ReportWire

Tag: research group

  • The Most Mysterious Cells in Our Bodies Don’t Belong to Us

    The Most Mysterious Cells in Our Bodies Don’t Belong to Us

    [ad_1]

    Some 24 years ago, Diana Bianchi peered into a microscope at a piece of human thyroid and saw something that instantly gave her goosebumps. The sample had come from a woman who was chromosomally XX. But through the lens, Bianchi saw the unmistakable glimmer of Y chromosomes—dozens and dozens of them. “Clearly,” Bianchi told me, “part of her thyroid was entirely male.”

    The reason, Bianchi suspected, was pregnancy. Years ago, the patient had carried a male embryo, whose cells had at some point wandered out of the womb. They’d ended up in his mother’s thyroid—and, almost certainly, a bunch of other organs too—and taken on the identities and functions of the female cells that surrounded them so they could work in synchrony. Bianchi, now the director of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, was astonished: “Her thyroid had been entirely remodeled by her son’s cells,” she said.

    The woman’s case wasn’t a one-off. Just about every time an embryo implants and begins to grow, it dispatches bits of itself into the body housing it. The depositions begin at least as early as four or five weeks into gestation. And they settle into just about every sliver of our anatomy where scientists have checked—the heart, the lungs, the breast, the colon, the kidney, the liver, the brain. From there, the cells might linger, grow, and divide for decades, or even, as many scientists suspect, for a lifetime, assimilating into the person that conceived them. They can almost be thought of as evolution’s original organ transplant, J. Lee Nelson, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, told me. Microchimerism may be the most common way in which genetically identical cells mature and develop inside two bodies at once.

    These cross-generational transfers are bidirectional. As fetal cells cross the placenta into maternal tissues, a small number of maternal cells migrate into fetal tissues, where they can persist into adulthood. Genetic swaps, then, might occur several times throughout a life. Some researchers believe that people may be miniature mosaics of many of their relatives, via chains of pregnancy: their older siblings, perhaps, or their maternal grandmother, or any aunts and uncles their grandmother might have conceived before their mother was born. “It’s like you carry your entire family inside of you,” Francisco Úbeda de Torres, an evolutionary biologist at the Royal Holloway University of London, told me.

    All of that makes microchimerism—named in homage to the part-lion, part-goat, part-dragon chimera of Greek myth—more common than pregnancy itself. It’s thought to affect every person who has carried an embryo, even if briefly, and anyone who has ever inhabited a womb. Other mammals—mice, cows, dogs, our fellow primates—seem to haul around these cellular heirlooms too. But borrowed cells don’t always show up in the same spots, or in the same numbers. In many cases, microchimeric cells are thought to be present at concentrations on the order of one in 1 million—levels that, “for a lot of biological assays, is approaching or at the limit of detection,” Sing Sing Way, an immunologist and a pediatrician at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, told me.

    Some scientists have argued that cells so sparse and inconsistent couldn’t possibly have meaningful effects. Even among microchimerism researchers, hypotheses about what these cells do—if anything at all—remain “highly controversial,” Way said. But many experts contend that microchimeric cells aren’t just passive passengers, adrift in someone else’s genomic sea. They are genetically distinct entities in a foreign residence, with their own evolutionary motivations that may clash with their landlord’s. And they might hold sway over many aspects of health: our susceptibility to infectious or autoimmune disease, the success of pregnancies, maybe even behavior. If these cells turn out to be as important as some scientists believe they are, they might be one of the most underappreciated architects of human life.

    Already, researchers have uncovered hints of what these wandering cells are up to. Way’s studies in mice, for instance, suggest that the microchimerism that babies inherit during gestation might help fine-tune their immune system, steeling the newborn body against viral infections; as the rodents age, their mother’s cells may aid in bringing their own pregnancies to term, by helping them see the fetus—made up of half-foreign DNA—as benign, rather than an unfamiliar threat.

