A 24-month National Cohort Study examining long-term effects of COVID-19 in children and young people, 2024, Stephenson

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43856-024-00657-x

• Published: 04 December 2024

A 24-month National Cohort Study examining long-term effects of COVID-19 in children and young people

Abstract

Background
Some children and young people (CYP) infected with SARS-COV-2 experience impairing symptoms post-infection, known as post-COVID-19 condition (PCC). Using data from the National Long COVID in Children and Young People (CloCk) study, we report symptoms and their impact up to 24-months post-infection.

Methods
CloCk is a cohort of CYP in England aged 11-to-17-years when they had a SARS-CoV-2 PCR-test (between September 2020 and March 2021). Of 31,012 eligible CYP 24-months post-PCR test, 12,632 participated (response = 40.7%). CYP were grouped by infection status: ‘initial test-negatives; no subsequent positive-test’ (NN); ‘initial test-negatives; subsequent positive-test’ (NP); ‘initial test-positives; no reported re-infection’ (PN); and ‘initial test-positives; reported re-infection’ (PP). The Delphi research definition of PCC in CYP was operationalised; symptom severity/impact and validated scales (e.g., Chalder Fatigue Scale) were recorded. We examine symptom profiles 24-month post-index-test by infection status.

Results
7.2% of CYP consistently fulfil the PCC definition at 3-, 6-, 12- and 24-months. These CYPs have a median of 5-to-6 symptoms at each time-point. Between 20% and 25% of all infection status groups report 3+ symptoms 24-months post-testing; 10–25% experience 5+ symptoms. The reinfected group has more symptoms than the other positive groups; the NN group has the lowest symptom burden (p < 0.001). PCC is more common in older CYPs and in the most deprived. Symptom severity/impact is higher in those fulfilling the PCC definition.

Conclusions
The discrepancy in the proportion of CYP fulfilling the Delphi PCC definition at 24-months and those consistently fulfilling the definition across time, highlights the importance of longitudinal studies and the need to consider clinical impairment and range of symptoms.

Plain language summary
Some children and young people infected with SARS-COV-2 experience impairing symptoms long after infection; this is known as ‘Long COVID’. We used data from the Long COVID in Children and Young People (CloCk) study to describe symptoms and how much they impact children and young people’s lives 24-months post-infection. We found that 7.2% of children and young people consistently meet the ‘Long COVID’ research definition at 3-, 6-, 12- and 24-months post-infection. These children and young people reported around 5-to-6 symptoms at each time-point. Reinfected children and young people had more symptoms than children and young people who report one infection; those who report no infection had the lowest symptom burden. When researching Long COVID, we need to consider clinical impairment and the range of symptoms reported.

 

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1066700

News Release 4-Dec-2024
70% of young people with long Covid recover within two years

Peer-reviewed | Survey | People

Peer-Reviewed Publication
University College London



Most young people who were confirmed to have long Covid three months after a positive PCR test had recovered within 24 months, finds a new study led by UCL researchers.

The Children and young people with Long Covid (CLoCK) study, published in Nature Communications Medicine and funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), is the world’s largest longitudinal cohort study on long Covid in children.

The researchers, led by Professor Sir Terence Stephenson and Professor Roz Shafran (both UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health), asked young people aged 11 to 17 about their health three, six, 12 and 24 months after taking a PCR test for the Covid virus between September 2020 and March 2021. They also asked them to recall their symptoms at the time of taking the test.

In February 2022, the researchers published a consensus definition of long Covid* which involved a young person having more than one symptom (such as tiredness, trouble sleeping, shortness of breath or headaches) alongside problems with either mobility, self-care, doing usual activities, having pain/discomfort, or feeling very worried or sad.

The researchers used this definition for their new study, which examined data from 12,632 young people who had a PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes Covid-19). They found that around 25-30% of young people met the research definition of long Covid 24 months after their initial PCR test.

Of the 12,632 young people in total, there were 943 who had tested positive when first approached and who provided answers at every time point: three, six, 12 and 24 months after their original test.

