Clinical trials on the pharmacological treatment of long COVID: A systematic review
Chee YJ., Fan BE., Young BE., Dalan R., Lye DC.
Systematic Review with a reported sample of 6, published in J Med Virol (2023) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Systematic Review
- Journal
- J Med Virol (2023)
- Reported sample size
- 6
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 36349400
- PMCID
- PMC9878018
- DOI
- 10.1002/jmv.28289
- Citations
- 55
Abstract (original English)
The postacute sequelae of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (PASC), also known as post-acute coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) or the long COVID syndrome (long COVID) is an emerging public health concern. A substantial proportion of individuals may remain symptomatic months after initial recovery. An updated review of published and ongoing trials focusing on managing long COVID will help identify gaps and address the unmet needs of patients suffering from this potentially debilitating syndrome. A comprehensive literature search was conducted on the international databases and clinical trial registries from inception to 31 July 2022. This review included 6 published trials and 54 trial registration records. There is significant heterogeneity in the characterization of long COVID and ascertainment of primary outcomes. Most of the trials are focused on individual symptoms of long COVID or isolated organ dysfunction, classified according to cardiovascular, respiratory and functional capacity, neurological and psychological, fatigue, and olfactory dysfunction. Most of the interventions are related to the mechanisms causing the individual symptoms. Although the six published trials showed significant improvement in the symptoms or organ dysfunction studied, these initial studies lack internal and external validity limiting the generalizability. Th
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
Evidence level
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.