RESUMEN
Background and aimLong Covid is a significant public health concern with potentially negative implications for health inequalities. We know that those who are already socially disadvantaged in society are more exposed to COVID-19, experience the worst health outcomes and are more likely to suffer economically. We also know that these groups are more likely to experience stigma and discrimination and have negative healthcare experiences even before the pandemic. However, little is known about disadvantaged groups experiences of Long Covid and preliminary evidence suggests they may be under-represented in those who access formal care. We will conduct a pilot study in a defined geographical area (Camden, London, UK) to test the feasibility of a community-based approach of identifying Long Covid cases that have not been formally clinically diagnosed and have not been referred to Long Covid Specialist services. We will explore the barriers to accessing recognition, care and support, as well as experiences of stigma and perceived discrimination. MethodsThis protocol and study materials were co-produced with a Community Advisory Board (CAB) made up primarily of people living with Long Covid. Working with voluntary organisations, promotional material are co-developed and will be distributed in the local community with engagement from key community organisations and leaders to highlight Long Covid symptoms and invite those experiencing them to participate in the study if they are not formally diagnosed and accessing care. Awareness of Long Covid and symptoms, experiences of trying to access care, as well as stigma and discrimination will be explored through qualitative interviews with participants. Upon completion of the interviews, participants will be offered referral to the local social prescribing team to receive support that is personalised to them potentially including, but not restricted to, liaising with their primary care provider and the regional Long Covid clinic run by University College London Hospitals (UCLH). Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been obtained from the Faculty of Medicine Ethics Committee and Research Integrity and Governance, University of Southampton. (reference number 72400). Findings will be reported in a report and submitted for peer-reviewed publication. Definitive methods of dissemination will be decided by the CAB. Summaries of the findings will also be shared on the STIMULATE-ICP website, locally in the study area and through social media. We will specifically target policy makers and those responsible for shaping and commissioning Long Covid healthcare services and social support such as NHSE England Long Covid Group.
RESUMEN
BackgroundThe clinical sequelae (Long Covid) of acute Covid-19 are recognised globally, yet the risk of developing them is unknown. MethodsA living systematic review (second version). Bibliographical records from the C19 Living Map Long Covid segment (22nd February 2022), Medline, CINAHL, Global Health, WHO Covid-19 database, LitCOVID, and Google Scholar (18th November 2021). We included studies with at least 100 people at 12 weeks or more post-Covid-19 onset and with a control group without confirmed Covid-19. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Symptoms are aligned with the Post Covid-19 Condition Core Outcome Set. We present descriptive statistics and use meta-analysis to estimate the relative risk of experiencing Long Covid. ResultsTwenty-eight studies were included: 20 cohort, five case-controls, three cross-sectional. Studies reported on 242,715 people with Covid-19 (55.6% female) and 276,317 controls (55.7% female) in 16 countries. Most were of moderate quality (71%). Only two were set in low-middle-income countries and few included children (18%). The longest mean follow-up time was 419.8 (standard deviation 49.4) days post-diagnosis. The relative risk (RR) of experiencing persistent or new symptoms in cases compared with controls was 1.53 (95% CI: 1.50 to 1.56). The core outcomes with the highest increased risk were cardiovascular (RR 2.53 95% CI: 2.16 to 2.96), cognitive (RR 1.99; 95% CI: 1.82 to 2.17), and physical functioning (RR 1.85; 95% CI: 1.75 to 1.96). ConclusionSARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with a higher risk of new or persistent symptoms when compared with controls that can last over a year following acute Covid-19. There is still a lack of robust studies set in lower resourced settings and current studies have high heterogeneity and potential misclassifications of cases and controls. Future research should explore the role of vaccination and different variants on the