SARS-CoV-2

long-covid-rates-have-declined,-especially-among-the-vaccinated,-study-finds

Long COVID rates have declined, especially among the vaccinated, study finds

Good news —

In large study, rates of long COVID fell from 10% to 3.5% for the vaccinated.

Long covid activists attend the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies hearing on the

Enlarge / Long covid activists attend the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies hearing on the “Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Request for the National Institutes of Health,” in Dirksen building on May 23, 2024.

As a summer wave of COVID-19 infections swells once again, a study published this week in the New England Journal of Medicine offers some positive news about the pandemic disease: Rates of long COVID have declined since the beginning of the health crisis, with rates falling from a high of 10.4 percent before vaccines were available to a low of 3.5 percent for those vaccinated during the omicron era, according to the new analysis.

The study, led by Ziyad Al-Aly, chief of research at the VA Saint Louis Health Care System, used data from a wealth of health records in the Department of Veterans Affairs. The researchers ultimately included data from over 440,000 veterans who contracted COVID-19 sometime between March 1, 2020, and January 31, 2022, as well as over 4.7 million uninfected veterans who acted as controls.

Al-Aly and colleagues divided the population into eight groups. People who were infected during the study period were divided into five groupings by the dates of their first infection and their vaccination status. The first group included those infected in the pre-delta era before vaccines were available (March 1, 2020, to June 18, 2021). Then there were vaccinated and unvaccinated groups who were infected in the delta era (June 19, 2021, to December 18, 2021) and the omicron era (December 19, 2021, and January 31, 2022). The uninfected controls made up the final three of eight groups, with the controls assigned to one of the three eras.

On the decline

In the pre-delta/pre-vaccine era, 10.42 out of 100 unvaccinated people infected developed long COVID in the year after their infection, which the researchers referred to as PASC, or postacute sequelae of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. In the delta era, the rate of long COVID among the unvaccinated fell slightly to 9.51 out of 100. But for the vaccinated, the rate fell much further, to 5.35 out of 100. A similar pattern was seen in the omicron era. For the unvaccinated, the rate of long COVID again fell slightly to 7.76 per 100 people, while the vaccinated saw their rate fall to 3.5 per 100.

In a secondary statistical analysis, called a decomposition analysis, the researchers found that vaccines could explain about 72 percent of the cumulative decline in long COVID rates across the eras, while era-related factors explained about 28 percent. Those era-related factors could include differences in the virus, improved treatments, and use of anti-viral medications.

Further, looking at data on the disease categories related to long COVID cases, the researchers also did an analysis finding a shift in symptoms over the eras. The researchers looked at over 10 disease categories: cardiovascular, coagulation and hematologic, fatigue, gastrointestinal, kidney, mental health, metabolic, musculoskeletal, neurologic, and pulmonary. Compared to the two earlier eras, the researchers noted an increase in gastrointestinal, metabolic, and musculoskeletal diseases involved in long COVID cases in the omicron era.

Overall, the study points to a welcomed decline in the rates of long COVID among the infected, particularly for those who are vaccinated. But, it also makes clear that long COVID isn’t a thing of the past: “a substantial residual risk of PASC remains among vaccinated persons who had SARS-CoV-2 infection during the omicron era,” Al-Aly and his colleagues conclude.

The study also has some limitations, leaving lingering questions for further study. One is whether the type or number of vaccines affect the risk of long COVID—that was not included in the study. The study also didn’t allow researchers to assess whether repeat infections increase the burden of long COVID.

Long COVID rates have declined, especially among the vaccinated, study finds Read More »

can-you-sanitize-the-inside-of-your-nose-to-prevent-covid?-nope,-fda-says.

Can you sanitize the inside of your nose to prevent COVID? Nope, FDA says.

doesn’t pass the sniff test —

There are a lot of COVID nasal sprays for sale, but little data to show they work.

Can you sanitize the inside of your nose to prevent COVID? Nope, FDA says.

More than four years after SARS-CoV-2 made its global debut, the US Food and Drug Administration is still working to clear out the bogus and unproven products that flooded the market, claiming to prevent, treat, and cure COVID-19.

The latest example is an alcohol-based sanitizer meant to be smeared inside the nostrils. According to its maker, the rub can protect you from becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2 and other nasty germs, like MRSA, and that protection lasts up to 12 hours after each swabbing. That all sounds great, but according to the FDA, none of it is proven. In a warning letter released Tuesday, the agency determined the sanitizer, called Nozin, is an unapproved new drug and misbranded.

While ethyl alcohol is used in common topical antiseptics, like hand sanitizers, the FDA does not generally consider it safe for inside the nostrils—and the agency is unaware of any high-quality clinical data showing the Nozin is safe, let alone effective. The FDA also noted that, for general over-the-counter topical antiseptics, calling out specific pathogens it can fight off—like SARS-CoV-2 and MRSA—is not allowed under agency rules without further FDA review. Making claims about protection duration is also not allowed.

