in addition to usual standard of care. (weak)
• CCP transfusion should not be done for unselected hospitalized patients with moderate or severe disease. This does not apply to immunosuppressed patients or those who lack antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. (strong)
• CCP transfusion is suggested in addition to the usual standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who do not have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at admission. (weak)
• Prophylactic CCP transfusion is not recommended for uninfected people with close contact exposure to someone with COVID-19. (weak)
• The AABB suggests CCP transfusion along with standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and preexisting immunosuppression. (weak)

Multiple guidelines for use of CCP are similar

In an accompanying editorial, Jason V. Baker, MD, MS, and H. Clifford Lane, MD, who are part of the National Institutes of Health Treatment Guidelines Panel, say guidelines from that organization around CCP generally align with those of the AABB and the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

They all note CCP’s potential for helping immunocompromised patients and they recommend against CCP in unselected, hospitalized patients.

The main difference is that the AABB also “suggests” using CCP in combination with other standard treatments for outpatients at high risk for disease progression, regardless of their immune status, write Dr. Baker, who is with Hennepin Healthcare and the department of medicine at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, and Dr. Lane, who is with the National Institutes of Health.

The precise circumstance for recommending CCP remains unclear, Dr. Baker and Dr. Lane write. That’s because most available evidence has come in the absence of vaccines and antiviral agents, including nirmatrelvir–ritonavir (Paxlovid), they explain.

“At this point in the pandemic, it seems that the patient most likely to benefit from passive antibody therapy is the immunocompromised host with COVID-19 who cannot mount their own antibody response to vaccine or prior infection,” they write.

“In that setting, and in the absence of other antiviral treatments or progression despite receipt of standard treatments, high-titer CCP from a recently recovered donor is a reasonable approach,” they conclude.

Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, said in an interview that “clinical guidelines like this really help practicing physicians as we navigate the explosion of research findings since the start of the pandemic.”

One strong recommendation

Dr. Barrett pointed out that four of the five recommendations are rated “weak.”

“The weak recommendations for convalescent plasma in most situations is very humbling,” she said, “particularly as we recall the earliest days of the pandemic when many hospitalized patients received this treatment when little was known about what could help.”

She highlighted the paper’s only strong recommendation, which was against convalescent plasma use for the vast majority of hospitalized patients with COVID.

“That clinical bottom line is what most clinicians will look for,” she said.

“Similarly,” she said, “the accompanying editorial is so helpful in reminding the reader that, despite some possible benefit to convalescent plasma in a smaller subgroup of patients, variant-appropriate monoclonal antibodies and antivirals are better options.”

The disclosures for lead author of the guidelines, Lise J. Estcourt, MB BChir, DPhil, with the National Health Service Blood and Transplant Department and Radcliffe department of medicine at the University of Oxford (England) and her colleagues are available at https://rmed.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M22-1079. The editorialists and Dr. Barrett declare no relevant financial relationships.

The Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies has released clinical practice guidelines for using COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) in hospital and outpatient settings.

In summarizing the practice statement, the authors write, “CCP is most effective when transfused with high neutralizing titers early after symptom onset.”

The five guidelines, were published in Annals of Internal Medicine. The guidelines and strength of recommendations are:

• Nonhospitalized patients at high risk for disease progression should have CCP transfusion in addition to usual standard of care. (weak)
• CCP transfusion should not be done for unselected hospitalized patients with moderate or severe disease. This does not apply to immunosuppressed patients or those who lack antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. (strong)
• CCP transfusion is suggested in addition to the usual standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who do not have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at admission. (weak)
• Prophylactic CCP transfusion is not recommended for uninfected people with close contact exposure to someone with COVID-19. (weak)
• The AABB suggests CCP transfusion along with standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and preexisting immunosuppression. (weak)

Multiple guidelines for use of CCP are similar

In an accompanying editorial, Jason V. Baker, MD, MS, and H. Clifford Lane, MD, who are part of the National Institutes of Health Treatment Guidelines Panel, say guidelines from that organization around CCP generally align with those of the AABB and the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

They all note CCP’s potential for helping immunocompromised patients and they recommend against CCP in unselected, hospitalized patients.

The main difference is that the AABB also “suggests” using CCP in combination with other standard treatments for outpatients at high risk for disease progression, regardless of their immune status, write Dr. Baker, who is with Hennepin Healthcare and the department of medicine at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, and Dr. Lane, who is with the National Institutes of Health.

The precise circumstance for recommending CCP remains unclear, Dr. Baker and Dr. Lane write. That’s because most available evidence has come in the absence of vaccines and antiviral agents, including nirmatrelvir–ritonavir (Paxlovid), they explain.

“At this point in the pandemic, it seems that the patient most likely to benefit from passive antibody therapy is the immunocompromised host with COVID-19 who cannot mount their own antibody response to vaccine or prior infection,” they write.

“In that setting, and in the absence of other antiviral treatments or progression despite receipt of standard treatments, high-titer CCP from a recently recovered donor is a reasonable approach,” they conclude.

Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, said in an interview that “clinical guidelines like this really help practicing physicians as we navigate the explosion of research findings since the start of the pandemic.”

One strong recommendation

Dr. Barrett pointed out that four of the five recommendations are rated “weak.”

“The weak recommendations for convalescent plasma in most situations is very humbling,” she said, “particularly as we recall the earliest days of the pandemic when many hospitalized patients received this treatment when little was known about what could help.”

She highlighted the paper’s only strong recommendation, which was against convalescent plasma use for the vast majority of hospitalized patients with COVID.

“That clinical bottom line is what most clinicians will look for,” she said.

“Similarly,” she said, “the accompanying editorial is so helpful in reminding the reader that, despite some possible benefit to convalescent plasma in a smaller subgroup of patients, variant-appropriate monoclonal antibodies and antivirals are better options.”

The disclosures for lead author of the guidelines, Lise J. Estcourt, MB BChir, DPhil, with the National Health Service Blood and Transplant Department and Radcliffe department of medicine at the University of Oxford (England) and her colleagues are available at https://rmed.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M22-1079. The editorialists and Dr. Barrett declare no relevant financial relationships.

New York City is closing 10 city-run sites where children younger than 5 could get the COVID-19 vaccine, with three of those sites transitioning to administer the monkeypox vaccine.

The city health department said demand for children’s COVID vaccines had been on the downswing at the clinics, which opened in late June. Meanwhile, monkeypox cases have increased, with the city declaring it a public health emergency July 30.

“We always planned to transition vaccination for very young children to providers,” the city’s health department said in a statement, according to Spectrum News NY1. “Due to the ongoing monkeypox emergency, we transitioned some of these sites to administer monkeypox vaccine.”

All the COVID vaccine sites for children will close by Aug. 14, Spectrum News NY1 said. It’s unclear if the other sites will transition to monkeypox vaccine.

No appointments for children’s COVID vaccinations had to be canceled, the city said. The plan is that children now needing the COVID vaccine can go to doctors, pharmacies, or the health department clinics.

Manhattan City Councilwoman Gale Brewer urged the health department to keep the kids’ COVID vaccine sites open through the fall.

“I strongly urge you to maintain these family-friendly sites, at least until mid-September so that children who are going to day care and school can get vaccinated,” Brewer wrote. City schools open Sept. 8

Ms. Brewer noted that the city-run sites administered the Moderna vaccines, while many doctors and neighborhood health clinics use the Pfizer vaccine. That could be a problem for a child that had not finished the Moderna regimen or for families that prefer Moderna.

According to the city health department, 2,130 people in New York City had tested positive for monkeypox as of Aug. 12.

On Friday, the city announced 9,000 additional monkeypox vaccines would be made available the morning of Aug. 13.

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

New York City is closing 10 city-run sites where children younger than 5 could get the COVID-19 vaccine, with three of those sites transitioning to administer the monkeypox vaccine.

The city health department said demand for children’s COVID vaccines had been on the downswing at the clinics, which opened in late June. Meanwhile, monkeypox cases have increased, with the city declaring it a public health emergency July 30.

“We always planned to transition vaccination for very young children to providers,” the city’s health department said in a statement, according to Spectrum News NY1. “Due to the ongoing monkeypox emergency, we transitioned some of these sites to administer monkeypox vaccine.”

