RESUMO
ImportanceWhile much of the attention on the COVID-19 pandemic was directed at the daily counts of cases and those with serious disease overwhelming health services, increasingly, reports have appeared of people who experience debilitating symptoms after the initial infection. This is popularly known as long COVID. ObjectiveTo estimate by country and territory of the number of patients affected by long COVID in 2020 and 2021, the severity of their symptoms and expected pattern of recovery DesignWe jointly analyzed ten ongoing cohort studies in ten countries for the occurrence of three major symptom clusters of long COVID among representative COVID cases. The defining symptoms of the three clusters (fatigue, cognitive problems, and shortness of breath) are explicitly mentioned in the WHO clinical case definition. For incidence of long COVID, we adopted the minimum duration after infection of three months from the WHO case definition. We pooled data from the contributing studies, two large medical record databases in the United States, and findings from 44 published studies using a Bayesian meta-regression tool. We separately estimated occurrence and pattern of recovery in patients with milder acute infections and those hospitalized. We estimated the incidence and prevalence of long COVID globally and by country in 2020 and 2021 as well as the severity-weighted prevalence using disability weights from the Global Burden of Disease study. ResultsAnalyses are based on detailed information for 1906 community infections and 10526 hospitalized patients from the ten collaborating cohorts, three of which included children. We added published data on 37262 community infections and 9540 hospitalized patients as well as ICD-coded medical record data concerning 1.3 million infections. Globally, in 2020 and 2021, 144.7 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 54.8-312.9) people suffered from any of the three symptom clusters of long COVID. This corresponds to 3.69% (1.38-7.96) of all infections. The fatigue, respiratory, and cognitive clusters occurred in 51.0% (16.9-92.4), 60.4% (18.9-89.1), and 35.4% (9.4-75.1) of long COVID cases, respectively. Those with milder acute COVID-19 cases had a quicker estimated recovery (median duration 3.99 months [IQR 3.84-4.20]) than those admitted for the acute infection (median duration 8.84 months [IQR 8.10-9.78]). At twelve months, 15.1% (10.3-21.1) continued to experience long COVID symptoms. Conclusions and relevanceThe occurrence of debilitating ongoing symptoms of COVID-19 is common. Knowing how many people are affected, and for how long, is important to plan for rehabilitative services and support to return to social activities, places of learning, and the workplace when symptoms start to wane. Key PointsO_ST_ABSQuestionC_ST_ABSWhat are the extent and nature of the most common long COVID symptoms by country in 2020 and 2021? FindingsGlobally, 144.7 million people experienced one or more of three symptom clusters (fatigue; cognitive problems; and ongoing respiratory problems) of long COVID three months after infection, in 2020 and 2021. Most cases arose from milder infections. At 12 months after infection, 15.1% of these cases had not yet recovered. MeaningThe substantial number of people with long COVID are in need of rehabilitative care and support to transition back into the workplace or education when symptoms start to wane.
RESUMO
The recent emergence of the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has led to an ongoing global COVID-19 pandemic and public health crisis. Detailed study of human immune response to SARS-COVIS-2 infection is the important topic for a successful treatment of this disease. Our study was aimed to characterize immune response on the level of antibody profiling in convalescent plasma of patients in Georgia. Antibodies against the following SARS-COV-2 proteins were studied: nucleocapsid and various regions of Spike (S) protein: S1, S2 and Receptor binding domain (RBD). Convalescent plasma of patients 6-8 weeks after initial confirmation of SARS-COV-2 infection were tested. Nearly 80% out of 154 patients studied showed presence of antibodies against nucleocapsid protein. The antibody response to three fragments of S protein was significantly less and varied in the range of 20-30%. Significantly more females as compared to males were producing antibodies against S1 fragment, whereas the difference between genders by the antibodies against nucleocapsid protein and RBD was statistically significant only by one-tailed Fisher exact test. There were no differences between the males and females by antibodies against S2 fragment. Thus, immune response against some viral antigens are stronger in females and we suggest that it could be one of the factors of less female fatality after SARS-COVID-2 infection.
RESUMO
BackgroundBetween February and June 2020, 917 COVID-19 cases and 14 COVID-19-related deaths were reported in Georgia. Early on, Georgia implemented non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) including extensive contact tracing and restrictions on movement. AimTo characterize the demographics of those tested and infected with COVID-19 in Georgia; to evaluate factors associated with transmission between cases and their contacts; and to determine how transmission varied due to NPI up to 24 June 2020. MethodsWe use data gathered by the Georgian National Center for Disease Control on all polymerase chain reaction tests conducted (among symptomatic patients, through routine testing and contact tracing); hospitalization data for confirmed cases, and contact tracing data. We calculated the number of contacts per index case, the secondary attack rate (% contacts infected), and effective R number (new cases per index case), and used logistic regression to estimate how age, gender, and contact type affected transmission. ResultsMost contacts and transmission events were between family members. Contacts <40 years were less likely to be infected, while infected individuals >50 were more likely to die than younger patients. Contact tracing identified 917 index cases with mean 3.1 contacts tested per case, primarily family members. The overall secondary attack rate was 28% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 26-29%) and effective R number was 0.87 (95%CI 0.81-0.93), peaking at 1.1 (95%CI 0.98-1.2) during the period with strongest restrictions. ConclusionGeorgia effectively controlled the COVID-19 epidemic in its early stages, although evidence does not suggest transmission was reduced during the strict lockdown period. Research in ContextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSWe searched PubMed and MedRxiv for papers reporting research using contact tracing data to evaluate the characteristics of the COVID-19 epidemic in any country. A number of analyses were identified from Asia, including China, Taiwan, Maldives, Thailand, South Korea, and India, but none from other regions other than one previous analysis conducted in Europe, focusing on the first two months of the COVID-19 epidemic in Cyprus. Studies evaluated number of contacts and different contact types, secondary attack rate, and effective R number. However, none of these studies compared characteristics between different time periods or under varied levels of non-pharmaceutical interventions or restrictions on social mixing. Added value of this studyIn this study, we use contact tracing data from Georgia from all cases identified in the first four months of the epidemic, as well as testing and hospitalization data, to evaluate the number and type of contacts, effective R number (new cases per index case), and secondary attack rate (proportion of contacts infected) in this population, and whether these measures changed before, during, and after the lockdown period. We also evaluated how the chance of transmission varied by type of index case and contact. Our results indicate that number of contacts remained relatively low throughout the study period, so although the secondary attack rate was relatively high (28%) compared to that seen in studies in Asia (10-15%), the effective R number was less than one overall, peaking at 1.1 (0.98-1.2) during the strictest lockdown period, with easing of restrictions corresponding to a lower effective R of 0.87 (0.77-0.97). Most transmission occurred between family members with transmission very low between co-workers, friends, neighbours, and medical personnel, indicating that the restrictions on social mixing were effective at keeping the epidemic under control during this period. Implications of all the available evidenceOur study presents the first analysis of the successful control of a COVID-19 epidemic in a European country, indicating that despite a high secondary attack rate, reduction in contacts outside the home, and a well-timed lockdown, were able to keep transmission under control.