    Similarly, inherited microchimerism might help explain why some studies have found that people are better at accepting organs from their mother than from their father, says William Burlingham, a transplant specialist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. In the early ’90s, Burlingham treated a kidney-transplant patient who had abruptly stopped taking his immunosuppressive medications—a move that should have prompted his body’s rejection of the new organ. But “he was doing fine,” Burlingham told me. The patient’s kidney had come from his mother, whose cells were still circulating in his blood and skin; when his body encountered the transplanted tissues, it saw the newcomers as more of the same.

    Even fetal cells that meander into mothers during pregnancy might buoy the baby’s health. David Haig, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard, thinks that these cells may position themselves to optimally extract resources from Mom: in the brain, to command more attention; in the breast, to stimulate more milk production; in the thyroid, to coax more body heat. The cells, he told me, might also fiddle with a mother’s fertility, extending the interval between births to give the baby more uninterrupted care. Fetal delegates could then serve as informants for future offspring that inhabit the same womb, Úbeda de Torres told me. If later fetuses don’t detect much relatedness between themselves and their older siblings, he said, they might become greedier when siphoning nutrients from their mother’s body, rather than leaving extra behind for future siblings whose paternity may also differ from theirs.

    The perks of microchimerism for mothers have been tougher to pin down. One likely possibility is that the more thoroughly embryonic cells infiltrate the mother’s body, the better she might be able to tolerate her fetus’s tissue, reducing her chances of miscarriage or a high-risk birth. “I really think it’s a baby’s insurance policy on the mom,” Amy Boddy, a biological anthropologist at UC Santa Barbara, told me. “Like, ‘Hey, don’t attack.’” After delivery, the cells that stick around in the mother’s body may ease future pregnancies too (at least those by the same father). Pregnancy complications such as preeclampsia become rarer the more times someone conceives with the same partner. And when mothers send cellular envoys into their babies, they might be able to cut Mom a break by upping a child’s sleepiness, or curbing their fussiness.

    Microchimerism may not always be kind to moms. Nelson and others have found that, long-term, women with more fetal cells are also more likely to develop certain kinds of autoimmune disease, perhaps because their children’s cells are mistakenly reassessed by certain postpartum bodies as unwanted invaders. Nelson’s former postdoctoral fellow Nathalie Lambert, now at the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research, has found evidence in mouse experiments that fetal microchimeric cells may also produce antibodies that can goad attacks on maternal cells, Lambert told me. But the situation is also more complicated than that. “I don’t think they’re bad actors,” Nelson said of the interloping fetal cells. She and her colleagues have also found that fetal cells might sometimes protect against autoimmunity, leading a few conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis, to actually abate during and shortly after pregnancy.

    In other contexts, too, fetal cells might offer both help and harm to the mother, or neither at all. Fetally derived microchimeric cells have been spotted voyaging into the cardiac tissues of mice who have experienced mid-pregnancy heart attacks, settling the pancreases of newly diabetic mouse moms, and lurking inside human tumors and C-section scars. But scientists aren’t sure whether the foreign cells are causing damage, repairing it, or simply bystanders, discovered in these spots by coincidence.

    These questions are so difficult to answer, Way told me, because microchimeric cells are so challenging to study. They might be in all of us, but they’re still rare, and frequently hidden in tough-to-access internal tissues. Researchers can’t yet say whether the cells actively deploy to predetermined sites or are pulled into specific organs by maternal cells—or just follow the natural flow of blood like river sediments. There’s also no consensus on how much microchimerism a body can tolerate. In a vacuum of evidence, even microchimerism researchers are steeling themselves for a letdown. “A very large part of me is prepared to think that most if not all microchimerism is completely benign,” Melissa Wilson, a computational evolutionary biologist at Arizona State University, told me.

    But if microchimeric cells do have a role to play in autoimmunity or reproductive success, the potential for therapies could be huge. One option, Burlingham told me, might be to infuse organ-transplant patients with cells from their mother, which could, like tiny ambassadors, coax the body into accepting any new tissue. Microchimerism-inspired therapies could help ease the burdens of high-risk pregnancies, Boddy told me, many of which seem to be fueled by the maternal body mounting an inappropriately aggressive immune response. They might also improve the experience of surrogates, who are more likely to experience pregnancy complications such as high blood pressure, preterm birth, and gestational diabetes. The cells’ stem-esque properties could even help researchers design better treatments for genetic diseases in utero; one research group, at UC San Francisco, is pursuing this idea for the blood disorder alpha thalassemia.

