Post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 symptom phenotypes and therapeutic strategies: A prospective, observational study.

BACKGROUND: Post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) includes a heterogeneous group of patients with variable symptomatology, who may respond to different therapeutic interventions. Identifying phenotypes of PASC and therapeutic strategies for different subgroups would be a major step forward in management. METHODS: In a prospective cohort study of patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 12-month symptoms and quantitative outcome metrics were collected. Unsupervised hierarchical cluster analyses were performed to identify patients with: (1) similar symptoms lasting ≥4 weeks after acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, and (2) similar therapeutic interventions. Logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate the association of these symptom and therapy clusters with quantitative 12-month outcome metrics (modified Rankin Scale, Barthel Index, NIH NeuroQoL). RESULTS: Among 242 patients, 122 (50%) reported ≥1 PASC symptom (median 3, IQR 1-5) lasting a median of 12-months (range 1-15) post-COVID diagnosis. Cluster analysis generated three symptom groups: Cluster1 had few symptoms (most commonly headache); Cluster2 had many symptoms including high levels of anxiety and depression; and Cluster3 primarily included shortness of breath, headache and cognitive symptoms. Cluster1 received few therapeutic interventions (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.1-5.9), Cluster2 received several interventions, including antidepressants, anti-anxiety medications and psychological therapy (OR 15.7, 95% CI 4.1-59.7) and Cluster3 primarily received physical and occupational therapy (OR 3.1, 95%CI 1.3-7.1). The most severely affected patients (Symptom Cluster 2) had higher rates of disability (worse modified Rankin scores), worse NeuroQoL measures of anxiety, depression, fatigue and sleep disorder, and a higher number of stressors (all P<0.05). 100% of those who received a treatment strategy that included psychiatric therapies reported symptom improvement, compared to 97% who received primarily physical/occupational therapy, and 83% who received few interventions (P = 0.042). CONCLUSIONS: We identified three clinically relevant PASC symptom-based phenotypes, which received different therapeutic interventions with varying response rates. These data may be helpful in tailoring individual treatment programs.

20/40 or Better Visual Acuity After Optic Neuritis: Not as Good as We Once Thought?

BACKGROUND: Although patients with acute optic neuritis (ON) recover high-contrast visual acuity (HCVA) to 20/40 or better in 95% of affected eyes, patients with a history of ON continue to note subjective abnormalities of vision. Furthermore, substantial and permanent thinning of the retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) and the ganglion cell layer (GCL) is now known to occur early in the course of ON. We measured vision-specific quality of life (QOL) in patients with a history of acute ON and recovery of VA to 20/40 or better in their affected eyes to determine how these QOL scores relate to RNFL and GCL thickness and low-contrast letter acuity (LCLA) across the spectrum of visual recovery. METHODS: Data from an ongoing collaborative study of visual outcomes in multiple sclerosis and ON were analyzed for this cross-sectional observational cohort. Patients and disease-free control participants completed the 25-Item National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-25) and 10-Item Neuro-Ophthalmic Supplement to the NEI-VFQ-25, as well as VA and LCLA testing for each eye separately and binocularly. Optical coherence tomography measures for each eye included peripapillary RNFL thickness and macular GCL + inner plexiform layer (GCL + IPL) thickness. RESULTS: Patients with a history of acute ON and recovery to 20/40 or better VA (n = 113) had significantly reduced scores for the NEI-VFQ-25 (83.7 ± 15.4) and 10-Item Neuro-Ophthalmic Supplement (74.6 ± 17.4) compared with disease-free controls (98.2 ± 2.1 and 96.4 ± 5.2, P < 0.001, linear regression models, accounting for age and within-patient, intereye correlations). Most patients with 20/40 or better visual recovery (98/112, 88%) had monocular HCVA in their affected eye of 20/20 or better. Although patients with 20/50 or worse HCVA recovery demonstrated the worst performance on low-contrast acuity, affected eye RNFL and GCL + IPL thickness, and QOL scales, these measures were also significantly reduced among those with 20/40 or better HCVA recovery compared with controls. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a history of ON and "good" visual recovery, defined in the literature as 20/40 or better HCVA, are left with clinically meaningful reductions in vision-specific QOL. Such patient-observed deficits reflect the underlying significant degrees of retinal axonal and neuronal loss and visual dysfunction that are now known to characterize ON even in the setting of maximal HCVA recovery. There remains an unmet therapeutic need for patients with ON.