What is also undeniable is how ill-prepared the health system seems to be to meaningfully help these COVID “long haulers” return to wellness. In fact, the presentation of this apparent post-viral syndrome has stumped experts and clinicians who have struggled to find guidance on how to treat the condition. This hard reality has prompted long haulers to create or join social media-based support groups in search of answers, advice or, at the very least, solidarity.
The question, then, is: Why are we so stumped by these post-COVID long haulers?
Many medical providers have not received training on how to diagnose or treat the types of complex multiorgan disease triggered through the disruption of immune, endocrine, nervous and cardiovascular systems. Moreover, this lack of training has perpetuated the stigma that ME/CFS and similar conditions are not real. This is aggravated by the lack of a diagnostic test and the fact that most of the usual medical tests, ordered for nonspecific symptoms such as fatigue, are likely to show no abnormalities.
Although these results can provide relief that the cause of a patient’s problems is not cancer or organ failure, the related “everything seems to be fine” talk minimizes the patients’ symptoms, invalidates their experiences and marks the beginning of a lonely road. Patients blame themselves for not shaking symptoms off. As time goes by, they may perceive or be outright told that their symptoms are psychological, implying they just need to try harder to feel better. Since ME/CFS appears to be an inflammatory brain condition that can also cause anxiety or depressive symptoms, many patients are referred to mental health services, reinforcing the perception that the problem must be “in their heads”.
To be sure, there is increasing recognition that treating post-COVID-19 syndrome will require biologic and holistic approaches, as well as extensive research. These insights have led to the creation of treatment centers to try to assist these patients. Experts have published management guidelines that can aid these centers.
However, initial approaches may create challenges. Although protocols that emphasize physical therapy and cardiovascular and respiratory rehabilitation offer a correct approach in general – particularly for those who were hospitalized – there are important caveats. Many patients with disabling symptoms will have normal respiratory and cardiac function, and related tests, although necessary, may not clarify the cause.
In addition, the traditional type of physical therapy recommended for ME/CFS by what is now considered a flawed study can backfire and make symptoms worse. In fact, research has shown that pacing is a pivotal component in the management of ME/CFS. Rehabilitation should be personalized, go slow and be monitored for relapse, recognizing that neuroinflammatory illness can “flame on” when pushed too hard.
As physicians and investigators ourselves, we understand the challenges of creating treatment guidelines in the absence of a significant body of research. However, while studies are being conducted, we ought to use the evidence that does exist on ME/CFS and related conditions, such as mast cell activation, to deploy the multidisciplinary