Preprint medRxiv: Risk of new-onset Long Covid following reinfection with SARS-CoV-2: community-based cohort study, 2023 - Bosworth et al

[Mij]

Abstract
Background: Little is known about the risk of Long Covid following reinfection with SARS-CoV-2. We estimated the likelihood of new-onset, self-reported Long Covid after a second SARS-CoV-2 infection, and compared to a first infection.

Methods: We included UK COVID-19 Infection Survey participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 between 1 November 2021 and 8 October 2022. The primary outcome was self-reported Long Covid 12 to 20 weeks after each infection. Separate analyses were performed for those <16 years and ≥16 years. We estimated adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for new-onset Long Covid using logistic regression, comparing second to first infections, controlling for socio-demographic characteristics and calendar date of infection, plus vaccination status in those ≥16 years.

Results: Overall, Long Covid was reported by those ≥16 years after 4.0% and 2.4% of first and second infections, respectively; the corresponding estimates among those <16 years were 1.0% and 0.6%.
The aOR for Long Covid after second compared to first infections was 0.72 (95% confidence interval: 0.63-0.81) for those ≥16 years and 0.93 (0.57-1.53) for those <16 years.

Conclusions: The risk of new-onset Long Covid after a second SARS-CoV-2 infection is lower than that after a first infection for those ≥16 years, though there is no evidence of a difference in risk for those <16 years. However, there remains some risk of new-onset Long Covid after a second infection, with around 1 in 40 of those ≥16 years and 1 in 165 of those <16 years reporting Long Covid after a second infection.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.04.13.23288522v1

 

[RedFox]

If your first infection has a 4.0% probability of causing long Covid, your second has a 2.4% chance of giving you long covid, and the risk decreases by the same ratio (40%) each infection, your cumulative LC risk approaches 10% as the number of infections becomes large.

 

[rvallee]

Infections don't stop at 2, though. It's really odd that after plenty of people have been infected more than twice, that they just stop there. And not all infections are equal.

 

[CRG]

Merged thread
Wealthiest quintile 3 times more likely to report Long Covid than the poorest quintile - unless PASC is a disease of plenty this must represent a huge degree of reporting bias. The effect is uniform throughout, from poorest to wealthiest.

Extract from Table 1.

 

[SNT Gatchaman]

unless PASC is a disease of plenty this must represent a huge degree of reporting bias

One way it could be "a disease of plenty" would be if there were a generally advantageous immune setup (potentially even evolutionarily promoted)*, that carries the potential for the disease as a very deleterious but rare outcome. If you were generally less likely to be sick through the usual childhood viruses, and your brain development and educational opportunities maximised, that could well promote a higher socio-economic situation in adulthood.

It might even make you look like a "type A" personality or an "over-achiever", tracking with the concept of "yuppie flu".

---
* An example from Prusty's recent interview —

"And this is what brings us to the story of Long Covid and we believe that Long Covid is actually not completely because of the SARS-CoV-2 infection, because if that is the case, all those patients with severe Covid infection should develop more Long Covid, but this is not the case if we look into the statistics: it is the mild and the moderate infected patients — they develop Long Covid."

"So we believe that when the SARS-CoV-2 comes in with a very limited number, it has to fight against our own innate immune system. And there is the possibility that they enter into the cell where they face an already standing latent virus. In most of the cases it is EBV, but in some cases it is Varicella zoster virus, HHV6A and 6B like this. And they cause the reactivation of the viruses."

"It was the beginning of 2020 when we first isolated the SARS-CoV-2 from the patients, we took cells which were carrying the latent HHV6 and we infected these cells with SARS-CoV-2. And we saw the virus [HHV6] starting to come out — and the interesting feature was that when the herpesvirus type 6 reactivated inside the cell, it pushed the SARS-CoV-2 down. It prevents the SARS-CoV-2 to infect and grow further."

 

[alktipping]

It could also be because wealthy professionals are less likely to be fobbed off by their doctors .

 

[SNT Gatchaman]

It could also be because wealthy professionals are less likely to be fobbed off by their doctors .

Except it's self-reported —

The primary outcome was new-onset Long Covid of any severity according to the survey question: “Would you describe yourself as having Long Covid, that is, you are still experiencing symptoms more than 4 weeks after you first had COVID-19, that are not explained by something else?” Participants who responded positively to this question were then also asked about the extent to which their symptoms limited their ability to undertake daily activities (a lot, a little, or not at all), and the presence or absence of 21 individual symptoms attributed to Long Covid (the most commonly reported when the survey question was developed [8-10]). The secondary outcome was activity limiting Long Covid (no Long Covid or Long Covid without activity limitation versus activity limited a little or a lot by Long Covid).

