A systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of vaccination on prevention of long COVID, 2025, Green et al.

[Chandelier]

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of vaccination on prevention of long COVID

Spoiler: Authors

Green, Rhiannon; Marjenberg, Zoe; Lip, Gregory Y. H.; Banerjee, Amitava; Wisnivesky, Juan; Delaney, Brendan C.; Peluso, Michael J.; Wynberg, Elke; Abduljawad, Sultan

Abstract​

Long COVID affects millions worldwide and its prevention is a critical public health strategy.
While prior analyses show primary vaccination prevents long COVID in subsequent infections, the effect of booster vaccination on long COVID after Omicron infections is unclear.

This systematic review identifies 31 observational studies, of which 11 are suitable for pairwise meta-analyses.
The pooled odds ratio (OR) of long COVID in those vaccinated (any dose) versus unvaccinated is 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70–0.85; p < 0.0001; 10 studies). ORs were also lower for primary course vaccination versus unvaccinated (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.79–0.83; p < 0.0001; 3 studies), booster vaccination versus unvaccinated (OR 0.74; 95% CI 0.63–0.86; p = 0.0001; 4 studies), and booster vaccination versus primary course vaccination (OR 77; 95% CI 0.65–0.92; p = 0.0044; 3 studies).

These findings indicate that booster vaccination can provide additional protection against long COVID, highlighting the importance of seasonal vaccination against new SARS-CoV-2 variants.
They should, however, be interpreted cautiously, given the small number of studies and the low quality of evidence.

Web | DOI | PDF | Nature Communications

 

[Sean]

If this finding holds up then it would seem to provide good evidence that LC is biologically based.

 

[rvallee]

If this finding holds up then it would seem to provide good evidence that LC is biologically based.

You are wildly underestimating the doublethink reflex in medicine that will easily find ways to frame this as being about worry and/or anxiety as a protection from the psychosomatics and learn absolutely nothing from it. The hole they have dug for us is far too deep to acknowledge.

The deconditioning hypothesis and the rehab model have been completely debunked, and yet they are going as strong as ever. In fact, many are saying that it has been strengthened. Somehow. There is something deeply wrong with this profession and how it handles its many mistakes.

I generally expect the worst and so far it has never failed me once. Sometimes it came close to not failing, but it always does in the end.