Patient-Reported Symptoms and Sequelae 12 Months After COVID-19 in Hospitalized Adults: A Multicenter Long-Term Follow-Up Study, 2022, Comelli et al

Objective: Our knowledge on the long-term consequences of COVID-19 is still scarce despite the clinical relevance of persisting syndrome. The aim of this study was to analyze patient-reported outcomes, including assessment by specific questionnaires of health impairment and symptoms.

Methods: This is a prospective, observational and multicenter cohort study coordinated by Fondazione IRCSS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico di Milano and Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS including eight hospitals located in North and Central Italy. A telephone interview to assess rehospitalization, access to health care resources, general health status subjective evaluation, and symptoms was performed at 12 months after the discharge in patients admitted to hospital because of COVID-19 from February 2020 to the end of May 2020.

Results: Among the 776 patients discharged alive, 44 (5.7%) died, 456 subjects (58.8%) completed the questionnaire and 276 (35.6%) were not reachable or refused to join the telephone interview. The mean age of the study population was 59.4 years (SD 14.1), 69.8% of individuals needed oxygen support during hospitalization and 10.4% were admitted to ICU. Overall, 91.7% of participants reported at least one symptom/sequela at 12 months. Exertional dyspnea (71.7%), fatigue (54.6%), and gastrointestinal symptoms (32.8%) were the most reported ones. Health issues after discharge including hospitalization or access to emergency room were described by 19.4% of subjects. Female and presence of comorbidities were independent predictors of health impairment and presence of ≥2 symptoms/sequelae after 12 months from hospitalization for COVID-19.

Conclusions: Patient-reported symptoms and sequelae, principally dyspnea and fatigue, are found in most individuals even 12 months from COVID-19 hospitalization. Long-term follow-up based on patient-centered outcome can contribute to plan tailored interventions.

Open access, https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2022.834354/full

 

really tailored interventions what can they mean when there is no evidence as yet for anything other than palliative care .Does the whole research branch of medicine actually believe that the worlds medical systems are not broken .

 

Almost every mention I see in the direction of medical systems being broken is in the direction of more breakage: more biopsychosocial, less biomedicine. More "holistic", whatever that means, less scientific method.

So no isn't even adequate, because the problem isn't even at zero, it's at negative awareness.

Almost. There's a 1% out there who see it right. They're are rare as unicorns, and have about as much influence.

But I keep seeing comments from LC clinics about their programs "helping" people recover. They really don't seem bothered to find out whether they're just "being there" while it happens. Many even state out right they aren't doing research, but they're content making conclusions anyway. Alternative medicine mentality has taken over already.