Protocol Protocol of the digital long COVID study: A single-center, registry-based, feasibility and clinical evaluation study…, 2026, Rohner+

SNT Gatchaman

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Staff member
Protocol of the digital long COVID study: A single-center, registry-based, feasibility and clinical evaluation study to investigate a 12-week digital intervention program for people affected by post-COVID-19 condition
Stefan Rohner; Rebekka Schnepper; Andrea Meienberg; Katrin Bopp; Michael Mayr; Gunther Meinlschmidt; Rainer Schaefert

Up to 400 million individuals globally are estimated to experience persistent symptoms, including fatigue, muscle pain, and brain fog, following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 infection. These persistent symptoms are referred to as Post-COVID-19 condition if they last for more than 12 weeks after infection and persist for at least 8 weeks and often causing significant distress and burden. The underlying pathological mechanisms have not yet been fully elucidated. Due to the heterogeneity of the disease a multifactorial origin is highly likely. Overall, evidence on optimal management is limited, and no medication has yet proven to be effective. Current symptom management and treatment guidelines suggest a biopsychosocial perspective and emphasize multidisciplinary approaches. Comprehensive interventions, adequate treatment access, and appropriate resources remain insufficiently available and implementing digital interventions might help mitigate these limitations.

This protocol details a single-site feasibility and clinical evaluation study aiming to bridge this gap. By implementing an exploratory, open-label, digital interventional approach this study investigates the feasibility and efficacy of a 12-week program delivered by a cloud-based application. The program consists of 13 modules encompassing a wide range of topics (e.g., energy management, self-care, stress management) and includes informational (e.g., psychoeducational content) and interactive (e.g., exercises, self-reflection diaries) components. Customization options align the material with participant needs. A dedicated feedback section in each module captures feedback regarding usability and feasibility.

Participants are monitored and checked for adherence throughout the study. The primary outcome is the post-intervention change in functional capacity measured by the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. All participants provide written informed consent. Key results from the study will be published in peer-reviewed journals.

Web | DOI | PDF | PLOS ONE | Open Access
 
After the interview participants complete the onboarding process. Onboarding is conducted either in person or via telephone/video calls. Participants are added to the cloud-based platform, and the study team explains its functionality and navigation features.

Dual approach: The integration of both informational (e.g., psychoeducational content) and interactive (e.g., exercises, self-reflection diaries) components in the application ensures a dynamic and engaging intervention.

CBT and exercise therapy, but this time… in the cloud.
 
As expected our old friends feature.

Furthermore, results of a French cross-sectional study showed a higher positive association between persistent physical symptoms and the belief of a having experienced COVID-19 than with a laboratory confirmed infection [11].

A systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of treatments and interventions for PCC [22]. It concludes that there is no strong evidence supporting drug therapies, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, and various dietary supplements. However, moderate evidence suggests that online cognitive behavioral therapy may help to reduce fatigue, a supervised online rehabilitation program combining physical and mental health could improve overall quality of life, and intermittent aerobic exercise may enhance physical function.

[11] Association of Self-reported COVID-19 Infection and SARS-CoV-2 Serology Test Results With Persistent Physical Symptoms Among French Adults During the COVID-19 Pandemic (2022)

[12] Interventions for the management of long covid post-covid condition: living systematic review (2024)
 
Open-label and subjective outcomes. What more can you ask for?

Shame on you Switzerland and EU:
Funding: DiLCoS is primarily funded by the Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI) under contract number 22.00094 in the context of the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation program under grant agreement No. 101057553. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

