[Post-COVID-19 syndrome]. / Syndrome post-COVID-19.

In the aftermath of acute infection with the severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), a large number of symptoms persist or appear, constituting a real syndrome called "long COVID-19" or "post-COVID- 19" or "post-acute COVID-19 syndrome". Its incidence is very high, half of patients showing at least one symptom at 4-6 months after Coronarovirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19). They can affect many organs. The most common symptom is persistent fatigue, similar to that seen after other viral infections. Radiological pulmonary sequelae are relatively rare and not extensive. On the other hand, functional respiratory symptoms, primarily dyspnoea, are much more frequent. Dysfunctional breathing is a significant cause of dyspnoea. Cognitive disorders and psychological symptoms are also very common, with anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress symptoms being widely described. On the other hand, cardiac, endocrine, cutaneous, digestive or renal sequelae are rarer. The symptoms generally improve after several months, even if their prevalence at two years remains significant. Most of the symptoms are favored by the severity of the initial illness, and the psychic symptoms by the female sex. The pathophysiology of most symptoms is poorly understood. The influence of the treatments used in the acute phase is also important. Vaccination, on the other hand, seems to reduce their incidence. The sheer number of affected patients makes long-term COVID-19 syndrome a public health challenge.

Possible toxicity of chronic carbon dioxide exposure associated with face mask use, particularly in pregnant women, children and adolescents - A scoping review.

Introduction: During the SARS-CoV-2-pandemic, face masks have become one of the most important ubiquitous factors affecting human breathing. It increases the resistance and dead space volume leading to a re-breathing of CO2. So far, this phenomenon and possible implications on early life has not been evaluated in depth. Method: As part of a scoping review, literature was systematically reviewed regarding CO2 exposure and facemask use. Results: Fresh air has around 0.04% CO2, while wearing masks more than 5 min bears a possible chronic exposure to carbon dioxide of 1.41% to 3.2% of the inhaled air. Although the buildup is usually within the short-term exposure limits, long-term exceedances and consequences must be considered due to experimental data. US Navy toxicity experts set the exposure limits for submarines carrying a female crew to 0.8% CO2 based on animal studies which indicated an increased risk for stillbirths. Additionally, mammals who were chronically exposed to 0.3% CO2 the experimental data demonstrate a teratogenicity with irreversible neuron damage in the offspring, reduced spatial learning caused by brainstem neuron apoptosis and reduced circulating levels of the insulin-like growth factor-1. With significant impact on three readout parameters (morphological, functional, marker) this chronic 0.3% CO2 exposure has to be defined as being toxic. Additional data exists on the exposure of chronic 0.3% CO2 in adolescent mammals causing neuron destruction, which includes less activity, increased anxiety and impaired learning and memory. There is also data indicating testicular toxicity in adolescents at CO2 inhalation concentrations above 0.5%. Discussion: There is a possible negative impact risk by imposing extended mask mandates especially for vulnerable subgroups. Circumstantial evidence exists that extended mask use may be related to current observations of stillbirths and to reduced verbal motor and overall cognitive performance in children born during the pandemic. A need exists to reconsider mask mandates.

Physio-metabolic and clinical consequences of wearing face masks-Systematic review with meta-analysis and comprehensive evaluation.

