Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials for the Treatment of Long COVID Syndrome.

IF 0.6 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Leonardo Tamariz, Dariel Rodriguez, Elizabeth Bast, Nancy Klimas, Morgan Pyne, Maricarmen Cruz-Jimenez, Diana Gomez-Manjarrez, Ana Palacio
{"title":"Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials for the Treatment of Long COVID Syndrome.","authors":"Leonardo Tamariz, Dariel Rodriguez, Elizabeth Bast, Nancy Klimas, Morgan Pyne, Maricarmen Cruz-Jimenez, Diana Gomez-Manjarrez, Ana Palacio","doi":"10.55729/2000-9666.1612","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is a critical need for interventions for long COVID. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review on the efficacy and safety of different interventions in patients with long COVID.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched the MEDLINE 1965 until August 2024. We included randomized clinical trials that reported a primary outcome. We evaluated the GRADE certainty of the effect measures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our initial search yielded 2606 potentially relevant studies. We include 43 randomized clinical trials that ultimately included 2878 participants with long COVID. The GRADE criteria found all but one study had low certainty. Eight studies reported on the use of nutraceuticals, 6 tested respiratory muscle training, 7 studies evaluated supervised exercise, 7 studies tested brain stimulation, and 5 studies used FDA regulated medications. The majority of the studies improved the primary outcome and included symptoms, quality of life, and exercise capacity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In randomized clinical trials medications, respiratory cognitive and physical therapy interventions improved outcomes in long COVID patients. However, the studies had low GRADE certainty of the effect measures. Larger and higher quality studies are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":15460,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Community Hospital Internal Medicine Perspectives","volume":"16 4","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13496483/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Community Hospital Internal Medicine Perspectives","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55729/2000-9666.1612","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: There is a critical need for interventions for long COVID. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review on the efficacy and safety of different interventions in patients with long COVID.

Methods: We searched the MEDLINE 1965 until August 2024. We included randomized clinical trials that reported a primary outcome. We evaluated the GRADE certainty of the effect measures.

Results: Our initial search yielded 2606 potentially relevant studies. We include 43 randomized clinical trials that ultimately included 2878 participants with long COVID. The GRADE criteria found all but one study had low certainty. Eight studies reported on the use of nutraceuticals, 6 tested respiratory muscle training, 7 studies evaluated supervised exercise, 7 studies tested brain stimulation, and 5 studies used FDA regulated medications. The majority of the studies improved the primary outcome and included symptoms, quality of life, and exercise capacity.

Conclusion: In randomized clinical trials medications, respiratory cognitive and physical therapy interventions improved outcomes in long COVID patients. However, the studies had low GRADE certainty of the effect measures. Larger and higher quality studies are needed.

治疗长冠状病毒综合征随机临床试验的系统评价
背景:目前迫切需要对长期COVID采取干预措施。我们的目的是对不同干预措施对长COVID患者的有效性和安全性进行系统评价。方法:检索MEDLINE 1965至2024年8月。我们纳入了报告主要结果的随机临床试验。我们评估了效果测量的GRADE确定性。结果:我们的初步搜索产生了2606项可能相关的研究。我们纳入了43项随机临床试验,最终纳入了2878名长COVID患者。GRADE标准发现除了一项研究外,所有研究的确定性都很低。8项研究报告了营养保健品的使用,6项研究测试了呼吸肌训练,7项研究评估了监督运动,7项研究测试了脑刺激,5项研究使用了FDA监管的药物。大多数研究改善了主要结局,包括症状、生活质量和运动能力。结论:在随机临床试验中,药物、呼吸认知和物理治疗干预可改善长期COVID患者的预后。然而,这些研究对效果测量的GRADE确定性较低。需要更大规模、更高质量的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
106
审稿时长
17 weeks
期刊介绍: JCHIMP provides: up-to-date information in the field of Internal Medicine to community hospital medical professionals a platform for clinical faculty, residents, and medical students to publish research relevant to community hospital programs. Manuscripts that explore aspects of medicine at community hospitals welcome, including but not limited to: the best practices of community academic programs community hospital-based research opinion and insight from community hospital leadership and faculty the scholarly work of residents and medical students affiliated with community hospitals.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书