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

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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 —

 

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

 

Except it's self-reported —

 

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

 

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."

 

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)