StudyLTCovid.com

As some of you already know ...

Several individuals have been communicating about how to obtain a "Quick Impression" of the intervention with light presented elsewhere on this site,  for "long-term" COVID-19.

The goal is to modify a longer protocol done here locally where I live, and already presented throughout this StudyLTCovid.com site.

Is it possible to do less than the full protocol, and still obtain a "Quick Impression" that is meaningful? Or perhaps better: an impression that is correct.

And for those guiding StudyLTCovid.com, "meaningful" or "correct" means the generation of findings that are amenable to objective analysis. To a process guided towards its conclusions by statistical control.

As individuals, we may get from time to time, a "hunch," an "impression" about how well something works for us. And we may very well decide, for personal reasons, and after assessing a situation with all information available to us, to simply "go with it."

There may be more pressure felt to simply "go with it," when other interventions have been tried, but with limited success.

But turning that personal result into a testimonial, or an affirmation of effectiveness to be shared with others, is a different story. What it lacks is control of the many variables that may be impacting any given situation in life: including illness and recovery. 

Recovery from a fractured bone is a pretty well understood process.

Understanding recovery from "long-term" COVID-19 is still very much an "up in the air" or "anybody's guess" process. That uncertainty makes many 'providers' shy away, or even continue to pretend the problem doesn't exist.

"Quick" can still be informative

One goal for the reduced "Quick Impressions" protocol, is to derive meaning, while conserving Time and Energy for participants. (Money, is not a study issue for participants, though very much so for its organizers).

The tests to be done before and after a 10 day intervention with Red and Near-Infrared light were introduced in the article found at this link. We refer to that as Day 0 work.

Subsequent work, for comparison purposes is presented here, for Day 11. We still refer to it as work, because it is: Both for participants in the "Quick" study, and those gathering and processing the resulting data. That's the Time, Energy, and Money required to do any study.

Can the "Quick" protocol be made even more informative?

This article exists (of course) because we think so.

The above links present the "Quick" protocol as it exists (or existed let's say, at end of February 2023).

Now I'll suggest two additions: 

1. 1. The Attention and Reaction Time Test. (Already presented at the bottom of the Day 0 page). What question does it try to address? Answer: "How bad is the brain fog and related deficits, and does an intervention with light help?"
      1. The test is ready to go.
      2. It's quick to do.
      3. It's results are entered by participants in a very short (2 question) survey.
      4. It is amenable to statistical control.
      5. While it is not thought of as a complete answer to the question, it supports other "puzzle pieces" that are already in place with the existing tests.

That one sounds like a Time, Energy, Money winner.

2. Here's another possible addition. Definitely less "Quick" 

(and with additional Time, Energy, Money expenditures)

Participants are equipped to do the following:

1. 1. Rest 5 minutes than take Vital Signs and do a finger stick (like diabetics do) to obtain a blood sample for a "peripheral smear," as it is called in hematology.
   2. A specifically defined "6 Minute Walking Test" (with or without a treadmill) is next performed, with an emphasis on safe performance (not passing out on the floor).
   3. Subsequent Vital Signs are done at 0, 5, 10, 15 minutes after the Walking Test.
      1. Not too difficult since once again seated at rest, but does consume Time and attention to correctly make and capture measurement results.
      2. Results are noted and sent in via an online survey. Very quick.
   4. A second "finger poke" for a peripheral smear is done after the Walking Test. But done when? 
      1. One could argue for: at 0 minutes (immediately after exercise)
      2. Another, soon after exercise (say, at 5 minutes).
      3. Another, soon after the 15 minute Vital Signs, when "rest" would have normally returned from a physiologic state.
      4. Hey wait! That would be a total of 4 "finger pokes"!
         1. And if proposed to happen as such, suddenly we're losing willing participants!

So here's the "Quick Impressions" version

1. Get ready to do all of this.
   1. Material is provided to get it all done and keep measurements consistent.
   2. Get seated, and rest 5 timed minutes.
2. Take and note Vital Signs at rest (on provided form or input your Vital Signs results online using this survey).
   1. "Vital Signs" = oral temperature (by Infra-Red thermometer), pulse oximetry for peripheral oxygen saturation, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, heart rate.
      • Equipment provided and explained, to maintain uniformity of measurements.
3. Poke finger. Prepare peripheral smear as instructed.
   1. Make sure its labelled with Study ID#, Date, "Pre-6'WT"
4. Do the "6 Minute Walking Test." Quit if you feel like passing out.
5. Immediately thereafter, get seated again to do Vital Signs at 0, 5, 10, 15 minutes.
6. After Vital Signs completed, Poke finger a 2nd time and prepare 2nd peripheral smear.
   1. Make sure it's labelled with Study ID#, Date, "POST-6'WT"

• Provide "Vital Signs" data via online survey
• Send off the two labelled peripheral smears (as per instructions to follow).

So, should we add this to the "Quick Impressions" protocol (as it exists for Day 0 and Day 11 as we write this)?

What gains for the study ?

Objective data that gets much closer to issues of biologic state and response (to "long-term" COVID-19), than can survey responses that always remain more subjective.

1. 1. We like that

A Time, Energy, Money expenditure profile that is reasonable, and mostly already in place.

1. 1. We like that 

So what do you think?

1. 1. Add "Attention & Reaction Time" Test
   2. Add "6 Minute Walking Test" with Vital Signs and 2 Finger Pokes
   3. Add #1. but not #2.
   4. Add #2. but not #1.
   5. Add both. Nice final additions to present protocol.
   6. Add neither. Leave present protocol alone.

Let us know by telling us what you think:  "Questions@StudyLTCovid.com" or to

the personal email address that you already have.

And as usual: thanks for your attention and feedback.

UPDATE:

So the feedback was quite clearly in favor of adding both the

• Attention & Reaction Time Test, and
• The process of creating a peripheral blood smear and sending it in for staining & review.
  • This sample is tied to a "6 Minute Walking Test" - either on a treadmill or marching to a recording that keeps time. (6'WT)
  • Vital signs are obtained at rest, at 0, 5, 10, 15 minutes after the 6'WT. Reporting Vital Signs can happen online at this link.
  • A "finger stick" to obtain a drop of blood and smear it correctly on a glass slide,
    • at Time 0 and Time 15 minutes
    • on both Day 0 and Day 11 for comparison. = 4 finger sticks in all. 
• Should prove interesting and informative.

This of course requires materiel and administrative tasks.

In the box that a "Quick Impressions" participant will receive, are two envelopes labelled

DAY 0 and DAY 11. 

Here's what's in each of those.

<<< Home