    Before those visions can be enacted, some questions need to be resolved. Researchers have unearthed evidence that microchimeric cells from different sources might sometimes compete with, or even displace one another, in bids for dominance. If the same dynamic plays out with future therapies, doctors may need to be careful about which cells they introduce to people and when, or risk losing the precious cargo they infuse. And, perhaps most fundamental, scientists can’t yet say how many microchimeric cells are necessary to exert influence over a specific person’s health—a threshold that will likely determine just how practical these theoretical treatments might be, Kristine Chua, a biological anthropologist at UCSB, told me.

    Even amid these uncertainties, the experts I spoke with stand by microchimerism’s likely importance: The cells are so persistent, so ubiquitous, so evolutionarily ancient, Boddy told me, that they must have an effect. The simple fact that they’re allowed to stick around for decades, while they grow and develop and change, could have a lot to teach us about immunity—and our understanding of ourselves. “In my mind, it does alter my concept of who I am,” Bianchi, who herself has given birth to a son, told me. Although he’s since grown up, she’s never without him, nor he without her.

    [ad_2]

    Katherine J. Wu

    Source link

  • Dobbs’s Confounding Effect on Abortion Rates

    Dobbs’s Confounding Effect on Abortion Rates

    [ad_1]

    When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Diana Greene Foster made a painful prediction: She estimated that one in four women who wanted an abortion wouldn’t be able to get one. Foster, a demographer at UC San Francisco, told me that she’d based her expectation on her knowledge of how abortion rates decline when women lose insurance coverage or have to travel long distances after clinics close.

    And she was well aware of what this statistic meant. She’d spent 10 years following 1,000 women recruited from clinic waiting rooms. Some got an abortion, but others were turned away. The “turnaways” were more likely to suffer serious health consequences, live in poverty, and stay in contact with violent partners. With nearly 1 million abortions performed in America each year, Foster worried that hundreds of thousands of women would be forced to continue unwanted pregnancies. “Having a baby before they’re ready kind of knocks people off their life course,” she told me.

    But now, more than a year removed from the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, Foster has revised her estimate. After seeing early reports of women traveling across state lines and ordering pills online, she now estimates that about 5 percent of women who want an abortion cannot get one. Indeed, two recent reports show that although Dobbs upended abortion access in America, many women have nevertheless found ways to end their pregnancy. A study by the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights, signals that national abortion rates have not meaningfully fallen since 2020. Instead, they seem to have gone up a bit. A report released this week by the Society of Family Planning, another pro-abortion-rights group, shows that an increase in abortions in states that allow the procedure more than offset the post-Dobbs drop-off in states that closed down clinics.

    Some of this increase may be a result of trends that predate Dobbs: Abortion rates in the U.S. have been going up since 2017. But the reports suggest that the increase may also be due to travel by women who live in red states and the expanded access to abortion that many blue states enacted after the ruling. Still, it is not yet clear exactly how much each of these factors is contributing to the observed increase—and how many women who want an abortion are still unable to get one.

    Alison Norris, a co-chair of the Society of Family Planning study, told me that she fears that the public will “become complacent” if they see the likely increase in abortion rates and believe that everyone has access. “Feeling like the problem isn’t really that big of a deal because the numbers seem to have returned to what they were pre-Dobbs is a misunderstanding of the data,” she said.


    It seems illogical that more than a dozen states would ban abortion and national rates would hardly change. But even as red states have choked off access, blue states have widened it. And the data show that women have flooded the remaining clinics and ordered abortion pills from pharmacies that ship across the country. More than half of all abortions are done using medication, a pattern that began even before the Dobbs decision.

    “It just doesn’t work to make abortion illegal,” Linda Prine, a doctor at Mount Sinai Hospital, told me. “There may be some people who are having babies that they didn’t want to have, but when you shift resources all over the place, and all kinds of other avenues open up, there’s also people who are getting abortions that might not have gotten them otherwise.”