risk of developing Long Covid. Systematic review registrationThe protocol was prospectively registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42020211131). O_TEXTBOXO_TEXTBOXNOSection 1:C_TEXTBOXNO What is already known?O_LIPublished evidence indicates a high prevalence of people affected by post-acute SARS-CoV-2 sequelae often referred to as Long Covid; yet these estimates are impacted by heterogeneity in study design and a lack of controlled studies and core outcome sets. C_LIO_LIOur first version of this review, looking at studies till March 2021, identified a breadth of reported symptoms of Long Covid affecting both those who were hospitalised during the acute phase and those managed in the community. We also identified a lack of studies including children and set in low-middle income countries. C_LIO_LIThe most commonly reported symptoms identified were weakness, general malaise, fatigue, concentration difficulties, and breathlessness, suggesting Long Covid is a complex, heterogeneous condition. C_LI O_TEXTBOXNOSection 2:C_TEXTBOXNO What are the new findings?O_LITo address the limitations identified, this first update of our living systematic review provides a comprehensive summary of peer-reviewed published studies with a control group (till 22nd February 2022) on the risk of experiencing Covid-19 sequelae. C_LIO_LIDespite study limitations identifying control groups, our findings suggest that people with a confirmed previous SARS-CoV-2 infection are 1.5 times more likely to experience new or persisting symptoms at 12 or more weeks post-onset when compared to a control group. C_LIO_LIMapped to the new Core Outcome set for Post-Covid-19 Condition, a framework for standardised assessment, our review identifies cardiovascular functioning, cognitive functioning, and physical functioning as the outcomes with highest increased risk for people post-SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to controls. C_LI O_TEXTBOXNOSection 3:C_TEXTBOXNO What do the new findings imply?O_LIOur findings point to a clear association between exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and the risk of developing new or persistent symptoms, for some lasting longer than 12 months after the initial infection. C_LIO_LIControlled studies on Long Covid should focus on improving quality to enable multisite metaanalysis by using standardised research protocols and by evaluating participants with multiple standardised diagnostic tests at various time points to capture transitory and intermittent symptoms and complications. C_LIO_LITo help inform health system planning and rehabilitation to improve outcomes for those affected, Long Covid research should focus on estimating the burden of post-acute SARS-CoV-2 in lower resourced settings, investigating the impact of vaccination and variants on Long Covid, and investigating therapeutic strategies. C_LI C_TEXTBOX
RESUMEN
BackgroundStigma can be experienced as perceived or actual disqualification from social and institutional acceptance on the basis of one or more physical, behavioural or other attributes deemed to be undesirable. Long Covid is a predominantly multisystem condition that occurs in people with a history of SARSCoV2 infection, often resulting in functional disability. AimTo develop and validate a Long Covid Stigma Scale (LCSS); and to quantify the burden of Long Covid stigma. Design and SettingFollow-up of a co-produced community-based Long Covid online survey using convenience non-probability sampling. MethodThirteen questions on stigma were designed to develop the LCSS capturing three domains - enacted (overt experiences of discrimination), internalised (internalising negative associations with Long Covid and accepting them as self-applicable) and anticipated (expectation of bias/poor treatment by others) stigma. Confirmatory factor analysis tested whether LCSS consisted of the three hypothesised domains. Model fit was assessed and prevalence was calculated. Results966 UK-based participants responded (888 for stigma questions), with mean age 48 years (SD: 10.7) and 85% female. Factor loadings for enacted stigma were 0.70-0.86, internalised 0.75-0.84, anticipated 0.58-0.87, and model fit was good. The prevalence of experiencing stigma at least sometimes and often/always was 95% and 76% respectively. Anticipated and internalised stigma were more frequently experienced than enacted stigma. Those who reported having a clinical diagnosis of Long Covid had higher stigma prevalence than those without. ConclusionThis study establishes a scale to measure Long Covid stigma and highlights common experiences of stigma in people living with Long Covid.
