A new warning study that deserves attention.
SARS-CoV-2 leaves a long-term endothelial and metabolic footprint in the blood months after infection - even in people without obvious Long COVID symptoms.
And that matters🧵
Researchers followed 262 adults in Germany and measured blood biomarkers about 37 weeks after infection - roughly 9 months later.
People who had previously had COVID showed higher markers of endothelial dysfunction and tissue stress, including soluble thrombomodulin and LDH, compared with never-infected controls.
In simple English.
Their blood still carried signs of vascular and metabolic disturbance long after the acute infection was over.
The most important part?
These changes were not limited to people diagnosed with post-COVID syndrome.
Similar signals were also seen in people recruited from a population cohort after infection - not just in patients who showed up at a Long COVID clinic.
It does show something deeply uncomfortable.
SARS-CoV-2 can leave a measurable biological mark even in people who think they have fully recovered.
The study also found changes in amino-acid pathways linked to nitric oxide metabolism - including L-arginine, citrulline, and taurine.
Nitric oxide is central to vascular tone, microcirculation, and normal endothelial function.
That makes this more than a random lab finding.
In people with more severe fatigue, the signal looked different. Higher levels of specific fatty acids, including linoleic, oleic, and palmitoleic acid.
It may reflect real metabolic and energy-regulation disruption.
This findings also fit into a broader hypothesis emerging across post-COVID research -
that SARS-CoV-2 may push part of the population toward a longer-term shift in lipid and metabolic health - potentially including triglycerides and broader cardiometabolic risk.
So here is the part we should not ignore.
We do not know whether this endothelial and metabolic footprint disappears.
We do not know when it disappears.
And we cannot rule out that, in some people, it persists for years.
That is why the population-level question matters.
Even a modest shift in vascular or metabolic biomarkers across millions of people could translate into a meaningful shift in long-term cardiovascular risk.
This study does not say that everyone after COVID is automatically a cardiovascular patient.
But it does say something serious.
SARS-CoV-2 can leave measurable biological traces even in people who look fine.
And if infections keep repeating, the question is no longer only
Did I get Long COVID?
It is also -
What are repeated infections doing to my blood vessels, my metabolism, and my long-term health?
Participants were recruited in Germany between July 2021 and January 2022 - not just a single wave or variant.
Oestreich at al., Endothelial dysfunction and metabolic biomarkers in post-COVID-19 syndrome. nature.com/articles/s4159…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Even in the Omicron era, SARS-CoV-2 was linked to a several-fold increase in serious thromboembolic and cardiovascular events - and that risk persisted for months after infection🧵
A new European preprint cohort study looked at ~780,000 people with COVID-19 and 7.6 million pre-pandemic controls across three health databases in the UK, the Netherlands and Spain.
The main finding is hard to ignore.
In the first 30 days after infection, the standardized incidence of venous thromboembolism was about 3.6-4.1 times higher than expected!
A new narrative review by Kell, Zhao & Pretorius looks at Long COVID through the lens of microcirculation. The idea that persistent fibrinaloid microclots may contribute to impaired blood flow in the smallest vessels.🧵
This is not a systematic review or meta-analysis. It is better read as a broad mechanistic argument. A way to connect existing findings on inflammation, endothelial dysfunction, coagulation, fibrinolysis and Long COVID symptoms.
The central idea is that, in some inflammatory states, blood may form abnormal microclots containing fibrin and other proteins in an amyloid-like form. Fibrinaloid microclots.
A new long COVID study found that standard autoimmune blood tests often looked normal. But when researchers tested patients blood directly against heart and blood vessel tissue, they found persistent immune reactivity - especially involving vascular tissue.🧵
The study found tissue-specific autoreactivity in many long COVID patients - especially against vascular tissue - while standard ANA screening often looked normal.
They found tissue-specific autoreactivity in 83% of long COVID patients vs 53% of pre-pandemic controls.
The clearest statistically significant difference was against vascular tissue.
34% in long COVID vs 8% in controls.
SARS-CoV-2/spike RBD may act as a potential modifier of glioma progression in biologically susceptible cells. An interesting mechanistic study that raises a warning signal.🧵
Methods first.
This study combines single-cell RNA, bulk RNA-seq, spatial transcriptomics, survival analysis, pathway/enrichment analysis, and in vitro experiments on primary glioblastoma cells.
The authors looked at genes and proteins linked to SARS-CoV-2 cell entry
ACE2, BSG/CD147, NRP1, TMPRSS2, FURIN, FCGR1A, HSPG2.
These factors were mapped across healthy brain cells, COVID-19 brain samples, glioma cells, and glioma tissue.
COVID-19 and the heart. A new narrative synthesis of 71 studies suggests that long-term cardiovascular effects are not limited to people who were hospitalised.
The risk is clearly highest after severe acute disease - but measurable abnormalities have also been reported after mild infections🧵
This is not a meta-analysis.
The authors did not calculate one pooled prevalence estimate because the studies were too uneven. Different LC definitions, different follow-up, tests, different populations, and often poor separation between hospitalised and non hospitalised groups.
Even with that messiness, the same warning signal keeps appearing.
COVID-19 can be followed by persistent cardiovascular problems - palpitations, chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, arrhythmias, dysautonomia, impaired heart function, and in higher-risk groups, major adverse cardiovascular events.
A new study in Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine looked at a very important question.
Can a history of COVID-19 be linked to impaired coronary blood flow, even when the main coronary arteries look normal?🧵
The authors included 190 patients with unstable angina and normal coronary arteries.
Half of them had a confirmed history of COVID-19.
The other half did not.
The key difference between the two groups was previous COVID infection.
The result was striking.
Patients with prior COVID-19 had a much higher rate of coronary slow flow.
COVID+ group 18.9%
COVID− group 5.3%
That is more than a threefold difference.