All the COVID vaccine sites for children will close by Aug. 14, Spectrum News NY1 said. It’s unclear if the other sites will transition to monkeypox vaccine.

No appointments for children’s COVID vaccinations had to be canceled, the city said. The plan is that children now needing the COVID vaccine can go to doctors, pharmacies, or the health department clinics.

Manhattan City Councilwoman Gale Brewer urged the health department to keep the kids’ COVID vaccine sites open through the fall.

“I strongly urge you to maintain these family-friendly sites, at least until mid-September so that children who are going to day care and school can get vaccinated,” Brewer wrote. City schools open Sept. 8

Ms. Brewer noted that the city-run sites administered the Moderna vaccines, while many doctors and neighborhood health clinics use the Pfizer vaccine. That could be a problem for a child that had not finished the Moderna regimen or for families that prefer Moderna.

According to the city health department, 2,130 people in New York City had tested positive for monkeypox as of Aug. 12.

On Friday, the city announced 9,000 additional monkeypox vaccines would be made available the morning of Aug. 13.

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

New York City is closing 10 city-run sites where children younger than 5 could get the COVID-19 vaccine, with three of those sites transitioning to administer the monkeypox vaccine.

The city health department said demand for children’s COVID vaccines had been on the downswing at the clinics, which opened in late June. Meanwhile, monkeypox cases have increased, with the city declaring it a public health emergency July 30.

“We always planned to transition vaccination for very young children to providers,” the city’s health department said in a statement, according to Spectrum News NY1. “Due to the ongoing monkeypox emergency, we transitioned some of these sites to administer monkeypox vaccine.”

All the COVID vaccine sites for children will close by Aug. 14, Spectrum News NY1 said. It’s unclear if the other sites will transition to monkeypox vaccine.

No appointments for children’s COVID vaccinations had to be canceled, the city said. The plan is that children now needing the COVID vaccine can go to doctors, pharmacies, or the health department clinics.

Manhattan City Councilwoman Gale Brewer urged the health department to keep the kids’ COVID vaccine sites open through the fall.

“I strongly urge you to maintain these family-friendly sites, at least until mid-September so that children who are going to day care and school can get vaccinated,” Brewer wrote. City schools open Sept. 8

Ms. Brewer noted that the city-run sites administered the Moderna vaccines, while many doctors and neighborhood health clinics use the Pfizer vaccine. That could be a problem for a child that had not finished the Moderna regimen or for families that prefer Moderna.

According to the city health department, 2,130 people in New York City had tested positive for monkeypox as of Aug. 12.

On Friday, the city announced 9,000 additional monkeypox vaccines would be made available the morning of Aug. 13.

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

More than 60% of Americans older than age 50, and nearly 70% of those older than 65, say they intend to roll up their sleeves to prevent COVID-19 in the fall of 2022.

That finding comes from a new poll by researchers at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who also report that when it comes to the shots, people appear to be putting more trust in their health care professionals than in public health authorities.

“When you are a doctor, you are a trusted source of medical information,” said Preeti Malani, MD, MSJ, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Michigan. “Use the ongoing conversation with your patient as an opportunity to answer their questions and counter any confusion.”

The vaccination campaign appears to be having a rub-off effect, too. More people say they’re likely to receive vaccines and boosters for other infections, such as flu, if they have already been vaccinated and boosted against COVID-19.
 

Inside the poll

Dr. Malani and her colleagues, who published their findings on the National Poll on Healthy Aging’s website, asked 1,024 adults older than 50 about their attitudes on COVID-19 vaccinations and their history of receiving the injections. The questions covered topics including whether the individual had contracted COVID, COVID vaccine doses, and the prevalence of a health care clinician’s opinion on vaccines and boosters. The poll was conducted July 21-26.

The researchers chose the age range of 50-65 years because this group is an important population for new booster shots that target specific variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19.

Only 19% of people aged 50-64 and 44% of those older than 65 said they had received both their first and second COVID-19 booster shots. What’s more, 17% of people said they had not received any doses of a COVID-19 vaccine.

The vast majority (77%) of respondents said their clinician’s recommendations were “very important” or “somewhat important” in their decision to receive the vaccine. 

Dr. Malani said that in her practice, patients have expressed hesitation about COVID-19 vaccines because of concerns about the potential side effects of the shots.

Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, noted that Americans now appear to trust their physicians more than public health authorities such as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention when it comes to COVID-19.

“More people are trusting their providers’ opinions [more] than the CDC or other public health agencies. That speaks volumes to me,” Dr. Gandhi said.

Among the more surprising findings of the poll, according to the researchers, was the number of people who said they had yet to contract COVID-19: 50% of those aged 50-64, and 69% of those older than 65. (Another 12% of those aged 50-64 said they were unsure if they’d ever had the infection.)

Dr. Malani said she hoped future studies would explore in depth the people who remain uninfected with COVID-19.

“We focus a lot on the science of COVID,” she said. “But we need to turn our attention to the behavioral aspects and how to address them.”

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

More than 60% of Americans older than age 50, and nearly 70% of those older than 65, say they intend to roll up their sleeves to prevent COVID-19 in the fall of 2022.

That finding comes from a new poll by researchers at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who also report that when it comes to the shots, people appear to be putting more trust in their health care professionals than in public health authorities.

“When you are a doctor, you are a trusted source of medical information,” said Preeti Malani, MD, MSJ, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Michigan. “Use the ongoing conversation with your patient as an opportunity to answer their questions and counter any confusion.”

The vaccination campaign appears to be having a rub-off effect, too. More people say they’re likely to receive vaccines and boosters for other infections, such as flu, if they have already been vaccinated and boosted against COVID-19.
 

Inside the poll

Dr. Malani and her colleagues, who published their findings on the National Poll on Healthy Aging’s website, asked 1,024 adults older than 50 about their attitudes on COVID-19 vaccinations and their history of receiving the injections. The questions covered topics including whether the individual had contracted COVID, COVID vaccine doses, and the prevalence of a health care clinician’s opinion on vaccines and boosters. The poll was conducted July 21-26.

The researchers chose the age range of 50-65 years because this group is an important population for new booster shots that target specific variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19.

Only 19% of people aged 50-64 and 44% of those older than 65 said they had received both their first and second COVID-19 booster shots. What’s more, 17% of people said they had not received any doses of a COVID-19 vaccine.

The vast majority (77%) of respondents said their clinician’s recommendations were “very important” or “somewhat important” in their decision to receive the vaccine. 

Dr. Malani said that in her practice, patients have expressed hesitation about COVID-19 vaccines because of concerns about the potential side effects of the shots.

Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, noted that Americans now appear to trust their physicians more than public health authorities such as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention when it comes to COVID-19.

“More people are trusting their providers’ opinions [more] than the CDC or other public health agencies. That speaks volumes to me,” Dr. Gandhi said.

Among the more surprising findings of the poll, according to the researchers, was the number of people who said they had yet to contract COVID-19: 50% of those aged 50-64, and 69% of those older than 65. (Another 12% of those aged 50-64 said they were unsure if they’d ever had the infection.)

Dr. Malani said she hoped future studies would explore in depth the people who remain uninfected with COVID-19.

“We focus a lot on the science of COVID,” she said. “But we need to turn our attention to the behavioral aspects and how to address them.”

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

More than 60% of Americans older than age 50, and nearly 70% of those older than 65, say they intend to roll up their sleeves to prevent COVID-19 in the fall of 2022.

That finding comes from a new poll by researchers at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who also report that when it comes to the shots, people appear to be putting more trust in their health care professionals than in public health authorities.

“When you are a doctor, you are a trusted source of medical information,” said Preeti Malani, MD, MSJ, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Michigan. “Use the ongoing conversation with your patient as an opportunity to answer their questions and counter any confusion.”

The vaccination campaign appears to be having a rub-off effect, too. More people say they’re likely to receive vaccines and boosters for other infections, such as flu, if they have already been vaccinated and boosted against COVID-19.
 

Inside the poll

Dr. Malani and her colleagues, who published their findings on the National Poll on Healthy Aging’s website, asked 1,024 adults older than 50 about their attitudes on COVID-19 vaccinations and their history of receiving the injections. The questions covered topics including whether the individual had contracted COVID, COVID vaccine doses, and the prevalence of a health care clinician’s opinion on vaccines and boosters. The poll was conducted July 21-26.

