Preprint Risk Factors for Severe Post-COVID Condition in Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults, 2025, Donath et al

forestglip

Moderator
Staff member
Risk Factors for Severe Post-COVID Condition in Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults

Quirin Donath, Matthias Haegele, Daniela Schindler, Tiziana Welzhofer, Catharina Christa, Annika Grabbe, Ariane Leone, Clara Ilhan, Carola Weidmann, MA Maria Eberhartinger, Sara Bechtold, Nicola Bursch, Hedwig Wolf, Hannah Hieber, Laura-Carlotta Peo, Lara A. Bucka, Silvia Stojanov, Cordula Warlitz, Martin Alberer, Katrin Gerrer, Anna Hausruckinger, Kirstin Mittelstrass, Clemens-Martin Wendtner, Manuela A. Hoechstetter, Armin Grübl, Nicole Toepfner, Rafael Pricoco, Carmen Scheibenbogen, Lorenz L. Mihatsch, Uta Behrends

[Line breaks added]

Background
Post-COVID condition (PCC) in children and young people (PCCcyp) remains a significant health burden. Early identification of patients at risk for severe disease, including myalgic encephalomyelitis/ chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), is crucial to provide timely and adequate care.

Methods
This monocentric, observational registry study was performed at a tertiary pediatric hospital in Germany. Children and young people aged 7–25 years with post-COVID condition (PCC), according to the WHO, were included at the time of diagnosis. Standardized clinical assessment tools and patient-reported outcome measures were applied, including the novel Munich Long COVID Symptom Questionnaire (MLCSQ).

Severe PCC was defined by clustered chronic symptom burden, fatigue severity scale (FSS), Total Composite Autonomic Symptom Score-31 (COMPASS-31), SF-36 composite scores, Bell Score, and confirmed ME/CFS diagnosis.

Findings
Of 120 participants, severe PCCcyp was associated with a higher number of acute symptoms (adjusted OR 1·22), acute orthostatic intolerance (adjusted OR 9·87), acute trouble concentrating (adjusted OR 11·8), and female sex (OR 3·31). Categorising acute symptoms at a threshold of ≥12 yielded the best model performance (AUC 0·857; sensitivity 65·6%; specificity 90·2%).

ME/CFS was diagnosed in 24% participants, all within the severe PCC cluster, and was characterised by greater acute symptom complexity, more fatigue, more autonomic symptoms, and poorer physical function.

Interpretation
The number of acute symptoms and/or individual symptoms during the acute phase of the SARS-CoV-2 infection serve as early and specific predictors for severe PCCcyp. In particular, patients with ≥12 acute symptoms should be closely monitored to enable early diagnosis of severe PCC and potentially ME/CFS. A distinct cluster of severely affected patients – frequently with ME/CFS diagnosis – was identified.

Funding
This study was funded by the Bavarian State Ministry of Health and Care, and the German Center for Infection Research.

Research in context
Evidence before this study Post-COVID condition (PCC) in children and young people (CYP) has been increasingly recognized, but robust evidence on predictors of severe disease has remained scarce.

Previous reports in adult patients documented a wide spectrum of persistent symptoms, frequently including fatigue, neurocognitive complaints, and autonomic dysfunction, yet no study systematically investigated acute-phase predictors for severe PCCcyp.

Added value of this study
In this monocentric observational registry study on 120 CYP aged 7–25 years with PCC, we identified acute-phase risk factors for severe pediatric PCC. We show that a high number of acute symptoms (≥12 symptoms), female sex, acute orthostatic intolerance, and/or acute trouble concentrating strongly predicted a severe PCCcyp cluster.

Importantly, 24% of patients fulfilled ME/CFS diagnostic criteria, and all clustered within the severe PCC group, underscoring the clinical overlap between severe pediatric PCC and ME/CFS.

Implications of all the available evidence
These findings provide a framework for early risk stratification in pediatric PCC. Recognising acute predictors is crucial to provide timely and adequate care, particularly to those with 12 or more acute symptoms and/or specific symptoms during the acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. The identification of a clinically relevant ME/CFS subgroup underscores the need to integrate ME/CFS expertise into pediatric PCC care pathways. Together, this evidence can inform clinical management, healthcare planning, and the design of interventional trials targeting the most vulnerable CYP with PCC.

Web | PDF | Preprint: MedRxiv | Open Access
 
Funding
This study was funded by the Bavarian State Ministry of Health and Care, and the German Center for Infection Research.
It's really nice to see work like this supported by levels of German government.