    With mail-order abortion pills, “it’s this weird moment where abortion might, ironically, be more available than it’s ever been,” Rachel Rebouché, an expert in abortion law and the dean of the Temple University Beasley School of Law, told me.

    The Guttmacher Institute sampled abortion clinics to estimate the change in abortion counts between the first halves of 2020 and 2023. Areas surrounding states with post-Roe bans saw their abortion numbers surge over that period of time. In Colorado, which is near South Dakota, a state with a ban, abortions increased by about 89 percent, compared with an 8 percent rise in the prior three-year period. New Mexico saw abortions climb by 220 percent. (For comparison, before Dobbs, the state recorded a 27 percent hike from 2017 to 2020.) Even states in solidly blue regions saw their abortion rates grow over the three-year interval from 2020 to 2023: Guttmacher estimates that California’s abortion clinics provided 16 percent more abortions, and New York’s about 18 percent more.

    Some shifts predated the court’s intervention. After a decades-long decline, abortions began ticking upward around 2017. In 2020, they increased by 8 percent compared with 2017. The researchers I spoke with for this story told me that they couldn’t point to a decisive cause for the shift that started six years ago; they suggested rising child-care costs and Trump-era cuts to Medicaid coverage as possible factors. But the rise in abortion rates reflects a broader change: Women seem to want fewer children than they used to. Caitlin Myers, a professor at Middlebury College, told me that abortion rates might have increased even more if the Court hadn’t reversed Roe. “It looks like more people just want abortions than did a few years ago,” she said. “What we don’t know is, would they have gone up even more if there weren’t people trapped in Texas or Louisiana?”

    One of the most significant factors in maintaining post-Roe abortion access dates from the latter half of 2021. As the coronavirus pandemic clobbered the health-care system, the FDA suspended its requirement that women pick up abortion medications in person. A few months later, it made the switch permanent. The timing was opportune: People became accustomed to receiving all of their medical care through virtual appointments at the same time that they could get abortion pills delivered to their doorstep, Rebouché told me. People no longer have to travel to a clinic and cross anti-abortion picket lines. But access to mifepristone, one of the most commonly used drugs for medication abortions, is under threat. After an anti-abortion group challenged the FDA’s approval of the drug, a federal court instated regulations that would require women to visit a doctor three times to get the pills, making access much more difficult. The Supreme Court is weighing whether to hear an appeal, and has frozen the 2021 rules in place while it decides.

    But paradoxically, several of the factors that may have contributed to the rise in abortion rates seem to have sprung directly from the Dobbs decision. In the year since the ruling, six blue states have enacted laws that allow practitioners to ship abortion pills anywhere, even to deep-red Texas. Although these laws haven’t yet been litigated to test whether they’re truly impenetrable, doctors have relied on them to mail medication across the country. Aid Access, an online service that operates outside the formal health-care system, receives requests for about 6,500 abortion pills a month. (The pills cost $150, but Aid Access sends them for free to people who can’t pay.) Demand for Aid Access pills in states that ban or restrict medication abortion has mushroomed since the Dobbs decision, rising from an average of about 82 requests per day before Dobbs to 214 after. The Guttmacher report doesn’t count abortions that take place in this legally fuzzy space, suggesting that actual abortion figures could be higher.

    As the Supreme Court revoked the constitutional right to an abortion and turned the issue back to the states, it also hardened the resolve of abortion-rights supporters. In the five months after Roe fell, the National Network of Abortion Funds received four times the money from donations than it got in all of 2020. People often donate as states encroach on abortion rights. In many cases, they bankrolled people’s travel out of ban states. Community networks also gained experience in shuttling people out of state to get abortions. “There’s definitely been innovation in the face of abortion bans,” Abigail Aiken, who documents abortions that occur outside of the formal health-care system, told me.

    Some researchers believe that the Dobbs decision has actually convinced more women to get abortions. Abortion-rights advocacy groups have erected highway billboards that promise Abortion is ok. Public opinion has tilted in favor of abortion rights. Ushma Upadhyay, a professor at UC San Francisco, told me that California’s rising abortion rates cannot all be due to people traveling from states that ban abortion. “It’s also got to be an increase among Californians,” she said. “It’s just a lot of attention, destigmatization, and funding that has been made available. Even before Dobbs, there was a lot of unmet need for abortion in this country.”

