Impact of long COVID-19 on work: a co-produced survey.

BACKGROUND: A proportion of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 develop post-COVID-19 condition (also known as long COVID), a predominantly multisystem condition resulting in varying degrees of functional disability limiting day-to-day activities. We aimed to describe the impact of long COVID on work. METHODS: We co-produced baseline and follow-up online surveys with people with lived experience of long COVID (including three of the co-authors). Respondents were aged 18 years and older with self-reported long COVID following confirmed or suspected COVID-19 infection who were not hospitalised in the first 2 weeks of illness. The baseline survey was administered in November, 2020, using convenience non-probability sampling through social media. Following informed consent, participants completed a follow-up survey at 1 year (November, 2021). Ethics approval was granted by the University of Southampton. FINDINGS: Of 2210 invited, 1153 (52%) participants responded to the survey (mean age of 47·7 years [SD 10·6], 965 [84%] female, 1096 [95%] White, and 892 [78%] holding a university degree). 54 participants (4·7%) reported recovery at follow-up. Median duration of illness was 19·8 months (IQR 19·3-20·1) at follow-up. An equal proportion reported being unable to work at baseline (20·4%, n=235) and follow-up (20·6%, n=237). However, a higher proportion reported being made redundant or taking early retirement at follow-up (8·9%, n=102) than at baseline (2·2%, n=25). 209 (18·1%) reported losing or resigning or leaving their job due to long COVID at follow-up compared with 170 (14·8%) participants at baseline. 307 (26·6%) participants reported not taking time off-sick due to long COVID at baseline, decreasing to 122 (10·6%) at follow-up. Of the 656 individuals reporting length of time off-sick, 354 (54%) were off-sick for more than 3 months, with 113 (17·2%) off-sick for more than 12 months. Nearly half (47%, n=538) reported a loss in income. INTERPRETATION: The convenience non-probability sampling limits generalisability. Research is needed in a representative population sample to characterise the effect on working patterns in people with long COVID, particularly in those with less flexible and more physically demanding occupations who may be less able to take time off to recover. FUNDING: None.

Long COVID and Health Inequalities: What's Next for Research and Policy Advocacy?

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.

Studying the post-COVID-19 condition: research challenges, strategies, and importance of Core Outcome Set development.

BACKGROUND: A substantial portion of people with COVID-19 subsequently experience lasting symptoms including fatigue, shortness of breath, and neurological complaints such as cognitive dysfunction many months after acute infection. Emerging evidence suggests that this condition, commonly referred to as long COVID but also known as post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) or post-COVID-19 condition, could become a significant global health burden. MAIN TEXT: While the number of studies investigating the post-COVID-19 condition is increasing, there is no agreement on how this new disease should be defined and diagnosed in clinical practice and what relevant outcomes to measure. There is an urgent need to optimise and standardise outcome measures for this important patient group both for clinical services and for research and to allow comparing and pooling of data. CONCLUSIONS: A Core Outcome Set for post-COVID-19 condition should be developed in the shortest time frame possible, for improvement in data quality, harmonisation, and comparability between different geographical locations. We call for a global initiative, involving all relevant partners, including, but not limited to, healthcare professionals, researchers, methodologists, patients, and caregivers. We urge coordinated actions aiming to develop a Core Outcome Set (COS) for post-COVID-19 condition in both the adult and paediatric populations.

Development of a quality of life measure for left ventricular assist device recipients using a mixed methods approach.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) recipients report symptom improvement but find adjusting to life with the LVAD challenging. These challenges are unique, and existing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) do not reflect their experiences. This study aimed to develop a culturally relevant quality of life PROM for use with LVAD recipients in future research, design evolutions and clinical practice. METHODS: A three-stage mixed-methods approach was used to develop a PROM: stage 1 included group concept mapping (GCM); stage 2 semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 11 LVAD recipients and 10 clinicians, and a questionnaire was developed using a conceptual framework; and stage 3 used exploratory psychometric analysis of the PROM data using Rasch measurement theory. This paper presents stages 2 and 3. RESULTS: The conceptual framework consisted of four key concepts, including general health, life with the LVAD, equipment and clothing and emotional impact. Statements from interviews and GCM were used to create items for the LVAD quality of life (LVAD-QoL). Cognitive interviews tested face validity and participant comprehension. Forty-nine participants were recruited from three UK transplant centres. PROM data were collected and analysed using Rasch analysis. Four items displayed misfit; dependency between item sets was the biggest issue (57/485 pairwise differences). After restructuring and dealing with item misfit, the LVAD-QoL conformed to the Rasch model, supporting the psychometric properties and quality of the LVAD-QoL. CONCLUSIONS: Using a mixed-methods approach ensured the development of a robust and psychometrically sound tool for research, design evolution and clinical practice with LVAD recipients.

