A Practical Approach to Tailor the Term [LC] for Diagnostics, Therapy & Epidemiological Research for Improved [Care], 2024, Hoffmann, Stingl+

A Practical Approach to Tailor the Term Long COVID for Diagnostics, Therapy and Epidemiological Research for Improved Long COVID Patient Care
Hoffmann, Kathryn; Stingl, Michael; O’Mahony, Liam; Untersmayr, Eva

The term long COVID (LC) effectively describes the broad long-term disease burden of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections, encompassing individual suffering and significant socioeconomic impacts. However, its general use hampers precise epidemiological research, diagnostics and therapeutic strategies.

Misinterpretations occur, for example, when population surveys are compared to studies using health record data, because both refer to these data as LC. This also emphasizes the need for different terminology. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) rapid guideline differentiates ongoing symptomatic COVID-19 from post-COVID conditions, yet real-world observations challenge these two subgroup definitions.

We propose refining the term LC into three subgroups: ongoing symptomatic COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 induced or exacerbated diseases and post-acute COVID condition. This stratification aids targeted diagnostics, treatment and epidemiological research. Subgroup-specific documentation using the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes ensures accurate tracking and understanding of long-term effects

The subgroup of post-acute COVID condition again includes various symptoms, syndromes and diseases like post-exertional malaise (PEM), dysautonomia or cognitive dysfunctions. In this regard, differentiation, especially considering PEM, is crucial for effective diagnostics and treatment.

Link | PDF (Infectious Diseases and Therapy) [Open Access]

 

This is what LC had to be created for. More or less. Including for other issues that aren't part of the sad roster of discriminated-and-denied chronic illnesses. MDs aren't doing that. Haven't done that from the start, which means most data so far are useless, and still aren't prepared to do it. They're not seeing the forest for the trees, because here they don't freaking belief in those specific trees.

LC was always created as an umbrella term that should be stratified. And 4+ years later we see this glut of papers suggesting the thing that was the literal starting point of all this. Just like the recent NIH paper showing that routine lab tests aren't useful. Those were all known on day -100. It was pretty much the original problem.

It's like the 42 joke in the Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy, except that instead of calculating for 5 million years and giving 42 as an answer, it gave as an answer that they should ask what the answer to life, the universe, and everything else. Basically just spitting back the original question like it's some sort of answer in itself. It's recursion* without an exit condition.

Good grief. As a whole they're so detached from reality it's painful. They have nothing to ground with here, when dealing with illness they're just as inept as the very first physicians, probably even more because of all the ridiculous pseudoscience that has come to dominate instead of proper science. They're so out of their depth that they can't see it, because the top is so high up that it's invisible to them.

* link just because I find it funny that Google suggests to search for recursion, which is recursive itself