The researchers chose the age range of 50-65 years because this group is an important population for new booster shots that target specific variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19.

Only 19% of people aged 50-64 and 44% of those older than 65 said they had received both their first and second COVID-19 booster shots. What’s more, 17% of people said they had not received any doses of a COVID-19 vaccine.

The vast majority (77%) of respondents said their clinician’s recommendations were “very important” or “somewhat important” in their decision to receive the vaccine. 

Dr. Malani said that in her practice, patients have expressed hesitation about COVID-19 vaccines because of concerns about the potential side effects of the shots.

Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, noted that Americans now appear to trust their physicians more than public health authorities such as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention when it comes to COVID-19.

“More people are trusting their providers’ opinions [more] than the CDC or other public health agencies. That speaks volumes to me,” Dr. Gandhi said.

Among the more surprising findings of the poll, according to the researchers, was the number of people who said they had yet to contract COVID-19: 50% of those aged 50-64, and 69% of those older than 65. (Another 12% of those aged 50-64 said they were unsure if they’d ever had the infection.)

Dr. Malani said she hoped future studies would explore in depth the people who remain uninfected with COVID-19.

“We focus a lot on the science of COVID,” she said. “But we need to turn our attention to the behavioral aspects and how to address them.”

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

Hair loss, reduced sex drive, and erectile dysfunction have joined a list of better-known symptoms linked to long COVID in patients who were not hospitalized, according to findings of a large study.

Anuradhaa Subramanian, PhD, with the Institute of Applied Health Research at the University of Birmingham (England), led the research published online in Nature Medicine.

The team analyzed 486,149 electronic health records from adult patients with confirmed COVID in the United Kingdom, compared with 1.9 million people with no history of COVID, from January 2020 to April 2021. Researchers matched both groups closely in terms of demographic, social, and clinical traits.
 

New symptoms

The team identified 62 symptoms, including the well-known indicators of long COVID, such as fatigue, loss of sense of smell, shortness of breath, and brain fog, but also hair loss, sexual dysfunction, chest pain, fever, loss of control of bowel movements, and limb swelling.

“These differences in symptoms reported between the infected and uninfected groups remained even after we accounted for age, sex, ethnic group, socioeconomic status, body mass index, smoking status, the presence of more than 80 health conditions, and past reporting of the same symptom,” Dr. Subramanian and coresearcher Shamil Haroon, PhD, wrote in a summary of their research in The Conversation.

They pointed out that only 20 of the symptoms they found are included in the World Health Organization’s clinical case definition for long COVID.

They also found that people more likely to have persistent symptoms 3 months after COVID infection were also more likely to be young, female, smokers, to belong to certain minority ethnic groups, and to have lower socioeconomic status. They were also more likely to be obese and have a wide range of health conditions.

Dr. Haroon, an associate clinical professor at the University of Birmingham, said that one reason it appeared that younger people were more likely to get symptoms of long COVID may be that older adults with COVID were more likely to be hospitalized and weren’t included in this study.

“Since we only considered nonhospitalized adults, the older adults we included in our study may have been relatively healthier and thus had a lower symptom burden,” he said.

Dr. Subramania noted that older patients were more likely to report lasting COVID-related symptoms in the study, but when researchers accounted for a wide range of other conditions that patients had before infection (which generally more commonly happen in older adults), they found younger age as a risk factor for long-term COVID-related symptoms.

In the study period, most patients were unvaccinated, and results came before the widespread Delta and Omicron variants.

More than half (56.6%) of the patients infected with the virus that causes COVID had been diagnosed in 2020, and 43.4% in 2021. Less than 5% (4.5%) of the patients infected with the virus and 4.7% of the patients with no recorded evidence of a COVID infection had received at least a single dose of a COVID vaccine before the study started.

Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape, said more studies need to be done to see whether results would be different with vaccination status and evolving variants.

But he noted that this study has several strengths: “The hair loss, libido loss, and ejaculation difficulty are all new symptoms,” and the study – large and carefully controlled – shows these issues were among those more likely to occur.

A loss of sense of smell – which is not a new observation – was still the most likely risk shown in the study, followed by hair loss, sneezing, ejaculation difficulty, and reduced sex drive; followed by shortness of breath, fatigue, chest pain associated with breathing difficulties, hoarseness, and fever.
 

Three main clusters of symptoms

Given the wide range of symptoms, long COVID likely represents a group of conditions, the authors wrote.

They found three main clusters. The largest, with roughly 80% of people with long COVID in the study, faced a broad spectrum of symptoms, ranging from fatigue to headache and pain. The second-largest group, (15%) mostly had symptoms having to do with mental health and thinking skills, including depression, anxiety, brain fog, and insomnia. The smallest group (5%) had mainly respiratory symptoms such as shortness of breath, coughing, and wheezing.

Putting symptoms in clusters will be important to start understanding what leads to long COVID, said Farha Ikramuddin, MD, a rehabilitation specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

She added that, while the symptoms listed in this paper are new in published research, she has certainly been seeing them over time in her long COVID clinic. (The researchers also used only coded health care data, so they were limited in what symptoms they could discover, she notes.)

Dr. Ikramuddin said a strength of the paper is its large size, but she also cautioned that it’s difficult to determine whether members of the comparison group truly had no COVID infection when the information is taken from their medical records. Often, people test at home or assume they have COVID and don’t test; therefore the information wouldn’t be recorded.

Evaluating nonhospitalized patients is also important, she said, as much of the research on long COVID has come from hospitalized patients, so little has been known about the symptoms of those with milder infections.

“Patients who have been hospitalized and have long COVID look very different from the patients who were not hospitalized,” Dr. Ikramuddin said.

One clear message from the paper, she said, is that listening and asking extensive questions about symptoms are important with patients who have had COVID.

“Counseling has also become very important for our patients in the pandemic,” she said.

It will also be important to do studies on returning to work for patients with long COVID to see how many are able to return and at what capacity, Dr. Ikramuddin said.

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

Hair loss, reduced sex drive, and erectile dysfunction have joined a list of better-known symptoms linked to long COVID in patients who were not hospitalized, according to findings of a large study.

Anuradhaa Subramanian, PhD, with the Institute of Applied Health Research at the University of Birmingham (England), led the research published online in Nature Medicine.

The team analyzed 486,149 electronic health records from adult patients with confirmed COVID in the United Kingdom, compared with 1.9 million people with no history of COVID, from January 2020 to April 2021. Researchers matched both groups closely in terms of demographic, social, and clinical traits.
 

New symptoms

The team identified 62 symptoms, including the well-known indicators of long COVID, such as fatigue, loss of sense of smell, shortness of breath, and brain fog, but also hair loss, sexual dysfunction, chest pain, fever, loss of control of bowel movements, and limb swelling.

“These differences in symptoms reported between the infected and uninfected groups remained even after we accounted for age, sex, ethnic group, socioeconomic status, body mass index, smoking status, the presence of more than 80 health conditions, and past reporting of the same symptom,” Dr. Subramanian and coresearcher Shamil Haroon, PhD, wrote in a summary of their research in The Conversation.

They pointed out that only 20 of the symptoms they found are included in the World Health Organization’s clinical case definition for long COVID.

They also found that people more likely to have persistent symptoms 3 months after COVID infection were also more likely to be young, female, smokers, to belong to certain minority ethnic groups, and to have lower socioeconomic status. They were also more likely to be obese and have a wide range of health conditions.

Dr. Haroon, an associate clinical professor at the University of Birmingham, said that one reason it appeared that younger people were more likely to get symptoms of long COVID may be that older adults with COVID were more likely to be hospitalized and weren’t included in this study.

“Since we only considered nonhospitalized adults, the older adults we included in our study may have been relatively healthier and thus had a lower symptom burden,” he said.

Dr. Subramania noted that older patients were more likely to report lasting COVID-related symptoms in the study, but when researchers accounted for a wide range of other conditions that patients had before infection (which generally more commonly happen in older adults), they found younger age as a risk factor for long-term COVID-related symptoms.

In the study period, most patients were unvaccinated, and results came before the widespread Delta and Omicron variants.

