Real World Evidence Initiative
Anyone living with Long Covid or ME/CFS builds up their own insights over the years into what helps and what doesn't. In research terms, this kind of information is called Real World Evidence. We are the first to capture it systematically for Europe and to report on the results.
Take part in the surveyAnonymous · Pacing-friendly · Result updates
Why we do this
Anyone who has lived with Long Covid or ME/CFS for a long time has usually tried a dozen therapies and observed which ones changed something and which didn't. Looked at individually, it's hard to draw conclusions for other patients from this. Aggregated, that can be different. But so far these observations remain scattered across support groups, consultations, or private notebooks.
Controlled clinical trials remain the standard for proving efficacy. But Real World Evidence gathers concrete experience from patients' actual day-to-day management of their condition — experience that, in its sheer volume and practical relevance, can offer therapy research a wealth of leads.
On its evidentiary value: our initiative relies on subjective assessments, which cannot match the rigor of data collection in a good clinical trial. The results are not proof of efficacy and not a treatment recommendation.
The model
In 2025, researchers from Harvard Medical School and Stanford University School of Medicine published in PNAS the analysis of the largest patient treatment survey to date. The TREATME study provides an answer, for over 150 therapies, to how often patients reported improvement.
The analysis also showed how differently individual patient groups responded to the various therapies. We've compiled the ten therapies with the highest reported improvement rates on our research page: Understanding Long Covid & ME/CFS.
Our contribution
TREATME was answered predominantly by patients in North America. Conditions here are different: different approvals, different off-label practice, different patient profiles. The American results therefore only transfer to a limited extent.
We include procedures available in Europe. Recently introduced treatment options are also taken into account.
The distribution of patient subgroups, and of other parameters, may differ in Europe.
We are starting in the German-speaking region, but want to include further parts of Europe as well, so we can compare and learn across borders.
How the survey works
Pausable at any time. You can stop after two minutes and pick it back up days later.
No registration, no real name required. We collect no data that could identify you.
Result updates for participants, if wanted. The analyses are published openly and free of charge.
Survey content
The survey first asks about the form of your Long Covid or ME/CFS. This typing helps us later classify treatment outcomes correctly and possibly identify subgroups ("phenotypes") for which a given therapy would be especially promising.
For treatment experience, we offer you a list of the most common therapy options, but also let you add new forms of therapy.
Take part
You don't need to explain or prove anything to us. Just answer what you yourself have experienced, and leave out the rest.
Take part in the surveyAnonymous · Pacing-friendly · Result updates
Why Sharpa exists
The demands of serious Long Covid care are considerable — and today barely met anywhere in one place. Sharpa builds the care pathway that doesn't yet exist: mechanism-based, at home wherever possible, at the patient's own pace, with one fixed point of contact. We don't provide therapy ourselves; the medical decision rests with the physician. We carry the load along the way.