1. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 13th March 2023 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

Association of Initial SARS-CoV-2 Test Positivity With Patient-Reported Well-being 3 Months After a Symptomatic Illness, 2022, Spatz et al

Discussion in 'Long Covid research' started by rvallee, Dec 3, 2022.

  1. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    10,478
    Location:
    Canada
    Full title: Association of Initial SARS-CoV-2 Test Positivity With Patient-Reported Well-being 3 Months After a Symptomatic Illness
    Open access: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2799116

    Question
    How do patient-reported physical, mental, and social well-being compare at 3 months after symptomatic illness among those who tested positive vs negative for SARS-CoV-2 infection?

    Findings In this cohort study of 1000 US adults with symptomatic illness, poor well-being scores at follow-up were common in both those who tested positive and negative for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Despite some improvements over time, 39.6% of COVID-19–positive and 53.5% of COVID-19–negative patients reported residual symptoms.

    Results Among 1000 participants, 722 (72.2%) received a positive COVID-19 result and 278 (27.8%) received a negative result; 406 of 998 participants (40.7%) were aged 18 to 34 years, 644 of 972 (66.3%) were female, 833 of 984 (84.7%) were non-Hispanic, and 685 of 974 (70.3%) were White. A total of 282 of 712 participants (39.6%) in the COVID-19–positive group and 147 of 275 participants (53.5%) in the COVID-19–negative group reported persistently poor physical, mental, or social well-being at 3-month follow-up. After adjustment, improvements in well-being were statistically and clinically greater for participants in the COVID-19–positive group vs the COVID-19–negative group only for social participation (β = 3.32; 95% CI, 1.84-4.80; P < .001); changes in other well-being domains were not clinically different between groups. Improvements in well-being in the COVID-19–positive group were concentrated among participants aged 18 to 34 years (eg, social participation: β = 3.90; 95% CI, 1.75-6.05; P < .001) and those who presented for COVID-19 testing in an ambulatory setting (eg, social participation: β = 4.16; 95% CI, 2.12-6.20; P < .001).
     
    Peter Trewhitt likes this.
  2. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    10,478
    Location:
    Canada
    This study is making the rounds in denying circles, including the hardcore conspiracists.
    As far as I can tell, they sampled people with acute illness of any kind as long as it looked enough like COVID to be suspected, separated between COVID+ and COVID-, then did a superficial assessment. It doesn't like they bothered doing other tests, so it's all either confirmed COVID, or unknown, since we know the tests are not 100% reliable.

    It found that people ill with other pathogens, any of them, have more long-term illness. But we don't know which viruses/pathogens they have, or whether the growing evidence for reduced immune protection after a COVID infection could explain some of it.

    It's basically so superficial it tells us nothing. Which is why it seems to be held as a talisman of truth by the deniers. It seems we will be soon having an argument that LC should be ignored since it's a common problem with many pathogens, all of which actually confirms the pattern, but is instead used to reject reality and substitute their own once again.

    I don't understand spending this much money, doing so much work, only to get so little useful information out of it. If it's not deliberate, I don't see how different it would look if it were.
     
    alktipping and Peter Trewhitt like this.

Share This Page