Audio Transcript from July 14, 2026 R3 Seminar

This transcript is intended to provide an accurate, verbatim representation of the language used by the speakers during the R3 Seminar RECOVER Clinical Trial Results and the Pursuit of Long COVID Treatments held on July 14, 2026. You can view a timestamped version of the transcript with the video on YouTube.

Watch the recording or read the summary on the R3 Recap page.

Disclaimer: This transcript has been generated using AI technology and lightly edited. Please note that some errors or omissions may have occurred due to the limitations of automated transcription.

Patrick Ahearn:

So once again, welcome everyone to today's webinar, RECOVER Clinical Trial Results and the Pursuit of Long COVID Treatments. My name is Patrick, with RTI, and I'll be helping out with the virtual room today.

So, just a few quick housekeeping notes before we get started. When you log in, your microphone will be automatically muted with your web cameras turned off. But if you have any questions for our panelists today, please submit those in the Q&A window at any time. And if you run into any technical issues, please let me know in the Q&A window as well.

Closed captions are available during today's webinar. Just click on the “show captions” button on your main Zoom toolbar to turn those on.

And we will have a brief feedback poll at the end of today's session, and the RECOVER team would greatly appreciate your responses.

So, at this time, I'm going to go ahead and turn things over to Christine to kick off today's session. Thank you.

Dr. Christine Bevc:

Thanks, Patrick. All right. Good afternoon and welcome everyone to the RECOVER Research Review or R3 Seminar. My name is Christine Bevc. I'm a senior public health analyst here at the RECOVER Administrative Coordinating Center, and I'll be your moderator for today's session.

The overall goal of the R3 seminar series is to share the RECOVER Initiative's research findings with researchers and the public. These seminars are designed to really help accelerate scientific discovery by allowing experts to share their latest insights on Long COVID and related conditions.

In today's seminar, our panelists are going to share an update and findings from the RECOVER Clinical Trials program. Findings panelists share today will focus on symptoms related to thinking, memory, and [the] autonomic nervous system, or the system that controls the body functions like heart rate and blood pressure.

Before we take a moment to welcome our panelists, I want to start [by] thanking those of you who submitted the questions in advance. As Patrick mentioned, you can submit any questions during today's presentation using the Q&A feature in your Zoom menu, and I actually see a couple already coming in, so I know some of you have found it.

After today's panel, our speakers are going to answer as many questions as possible. While we may run out of time to answer all the questions submitted, there will be a Q&A document that we'll post, along with a copy of the recording of today's seminar, on recoverCOVID.org. The document will include the answers to the submitted questions that are relevant to today's presentations.

If you have questions about other scientific topics, those may be addressed in future seminars, and answers to broader questions about RECOVER are available in the FAQs, which are found on recoverCOVID.org

As a reminder, when you submit your questions, we can't answer questions about individual clinical care in this seminar, so please hold those.

All right, without further ado, I want to take a moment to share the exciting panel we have with us today. We are joined by Dr. Craig Reist, Dr. David Knopman, Dr. Pam Taub, Ms. Renee Leverty, and Ms. Marta Cerda.

Dr. Craig Reist is a senior scientist at RTI International with over 2 decades of experience in clinical trials, emphasizing metric-driven operational strategies to help optimize clinical research. His research focuses on enhancing disease understanding to improve patient care and health outcomes. He serves as one of the principal investigators for the clinical trials component of RECOVER, managing those efforts to test therapies for Long COVID treatment.

Joining us also is Dr. David Knopman. He's a professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, with extensive experience in cognitive impairment related to Alzheimer's disease. He's the former associate and deputy editor of Neurology from 2007 to 2016 and is currently the scientific integrity officer for the journal. Dr. Knopman co-led the RECOVER-NEURO [cognitive dysfunction (BrainHQ, PASC-CoRE, & tDCS)] clinical trial for cognitive Long COVID and focuses on therapeutics and the epidemiology of cognitive disorders.

Dr. Pam Taub is a board-certified cardiologist and expert in cardiometabolic disease. She serves as the director of preventative cardiology and founding director of the Stepfamily Cardiac Rehabilitation and Wellness Center at UC [University of California] San Diego, where she also holds an endowed chair and professorship. Dr. Taub is the principal investigator for the RECOVER Autonomic Clinical Trials.

From our engagement team, Ms. Renee Leverty leads engagement for the RECOVER Clinical Trials program. She also serves as the associate director for the Research Together program at Duke Clinical Research Institute, which brings patients, caregivers, and community members together with sponsors and investigators to co-design research.

And finally, we have Ms. Marta Cerda. She is a RECOVER Patient Representative on the Clinical Trials Steering Committee and the Viral Persistence Protocol Working Group. She's also the chief executive officer of the ASI NE Healthcare Services, a full post-acute care continuum. ASI is known as the home care, home health, and virtual care agency that also serves as a training hub. Ms. Cerda has led ASI as one of the area's largest and oldest Latino-led nonprofits since 2013.

All right, so we have this great panel. And today, the topic of our seminar is going to be the RECOVER clinical trial results and the pursuit of Long COVID treatments. I think we could go to the next slide.

Today's speakers are going to be sharing findings from the RECOVER-NEURO and RECOVER-AUTONOMIC (autonomic dysfunction) (Ivabradine) clinical trials, which focus on symptoms related to thinking, memory, and the autonomic nervous system. Presenters will be sharing how RECOVER designed these clinical trials, including how potential interventions are selected and how input from Patient, Caregiver, and Community Representatives helped inform each step of the process.

We'll also cover findings from a survey that included RECOVER Representatives, who helped design these trials through the Protocol Working Groups. Ongoing efforts like these to learn from Representative feedback and strengthen engagement are helping RECOVER and the broader research community to build more inclusive and effective clinical trial networks.

So please welcome all of our panelists. And with that, I will turn things over to our first speaker, Dr. Reist, who will give us an orientation to the RECOVER clinical trials. Craig?

Dr. Craig Reist:

Thanks, Christine, and good afternoon, good morning, depending upon where you are. So, it's my honor to present an overview of the RECOVER Clinical Trials program on behalf of many different individuals who worked tremendously hard to make this happen, and [I] wanted to acknowledge support from many different divisions of the NIH to get us to this point. And specifically, I won't mention all the names, but did want to acknowledge Kanecia Zimmerman from the Duke Clinical Research Institute [DCRI]. It was the DCRI team who really did the heavy lifting in helping to get these protocols together, operationally manage, bringing sites on board, working through collecting data, and analyzing things. And so, it's my honor to present on Kanecia's behalf here. So, let's go to the next slide.

