Preprint Determinants of the Onset and Prognosis of the Post-COVID-19 Condition: A 2-Year Prospective Cohort Study, 2023, Mateu et al.

SNT Gatchaman

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Staff member
Determinants of the Onset and Prognosis of the Post-COVID-19 Condition: A 2-Year Prospective Cohort Study
Mateu, Lourdes; Tebe, Cristian; Loste, Cora; Santos, José Ramón; Lladós, Gemma; López, Cristina; España-Cueto, Sergio; Toledo, Ruth; Font, Marta; Chamorro, Anna; Muñoz-López, Francisco; Nevot, Maria; Vallejo, Nuria; Teis, Albert; Puig, Jordi; Fumaz, Carmina Rodríguez; Muñoz-Moreno, José Antonio; Prats, Anna; Estany-Quera, Carla; Coll-Fernández, Roser; Herrero, Cristina; Casares, Patricia; Garcia, Anna; Paredes, Roger; Clotet, Bonaventura; Massanella, Marta

Background: At least 5-10% of subjects surviving COVID-19 develop the post-COVID-19 condition (PCC) or “Long COVID”. The clinical presentation of PCC is heterogeneous, its pathogenesis is being deciphered, and objective, validated biomarkers are lacking. It is unknown if PCC is a single entity or a heterogeneous syndrome with overlapping pathophysiological basis. In a large crossectional evaluation, the RECOVER study in the US identified four clusters of subjects with PCC according to their presenting symptoms. The long-term clinical implications of PCC remain unknown.

Methods: We conducted a 2-year prospective cohort study of subjects surviving COVID-19, including individuals fulfilling the WHO PCC definition and subjects with full clinical recovery. We systematically collected post-COVID-19 symptoms using prespecified questionnaires and performed additional diagnostic imaging tests when needed. Factors associated with PCC were identified and modeled using logistic regression. Unsupervised clustering analysis was used to group subjects with PCC according to their presenting symptoms. Factors associated with PCC recovery were modelled using a direct acyclic graph approach.

Findings: The study included 548 individuals, 341 with PCC, followed for a median of 23 months (IQR 16·5 – 23·5), and 207 subjects fully recovered. In the model with the best fit, subjects who were male and had tertiary studies were less likely to develop PCC, whereas a history of headache, or presence of tachycardia, fatigue, neurocognitive and neurosensitive complaints and dyspnea at COVID-19 diagnosis predicted the development of PCC. The cluster analysis revealed the presence of three symptom clusters with an additive number of symptoms. Only 26 subjects (7·6%) recovered from PCC during follow-up; almost all of them (n=24) belonged to the less symptomatic cluster A, dominated mainly by fatigue. Recovery from PCC was more likely in subjects who were male, required ICU admission, or had cardiovascular comorbidities, hyporexia and/or smell/taste alterations during acute COVID-19. Subjects presenting with muscle pain, impaired attention, dyspnea, or tachycardia, conversely, were less likely to recover from PCC.

Interpretation: Preexisting medical and socioeconomic factors, as well as acute COVID-19 symptoms, predict the development of and recovery from the PCC. Recovery is extremely rare during the first 2 years, posing a major challenge to healthcare systems.

Link (Preprint - Lancet Group)
 
This was an observational prospective cohort study of COVID-19 survivors who visited the Long COVID Unit of the Department of Infectious Diseases, Hospital Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Spain. This is the largest monographic Long COVID Unit in Spain. It provides multidisciplinary care by physicians, nurses and psychologists to >1200 subjects with PCC, mainly from Catalonia but also from other Spanish regions.

Most individuals were first infected with SARS-CoV-2 during the pre-Omicron era, and virtually none of them had been immunized before the PCC diagnosis

We identified three clusters of patients with PCC, in which dominant persistent symptoms (i.e., those present in ≥50% of subjects) showed an additive pattern: Individuals in cluster A (40·8% of subjects) presented primarily with fatigue; those in cluster B (44·6% of subjects) had fatigue plus dyspnea, neurocognitive complaints, headache, myalgia, arthralgia, chest pain and tachycardia; individuals in cluster C (14·2% of subjects) had the same dominant symptoms of cluster B plus skin and smell alterations, dysphagia, diarrhea, and neurosensitive symptoms.

Only 26 (7·6%) of study participants recovered from the PCC during follow-up. The median time to recovery among these subjects was 11·4 months (IQR 6·1 – 13·3). Almost all of them (n=24) belonged to cluster A; only one individual belonged to each cluster B and C.
 
A novel finding of our study was that individuals with tertiary education or higher were less likely to suffer and more likely to recover from PCC. Further studies are warranted to disentangle the relative contribution of higher cognitive reserve and socioeconomic status in the development and evolution of the PCC.

Which contradicts the paper we had earlier in the year that suggested the opposite: Risk of new-onset Long Covid following reinfection with SARS-CoV-2: community-based cohort study (2023, Preprint)

Wealthiest quintile 3 times more likely to report Long Covid than the poorest quintile - unless PASC is a disease of plenty this must represent a huge degree of reporting bias. The effect is uniform throughout, from poorest to wealthiest.
 
When did we choose to leave history behind

Group A - post viral recovery , previous generations acknowledged that this could take time and rest was needed . This has been largely forgotten.
In a world where you are valued by your productivity it's more or less been denied .

medical advances have pharmacological " cures" which shorten illness periods for many afflictions - the new normal construct . We forget that not everyone fits under a curve.
 
At least we are starting to see this type of studies now, I get so sad when I think about all the research that could have been done from the start of this pandemic, giving us better knowledge, and instead... gah. More cbt anyone?

Keyworker exposure may account for some of this. Medics apart , middle classes were more able to work from home .
Those who kept society going had little choice .

The confounder is kids who were- and still are - a very effective vector.
It could also be due to different symptoms? For my line of work cognitive impairment would be a much more damaging symptom than say physical. In other lines of work some cognitive impairment would likely not cause such a problem.

When I dropped out of school when I started to get ill I scored in the <5 percentile for concentration on some neuropsychiatric testing. I couldn't function for a lot of things but I could do tasks that required few, clear steps. Not saying I necessarily did them well, and it took time, but I could at least manage at a passable level.
 
Which contradicts the paper we had earlier in the year that suggested the opposite: Risk of new-onset Long Covid following reinfection with SARS-CoV-2: community-based cohort study (2023, Preprint)
The two studies are very different in size 135,000 versus 547 and at first sight I'd say the demographics of this smaller study are somewhat different to the larger, although I really don't know enough about Catalonia's socio economic structure to match the education data of the smaller study to the deprivation quintiles of the larger. I'm inclined to think that for the whole PASC/PCC/Long Covid thing most studies are mired in noise that will never be adequately addressed - it's a mess and it's going to stay a mess.
 
Last edited:
The paper said:
They also identified four clusters of subjects according to their presenting symptoms, driven, respectively, by smell/taste alterations, post-exertional malaise, brain fog, and palpitations and gastrointestinal symptoms
Zero mention of ME/CFS, of any context or history other than a few mentions of "post-viral" disease or syndrome, twice for each. This quote references the RECOVER initiative. This study doesn't seem to have looked or considered PEM or dysautonomia. Seems to be very limited in scope and lacking depth. Still found significant issues despite overlooking many.

This lack of context is typical and disappointing. The erasure of ME/CFS continues, despite its very high relevance and applicability. No wonder it's impossible to make progress here. This continues to be mostly political and unmotivated.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom