Baseline capillaroscopy provides no evidence of microvascular changes to predict long-COVID syndrome 2024 Ulusoy et al

[Andy]

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Long-COVID refers to a variety of symptoms that continue for at least 4 weeks following the onset of acute COVID-19 infection. “Microclots/microvasculopathy” is a potential cutting-edge theory. Nailfold capillaroscopy is a non-invasive method used to assess microvascularity. In this study, we aimed to compare baseline characteristics and capillaroscopic findings of patients with and without long-COVID syndrome.

METHODS: Baseline clinical characteristics of 53 patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were recorded. At the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, patients underwent nailfold capillaroscopy. One year later, patients were rescreened for long-COVID symptoms. Comparisons were made between patients with and without long-COVID syndrome in terms of their baseline characteristics and capillaroscopic findings.

RESULTS: There were 35 individuals (66%) with long-COVID syndrome. The most common symptoms related to long-COVID were fatigue (43.4%), myalgia (34%), arthralgia (20.8%), dyspnea (20.8%). In total, 22 patients (41.5%) had abnormal capillaroscopy findings. Like other baseline characteristics, the proportion of patients with abnormal capillaroscopic findings (40% vs 44%, p=0.76) was similar between patients with and without long-COVID syndrome.

CONCLUSION: Microvasculopathy and microthrombotic vascular damage are among the strongest hypotheses discussed in this regard. Our results may suggest that factors, rather than baseline microvasculopathy, may drive pathophysiological mechanism underlying the poorly understood long-COVID syndrome

Open access, https://www.elis.sk/index.php?page=...d=164&option=com_virtuemart&vmcchk=1&Itemid=1

 

[Creekside]

A study concluding negative results was published? Amazing! We need more of that, rather than studies tweaked to somehow provide some sort of positive findings. Disproving theories is important.

 

[Eleanor]

Baseline clinical characteristics of 53 patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were recorded. [...] One year later, patients were rescreened for long-COVID symptoms. [...] There were 35 individuals (66%) with long-COVID syndrome.

So either that's an unusual cohort at the outset or their definition of LC is meaninglessly broad.

 

[Hutan]

Turkish study

or their definition of LC is meaninglessly broad.

Yep

Patients were re-evaluated by telephone interview for symptoms of long-COVID 1 year after complete recovery of the initial diagnosis (8). Cough, sputum, hemoptysis, dyspnea, pal- pitation, fever, fatigue, wheezing, syncope, myalgia, arthralgia, sore throat, dysgeusia, dysosmia, earache, anorexia, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, weight loss, confusion, head- ache, attention deficit, memory loss, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbance, hair loss symptoms and history of thrombosis were checked. These symptoms were categorized and recorded as symptoms present before COVID, symptoms that began during and continued after the acute COVID period, and symptoms that developed in the post-COVID period. Individuals with any of the long-COVID-related symptoms, that were not present prior to COVID-19 infection, were considered to have the disease.

Also, 72% of the patients were male and all were hospitalised. 74% of the "Long Covid" patients were male.

Considering we would only expect maybe 10% of infected people to have Long Covid a year after infection, finding 35 people rather than 5 makes this study fatally flawed.

It's a shame, a good study using this technique would be interesting.