So, I'm going to give a little bit of a brief overview on the RECOVER-CT (RECOVER Clinical Trials) trial design strategy, basically a "How did we get here?" introduction for you. So, the CT strategy was to take various platform protocols or study plans, that were then centered around symptom clusters or mechanisms, and evaluate trials within each of those platforms to test different possible treatments and identify potential interventions that might help treat Long COVID.

I'll talk in a second about how the interventions were selected. Essentially, a request for applications, or RFA process, was posted by the NIH, and many, many ideas and strategies and potential therapies were submitted through a web portal, that were then reviewed by a committee and ultimately led to the trials and interventions that were tested here.

The trial design reflects the knowledge that was known in 2022, 2023. So, our sample sizes were based on extrapolation and assumptions about meaningful change, using the best available data that we had.

One thing to remember is that, obviously, Long COVID is a relatively new disease. There was a lot that was gathered through the observational studies early on, but still, one of the biggest challenges was trying to put together clinical trials based on limited amount of information relative to many other diseases that are studied.

We did want to make sure that we work closely with Patient, Caregiver, [and] Community Representatives. … Those that have lived experience were engaged every step of the way to help co-develop the platform protocols, were engaged in the development of trial materials, were on committees to help us know, are we steering these trials in the right direction, and have been involved in the analysis and review of the trial data that's come out.

We also collected biospecimens within each platform, and that will lead to an opportunity to really learn a lot more, from a mechanistic perspective, about this disease and how each of these potential interventions may help lead to future discoveries that would lead to potential treatments.

And we did want to leverage technology, in the form of some wearable data that was collected via a Fitbit device. And so, we won't talk about much of that today, but there is some Fitbit data and wearable data that was incorporated into the ENERGIZE (exercise intolerance and fatigue), AUTONOMIC, and SLEEP (sleep disturbances) trials. So, next slide.

So, I mentioned how the interventions were chosen. So really, this all started with looking at findings from the observational studies that had been ongoing, getting input from clinicians, industry, Patient Representatives, as well as individuals within the NIH [National Institutes of Health]. That led to development of a symptom survey and identifying various symptom clusters that I'll walk through in a few slides here, through a rather large amount of potential therapies that were submitted. A committee was put together to prioritize interventions that would then be selected to move ahead and be incorporated into the platform protocols that became the Wave 1 clinical trials. Next slide.

So, here's where we landed in terms of focus areas across the RECOVER-CT platform protocol design. There are essentially 5 areas covering cognitive dysfunction, autonomic dysfunction, viral persistence, sleep disturbances, and exercise intolerance and fatigue, with some of the symptoms listed under each of those bullets. We'll hear today in a few minutes from Drs. Knopman and Taub about some of the results from the RECOVER-NEURO and RECOVER-AUTONOMIC platform. But if we go to the next slide, I can give you a little bit more detail into each of these studies.

As I mentioned, RECOVER-NEURO, Dr. Knopman will present to you in a few minutes, but this trial tested 3 non-drug approaches to cognitive dysfunction associated with Long COVID. And then, we're also going to share with you results from the RECOVER-AUTONOMIC's Ivabradine trial, which looked at Ivabradine as a possible treatment for POTS, which is an autonomic nervous system disorder. Next slide.

In addition to those 2 studies, we looked at the RECOVER-VITAL's [Viral Persistence (PAXLOVID)] trial, which was designed to test whether taking an antiviral drug, Paxlovid, would help improve Long COVID symptoms. The data has been collected for this trial and analyzed. We're in the process of getting that published, so there should be results from RECOVER-VITAL coming your way in the not-too-distant future.

The RECOVER-AUTONOMIC IVIG [intravenous immunoglobulin] trial was, again, looking at intravenous IVIG as a possible treatment for POTS. That trial should wrap up later this year in terms of the data collection and follow-up. Next slide.

RECOVER-ENERGIZE, 2 trials which tested personalized cardiopulmonary rehab, another that looked at structured pacing for exercise intolerance. The pacing trial is complete, and we should have results from that very soon.

And then lastly, RECOVER-SLEEP looked at 2 trials, one looking at a combination of 2 drugs, the other looking at a combination of melatonin and light to test the impact people [experience] on their sleep quality. Just recently, the follow-up data has been completed, has gone through the process of being analyzed, and we should have results from RECOVER-SLEEP coming very soon as well. Next slide.

So, lastly, wanted to share a couple of lessons learned from the RECOVER-CT effort. What we observed across all of the trials is that site investigators have been very committed to working with us to recruiting participants into the trials. Patients were extremely interested and excited about enrollment and have been invested in being participants in each of these trials.

The adherence to interventions across all 5 platforms, and attrition have been within expected projections; [we] had high rates of data completion and quality and substantial biospecimen collection across all of the platforms. And next slide.

So, some of the lessons learned in terms of trial results is that the results will certainly show us which treatments for Long COVID showed a positive result. And so, we'll look to see where progress is happening. But even those trials that are showing no results will give us an equally important part of information, letting us know where the path does not lead, but also allowing us to sharpen the questions that we'll ask for the next possible treatments, [which] will be tested in future trials, and help us better understand the disease as a whole.

And lastly, the lessons learned from the trials will provide feedback into future trial planning. We've gained a lot of valuable insight that will help us better understand Long COVID, continue design, and evaluate treatment observations well beyond RECOVER-CT.

So again, a big thank you to all of the sites and investigators as well as the patient participants who volunteered to be part of these clinical trials and human experiments. So, I won't delay us any longer. I know you're eager to hear the results from the trials, so I will hand it back to you, Christine.

Dr. Christine Bevc:

All right. Thank you, Craig. All right, so without further ado, we're going to hear from Dr. Knopman with results from RECOVER-NEURO. So, Dr. Knopman, if you want to share your slides, we'll see those come on for our audience to see.

All right, we are seeing desktop and not the slide presentation, full presentation at the moment.

Dr. David Knopman:

There we go.

Dr. Christine Bevc:

There we go. Perfect.

Dr. David Knopman:

Okay.

Dr. Christine Bevc:

All right. Thank you.

Dr. David Knopman:

Ready to roll? Okay.

Dr. Christine Bevc:

We're ready.

Dr. David Knopman:

Okay. So good morning and thank you very much for inviting me to present these findings, and actually to participate in the RECOVER-NEURO trial over the last almost 4 years.

I'm speaking on behalf of my co-principal and co-investigators, especially Deb Koltai and Danny Laskowitz.

This is going to be an overview of presentation of the interventions for cognitive dysfunction in Long COVID. I wanted to make you aware that the trial has been published. And so, while I'm just going to be giving an overview and hitting some of the high points, if you want to read about it in detail, the study was published online in November '25, in JAMA Neurology.

