Research updates, October 20

Written by

–

A scientific image shows SARS-CoV-2 virus particles, which appear like hundreds of blue dots, covering a red cell. A blue-black background contrasts the cells.
SARS-CoV-2 virus particles on a cell. Source: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)
  • A large Long COVID review found mechanisms of “accelerated biological aging” in young adults. The review was published in Ageing Research Reviews and synthesized 110 mechanistic and epidemiological Long COVID studies on adults ages 25–55. The Chinese researchers found that inflammation and blood vessel damage may contribute to aging, while the disease may also increase the risk of early cardiovascular events. The review adds more evidence to the impact of infections on aging.
     
  • SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells were found in 40% of people with Long COVID, according to a new preprint. Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania studied the blood of 300 participants, comparing over 150 with Long COVID to those “recovered” from COVID-19. Using advanced techniques, they found that a subset of people maintained elevated activation of CD8 T cells, linked to the SARS-CoV-2 and/or Epstein-Barr viruses, but not other infections. “This provides key mechanistic insights and identifies a biomarker for stratifying patients, assessing response to treatment, and guiding the development of new therapies,” author Mark Painter wrote on social media.
     
  • A Long COVID treatment trial in Annals of Internal Medicine was recently retracted, and republished on the same day with new analysis. The study assessed the use of fluvoxamine and metformin to treat Long COVID. Partway through the trial, the research team changed the metformin dose from 750 milligrams to 500 milligrams after some participants experienced side effects — but this change wasn’t reflected in the original paper’s analysis. The higher dose may have skewed the results of the study. “The editors do not know whether the reason for the inaccurate reporting was intentional,” journal editor-in-chief Christine Laine told Retraction Watch. “We do know that it was sloppy, inaccurate, and the scientific record needed to be corrected.”

Get these COVID-19 & Long COVID updates in your inbox, delivered every Tuesday

* indicates required

View previous campaigns

More research updates

get the latest long covid news

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.
SpotifyApple PodcastsPocketCastsAmazon MusiciHeartRadio