Study: COVID-19 hospital patients face greater risk of death for 2 or more years afterward
People hospitalized for a severe bout of COVID-19 are far from in the clear after they've recovered enough to return home, a new study says.
COVID-19 hospital patients have an increased risk of death from any cause for at least two and a half years following their initial illness, researchers reported in the journal Infectious Diseases.
They also are more likely to be hospitalized again, with particularly high risk for neurological, psychiatric, heart and lung problems, researchers found.
"These findings are a stark reminder of the far-reaching impact of COVID-19, which extends far beyond the initial infection," lead researcher Dr. Sarah Tubiana, an infectious disease specialist at Bichat Hospital in Paris, said in a news release.
"While much attention has been given to the immediate dangers of the virus, our research shows that hospitalized COVID-19 survivors remain at greater risks of severe health complications months and even years later," Tubiana said. "The long-term implications for public health are significant."
For the study, researchers followed nearly 64,000 French adults admitted to a hospital with COVID-19 between January 2020 and August 2020.
The team compared their health with nearly 320,000 other people matched for age, sex and location who had not been hospitalized for COVID-19 during the same period.
During follow-up for up to 30 months, researchers found that hospitalized COVID-19 survivors had a higher rate of deaths from any cause -- 5,218 deaths for every 100,000 person-years, compared with 4,013 deaths among the healthy control group.
Person-years is a statistical measure of the number of people considered in a study, as well as the amount of time they were followed.
COVID-19 survivors also landed in the hospital again more frequently, with 16,334 hospitalizations per 100,000 person-years compared with 12,024 hospitalizations among the control group.
COVID-19 patients specifically were twice as likely to be hospitalized again for respiratory problems, researchers found. They also were 15% more likely to be hospitalized for heart problems, 41% more likely for psychiatric problems and 50% more likely for neurological disorders.
These excess risks decreased after the first six months following hospitalization, but remained elevated for up to 30 months for neurological and respiratory illnesses, chronic kidney failure and diabetes, results show.
"Even 30 months after hospitalization, COVID-19 patients remained at an increased risk of death or severe health complications, reflecting the long-lasting, wider consequences of the disease on people's lives," senior researcher Dr. Charles Burdet, an infectious diseases specialist at Université Paris Cité, said in a news release.
"These results highlight the need for further research to understand the mechanisms behind these long-term health risks and how to mitigate them," he added.
COVID-19 is known to damage organs and systems throughout the body, particularly during severe, life-threatening infections, researchers noted.
However, researchers added that these risks might not fully apply to people who've more recently been hospitalized with COVID-19, as the study focused on patients infected before new variants of the coronavirus emerged.
More information
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has more about long COVID.
Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Wire
20 minutes ago
- Business Wire
Sarah Harkcom, General Counsel at Scientist.com, Wins European Legal Innovation & Technology 'Innovation Trailblazer' Award
SAN DIEGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- the leading R&D procurement-orchestration platform for the life sciences, today announced that its General Counsel, Sarah Harkcom, has been named Innovation Trailblazer at the 2025 European Legal Innovation & Technology Awards. legal framework has supported more than $2.5 billion in outsourced research, enabling scientists to launch critical experiments in days rather than weeks or months. Share Harkcom was recognized for architecting a unified, cross-border contracting model now adopted by many of the world's top pharmaceutical companies and contract research organizations (CROs). The framework has already supported more than $2.5 billion in outsourced research, enabling scientists to launch critical experiments in days rather than weeks or months. 'Sarah's vision reshaped how the pharma industry does business,' said Kevin Lustig, PhD, CEO and Founder of 'Her streamlined legal model removes friction for both buyers and suppliers, giving researchers faster access to the services they need to discover life-changing cures.' Key achievements Industry standardization: Created global template agreements that underlie most transactions. Accelerated R&D: Reduced contract-cycle times from months to days, a breakthrough that proved vital during the COVID-19 pandemic and continues to speed progress against other diseases. Global impact: The model's cross-jurisdictional design delivers uniform compliance and efficiency for partners in 80 countries. The awards ceremony took place on May 28 in Milan, Italy. For a full list of honorees, visit the European Legal Innovation & Technology Awards website. About makes it easy for life-science teams to find, vet and order the research services and products they need—often in days instead of weeks. Its online marketplace brings together 6,000+ pre-qualified suppliers across 1,000-plus research categories, all with built-in regulatory and data-privacy controls. The platform powers secure sourcing hubs for 20 of the world's top 30 pharmaceutical companies, 100+ biotech firms and the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH). Founded in 2007 and continually enhanced with AI tools, helps scientists spend less time on paperwork and more time on discovery. Learn more at
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr.'s New Report Actually Nails What's Wrong With American Health. Too Bad About the Other Part.