RESUMEN
Many people are not recovering for months after being infected with SARS-CoV-2. Long Covid has emerged as a major public health concern that needs defining, quantifying, and describing. We aimed to explore the initial and ongoing symptoms of Long Covid following SARS-CoV-2 infection and describe its impact on daily life in people who were not admitted to hospital during the first two weeks of the illness. We co-produced a survey with people living with Long Covid. We collected the data through an online survey using convenience non-probability sampling, with the survey posted both specifically on Long Covid support groups and generally on social media. The criteria for inclusion were adults with lab-confirmed (PCR or antibody) or suspected COVID-19 managed in the community (non-hospitalised) in the first two weeks of illness. We used agglomerative hierarchical clustering to identify specific symptom clusters, and their demographic and functional correlates. We analysed data from 2550 participants with a median duration of illness of 7.7 months (interquartile range (IQR) 7.4-8.0). The mean age was 46.5 years (standard deviation 11 years) with 82.8% females and 79.9% of participants based in the UK. 89.5% described their health as good, very good or excellent before COVID-19. The most common initial symptoms that persisted were exhaustion, chest pressure/tightness, shortness of breath and headache. Cough, fever, and chills were common initial symptoms that became less prevalent later in the illness, whereas cognitive dysfunction and palpitations became more prevalent later in the illness. 26.5% reported lab-confirmation of infection. The biggest difference in ongoing symptoms between those who reported testing positive and those who did not was loss of smell/taste. Ongoing symptoms affected at least 3 organ systems in 83.5% of participants. Most participants described fluctuating (57.7%) or relapsing symptoms (17.6%). Physical activity, stress and sleep disturbance commonly triggered symptoms. A third (32%) reported they were unable to live alone without any assistance at six weeks from start of illness. 16.9% reported being unable to work solely due to COVID-19 illness. 66.4% reported taking time off sick (median of 60 days, IQR 20, 129). 37.0% reported loss of income due to illness, and 64.4% said they were unable to perform usual activities/duties. Acute systems clustered broadly into two groups: a majority cluster (n=2235, 88%) with cardiopulmonary predominant symptoms, and a minority cluster (n=305, 12%) with multisystem symptoms. Similarly, ongoing symptoms broadly clustered in two groups; a majority cluster (n=2243, 88.8%) exhibiting mainly cardiopulmonary, cognitive symptoms and exhaustion, and a minority cluster (n=283, 11.2%) exhibited more multisystem symptoms. Belonging to the more severe multisystem cluster was associated with more severe functional impact, lower income, younger age, being female, worse baseline health, and inadequate rest in the first two weeks of the illness, with no major differences in the cluster patterns when restricting analysis to the lab-confirmed subgroup. This is an exploratory survey of Long Covid characteristics. Whilst it is important to acknowledge that it is a non-representative population sample, it highlights the heterogeneity of persistent symptoms, and the significant functional impact of prolonged illness following confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection. To study prevalence, predictors and prognosis, research is needed in a representative population sample using standardised case definitions (to include those not lab-confirmed in the first pandemic wave).
RESUMEN
Structured AbstractO_ST_ABSObjectivesC_ST_ABSThe long-term consequences of severe Covid-19 requiring hospital admission are not well characterised. The objective of this study was to establish the long-term effects of Covid-19 following hospitalisation and the impact these may have on patient reported outcome measures. DesignA multicentre, prospective cohort study with at least 3 months follow-up of participants admitted to hospital between 5th February 2020 and 5th October 2020. Setting31 hospitals in the United Kingdom. Participants327 hospitalised participants discharged alive from hospital with confirmed/high likelihood SARS-CoV-2 infection. Main outcome measures and comparisonsThe primary outcome was self-reported recovery at least ninety days after initial Covid-19 symptom onset. Secondary outcomes included new symptoms, new or increased disability (Washington group short scale), breathlessness (MRC Dyspnoea scale) and quality of life (EQ5D-5L). We compared these outcome measures across age, comorbidity status and in-hospital Covid-19 severity to identify groups at highest risk of developing long-term difficulties. Multilevel logistic and linear regression models were built to adjust for the effects of patient and centre level risk factors on these outcomes. ResultsIn total 53.7% (443/824) contacted participants responded, yielding 73.8% (327/443) responses with follow-up of 90 days or more from symptom onset. The median time between symptom onset of initial illness and completing the participant questionnaire was 222 days (Interquartile range (IQR) 189 to 269 days). In total, 54.7% (179/327) of participants reported they did not feel fully recovered. Persistent symptoms were reported by 93.3% (305/325) of participants, with fatigue the most common (82.8%, 255/308), followed by breathlessness (53.5%, 175/327). 