The key points of this study, for those of you who aren't familiar with it, was that this was focused on approaching the cognitive symptoms of Long COVID as if it was a rehabilitation effort. And we had 3 interventions that were employed in our trial, together with 2 comparison or control conditions.

We recruited 328 people very quickly, thanks to the incredible back-office work of the folks at Duke RTI in recruiting 3 interventions over 10 weeks [and] 22 clinical sites.

The bottom line was that none of these interventions were effective compared to the comparisons. But as I'll show, all 5 groups in the trial derived some benefit from participating.

So again, we started in August of 2023. All of the interventions were administered remotely, which was a real novel aspect of this trial, and enabled us to recruit people from a wide geographic range across the U.S., not just places that were close to major medical centers.

And we used, as the main outcome, self-reported symptom rating, and I'll come back to that in a bit. So, to go into the details, who we recruited were adults over age 18 who had cognitive symptoms as their main consequence of having experienced a SARS-CoV-2 infection at least 12 weeks prior to enrollment.

We didn't have confirmatory serology in everybody, but did so in 89%. And the key feature for enrollment was self-reported changes in cognitive function that affected daily life. We did not require objective cognitive test abnormalities because we wanted to be as inclusive as possible for people who had symptoms. And obviously we wanted people who were in generally good health, although we were pretty flexible on that, but we did wish them to be free, require them to be free of cognitive difficulties prior to having experienced COVID.

This is what the participants look like, and it's actually important, I think, to understand the median age was 48. There were roughly 3 women to every man. The recruitment efforts resulted in excellent diversity of participants from an ethnic and racial point of view, as you can see here.

And the other key point, interestingly, was that everybody had greater than a high school education. So, this was a relatively well-educated cohort who chose to participate. And as it turned out, even though we offered Spanish speakers the opportunity to participate, there was only 1 person who was primarily a Spanish speaker.

The interventions were the following. Well, first of all, I should say, the study design. We decided that we could not have a control group where we did nothing to people. So, we have what we called an active comparator, which was a series of unstructured computer games. We thought that enrolling someone and then just saying goodbye over the 10 weeks of the study was neither practical in terms of recruitment or ethical really in terms of being fair to participants. The interventions were all administered remotely, as I mentioned. One of the interventions, I'll talk about these in more detail in [a] second, the BrainHQ, which was the structured computer program, the PASC-CoRE [[post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 cognitive recovery], which was the rehabilitation effort. And then the third was Transcranial Doppler, sorry, transcranial direct current stimulation. And all of these were administered frequently over the 10-week period, not just once a week or something like that. So, to go into detail, the BrainHQ is a cognitive training program, commercially available, that was developed by Posit Science, that adapted the tasks presented to the participants based on their responses and tried to promote improving cognitive function by stimulating people right at the edge of what their abilities were. The transcranial direct current stimulation was a device that delivers a very mild electric current to the scalp, that passed through some electrodes on the scalp, that was intended to stimulate the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex to improve synaptic deficiency. This was administered while people were performing the BrainHQ.

And then the third intervention was the cognitive rehabilitation program that gave both one-on-one and group-wise rehabilitation training, and discussion, and focus groups to try to improve the symptoms of a cognitive Long COVID. This is what the trial looked like. We had 5 arms. There was, first of all, a baseline screening. And then people were randomized to 1 of the 5 interventions. The 2 comparisons were the sham, Transcranial Doppler or transcranial direct current stimulation—different world I'm coming from—and the active comparator, which was the unstructured computer games that ran over 10 weeks. We also had a follow-up visit 3 months later.

The main outcomes were that we were very successful in recruiting the number of subjects we intended for over 9 months, faster than we had planned. We were able to successfully conduct the interventions all remotely, but I'll say that the evaluations were done in person. We had a very high retention rate of 93% up to the end of the intervention. Unfortunately, as I had mentioned, none of the active interventions were superior to the comparators or to each other on the primary outcome measure, the modified everyday cognition scale. That's the bottom line, unfortunately.

However, if you look at the data in detail, which I hope we can follow here. What I'm showing are the 5 groups, the 5 treatment arms, active comparator, BrainHQ, and so on. And then within each, their baseline score on this measure is called ECog2 (Everyday Cognition Scale 2), which is a self-report status of various daily activities involving cognition. The darkest blue line represents where they were at baseline, which was impaired by definition. And then all of the groups improved. The gold bars represent how people were at the end of the 10-week intervention, and the lighter blue represents where they were 3 months after the intervention. So, every group showed some improvement over the course of the trial. And they actually continued to improve slightly, even 3 months later.

And this was what we call the primary outcome measure. This is where we put all our conceptual money, you might say, in terms of seeing a benefit or not. Well, everybody benefited by being in this. Every group benefited by being in this trial. We also conducted a number of secondary outcome evaluations, looking at sleep, fatigue, depression, and overall well-being. And the same pattern of results was seen with all of these. And similarly, we administered a battery of objective cognitive tests, and they all generally showed some benefits across all 5 treatment arms. And finally, reassuringly, the report of post-exertional malaise also showed improvement over the course of the trial in all 5 treatment arms.

So, to summarize, although the trial failed to demonstrate differential benefits of these 3 rehabilitation strategies, everybody in the trial showed ... every group showed some benefits from their participation. Perhaps the rationale is that all of our patients were too mild or that there was too long a gap between the acute illness and the intervention. Patients may have been spontaneously improving without treatment. Perhaps the control group, this active unstructured computer game had some cognitive benefits, or we were missing what the key deficit was in Long COVID. And I don't know which of these is the correct answer.

But anyway, I will conclude by just thanking all of the participants. Thanks to all of the RECOVER-NEURO staff, especially those who did just a terrific job. And can't name them all. And to the NIH for supporting this trial. So, thank you very much.

Dr. Christine Bevc:

All right. Thank you, Dr. Knopman. All right. So, now we'll turn to Dr. Taub to hear more about the findings from the RECOVER-AUTONOMIC findings and trials.

Dr. Pam Taub:

Great. So, I am pleased to present the results of the RECOVER-AUTONOMIC study, looking at the impact of ivabradine on orthostatic intolerance, quality of life, heart rate, and post-COVID postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome [POTS]. These are my disclosures. And this result was presented at the American College of Cardiology Meeting in March. So, when we think about POTS, it's a very complex multi-system disorder. And the key findings are orthostatic intolerance and excessive tachycardia, which then has a lot of downstream sequelae, like fatigue, brain fog, and so multiple organs are impacted by POTS.

We have known about POTS even before COVID, but COVID has brought a lot of attention to POTS, because a significant number of individuals after a COVID infection have developed POTS. And some studies estimate up to 31% of individuals after a COVID infection have developed POTS. And it really leads to functional impairment, reduced quality of life, and many are not able to work with these symptoms. Even before COVID, there were very few randomized trials in POTS, and there are even fewer in patients who have Long COVID-related POTS. This is a little bit of a complex slide, but I put this in here to really emphasize that we don't fully understand the potential mechanisms that drive Long COVID and that drive POTS.