Background: As face masks became mandatory in most countries during the COVID-19 pandemic, adverse effects require substantiated investigation. Methods: A systematic review of 2,168 studies on adverse medical mask effects yielded 54 publications for synthesis and 37 studies for meta-analysis (on n = 8,641, m = 2,482, f = 6,159, age = 34.8 ± 12.5). The median trial duration was only 18 min (IQR = 50) for our comprehensive evaluation of mask induced physio-metabolic and clinical outcomes. Results: We found significant effects in both medical surgical and N95 masks, with a greater impact of the second. These effects included decreased SpO2 (overall Standard Mean Difference, SMD = -0.24, 95% CI = -0.38 to -0.11, p < 0.001) and minute ventilation (SMD = -0.72, 95% CI = -0.99 to -0.46, p < 0.001), simultaneous increased in blood-CO2 (SMD = +0.64, 95% CI = 0.31-0.96, p < 0.001), heart rate (N95: SMD = +0.22, 95% CI = 0.03-0.41, p = 0.02), systolic blood pressure (surgical: SMD = +0.21, 95% CI = 0.03-0.39, p = 0.02), skin temperature (overall SMD = +0.80 95% CI = 0.23-1.38, p = 0.006) and humidity (SMD +2.24, 95% CI = 1.32-3.17, p < 0.001). Effects on exertion (overall SMD = +0.9, surgical = +0.63, N95 = +1.19), discomfort (SMD = +1.16), dyspnoea (SMD = +1.46), heat (SMD = +0.70), and humidity (SMD = +0.9) were significant in n = 373 with a robust relationship to mask wearing (p < 0.006 to p < 0.001). Pooled symptom prevalence (n = 8,128) was significant for: headache (62%, p < 0.001), acne (38%, p < 0.001), skin irritation (36%, p < 0.001), dyspnoea (33%, p < 0.001), heat (26%, p < 0.001), itching (26%, p < 0.001), voice disorder (23%, p < 0.03), and dizziness (5%, p = 0.01). Discussion: Masks interfered with O2-uptake and CO2-release and compromised respiratory compensation. Though evaluated wearing durations are shorter than daily/prolonged use, outcomes independently validate mask-induced exhaustion-syndrome (MIES) and down-stream physio-metabolic disfunctions. MIES can have long-term clinical consequences, especially for vulnerable groups. So far, several mask related symptoms may have been misinterpreted as long COVID-19 symptoms. In any case, the possible MIES contrasts with the WHO definition of health. Conclusion: Face mask side-effects must be assessed (risk-benefit) against the available evidence of their effectiveness against viral transmissions. In the absence of strong empirical evidence of effectiveness, mask wearing should not be mandated let alone enforced by law. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021256694, identifier: PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021256694.

Mortality and Severity of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Patients with Long-Term Glucocorticoid Therapy: A Korean Nationwide Cohort Study.

BACKGRUOUND: The severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among patients with long-term glucocorticoid treatment (LTGT) has not been established. We aimed to evaluate the association between LTGT and COVID-19 prognosis. METHODS: A Korean nationwide cohort database of COVID-19 patients between January 2019 and September 2021 was used. LTGT was defined as exposure to at least 150 mg of prednisolone (≥5 mg/day and ≥30 days) or equivalent glucocorticoids 180 days before COVID-19 infection. The outcome measurements were mortality, hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, length of stay, and mechanical ventilation. RESULTS: Among confirmed patients with COVID-19, the LTGT group (n=12,794) was older and had a higher proportion of comorbidities than the control (n=359,013). The LTGT group showed higher in-hospital, 30-day, and 90-day mortality rates than the control (14.0% vs. 2.3%, 5.9% vs. 1.1%, and 9.9% vs. 1.8%, respectively; all P<0.001). Except for the hospitalization rate, the length of stay, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation proportions were significantly higher in the LTGT group than in the control (all P<0.001). Overall mortality was higher in the LTGT group than in the control group, and the significance remained in the fully adjusted model (odds ratio [OR], 5.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.31 to 6.23) (adjusted OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.67 to 2.00). The LTGT group showed a higher mortality rate than the control within the same comorbidity score category. CONCLUSION: Long-term exposure to glucocorticoids increased the mortality and severity of COVID-19. Prevention and early proactive measures are inevitable in the high-risk LTGT group with many comorbidities.

COVAD survey 2 long-term outcomes: unmet need and protocol.

