Talk:Long COVID

Epidemiology edit

Some reports of long term illness after infection appeared early in the COVID-19 pandemic and can be thought of as the time difference between microbiological recovery from COVID-19 and clinical recovery as patients with Long COVID are generally PCR negative. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8056514/. The reports included people who had a mild (not requiring hospitalization) or "moderate" (requiring oxygen supplementation) initial infection as well as those with more severe infection with about 40% of patients who reported Long COVID symptoms 3-6 months after infection not reporting them in the first 3 months emphasizing the remittent and not necessarily continuous nature of the diagnosis. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003773#pmed-1003773-g005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Gracesweeney (talk • contribs)

Post-COVID brain changes seen in MRI scans - Nature

"SARS-CoV-2 is associated with changes in brain structure in UK Biobank" [1] "Here we investigated brain changes in 785 participants of UK Biobank (aged 51–81 years) who were imaged twice using magnetic resonance imaging, including 401 cases who tested positive for infection with SARS-CoV-2 between their two scans—with 141 days on average separating their diagnosis and the second scan—as well as 384 controls. The availability of pre-infection imaging data reduces the likelihood of pre-existing risk factors being misinterpreted as disease effects. We identified significant longitudinal effects when comparing the two groups"

May be too theoretical for Wikipedia. John Nagle (talk) 08:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@Nagle Without data showing how many of the patients are self reporting "long COVID" symptoms, I'm not sure these results apply here. Many post COVID biomarkers are present in those not identifying with long covid as much as they are present in those who do report long covid. Mameyn (talk) 06:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of psychological distress associated with PASC

Wang et al. shows a 1.3-1.5 times higher risk of self reported PASC in patients who had depression, anxiety or other forms of psychological distress and I'm wondering if this has a place in the article, considering it is one of the few things besides having COVID that we can tie to PASC.

I'm cautious to even bring this up, but these reports have led to discussion that PASC may be in part psychosomatic (Derek Lowe in an infamous editorial for Science Magazine interprets similar results, albeit from a different and somewhat questionable study, as contributing evidence that PASC is a psychosomatic condition) however the prevailing wisdom is that PASC has at least some sort of non-neurological basis, and a UMN article, through not an academic one, cautions against interpreting these results as evidence of PASC being psychosomatic.

Still, the results are interesting, and this is a hint as to what may be behind PASC when we have little other complete data. I want to ask if these results deserve a place in this article, and how they should be presented. I have no experience writing for medical articles, nor have I been to medical school, so any feedback is welcome. Thank you in advance. Mameyn (talk) 06:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Mameyn. The article already has depression and anxiety as a risk factor from a high-quality source, and post-traumatic stress from a source that does not seem to meet the minimum requirements for medical sourcing on Wikipedia. Unless we have a good review article describing the link, I think that is sufficient.

In general, a medical source needs to be a review article (or academic book/official guideline). As long COVID research is developing fast, we can also use the results of massive studies while we're waiting for review articles to assess them in context. Feel free to propose something here (or WP:BEBOLD and add something to the article with a WP:MEDRS source!).

Given the sensitivity of this issue, we should strive to use the best sources out there. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Distinct etiologies of PACS symptom clusters

A recently published study in the journal Nature identified at least two distinct etiologies of PACS symptom clusters (pulmonary and "miscellaneous"). Differences in gene expression, as evidenced by cell type specific RNA sequencing, correlated with the subsequent development of post-infection symptoms were apparent at the time of infection. The miscellaneous symptom cluster was comprised of skin rash, smell/taste problems and sleep problems. Pulmonary symptoms were found to be independent of anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein antibody titers while the evolution of the miscellaneous symptom cluster was dependent on antibody titers. This suggests that the emergence of some PACS sub-phenotypes are contingent on separate pathological mechanisms which are observable at the molecular level.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-02107-4 MagicTheater (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Davis et al (2023) article on Nature

According to the new paper by Davis and coauthors, long covid symptoms are often severe. Should we include this fact in the lead? Forich (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2023

Addition to top of article: A comprehensive review article published 1/13/23 at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-022-00846-2 concluded: "Long COVID is a multisystemic illness encompassing ME/CFS, dysautonomia, impacts on multiple organ systems, and vascular and clotting abnormalities. It has already debilitated millions of individuals worldwide, and that number is continuing to grow. On the basis of more than two years of research on long COVID and decades of research on conditions such as ME/CFS, a significant proportion of individuals with long COVID may have lifelong disabilities if no action is taken. Diagnostic and treatment options are currently insufficient, and many clinical trials are urgently needed to rigorously test treatments that address hypothesized underlying biological mechanisms, including viral persistence, neuroinflammation, excessive blood clotting and autoimmunity." Anan Isapta (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Partially done - it's a good review with educational graphics but there's no need to quote from it. I added the review to the lede. What new information is presented? Most of the review is already represented by other sources in the article. The possible mechanisms mentioned in the Davis review remain speculative. Zefr (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Comparative Developmental Biology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 21 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Blazer2023 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: CFB1019.

— Assignment last updated by CFB1019 (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)