Search

ABSTRACT Introduction Long COVID is a life‐limiting condition that affects 65 million people worldwide. It devastates lives with uncertain illness trajectories, and yet, there are many research uncertainties as there is a lack of understanding of its causes, effective treatments and management plans. We set out to identify current research priorities for people with Long COVID, carers, healthcare professionals and researchers. Methods A systematic literature review and previous Long COVID priority‐setting exercises identified three broad under‐researched areas of Long COVID research within the fields of Public Health and Health Services Research: symptoms; managing day‐to‐day life; and the emotional impact of Long COVID. We disseminated an elicitation survey that asked for research questions in these areas; responses were analysed and summarised into 42 research questions. A survey was then disseminated, asking respondents to prioritise these 42 questions. Workshops were held with people with Long COVID, carers, healthcare professionals and researchers to analyse responses and agree the top 10 priorities. Results The top priorities in order were pharmacological treatment of Long COVID; understanding the pathophysiology; nonpharmacological symptom management; improving public and professional understanding of Long COVID; understanding of the long‐term risks of Long COVID; improving financial and social supports; improving understanding of postviral syndromes; diagnostics; service redesign/pathways; and the well‐being of children with Long COVID. Conclusion Four years into the pandemic, there is an emphasis on the need for research on treatment, understanding and support for people living with Long COVID. Patient and Public Contribution People with Long COVID and carers were involved in the study design, survey design, dissemination, data analysis, interpretation and reviewing and editing the manuscript.

Abstract Background Controversy over treatment for people with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) is a barrier to appropriate treatment. Energy management or pacing is a prominent coping strategy for people with ME/CFS. Whilst a definitive definition of pacing is not unanimous within the literature or healthcare providers, it typically comprises regulating activity to avoid post exertional malaise (PEM), the worsening of symptoms after an activity. Until now, characteristics of pacing, and the effects on patients’ symptoms had not been systematically reviewed. This is problematic as the most common approach to pacing, pacing prescription, and the pooled efficacy of pacing was unknown. Collating evidence may help advise those suffering with similar symptoms, including long COVID, as practitioners would be better informed on methodological approaches to adopt, pacing implementation, and expected outcomes. Objectives In this scoping review of the literature, we aggregated type of, and outcomes of, pacing in people with ME/CFS. Eligibility criteria Original investigations concerning pacing were considered in participants with ME/CFS. Sources of evidence Six electronic databases (PubMed, Scholar, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL]) were searched; and websites MEPedia, Action for ME, and ME Action were also searched for grey literature, to fully capture patient surveys not published in academic journals. Methods A scoping review was conducted. Review selection and characterisation was performed by two independent reviewers using pretested forms. Results Authors reviewed 177 titles and abstracts, resulting in 17 included studies: three randomised control trials (RCTs); one uncontrolled trial; one interventional case series; one retrospective observational study; two prospective observational studies; four cross-sectional observational studies; and five cross-sectional analytical studies. Studies included variable designs, durations, and outcome measures. In terms of pacing administration, studies used educational sessions and diaries for activity monitoring. Eleven studies reported benefits of pacing, four studies reported no effect, and two studies reported a detrimental effect in comparison to the control group. Conclusions Highly variable study designs and outcome measures, allied to poor to fair methodological quality resulted in heterogenous findings and highlights the requirement for more research examining pacing. Looking to the long COVID pandemic, our results suggest future studies should be RCTs utilising objectively quantified digitised pacing, over a longer duration of examination (i.e. longitudinal studies), using the core outcome set for patient reported outcome measures. Until these are completed, the literature base is insufficient to inform treatment practises for people with ME/CFS and long COVID.

Background The persistence of symptoms for ≥12 weeks after a COVID-19 infection is known as Long COVID (LC), a condition with unclear pathophysiology and no proven treatments to date. Living with obesity is a risk factor for LC and has symptoms which may overlap with and aggravate LC. Methods ReDIRECT is a remotely delivered trial assessing whether weight management can reduce LC symptoms. We recruited people with LC and BMI >27kg/m2. The intervention was delivered remotely by dietitians, with online data collection (medical and dietary history, COVID-19 infection and vaccination, body composition, LC history/symptoms, blood pressure, quality of life, sociodemographic data). Participants self-selected the dominant LC symptoms they most wanted to improve from the intervention. Results Participants (n=234) in England (64%) and Scotland (30%) were mainly women (85%) of white ethnicity (90%), with 13% living in the 20% most deprived areas, a mean age of 46 (SD10) years, and median BMI of 35kg/m2 (IQR 32-40). Before starting the study, 30% reported more than one COVID-19 infection (82% confirmed with one or more positive tests). LC Diagnosis was mainly by GPs (71%), other healthcare professionals (9%), or self-diagnosed (21%). The median total number of symptoms was 6 (IQR 4–8). Self-selected dominant LC symptoms included fatigue (54%), breathlessness (16%), pain (12%), anxiety/depression (1%) and "other" (17%). At baseline, 82% were taking medication, 57% reported 1+ other medical conditions. Quality of life was poor; 20% were on long-term sick leave or reduced working hours. Most (92%) reported having gained weight since contracting COVID-19 (median weight change +11.5 kg, range -11.5 to +45.3 kg). Conclusions Symptoms linked to LC and overweight are diverse and complex. Remote trial delivery enabled rapid recruitment across the UK yet certain groups (e.g. men and those from ethnic minority groups) were under-represented. Trial registration ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN12595520, 25/11/2021).

Objectives: The Remote Diet Intervention to Reduce Long COVID Symptoms Trial (ReDIRECT) evaluates whether the digitally delivered, evidence-based, cost-effective Counterweight-Plus weight management programme improves symptoms of Long COVID in people with overweight/obesity. Methods: Baseline randomised, non-blinded design with 240 participants allocated in a 1:1 ratio either to continue usual care or to add the remotely delivered Counterweight-Plus weight management programme, which includes a Counterweight dietitian supported delivery of 12 weeks total diet replacement, food reintroduction, and long-term weight loss maintenance. Randomisation is achieved by accessing a web-based randomisation system incorporated into the study web portal developed by a registered Clinical Trials Unit. We are using an innovative approach to outcome personalisation, with each participant selecting their most dominant Long COVID symptom as their primary outcome assessed at six months. Participants in the control arm enter the weight management programme after six months. We are recruiting participants from social media and existing networks (e.g., Long COVID Scotland groups), through newspaper advertisements and from primary care. Main inclusion criteria: people with Long COVID symptoms persisting > three months, aged 18 years or above, body mass index (BMI) above 27kg/m2 (>25kg/m2 for South Asians). The trial includes a process evaluation (involving qualitative interviews with participants and analysis of data on dose, fidelity and reach of the intervention) and economic evaluation (within-trial and long-term cost-utility analyses). Anticipated results: The recruitment for this study started in December 2021 and ended in July 2022. Project results are not yet available and will be shared via peer-reviewed publication once the six-months outcomes have been analysed. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12595520