More than half (56.6%) of the patients infected with the virus that causes COVID had been diagnosed in 2020, and 43.4% in 2021. Less than 5% (4.5%) of the patients infected with the virus and 4.7% of the patients with no recorded evidence of a COVID infection had received at least a single dose of a COVID vaccine before the study started.

Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape, said more studies need to be done to see whether results would be different with vaccination status and evolving variants.

But he noted that this study has several strengths: “The hair loss, libido loss, and ejaculation difficulty are all new symptoms,” and the study – large and carefully controlled – shows these issues were among those more likely to occur.

A loss of sense of smell – which is not a new observation – was still the most likely risk shown in the study, followed by hair loss, sneezing, ejaculation difficulty, and reduced sex drive; followed by shortness of breath, fatigue, chest pain associated with breathing difficulties, hoarseness, and fever.
 

Three main clusters of symptoms

Given the wide range of symptoms, long COVID likely represents a group of conditions, the authors wrote.

They found three main clusters. The largest, with roughly 80% of people with long COVID in the study, faced a broad spectrum of symptoms, ranging from fatigue to headache and pain. The second-largest group, (15%) mostly had symptoms having to do with mental health and thinking skills, including depression, anxiety, brain fog, and insomnia. The smallest group (5%) had mainly respiratory symptoms such as shortness of breath, coughing, and wheezing.

Putting symptoms in clusters will be important to start understanding what leads to long COVID, said Farha Ikramuddin, MD, a rehabilitation specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

She added that, while the symptoms listed in this paper are new in published research, she has certainly been seeing them over time in her long COVID clinic. (The researchers also used only coded health care data, so they were limited in what symptoms they could discover, she notes.)

Dr. Ikramuddin said a strength of the paper is its large size, but she also cautioned that it’s difficult to determine whether members of the comparison group truly had no COVID infection when the information is taken from their medical records. Often, people test at home or assume they have COVID and don’t test; therefore the information wouldn’t be recorded.

Evaluating nonhospitalized patients is also important, she said, as much of the research on long COVID has come from hospitalized patients, so little has been known about the symptoms of those with milder infections.

“Patients who have been hospitalized and have long COVID look very different from the patients who were not hospitalized,” Dr. Ikramuddin said.

One clear message from the paper, she said, is that listening and asking extensive questions about symptoms are important with patients who have had COVID.

“Counseling has also become very important for our patients in the pandemic,” she said.

It will also be important to do studies on returning to work for patients with long COVID to see how many are able to return and at what capacity, Dr. Ikramuddin said.

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

Hair loss, reduced sex drive, and erectile dysfunction have joined a list of better-known symptoms linked to long COVID in patients who were not hospitalized, according to findings of a large study.

Anuradhaa Subramanian, PhD, with the Institute of Applied Health Research at the University of Birmingham (England), led the research published online in Nature Medicine.

The team analyzed 486,149 electronic health records from adult patients with confirmed COVID in the United Kingdom, compared with 1.9 million people with no history of COVID, from January 2020 to April 2021. Researchers matched both groups closely in terms of demographic, social, and clinical traits.
 

New symptoms

The team identified 62 symptoms, including the well-known indicators of long COVID, such as fatigue, loss of sense of smell, shortness of breath, and brain fog, but also hair loss, sexual dysfunction, chest pain, fever, loss of control of bowel movements, and limb swelling.

“These differences in symptoms reported between the infected and uninfected groups remained even after we accounted for age, sex, ethnic group, socioeconomic status, body mass index, smoking status, the presence of more than 80 health conditions, and past reporting of the same symptom,” Dr. Subramanian and coresearcher Shamil Haroon, PhD, wrote in a summary of their research in The Conversation.

They pointed out that only 20 of the symptoms they found are included in the World Health Organization’s clinical case definition for long COVID.

They also found that people more likely to have persistent symptoms 3 months after COVID infection were also more likely to be young, female, smokers, to belong to certain minority ethnic groups, and to have lower socioeconomic status. They were also more likely to be obese and have a wide range of health conditions.

Dr. Haroon, an associate clinical professor at the University of Birmingham, said that one reason it appeared that younger people were more likely to get symptoms of long COVID may be that older adults with COVID were more likely to be hospitalized and weren’t included in this study.

“Since we only considered nonhospitalized adults, the older adults we included in our study may have been relatively healthier and thus had a lower symptom burden,” he said.

Dr. Subramania noted that older patients were more likely to report lasting COVID-related symptoms in the study, but when researchers accounted for a wide range of other conditions that patients had before infection (which generally more commonly happen in older adults), they found younger age as a risk factor for long-term COVID-related symptoms.

In the study period, most patients were unvaccinated, and results came before the widespread Delta and Omicron variants.

More than half (56.6%) of the patients infected with the virus that causes COVID had been diagnosed in 2020, and 43.4% in 2021. Less than 5% (4.5%) of the patients infected with the virus and 4.7% of the patients with no recorded evidence of a COVID infection had received at least a single dose of a COVID vaccine before the study started.

Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape, said more studies need to be done to see whether results would be different with vaccination status and evolving variants.

But he noted that this study has several strengths: “The hair loss, libido loss, and ejaculation difficulty are all new symptoms,” and the study – large and carefully controlled – shows these issues were among those more likely to occur.

A loss of sense of smell – which is not a new observation – was still the most likely risk shown in the study, followed by hair loss, sneezing, ejaculation difficulty, and reduced sex drive; followed by shortness of breath, fatigue, chest pain associated with breathing difficulties, hoarseness, and fever.
 

Three main clusters of symptoms

Given the wide range of symptoms, long COVID likely represents a group of conditions, the authors wrote.

They found three main clusters. The largest, with roughly 80% of people with long COVID in the study, faced a broad spectrum of symptoms, ranging from fatigue to headache and pain. The second-largest group, (15%) mostly had symptoms having to do with mental health and thinking skills, including depression, anxiety, brain fog, and insomnia. The smallest group (5%) had mainly respiratory symptoms such as shortness of breath, coughing, and wheezing.

Putting symptoms in clusters will be important to start understanding what leads to long COVID, said Farha Ikramuddin, MD, a rehabilitation specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

She added that, while the symptoms listed in this paper are new in published research, she has certainly been seeing them over time in her long COVID clinic. (The researchers also used only coded health care data, so they were limited in what symptoms they could discover, she notes.)

Dr. Ikramuddin said a strength of the paper is its large size, but she also cautioned that it’s difficult to determine whether members of the comparison group truly had no COVID infection when the information is taken from their medical records. Often, people test at home or assume they have COVID and don’t test; therefore the information wouldn’t be recorded.

Evaluating nonhospitalized patients is also important, she said, as much of the research on long COVID has come from hospitalized patients, so little has been known about the symptoms of those with milder infections.

“Patients who have been hospitalized and have long COVID look very different from the patients who were not hospitalized,” Dr. Ikramuddin said.

One clear message from the paper, she said, is that listening and asking extensive questions about symptoms are important with patients who have had COVID.

“Counseling has also become very important for our patients in the pandemic,” she said.

It will also be important to do studies on returning to work for patients with long COVID to see how many are able to return and at what capacity, Dr. Ikramuddin said.

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

Intermittent fasting was not linked with a smaller chance of getting COVID-19, but it was linked with getting a less severe infection, according to the findings of a new study.

The study was done on men and women in Utah who were, on average, in their 60s and got COVID before vaccines were available.

Roughly one in three people in Utah fast from time to time – higher than in other states. This is partly because more than 60% of people in Utah belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and roughly 40% of them fast – typically skipping two meals in a row.

Those who fasted, on average, for a day a month over the past 40 years were not less likely to get COVID, but they were less likely to be hospitalized or die from the virus.

“Intermittent fasting has already shown to lower inflammation and improve cardiovascular health,” lead study author Benjamin Horne, PhD, of Intermountain Medical Center Heart Institute in Salt Lake City, said in a statement.

“In this study, we’re finding additional benefits when it comes to battling an infection of COVID-19 in patients who have been fasting for decades,” he said.

The study was published in BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health.
 