    Abortion used to be a topic that was “talked about in the shadows,” Greer Donley, an expert in abortion law and a professor at the University of Pittsburgh, told me. “Dobbs kind of blew that up.” Still, she believes that it’s unlikely that people are getting significantly more abortions simply because of changes within blue states. Just as obstacles don’t seem to have stopped people from seeking abortions, efforts that moderately expand access are unlikely to lead people to get an abortion, she said.

    The people I spoke with emphasized that even though overall abortion rates might be going up, not everyone who wants the procedure can get it. People who don’t speak English or Spanish, who don’t have internet access, or who are in jail still have trouble getting abortions. “What I foresee is a bunch of Black women being stuck pregnant who didn’t want to be pregnant, in a state where it’s incredibly dangerous to be Black and pregnant,” Laurie Bertram Roberts, a founder of the Mississippi Reproductive Freedom Fund, told me.

    Bertram Roberts’s fund used to provide travel stipends of up to $250. Now women need three times that. Most people travel from Mississippi to a clinic in Carbondale, Illinois. The trip takes two days—48 hours that women must take off work and find child care for. “If you are in the middle of Texas, and you have to travel to Illinois, even if funds covered all the costs, to say that abortion is more accessible for that person seems callous and wrong,” Donley told me.

    Many women spend weeks waiting for an abortion. “It is excruciating to be carrying a pregnancy that one knows they’re planning to end,” Upadhyay said. And although studies show that abortion pills are safe, women who take them can bleed for up to three weeks, and they may worry that they’ll be prosecuted if they seek help at a hospital. Only two states—Nevada and South Carolina—explicitly criminalize women who give themselves an abortion (and few women have been charged under the laws), but the legislation contributes to a climate of fear.

    More than a year out from the Dobbs decision, the grainy picture of abortion access is coming into focus. With the benefit of distance, the story seems not to be solely one of diminished access, widespread surveillance, and forced births, as the ruling’s opponents had warned. For most Americans, abortion might be more accessible than it’s ever been. But for another, more vulnerable group, abortion is a far-off privilege. “If I lived in my birth state—I was born in Minnesota—my work would be one hundred times easier,” Bertram Roberts told me, later adding, “I think about that a lot, about how the two states that bookend my life are so different.”

    [ad_2]

    Rose Horowitch

    Source link

  • Trying to Stop Long COVID Before It Even Starts

    Trying to Stop Long COVID Before It Even Starts

    [ad_1]

    Three years into the global fight against SARS-CoV-2, the arsenal to combat long COVID remains depressingly bare. Being vaccinated seems to reduce people’s chances of developing the condition, but the only surefire option for avoiding long COVID is to avoid catching the coronavirus at all—a proposition that feels ever more improbable. For anyone who is newly infected, “we don’t have any interventions that are known to work,” says Akiko Iwasaki, an immunologist and long-COVID researcher at Yale.

    Some researchers are hopeful that the forecast might shift soon. A pair of recent preprint studies, both now under review for publication in scientific journals, hint that two long-COVID-preventing pills might already be on our pharmacy shelves: the antiviral Paxlovid and metformin, an affordable drug commonly used for treating type 2 diabetes. When taken early in infection, each seems to at least modestly trim the chance of developing long COVID—by 42 percent, in the case of metformin. Neither set of results is a slam dunk. The Paxlovid findings did not come out of a clinical trial, and were focused on patients at high risk of developing severe, acute COVID; the metformin data did come out of a clinical trial, but the study was small. When I called more than half a dozen infectious-disease experts to discuss them, all used hopeful, but guarded, language: The results are “promising,” “intriguing”; they “warrant further investigation.”

    At this point, though, any advance at all feels momentous. Long COVID remains the pandemic’s biggest unknown: Researchers still can’t even agree on its prevalence or the features that define it. What is clear is that millions of people in the United States alone, and countless more worldwide, have experienced some form of it, and more are expected to join them. “We’ve already seen early data, and we’ll continue to see data, that that will emphasize the impact that long COVID has on our society, on quality of life, on productivity, on our health system and medical expenditures,” says Susanna Naggie, an infectious-disease physician and COVID-drug researcher at Duke University. “This needs to be a high priority,” she told me. Researchers have to trim long COVID incidence as much as possible, as soon as possible, with whatever safe, effective options they can.

