https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666354625000407 Brain, Behavior, & Immunity - Health Volume 45, May 2025, 100982 Predictors of fatigue progression in long COVID among young people Elias Myrstad Brodwall Lise Lund Berven a,c a,b,* , Joel Selvakumar , Erin Cvejic d a,b , Lise Beier Havdal , Vegard Bruun Bratholm Wyller a b c a Dept. of Pediatrics and Adolescent Health, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway b Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway c Dept. of Clinical Molecular Biology (EpiGen), University of Oslo and Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway d The University of Sydney, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Australia e Dept. of Pediatric Neurology, Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway Received 28 November 2024, Revised 19 February 2025, Accepted 23 March 2025, Available online 24 March 2025, Version of Record 26 March 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbih.2025.100982Get rights and content Under a Creative Commons license Open access Highlights • Post-COVID fatigue in young people gradually declines the first year post-infection. • A range of variables are associated with fatigue progression. • Non-European ethnicity, immune, and sympathetic activity predict fatigue progression. • Treatment gives a fatigue reduction. Abstract Long COVID, or post-COVID-19 condition (PCC), has emerged as a significant health concern, with fatigue being the most prevalent persistent symptom among young people. However, research on predictors of fatigue progression in young populations is limited. This study aimed to investigate factors during acute SARS-CoV-2 infection that could predict fatigue progression between six and 12 months post-infection in a cohort of young people with chronic fatigue following COVID-19. Data from the Long-Term Effects of COVID-19 in Adolescents (LoTECA) project were analyzed. A total of 93 participants (mean age 18.5 years, 84 % female) with chronic fatigue at six months, completed the 12-month follow-up. Multivariate analyses identified non-European ethnicity, higher interferon gamma (IFN-γ) levels, and lower RR-interval (higher resting heart rate) during acute infection as significant predictors of fatigue progression from six to 12 months. These three factors explained 21 % of the variance in the fatigue score, highlighting the importance of ethnicity, immune response, and autonomic function in the trajectory of long COVID fatigue. Early identification and targeted interventions, particularly for ethnic minorities and those with specific immune or autonomic markers during acute infection, may be helpful in reducing long-term fatigue. Further research is needed to explore treatment strategies for affected young populations. Keywords Post-infective fatigue syndrome (PIFS) Post-COVID condition (PCC) Long COVID Chronic fatigue Adolescents SARS-CoV-2 Fatigue trajectory Fatigue risk factors
So as non-European ethnicity correlates with lower socioeconomic ranking, which influences (ie reduces) access to healthcare, we might well draw the conclusion that not being exposed to the "accurate healthcare information" is protective.
"a diagnosis of PIFS based on the Fukuda definition", will be part of the continuing effort by the authors of rebranding ME/CFS as PIFS.
For LC: 61 out of 154 (40 %) with a CFQ score >=4 at 6 months were lost to follow up at 12 months. For controls: 17 out of 28 (61 %) of the eligible participants at 12 months were lost to follow up. Yet the findings were that higher resting heart rate was correlated with fatigue.
First of all, the reference is incorrect, it’s Tab. 4. More importantly, the trend was not statistically significant. Meaning that the people that received treatments did not improve more that those that didn’t.
Yes, if you could treat the problem, you could treat the problem. Very insightful. It's so nice to dream of things, imagine if people actually did the work to develop the thing. The rest doesn't any more useful, none of this is a predictor of anything. How is the quality of research not going up at all? It's what baffles me. It's as if mediocre failure is a comfortable blanket and no one wants to step out into the cold.