Intermittent fasting not a substitute for a COVID-19 vaccine

Importantly, intermittent fasting shouldn’t be seen as a substitute for getting a COVID vaccine, the researchers stressed. Rather, periodic fasting might be a health habit to consider, since it is also linked to a lower risk of diabetes and heart disease, for example.

But anyone who wants to consider intermittent fasting should consult their doctor first, Dr. Horne stressed, especially if they are elderly, pregnant, or have diabetes, heart disease, or kidney disease.
 

Fasting didn’t prevent COVID-19 but made it less severe

In their study, the team looked at data from 1,524 adults who were seen in the cardiac catheterization lab at Intermountain Medical Center Heart Institute, completed a survey, and had a test for the virus that causes COVID-19 from March 16, 2020, to Feb. 25, 2021.

Of these patients, 205 tested positive for COVID, and of these, 73 reported that they had fasted regularly at least once a month.

Similar numbers of patients got COVID-19 whether they had, or had not, fasted regularly (14%, versus 13%).

But among those who tested positive for the virus, fewer patients were hospitalized for COVID or died during the study follow-up if they had fasted regularly (11%) than if they had not fasted regularly (29%).

Even when the analyses were adjusted for age, smoking, alcohol use, ethnicity, history of heart disease, and other factors, periodic fasting was still an independent predictor of a lower risk of hospitalization or death.

Several things may explain the findings, the researchers suggested.

A loss of appetite is a typical response to infection, they noted.

Fasting reduces inflammation, and after 12-14 hours of fasting, the body switches from using glucose in the blood to using ketones, including linoleic acid.

“There’s a pocket on the surface of SARS-CoV-2 that linoleic acid fits into – and can make the virus less able to attach to other cells,” Dr. Horne said.

Intermittent fasting also promotes autophagy, he noted, which is “the body’s recycling system that helps your body destroy and recycle damaged and infected cells.”

The researchers concluded that intermittent fasting plans should be investigated in further research “as a complementary therapy to vaccines to reduce COVID-19 severity, both during the pandemic and post pandemic, since repeat vaccinations cannot be performed every few months indefinitely for the entire world and vaccine access is limited in many nations.”

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

Intermittent fasting was not linked with a smaller chance of getting COVID-19, but it was linked with getting a less severe infection, according to the findings of a new study.

The study was done on men and women in Utah who were, on average, in their 60s and got COVID before vaccines were available.

Roughly one in three people in Utah fast from time to time – higher than in other states. This is partly because more than 60% of people in Utah belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and roughly 40% of them fast – typically skipping two meals in a row.

Those who fasted, on average, for a day a month over the past 40 years were not less likely to get COVID, but they were less likely to be hospitalized or die from the virus.

“Intermittent fasting has already shown to lower inflammation and improve cardiovascular health,” lead study author Benjamin Horne, PhD, of Intermountain Medical Center Heart Institute in Salt Lake City, said in a statement.

“In this study, we’re finding additional benefits when it comes to battling an infection of COVID-19 in patients who have been fasting for decades,” he said.

The study was published in BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health.
 

Intermittent fasting not a substitute for a COVID-19 vaccine

Importantly, intermittent fasting shouldn’t be seen as a substitute for getting a COVID vaccine, the researchers stressed. Rather, periodic fasting might be a health habit to consider, since it is also linked to a lower risk of diabetes and heart disease, for example.

But anyone who wants to consider intermittent fasting should consult their doctor first, Dr. Horne stressed, especially if they are elderly, pregnant, or have diabetes, heart disease, or kidney disease.
 

Fasting didn’t prevent COVID-19 but made it less severe

In their study, the team looked at data from 1,524 adults who were seen in the cardiac catheterization lab at Intermountain Medical Center Heart Institute, completed a survey, and had a test for the virus that causes COVID-19 from March 16, 2020, to Feb. 25, 2021.

Of these patients, 205 tested positive for COVID, and of these, 73 reported that they had fasted regularly at least once a month.

Similar numbers of patients got COVID-19 whether they had, or had not, fasted regularly (14%, versus 13%).

But among those who tested positive for the virus, fewer patients were hospitalized for COVID or died during the study follow-up if they had fasted regularly (11%) than if they had not fasted regularly (29%).

Even when the analyses were adjusted for age, smoking, alcohol use, ethnicity, history of heart disease, and other factors, periodic fasting was still an independent predictor of a lower risk of hospitalization or death.

Several things may explain the findings, the researchers suggested.

A loss of appetite is a typical response to infection, they noted.

Fasting reduces inflammation, and after 12-14 hours of fasting, the body switches from using glucose in the blood to using ketones, including linoleic acid.

“There’s a pocket on the surface of SARS-CoV-2 that linoleic acid fits into – and can make the virus less able to attach to other cells,” Dr. Horne said.

Intermittent fasting also promotes autophagy, he noted, which is “the body’s recycling system that helps your body destroy and recycle damaged and infected cells.”

The researchers concluded that intermittent fasting plans should be investigated in further research “as a complementary therapy to vaccines to reduce COVID-19 severity, both during the pandemic and post pandemic, since repeat vaccinations cannot be performed every few months indefinitely for the entire world and vaccine access is limited in many nations.”

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

Intermittent fasting was not linked with a smaller chance of getting COVID-19, but it was linked with getting a less severe infection, according to the findings of a new study.

The study was done on men and women in Utah who were, on average, in their 60s and got COVID before vaccines were available.

Roughly one in three people in Utah fast from time to time – higher than in other states. This is partly because more than 60% of people in Utah belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and roughly 40% of them fast – typically skipping two meals in a row.

Those who fasted, on average, for a day a month over the past 40 years were not less likely to get COVID, but they were less likely to be hospitalized or die from the virus.

“Intermittent fasting has already shown to lower inflammation and improve cardiovascular health,” lead study author Benjamin Horne, PhD, of Intermountain Medical Center Heart Institute in Salt Lake City, said in a statement.

“In this study, we’re finding additional benefits when it comes to battling an infection of COVID-19 in patients who have been fasting for decades,” he said.

The study was published in BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health.
 

Intermittent fasting not a substitute for a COVID-19 vaccine

Importantly, intermittent fasting shouldn’t be seen as a substitute for getting a COVID vaccine, the researchers stressed. Rather, periodic fasting might be a health habit to consider, since it is also linked to a lower risk of diabetes and heart disease, for example.

But anyone who wants to consider intermittent fasting should consult their doctor first, Dr. Horne stressed, especially if they are elderly, pregnant, or have diabetes, heart disease, or kidney disease.
 

Fasting didn’t prevent COVID-19 but made it less severe

In their study, the team looked at data from 1,524 adults who were seen in the cardiac catheterization lab at Intermountain Medical Center Heart Institute, completed a survey, and had a test for the virus that causes COVID-19 from March 16, 2020, to Feb. 25, 2021.

Of these patients, 205 tested positive for COVID, and of these, 73 reported that they had fasted regularly at least once a month.

Similar numbers of patients got COVID-19 whether they had, or had not, fasted regularly (14%, versus 13%).

But among those who tested positive for the virus, fewer patients were hospitalized for COVID or died during the study follow-up if they had fasted regularly (11%) than if they had not fasted regularly (29%).

Even when the analyses were adjusted for age, smoking, alcohol use, ethnicity, history of heart disease, and other factors, periodic fasting was still an independent predictor of a lower risk of hospitalization or death.

Several things may explain the findings, the researchers suggested.

A loss of appetite is a typical response to infection, they noted.

Fasting reduces inflammation, and after 12-14 hours of fasting, the body switches from using glucose in the blood to using ketones, including linoleic acid.

“There’s a pocket on the surface of SARS-CoV-2 that linoleic acid fits into – and can make the virus less able to attach to other cells,” Dr. Horne said.

Intermittent fasting also promotes autophagy, he noted, which is “the body’s recycling system that helps your body destroy and recycle damaged and infected cells.”

The researchers concluded that intermittent fasting plans should be investigated in further research “as a complementary therapy to vaccines to reduce COVID-19 severity, both during the pandemic and post pandemic, since repeat vaccinations cannot be performed every few months indefinitely for the entire world and vaccine access is limited in many nations.”

