Central Sensitization Phenotypes in Post Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection (PASC): Defining the Post COVID Syndrome, 2021, Bierle et al

Discussion in 'Long Covid research' started by Andy, Jul 8, 2021.

  1. Andy

    Andy Committee Member

    Messages:
    23,158
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    Abstract

    Objective

    To develop and implement criteria for description of post COVID syndrome based on analysis of patients presenting for evaluation at Mayo Clinic Rochester between November 2019 and August 2020.

    Methods
    A total of 465 patients with a history of testing positive for COVID-19 were identified and their medical records reviewed. After a thorough review, utilizing the DELPHI methods by an expert panel, 42 (9%) cases were identified with persistent central sensitization (CS) symptoms persisting after the resolution of acute COVID-19, herein referred to as Post COVID syndrome (PoCoS). In this report we describe the baseline characteristics of these PoCoS patients.

    Results
    Among these 42 PoCoS patients, the mean age was 46.2 years (median age was 46.5 years). Pain (90%), fatigue (74%), dyspnea (43%), and orthostatic intolerance (38%) were the most common symptoms. The characteristics of an initial 14 patients were utilized for the development of clinical criteria via a modified Delphi Method by a panel of experts in central sensitization disorders. These criteria were subsequently applied in the identification of 28 additional cases of suspected PoCoS. A 2-reviewer system was used to analyze agreement with using the criteria, with all 28 cases determined to be either probable or possible cases by the reviewers. Inter-reviewer agreement using these proposed defining criteria was high with a Cohen’s alpha of .88.

    Conclusions
    Here we present what we believe to be the first definitional criteria for Post COVID syndrome. These may be useful in clinical phenotyping of these patients for targeted treatment and future research.

    Open access, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21501327211030826
     
    sebaaa, Hutan, Michelle and 3 others like this.
  2. Snow Leopard

    Snow Leopard Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,901
    Location:
    Australia
    It's funny how patients are never included as part of the Delphi method review group.

    No long-covid patients want this to be called "Post COVID Syndrome".

    One key problem with their criteria is that it poorly discriminates between individuals who have pulmonary damage and those who have other typical post-viral symptoms.

    For all the talk of "central sensitization", they didn't actually provide any evidence, nor serious hypotheses as to the presence of such phenomena, nor why it could be triggered by a viral infection.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2021
    sebaaa, sea, lycaena and 16 others like this.
  3. Peter Trewhitt

    Peter Trewhitt Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,153
    We define certain symptoms as ‘persistent central sensitization (CS) symptoms’ without any objective evidence or verifiable theoretical justification, then look for those specific symptoms and conclude because we found them Long Covid is a unitary condition involving central sensitisation.

    Don’t you just love circular logic? I propose that nasty demons jumping up and down inside people’s brains is the cause of horrid headache syndrome.

    In our hypothetical ‘horrid headache’ clinic we see only people with horrid headaches, which proves horrid headache syndrome and the causal nasty demons exist. Does it matter that we ignore the distinctions between acute viral infections, migraine, brain tumour or raised intra cranial pressure? Our preferred treatment is to give people lots of cod liver oil, internally and externally, which makes them very slippy resulting the demons falling over when they try to jump up and down.
     
    Simon M, spinoza577, sea and 12 others like this.
  4. Sean

    Sean Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    8,189
    Location:
    Australia
    Stopped there.
     
  5. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    13,801
    Location:
    Canada
    Uhhh... well I guess this answers the question of "how delusional are people pushing this stuff?" and it's all of it. The first? Holy narcissism Batman, can't even check for yourself before making such a ridiculous assertion?

    And as always, mislabeling something then looking back at the things you mislabeled and finding they were mislabeled this way only means you don't know what you're doing. The modern concepts of psychosomatics were built on chronically ill people and so of course when they look at chronically ill people with their magical lenses they see the invalid concept they wrongly applied.

    Clearly there is no process in medicine to address self-serving circlejerking. It just passes through unhindered by thought or reason. This is exactly like the proces of defining "demonic possession" on epileptic seizures then "positively identifying demonic possession" by this definition. There's absolutely nothing smart or ethical about this.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2021
    Milo, sea, Hutan and 4 others like this.
  6. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    13,801
    Location:
    Canada
    Seriously, though. Mayo gonna mayo. This is supposed to be a great clinic. Pathetic.
     
    Milo, Sean, Hutan and 2 others like this.
  7. Mithriel

    Mithriel Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,816
    But lucrative
     
    Hutan, alktipping and Peter Trewhitt like this.
  8. Simon M

    Simon M Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    997
    Location:
    UK
    Interesting that they didn’t talk to any of the patients or collect data systematically. Instead, they reviewed their medical records and decided if, in their opinion, the patients symptoms supported the researchers’ opinions of the illness.
    I believe a similar approach was used in assessing the Royal Free outbreak.
     
    Mithriel, Milo, sea and 9 others like this.
  9. Hutan

    Hutan Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    29,740
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    :rofl:
    Oh, that's the best name yet. First you get Covid-19, with or without a history of prior emotional trauma, and then you get a bit concerned about not recovering immediately, or the lure of wall-to-wall Netflix gets too strong, and then..... Hocus Pocos.... by magic.... you have PoCoS.
     
    alktipping, Wyva, Andy and 4 others like this.
  10. Hutan

    Hutan Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    29,740
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    It's basically an advertisement wrapped around baseless speculation:
    This is the basis of deciding that PoCoS is a central sensitisation syndrome:
    They are saying no more than: other infectious diseases produce prolonged post-infectious syndromes, and PoCos looks like those. And we eventually label patients with those prolonged post-infectious syndromes with a central sensitisation syndrome. 'SARS-CoV-2 seems to be highly immunogenic', so it stands to reason that it can produce a central sensitisation syndrome .... And we treat it with 'graded rehabilitation'.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2021
    alktipping, Michelle, rvallee and 6 others like this.
  11. Milo

    Milo Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,138
    Next they will say that those who have not recovered suffer from childhood abuse…
    And that CBT is necessary.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2021
    alktipping, Michelle, Trish and 3 others like this.
  12. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    13,801
    Location:
    Canada
    The use of those words, "may", "could", "can" leads to very silly stuff. Of course those are all symptoms of the acute illness, but they would only know that by checking. Of course not everyone has those symptoms, but they "may" do, which is their own standard for raising a correlation, which they try to argue as a difference here.

    The thing about paying attention is that you have to pay attention to the things that matter, not just the things you think should matter. There is very little of that whenever medicine looks at chronic illness and there is exactly none of that here. The circular logic here is appalling. They can actually look at confirming evidence and conclude it does the opposite. Which is fitting for people who flip reality in their heads.
     

Share This Page