The Neurological Manifestations of Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection, 2021, Moghimi et al

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is a global health challenge. This review aims to summarize the incidence, risk factors, possible pathophysiology, and proposed management of neurological manifestations of post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) or neuro-PASC based on the published literature.

Recent Findings

The National Institutes of Health has noted that PASC is a multi-organ disorder ranging from mild symptoms to an incapacitating state that can last for weeks or longer following recovery from initial infection with SARS-CoV-2. Various pathophysiological mechanisms have been proposed as the culprit for the development of PASC. These include, but are not limited to, direct or indirect invasion of the virus into the brain, immune dysregulation, hormonal disturbances, elevated cytokine levels due to immune reaction leading to chronic inflammation, direct tissue damage to other organs, and persistent low-grade infection. A multidisciplinary approach for the treatment of neuro-PASC will be required to diagnose and address these symptoms. Tailored rehabilitation and novel cognitive therapy protocols are as important as pharmacological treatments to treat neuro-PASC effectively.

Summary

With recognizing the growing numbers of COVID-19 patients suffering from neuro-PASC, there is an urgent need to identify affected individuals early to provide the most appropriate and efficient treatments. Awareness among the general population and health care professionals about PASC is rising, and more efforts are needed to understand and treat this new emerging challenge. In this review, we summarize the relevant scientific literature about neuro-PASC.

Open access, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11910-021-01130-1

 

This is not obvious from the abstract but a huge part of the review is about ME/CFS and it basically summarizes almost everything about it (what kind of infections may trigger it, what the biological findings are, what might be the underlying mechanism, what kind of treatment they are trying/tried in the past, etc. - and it also mentions that NICE won't recommend GET).

This was the conclusion of the review:

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a tragedy and has devastated the health and financial well-being of many around the world. An unprecedented effort is underway to understand, prevent, and treat PASC. Non-hospitalized young adults and patients with no or few chronic underlying medical conditions might not perceive COVID-19 as a prolonged disease. Therefore, public health educational protocols should also target these populations. People experiencing PASC symptoms are increasingly meeting the criteria for ME/CFS. Approaches to ME/CFS therapy under investigation targeting specific molecular or cellular irregularities associated with ME/CFS, such as autoantibodies, immune dysregulation (e.g., NK cell function), or mitochondrial dysfunction, could potentially help in treating patients with PASC.​

 

I don't understand why such statements make it through peer review on a scientific paper. In an editorial? Whatever, sure. This is wishful thinking without basis, in fact it has been thoroughly debunked, affirming that a specific outcome must be true for no reason whatsoever. There is not a single reason why this should even be a desirable goal, this approach has yielded exactly no benefit in over a century so no one should have any expectations that it ever will, it's not even based on anything other than myth, ideology and tradition.

There needs to be serious reform in the language of scientific papers. There is way too much of this, speculation, opinion, wishes and pet ideological goals. The language should be far more neutral than this, limited by what can be demonstrated. There's really no place for this, it's indefensible that it's basically such common practice that it's basically self-referential, people plainly cite each other's wishful thinking as if another person wishing the same thing has any meaningful importance.

Let's just keep science and spiritual wishful thinking separate. This is why we can't have nice things. Or even just things, like a life worth living.

 

Neurological manifestations - I can just see the CBT people and the FND people dragging patients from each other. Now I think about it where have the FND people been in all this, curious