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

SAN DIEGO – Even after recovery of an acute COVID-19 infection, some patients experience extended or even long-term symptoms that can range from mild to debilitating. Some of these symptoms are neurological: headaches, brain fog, cognitive impairment, loss of taste or smell, and even cerebrovascular complications such stroke. There are even hints that COVID-19 infection could lead to future neurodegeneration.

Those issues have prompted efforts to identify biomarkers that can help track and monitor neurological complications of COVID-19. “Throughout the course of the pandemic, it has become apparent that COVID-19 can cause various neurological symptoms. Because of this, it’s really important for us to find a way to monitor and understand neurological complications occurring in patients with COVID 19,” Jennifer Cooper said during a lecture at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference. She presented new research suggesting that neurofilament light (NfL) and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) may prove useful.

Ms. Cooper is a master’s degree student at the University of British Columbia and Canada.
 

Looking for sensitivity and specificity in plasma biomarkers

The researchers turned to plasma-based markers because they can reflect underlying pathology in the central nervous system. They focused on NfL, which reflects axonal damage, and GFAP, which is a marker of astrocyte activation.

The researchers analyzed data from 209 patients with COVID-19 who were admitted to the Vancouver (B.C.) General Hospital intensive care unit. Sixty-four percent were male, and the median age was 61 years. Sixty percent were ventilated, and 17% died.

The researchers determined if an individual patient’s biomarker level at hospital admission fell within a normal biomarker reference interval. A total of 53% had NfL levels outside the normal range, and 42% had GFAP levels outside the normal range. In addition, 31% of patients had both GFAP and NfL levels outside of the normal range.

Among all patients, 12% experienced ischemia, 4% hemorrhage, 2% seizures, and 10% degeneration.

At admission, NfL predicted a neurological complication with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.702. GFAP had an AUC of 0.722. In combination, they had an AUC of 0.743. At 1 week, NfL had an AUC of 0.802, GFAP an AUC of 0.733, and the combination an AUC of 0.812.

Using age-specific cutoff values, the researchers found increased risks for neurological complications at admission (NfL odds ratio [OR], 2.9; GFAP OR, 1.6; combined OR, 2.1) and at 1 week (NfL OR, not significant; GFAP OR, 4.8; combined OR, 6.6). “We can see that both NFL and GFAP have utility in detecting neurological complications. And combining both of our markers improves detection at both time points. NfL is a marker that provides more sensitivity, where in this cohort GFAP is a marker that provides a little bit more specificity,” said Ms. Cooper.
 

Will additional biomarkers help?

The researchers are continuing to follow up patients at 6 months and 18 months post diagnosis, using neuropsychiatric tests and additional biomarker analysis, as well as PET and MRI scans. The patient sample is being expanded to those in the general hospital ward and some who were not hospitalized.

During the Q&A session, Ms. Cooper was asked if the group had collected reference data from patients who were admitted to the ICU with non-COVID disease. She responded that the group has some of that data, but as the pandemic went on they had difficulty finding patients who had never been infected with COVID to serve as reliable controls. To date, they have identified 33 controls who had a respiratory condition when admitted to the ICU. “What we see is the neurological biomarker levels in COVID are slightly lower than those with another respiratory condition in the ICU. But the data has a massive spread and the significance is very small between the two groups,” said Ms. Cooper.
 

Unanswered questions

The study is interesting, but leaves a lot of unanswered questions, according to Wiesje van der Flier, PhD, who moderated the session where the study was presented. “There are a lot of unknowns still: Will [the biomarkers] become normal again, once the COVID is over? Also, there was an increased risk, but it was not a one-to-one correspondence, so you can also have the increased markers but not have the neurological signs or symptoms. So I thought there were lots of questions as well,” said Dr. van der Flier, professor of neurology at Amsterdam University Medical Center.

She noted that researchers at her institution in Amsterdam have observed similar relationships, and that the associations between neurological complications and plasma biomarkers over time will be an important topic of study.

The work could provide more information on neurological manifestations of long COVID, such as long-haul fatigue. “You might also think that’s some response in their brain. It would be great if we could actually capture that [using biomarkers],” said Dr. van der Flier.

Ms. Cooper and Dr. van der Flier have no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – Even after recovery of an acute COVID-19 infection, some patients experience extended or even long-term symptoms that can range from mild to debilitating. Some of these symptoms are neurological: headaches, brain fog, cognitive impairment, loss of taste or smell, and even cerebrovascular complications such stroke. There are even hints that COVID-19 infection could lead to future neurodegeneration.

Those issues have prompted efforts to identify biomarkers that can help track and monitor neurological complications of COVID-19. “Throughout the course of the pandemic, it has become apparent that COVID-19 can cause various neurological symptoms. Because of this, it’s really important for us to find a way to monitor and understand neurological complications occurring in patients with COVID 19,” Jennifer Cooper said during a lecture at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference. She presented new research suggesting that neurofilament light (NfL) and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) may prove useful.

Ms. Cooper is a master’s degree student at the University of British Columbia and Canada.
 

Looking for sensitivity and specificity in plasma biomarkers

The researchers turned to plasma-based markers because they can reflect underlying pathology in the central nervous system. They focused on NfL, which reflects axonal damage, and GFAP, which is a marker of astrocyte activation.

The researchers analyzed data from 209 patients with COVID-19 who were admitted to the Vancouver (B.C.) General Hospital intensive care unit. Sixty-four percent were male, and the median age was 61 years. Sixty percent were ventilated, and 17% died.

The researchers determined if an individual patient’s biomarker level at hospital admission fell within a normal biomarker reference interval. A total of 53% had NfL levels outside the normal range, and 42% had GFAP levels outside the normal range. In addition, 31% of patients had both GFAP and NfL levels outside of the normal range.

Among all patients, 12% experienced ischemia, 4% hemorrhage, 2% seizures, and 10% degeneration.

At admission, NfL predicted a neurological complication with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.702. GFAP had an AUC of 0.722. In combination, they had an AUC of 0.743. At 1 week, NfL had an AUC of 0.802, GFAP an AUC of 0.733, and the combination an AUC of 0.812.

Using age-specific cutoff values, the researchers found increased risks for neurological complications at admission (NfL odds ratio [OR], 2.9; GFAP OR, 1.6; combined OR, 2.1) and at 1 week (NfL OR, not significant; GFAP OR, 4.8; combined OR, 6.6). “We can see that both NFL and GFAP have utility in detecting neurological complications. And combining both of our markers improves detection at both time points. NfL is a marker that provides more sensitivity, where in this cohort GFAP is a marker that provides a little bit more specificity,” said Ms. Cooper.
 

Will additional biomarkers help?

The researchers are continuing to follow up patients at 6 months and 18 months post diagnosis, using neuropsychiatric tests and additional biomarker analysis, as well as PET and MRI scans. The patient sample is being expanded to those in the general hospital ward and some who were not hospitalized.

During the Q&A session, Ms. Cooper was asked if the group had collected reference data from patients who were admitted to the ICU with non-COVID disease. She responded that the group has some of that data, but as the pandemic went on they had difficulty finding patients who had never been infected with COVID to serve as reliable controls. To date, they have identified 33 controls who had a respiratory condition when admitted to the ICU. “What we see is the neurological biomarker levels in COVID are slightly lower than those with another respiratory condition in the ICU. But the data has a massive spread and the significance is very small between the two groups,” said Ms. Cooper.
 

Unanswered questions

The study is interesting, but leaves a lot of unanswered questions, according to Wiesje van der Flier, PhD, who moderated the session where the study was presented. “There are a lot of unknowns still: Will [the biomarkers] become normal again, once the COVID is over? Also, there was an increased risk, but it was not a one-to-one correspondence, so you can also have the increased markers but not have the neurological signs or symptoms. So I thought there were lots of questions as well,” said Dr. van der Flier, professor of neurology at Amsterdam University Medical Center.

She noted that researchers at her institution in Amsterdam have observed similar relationships, and that the associations between neurological complications and plasma biomarkers over time will be an important topic of study.

The work could provide more information on neurological manifestations of long COVID, such as long-haul fatigue. “You might also think that’s some response in their brain. It would be great if we could actually capture that [using biomarkers],” said Dr. van der Flier.

