Trajectories of functional limitations, health-related quality of life and societal costs in individuals with long COVID, 2024, Wang+

Trajectories of functional limitations, health-related quality of life and societal costs in individuals with long COVID: a population-based longitudinal cohort study
Jiunn Wang; Henry Goodfellow; Sarah Walker; Ann Blandford; Paul Pfeffer; John R Hurst; David Sunkersing; Katherine Bradbury; Chris Robson; William Henley; Manuel Gomes

OBJECTIVES
To examine trajectories of functional limitations, fatigue, health-related quality of life (HRQL) and societal costs of patients referred to long COVID clinics.

DESIGN
A population-based longitudinal cohort study using real-time user data.

SETTING
35 specialised long COVID clinics in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS
4087 adults diagnosed with long COVID in primary or secondary care deemed suitable for rehabilitation and registered in the Living With Covid Recovery (LWCR) programme between 4 August 2020 and 5 August 2022.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Generalised linear mixed models were fitted to estimate trajectories of functional limitations, using the Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS); scores of ≥20 indicate moderately severe limitations. Other outcomes included fatigue using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Fatigue (FACIT-F) reversed score (scores of ≥22 indicate impairment), HRQL using the EQ-5D-5L, and long COVID-related societal costs, encompassing healthcare costs and productivity losses.

RESULTS
The mean WSAS score at 6 months after registration in the LWCR was 19.1 (95% CI 18.6, 19.6), with 46% of the participants (95% CI 40.3%, 52.4%) reporting a WSAS score above 20 (moderately severe or worse impairment). The mean change in the WSAS score over the 6-month period was −0.86 (95% CI −1.32, –0.41). The mean reversed FACIT-F score at 6 months was 29.1 (95% CI 22.7, 35.5) compared with 32.0 (95% CI 31.7, 32.3) at baseline. The mean EQ-5D-5L score remained relatively constant between baseline (0.63, 95% CI 0.62, 0.64) and 6 months (0.64, 95% CI 0.59, 0.69). The monthly societal cost per patient related to long COVID at 6 months was £931, mostly driven by the costs associated with working days lost.

CONCLUSIONS
Individuals referred to long COVID clinics in the UK reported small improvements in functional limitations, fatigue, HRQL and ability to work within 6 months of registering in the LWCR programme.


Link | PDF (BMJ Open) [Open Access]

 

In addition to what was already said above: Not only very little mean improvement but if I understood properly all scores still indicate impairment?

Why did they use the reversed score? Is this common (if not -- why confuse things regarding comparability ?)

Sorry, only was able to read the abstract: Does the paper also report the proportions of participants who scored worse? (Apart from the already mentioned problem not having the data from those who dropped out?)

Why not worth to be mentioned in the conclusion? And again, the figures appear also to comprise worsened scores so would be interesting to have exact numbers on that (aka harms)?