Long Covid: a global health issue - a prospective, cohort study set in four continents.

INTRODUCTION: A proportion of people develop Long Covid after acute COVID-19, but with most studies concentrated in high-income countries (HICs), the global burden is largely unknown. Our study aims to characterise long-term COVID-19 sequelae in populations globally and compare the prevalence of reported symptoms in HICs and low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: A prospective, observational study in 17 countries in Africa, Asia, Europe and South America, including adults with confirmed COVID-19 assessed at 2 to <6 and 6 to <12 months post-hospital discharge. A standardised case report form developed by International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infection Consortium's Global COVID-19 Follow-up working group evaluated the frequency of fever, persistent symptoms, breathlessness (MRC dyspnoea scale), fatigue and impact on daily activities. RESULTS: Of 11 860 participants (median age: 52 (IQR: 41-62) years; 52.1% females), 56.5% were from HICs and 43.5% were from LMICs. The proportion identified with Long Covid was significantly higher in HICs vs LMICs at both assessment time points (69.0% vs 45.3%, p<0.001; 69.7% vs 42.4%, p<0.001). Participants in HICs were more likely to report not feeling fully recovered (54.3% vs 18.0%, p<0.001; 56.8% vs 40.1%, p<0.001), fatigue (42.9% vs 27.9%, p<0.001; 41.6% vs 27.9%, p<0.001), new/persistent fever (19.6% vs 2.1%, p<0.001; 20.3% vs 2.0%, p<0.001) and have a higher prevalence of anxiety/depression and impact on usual activities compared with participants in LMICs at 2 to <6 and 6 to <12 months post-COVID-19 hospital discharge, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our data show that Long Covid affects populations globally, manifesting similar symptomatology and impact on functioning in both HIC and LMICs. The prevalence was higher in HICs versus LMICs. Although we identified a lower prevalence, the impact of Long Covid may be greater in LMICs if there is a lack of support systems available in HICs. Further research into the aetiology of Long Covid and the burden in LMICs is critical to implement effective, accessible treatment and support strategies to improve COVID-19 outcomes for all.

Risk of New-Onset Long COVID Following Reinfection With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2: A Community-Based Cohort Study.

Background: Little is known about the risk of long COVID following reinfection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We estimated the likelihood of new-onset, self-reported long COVID after a second SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared to a first infection. Methods: We included UK COVID-19 Infection Survey participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 between 1 November 2021 and 8 October 2022. The primary outcome was self-reported long COVID 12-20 weeks after each infection. Separate analyses were performed for those <16 years and ≥16 years. We estimated adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for new-onset long COVID using logistic regression, comparing second to first infections, controlling for sociodemographic characteristics and calendar date of infection, plus vaccination status in participants ≥16 years of age. Results: Overall, long COVID was reported by those ≥16 years after 4.0% and 2.4% of first and second infections, respectively; the corresponding estimates among those aged <16 years were 1.0% and 0.6%. The aOR for long COVID after second compared to first infections was 0.72 (95% confidence interval [CI], .63-.81) for those ≥16 years and 0.93 (95% CI, .57-1.53) for those <16 years. Conclusions: The risk of new-onset long COVID after a second SARS-CoV-2 infection is lower than that after a first infection for persons aged ≥16 years, though there is no evidence of a difference in risk for those <16 years. However, there remains some risk of new-onset long COVID after a second infection, with around 1 in 40 of those aged ≥16 years and 1 in 165 of those <16 years reporting long COVID after a second infection.

Long Covid stigma: Estimating burden and validating scale in a UK-based sample.