Of these 943 young people, 233 met the research definition of long Covid three months after their initial positive test. At six months,135 continued to meet the research definition of long Covid. At 12 months, 94 continued to fulfil the long Covid research definition.

However, only 68 of these 943 children and young people (7.2%) continued to fulfil the long Covid research definition when contacted 24 months after their initial positive test.

This means that 24 months after a proven Covid infection, 165 of the 233 young people (70%) who had long Covid three months after the infection and provided information at every time point in the research had recovered. But 68 of the 233 (30%) had not.

Older teenagers and the most deprived were less likely to have recovered. And, strikingly, females were almost twice as likely to still meet the research definition of long Covid at 24 months, compared to males.

However, the researchers note that they did not assess menstruation and some symptoms (such as headaches and tiredness) may be attributable to pre-menstrual syndrome given the high proportion of girls.

Study Chief Investigator and first author, Professor Sir Terence Stephenson, said: “Our findings show that for teenagers who fulfilled our research definition of long Covid three months after a positive test for the Covid virus, the majority have recovered after two years. This is good news but we intend to do further research to try to better understand why 68 teenagers had not recovered.”

The CLoCK study is a major study funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) and UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) to help improve understanding of the causes, symptoms and treatment of the longer-term effects of Covid-19 in people who have not become unwell enough to be admitted to hospital.

The study was co-led by the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) in collaboration with researchers at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust (GOSH), Imperial College London, King’s College London, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, the Universities of Bristol, Cambridge, Edinburgh, Liverpool, Manchester and Oxford, and University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. CLoCK also works closely with a patient and public involvement advisory group.

Following the 24-month results, data from all time points are now publicly available for other researchers.

The UCL researchers recently published a commentary**, alongside colleagues at GOSH and the University of Brighton, on why better collaboration is needed between clinicians, interventionalists, epidemiologists, statisticians and those with lived experience to ensure a more effective, coordinated response ahead of future pandemics.

Study limitations

The symptoms reported by participants at the time of testing are subject to recall bias as they were reported at the time of first contact with the CLoCK study. However, three-month, six-month, 12-month and 24-month symptoms were reported at the time they were being experienced.

Of the 31,012 children and young people invited to fill in a questionnaire 24-months post-PCR test, 12,632 of them participated and so this is a self-selected group which may introduce bias in the results.

Original PCR tests were taken before the Delta and Omicron variants became dominant, so the findings may not reflect the long-term effects of these variants.

Children and young people self-reported their symptoms. In some instances, such as to assess shortness of breath, it may have been better to conduct in-person medical interviews. However, this was not feasible or practical during the study period.

Importantly, the study primarily focuses on children and young people in England and the findings may not be directly applicable to other populations or countries with different healthcare systems, vaccination rates and demographics.

* https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2022/feb/first-research-definition-long-covid-children-and-young-people

** https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/01410768241262661

Journal
Communications Medicine

DOI
10.1038/s43856-024-00657-x

Method of Research
Survey

Subject of Research
People

Article Title
Long-term effects of Covid-19 in children and young people: A 24-month national cohort study

Article Publication Date
4-Dec-2024

 

Not one mention of ME/CFS, CFS, or even 'chronic fatigue' — just one instance of 'chronic post-viral syndrome.' At this point it's deliberate ignorance and obfuscation.

 

No mention of PEM

 

So if I get this right, this group published a preliminary study some years ago basically concluding "Long Covid in kids? Doesn't seem to happen." Then in this study they undercount by skipping over some issues, and still find about 7%, which they argue is great news in press releases since there was the possibility that it may be as high as 30%. As if being ill for 2+ years is no big deal. Which they may even believe, since it's not happening to them and they don't know or care what it is.

So given that this is a known group of minimizers and deniers with a clear agenda, it's a significant undercount, holding up at least a rough 10% or so prevalence from many other studies. Which is presented as great news. Because it could have been worse. Even though this very group and nearly the entire medical profession was initially united in dismissing this even existing in the first place. Even though it still can't argue that reinfections are not a significant problem, which are guaranteed to happen because said profession has been willfully complicit in pretending otherwise.

With experts like this, might as well just put the Internet trolls in charge of everything.