But there's many theories, including immunological dysfunction, autonomic dysfunction, [and] mitochondrial dysfunction. And in terms of what's the intrinsic cause of some of this dysfunction, we're still not clear. And we need a lot more mechanistic and basic science research to really understand the pathophysiology of how an infection like COVID is driving Long COVID symptoms and POTS. What we also know is that Long COVID is a very multi-systemic condition with multiple organs impacted, and POTS is just one subset. And it's characterized, as I mentioned earlier, by orthostatic intolerance and fast heart rate. This is from a review that we published about Long COVID–related POTS. And here again, we're theorizing some mechanisms.

Is there autoantibodies present? Is it an overactivation of the immune system? Again, possible mechanisms, more research is needed. But what we do know is that Long COVID POTS clinically is very similar to conventional POTS that we were treating before the COVID pandemic. And there are some very specific symptoms, including tachycardia, brain fog, shortness of breath, and sometimes headaches. And the way we assess POTS is there is a 30-point increase in heart rate from lying to standing. And we typically do it through a tilt table or a 10-minute stand test. So, before the pandemic, our standard treatments for POTS focused on lowering the heart rate, sometimes augmenting the blood pressure, and also certain lifestyle strategies where there have been clinical trials done. So, for instance, compression actually can help decrease the heart rate. And there was a great clinical study on that, but there's also other lifestyle interventions that we have recommended to POTS patients, including improving hydration.

So, one of the earlier trials that I led before the pandemic was looking at a drug called ivabradine and looking at how ivabradine could impact POTS. So, ivabradine is a very unique drug in that it lowers heart rate without impacting blood pressure, because it's very specific for the SA (sinoatrial) node. And other drugs that lower heart rate, like beta blockers, they can lower the heart rate, but they also lower the blood pressure and, in many patients, cause fatigue. So, not the ideal drug to lower heart rate in patients with POTS. And so, in this trial, which was a small trial of 22 patients, we showed that ivabradine lowered heart rate. We also looked at serum norepinephrine levels, which are known to be elevated in patients with a subset of POTS called hyperadrenergic POTS. And we also showed that the quality of life as measured by a scale called the SF-36 also improved.

So, this was the pilot data that we used to propose to RECOVER doing a larger trial in patients with Long COVID-related POTS with ivabradine. So, this was a study where we randomized patients not only to ivabradine versus placebo, but we also had embedded another randomization, which is placebo plus coordinated care or placebo plus usual care, ivabradine plus coordinated care or ivabradine plus usual care. So, what that means is after they were randomized to either ivabradine or placebo, they had another randomization to either usual care, where they were just given a handout of lifestyle interventions, or they received coordinated care, which was a lot more attention, where there was a care coordinator that called them every week and they were also given certain equipment. So, for instance, they could get a bike or a treadmill based on what they're able to do, or they could get compression.

So, they were also given equipment so that they could actually engage in lifestyle strategies. They were given a water bottle. So, a lot of things to help them comply with the coordinated care. So, a lot more attention in this coordinated care group. And these patients were followed for 3 months, and the follow-up assessments were done in 3 months. And here's an example of some of the equipment that they got, like compression stockings. And I made an error. It wasn't a treadmill. It was kind of an exercise that they could do while seated. And so, the coordinated care arm in general just got more attention and more resources than the standard of care arm. And so, our hypothesis was that ivabradine would improve quality of life at 3 months and that the coordinated care arm would also have an improvement in quality-of-life metrics.

In terms of the patients we included, they had to have a COMPASS (Composite Autonomic Symptom Score) score greater than 20 and an OHQ (Orthostatic Hypotension Questionnaire) score greater than 2. And I'll show you what the OHQ score is. And they also had to have a diagnosis of POTS, based on either a tilt table or a 10-minute stand. So, this was our primary endpoint, and so this is the OHQ questionnaire. So, patients answered this questionnaire before and after the intervention. And as you can see, it asks about some symptoms that we see with POTS, dizziness and lightheadedness. Is there a problem with vision? But it also asks about some more general symptoms, such as fatigue, trouble concentrating, and weakness. So, it is also getting at some general symptoms in addition to symptoms that are very specific with POTS. So, this was our primary outcome. And in order to be in the study, they had to have a score greater than 2 on this question one.

So, they had to have some symptoms of dizziness and lightheadedness just to be eligible for the study. These are the baseline characteristics of the patients. This is the largest study to date in patients with POTS. And what you see is the average age is between 36 to 39. It was predominantly female, which is what's expected in terms of the general prevalence of POTS that we see in the population. You see that the mean OHQ score was about 5. The COMPASS score was also pretty high, at 42. And then we also looked at the Malmo POTS score, which was also pretty high, between 65 and 69. And you can see here when they were lying down, their average heart rate was about 72. And then when they stood up, their heart rate did increase about 30 points. And so, this was the primary and secondary endpoint. So, what we saw was that both groups improved.

The ivabradine group also had a decrease in their OHQ score, as well as the placebo group, but it was not statistically significant. We did see that the heart rate did improve in the ivabradine group versus the placebo group, but other scores like the COMPASS, Malmo POTS did not change. One thing I want to point out is that the average dose of ivabradine that was used in this study was around 2.5 [mg] twice a day. And in my pilot study, it was around 5 milligrams twice a day. We were very conservative with the dosing of ivabradine because we realized that this would be a little bit of an older population, and we were concerned about lowering the heart rate too much. So, there is a difference in the actual dosing of ivabradine used in this study versus prior studies. And this is just looking at the OHQ score between ivabradine and placebo.

And what you see here is, again, no statistically significant difference between the groups, and both groups improved. What was interesting is when we looked at this interaction with non-pharmacologic care, those patients that were randomized to ivabradine, along with coordinated care, did see a more significant difference in OHQ, versus those that had ivabradine and just that 1-page handout telling them to adhere to lifestyle intervention. So, in summary, what we saw is that even though ivabradine lowered the heart rate, it didn't improve the OHQ. And what we also saw is that when coordinated care was combined with ivabradine, we did see an improvement. And I saw in some of the comments in the chat and questions, people were asking about the design and the selection of the primary endpoint.

And I agree with the comments. Sometimes when you don't select the right questionnaire or, in a very complex population that has multi-system involvement, it may be hard to really sort out what's the impact of the drug, and also, it's juxtaposed against the progression of the disease. I also did want to point out that the dosing was different, and so maybe higher doses of ivabradine could have resulted in a statistically significant difference in OHQ. So, a lot of learning from this study, both in terms of trial design and also in terms of the complexity of this patient population. And we also understand that there could be certain phenotypes of patients that could benefit more.

