Preprint Prevalence of long-term symptoms varies by using different post-COVID-19 definitions in positively & negatively tested adults:PRIME study, 2023, Pagen

E

EndME

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Prevalence of long-term symptoms varies by using different post-COVID-19 definitions in positively and negatively tested adults: the PRIME post-COVID study

Abstract
Background
Long-term symptoms after a SARS-CoV-2 infection (i.e., post-COVID-19 condition or long COVID), constitute a substantial public health problem. Yet, the prevalence remains currently unclear as different case definitions are used, and negatively tested controls are lacking. We aimed to estimate post-COVID-19 condition prevalence using six definitions.

Methods
The Prevalence, Risk factors, and Impact Evaluation (PRIME) post-COVID-19 condition study is a population-based sample of COVID-19 tested adults. End 2021, 61,655 adults were invited to complete an online questionnaire, including 44 symptoms plus a severity score (0-10) per symptom. The prevalence was calculated in both positively and negatively tested adults, stratified by time since their COVID-19 test (3-5, 6-11 or ≥12 months ago).

Results
In positives (n=7,405; 75.6%), the prevalence of long-term symptoms was between 26.9% and 64.1% using the six definitions, while in negatives (n=2,392; 24.4%) the prevalence varied between 11.4% and 32.5%. The prevalence of long-term symptoms potentially accountable to COVID-19 ranged from 17.9% to 26.3%.

Conclusion
There is a (substantial) variation in prevalence estimates by using different definitions as is current practice, showing limited overlap between definitions, indicating that the essential post-COVID-19 condition criteria are still unclear. Including negatives is important to determine long-term symptoms accountable to COVID-19. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05128695.


https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10....1?rss=1&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
 
Last edited:
I hope the researchers become more aware of the limitations of such studies. People that haven't had Covid hardly exist anymore. Even at the End of 2021 it's not unlikely that less than 50% of controls are actually controls. I don't know how this can be managed. Of course there can be the control group of people which had any of the following types of infection: asymptomatic, not noticed, infected but test was negative or no infection, but is that of as much use?

Controls are urgently needed. But how?
 
EndME said:
I'm not able to comprehend that. We need good controls now, what is the impact of future generations on that?
Click to expand...
I don't see how we are going to get good controls now. Not even for comparing number of covid infections. The only way I see to get controls would be that the generations after us are not infected.

I have, as far as I know, not been infected by covid. Neither has my boyfriend. And by that I mean no positive covid rapid tests. But even with multiple covid tests when we have been infected by -something- in the last few years, I don't feel sure to say we haven't had it. We both still mask indoors.
 
Neither my daughter or I have had covid because we're still isolating apart from occasional visits from a couple of family members who test before they come. I suspect quite a lot of uninfected are similar. The problem is we already have symptoms that overlap with long covid, so we're useless as controls. I think the only realistic controls now are self controls with people reporting their remembered symptoms before and after getting infected.
 
Trish said:
Neither my daughter or I have had covid because we're still isolating apart from occasional visits from a couple of family members who test before they come. I suspect quite a lot of uninfected are similar. The problem is we already have symptoms that overlap with long covid, so we're useless as controls. I think the only realistic controls now are self controls with people reporting their remembered symptoms before and after getting infected.
Click to expand...
Oh, this reminds me that a study at my university was looking for "healthy controls" for a study on hormones and blood pressure. Their main requirements for healthy (ie the only ones listed on the poster): Not have high blood pressure, and not use hormonal contraception methods.

As we know, it's all about the definition you use for healthy, who cares if someone is still severely ill ;)
 
The general population will keep on getting infected, most probably without any effects for the vast majority of them. I think it's unrealistic to hope or demand anything else. I believe things such as ultra-sensitive single molecule array assays, maybe even PET scans, old data and other things I haven't thought of could maybe be beneficial when looking for the type of controls the above study is looking for. Or at least using this data to infere on the construction of controls.

I can't say much about the specifics of Walt's assay and its accuracy and sensitivity, but I do remember him saying that even in the studies with more stringent controls without any supposed infection, where they even run advanced tests and where for example a negative test result when testing for the presence of the N-protein is a pre-requisite, they often find evidence of an infection in 90% of people using their assay.

Having controls in 30 years will have very little impact on anybody on this sub. I certainly hope research will find ways for some form of decent controls now, not when some decades have passed.
 
Last edited:
EndME said:
most probably without any effects for the vast majority of them.
Click to expand...
The global increase in sick leave make me think the "vast majority" is not as unaffected as they may seem. Same with the excess death data (which is unfortunately becoming much harder to use due to both covid death statistics becoming part of the norm, and a shift in demographics changing what we should expect going forward. Different countries deal with this differently so I would not feel able to read other countries' death data without doing a lot of background reading first).

EndME said:
I think it's unrealistic to hope or demand anything else. I believe things such as ultra-sensitive single molecule array assays, maybe even PET scans, old data and other things I haven't thought of could maybe be beneficial when looking for the type of controls the above study is looking for. Or at least using this data to infere on the construction of controls.
Click to expand...
There are a number of well known cohort studies with biodata going back years and years... and also other type of data like VO2 testing. Agree it's unrealistic to hope for anything, long term issues following infection is not taken seriously.
 
There is likely a natural variation on top of the poverty of most studies. There is no reason why Long Covid should be evenly distributed across the population. There are many factors having to do with local variants, how much they spread and many other factors that naturally lead to variations.

And no controls anymore, the main epidemiological tool for this. Which is probably the biggest factor given asymptomatic infections.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom