Our pre-print on "The epidemiology of long COVID in US adults two years after the start of the US SARS-CoV-2 pandemic". 7.3% of the US adult population (~18.5 million) reported having long COVID by July. What does the epidemiology look like? bit.ly/CUNYlongcovid [thread]
Persistence of symptoms: One-quarter (25.3% [18.2-32.4%]) of respondents with long COVID reported their day-to-day activities were impacted 'a lot' and 28.9% had SARS-CoV-2 infection >12 months ago.
The age- and sex-adjusted prevalence of long COVID was higher among respondents who were female (aPR: 1.84 [1.40-2.42]), had comorbidities (aPR: 1.55 [1.19-2.00]) or were not (versus were) boosted (aPR: 1.67 [1.19-2.34]) or not vaccinated (versus boosted) (aPR: 1.41 (1.05-1.91)).
Long COVID prevalence was lower in those aged 18-24 (vs. 25-34)(aPR: 0.50 [0.30-0.84]), aged 65+ (vs. 25-34) (aPR: 0.43 [0.27-0.66]), Black NH (vs. White NH) (aPR:0.60 [0.38- 0.96]), Hispanic (vs. White NH) (aPR:0.57 [0.37-0.89]), or API NH (vs. White NH) (aPR:0.44 [0.21-0.93]).
Our estimate of prevalence (7.3% among adults) is more than twice that of the UK (2.8% among those 2 and older). To compare, if no US children or adolescents aged 2-17 years have long COVID, the prevalence of long COVID among those aged 2+ would be approximately 5.4%. Why?
Identifying groups at higher risk for long COVID is key to managing the long term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many studies of long COVID risk factors are among hospitalized or care-seeking populations, which overrepresent those with comorbidities and health care access.
Some differences were observed in the risk factors for long COVID versus those for SARS-CoV-2 infection. e.g., while females were less likely to have ever had SARS-CoV-2 infection, they were much more likely to have long COVID more than 2 years into the US pandemic.
We found that the duration of long COVID symptoms extends to more than 12 months for many people, but that the impact of long COVID on daily living decreases with time since the most recent infection, suggesting possible improvement in long COVID symptoms over time.
Our study has some limitations worth noting:
Strengths include the representative and probability-based design of the survey, the ability for the survey to reflect outcomes among those who do not access the healthcare system for their COVID infection(s) or long COVID, and the use of similar long COVID questions to the UK.
Our findings underscore the importance of using a nationally-representative sample to obtain estimates of disease burden when passive surveillance cannot. Such approaches may be helpful for current and future infectious disease outbreaks and pandemics.
1. In our new (not yet peer reviewed) pre-print on NYC's BA.2/BA.2.12.1 surge, in a population-representative sample, we estimated SARS-CoV-2 prevalence to be 22.1% during April 23-May 8 (about 1.8M adults). About 31 times the official case count. medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
2. We examined a lot of other key measures, like the prevalence among those who are most vulnerable to severe outcomes, hybrid protection (i.e., from vaccination and prior infection), and awareness/uptake of the antiviral Paxlovid(TM). Here are some more highlights:
3. SARS-CoV-2 Prevalence was estimated at 34.9% (95%CI 26.9%- 42.8%) among individuals with co-morbidities, 14.9% (95% CI 11.0%-18.8%) among those 65+ years, and 18.9% (95%CI 10.2%-27.5%) among unvaccinated persons.
In our new (not yet peer reviewed) pre-print, we estimated the period prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 to be 27.4% (95%CI: 22.8%-32.0%) among adults during the latter half of NYC's BA.1 omicron surge, corresponding to about 1.8M people (95%CI: 1.6-2.1 million). medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
The 27.4% estimate includes: 1) 14.1% (95%CI 10.4%-17.8%) who were positive on a test with a provider; 2) 5.2% (95%CI 3.1%-7.3%) who were positive exclusively on at-home rapid tests; and 3) 8.1% (95%CI 5.4%-10.9%) who met the definition for possible SARS-CoV-2 infection.
We also found that prevalence was high among groups that are more vulnerable to severe SARS-CoV-2 and death, including unvaccinated persons (21.7%, 95%CI 9.6%-33.8%) and those aged 65+ (17.8%, 95%CI 10.2-25.4%).
In an op-Ed for Barron’s, I highlight the need for more use of evidence-based strategies to limit the impact of the omicron surge on the healthcare system and other sectors in society. Vaccines and boosters alone will not get us to the other side. 1/8 barrons.com/articles/cdc-g…
Omicron may be so much more infectious in part because of a longer infectious period vs delta. With omicron, many people report they are still positive on rapid antigen tests out to day 8, 9, 10 after diagnosis. This is new, and at odds with recent CDC isolation guidance. 2/8
Sadly though, not enough people with covid are isolating. Our national study found that only 29% of those with serologic evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection reported self-isolating. 3/8 medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
Daily cases from labs and testing providers have always massively undercounted the true number of cases. And they are subject to all sorts of secular trends in testing practices, like the increasing use of at home rapid tests. Going forward, maybe we can.. nytimes.com/2021/12/30/us/…
complement routine case data with daily phone/web-based surveys of households to count people with a recent at home positive rapid test who didn’t get it confirmed by a testing provider. We can also ascertain the point prevalence of people with symptoms who didn’t test at all…
We could also ask about whether people with active infection are isolating and masking of all in the household. For those without active infection, we could ask about vaccine/booster status and plans to vaccinate. School attendance. This would be valuable for health department.
This is a huge development. With regard to the science, there is still a lot to be learned about why omicron may be much more transmissible than prior variants. It could be that there is a longer infectious period with omicron. Masking will be critical for infected/exposed. 1/3
Also, since so many people’s immune systems now recognize covid (because of prior vaccination or infection), the first symptoms many experience may be immune-response related, and occur prior to the infectious period. See great thread on this from @michaelmina_lab below.
I think it is very important for @cdc to be clear about the science and evidence behind guidance like this. I am esp thinking about whether the incubation and infectious periods of omicron are similar to prior strains. And how being immunologically primed alters things.
I am speechless that it is coming to this, and that our politicians and governments would implement a policy like this without (and before) other needed drastic measures to reduce the potential for pandemic surges to burden the health care system… gothamist.com/news/hochul-an…
When our frontline health care workers are getting covid, either while at work, on the way to and from work, or in their own communities and households, we have failed them and society.
When our frontline health care workers are exhausted because of an endless and overwhelming stream of largely preventable hospitalizations landing on their laps every day, we have failed them and society. This has happened repeatedly over the course of this pandemic.