Confirmed MECFS was defined by fulfilling the criteria of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and/orthe Canadian Consensus Criteria (CCC) as assessed by the Munich Berlin Symptom Questionnaire (MBSQ)9 in a structured medical interview after symptom-oriented differential diagnosis. In case of pediatric “pediatric case definition” of L.A. Jason and colleagues (PCD-J) and/or the clinical diagnostic worksheet designed by P.C. Rowe and colleagues (CDW-R)10 were used
So ME/CFS diagnostic criteria were IOM and/or CCC. I don't know what the last sentence means, I don't know what the PCD-J is and haven't looked to see.



Patients were asked to fill in questionnaires pre-admission, retrospectively addressing their and their family’s general medical history, their symptoms during the acute phase of the SARS- CoV-2 infection as well as their current symptoms, medical treatment, grade of participation in education/work, and HRQoL. To assess PCC symptoms, diagnostic ME/CFS criteria, severity of fatigue, presence, severity, and duration of PEM, autonomic symptoms, the daily activity level, and HRQoL we used the novel Munich Long COVID Symptom Questionnaire (MLCSQ),MBSQ9, the fatigue severity scale (FSS),25 the DePaul Symptom Questionnaire for Post-exertional Malaise (DSQ-PEM),26 the Composite Autonomic Symptom Score 31 (COMPASS31),27 the Bell CFIDS disability scale (Bell Score), and the Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36) with Physical (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS),28 respectively
It's a shame to see the DSQ-PEM questionnaire used, although I think the method of confirming ME/CFS noted in the previous quote with the structured medical interview might possibly have ensured that the diagnosis of PEM was reasonable. Carmen Scheibenbogen was involved.


120 CYP with PCC included 16/120 (13%) children (7-11 years), 71/12 (59%) adolescents (12-17 years), and 33/12 (28%) young adults (18-25 years). The percentage of females significantly increased with age (13% children, 62% adolescents, and 76% adults) (Table 1).
There's some typos there - the numbers of participants in each of the age classes should be shown with a denominator of 120, not 12.
That's interesting about the increase in the percentage of females with age.
 
112/120 (93%) and 8/120 (7%) patients reported their first or second SARS-CoV-2 infection as PCC trigger, respectively.
More evidence that not getting persistent symptoms on the first infection is no guarantee that you will be fine on a subsequent infection.

82/116 (71%) were not COVID-19 vaccinated prior to the index infection.
And, you can get persistent symptoms even if you have been vaccinated.



The DSQ-PEM indicated PEM in 112/119 (94%) patients, with a duration of 14-23 or ≥24 hours reported by 19/114 (17%) and 23/114 (20%) patients, respectively
Yeah, that suggests to me that the DSQ-PEM is fairly unhelpful in properly distinguishing PEM from other things.


The diagnosis of ME/CFS (ICD-10-GM G93.3) was confirmed or probable after medical assessment in 29/120 (24·2%) patients (Table 3) and was more frequent with older age (children 19%, adolescents 20%, adults 36%).
That's interesting that more of the people in the older age group were diagnosed with ME/CFS. There could be some confounding going on in the diagnosis. For example, if severity of disability is a factor in diagnosing ME/CFS, there might be a bias in who presents to the clinic. Mildly affected children who are missing the odd day of school might still be brought along by their concerned parents, whereas mildly affected young adults (18-25 years) might be more inclined to assume the impairment is due to other things, or be able to rest more as a university student and not get diagnosed. So, if the young adults with PCC at the clinic are on average more severely affected, it would not be surprising that more have ME/CFS.
 
Evidence before this study Post-COVID condition (PCC) in children and young people (CYP) has been increasingly recognized, but robust evidence on predictors of severe disease has remained scarce.
Does it matter, though? Why is finding predictive factors so important? What if there aren't any? What if this is just mostly random? What does it change? Seems like a lot of work is being done for something that is mostly irrelevant when dealing with a patient who is here and now having disabling symptoms. It's not as if any health care system could do anything with this, it would only be used by the time the illness is at this point anyway, retrospectively. About as useful as a weather rock.

Of course it could be useful if such a thing existed but there have been a lot of studies looking for that, more than enough to be certain it isn't worth the trouble. Seems like a poor allocation of resources at this point to have so many of those.

Especially since the most common factor reported in moderate and severe ME/CFS cases is literally the treatment model, something that the medical profession is fundamentally incapable of accepting because it makes them directly responsible for most of the suffering. And if they can't accept that, does it even matter that they want those factors if they're not even going to use them properly?
 
Back
Top Bottom