Three-month symptom profiles among symptomatic adults with positive and negative SARS-CoV-2 tests: a prospective cohort study from the INSPIRE group

ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND
Long-term symptoms following SARS-CoV-2 infection are a major concern, yet their prevalence is poorly understood.

METHODS
We conducted a prospective cohort study comparing adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID+) with adults who tested negative (COVID−), enrolled within 28 days of an FDA-approved SARS-CoV2 test result for active symptoms. Sociodemographic characteristics, symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection (assessed with the CDC Person Under Investigation Symptom List), and symptoms of post-infectious syndromes (i.e., fatigue, sleep quality, muscle/joint pains, unrefreshing sleep, and dizziness/fainting, assessed with CDC Short Symptom Screener for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome) were assessed at baseline and 3 months via electronic surveys sent via text or email.

RESULTS
Among the first 1,000 participants, 722 were COVID + and 278 were COVID−. Mean age was 41.5 (SD 15.2); 66.3% were female, 13.4% were Black, and 15.3% were Hispanic. At baseline, SARS-CoV-2 symptoms were more common in the COVID + group than the COVID − group. At 3-months, SARS-CoV-2 symptoms declined in both groups although were more prevalent in the COVID + group: upper respiratory symptoms/head/eyes/ears/nose/throat (HEENT; 37.3% vs 20.9%), constitutional (28.8% vs 19.4%), musculoskeletal (19.5% vs 14.7%), pulmonary (17.6% vs 12.2%), cardiovascular (10.0% vs 7.2%), and gastrointestinal (8.7% vs 8.3%); only 50.2% and 73.3% reported no symptoms at all. Symptoms of post-infectious syndromes were similarly prevalent among the COVID + and COVID − groups at 3 months.

CONCLUSIONS
Approximately half of COVID + participants, as compared with one-quarter of COVID − participants, had at least one SARS-CoV-2 symptom at 3 months, highlighting the need for future work to distinguish Long COVID.

https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciac966/6961096

 

Why do most studies ask about symptoms, and so rarely about new onset symptoms? Or at the very least would separate them. Prior symptoms may be useful at determining risk factors, but for prevalence only new onset symptoms should be counted.

And a 3-month study 3 years into this? Still asking superficial questions. If it wasn't for the fact that there is so little structure and leadership involved in this, it would be difficult to explain how this isn't set up to fail on purpose. Which suggests the system of medicine is basically set up to fail on this kind of problem, which is consistent with everything.

 

The 'screener' comes from, Psychometric properties of the CDC Symptom Inventory for assessment of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

which says
"Short Form of the CDC Symptom Inventory

We also explored the possibility of deriving a shorter version of the Symptom Inventory that would be a reliable and economic screening instrument. We created a Short Form of the Symptom Inventory by consecutively eliminating those symptoms whose scores had a corrected item-total score correlation < 0.60. The Short Form retained 6 symptoms: unusual fatigue after exertion, unrefreshing sleep, muscle aches, sleeping problems, problems with memory, and problems with concentration."

The study also says

Ref 19 is Chronic Fatigue Syndrome – A clinically empirical approach to its definition and study from 2005, so basically they are using Fukuda in this study.