![LeAnn Rimes shares raw health update as she details major 'heartbreak' [«…was diagnosed with COVID-19 and subsequently laryngitis while on tour, which caused damage to her throat and vocal cords. "Lately, I've been moving a bit slower due to this lingering illness,”…»]](https://external-preview.redd.it/6TkcBra2Xc42Q4Avtt0rAFmVRpU4VStoh6S9Q3fynxY.jpeg?width=140&height=78&auto=webp&s=ea13968f6de55ff421d4ed7770aeb2156c7afde4)
Full thread: https://xcancel.com/elisaperego78/status/2057164765496041725
Related:
PHAN and Air Support Project will co-host a discussion on Sunday, May 24th at 5pm ET about clean indoor air in healthcare settings.
We'll talk about how to stay safe from airborne pathogens in healthcare settings, how to deal with unaware or hostile healthcare personnel, how patients can advocate for themselves in healthcare settings, and what some doctors' offices and hospitals are doing to ensure clean air for patients.
Our guest speakers will be Maria Walls, a nurse practitioner in St. Louis who sees Long COVID patients, and Donna Zelazny, a nurse with Long COVID. You'll need a free Zoom account in order to register, link in bio. See you there!
Link at the end of the video.
>Key Points
>Question Is early oral antiviral use associated with a lower risk of post–COVID-19 condition (PCC) among outpatients with COVID-19?
>Findings In this cohort study including 7699 outpatients, early oral antiviral use was associated with a significantly lower risk of PCC in the primary adjusted analysis. Participants receiving antivirals were less likely to fail to return to usual health by day 84.
>Meaning These findings suggest that early oral antiviral use may help reduce the risk of PCC and support recovery in outpatients with COVID-19.
>Abstract
>Importance Post–COVID-19 condition (PCC) contributes substantially to long-term morbidity after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Information about the effectiveness of oral antivirals in preventing PCC in outpatient populations remains limited.
>Objective To evaluate the association between early oral antiviral use and PCC risk among outpatients with COVID-19, with and without risk factors for severe disease.
>Design, Setting, and Participants Prospective, nationwide, multicenter, registry-based cohort study conducted at 51 acute-care hospitals across Japan during the predominance of Omicron sublineages JN.1 and KP.3. Outpatients aged 12 years or older with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, symptom onset of 5 days or less before enrollment, and no recent anti–SARS-CoV-2 treatment were enrolled between February and October 2024, with follow-up through February 2025. The primary analysis population included participants with complete baseline covariates and valid day 28 and day 84 assessments.
>Exposures Oral antiviral use (ensitrelvir, nirmatrelvir, or molnupiravir) at enrollment vs no antiviral use.
>Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was PCC, defined as persistence of 1 or more of 5 prespecified symptoms (cough, shortness of breath, malaise, smell disorder, or taste disorder), with the same symptoms reported on both days 28 and 84. Exploratory outcomes included failure to return to usual health by day 84.
>Results Among 7699 participants (2181 receiving antivirals: 1131 [51.9%] male; median [IQR] age, 58.0 [41-71] years; and 5518 without antivirals: 2928 [53.1%] female; median [IQR] age, 45.0 [29-57] years), most had mild COVID-19 (7599 participants [98.7%]) and received 2 or more vaccine doses (6902 participants [89.6%]). Participants receiving antivirals were older and had more comorbidities; other baseline characteristics were similar between groups. After prespecified adjustment, antiviral use was associated with a lower risk of PCC (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.93). Results were consistent for ensitrelvir (aRR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.79-0.95) and molnupiravir (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67-0.98). Failure to return to usual health by day 84 was less common among participants receiving antivirals than among participants without antivirals (9.9% vs 12.9%; aRR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.67-0.89).
>Conclusions and Relevance In this cohort study of outpatients with COVID-19, early oral antiviral use was associated with a lower risk of PCC. These findings suggest that early antiviral treatment may help mitigate long-term consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Full article: https://archive.ph/NDeMb
Related:
Those who put in extra effort to avoid Covid, by masking, testing, avoiding risky situations etc. do so because they follow the science, observe and acknowledge the reality, and know that any regrets they may have for doing so, will pale in comparison to the regrets that those who embraced constant infections will have when they realize what they have done to themselves and their kids if they have any.
>Abstract
>Introduction
>The continual emergence of new severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants drives the need to update evidence on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) severity and disease burden, and better understand the impact on prevention, treatment, and healthcare systems.
