Long COVID in children and young people: then and now, 2025, Coughtrey, Ladhani, Stephenson+

SNT Gatchaman

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Staff member
Long COVID in children and young people: then and now
Coughtrey, Anna; Pereira, Snehal M. Pinto; Ladhani, Shamez; Shafran, Roz; Stephenson, Terence

PURPOSE OF REVIEW
On 11 March 2020, the WHO characterized COVID-19 as a pandemic. A clinical case definition for post-COVID-19 condition in children and adolescents by expert consensus was agreed by the WHO in 2023. It is now 5 years since the WHO declared a pandemic, and this review aims to summarize key advances in our understanding of long COVID over those 5 years.

RECENT FINDINGS
That symptoms could persist in adults and CYP for months after initial infection was first reported in Autumn 2020. Long COVID in adults is frequently characterized by symptoms of fatigue and breathlessness but brain-fog, joint and muscle pain have been reported much more commonly in adult follow-up than CYP. The most common persisting symptoms experienced by CYP after COVID-19 infection in initial studies, often with less than a year of follow-up, were fatigue, headache, shortness of breath and persisting loss of smell and taste. With longer follow-up, up to 2 years, the commonest symptoms still include not only fatigue, headache and shortness of breath but also sleep difficulties, whereas loss of smell and taste persisted only in a minority. However, many symptoms were almost as common in test-negative controls, raising questions about the causal role of SARS-CoV-2 virus. Predictors of long COVID, as defined, were female sex, history of asthma, allergy problems, learning difficulties at school and family history of ongoing COVID-19 problems.

SUMMARY
The implications of the findings for clinical practice and research are that long COVID is not the same in CYP as adults; both their physical and mental health should be studied; and intervention trials are needed.

KEY POINTS
• The WHO has produced a definition of long COVID (post-COVID condition) for children.

• Using this definition, we found that 1/4 of adolescents at most meet the definition of long COVID over 2 years, and 7% met the definition at each time point.

• The most common persisting problems were fatigue, headache and shortness of breath.

• Risk factors for long COVID in adolescence included female sex, learning difficulties at school and family history of ongoing COVID-19 problems.

Link | PDF | Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases | Paywall
 
We postulated that persisting viral infection, an abnormal immune response, persisting organ damage, and a combination of social distancing and school closure could all be possible mechanisms, not mutually exclusive. What is the evidence now to support any of these?

The evidence regarding potential pathophysiological mechanisms for long COVID in CYP suggests they are similar to those for adults, with the exception of persisting organ damage, which seems unlikely to be a major cause in CYP. For example, only 259 CYP were admitted to paediatric intensive care in the first year of the pandemic in England, which has a population of about 11 million CYP.

The lack of a single, precise mechanisms underlying long COVID and the multiplicity of presenting symptoms suggests the condition will be best managed by a multidisciplinary team with prior expertise of unexplained persistent physical symptoms.

However, many symptoms of long COVID (apart from loss of smell and taste) were almost as common in test-negative controls, raising important questions about the role and contribution of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to other potential causes, including the effects of lockdowns, school closures and social isolations, sometimes termed ‘long pandemic’. In terms of mental health, we found initially little difference in test positives compared to test-negatives.
 
However, many symptoms were almost as common in test-negative controls, raising questions about the causal role of SARS-CoV-2 virus.

I find this statement extraordinary. If the methodology for these studies is so bad that you cannot tell the difference in symptom level between kids who are too ill to go to school and 'healthy ones' whose viral tests were negative then you aren't taking a meaningful history.
 
What a useless study. Absurd to talk about issues with cause attribution to the virus, then jumping right on making their own, with their obviously preferred attribution to social causes having no plausible mechanisms, let alone evidence. Literally never once saw the term 'long pandemic' used by anyone outside of simply using it as an adjective.

Notable that Crawley isn't even listed anymore.
The lack of a single, precise mechanisms underlying long COVID and the multiplicity of presenting symptoms suggests the condition will be best managed by a multidisciplinary team with prior expertise of unexplained persistent physical symptoms.
A model that has failed miserably at everything it has been thrown at. "Best managed" according to who? Based on what?

And 'intervention trials'? Of what? Literally not a single intervention trial of 'unexplained physical symptoms' has ever produced anything of value. Without a biological mechanism, medical research yields nothing. Of course they would be focused on the mythical 'mental health', which yet again they can't confirm, but are certain is the solution, a solution that has literally never worked, but that clearly doesn't bother anyone involved.
 
Back
Top Bottom