The FDA’s warning letter is nothing to sneeze at; the letter threatens seizure and injunction for failing to adequately respond.

Nozin’s maker, Maryland-based Global Life Technologies Corp., did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Ars. On its website, the company touts its product’s effectiveness with a link to a published study from 2014, indicating that use of Nozin lowered the colonization levels of S. aureus and other bacteria in the noses of 20 healthy health care workers. The study did not address protection from infection or carriage of any viruses. The company also lists unpublished studies indicating that the product can kill bacteria in laboratory conditions, does not irritate skin, and lowered bacterial growth in the noses of 30 people over a 12-hour period.

This is far from the first dubious, nasal-based COVID product the FDA has called out. There was the Corona-cure nasal spray of 2020, and the Halodine and the NanoBio Protect nasal antiseptics of 2021. That year, the Federal Trade Commission sued a company called Xlear over allegedly false claims that its nasal spray can prevent and treat COVID-19. At least two more nasal spray makers received FDA warning letters in 2022.

To date, the FDA has not approved any nasal sprays to prevent or treat COVID-19, and the scant data on their efficacy remains inconclusive. But there are still plenty of such products for sale online. Most, like Nozin, claim to work by killing bacteria and viruses directly. One product, a nitric oxide nasal spray called Sanotize, is currently in a Phase III clinical trial to test whether it can prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections. Others claim to work by coating the nasal passage with the gelling agent iota-carrageenan to provide a barrier to viral entry. A pilot clinical trial of 400 health care workers in Argentina published in 2021 found that the use of an iota-carrageenan nasal spray led to a 4 percent absolute risk reduction in SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Can you sanitize the inside of your nose to prevent COVID? Nope, FDA says. Read More »

contact-tracing-software-could-accurately-gauge-covid-19-risk

Contact-tracing software could accurately gauge COVID-19 risk

As it turns out, epidemiology works —

Time spent with infected individuals is a key determinant of risk.

A woman wearing a face mask and checking her phone.

It’s summer 2021. You rent a house in the countryside with a bunch of friends for someone’s birthday. The weather’s gorgeous that weekend, so mostly you’re all outside—pool, firepit, hammock, etc.—but you do all sleep in the same house. And then on Tuesday, you get an alert on your phone that you’ve been exposed to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. How likely are you to now have it?

To answer that question, a group of statisticians, data scientists, computer scientists, and epidemiologists in the UK analyzed 7 million people who were notified that they were exposed to COVID-19 by the NHS COVID-19 app in England and Wales between April 2021 and February 2022. They wanted to know if—and how—these app notifications correlated to actual disease transmission. Analyses like this can help ensure that an app designed for the next pathogen could retain efficacy while minimizing social and economic burdens. And it can tell us more about the dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

Over 20 million quarantine requests

The NHS COVID-19 app was active on 13 to 18 million smartphones per day in 2021. It used Bluetooth signals to estimate the proximity between those smartphones while maintaining privacy and then alerted people who spent 15 minutes or more at a distance of 2 meters or less from a confirmed case. This led to over 20 million such alerts, each of which came with a request to quarantine—quite a burden.

The researchers found that the app did, in fact, accurately translate the duration and proximity of a COVID-19 exposure to a relevant epidemiological risk score. The app assessed a contact’s risk by multiplying the length of contact, the proximity of contact, and the infectiousness of the index case as determined by how long it had been since the index case started showing symptoms or tested positive.

There was an increasing probability of reported infection as the app’s risk score increased: more contacts whom the app deemed were at a high transmission risk did go on to test positive for COVID-19 within the following two weeks than those who were notified but had lower risk levels. (That’s positive tests that were reported by using the app. Some of the high-risk people probably did not test at all, did not report their test results, or did not report them within the allotted time. So this is an underestimation of the correlation between notification of risk and infection.)

More exposure = higher risk

When the researchers separated the factors contributing to the risk of an exposure, they found that duration was the most important indicator. Household exposures accounted for 6 percent of all contacts but 41 percent of transmissions.

One caveat: The app didn’t record any contextual variables that are known to impact transmission risk, like if people live in an urban or rural area, was the meeting indoors or outdoors, was it during the week or over the weekend, was anyone vaccinated, etc. Including such data could make risk assessment more accurate.

Based on their work, the researchers suggest that an “Amber Alert” stage could have been introduced to the app, in which people deemed to have an interim degree of risk would be guided to get a PCR test rather than immediately jumping to quarantine. Including this intermediate Amber Alert population could have significantly reduced the socioeconomic costs of contact tracing while retaining its epidemiological impact or could have increased its effectiveness for a similar cost. Performing analyses like this early on in the next pandemic to determine how it is transmitted might minimize illness and strain on society.

Nature, 2023.  DOI:  10.1038/s41586-023-06952-2

Contact-tracing software could accurately gauge COVID-19 risk Read More »