The COI is extensive:
Competing interests: Conflict of Interest Statement
GM received funding from the Stanley Thomas Johnson Stiftung & Gottfried und Julia Bangerter-Rhyner-Stiftung under projects no. PC 28/17 and PC 05/18, from Health Promotion Switzerland under project no. 18.191/K50001, from the Swiss Heart Foundation under project no. FF21101, from the Research Foundation of the International Psychoanalytic University (IPU) Berlin under projects no. 5087 and 5217, from the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) under project no. 100014_135328, from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research under budget item 68606, from the Hasler Foundation under project No. 23004, from SERI under contract number 22.00094 in the context of a European Union (Horizon Europe) research consortium “Long COVID” (funding number: 101057553) and from Wings Health in the context of a proof-of-concept study.
GM is a co-founder and shareholder of Therayou AG, active in digital and blended mental healthcare.
GM receives royalties from publishing companies as author, including a book published by Springer, and an honorarium from Lundbeck for speaking at a symposium.
Furthermore, GM is compensated for providing psychotherapy to patients, acting as a supervisor, serving as a self-experience facilitator (Selbsterfahrungsleiter’), and for postgraduate training of psychotherapists, psychosomatic specialists, and supervisors.
RaS received funding from Promotion Santé Suisse (Gesundheitsförderung Schweiz) under contract no. 18.191/ K50001, from the Health Department Basel-City, and from SERI under contract number 22.00094 in the context of a European Union (Horizon Europe) research consortium “Long COVID” (funding number: 101057553).
RaS is coeditor of the German AWMF S3-Guidelines on Functional Complaints and contributed to the German guidelines on irritable bowel syndrome, and on Lyme Borreliosis.
RaS is chairman of the Basel Institute for Psychosomatic Medicine (BIPM), and founder and managing director of the Psychosomatic and Psychosocial Services GmbH, that develops and implements psychosomatic and psychosocial training and continuing education programs.
RaS is member of the Swiss Academy of Psychosomatic and Psychosocial Medicine (SAPPM) – where he is member of the Scientific Advisory Board, of the Société Médicale Suisse d’Hypnose (SMSH), of the Dt. Kollegium für Psychosomatische Medizin (DKPM), of the Dt. Gesellschaft für Psychosomatische Medizin und Ärztliche Psychotherapie (DGPM), and of the German Balint Society (DBG).
RaS serves as spokesman of DKPM and DGPM for Consultation and Liaison Psychosomatics. He is a member of the board of trustees of the Foundation Psychosomatic and Social Medicine (Ascona Foundation). MM served as a consultant for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer and received unrestricted grants from Menarini, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, IBSA, Lilly, MSD, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, and Viatris.
ReS received funding from SERI under contract number 22.00094 in the context of a European Union (Horizon Europe) research consortium “Long COVID” (funding number: 101057553). AM received unrestricted grants from Menarini, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, IBSA, Lilly, MSD, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, and Viatris.
All other authors declare no conflict of interest. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
 
Furthermore, results of a French cross-sectional study showed a higher positive association between persistent physical symptoms and the belief of a having experienced COVID-19 than with a laboratory confirmed infection [11].
A systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of treatments and interventions for PCC [22]. It concludes that there is no strong evidence supporting drug therapies
Two giant red flags not just of a study obviously not worth approving, but of people who don't even understand the basics of science. The study cited about beliefs is obviously junk and has been debunked, it's as ridiculous to cite it as going with the equally debunked "masks don't work" junk Cochrane review, while the idea that current systematic reviews have found "no strong evidence supporting drug therapies" is one of the most ridiculous things I have read in the years I've been involved in this. There are never effective drug therapies until there are.
Current symptom management and treatment guidelines suggest a biopsychosocial perspective
Let's recap:
  1. There are no effective treatments
  2. Standard treatment has, from the start, been biopsychosocial
  3. Therefore the lack of effective treatments after years of a standard biopsychosocial approach means a biopsychosocial approach is good
  4. Even though the current biopsychosocial approach has been the default one, and back to point 1
The king is dead. Long live the king. Who hasn't actually died. Or something. I have never seen any group of professionals so obviously make so little effort at anything they do.
 
All other authors declare no conflict of interest. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
That "policy" is a sham. The PACE authors were exempted from it by pretending to share them on a platform where they have veto over who can access it. Academia itself remains extremely important but damn is so much of it a total sham, and nowhere more than in non-biological medical research.
 
Back
Top Bottom