Persistent Fatigue in [LC] is Not Associated with Peripheral Inflammatory or Cellular Stress Biomarkers: A Cross-Sectional Controlled..., 2026, Omdal+

Nightsong

Senior Member (Voting Rights)

Background​

Fatigue persists as a dominant and debilitating phenomenon in long-COVID, yet its underlying biological mechanisms remain unclear. While inflammatory variables tend to normalize within months post-infection, fatigue continues to significantly impact quality of life. Understanding whether specific biomarkers associate with long-COVID fatigue could shed light on pathophysiological mechanisms and potential therapeutic targets.

Methods​

In this single-center, cross-sectional controlled study, we enrolled 48 individuals with long-COVID (according to NICE criteria) and 48 age- and sex-matched recovered controls with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection but no persistent symptoms. We carefully excluded all subjects with other diseases or conditions that could influence fatigue levels. Fatigue severity was assessed using three validated instruments: Fatigue Visual Analog Scale (fVAS), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), and SF-36 vitality subscale. Blood samples were analyzed for pro-inflammatory markers (CRP, TNF-α, IL-6, IL-1β) and biomarkers associated with cellular stress responses and neuroprotection (HSP90α, APOA4, Serpin F1/PEDF, Hemopexin). Anti-nuclear antibodies (ANA) were tested to assess potential autoimmune mechanisms. Depression was assessed using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Depression Subscale (HADS-D).

Results​

Long-COVID patients demonstrated significantly higher fatigue severity across all instruments compared to recovered controls: fVAS median scores 63 versus 5 (p<0.001), FACIT-F scores 21.5 versus 49 (p<0.001), and SF-36 vitality scores 25 versus 72.5 (p<0.001). Depression scores were also significantly elevated in long-COVID cases. However, none of the measured biomarkers differed significantly between groups: HSP90α, Serpin F1, Hemopexin, APOA4, and CRP showed no differences, while TNF-α and IL-6 showed only tendencies toward higher levels in long-COVID (p=0.07 and p=0.07, respectively). IL-1β concentrations were in most cases below the lower limit of detection and were excluded from further analysis. ANA positivity was 10.4% in cases versus 4.2% in controls (p=0.38) and did not influence fatigue levels. Multivariable regression analysis revealed no significant associations between biomarkers and fatigue severity.

Conclusions​

Fatigue in long-COVID represents severe, persistent disability comparable to observations in chronic inflammatory diseases and chronic fatigue syndrome but is not associated with traditional inflammatory biomarkers or cellular stress response proteins measured in peripheral blood. The absence of biomarker associations suggests that long-COVID fatigue may involve more complex mechanisms, potentially including persistent neuro-immune dysregulation, epigenetic changes, or pathophysiological processes not reflected in systemic biomarker concentrations including neurobiological mechanisms such as altered predictive processing and central nervous system–confined neuroinflammation. These findings highlight the need for alternative approaches to understanding and treating long-COVID fatigue beyond conventional inflammatory paradigms.

Link | PDF (Brain, Behavior, & Immunity - Health, March 2026, open access)
 
Highlights

Long-COVID fatigue is severe but unrelated to inflammatory biomarkers

HSP90α, proinflammatory cytokines, and stress proteins show no association with fatigue severity

Recovered controls had fatigue levels comparable to healthy pre-pandemic controls

Findings suggest other mechanisms including neuro-immune mechanisms beyond peripheral inflammation

Study used rigorous matching and excluded all confounding medical conditions
 
Whatevre is causing it, it is clear standard tests cant detect it. Someone needs to develop the technology...
 
The absence of biomarker associations suggests that long-COVID fatigue may involve more complex mechanisms, potentially including persistent neuro-immune dysregulation, epigenetic changes, or pathophysiological processes not reflected in systemic biomarker concentrations including neurobiological mechanisms such as altered predictive processing and central nervous system–confined neuroinflammation.
Beyond systemic inflammatory pathways, purely neurobiological mechanisms may also contribute to long-COVID fatigue. Isolated neuroinflammation confined to the central nervous system and disrupted predictive brain processing - wherein the brain’s internal predictive model becomes misaligned with actual bodily signals—represent plausible alternative mechanisms 8, 9.
9 is this paper, which various members demonstrated is quite poor.

I don’t know why Omdal et al just mentioned predictive coding in passing. Have they been influenced by the BPS folks, or are they simply unaware of how flawed the theory is?
 
Back
Top Bottom