So, for instance, in my original pilot study, we looked at norepinephrine levels, and we enrolled patients that had elevated norepinephrine levels. And so, we will look at that in some secondary analysis. And as I mentioned when I started, the natural history of Long COVID, the underlying pathophysiology is still poorly understood. There's a lot of symptom fluctuation. And so, we do as a community need to come up with better objective clinical endpoints to assess impacts of intervention. So, I want to thank the team from Duke and all of the investigators across the country. And mostly, or most importantly, I want to thank all the patients that participated in this study.

Dr. Christine Bevc:

Thank you, Dr. Taub. All right. And with that, we're going to bring in our Representatives, Renee Leverty and Marta Cerda, to talk about engaging patients and researchers in the clinical trials protocol development here. And as our title slide shows, they'll be talking about those key lessons. So, Renee, Marta?

Renee Leverty:

Thank you so much. Today, Marta and I will share key lessons from the Patient, Caregiver, Community Representative and researcher engagement during the RECOVER clinical trial protocol development. We'll highlight what worked well, where there were challenges, and what future clinical trial networks can take from this experience. These findings are published in the Journal of Clinical and Translational Science. I'll pass it to Marta next. New slide. Next slide, please.

Marta Cerda:

The diagnosis of Long COVID is currently symptom-based, as we know, with 200-plus symptoms reported. People living with Long COVID have challenged scientific narratives and advocated for recognition and support for this condition through both firsthand accounts and collective efforts. The lived experience of patients has provided crucial evidence for the existence and impact of Long COVID and highlighted the need for patient-centered approaches in both research and health care. Most importantly, the engagement of patients in research design has been associated with increased patient-centered outcome measured, more meaningful results, increased adherence to study intervention and procedures, and improved dissemination of findings.

Next slide. Our paper describes the protocol development efforts of the RECOVER Clinical Trial Protocol Working Groups, or PWGs, with an emphasis on patient and patient advocate voices, and key lessons that we've learned that can serve as a roadmap for future clinical trial network endeavors. Next slide, Renee.

Renee Leverty:

Protocol Working Groups were created to rapidly design Long COVID treatment trials and the master protocol structure. These groups brought together multiple types of expertise: scientific, clinical, statistical, operational, and lived experience. Patient, Caregiver, and Community Representatives, referred to as Reps, were core members of the working groups. Next slide. Each platform Protocol Working Group included 2 Representatives who attended meetings, reviewed protocol drafts, and provided feedback. Their feedback focused on issues that are especially important from a participant perspective, such as eligibility criteria, endpoints that matter most, visit schedules, and participant burden, access and inclusion, compensation, understanding value of participating, and informed consent. Representatives also help bring in broader perspective from other reps who were involved but not serving as the 2 core Protocol Working Group members. This additional input was gathered through supported small group meetings or email feedback. Next slide. The engagement team at Duke Clinical Research Institute, DCRI, played a coordination and support role throughout the process. They attended Protocol Working Group meetings and also met separately with Representatives to help clarify scientific or protocol related materials. Reps’ feedback was documented centrally and shared with study co-chairs and NIH leadership. Smaller meetings were held between reps, study co-chairs, and the NIH. Weekly email updates to keep Representatives informed [and] updated about developments, such as timelines around DSMB (Data and Safety Monitoring Board) review, were added. Next slide.

To better understand how the engagement process was experienced, an anonymous online survey was developed. The survey was created collaboratively by engagement leaders, RECOVER partners, and NIH. It drew from [a] PCORI, Patient-Centered Outcome Research Institute, tool focused on inclusion and equitable partnership. The survey asked about role clarity, perceived value, inclusion, prior research and engagement experience, and recommendations for improvement. It was distributed to 69 Protocol Working Group members with reminders, and responses were collected over 2 months. Next slide please.

Of the 69 Protocol Working Group members invited, 28 completed the survey. Respondents included Representatives, Protocol Working Group co-chairs or co-investigators, clinical subject matter experts, and operational project leaders. Nine Representatives responded to the survey, representing 41% of eligible Representative participants. Among those Representatives that responded, most identified as individuals with Long COVID, and many also identified as patient advocates. Next slide.

So here are some of the findings for all respondents. Overall, respondents reported relatively high levels of research understanding and prior experiences with patient caregiver and community engagement. Most respondents felt their contribution was meaningful and valued. Most also reported that Representatives were somewhat valued, valued, or highly valued by the Protocol Working Groups. At the same time, nearly half of the respondents were neutral, disagreed, or strongly disagreed that their roles were clearly defined. Next slide.

This slide shows that Representatives' experience of inclusion varied. Some Representatives reported low inclusion as equal Protocol Working Group members, while others reported high inclusion. In contrast, the other Protocol Working Group roles were more heavily weighted toward higher ratings of inclusion. Next slide.

So, this is Representative feedback on an open text question of what went well, and it showed a wide range of experiences. Some feedback was critical and reflected frustration with treatment choices, protocol development process, and understanding of patient population. Other comments described collaboration, problem-solving, and meaningful changes to protocol design. Several Representatives noted their voices were heard, valued, and contributed to changes they felt better reflected the needs of the Long COVID community. And I'll pass it to Marta.

Marta Cerda:

Next slide. Our advice to researchers and funders from all respondents: Include patient voices early to avoid tokenism. Communicate roles clearly and often. This is super important. Ensure patient representation reflects the broader patient population. Train teams on post-viral research and on respecting and valuing patient input. Create smaller group feedback opportunities and clear pathways for incorporating insights. And, finally, provide a ballpark budget to enable realistic protocol design discussions. Next slide, Renee.

Renee Leverty:

So, our discussion part of the manuscript, these are some of the key takeaways from the findings. The RECOVER protocol development happened during a period of rapidly evolving scientific knowledge, which created shared learning opportunities, but also different perspectives on priorities. The NIH-led structure was unfamiliar to many researchers, and Representatives were widely viewed as valuable partners who strengthened protocol design through lived experience, but not all Representatives felt consistently valued or informed about how their input shaped the final protocols. Next slide.

Variation across the Protocol Working Groups points to the need for more-consistent engagement practices. Findings should be interpreted in the light of the study limitations, including sample size and survey methodology. We hope these lessons learned are useful for other research networks in building equitable and impactful multistakeholder engagement models. Onto you, Marta.