BACKGROUND: Stigma can be experienced as perceived or actual disqualification from social and institutional acceptance on the basis of one or more physical, behavioural or other attributes deemed to be undesirable. Long Covid is a predominantly multisystem condition that occurs in people with a history of SARSCoV2 infection, often resulting in functional disability. This study aimed to develop and validate a Long Covid Stigma Scale (LCSS); and to quantify the burden of Long Covid stigma. METHODS: Data from the follow-up of a co-produced community-based Long Covid online survey using convenience non-probability sampling was used. Thirteen questions on stigma were designed to develop the LCSS capturing three domains-enacted (overt experiences of discrimination), internalised (internalising negative associations with Long Covid and accepting them as self-applicable) and anticipated (expectation of bias/poor treatment by others) stigma. Confirmatory factor analysis tested whether LCSS consisted of the three hypothesised domains. Model fit was assessed and prevalence was calculated. RESULTS: 966 UK-based participants responded (888 for stigma questions), with mean age 48 years (SD: 10.7) and 85% female. Factor loadings for enacted stigma were 0.70-0.86, internalised 0.75-0.84, anticipated 0.58-0.87, and model fit was good. The prevalence of experiencing stigma at least 'sometimes' and 'often/always' was 95% and 76% respectively. Anticipated and internalised stigma were more frequently experienced than enacted stigma. Those who reported having a clinical diagnosis of Long Covid had higher stigma prevalence than those without. CONCLUSION: This study establishes a scale to measure Long Covid stigma and highlights common experiences of stigma in people living with Long Covid.

Characteristics and impact of Long Covid: Findings from an online survey.

BACKGROUND: Long Covid is a public health concern that needs defining, quantifying, and describing. We aimed to explore the initial and ongoing symptoms of Long Covid following SARS-CoV-2 infection and describe its impact on daily life. METHODS: We collected self-reported data through an online survey using convenience non-probability sampling. The survey enrolled adults who reported lab-confirmed (PCR or antibody) or suspected COVID-19 who were not hospitalised in the first two weeks of illness. This analysis was restricted to those with self-reported Long Covid. Univariate comparisons between those with and without confirmed COVID-19 infection were carried out and agglomerative hierarchical clustering was used to identify specific symptom clusters, and their demographic and functional correlates. RESULTS: We analysed data from 2550 participants with a median duration of illness of 7.6 months (interquartile range (IQR) 7.1-7.9). 26.5% reported lab-confirmation of infection. The mean age was 46.5 years (standard deviation 11 years) with 82.8% females and 79.9% of participants based in the UK. 89.5% described their health as good, very good or excellent before COVID-19. The most common initial symptoms that persisted were exhaustion, chest pressure/tightness, shortness of breath and headache. Cognitive dysfunction and palpitations became more prevalent later in the illness. Most participants described fluctuating (57.7%) or relapsing symptoms (17.6%). Physical activity, stress, and sleep disturbance commonly triggered symptoms. A third (32%) reported they were unable to live alone without any assistance at six weeks from start of illness. 16.9% reported being unable to work solely due to COVID-19 illness. 37.0% reported loss of income due to illness, and 64.4% said they were unable to perform usual activities/duties. Acute systems clustered broadly into two groups: a majority cluster (n = 2235, 88%) with cardiopulmonary predominant symptoms, and a minority cluster (n = 305, 12%) with multisystem symptoms. Similarly, ongoing symptoms broadly clustered in two groups; a majority cluster (n = 2243, 88.8%) exhibiting mainly cardiopulmonary, cognitive symptoms and exhaustion, and a minority cluster (n = 283, 11.2%) exhibiting more multisystem symptoms. Belonging to the more severe multisystem cluster was associated with more severe functional impact, lower income, younger age, being female, worse baseline health, and inadequate rest in the first two weeks of the illness, with no major differences in the cluster patterns when restricting analysis to the lab-confirmed subgroup. CONCLUSION: This is an exploratory survey of Long Covid characteristics. Whilst this is a non-representative population sample, it highlights the heterogeneity of persistent symptoms, and the significant functional impact of prolonged illness following confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection. To study prevalence, predictors and prognosis, research is needed in a representative population sample using standardised case definitions.

Living with a left ventricular assist device: Capturing recipients experiences using group concept mapping software.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation significantly impacts on a recipient's symptoms and quality of life. Capturing their experiences and post implant journey is an important part of clinical practice, research and device design evolution. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are a useful tool for capturing that experience. However, patient reported outcome measures need to reflect recipients' experiences. Discussions with a patient partner group found that none of the frequently used cardiology PROMs captured their unique experiences. AIMS: To capture the experiences and important issues for LVAD recipients. Develop a conceptual map of domains and items that should be reflected in patient reported outcomes. METHODS: Group concept mapping (GCM) web-based software was used to remotely capture and structure recipients' experiences across a wide geographical area. GCM is a semi-quantitative mixed method consisting of 3 stages: item generation, item sorting and rating (importance, relevance and frequency). Patient partners were involved in all aspects of the study design and development. RESULTS: 18 LVAD recipients consented to take part. 101 statements were generated and multi-dimensional scaling, and hierarchical cluster analysis identified 9 clusters. Cluster themes included: Activities, Partner/family support, Travel, Mental wellbeing, Equipment and clothing, Physical and cognitive limitations, LVAD Restrictions, LVAD Challenges and positive impact of the LVAD (LVAD Positives). LVAD Positives were scored highest across all the rating variables, e.g., frequency (2.85), relevance (2.44) and importance (2.21). Other domains rated high for importance included physical and cognitive limitations (2.19), LVAD restrictions (2.11), Partner/family support (2.02), and Equipment and clothing (2.01). CONCLUSION: Online GCM software facilitated the inclusion of geographically dispersed recipients and provided useful insights into the experiences of LVAD recipients. The conceptual framework identifies important domains and items that should be prioritised and included in patient reported outcomes in future research, LVAD design evolution, and clinical practice.