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily. Emma lives in France. She wakes up in a country where junk food advertising to children is controlled. At school, she eats a nutritious lunch—half of which must come from locally sourced ingredients. The chemicals in her food are more strictly monitored; France bans many food additives that are still allowed in American products. When she gets home, she's not bombarded by algorithm-driven social media designed to maximize engagement through addictive content. Madison lives in Ohio. She wakes up to a breakfast, marketed directly to her through cartoon characters, packed with sugar and artificial additives. At school, she can buy snacks from a vending machine—something banned in French schools—stocked with products from companies that spend millions targeting her developing psychology. Her toys and environment contain harmful chemicals like PFAS and bisphenols that remain largely unregulated in America, unlike in France. After school, she's on social media platforms that use sophisticated algorithms to keep her scrolling, often on to content that makes her feel worse about herself. The health outcomes speak for themselves: France ranks third globally in child well-being, while the U.S. ranks 36th. The difference between Emma and Madison isn't that French doctors practice medicine differently. It's that the French government governs differently. As a pediatrician, I see this policy gap play out in my practice every day. The food we eat and the environment we live in are the primary drivers of chronic disease. Poor nutrition from ultra-processed foods drives obesity and diabetes, environmental toxins contribute to asthma and developmental disorders, and social media algorithms fuel mental health issues. I spend most of my time recommending lifestyle changes that work beautifully in countries like France but struggle to take hold in America's toxic environment. So when I opened the Trump administration's new 'Make America Healthy Again' report on childhood chronic disease, I was genuinely intrigued. Finally, I thought, a government document that seemed to understand what I see daily in clinical practice. The statistics cited are sobering. Over 40 percent of American children now have at least one chronic disease, with childhood obesity increasing by more than 270 percent since the 1970s. As a pediatrician treating these conditions, I was impressed by how thoroughly the commission had documented the crisis. But as I continued reading, I kept waiting for the group to outline a solution. Nearly 70 percent of children's calories come from ultra-processed foods designed to override satiety mechanisms and increase caloric intake, and kids are exposed to 15 food ads a day, with over 90 percent promoting products high in fat, sugar, and sodium. Not to mention the pesticides and microplastics commonly found in at alarming levels in their blood and urine. Americans, as the report demonstrates, simply live in an environment that is saturated with foods and chemicals that are terrible for our health. Just trying to avoid all this stuff can be impossible, particularly if you are a child. The logical thing to do to 'make America healthy' might be to regulate the industries that profit from making us sick—restricting predatory food marketing, cleaning up our chemical environment, and ensuring that kids have access to nutritious options. But MAHA doesn't suggest doing that. Instead, I found something far more fascinating: a document that makes the most compelling progressive case for government intervention I've ever seen, while at the same time steadfastly refusing to embrace its own conclusions. The MAHA report reads as if it were ghostwritten by a liberal think tank. It meticulously details what it calls 'corporate capture'—the way industry interests dominate and distort government actions, regulatory agencies, and medical institutions. The commission even provides a blueprint for solutions, citing countries with superior pediatric health outcomes. It notes that France bans junk food advertising to kids. Japan mandates comprehensive school nutrition programs. Regulation is possible and desirable. It's a lever that government could pull so that citizens lead healthier lives. The MAHA Commission has accidentally written a landmark conservative admission that the free market doesn't work in health care—that allowing corporations to operate without regulation corrupts institutions and undermines children's well-being. Stunningly, rather than embrace the obvious solution its data demand, the report pivots to blaming 'the overmedicalization of our kids.' That is, it claims that doctors like me and our health care system at large are too focused on treating illness and not on preventing it in the first place. It calls for 'unleashing private sector innovation' while explicitly rejecting 'a European regulatory system'—the kind that bans harmful food additives and restricts corporate marketing directed at children. This is where the commission's logic completely breaks down. It has spent dozens of pages documenting how corporate greed harms children, from selling them ultra-processed foods to exposing them to chemical toxins, creating an environment that leads to obesity, asthma, and other chronic illnesses. Then the group proposes solving this issue by giving those same interests more power while scapegoating the doctors trying to treat the resulting diseases of a system that prioritizes profit over well-being. As someone who treats these children regularly, I can tell you: This 'overmedicalization' narrative is completely backward. One example that the report gives of this phenomenon is asthma, noting that prescriptions for medications