Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39847575›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2025

Persistent symptoms and clinical findings in adults with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19/post-COVID-19 syndrome in the second year after acute infection: A population-based, nested case-control study.

Raphael S Peter, Alexandra Nieters, Siri Göpel, Uta Merle, Jürgen M Steinacker, Peter Deibert, Birgit Friedmann-Bette, Andreas Nieß, Barbara Müller, Claudia Schilling and 15 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Evolutionary Predictors of Post-COVID Syndrome.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

25 authors.

Raphael S PeterInstitute of Epidemiology and Medical Biometry, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4310-9500
Alexandra NietersInstitute for Immunodeficiency, Medical Centre and Faculty of Medicine, Albert-Ludwigs-University, Freiburg, Germany.
Siri GöpelDepartment of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7666-4634
Uta MerleDepartment of Internal Medicine IV, Heidelberg University Faculty of Medicine and Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1386-3350
Jürgen M SteinackerDivision of Sports and Rehabilitation Medicine, Department of Medicine, Ulm University Hospital, Ulm, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8901-9450
Peter DeibertInstitute for Exercise and Occupational Medicine, Medical Centre and Faculty of Medicine, Albert-Ludwigs-University, Freiburg, Germany.
Birgit Friedmann-BetteDepartment of Sports Medicine, Heidelberg University Faculty of Medicine and Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2198-4083
Andreas NießDepartment of Sports Medicine, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6145-7069
Barbara MüllerDepartment of Infectious Diseases-Virology, Heidelberg University Faculty of Medicine, and Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5726-5585
Claudia SchillingDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Sleep Laboratory, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Central Institute of Mental Health (ZI), University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7631-1452
Gunnar ErzDepartment of Sports Medicine, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-8530-4313
Roland GiesenDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine II, Medical Centre and Faculty of Medicine, Albert-Ludwigs-University, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-2766-9920
Veronika GötzDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine II, Medical Centre and Faculty of Medicine, Albert-Ludwigs-University, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3223-8745
Karsten KellerDepartment of Sports Medicine, Heidelberg University Faculty of Medicine and Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0820-9584
Philipp MaierInstitute for Exercise and Occupational Medicine, Medical Centre and Faculty of Medicine, Albert-Ludwigs-University, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-9399-2461
Lynn MatitsDivision of Sports and Rehabilitation Medicine, Department of Medicine, Ulm University Hospital, Ulm, Germany.
Sylvia ParthéDepartment of Infectious Diseases-Virology, Heidelberg University Faculty of Medicine, and Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4025-9768
Martin RehmInstitute of Epidemiology and Medical Biometry, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
Jana SchellenbergDivision of Sports and Rehabilitation Medicine, Department of Medicine, Ulm University Hospital, Ulm, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7467-2614
Ulrike SchempfDepartment of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6801-5984
Mengyu ZhuDepartment of Internal Medicine IV, Heidelberg University Faculty of Medicine and Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0488-3819
Hans-Georg KräusslichDepartment of Infectious Diseases-Virology, Heidelberg University Faculty of Medicine, and Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8756-329X
Dietrich RothenbacherInstitute of Epidemiology and Medical Biometry, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3563-2791
Winfried V KernDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine II, Medical Centre and Faculty of Medicine, Albert-Ludwigs-University, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2550-358X
EPILOC Phase 2 Study Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSelf-reported health problems following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are common and often include relatively non-specific complaints such as fatigue, exertional dyspnoea, concentration or memory disturbance and sleep problems. The long-term prognosis of such post-acute sequelae of COVID-19/post-COVID-19 syndrome (PCS) is unknown, and data finding and correlating organ dysfunction and pathology with self-reported symptoms in patients with non-recovery from PCS is scarce. We wanted to describe clinical characteristics and diagnostic findings among patients with PCS persisting for >1 year and assessed risk factors for PCS persistence versus improvement. METHODS AND