>Methods
>This systematic review aimed to determine relative disease severity, through comparative measures of hospitalization, intensive care unit admission and mortality, between SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern emerging since Omicron was first identified. A protocol was registered a priori (PROSPERO ID: CRD42024619193). Systematic searches of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were conducted in November 2024 and supplemented by conference searches from 2022–2024. Population, Exposure, Comparisons, Outcomes (PECO) criteria were used to screen publications for inclusion. Critical appraisal tools published in the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Handbook for Evidence Synthesis were used to assess the risk of bias of the primary studies included. The outcomes associated with Omicron variants, identified by sequencing or predominance periods, included hospitalization, admission to intensive care, death, and various composite endpoints.
>Results
>Thirty-two studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria, most reported on relative disease severity for early Omicron BA.5 (n = 23) and XBB (n = 24) variants. Overall, COVID-19 severity appeared largely comparable across the various Omicron subvariants. Among the subset of studies that directly compared various severity outcomes to earlier SARS-CoV-2 variants (n = 7), some reported modest increases or decreases in severity. However, these differences were generally not statistically significant. Five studies stratifying outcomes by the presence of comorbid conditions noted that comorbidities were predictors of significantly worse COVID-19 disease outcomes (p = 0.000–0.027).
>Conclusions
>Overall, this systematic review found the severity of COVID-19 disease to be comparable among Omicron subvariants. As SARS-CoV-2 subvariants continue to emerge, these results highlight the continuing need for vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 infection alongside early antiviral intervention to support short-term management and long-term reduction of COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality.
The post: https://x.com/WHO/status/2054775008015114744
Related:
This study: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0345041
Related:
From present study:
>Abstract
>During the COVID-19 pandemic, airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 via respiratory aerosols was a critical concern in indoor environments. In the city of Santander, Spain, an outbreak in a multi-family residential building during a period of low community transmission revealed vertical clustering of 15 cases in four homes. The building’s design included single interior bathrooms without windows in each home, ventilated by a shared vertical bathroom duct system. Field measurements, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations, and multi-zone airflow modeling were performed to evaluate vertical disease transmission potential in the Santander building. Epidemiological and genetic data combined with the field-collected data and modeling indicated that the most plausible transmission route was the bathroom vertical ventilation duct system, which facilitated movement of infectious aerosol between vertically connected homes. Additionally, operating the kitchen exhaust fan can augment the movement of aerosols between occupied spaces increasing the potential for infection. Recommendations for mitigating future risks include the installation of forced air exhaust fans with non-return flaps in bathroom ducts.
>Abstract
>Patients with earlier SARS-CoV-2 variants are at increased risk of venous and arterial thromboembolic (VTE, ATE) events. Here we aimed to contextualise the incidence of thromboembolic events among patients with COVID-19 during the Omicron period. We conducted a population-based cohort study using electronic health records from the UK (CPRD GOLD), the Netherlands (IPCI), and Spain (SIDIAP) within the DARWIN EU^(®) network. Two cohorts were included: a pre-pandemic population (2017–2019) and individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 during the Omicron-dominant period. We estimated incidence rates (IRs) of VTE, ATE, and other cardiovascular events at 30-, 60-, 90-, and 180-days post-infection. Crude incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and age-sex standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) were calculated relative to the pre-pandemic cohort. Analyses were stratified by prior infection, vaccination status, and immunocompromised status. In total, we included over 7.6 million individuals (CPRD GOLD: 5.28 M; IPCI: 1.59 M; SIDIAP: 0.75 M) in the general population cohort, and about 0.8 million individuals (CPRD GOLD: 248,847; IPCI: 330,200; SIDIAP: 200,563) in the COVID-19 Omicron cohort. Crude IRs varied by outcome and data source. For VTE, IRs per 100,000 person-years were 136 [95%CI 131–141] in SIDIAP, 167 [164–169] in CPRD GOLD, and 264 [259–270] in IPCI. Elevated SIRs for VTE and ATE were observed following SARS-CoV-2 infection, highest within 30 days and persisting up to 180 days. In CPRD GOLD, the VTE SIR was 3.61 [2.45–5.53] at 30 days, decreasing to 1.88 [1.52–2.34] at 180 days. Higher SIRs were observed among immunocompromised individuals and those without prior infection. Our findings indicate that among individuals diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection during the Omicron-dominant period, observed rates of thromboembolic events exceeded expected background incidence, particularly in the early post-infection period.
>Key Points
>Question How effective is COVID-19 vaccination in preventing transmission of SARS-CoV-2?
>Findings In this cohort study of 362 primary case participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection and their 763 household contacts, 62% of household contacts were infected with SARS-CoV-2. Household contacts of primary case participants vaccinated 6 months or less before onset had nearly one-half the infection risk compared with contacts of unvaccinated primary case participants.
