Longitudinal Progression of Patients with Long COVID Treated in a Post-COVID Clinic: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

BACKGROUND: In addition to the morbidity and mortality associated with acute infection, COVID-19 has been associated with persistent symptoms (>30 days), often referred to as Long COVID (LC). LC symptoms often cluster into phenotypes, resembling conditions such as fibromyalgia, postural orthostatic tachycardiac syndrome (POTS), and myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). LC clinics have been established to best address the needs of LC patients and continuity of care. We developed a cross-sectional survey to assess treatment response through our LC Clinic (LCC). METHODS: A 25-question survey (1-10 Likert scale) was expert- and content-validated by LCC clinicians, patients, and patient advocates. The survey assessed LC symptoms and the helpfulness of different interventions, including medications and supplements. A total of 852 LCC patients were asked to complete the survey, with 536 (62.9%) responding. RESULTS: The mean time from associated COVID-19 infection to survey completion was 23.2 ± 6.4 months. The mean age of responders was 52.3 ± 14.1 (63% females). Self-reported symptoms were all significantly improved (P < .001) from the initial visit to the LCC (baseline) to the time of the follow-up survey. However, only 4.5% (24/536) of patients rated all symptoms low (1-2) at the time of the survey, indicating low levels of full recovery in our cohort. The patients rated numerous interventions as being helpful, including low-dose naltrexone (45/77; 58%), vagal nerve stimulation (18/34; 53%), and fisetin (28/44; 64%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients report general improvements in symptoms following the initial LCC visit, but complete recovery rates remain low at 23.2 ± 6.4 months.

In-Person or Virtual Educational Preferences in Patients With Fibromyalgia: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study at an Academic Medical Center.

PURPOSE: Patient education is a core component of treating fibromyalgia and central sensitization disorders. We sought to evaluate whether patients with fibromyalgia prefer virtual or in-person educational classes as part of their treatment program, identify underlying factors with their educational modality choice, and highlight benefits or barriers associated with in-person or online educational sessions. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey with a qualitative feedback component was utilized. METHODS: A voluntary, anonymous survey was distributed to all participants (in-person and virtual) of the fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue clinic treatment program from October 2021 through March 2022. RESULTS: In total 90 participants completed the survey. Nearly all (94%) agreed that the pathophysiologic education was relevant and valuable and (98%) agreed to feeling confident with implementing management strategies. Perceived connection between the participants varied between groups (85% of in-person vs 48% of online; p < .001), as did perceived engagement (100% of in-person vs 71% of online; p = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients value education and find it useful in treating fibromyalgia, regardless of the educational modality. The online group reported more limitations including less engagement, class participation, and connection with peers. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: As virtual education platforms become more widely available and may be easier to access than in-person options, it is important to understand patient preferences, benefits, and disadvantages of educational modalities to ensure education and patient outcomes remain equitable.