Marta Cerda:

Next slide. So here are our recommendations. Embed individuals with lived experience as members of study leadership teams. Invest time in relationship-building to foster trust and shared purpose across researchers, patients, and community members. Clearly define roles, levels of expertise, and transparent decision-making pathways. Establish respectful meeting norms that prioritize Representative input through dedicated agenda time and small-group engagement. Provide co-training for researchers, patients, and community members to build a shared understanding of research processes and inclusive engagement practices. And finally, implement clear co-design standards and reporting frameworks to document how Representative input is collected, used, and resolved. Next slide.

In conclusion, meaningful Representative engagement in rapid trial protocol development is both feasible and valuable. Role clarity, transparent decision-making, and intentional communication are essential to prevent misalignment. And finally, structured engagement practices can strengthen trial design and reduce patient challenges. Next slide.

We thank you. We thank everyone involved in the survey, our respondents, and the team that worked on this. Thank you. Back to Christine.

Dr. Christine Bevc:

All right. Thank you, Marta. All right. So, before we jump into the larger Q&A portion of this, we have a couple pre-submitted questions that we wanted to answer in advance. And so, just as a reminder, if you're submitting questions, we will be moving those into a Q&A document that's going to be posted on RECOVERcovid.org at the end of this. So, if we don't get to your question today, we will be posting that online with additional responses as well. If you submitted questions, we do have over 21 answered questions there in the Q&A tab as well. But first, back to you, Marta. We were able to share the results of the engagement survey that was conducted, but can you speak a little bit to how you personally were involved with the RECOVER clinical trials and what your experience was with that?

Marta Cerda:

Well, I had a positive experience because I was both in the clinical trial steering committee and also in RECOVER-VITAL. So, I was directly asked for my patient impact or voice or thoughts on protocol design repeatedly throughout the process. I did experience one time when a researcher was hesitating about slowing down a trial to include patient feedback, and I weighed in as others weighed in, non-patients weighed in, to highlight the value of the patient input. And so, I do feel like my feedback was heard, so that's number 1. And number 2, I did feel I had a reciprocal benefit from participating in CT steering committee because I learned more about my own Long COVID. I learned about my dysautonomia, my dizziness and falling, and all of that. I stopped during the middle of a meeting and looked it up and I began to understand better what I had or POTS, which was mentioned earlier.

So, I felt there was a highly invaluable part that's not often talked about to my patient engagement in the clinical trial Protocol Working Groups. Thank you for the question, Christine. Christine, you're muted.

Dr. Christine Bevc:

Of course, thank you. All right. Well, my next question is to Renee about what suggestions you have for improving engagement in Long COVID research.

Renee Leverty:

Thank you for the question. Well, I think the recommendations and the advice that came through the paper are really helpful guides to how engagement can be improved. Again, the recommendations of having an individual with Long COVID being part of the engagement team or beyond the engagement team, the study leadership I think is critical. What we saw is although there was a structure set in place for inclusive engagement, experiences were different. And they weren't perceived differently. They were different. And so, how do we create these structures of accountability that lived experience knowledge is honored and embedded? And so, that's what we're hoping to create through this paper and through this talk and the knowledge of the NCEG [National Community Engagement Group] and all the Representatives that have been informing RECOVER on an ongoing basis.

Dr. Christine Bevc:

Thank you, Renee. And I actually want to call on our communications team because we've gotten several questions about, “where can I find this work? Is it published? Is it out there?” And one of the things that we do with these R3 seminars is that the work that we're presenting is based on published findings. So, these findings that you've seen here today are available out there, like Dr. Knopman shared that reference there, but they're also available through the RECOVERcovid.org website under our publications. And Katie or Brian, could I put you there? All right, so Kate is actually going to drop in those publication links into the chat for folks so that you can see those and be able to link to them. And then again, you can also go back to the RECOVERcovid.org to see all of the publications that have come out of RECOVER.

Okay, great. All right, Katie, Brian, you're off the hook. All right, so our next set of questions, we're grouping these a little bit, but just to round out our engagement pieces here. Craig, David, Pam, I'm going to call on you just to hear from you around the question of if there's ways that the Long COVID community can still express their interest in participating in these trials, future trials, being able to find out what's coming next. I don't know who wants to start with those.

Dr. David Knopman:

Well, I'm going to defer to Craig because, for a variety of reasons, I'm unaware of any planned future trials in cognitive Long COVID. So I'll defer to Craig.

Dr. Craig Reist:

Yeah, I was going to say for this initial, what we've called Wave 1 clinical trials, they are all complete in terms of enrollment has been, the enrollment targets have been achieved. Most are going through follow-up, final data collection, and analysis. That being said, there is a new wave of clinical trials. Many of you have probably heard about the RECOVER-TLC [Treating Long COVID] initiative, which is being led by NIH's NIAID [National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases] division. That will be a next wave of clinical trials that will soon be recruiting participants for a variety of focused interventions there. So, would encourage you to check out RECOVER-TLC. And Christine, I don't know if we can put the link in there for Recover TLC's information for folks to access.

Dr. Christine Bevc:

I'll see if we can find that or if there's any other information that we might be able to share later in today's discussion. Pam, was there anything else you wanted to add to this?

Dr. Pam Taub:

The other resource that I always tell patients to look at is clinicaltrials.gov because not only does it have NIH trials, but it also has industry trials and academic trials. So that's a good resource to check out.

Dr. Christine Bevc:

Okay, great. Well, speaking of trials and the design piece, one of the questions that we received was, this came in through our Q&A, was how do we know that improvement isn't simply from time passing? Since it's really difficult to say that there's no real control group in these. How do we know? Dr. Knopman?

Dr. David Knopman:

Yes. Well, we did have an active comparison in RECOVER-NEURO, but we thought that that comparison did not have any known accepted rehabilitation benefits. So, we did have a comparison group or a control group. And what we were looking for were benefits that were over and beyond what would occur with spontaneous recovery. But to be sure, it's difficult to look for benefits in a condition that may be experiencing spontaneous improvement. But the key point is that for the interventions we were studying, to make them worth doing, they had to be superior to what was seen in an inactive compared to our comparator. Hope that answered the question.

Dr. Christine Bevc:

Mm-hmm.

Dr. Pam Taub:

I will add, seeing patients with Long COVID clinically, it's a very heterogeneous disease. There are some people that improve after a few months, and there's some people that have very severe impairment and are bedbound. What we don't understand is, is there something that predisposes somebody to having a more severe disease? And I think this is where more basic science research will let us know. Maybe a person that has more severe disease has more of an immune substrate, maybe they have more immunologic dysfunction. And so, in terms of the natural history, we're still trying to understand it and also understanding why some people get more-severe disease than others.

Dr. Christine Bevc:

So as a follow-up question, because I think severity is also something that's trending in the questions that we're seeing there too. As you're going through the analysis for these studies, for the different groups and the different subgroups, were you able to look at how severity plays into this?