    By now, news of the inertia around preventive long-COVID therapies may not come as much of a shock. Interventions that stop disease from developing are, on the whole, a neglected group; big, blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trials—the industry gold standard—usually look to investigate potential treatments, rather than drugs that might keep future illness at bay. It’s a bias that makes research easier and faster; it’s a core part of the American medical culture’s reactive approach to health.

    For long COVID, the terrain is even rougher. Researchers are best able to address prevention when they understand a disease’s triggers, the source of its symptoms, and who’s most at risk. That intel provides a road map, pointing them toward specific bodily systems and interventions. The potential causes of COVID, though, remain murky, says Adrian Hernandez, a cardiologist and clinical researcher at Duke. Years of research have shown that the condition is quite likely to comprise a cluster of diverse syndromes with different triggers and prognoses, more like a category (e.g., “cancer”) than a singular disease. If that’s the case, then a single preventive treatment shouldn’t be expected to cut its rates for everyone. Without a universal way to define and diagnose the condition, researchers can’t easily design trials, either. Endpoints such as hospitalization and death tend to be binary and countable. Long COVID operates in shades of gray.

    Still, some scientists might be making headway with vetted antiviral drugs, already known to slash the risk of developing severe COVID-19. A subset of long-COVID cases could be caused by bits of virus that linger in the body, prompting the immune system to wage an extended war; a drug that clears the microbe more quickly might lower the chances that any part of the invader sticks around. Paxlovid, which interferes with SARS-CoV-2’s ability to copy itself inside of our cells, fits that bill. “The idea here is really nipping it in the bud,” says Ziyad Al-Aly, a clinical epidemiologist and long-COVID researcher at Washington University in St. Louis, who led the recent Paxlovid work.

    Paxlovid has yet to hit the scientific jackpot: proof from a big clinical trial that shows it can prevent long COVID in newly infected people. But Al-Aly’s study, which pored over the electronic medical records of more than 56,000 high-risk patients, offers some early optimism. People who took the pills, he and his colleagues found, were 26 percent less likely to report lingering symptoms three months after their symptoms began than those who didn’t.

    The pills’ main benefit remains the prevention of severe, acute disease. (In the recent study, Paxlovid-takers were also 30 percent less likely to be hospitalized and 48 percent less likely to die.) Al-Aly expects that the drug’s effectiveness at preventing long COVID—if it’s confirmed in other populations—will be “modest, not huge.” Though the two functions could yet be linked: Some long-COVID cases may result from severe infections that damage tissues so badly that the body struggles to recover. And should Paxlovid’s potential pan out, it could help build the case for testing other SARS-CoV-2 antivirals. Al-Aly and his colleagues are currently working on a similar study into molnupiravir. “The early results are encouraging,” he told me, though “not as robust as Paxlovid.” (Another study, run by other researchers, that followed hospitalized COVID patients found those who took remdesivir were less likely to get long COVID, but a later randomized clinical trial didn’t bear that out.)

    A clinical trial testing Paxlovid’s preventive potency against long COVID is still needed. Kit Longley, a spokesperson for Pfizer, told me in an email that the company doesn’t currently have one planned, though it is “continuing to monitor data from our clinical studies and real-world evidence.” (The company is collaborating with a research group at Stanford to study Paxlovid in new clinical contexts, but they’re looking at whether the pills  might treat long COVID that’s already developed. The RECOVER trial, a large NIH-funded study on long COVID, is also focusing its current studies on treatment.) But given the meager uptake rates for Paxlovid even among those in high-risk groups, Al-Aly thinks his new data could already serve a useful purpose: providing people with extra motivation to take the drug.