Ms. Cooper and Dr. van der Flier have no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – Even after recovery of an acute COVID-19 infection, some patients experience extended or even long-term symptoms that can range from mild to debilitating. Some of these symptoms are neurological: headaches, brain fog, cognitive impairment, loss of taste or smell, and even cerebrovascular complications such stroke. There are even hints that COVID-19 infection could lead to future neurodegeneration.

Those issues have prompted efforts to identify biomarkers that can help track and monitor neurological complications of COVID-19. “Throughout the course of the pandemic, it has become apparent that COVID-19 can cause various neurological symptoms. Because of this, it’s really important for us to find a way to monitor and understand neurological complications occurring in patients with COVID 19,” Jennifer Cooper said during a lecture at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference. She presented new research suggesting that neurofilament light (NfL) and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) may prove useful.

Ms. Cooper is a master’s degree student at the University of British Columbia and Canada.
 

Looking for sensitivity and specificity in plasma biomarkers

The researchers turned to plasma-based markers because they can reflect underlying pathology in the central nervous system. They focused on NfL, which reflects axonal damage, and GFAP, which is a marker of astrocyte activation.

The researchers analyzed data from 209 patients with COVID-19 who were admitted to the Vancouver (B.C.) General Hospital intensive care unit. Sixty-four percent were male, and the median age was 61 years. Sixty percent were ventilated, and 17% died.

The researchers determined if an individual patient’s biomarker level at hospital admission fell within a normal biomarker reference interval. A total of 53% had NfL levels outside the normal range, and 42% had GFAP levels outside the normal range. In addition, 31% of patients had both GFAP and NfL levels outside of the normal range.

Among all patients, 12% experienced ischemia, 4% hemorrhage, 2% seizures, and 10% degeneration.

At admission, NfL predicted a neurological complication with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.702. GFAP had an AUC of 0.722. In combination, they had an AUC of 0.743. At 1 week, NfL had an AUC of 0.802, GFAP an AUC of 0.733, and the combination an AUC of 0.812.

Using age-specific cutoff values, the researchers found increased risks for neurological complications at admission (NfL odds ratio [OR], 2.9; GFAP OR, 1.6; combined OR, 2.1) and at 1 week (NfL OR, not significant; GFAP OR, 4.8; combined OR, 6.6). “We can see that both NFL and GFAP have utility in detecting neurological complications. And combining both of our markers improves detection at both time points. NfL is a marker that provides more sensitivity, where in this cohort GFAP is a marker that provides a little bit more specificity,” said Ms. Cooper.
 

Will additional biomarkers help?

The researchers are continuing to follow up patients at 6 months and 18 months post diagnosis, using neuropsychiatric tests and additional biomarker analysis, as well as PET and MRI scans. The patient sample is being expanded to those in the general hospital ward and some who were not hospitalized.

During the Q&A session, Ms. Cooper was asked if the group had collected reference data from patients who were admitted to the ICU with non-COVID disease. She responded that the group has some of that data, but as the pandemic went on they had difficulty finding patients who had never been infected with COVID to serve as reliable controls. To date, they have identified 33 controls who had a respiratory condition when admitted to the ICU. “What we see is the neurological biomarker levels in COVID are slightly lower than those with another respiratory condition in the ICU. But the data has a massive spread and the significance is very small between the two groups,” said Ms. Cooper.
 

Unanswered questions

The study is interesting, but leaves a lot of unanswered questions, according to Wiesje van der Flier, PhD, who moderated the session where the study was presented. “There are a lot of unknowns still: Will [the biomarkers] become normal again, once the COVID is over? Also, there was an increased risk, but it was not a one-to-one correspondence, so you can also have the increased markers but not have the neurological signs or symptoms. So I thought there were lots of questions as well,” said Dr. van der Flier, professor of neurology at Amsterdam University Medical Center.

She noted that researchers at her institution in Amsterdam have observed similar relationships, and that the associations between neurological complications and plasma biomarkers over time will be an important topic of study.

The work could provide more information on neurological manifestations of long COVID, such as long-haul fatigue. “You might also think that’s some response in their brain. It would be great if we could actually capture that [using biomarkers],” said Dr. van der Flier.

Ms. Cooper and Dr. van der Flier have no relevant financial disclosures.

When COVID-19 emerged in March 2020, physicians were forced to evaluate the potential impacts of the pandemic on our patients and the conditions that we treat. For dermatologists, psoriasis came into particular focus, as many patients were being treated with biologic therapies. The initial concern was that these biologics might render our patients more susceptible to both COVID-19 infection and/or a more severe disease course.

In early 2020, the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) presented its own recommendations for treating patients with psoriatic disease during the pandemic.¹ Some highlights included the following¹:

• At the time, it was stipulated that patients with COVID-19 infection should stop taking a biologic.

• Psoriasis patients in high-risk groups (eg, concomitant systemic disease) should discuss with their dermatologist if their therapeutic regimen should be continued or altered.

• Patients taking oral immunosuppressive therapy may be at greater risk for COVID-19 infection, though there is no strong COVID-19–related evidence to provide specific guidelines or risk level.

In May 2020, the NPF COVID-19 Task Force was formed. This group—chaired by dermatologist Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), and rheumatologist Christopher T. Ritchlin, MD, MPH (Rochester, New York)—was comprised of members from both the NPF Medical Board and Scientific Advisory Committee in dermatology, rheumatology, infectious disease, and critical care. The NPF COVID-19 Task Force has been critical in keeping the dermatology community apprised of the latest scientific thinking related to COVID-19 and publishing guidance statements that are updated and amended on a regular basis as new data becomes available.² Key recommendations most relevant to the daily care of patients with psoriatic disease included the following²:

• Patients with psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis have similar rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 outcomes as the general population based on existing data, with some exceptions.

• Therapies for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis do not meaningfully alter the risk for acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection or having worse COVID-19 outcomes.

• Patients should continue their biologic or oral therapies for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis in most cases, unless they become infected with SARS-CoV-2.

• Chronic systemic steroid use for psoriatic disease in the setting of acute infection with COVID-19 may be associated with worse outcomes; however, steroids may improve outcomes for COVID-19 when initiated in hospitalized patients who require oxygen therapy.

• When local restrictions or pandemic conditions limit the ability for in-person visits, offer telemedicine to manage patients.

• Patients with psoriatic disease who do not have contraindications to vaccination should receive a messenger RNA (mRNA)–based COVID-19 vaccine and boosters, based on federal, state, and local guidance. Systemic medications for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis are not a contraindication to the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine. 

• Patients who are to receive an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine should continue their biologic or oral therapies for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis in most cases.

• The use of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, and ivermectin is not suggested for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 disease.

These guidelines have been critical in addressing some of the most pressing issues in psoriasis patient care, particularly the susceptibility to COVID-19, the role of psoriasis therapies in initial infection and health outcomes, and issues related to the administration of vaccines in those on systemic therapies. Based on these recommendations, we have been given a solid foundation that our current standard of care can (for the most part) continue with the continued presence of COVID-19 in our society. I encourage all providers to familiarize themselves with the NPF COVID-19 Task Force guidelines and keep abreast of updates as they become available (https://www.psoriasis.org/covid-19-task-force-guidance-statements/).

When COVID-19 emerged in March 2020, physicians were forced to evaluate the potential impacts of the pandemic on our patients and the conditions that we treat. For dermatologists, psoriasis came into particular focus, as many patients were being treated with biologic therapies. The initial concern was that these biologics might render our patients more susceptible to both COVID-19 infection and/or a more severe disease course.

In early 2020, the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) presented its own recommendations for treating patients with psoriatic disease during the pandemic.¹ Some highlights included the following¹:

• At the time, it was stipulated that patients with COVID-19 infection should stop taking a biologic.

• Psoriasis patients in high-risk groups (eg, concomitant systemic disease) should discuss with their dermatologist if their therapeutic regimen should be continued or altered.

• Patients taking oral immunosuppressive therapy may be at greater risk for COVID-19 infection, though there is no strong COVID-19–related evidence to provide specific guidelines or risk level.

