Search

Summary: Background: Symptom fluctuations within and between individuals with long COVID are widely reported, but the extent to which severity varies following different types of activity and levels of exertion, and the timing of symptoms and recovery, have not previously been quantified. We aimed to characterise timing, severity, and nature of symptom fluctuations in response to effortful physical, social and cognitive activities, using Ecological Momentary Assessments. Methods: We recorded activity, effort, and severity of 8 core symptoms every 3 h for up to 24 days, in cohorts from both clinic and community settings. Symptom severities were jointly modelled using autoregressive and moving average processes. Findings: Consent was received from 376 participants providing ≥1 week's measurements (273 clinic-based, 103 community-based). Severity of all symptoms was elevated 30 min after all categories of activity. Increased effort was associated with increased symptom severity. Fatigue severity scores increased by 1.8/10 (95% CI: 1.6–1.9) following the highest physical exertions and by 1.5 (1.4–1.7) following cognitive efforts. There was evidence of only mild delayed fatigue 3 h (0.3, 0.2–0.5) or one day later (0.2, 0.0– 0.5). Fatigue severity increased as the day progressed (1.4, 1.0–1.7), and cognitive dysfunction was 0.2 lower at weekends (0.1–0.3). Interpretation: Cognitive, social, self-care and physical activities all triggered increased severity across every symptom, consistent with associated common pathways as potential therapeutic targets. Clear patterns of symptom fluctuations emerged that support more targeted self-management. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research.

ABSTRACT Introduction Organised by the ‘Qualitative Long Covid Network’, a workshop for qualitative Long COVID (LC) researchers, LC charity representatives and people with LC took place in June 2023, where research on the intersectional inequalities affecting LC prevalence, recognition and care was shared and discussed. Methods Five key themes were drawn up from presentations, discussions and reflections during the workshop, which are presented in this study. Results The following five themes are discussed: the unfairness of LC, difficulties in accessing care, mistrust of the healthcare system, a lack of understanding of LC and experiences of stigma and discrimination. Factors that widen or narrow inequalities related to LC were identified. Conclusion A call to action is proposed to investigate and address inequalities through a robust LC research agenda that speaks with conviction to policy and decision‐makers. We argue that there needs to be a strong investment in research and evidence‐based policy and practice to mitigate the worst effects of the condition and address the inequalities in experience, treatment and support, which are experienced more often and more acutely by some of society's most vulnerable and disadvantaged individuals. Patient and Public (PPI) Contribution Projects included in this article had PPI ongoing activity to inform their research. A member of the CONVALESCENCE PPI group presented at the QLC Network ‘Long Covid and Health Inequalities’ workshop, as did members of Long COVID Kids, Long COVID Support and Long COVID SOS charities. They were all invited to be co‐authors of this article.

The protracted form of COVID-19 known as ‘long covid’ was first described in 2020. Its symptoms, course and prognosis vary widely; some patients have a multi-system, disabling and prolonged illness. In 2021, ring-fenced funding was provided to establish 90 long covid clinics in England; some clinics were also established in Scotland and Wales. The NIHR-funded LOCOMOTION project implemented a UK-wide quality improvement collaborative involving ten of these clinics, which ran from 2021 to 2023. At regular online meetings held approximately 8-weekly, participants prioritised topics, discussed research evidence and guidelines, and presented exemplar case histories and clinic audits. A patient advisory group also held a priority-setting exercise, participated in quality meetings and undertook a service evaluation audit. The goal of successive quality improvement cycles aimed at changing practice to align with evidence was sometimes hard to achieve because definitive evidence did not yet exist in this new condition; many patients had comorbidities; and clinics were practically constrained in various ways. Nevertheless, much progress was made and a series of ‘best practice’ guides was produced, covering general assessment and management; breathing difficulties; orthostatic tachycardia and other autonomic symptoms; fatigue and cognitive impairment; and vocational rehabilitation. This paper summarises key findings with the frontline clinician in mind.