Wyva
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Key Points
Question What is the prevalence of long COVID in the Innovative Support for Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry (INSPIRE) cohort based on definitions in published literature?
Findings In this prospective cohort study of 4575 INSPIRE participants, when replicating long COVID definitions used in the 5 published studies with the largest sample size of reviewed studies, the prevalence of long COVID among participants who were COVID-19 positive varied at 3 months from 32% to 42% and at 6 months from 15% to 22%.
Meaning The findings suggest that long COVID prevalence estimates vary as a function of disparate definitions used.
Abstract
Importance Long COVID definitions vary widely, and no consensus exists on how to accurately measure its prevalence, complicating both clinical care and research.
Objective To assess long COVID prevalence using various definitions from published literature.
Design, Setting, and Participants This prospective, multicenter cohort study used data from the longitudinal Innovative Support for Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry (INSPIRE). Participants aged 18 years or older with symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 illness at the time of their index SARS-CoV-2 test enrolled at 8 sites across the US from December 11, 2020, through August 29, 2022, with follow-up surveys collected through February 28, 2023.
Exposure Positive or negative SARS-CoV-2 test result at the time of acute symptoms.
Main Outcomes and Measures Long COVID prevalence among INSPIRE participants with a positive vs negative index SARS-CoV-2 test, based on long COVID definitions in published literature. Secondary outcomes were sensitivity and specificity of published definitions compared with self-reported long COVID.
Results A total of 4575 INSPIRE participants were included (mean [SD] age, 40.40 [14.58] years). Most were female (3013 of 4448 [67.7%]) and aged 18 to 49 years (3338 of 4541 [73.5%]). Applying 5 published definitions for long COVID yielded a prevalence that ranged from 30.84% (95% CI, 29.33%-32.40%) to 42.01% (95% CI, 40.37%-43.66%) at 3 months and 14.23% (95% CI, 13.01%-15.55%) to 21.94% (95% CI, 20.47%-23.47%) at 6 months postinfection; in the 5 comparator studies, reported prevalence of long COVID at 1 to 5 months postinfection ranged from 2.6% (≥84 days) to 47.4% (3-5 months) and at 6 or more months postinfection ranged from 10.0% (95% CI, 8.8%-11.0%) to 61.9% (6-11 months). Using participants’ self-reported long COVID as a criterion standard, existing published definitions had low-to-moderate sensitivity (up to 66.32% [95% CI, 62.59%-69.90%] at 3 months and 45.53% [95% CI, 41.51%-49.60%] at 6 months) and high specificity (up to 81.29% [95% CI, 79.32%-83.15%] at 3 months and 94.26% [95% CI, 92.98%-95.37%]) at 6 months.
Conclusions and Relevance In this cohort study, variability in long COVID prevalence across published definitions highlights the need for a standardized, validated definition to improve clinical recognition and research comparability, ultimately guiding more accurate diagnosis and treatment strategies.
Open access: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2837446
Question What is the prevalence of long COVID in the Innovative Support for Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry (INSPIRE) cohort based on definitions in published literature?
Findings In this prospective cohort study of 4575 INSPIRE participants, when replicating long COVID definitions used in the 5 published studies with the largest sample size of reviewed studies, the prevalence of long COVID among participants who were COVID-19 positive varied at 3 months from 32% to 42% and at 6 months from 15% to 22%.
Meaning The findings suggest that long COVID prevalence estimates vary as a function of disparate definitions used.
Abstract
Importance Long COVID definitions vary widely, and no consensus exists on how to accurately measure its prevalence, complicating both clinical care and research.
Objective To assess long COVID prevalence using various definitions from published literature.
Design, Setting, and Participants This prospective, multicenter cohort study used data from the longitudinal Innovative Support for Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry (INSPIRE). Participants aged 18 years or older with symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 illness at the time of their index SARS-CoV-2 test enrolled at 8 sites across the US from December 11, 2020, through August 29, 2022, with follow-up surveys collected through February 28, 2023.
Exposure Positive or negative SARS-CoV-2 test result at the time of acute symptoms.
Main Outcomes and Measures Long COVID prevalence among INSPIRE participants with a positive vs negative index SARS-CoV-2 test, based on long COVID definitions in published literature. Secondary outcomes were sensitivity and specificity of published definitions compared with self-reported long COVID.
Results A total of 4575 INSPIRE participants were included (mean [SD] age, 40.40 [14.58] years). Most were female (3013 of 4448 [67.7%]) and aged 18 to 49 years (3338 of 4541 [73.5%]). Applying 5 published definitions for long COVID yielded a prevalence that ranged from 30.84% (95% CI, 29.33%-32.40%) to 42.01% (95% CI, 40.37%-43.66%) at 3 months and 14.23% (95% CI, 13.01%-15.55%) to 21.94% (95% CI, 20.47%-23.47%) at 6 months postinfection; in the 5 comparator studies, reported prevalence of long COVID at 1 to 5 months postinfection ranged from 2.6% (≥84 days) to 47.4% (3-5 months) and at 6 or more months postinfection ranged from 10.0% (95% CI, 8.8%-11.0%) to 61.9% (6-11 months). Using participants’ self-reported long COVID as a criterion standard, existing published definitions had low-to-moderate sensitivity (up to 66.32% [95% CI, 62.59%-69.90%] at 3 months and 45.53% [95% CI, 41.51%-49.60%] at 6 months) and high specificity (up to 81.29% [95% CI, 79.32%-83.15%] at 3 months and 94.26% [95% CI, 92.98%-95.37%]) at 6 months.
Conclusions and Relevance In this cohort study, variability in long COVID prevalence across published definitions highlights the need for a standardized, validated definition to improve clinical recognition and research comparability, ultimately guiding more accurate diagnosis and treatment strategies.
Open access: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2837446