 

[RedFox]

Wealthier people are more likely to have time to read about long Covid and thus understand what it is.

 

[NelliePledge]

If you have paid sick absence you are at least permitted some days to recognise you’re ill and seek diagnosis. If you are in precarious employment likely to push through to a much greater extent to keep the job, not able to pursue diagnosis Similarly if you personally have some savings/no savings. Better off parents, parents with no resources or no parents.

 

[CRG]

One way it could be "a disease of plenty" would be if there were a generally advantageous immune setup (potentially even evolutionarily promoted)*, that carries the potential for the disease as a very deleterious but rare outcome. If you were generally less likely to be sick through the usual childhood viruses, and your brain development and educational opportunities maximised, that could well promote a higher socio-economic situation in adulthood.

It might even make you look like a "type A" personality or an "over-achiever", tracking with the concept of "yuppie flu".

---
* An example from Prusty's recent interview —

I could understand a stepped or steep gradient effect between a negative and positive population - we see that in Type2 immunity as mediated by helminth infection* which has a broad poverty/wealth split at GDP per Country. But the gradient in this post COVID study is fairly smooth - there's a steeper gradient between the lowest and 2nd lowest but if we take that as significant we would be looking at some notable protection from being very poor as opposed to being not quite at the bottom. I can't see this as anything other than reporting and/or selection bias that is mediated by social status. I am surprised that the authors make no comment.

That healthy in childhood individuals have greater socioeconomic opportunities seems highly probable but equally it seems unlikely that is something which would tightly describe the whole of the UK's social stratification; if it were a defining factor then given wealth disparity identifiable by ethnicity: Percentage of households in the bottom 2 and top 2 income quintiles (before housing costs) it should be expected to reflect in PASC risk, but does not appear to be so: Fig. 2: Risk factors associated with long COVID from meta-analyses of LS findings alongside corresponding analyses from EHRs - in simple terms UK Afro-Caribbean heritage is heavily linked to low income (and COVID death !) but that does not coincide with any noticeable protection from PASC; UK Pakistani and Bangladeshi heritage peoples would also be relevant in this context but the PASC data does not distinguish them separately in the wider South Asian category.

Prusty's argument seems misplaced to me. I don't think the data exists to support his assertion that "it is the mild and the moderate infected patients — they develop Long Covid." unless by Long COVID he means something more specific than PASC **


*Effects of helminths on the human immune response and the microbiome & Regulation of immunity and allergy by helminth parasites & map

**6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study & Physical, cognitive, and mental health impacts of COVID-19 after hospitalisation (PHOSP-COVID) and Long COVID: post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 with a cardiovascular focus from which:

"Contrary to the variability seen in reported disease prevalence, risk factors for long COVID tend to be fairly consistent, with female sex, escalating age, obesity, asthma, poor general health, poor pre-pandemic mental health, poor sociodemographic factors emerging as important determinants across several studies."

 

[SNT Gatchaman]

Published as —

Risk of New-Onset Long COVID Following Reinfection With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2: A Community-Based Cohort Study
Bosworth, Matthew L; Shenhuy, Boran; Walker, A Sarah; Nafilyan, Vahé; Alwan, Nisreen A; O’Hara, Margaret E; Ayoubkhani, Daniel

Background. Little is known about the risk of long COVID following reinfection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We estimated the likelihood of new-onset, self-reported long COVID after a second SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared to a first infection.

Methods. We included UK COVID-19 Infection Survey participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 between 1 November 2021 and 8 October 2022. The primary outcome was self-reported long COVID 12–20 weeks after each infection. Separate analyses were performed for those <16 years and ≥16 years. We estimated adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for new-onset long COVID using logistic regression, comparing second to first infections, controlling for sociodemographic characteristics and calendar date of infection, plus vaccination status in participants ≥16 years of age.

Results. Overall, long COVID was reported by those ≥16 years after 4.0% and 2.4% of first and second infections, respectively; the corresponding estimates among those aged <16 years were 1.0% and 0.6%. The aOR for long COVID after second compared to first infections was 0.72 (95% confidence interval [CI], .63–.81) for those ≥16 years and 0.93 (95% CI, .57–1.53) for those <16 years.

Conclusions. The risk of new-onset long COVID after a second SARS-CoV-2 infection is lower than that after a first infection for persons aged ≥16 years, though there is no evidence of a difference in risk for those <16 years. However, there remains some risk of new-onset long COVID after a second infection, with around 1 in 40 of those aged ≥16 years and 1 in 165 of those <16 years reporting long COVID after a second infection.

Link | PDF (Open Forum Infectious Diseases)