Dr. David Knopman:

Well, I think—

Dr. Christine Bevc:

Either study. Yeah.

Dr. David Knopman:

—in RECOVER-NEURO, severity really didn't seem to make a difference in terms of response, but it may have been that the people we recruited overall were still too mild, and the more-impaired people chose not to participate. But it wasn't obvious in our data in RECOVER-NEURO that initial severity had any impact on outcome.

Dr. Pam Taub:

In RECOVER-AUTONOMIC with ivabradine, the patient characteristics of both the placebo and the treatment group showed that it was moderate-to-severe symptoms based on COMPASS score, Malmo POTS. And so we recruited the patients with more moderate to severe disease.

Dr. Christine Bevc:

And then were you able, for either or both studies, able to assess the trajectory of Long COVID patients? So, in other words, considering subgroups that by the duration of their symptoms, whether it was 5 to 12 months or 1 to 2 years or over 2 years, for those patients that were participating in the study?

Dr. Pam Taub:

No, that's a very good point. And we are looking to do some secondary analysis. And that was one of the things that was brought up is to look at when they enrolled, what was the duration of their symptoms? Also, what was the variant of COVID? Was it Omicron or was it one of the original variants? And to look at that. So that would all be in sub-analysis.

Dr. Christine Bevc:

And I know someone—

Dr. David Knopman:

We didn't see anything in relation to the COVID illness experience that was predictive of outcomes.

Dr. Christine Bevc:

And I know this is probably going to come through our questions here is, when can we expect those results? Do we have a timeline for additional findings that may be coming forth?

Dr. David Knopman:

Well, I will say that in RECOVER-NEURO, we have 1 paper looking at the objective cognitive testing that's been submitted to a journal, but I'd say we have no further funding on which to do further studies.

Dr. Pam Taub:

So, with the ivabradine results, we are in the process of publishing the primary manuscript. We are awaiting the results of the IVIG arm, which we should get very quickly. So, our goal is to first publish the primary manuscripts, and then we will work on the secondary analysis.

Dr. Christine Bevc:

All right, thank you. So, another question that we've gotten, not related to timing of results, but could you explain the use of patient-reported outcomes versus organism level measurements in these trials?

Dr. David Knopman:

Right. I'm not sure. Well, the way that organism level was used in that question, I didn't quite understand, but I'm going to respond this way. In RECOVER-NEURO, we were looking at cognition. And so, walking speed is not cognition, and so that wasn't something that we would use. We used objective standardized neuropsychological instruments as our secondary outcomes, and we looked at the differences and correlations between patient-reported outcomes or patient-reported symptoms and also objective cognitive performance. And I'll just say that we didn't require objective impairment for enrollment, as I'd mentioned in my talk, because that would've actually excluded 50% of the people, or 40% of the people from our trial, and we wish to be as inclusive as possible for patients who had symptoms. I hope I answered that for whoever asked.

Dr. Christine Bevc:

Thank you. So, the next set of questions is going to get into some of the trial implications. And so, for both of these trials, if you can speak to some of the implications of RECOVER-NEURO and RECOVER-AUTONOMIC for future intervention research, especially now given the findings that we've heard today. What does that mean for future work in these areas?

Dr. David Knopman:

Pam, do you want to go first?

Dr. Pam Taub:

Yeah, I think one of the key things that we're waiting for is to really look at the impact of coordinated care, which is more attention, more engagement with the patient on lifestyle interventions versus standard of care. And I think one of the implications for me as a clinician is that you have to synergize both pharmacotherapy and lifestyle; it's not one or the other, and it's generally the way I practice. Whenever I see a patient with POTS, I give them medication to optimize their heart rate and blood pressure, but I also tell them you need to do these types of lifestyle strategies, compression for some, certain type of exercise that don't cause too much fatigue, that are not typically standing exercises. There are different protocols, and I always do both. And clinically, even before these trial results, that's the patient group that I saw the most improvement in is the drug and the lifestyle.

And this is a trial that's paralleling that in that even though it's secondary analysis, we're seeing that it's the coordinated group, the group that got a little bit more attention, that got more focused strategies along with the drug that saw some improvement. But it'll be interesting to see what happens in the IVIG arm, because in that arm too, they were randomized to both placebo or standard of care and coordinated care. I think in terms of other implications … I've learned a lot about clinical trial design from this very complex patient population … we need to understand better natural history, and we need to think about, what are better objective endpoints? Because as I showed in my presentation, the OHQ is what we decided on based on the best available data at that time, but there's a lot of subjectivity there, and there's a lot of things in OHQ that are beyond POTS.

So, it's also, in this population, I don't think we've really discovered what the best objective metric is to evaluate improvement, so that's another learning from this trial.

Dr. David Knopman:

Well, I agree with what Pam said. And I think it would be very interesting if we had had the funding to go back now, 2 years later, and poll the participants in our RECOVER-NEURO trial and see where they were at. Had they continued to improve? Had they worsened? What was their status? I mean, after all, here we are in 2026, nearly 4 years after these discussions for these trials were initiated. I will say that, as with POTS, the chronic fatigue syndrome cognitive symptoms are very similar to what is seen in cognitive Long COVID. And the research in that area had preceded COVID by quite some time and has been very frustrating because it's been very challenging to understand the mechanisms, and I think that is still the case.

Dr. Christine Bevc:

Great. And so, more broadly, I want to open it up to the entire panel and ask Marta and Renee about what we've learned from these trials that can help us—findings can help impact patient health or future clinical trials as well.

Marta Cerda:

I'll let Renee answer that one.

Renee Leverty:

Well, first of all, I want to acknowledge when there are results that are, I think you used the word, Dr. Knopman, null, it's disheartening. I mean, people are suffering and are seeking answers. And so, I can't speak to the mechanics; Pam and David can speak better to the mechanics of the trial that will inform future trials. I work at Duke Clinical Research Institute, and when we start any trial, we're hopeful that the findings will be statistically significant and improve health and care and wellness, and yet we know that that is not always the case. You set up the best structure, the best trial you can with the knowledge you have at that time, and then the results speak for themselves, and then you work to glean what can move forward to inform future work. But acknowledging that we shared these findings with the patient caregiver community reps associated with each project before they became public, and we learned from them both a combination of disappointment and also [that they are] hopeful that future treatments will be statistically significant and … will be more broadly used.

Marta Cerda:

I would agree. And from a patient perspective, it is disappointing, especially if you were involved as I was in the design process, because we are so looking for any hope, any indications of something that we could do differently to improve our health for those of us who are, in my case 5 years out, looking for solutions. As has been mentioned, some patients have improved, but in the group that has not, that's gone on several years in, we are hungry for results. And I do see hope on the horizon with work that is coming up with RECOVER 2.0 and TLC, and the additional work that the current team is doing as Pam has alluded to, and David.