to control it went up by 30 percent over the course of a decade and declaring, 'American children are on too much medicine.' But the medicine isn't the problem. When I treat a child with asthma, I am dealing with the social determinants of health. That child gasping for breath in my office needs an inhaler because they live in substandard housing with environmental toxins that the government refuses to regulate. This is the reality of practicing pediatrics in America: We're forced to medicalize what other countries prevent through policy. Childhood obesity isn't just a medical condition—it's the symptom of a society that refuses to regulate the food industry. Doctors are left treating the symptoms, with the actual disease being the upstream social and economic factors. I agree with MAHA. This is not ideal. As much as we try, a doctor's stethoscope can't fix what a politician's pen breaks. The MAHA report's critique of doctors reveals how little the commission, which includes not one pediatrician, understands about practicing medicine. For example, the report notes that antidepressant prescriptions were written for greater than 2 million adolescents in 2022, a statistic that makes it seem as if doctors randomly hand out antidepressants. But this ignores that teenage depression rates have skyrocketed, with 5 million adolescents (20 percent of them) having a major depressive episode. When I prescribe an antidepressant to a teenager, it's not because I prefer pharmaceutical solutions. It's because I've already recommended therapy and behavioral changes. We spend much of our time advising nutritional improvement, increasing physical activity, and limiting screen time. However, that teenager lives in a country where all of that is constantly undermined by social media and chronic stress—the very societal factors the report identifies. When it comes to food and mental health, can kids and teens really do anything differently? The typical anti-regulation argument of 'personal responsibility' completely collapses when applied to minors. Children aren't autonomous actors who can meaningfully consent to destructive behaviors. Society has a moral imperative to protect children from predatory behavior. The typical response—that parents should simply 'take more responsibility'—ignores that we're asking families to fight billion-dollar industries alone. That approach has clearly failed. This is particularly true when it comes to guns. A child cannot be held responsible for gun safety. The report's ideological blinders are perhaps most evident in what it omits entirely: There is no discussion of firearm-related fatalities, the leading cause of pediatric deaths. The report does make important observations about pharmaceutical-industry capture, noting: '9 out of the last 10 FDA commissioners have gone on to work for the pharmaceutical industry.' This is a real problem, and the solution is shutting the revolving door between industry and government. Instead, the MAHA Commission uses these legitimate concerns to promote distrust of evidence-based medicine entirely— undermining confidence in the childhood vaccination schedule and framing the worsening mental health crisis as doctor-driven overmedicalization. Despite its flaws, the MAHA commissioners have handed both parties a critical moment of choice. For conservatives, it's a test of whether they're truly the populist party they claim to be. The commission has made the case for government intervention better than any progressive ever has. The question is whether they'll follow their own logic or remain trapped by free-market orthodoxy that's clearly failing America's children. For progressives, it's a reckoning: MAHA has accurately diagnosed the problem. It has correctly identified that U.S. institutions—the Food and Drug Administration, which approves medications from companies that later hire its commissioners; the Department of Agriculture, whose dietary guidelines are written by committees with extensive food-industry ties—are failing American families. Democrats, meanwhile, have found themselves defending institutions that are no longer serving their original purpose—regulatory agencies captured by the very industries they're supposed to regulate. While Republicans have the diagnosis correct, neither side has presented a cure. MAGA's answer is to let DOGE destroy the government's ability to regulate, while establishment Democrats champion the failing status quo. As the popularity of the MAHA movement shows, Americans aren't anti-government; we're anti-corruption. The real answer is pragmatic progressivism—not defending captured institutions but reimagining government—by explicitly channeling antiestablishment anger into pro-government reform. Without these changes, in another decade a different administration will release the next report documenting the same crisis, but with worse statistics. If that happens, the MAHA report will be remembered not as the document that made America healthy again—it'll be remembered as the moment we chose ideological paralysis over taking back our democracy, despite the cost to our children.
Epoch Times
an hour ago
- Epoch Times
FDA Not Recommending Newly Approved COVID-19 Vaccine: Official
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a new COVID-19 vaccine but is not recommending people receive it, the agency's top vaccine officials said on June 4. 'There's another misconception I want to clarify, which is, people have said, 'You at FDA are recommending the shots to high risk people and older people.' I want to be very clear, the FDA is not your doctor. We are not, we don't recommend shots to people,' Dr. Vinay Prasad, head of the FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a