Ondansetron and metoclopramide as second-line antiemetics in women with nausea and vomiting in pregnancy: the EMPOWER pilot factorial RCT.

BACKGROUND: Around one-third of pregnant women suffer from moderate to severe nausea and vomiting, causing physical and emotional distress and reducing their quality of life. There is no cure for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. Management focuses on relieving symptoms and preventing morbidity, and often requires antiemetic therapy. National guidelines make recommendations about first-, second- and third-line antiemetic therapies, although care varies in different hospitals and women report feeling unsupported, dissatisfied and depressed. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether or not, in addition to intravenous rehydration, ondansetron compared with no ondansetron and metoclopramide compared with no metoclopramide reduced the rate of treatment failure up to 10 days after drug initiation; improved symptom severity at 2, 5 and 10 days after drug initiation; improved quality of life at 10 days after drug initiation; and had an acceptable side effect and safety profile. To estimate the incremental cost per treatment failure avoided and the net monetary benefits from the perspectives of the NHS and women. DESIGN: This was a multicentre, double-dummy, randomised, double-blinded, dummy-controlled 2 × 2 factorial trial (with an internal pilot phase), with qualitative and health economic evaluations. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-three patients (who were < 17 weeks pregnant and who attended hospital with nausea and vomiting after little or no improvement with first-line antiemetic medication) who attended 12 secondary care NHS trusts in England, 22 health-care professionals and 21 women participated in the qualitative evaluation. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly allocated to one of four treatment groups (1 : 1 : 1: 1 ratio): (1) metoclopramide and dummy ondansetron; (2) ondansetron and dummy metoclopramide; (3) metoclopramide and ondansetron; or (4) double dummy. Trial medication was initially given intravenously and then continued orally once women were able to tolerate oral fluids for a maximum of 10 days of treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was the number of participants who experienced treatment failure, which was defined as the need for further treatment because symptoms had worsened between 12 hours and 10 days post treatment. The main economic outcomes were incremental cost per additional successful treatment and incremental net benefit. RESULTS: Of the 592 patients screened, 122 were considered eligible and 33 were recruited into the internal pilot (metoclopramide and dummy ondansetron, n = 8; ondansetron and dummy metoclopramide, n = 8; metoclopramide and ondansetron, n = 8; double dummy, n = 9). Owing to slow recruitment, the trial did not progress beyond the pilot. Fifteen out of 30 evaluable participants experienced treatment failure. No statistical analyses were performed. The main reason for ineligibility was prior treatment with trial drugs, reflecting an unpredicted change in prescribing practice at several points along the care pathway. The qualitative evaluation identified the requirements of the study protocol, in relation to guidelines on anti-sickness drugs, and the diversity of pathways to care as key hurdles to recruitment while the role of research staff was a key enabler. No important adverse events or side effects were reported. LIMITATIONS: The pilot trial failed to achieve the recruitment target owing to unforeseen changes in the provision of care. CONCLUSIONS: The trial was unable to provide evidence to support clinician decisions about the best choice of second-line antiemetic for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16924692 and EudraCT 2017-001651-31. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 63. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Nausea and vomiting in pregnancy cause physical and emotional distress, and up to 30% of affected women require medical treatment. Guidelines on the use of anti-sickness drugs exist, but evidence is limited about which drugs work the best. The EMPOWER (EMesis in Pregnancy ­ Ondansetron With mEtoClopRamide) trial aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two anti-sickness drugs [metoclopramide (metoclopramide hydrochloride, Actavis UK Ltd, Barnstable, UK; IV Ratiopharm GmbH, Ulm, Germany) and ondansetron (ondansetron hydrochloride dehydrate, Wockhardt UK Ltd, Wrexham, UK; IV Hameln Pharma plus GmbH, Hameln)] for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. Women who were < 17 weeks pregnant with severe nausea and vomiting who attended hospital because their first anti-sickness drug had failed to improve their symptoms were asked to take part in the trial. Participants received fluids and, with consent, were randomly allocated to one of four groups: (1) metoclopramide and dummy ondansetron, (2) ondansetron and dummy metoclopramide, (3) metoclopramide and ondansetron or (4) double dummy. Trial drugs were administered into a vein and then by tablet for 10 days. On advice from sufferers, the trial focused on treatment failure, but other outcomes, including drug side effects, costs and pregnancy outcome, were collected. The trial was unable to recruit enough women and, therefore, did not progress. Nearly 600 women at 11 hospitals were screened, of whom 122 (21%) were eligible and 33 were recruited. The main reason for ineligibility (68%) was prior use of trial drug (mostly ondansetron). Overall, 15 out of 30 evaluable women experienced treatment failure. Interviews with 21 women who were approached about the trial and 22 research staff identified complex hurdles to and enablers of recruitment. The main hurdles were the requirements of the study protocol in relation to guidelines on anti-sickness drugs and the diversity of pathways to care. The role of research staff was a key enabler. The trial was too small to draw useful conclusions and it highlights the challenges of conducting complex studies on sick pregnant women. Subsequent concerns about the safety of ondansetron highlight the need for further studies to help inform women and the NHS about the best care for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy.