findingsThis nested population-based case-control study included subjects with PCS aged 18-65 years with (n = 982) and age- and sex-matched control subjects without PCS (n = 576) according to an earlier population-based questionnaire study (6-12 months after acute infection, phase 1) consenting to provide follow-up information and to undergo comprehensive outpatient assessment, including neurocognitive, cardiopulmonary exercise, and laboratory testing in four university health centres in southwestern Germany (phase 2, another 8.5 months [median, range 3-14 months] after phase 1). The mean age of the participants was 48 years, and 65% were female. At phase 2, 67.6% of the patients with PCS at phase 1 developed persistent PCS, whereas 78.5% of the recovered participants remained free of health problems related to PCS. Improvement among patients with earlier PCS was associated with mild acute index infection, previous full-time employment, educational status, and no specialist consultation and not attending a rehabilitation programme. The development of new symptoms related to PCS among participants initially recovered was associated with an intercurrent secondary SARS-CoV-2 infection and educational status. Patients with persistent PCS were less frequently never smokers (61.2% versus 75.7%), more often obese (30.2% versus 12.4%) with higher mean values for body mass index (BMI) and body fat, and had lower educational status (university entrance qualification 38.7% versus 61.5%) than participants with continued recovery. Fatigue/exhaustion, neurocognitive disturbance, chest symptoms/breathlessness and anxiety/depression/sleep problems remained the predominant symptom clusters. Exercise intolerance with post-exertional malaise (PEM) for >14 h and symptoms compatible with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome were reported by 35.6% and 11.6% of participants with persistent PCS patients, respectively. In analyses adjusted for sex-age class combinations, study centre and university entrance qualification, significant differences between participants with persistent PCS versus those with continued recovery were observed for performance in three different neurocognitive tests, scores for perceived stress, subjective cognitive disturbances, dysautonomia, depression and anxiety, sleep quality, fatigue and quality of life. In persistent PCS, handgrip strength (40.2 [95% confidence interval (CI) [39.4, 41.1]] versus 42.5 [95% CI [41.5, 43.6]] kg), maximal oxygen consumption (27.9 [95% CI [27.3, 28.4]] versus 31.0 [95% CI [30.3, 31.6]] ml/min/kg body weight) and ventilatory efficiency (minute ventilation/carbon dioxide production slope, 28.8 [95% CI [28.3, 29.2]] versus 27.1 [95% CI [26.6, 27.7]]) were significantly reduced relative to the control group of participants with continued recovery after adjustment for sex-age class combinations, study centre, education, BMI, smoking status and use of beta blocking agents. There were no differences in measures of systolic and diastolic cardiac function at rest, in the level of N-terminal brain natriuretic peptide blood levels or other laboratory measurements (including complement activity, markers of Epstein-Barr virus [EBV] reactivation, inflammatory and coagulation markers, serum levels of cortisol, adrenocorticotropic hormone and dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate). Screening for viral persistence (PCR in stool samples and SARS-CoV-2 spike antigen levels in plasma) in a subgroup of the patients with persistent PCS was negative. Sensitivity analyses (pre-existing illness/comorbidity, obesity, medical care of the index acute infection) revealed similar findings. Patients with persistent PCS and PEM reported more pain symptoms and had worse results in almost all tests. A limitation was that we had no objective information on exercise capacity and cognition before acute infection. In addition, we did not include patients unable to attend the outpatient clinic for whatever reason including severe illness, immobility or social deprivation or exclusion.

conclusionsIn this study, we observed that the majority of working age patients with PCS did not recover in the second year of their illness. Patterns of reported symptoms remained essentially similar, non-specific and dominated by fatigue, exercise intolerance and cognitive complaints. Despite objective signs of cognitive deficits and reduced exercise capacity, there was no major pathology in laboratory investigations, and our findings do not support viral persistence, EBV reactivation, adrenal insufficiency or increased complement turnover as pathophysiologically relevant for persistent PCS. A history of PEM was associated with more severe symptoms and more objective signs of disease and might help stratify cases for disease severity.

Indexed as

COVID-19AdolescentAdultAgedCase-Control StudiesFatigueFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedPandemicsPost-Acute COVID-19 SyndromeRisk FactorsSARS-CoV-2Young Adult

Identifiers

PMID39847575
PMCPMC12005676

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.