In May 2020, the NPF COVID-19 Task Force was formed. This group—chaired by dermatologist Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), and rheumatologist Christopher T. Ritchlin, MD, MPH (Rochester, New York)—was comprised of members from both the NPF Medical Board and Scientific Advisory Committee in dermatology, rheumatology, infectious disease, and critical care. The NPF COVID-19 Task Force has been critical in keeping the dermatology community apprised of the latest scientific thinking related to COVID-19 and publishing guidance statements that are updated and amended on a regular basis as new data becomes available.² Key recommendations most relevant to the daily care of patients with psoriatic disease included the following²:

• Patients with psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis have similar rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 outcomes as the general population based on existing data, with some exceptions.

• Therapies for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis do not meaningfully alter the risk for acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection or having worse COVID-19 outcomes.

• Patients should continue their biologic or oral therapies for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis in most cases, unless they become infected with SARS-CoV-2.

• Chronic systemic steroid use for psoriatic disease in the setting of acute infection with COVID-19 may be associated with worse outcomes; however, steroids may improve outcomes for COVID-19 when initiated in hospitalized patients who require oxygen therapy.

• When local restrictions or pandemic conditions limit the ability for in-person visits, offer telemedicine to manage patients.

• Patients with psoriatic disease who do not have contraindications to vaccination should receive a messenger RNA (mRNA)–based COVID-19 vaccine and boosters, based on federal, state, and local guidance. Systemic medications for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis are not a contraindication to the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine. 

• Patients who are to receive an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine should continue their biologic or oral therapies for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis in most cases.

• The use of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, and ivermectin is not suggested for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 disease.

These guidelines have been critical in addressing some of the most pressing issues in psoriasis patient care, particularly the susceptibility to COVID-19, the role of psoriasis therapies in initial infection and health outcomes, and issues related to the administration of vaccines in those on systemic therapies. Based on these recommendations, we have been given a solid foundation that our current standard of care can (for the most part) continue with the continued presence of COVID-19 in our society. I encourage all providers to familiarize themselves with the NPF COVID-19 Task Force guidelines and keep abreast of updates as they become available (https://www.psoriasis.org/covid-19-task-force-guidance-statements/).

When COVID-19 emerged in March 2020, physicians were forced to evaluate the potential impacts of the pandemic on our patients and the conditions that we treat. For dermatologists, psoriasis came into particular focus, as many patients were being treated with biologic therapies. The initial concern was that these biologics might render our patients more susceptible to both COVID-19 infection and/or a more severe disease course.

In early 2020, the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) presented its own recommendations for treating patients with psoriatic disease during the pandemic.¹ Some highlights included the following¹:

• At the time, it was stipulated that patients with COVID-19 infection should stop taking a biologic.

• Psoriasis patients in high-risk groups (eg, concomitant systemic disease) should discuss with their dermatologist if their therapeutic regimen should be continued or altered.

• Patients taking oral immunosuppressive therapy may be at greater risk for COVID-19 infection, though there is no strong COVID-19–related evidence to provide specific guidelines or risk level.

In May 2020, the NPF COVID-19 Task Force was formed. This group—chaired by dermatologist Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), and rheumatologist Christopher T. Ritchlin, MD, MPH (Rochester, New York)—was comprised of members from both the NPF Medical Board and Scientific Advisory Committee in dermatology, rheumatology, infectious disease, and critical care. The NPF COVID-19 Task Force has been critical in keeping the dermatology community apprised of the latest scientific thinking related to COVID-19 and publishing guidance statements that are updated and amended on a regular basis as new data becomes available.² Key recommendations most relevant to the daily care of patients with psoriatic disease included the following²:

• Patients with psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis have similar rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 outcomes as the general population based on existing data, with some exceptions.

• Therapies for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis do not meaningfully alter the risk for acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection or having worse COVID-19 outcomes.

• Patients should continue their biologic or oral therapies for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis in most cases, unless they become infected with SARS-CoV-2.

• Chronic systemic steroid use for psoriatic disease in the setting of acute infection with COVID-19 may be associated with worse outcomes; however, steroids may improve outcomes for COVID-19 when initiated in hospitalized patients who require oxygen therapy.

• When local restrictions or pandemic conditions limit the ability for in-person visits, offer telemedicine to manage patients.

• Patients with psoriatic disease who do not have contraindications to vaccination should receive a messenger RNA (mRNA)–based COVID-19 vaccine and boosters, based on federal, state, and local guidance. Systemic medications for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis are not a contraindication to the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine. 

• Patients who are to receive an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine should continue their biologic or oral therapies for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis in most cases.

• The use of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, and ivermectin is not suggested for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 disease.

These guidelines have been critical in addressing some of the most pressing issues in psoriasis patient care, particularly the susceptibility to COVID-19, the role of psoriasis therapies in initial infection and health outcomes, and issues related to the administration of vaccines in those on systemic therapies. Based on these recommendations, we have been given a solid foundation that our current standard of care can (for the most part) continue with the continued presence of COVID-19 in our society. I encourage all providers to familiarize themselves with the NPF COVID-19 Task Force guidelines and keep abreast of updates as they become available (https://www.psoriasis.org/covid-19-task-force-guidance-statements/).

New cases of COVID-19 rose among children for the fourth consecutive week, but the size of the increase declined for the second consecutive week, based on data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

After new child cases jumped by 22% during the week of July 15-21, the two successive weeks have produced increases of 3.9% (July 22-29) and 1.2% (July 30-Aug. 4). The latest weekly count from all states and territories still reporting was 96,599, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report, noting that several states have stopped reporting child cases and that others are reporting every other week.

Vaccine’s summer rollout gets lukewarm reception

As a group, children aged 0-4 years have not exactly flocked to the COVID-19 vaccine. As of Aug. 2 – about 6 weeks since the vaccine was authorized for children aged 6 months to 4 years – just 3.8% of those eligible had received at least one dose. Among children aged 5-11 the corresponding number on Aug. 2 was 37.4%, and for those aged 12-17 years it was 70.3%, the CDC data show.

That 3.8% of children aged less than 5 years represents almost 756,000 initial doses. That compares with over 6 million children aged 5-11 years who had received at least one dose through the first 6 weeks of their vaccination experience and over 5 million children aged 12-15, according to the COVID Data Tracker.

[email protected]

New cases of COVID-19 rose among children for the fourth consecutive week, but the size of the increase declined for the second consecutive week, based on data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

After new child cases jumped by 22% during the week of July 15-21, the two successive weeks have produced increases of 3.9% (July 22-29) and 1.2% (July 30-Aug. 4). The latest weekly count from all states and territories still reporting was 96,599, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report, noting that several states have stopped reporting child cases and that others are reporting every other week.

Vaccine’s summer rollout gets lukewarm reception

As a group, children aged 0-4 years have not exactly flocked to the COVID-19 vaccine. As of Aug. 2 – about 6 weeks since the vaccine was authorized for children aged 6 months to 4 years – just 3.8% of those eligible had received at least one dose. Among children aged 5-11 the corresponding number on Aug. 2 was 37.4%, and for those aged 12-17 years it was 70.3%, the CDC data show.

That 3.8% of children aged less than 5 years represents almost 756,000 initial doses. That compares with over 6 million children aged 5-11 years who had received at least one dose through the first 6 weeks of their vaccination experience and over 5 million children aged 12-15, according to the COVID Data Tracker.

[email protected]

New cases of COVID-19 rose among children for the fourth consecutive week, but the size of the increase declined for the second consecutive week, based on data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

After new child cases jumped by 22% during the week of July 15-21, the two successive weeks have produced increases of 3.9% (July 22-29) and 1.2% (July 30-Aug. 4). The latest weekly count from all states and territories still reporting was 96,599, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report, noting that several states have stopped reporting child cases and that others are reporting every other week.

Vaccine’s summer rollout gets lukewarm reception

As a group, children aged 0-4 years have not exactly flocked to the COVID-19 vaccine. As of Aug. 2 – about 6 weeks since the vaccine was authorized for children aged 6 months to 4 years – just 3.8% of those eligible had received at least one dose. Among children aged 5-11 the corresponding number on Aug. 2 was 37.4%, and for those aged 12-17 years it was 70.3%, the CDC data show.

That 3.8% of children aged less than 5 years represents almost 756,000 initial doses. That compares with over 6 million children aged 5-11 years who had received at least one dose through the first 6 weeks of their vaccination experience and over 5 million children aged 12-15, according to the COVID Data Tracker.

[email protected]