Vaccine hesitancy is considered a major barrier to achieving herd immunity against COVID-19. While multiple alternative and synergistic approaches including heterologous vaccination, booster doses, and antiviral drugs have been developed, equitable vaccine uptake remains the foremost strategy to manage pandemic. Although none of the currently approved vaccines are live-attenuated, several reports of disease flares, waning protection, and acute-onset syndromes have emerged as short-term adverse events after vaccination. Hence, scientific literature falls short when discussing potential long-term effects in vulnerable cohorts. The COVAD-2 survey follows on from the baseline COVAD-1 survey with the aim to collect patient-reported data on the long-term safety and tolerability of COVID-19 vaccines in immune modulation. The e-survey has been extensively pilot-tested and validated with translations into multiple languages. Anticipated results will help improve vaccination efforts and reduce the imminent risks of COVID-19 infection, especially in understudied vulnerable groups.

Long-term adverse events of three COVID-19 vaccines as reported by vaccinated physicians and dentists, a study from Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

Assessment of safety of COVID-19 vaccines is an ongoing process. This study aims to explore long-term adverse events reported by physicians and dentists who received at least two COVID-19 vaccine doses. A group of physicians and dentists were invited to complete a validated questionnaire that was composed of items on: socio-demographics, medical history, administered vaccines, and long-term adverse events (LTAE). Data of a total of 498 practitioners were included. Age ranged from 22 to 71 years (mean age= 35.75 ± 11.74) with a female majority (N = 348, 69.9%). The most frequently administered vaccines were Pfizer-BioNtech, Sinopharm and AstraZeneca vaccines. A total of 80 (16.0%) participants reported LTAEs which were mainly fatigue, menstrual disturbances, myalgia, arthralgia, dizziness, and headache (N = 32, 15, 8, 6, 4, and 4, respectively). There was no statistically significant association between LTAEs and: age, gender, or medical history (P > .05). The collective symptoms of fatigue, myalgia, arthralgia, dizziness, and headache were significantly associated with Sinopharm vaccine (P = .04). This was further confirmed by general linear multivariate model analysis. Less than 20% of COVID-19 vaccine recipients may complain of LTAEs that are mostly fatigue-related. It seems that factors such as age, gender, and medical status play a negligible role in development of these AEs. On the other hand, Sinopharm vaccine showed the highest significant association with these AEs followed by AstraZeneca vaccine.

Long-term side effects and lingering symptoms post COVID-19 recovery.

Since the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), our understanding regarding the pathophysiology and clinical manifestations of this disease have been improving. However, we still have limited data on long-term effects and lingering symptoms of post COVID-19 recovery. Despite predilection of COVID-19 for lungs, multiple extra-pulmonary manifestations appear in multiple organs and biological systems and with continued infection and recovery worldwide. It is necessary that clinicians provide patients with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection with expectations of long-term effects during or after recovery from COVID-19. Herein, we review the long-term impact of COVID-19 on different organ systems reported from different clinical studies. Understanding risk factors and signs and symptoms of long-term consequences after recovery from COVID-19 will allow for proper follow-up and management of the disease post recovery.

Is a Mask That Covers the Mouth and Nose Free from Undesirable Side Effects in Everyday Use and Free of Potential Hazards?

Many countries introduced the requirement to wear masks in public spaces for containing SARS-CoV-2 making it commonplace in 2020. Up until now, there has been no comprehensive investigation as to the adverse health effects masks can cause. The aim was to find, test, evaluate and compile scientifically proven related side effects of wearing masks. For a quantitative evaluation, 44 mostly experimental studies were referenced, and for a substantive evaluation, 65 publications were found. The literature revealed relevant adverse effects of masks in numerous disciplines. In this paper, we refer to the psychological and physical deterioration as well as multiple symptoms described because of their consistent, recurrent and uniform presentation from different disciplines as a Mask-Induced Exhaustion Syndrome (MIES). We objectified evaluation evidenced changes in respiratory physiology of mask wearers with significant correlation of O2 drop and fatigue (p < 0.05), a clustered co-occurrence of respiratory impairment and O2 drop (67%), N95 mask and CO2 rise (82%), N95 mask and O2 drop (72%), N95 mask and headache (60%), respiratory impairment and temperature rise (88%), but also temperature rise and moisture (100%) under the masks. Extended mask-wearing by the general population could lead to relevant effects and consequences in many medical fields.