Cross-sectional analysis of clinical aspects in patients with long-COVID and post-COVID syndrome 2022 Schulze et al

Objective: Regarding pathogenesis, clinical manifestations, at-risk individuals, and diagnostic methods for stratifying patients for therapeutic approaches, our understanding of post-COVID syndrome is limited. Here, we set out to assess sociodemographic and clinical aspects in patients with the long-COVID and post-COVID syndrome.

Methods: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of patients presenting at our specialized university hospital outpatient clinic. We assessed patients' clinical presentation, fatigue, symptoms of depression and anxiety, and impairment of smell.

Results: A total of 101 patients were included (73.3% female), of whom 78.2% had a mild course of COVID-19. At presentation, 93.1% suffered from fatigue, 82.2% from impaired concentration, and 79.2% from impaired memory, 53.5% had impaired sleep. The most common secondary diagnosis found in our cohort was thyroid disease. Fatigue analysis showed that 81.3% of female and 58.8% of male patients had severe combined fatigue. Female gender was an independent risk factor for severe fatigue (severe cognitive fatigue OR = 8.045, p = 0.010; severe motor fatigue OR = 7.698, p = 0.013). Males suffered from more depressive symptoms, which correlated positively with the duration of symptom onset. 70.3% of patients with anamnestic smell impairment had hyposmia, and 18.9% were anosmic.

Interpretation: Most long-COVID patients suffered from severe fatigue, with the female sex as an independent risk factor. Fatigue was not associated with symptoms of depression or anxiety. Patients with long-COVID symptoms should receive an interdisciplinary diagnostic and therapeutic approach depending on the clinical presentation.

Open access, https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fneur.2022.979152/full

 

Still with the pattern of publishing, 2 years later, studies of lower qualities than the first ones published by ill patients. They aren't bigger, more rigorous or provide anything more. They simply add nothing unless more is actually done, bigger cohorts, prospective studies, and obviously not simply doing the exact same thing many times over.

Studies with such stunningly smart advice as: figure out how to treat these patients so you can treat them. And not just that, but "depending on the clinical presentation". Pure brilliance. 2.5 years of digging heels, never moving a centimeter.

 

Ironic, since it's pretty obvious that for most physicians, unexplained fatigue = depression. It's basically the "main symptom" of depression, whenever that's convenient.

Then again, the process of labeling symptoms as depression or anxiety for no other reason than wanting them labeled this way wasn't very smart to begin with.