    The case for adding metformin to the anti-COVID tool kit might be a bit muddier. The drug isn’t the most intuitive medication to deploy against a respiratory virus, and despite its widespread use among diabetics, its exact effects on the body remain nebulous, says Stacey Schultz-Cherry, a virologist at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. But there are many reasons to believe it might be useful. Some research has shown that metformin can mess with the manufacture of viral proteins inside of human cells, Bramante told me, which may impede the ability of SARS-CoV-2 and other pathogens to reproduce. The drug also appears to rev up the disease-dueling powers of certain immune cells, and to stave off inflammation. Studies have shown that metformin can improve responses to certain vaccinations in humans and rodents, and researchers have found that people taking the drug seem less likely to get seriously sick from influenza. Even the diabetes-coronavirus connection may not be so tenuous: Metabolic disease is a risk factor for severe COVID; infection itself can put blood-sugar levels on the fritz. It’s certainly plausible that having a metabolically altered body, Schultz-Cherry told me, could make infections worse.

    But the evidence that metformin helps prevent long COVID remains sparse. Carolyn Bramante, the scientist who led the metformin study, told me that when her team first set out in 2020 to investigate the drug’s effects on SARS-CoV-2 infections in a randomized, clinical trial, long COVID wasn’t really on their radar. Like many others in their field, they were hoping to repurpose established medicines to keep infected people out of the hospital; early studies of metformin—as well as the two other drugs in their trial, the antidepressant fluvoxamine and the antiparasitic ivermectin—hinted that they’d work. Ironically, two years later, their story flipped around. A large analysis, published last summer, showed that none of the three drugs were stellar at preventing severe COVID in the short term—a disappointing result (though Bramante contends that their data still indicate that metformin does some good). Then, when Bramante and her colleagues examined their data again, they found that study participants that had taken metformin for two weeks around the start of their illness were 42 percent less likely to have a long-COVID diagnosis from their doctor nearly a year down the road. David Boulware, an infectious-disease physician who helped lead the work, considers that degree of reduction pretty decent: “Is it 100 percent? No,” he told me. “But it’s better than zero.”

    Metformin may well prove to prevent long COVID but not acute, severe COVID (or vice versa). Plenty of people who never spend time in the hospital can still end up developing chronic symptoms. And Iwasaki points out that the demographics of long-haulers and people who get severe COVID don’t really overlap; the latter skew older and male. In the future, early-infection regimens may be multipronged: antivirals, partnered with metabolic drugs, in the hopes of keeping symptoms both mild and short-lived.

    But researchers are still a long way off from delivering that reality. It’s not yet clear, for instance, whether the drugs work additively when combined, Boulware told me. Nor is it a given that they’ll work across different demographics—age, vaccination status, risk factors, and more. Bramante and Boulware’s study cast a decently wide net: Although everyone enrolled in the trial was overweight or obese, many were young and healthy; a few were even pregnant. The study was not enormous, though—about 1,000 people. It also relied on patients’ individual doctors to deliver long-COVID diagnoses, likely leading to some inconsistencies, so other studies that follow up in the future could find different results. For now, this isn’t enough to “mean we should run out and use metformin,” Schultz-Cherry, who has been battling long COVID herself, told me.

    Other medications could still fill the long-COVID gaps. Hernandez, the Duke cardiologist, is hopeful that one of his ongoing clinical trials, ACTIV-6, might provide answers soon. He and his team are testing whether any of several drugs—including ivermectin, fluvoxamine, the steroid fluticasone, and, as a new addition, the anti-inflammatory montelukast—might cut down on severe, short-term COVID. But Hernandez and his colleagues, Naggie among them, appended a check-in at the 90-day mark, when they’ll be asking their patients whether they’re experiencing a dozen or so symptoms that could hint at a chronic syndrome.

    That check-in questionnaire won’t capture the full list of long-COVID symptoms, now more than 200 strong. Still, the three-month benchmark could give them a sense of where to keep looking, and for how long. Hernandez, Naggie, and their colleagues are considering whether to extend their follow-up period to six months, maybe farther. The need for long-COVID prevention, after all, will only grow as the total infection count does. “We’re not going to get rid of long COVID anytime soon,” Iwasaki told me. “The more we can prevent onset, the better off we are.”

    [ad_2]

    Katherine J. Wu

    Source link