Abstract
Importance Post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2, referred to as “long COVID”, are a globally pervasive threat. While their many clinical determinants are commonly considered, their plausible social correlates are often overlooked.
Objective To compare social and clinical predictors of differences in quality of life (QoL) with long COVID. Additionally, to measure how much adjusted associations between social factors and long COVID-associated quality of life are unexplained by important clinical intermediates.
Design, Setting, and Participants Data from the ISARIC long COVID multi-country prospective cohort study. Subjects from Norway, the United Kingdom (UK), and Russia, aged 16 and above, with confirmed acute SARS-CoV-2 infection reporting >= 1 long COVID-associated symptoms 1+ month following infection.
Exposure The social exposures considered were educational attainment (Norway), employment status (UK and Russia), and female vs male sex (all countries).
Main outcome and measures Quality of life-adjusted days, or QALDs, with long COVID.
Results This cohort study included a total of 3891 participants. In all three countries, educational attainment, employment status, and female sex were important predictors of long COVID QALDs. Furthermore, a majority of the estimated relationships between each of these social correlates and long COVID QALDs could not be attributed to key long COVID-predicting comorbidities. In Norway, 90% (95% CI: 77%, 100%) of the adjusted association between the top two quintiles of educational attainment and long COVID QALDs was not explained by clinical intermediates. The same was true for 86% (73%, 100%) and 93% (80%,100%) of the adjusted associations between full-time employment and long COVID QALDs in the United Kingdom (UK) and Russia. Additionally, 77% (46%,100%) and 73% (52%, 94%) of the adjusted associations between female sex and long COVID QALDs in Norway and the UK were unexplained by the clinical mediators.
Conclusions and Relevance This study highlights the role of socio-economic status indicators and female sex, in line with or beyond commonly cited clinical conditions, as predictors of long COVID-associated QoL, and further reveal that other (non-clinical) mechanisms likely drive their observed relationships. Our findings point to the importance of COVID interventions which go further than an exclusive focus on comorbidity management in order to help redress inequalities in experiences with this chronic disease.
Question How do social and medical factors compare in predicting differences in quality of life (QoL) with long COVID and to what extent do clinical mediators explain social variables’ relationships with long COVID QoL?
Findings Socio-economic proxies employment status and educational attainment and female sex ranked on par with or above age and neuropsychological and rheumatological comorbidities as predictors of variation in long COVID QoL across participants. Additionally, estimated adjusted associations between each of these social factors and long COVID QoL were largely unexplained by a set of key comorbidities.
Meaning Long COVID-based interventions may be more broadly beneficial if they account for social disparities as important risk factors for differential long COVID burden and, in addition to clinical targets, address broader structural determinants of health.
Competing Interest Statement
MS has received institutional research funds from the Johnson and Johnson foundation and from Janssen global public health. MS also received institutional research funding from Pfizer.
Funding Statement
TFM acknowledges support from NIH Training Grant 2T32AI007535. LFR was funded by Universidad de La Sabana (MED-309-2021). MS has been funded (in part) by contracts 200-2016-91779 and cooperative agreement CDC-RFA-FT-23-0069 with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The findings, conclusions, and views expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position of the CDC. MS was also partially supported by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under award number R01GM130668.This work was made possible by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Wellcome [215091/Z/18/Z, 222410/Z/21/Z, 225288/Z/22/Z and 220757/Z/20/Z], the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1209135], the philanthropic support of the donors to the University of Oxford's COVID-19 Research Response Fund (0009109), grants from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR award CO-CIN-01/DH_/Department of Health/United Kingdom), the Medical Research Council (MRC grant MC_PC_19059), and by the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections at University of Liverpool in partnership with Public Health England (PHE), 29 (award 200907), NIHR HPRU in Respiratory Infections at Imperial College London with PHE (award 200927), Liverpool Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre (grant C18616/A25153), NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Imperial College London (award ISBRC-1215-20013), and NIHR Clinical Research Network providing infrastructure support, the Comprehensive Local Research Networks (CLRNs), Cambridge NIHR Biomedical Research Centre (award NIHR203312), the Research Council of Norway grant no 312780, and a philanthropic donation from Vivaldi Invest A/S owned by Jon Stephenson von Tetzchner to the Norwegian SARS-CoV-2 study, the South Eastern Norway Health Authority and the Research Council of Norway.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The ISARIC-WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol was approved by the World Health Organization Ethics Review Committee (Ref RPC571/RPC572 25APR13). Institutional Ethics Committee approval was additionally obtained by participating sites including the South Central Oxford C Research Ethics Committee in England (Ref 13/SC/0149), Leeds West Research Ethics Committee (Ref 20/YH/0225), and the Scotland A Research Ethics Committee (Ref 20/SS/0028) for the United Kingdom and the Human Research Ethics Committee (Medical) of the University of the Witwatersrand (Ref M2010108) for South Africa, representing the majority of the data. Other institutional and national approvals were obtained by participating sites as per local requirements.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
* The complete list of members and their affiliations is listed at the end of the manuscript
Updated manuscript text and abstract
Data Availability
The data that underpin this analysis are highly detailed clinical data on individuals hospitalised with COVID-19. Due to the sensitive nature of these data and the associated privacy concerns, they are available via a governed data access mechanism following review of a data access committee. Data can be requested via the IDDO COVID-19 Data Sharing Platform (http://www.iddo.org/covid-19). The Data Access Application, Terms of Access and details of the Data Access Committee are available on the website. Briefly, the requirements for access are a request from a qualified researcher working with a legal entity who have a health and/or research remit; a scientifically valid reason for data access which adheres to appropriate ethical principles.The full terms are at: https://www.iddo.org/document/covid-19-data-access-guidelines. A small subset of sites who contributed data to this analysis have not agreed to pooled data sharing as above. In the case of requiring access to these data, please contact the corresponding author in the first instance who will look to facilitate access. All code (with the exception of code used to process the individual datasets) is publicly available at: https://github.com/goshgondar2018/social_long_covid.
