Long COVID occurrence in COVID-19 survivors, 2022, Sugiyama et al

Discussion in 'Long Covid research' started by Andy, Apr 13, 2022.

  1. Andy

    Andy Committee Member

    Messages:
    22,399
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    Abstract

    This cross-sectional study aimed to investigate the post-acute consequences of COVID-19. We conducted a self-administered questionnaire survey on sequelae, psychological distress (K6), impairments in work performance (WFun), and COVID-19–related experiences of stigma and discrimination in two designated COVID-19 hospitals in Hiroshima Prefecture, Japan, between August 2020 and March 2021.

    The prevalence of sequelae was calculated by age and COVID-19 severity. Factors independently associated with sequelae or psychological distress were identified using logistic regression analysis. Among 127 patients who had recovered from COVID-19, 52.0% had persistent symptoms at a median of 29 days [IQR 23–128] after COVID-19 onset. Among patients with mild COVID-19, 49.5% had sequelae. The most frequent symptoms were olfactory disorders (15.0%), taste disorders (14.2%), and cough (14.2%). Multivariate analysis showed that age was an independent risk factor for sequelae (adjusted odds ratios [AOR] for ≥ 60 years vs. < 40 years 3.63, p = 0.0165). Possible psychological distress was noted in 30.7% (17.9% of males and 45.0% of females). Female sex and the presence of sequelae were independent risk factors for psychological distress. Of all participants, 29.1% had possible impairments in work performance. Experiences of stigma and discrimination were reported by 43.3% of participants. This study revealed the significant impacts of Long COVID on health in local communities. A large-scale, long-term cohort study is desired.

    Open access, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-10051-z
     
    Snow Leopard, Sean and Peter Trewhitt like this.
  2. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    13,001
    Location:
    Canada
    How much more of those are needed before the state of widespread denial finally ends? There's usually an implied follow-up to wait-and-see. Wait-and-not-care-regardless isn't what people expect out of medicine.

    And given how many observational studies there have been already, how can the NIH justify wasting 2 years doing nothing but that when there's already way more than needed? Those will be useful in the future, but we are already 2 years into it, we are already in the future.
     
    alktipping and Peter Trewhitt like this.

Share This Page