46.8% (153/327) reported an increase in MRC dyspnoea scale of at least one grade. New or worse disability was reported by 24.2% (79/327) of participants. Overall (EQ5D-5L) summary index was significantly worse at the time of follow-up (median difference 0.1 points on a scale of 0 to 1, IQR: -0.2 to 0.0). Females under the age of 50 years were five times less likely to report feeling recovered (adjusted OR 5.09, 95% CI 1.64 to 15.74), were more likely to have greater disability (adjusted OR 4.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 15.94), twice as likely to report worse fatigue (adjusted OR 2.06, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.31) and seven times more likely to become more breathless (adjusted OR 7.15, 95% CI 2.24 to 22.83) than men of the same age. ConclusionsSurvivors of Covid-19 experienced long-term symptoms, new disability, increased breathlessness, and reduced quality of life. These findings were present even in young, previously healthy working age adults, and were most common in younger females. Policymakers should fund further research to identify effective treatments for long-Covid and ensure healthcare, social care and welfare support is available for individuals with long-Covid. Section 1: What is already known on this topicO_LILong-term symptoms after hospitalisation for Covid-19 have been reported, but it is not clear what impact this has on quality of life. C_LIO_LIIt is not known which patient groups are most likely to have long-term persistent symptoms following hospitalisation for Covid-19, or if this differs by disease severity. C_LI Section 2: What this study addsO_LIMore than half of patients reported not being fully recovered 7 months after onset of Covid-19 symptoms. C_LIO_LIPreviously healthy participants and those under the age of 50 had higher odds of worse long-term outcomes compared to older participants and those with comorbidities. C_LIO_LIYounger women and those with more severe acute disease in-hospital had the worst long-term outcomes. C_LIO_LIPolicy makers need to ensure there is long-term support for people experiencing long-Covid and should plan for lasting long-term population morbidity. Funding for research to understand mechanisms underlying long-Covid and identify potential interventions for testing in randomised trials is urgently required. C_LI
RESUMEN
BackgroundWhile it is now apparent clinical sequelae (often called Long Covid) may persist after acute Covid-19, their nature, frequency, and aetiology are poorly characterised. This study aims to regularly synthesise evidence on Long Covid characteristics, to inform clinical management, rehabilitation, and interventional studies to improve long term outcomes. MethodsA living systematic review. Medline, CINAHL (EBSCO), Global Health (Ovid), WHO Global Research Database on Covid-19, LitCOVID, and Google Scholar were searched up to 17th March 2021. Published studies including at least 100 people with confirmed or clinically suspected Covid-19 at 12 weeks or more post-onset were included. Results were analysed using descriptive statistics and meta-analyses to estimate prevalence with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). ResultsThirty-nine studies were included: 32 cohort, six cross-sectional, and one case-control. Most showed high or moderate risk of bias. None were set in low-income countries, limited studies included children. Studies reported on 10,951 people (48% female) in 12 countries. Most followed-up post hospital discharge (78%, 8520/10951). The longest mean follow-up was 221.7 (SD: 10.9) days post Covid-19 onset. An extensive range of symptoms with wide prevalence was reported, most commonly weakness (41%; 95% CI 25% to 59%), malaise (33%; 95% CI 15% to 57%), fatigue (31%; 95% CI 24% to 39%), concentration impairment (26%; 95% CI 21% to 32%), and breathlessness (25%; 95% CI 18% to 34%). Other frequent symptoms included musculoskeletal, neurological, and psychological. 37% (95% CI 18% to 60%) of people reported reduced quality of life. ConclusionLong Covid is a complex condition with heterogeneous symptoms. The nature of the studies precludes a precise case definition or evaluation of risk factors. There is an urgent need for prospective, robust, standardised controlled studies into aetiology, risk factors, and biomarkers to characterise Long Covid in different at-risk populations and settings. Systematic review registrationThe protocol was prospectively registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42020211131). Section 1: What is already known?O_LIA significant number of people continue to describe ongoing symptoms long after the acute phase of Covid-19, often referred to as Long Covid. C_LIO_LILong Covid is a heterogeneous condition with an uncertain prevalence, for which there is currently no precise case definition. C_LI Section 2: What are the new findings?O_LIThis living systematic review provides a comprehensive summary of peer-reviewed published evidence on persistent symptoms of Covid-19 and will be regularly updated as new evidence emerges. C_LIO_LIThe breadth of reported symptoms suggests a complex, heterogeneous condition affecting both those who were hospitalised and those managed in the community. C_LIO_LIOur review identifies weakness (41%; 95% CI 25% to 59%), general malaise (33%; 95% confidence interval 15% to 57%), fatigue (31%; 95% CI 24% to 39%), concentration impairment (26%; 95% CI 21% to 32%) and breathlessness (25%; 95% CI 18% to 34%) as the most common symptoms. C_LI Section 3: What do the new findings imply?O_LIThe current evidence base of the clinical spectrum of Long Covid is limited, based on heterogenous data, and vulnerable to biases, hence caution should be used when interpreting or generalising the results. C_LIO_LIOur review identifies areas where further Long Covid research is critically needed to help characterise Long Covid in different populations and define its aetiology, risk factors, and biomarkers, as well as the impact on variants of concern and vaccination on long term outcomes. C_LI