>Meaning These findings suggest that COVID-19 vaccination may have an indirect benefit of decreasing transmission and thus reducing overall exposure to SARS-CoV-2.
>Abstract
>Importance COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) is typically studied in the context of reducing the risk of severe illness and death. Few studies have estimated VE in preventing transmission and infection with current levels of SARS-CoV-2 population immunity.
>Objective To estimate COVID-19 VE against transmission and infection within households.
>Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study was a prospective, case-ascertained household transmission study (performed in New York, Tennessee, and Washington) in which the first household member with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (primary case participant) was identified through outpatient settings and enrolled with their household contacts from January 1, 2024, to January 31, 2025. Participants provided demographic information, and COVID-19 vaccination history was verified by study staff. After enrollment, participants were instructed to collect daily nasal swabs for 10 days regardless of symptoms. Nasal swabs were tested for SARS-CoV-2 via reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction.
>Exposure COVID-19 vaccination history in primary case participants and household contacts categorized as time from most recent vaccination to COVID-19 onset in the primary case participant (≤6 months, 7-12 months, >12 months, and unvaccinated [reference group]).
>Main Outcomes and Measures Household contacts were considered infected if at least 1 swab tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Secondary infection risk was calculated as the number of infected contacts divided by the total number of contacts. Adjusted relative risk (ARR) of infection was estimated using a multivariable Poisson regression model, with generalized estimating equations accounting for household-level clustering. Vaccine effectiveness was calculated as 1 minus the ARR of the primary case participant and household contacts’ vaccination status to estimate VE against transmission and against infection, respectively.
>Results This analysis included 362 primary case participants (median [IQR] age, 35 [10-53] years; 199 female [55.0%]) and 763 household contacts (median [IQR] age, 29 [12-44] years; 399 female [52.3%]). SARS-CoV-2 infection was detected in 476 household contacts during follow-up for a secondary infection risk of 62.4% (95% CI, 58.7%-65.5%). Household contacts of primary case participants vaccinated 6 months or less before onset had a lower infection risk compared with contacts of unvaccinated primary case participants (ARR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.35-0.93]). There was no statistically significant difference in infection risk based on vaccination status of household contacts.
>Conclusions and Relevance In this cohort study, recent COVID-19 vaccination was associated with a reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. These findings suggest that COVID-19 vaccination may have an indirect benefit of decreasing transmission and thus reducing overall exposure to SARS-CoV-2.
>Abstract
>Background
>Uncertainty about the prior health status of those dying during the pandemic has fuelled debate about its impact. To date, attempts to quantify life years lost during the pandemic have relied on using life tables without taking into account varying levels of vulnerability among those that died.
>Methods
>Using retrospective, linked data from March 2020 to September 2022 for the cohort of all individuals in England alive at outset, we quantified the risk of death, associated with a wide variety of comorbidities, using primary care and hospital data, as well as evidence of vaccination and COVID-19 infection. We then simulated the survival of every individual in the population with a positive COVID-19 test, with and without the assumption that COVID-19 affected their survival, taking account of their personal vulnerability. We used the difference between these simulated survival times to estimate mortality displacement (how long those who died would have lived, had they not tested positive). We used the displacement estimates for those aged 65 and older to revise estimates of excess deaths.
>Results
>We estimated median mortality displacement of 4.8 (IQR = 1.5 to 16) years for females and 4.4 (IQR = 1.4 to 12.6) years for males at ages 65 and over. We estimate 28% of those dying with COVID-19 aged 65 and over would have survived five years or more without the infection (66% for females aged 65–74).
>Conclusions
>Life expectancy of those who died with COVID-19 was substantial and, based on our analysis of vulnerability, most of those who died at ages 65 and over are unlikely to have been close to death. In future pandemics, real-time modelling of displacement would be helpful in assessing the mortality impact of the pandemic.
Even if COVID-19 really were as mild as everyone wants to believe, and even if you don't hate any of the symptoms, the current hantavirus outbreak is one more reason to double down on N95 masks and Corsi Rosenthal boxes (or other air purifiers).
The early symptoms of hantavirus mimic the symptoms of many other airborne diseases. If the hantavirus outbreak expands to people who were never on that cruise ship, that would be bad news because it be a surefire sign of a new pandemic.
Under such circumstances, you'd probably freak out if you were sick. You'd be wondering if you were infected with hantavirus. Who wants that?
But for some reason, nobody has thought about this. Most people still aren't wearing any mask at all (much less an N95) in the risky places.