Long Covid in adults discharged from UK hospitals after Covid-19: A prospective, multicentre cohort study using the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol.

BACKGROUND: This study sought to establish the long-term effects of Covid-19 following hospitalisation. METHODS: 327 hospitalised participants, with SARS-CoV-2 infection were recruited into a prospective multicentre cohort study at least 3 months post-discharge. The primary outcome was self-reported recovery at least ninety days after initial Covid-19 symptom onset. Secondary outcomes included new symptoms, disability (Washington group short scale), breathlessness (MRC Dyspnoea scale) and quality of life (EQ5D-5L). FINDINGS: 55% of participants reported not feeling fully recovered. 93% reported persistent symptoms, with fatigue the most common (83%), followed by breathlessness (54%). 47% reported an increase in MRC dyspnoea scale of at least one grade. New or worse disability was reported by 24% of participants. The EQ5D-5L summary index was significantly worse following acute illness (median difference 0.1 points on a scale of 0 to 1, IQR: -0.2 to 0.0). Females under the age of 50 years were five times less likely to report feeling recovered (adjusted OR 5.09, 95% CI 1.64 to 15.74), were more likely to have greater disability (adjusted OR 4.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 15.94), twice as likely to report worse fatigue (adjusted OR 2.06, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.31) and seven times more likely to become more breathless (adjusted OR 7.15, 95% CI 2.24 to 22.83) than men of the same age. INTERPRETATION: Survivors of Covid-19 experienced long-term symptoms, new disability, increased breathlessness, and reduced quality of life. These findings were present in young, previously healthy working age adults, and were most common in younger females. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research, UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Department for International Development and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

The chance of recurrence of hyperemesis gravidarum: A systematic review.

Around 1 % of pregnancies develop Hyperemesis Gravidarum (HG), causing high physical and psychological morbidity. Reports on HG recurrence rate in subsequent pregnancies vary widely. An accurate rate of recurrence is needed for informed reproductive decision making. Our objective is to systematically review and aggregate reported rates for HG subsequent to index pregnancies affected by HG. We searched databases from inception as per the protocol registered on PROSPERO. No language restrictions were applied. Inclusion was not restricted based on how HG was defined; reports of severe NVP were included where authors defined the condition as HG. We included descriptive epidemiological, case control and cohort study designs. Eligibility screening was performed in duplo. We extracted data on populations, study methods and outcomes of significance. A panel of patients reviewed the results and provided discussion and feedback. Quality was assessed with the JBI (2017) critical appraisal tool independently by two reviewers. We performed the searches on 1st November 2019. Our search yielded 4454 unique studies, of which five (n = 40,350 HG cases) matched eligibility criteria; One longitudinal and four population-based cohort studies from five countries. Follow-up ranged from 2 to 31 years. Definition of HG and data collection methods in all the studies created heterogeneity. Quality was low; studies lacked valid and reliable exposure, and/or follow-up was insufficient. Meta-analysis was not possible due to clinical and statistical heterogeneity. This systematic review found five heterogeneous studies reporting recurrence rates from 15 to 81%. Defining HG as hospital cases may have introduced detection bias and contribute to clinical heterogeneity. A prospective longitudinal cohort study using an internationally agreed definition of HG and outcomes meaningful to patients is required to establish the true recurrence rate of HG.