RESUMEN
ObjectivesTo investigate severe COVID-19 risk by occupational group. MethodsBaseline UK Biobank data (2006-10) for England were linked to SARS-CoV-2 test results from Public Health England (16 March to 26 July 2020). Included participants were employed or self-employed at baseline, alive and aged less than 65 years in 2020. Poisson regression models adjusted sequentially for baseline demographic, socioeconomic, work-related, health, and lifestyle-related risk factors to assess risk ratios (RRs) for testing positive in hospital or death due to COVID-19 by three occupational classification schemes (including Standard Occupation Classification 2000). ResultsOf 120,075 participants, 271 had severe COVID-19. Relative to non-essential workers, healthcare workers (RR 7.43, 95% CI:5.52,10.00), social and education workers (RR 1.84, 95% CI:1.21,2.82) and other essential workers (RR=1.60, 95% CI:1.05,2.45) had higher risk of severe COVID-19. Using more detailed groupings, medical support staff (RR 8.70, 95% CI:4.87,15.55), social care (RR 2.46, 95% CI:1.47,4.14) and transport workers (RR= 2.20, 95% CI:1.21,4.00) had highest risk within the broader groups. Compared to white non-essential workers, non-white non-essential workers had a higher risk (RR 3.27, 95% CI: 1.90,5.62) and non-white essential workers had the highest risk (RR 8.34, 95% CI:5.17,13.47). Using SOC2000 major groups, associate professional and technical occupations, personal service occupations and plant and machine operatives had higher risk, compared to managers and senior officials. ConclusionsEssential workers have higher risk of severe COVID-19. These findings underscore the need for national and organizational policies and practices that protect and support workers with elevated risk of severe COVID-19. Trial registration-N/AO_LSTWhat is already known on this topicC_LSTO_LIEssential workers have a higher exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus due to the nature of their work. C_LIO_LIIn comparison to non-essential workers, healthcare workers appear to have a higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. C_LI O_LSTWhat this study addsC_LSTO_LIHealthcare workers had a more than seven-fold higher risk of severe COVID-19; those working in social care and transport occupations had a two-fold higher risk. C_LIO_LIAdjusting for potential confounding and mediating variables did not fully account for the differences in the observed risk amongst most occupational groups. C_LIO_LINon-white essential workers had the highest risk of severe COVID-19 infection. C_LI O_LSTHow might this impact on policy or clinical practice in the foreseeable future?C_LSTO_LIOur findings reinforce the need for adequate health and safety arrangements and provision of PPE, particularly in the health and social care sectors, and highlight the need for national and organizational policies and practices that protect and support workers with elevated risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. C_LI
RESUMEN
BackgroundInformation on risk factors for COVID-19 is sub-optimal. We investigated demographic, lifestyle, socioeconomic, and clinical risk factors, and compared them to risk factors for pneumonia and influenza in UK Biobank. MethodsUK Biobank recruited 37-70 year olds in 2006-2010 from the general population. The outcome of confirmed COVID-19 infection (positive SARS-CoV-2 test) was linked to baseline UK Biobank data. Incident influenza and pneumonia were obtained from primary care data. Poisson regression was used to study the association of exposure variables with outcomes. FindingsAmong 428,225 participants, 340 had confirmed COVID-19. After multivariable adjustment, modifiable risk factors were higher body mass index (RR 1.24 per SD increase), smoking (RR 1.38), slow walking pace as a proxy for physical fitness (RR 1.66) and use of blood pressure medications as a proxy for hypertension (RR 1.40). Non-modifiable risk factors included older age (RR 1.10 per 5 years), male sex (RR 1.64), black ethnicity (RR 1.86), socioeconomic deprivation (RR 1.26 per SD increase in Townsend Index), longstanding illness (RR 1.38) and high cystatin C (RR 1.24 per 1 SD increase). The risk factors overlapped with pneumonia somewhat; less so for influenza. The associations with modifiable risk factors were generally stronger for COVID-19, than pneumonia or influenza. InterpretationThese findings suggest that modification of lifestyle may help to reduce the risk of COVID-19 and could be a useful adjunct to other interventions, such as social distancing and shielding of high risk. FundingBritish Heart Foundation, Medical Research Council, Chief Scientist Office.
