During the pandemic, physician @leanhealth reported something important.
COVID patients who slept next to bedside air filters often seemed to have milder disease - possibly because they were not re-inhaling virus-laden air for eight hours every night🧵
A new hypothesis paper now points in the same direction using CT data. Cleaner air may not only reduce transmission. It may also reduce how deeply SARS-CoV-2 affects the lungs.
The idea is simple. The virus first replicates in the upper airways. An infected person then exhales tiny virus-containing aerosols. In poorly ventilated indoor spaces, these particles can build up and be inhaled deep into the lungs.
The author suggests two stages.
Inhaling aerosols from the environment,
re-inhaling one’s own virus-containing aerosols in enclosed spaces.
This could help explain why lung involvement can appear in multiple spots at once.
This is not a direct experiment. The paper compares already published cohorts across different air-handling settings - households/community settings, the Diamond Princess cruise ship, and individual negative-pressure rooms in a human challenge study.
The pattern is striking. Better aerosol control was associated with fewer lung CT abnormalities
84% - 61% - 11%.
Among asymptomatic cases
68% - 54% - 11%.
So lung involvement may not be just the internal fate of infection. The surrounding air may matter too - ventilation, filtration, and whether fine aerosols are allowed to accumulate.
Yes, the groups differed in age, timing of CT scans, exposure history, methods. But the hypothesis is testable. Cleaner air should reduce lung involvement even when upper-airway infection is similar.
It raises broader questions about infection control in hospitals/COVID wards. Ventilation, filtration, and aerosol management may not just protect staff and prevent spread - they may also influence disease severity in patients.
@szupraha @ZdravkoOnline
Shi at al., SARS-CoV-2 aerosols: A physical bridge linking upper respiratory infection to lung pathology - A pathological transmission hypothesis. sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A population-based study raises a concerning possibility - after COVID-19, the risk curves for newly detected diabetes may continue to drift apart over time🧵
The cohort included 248,176 adults without prior diabetes
124,150 SARS-CoV-2 positive and 124,026 test-negative controls.
The result was modest but statistically significant.
New diabetes was detected in
0.60% of the positive group
0.53% of the negative group
Hazard ratio 1.13, 95% CI 1.02-1.25
We are still trying to place Long COVID into a biologically coherent framework.
This study is interesting because immune activation, antiviral signaling, metabolism, mitochondria, cell survival do not appear as separate findings - but as parts of one connected system🧵
A possible axis is this
something keeps innate immunity on alert - immune cells produce inflammatory signals - their metabolism shifts - mitochondria come under stress - stressed mitochondria can further amplify immune activation.
That is a loop, not a list.
The study compared 50 people with Long COVID with 50 recovered controls around 10 months after SARS-CoV-2.
Both groups had been infected. The key difference was whether symptoms persisted.
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 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.
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.