Dr. Christine Bevc:

And David and Pam, can you, again, with the null findings here, speak to some of the value of these results of what null means and how that can inform where we go next with this? Because the investment's been made in the work, and well, that didn't work. It's like, what does that tell us? And I think we hear null, and we think very, very disheartening, but there's value in null. And what do you see that to be?

Dr. Pam Taub:

As a clinician who treats a lot of Long COVID patients, I was very disappointed as well. I'm a clinical trialist, I do a lot of clinical trials, not only in Long COVID but in lipids and cardiometabolic disease. But when you look at clinical trials in general, it's a lot of learning, and sometimes it takes multiple trials to really get the design down. We had a great comment from the audience that just because a trial is null it doesn't mean that the therapy doesn't work, it could be that the design wasn't optimal. And when we designed the trials, we had a lot of experts. We tried to come up with the best possible design, but also the most simplistic design because we knew that this was going to be across many sites across the United States. And so, there's a lot that you have to balance when you're doing a clinical trial.

But when you don't have the results you want, you have to look at your design and say, well, for instance, with the ivabradine study, was OHQ really the best way to assess the impact? And I think that we need to come up with a better metric. The other second learning for me was dosing. We were very, very conservative because we were worried about safety, especially in this very vulnerable population. We didn't want to drive their heart rate down too low, but the dosing was much lower than in the other study that I did where trial results were positive, and there's also a trial that's funded by DOD [the Department of Defense] where the dosing is much higher. So, there's going to be a lot of learning when the DOD trial is presented, which will be very soon, about dosing, because I do think higher dosing may have a benefit in terms of how it translates to quality of life.

So, there's a lot of learning, and when you look at other fields, another area that I'm involved in is heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. For decades, we had negative trial after trial, but we kept improving and we kept going forward, and finally we have an FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration]-approved drug for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. And in that time, there was also a lot of learning on pathophysiology and mechanistic insights, so we have to do that in parallel with the clinical trials. So, I think a null trial, it really still contributes to the field. And the next trial that we're going to do, we're going to have a different design, we're going to have different metrics, and hopefully we'll come up with more objective metrics.

Dr. David Knopman:

Well, I agree with Pam, and I would add that one of the challenges in Long COVID and cognitive Long COVID as I can speak to is that the biologic mechanisms remain unclear. And if you don't have a clear understanding of the biology, the therapy involves many arbitrary decisions about what might be the mechanism of disease. And that's been a real challenge with cognitive Long COVID and with the brain fog that occurs in chronic fatigue syndrome, for example. And in addition, just to echo what Pam said, that in many areas, including the area that I principally work in, degenerative dementias, sadly, we have a long track record of failure except for a few agents, and it just took a really long time to understand dosing, to better understand what the disease target is that would move the needle in terms of benefit. So, we were starting from scratch here in 2022 with very limited information.

Unfortunately, the information on the mechanisms of COVID and on the brain still remains uncertain, and until the biology is better understood, I think it's going to be a challenge to move ahead.

Dr. Christine Bevc:

All right, thank you. And we've got what this, as you mentioned, these studies are generating so much data. And the question is whether or not the data from these studies from neuro, from autonomic, from sleep, from future studies, are those going to be available to other researchers so that the access to the data isn't limited to just those that are involved in these trials, but future analyses? And I guess Craig, that goes to you about if the data's going to be available through BioData Catalyst in the future.

Dr. Craig Reist:

Yeah, for sure. I think that this question came up during the talk and the answer to that is yes, there was a plan initially. NIH, it was extremely important to leverage something like a big data repository like BioData Catalyst so that the data will be out there and available to other researchers who may want to access it and do some data mining to see what future trials can be designed based on that, what future studies can be done, what can we learn? So, the short answer is yes.

Dr. Christine Bevc:

All right. Well, that's good to hear, because I know that there's many that are on the call today interested in how they can get their hands on that data. In addition, back to the question about learning more about future upcoming clinical trials. And Patrick, I'm going to call on you to actually, if you can pull up, I think there is a slide that Kate shared about a, this will be a late-breaking, about the Thursday’s ... Not this one, maybe the next one. There we go, okay. So, this is a RECOVER-TLC webinar that's going to be actually on Thursday, so 2 days from now, from 1:00 to 2:00 Eastern. And so, you can use your phone to scan that QR code to be able to register for that. It's going to be covering TLC's planned clinical trials and the treatments that they've selected for that.

It'll go through what that trial process is going to be, it'll help review the steps that researchers are going to be taking to ensure safety of study participants moving forward, and what the anticipated outcomes from these studies will do to be able to help patients and providers in making some of these decisions. I'd love to be able to have a crystal ball to see what those results are going to be, but hopefully you'll be able to join us on Thursday or join the TLC team on Thursday for that to be able to hear more about that. So, in addition, and we can go back to the other previous slide. Actually, well, let's leave it on here for ... Sorry Patrick, I'm totally sending you around. But I want to thank all of our presenters, because we've got just a few more seconds left, and thank our audience for attending today and really engaging in the Q&A.

I know there were a lot of questions that came in, we weren't able to get through a lot of these. We really hear what you're sharing with us and everything … your experiences, your frustrations, your hopes and appreciation for the work. And we appreciate the investigators being here today to be able to share these results with us, because it's important that we do pass them back. As a reminder, if you want to go back, we are going to have a recording of today's seminar available on recoverCOVID.org. It's going to be available in about a week, and later we'll post a recap also with that Q&A document and more answers to some of the questions that you submitted. And we're going to take a little bit of a summer break. R3 seminars are going to return in September, so this information's going to be posted on the R3 Seminar Series webpage on recoverCOVID.org.

You can also subscribe for R3 seminar updates on this page, so you can hear more about what is coming next. You should also see a pop-up on your screen as well. This is a quick survey to ask about your feedback and additional topics that you'd like to see in the future. So, if you want to hear more about what the outcomes from RECOVER-SLEEP are, put this in here. And that really helps our planning team to be able to identify who we can bring and who we can hear from next. And so, I think we'll go to the, just again, the webinar on Thursday about the current and upcoming clinical trials. Please register to hear about this next phase of the trials with TLC. Again, it's going to be from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m., so it's going to be a nice little hour there. Scan the code, register, and you'll hear from presenters from NIAID, so the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health, FNIH, and they will both be talking about these trials and treatments.

All right, and with that, we are wrapping and concluding today's R3 seminar. Thank you again for joining us, and thank you to our presenters for sharing their insights and responding to all of the questions that our incredible audience has had. So, have a great rest of your week and we will see you in September. Thank you.