Post COVID-19 condition after Wildtype, Delta, and Omicron SARS-CoV-2 infection and prior vaccination: Pooled analysis of two population-based cohorts.
Free full text in Europe PMC
Abstract
Background
Post COVID-19 condition (PCC) is an important complication of SARS-CoV-2 infection, affecting millions worldwide. This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence and severity of post COVID-19 condition (PCC) with novel SARS-CoV-2 variants and after prior vaccination.Methods
We used pooled data from 1350 SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals from two representative population-based cohorts in Switzerland, diagnosed between Aug 5, 2020, and Feb 25, 2022. We descriptively analysed the prevalence and severity of PCC, defined as the presence and frequency of PCC-related symptoms six months after infection, among vaccinated and non-vaccinated individuals infected with Wildtype, Delta, and Omicron SARS-CoV-2. We used multivariable logistic regression models to assess the association and estimate the risk reduction of PCC after infection with newer variants and prior vaccination. We further assessed associations with the severity of PCC using multinomial logistic regression. To identify groups of individuals with similar symptom patterns and evaluate differences in the presentation of PCC across variants, we performed exploratory hierarchical cluster analyses.Results
We found strong evidence that vaccinated individuals infected with Omicron had reduced odds of developing PCC compared to non-vaccinated Wildtype-infected individuals (odds ratio 0.42, 95% confidence interval 0.24-0.68). The odds among non-vaccinated individuals were similar after infection with Delta or Omicron compared to Wildtype SARS-CoV-2. We found no differences in PCC prevalence with respect to the number of received vaccine doses or timing of last vaccination. The prevalence of PCC-related symptoms among vaccinated, Omicron-infected individuals was lower across severity levels. In cluster analyses, we identified four clusters of diverse systemic, neurocognitive, cardiorespiratory, and musculoskeletal symptoms, with similar patterns across variants.Conclusion
The risk of PCC appears to be lowered with infection by the Omicron variant and after prior vaccination. This evidence is crucial to guide future public health measures and vaccination strategies.Free full text
Post COVID-19 condition after Wildtype, Delta, and Omicron SARS-CoV-2 infection and prior vaccination: Pooled analysis of two population-based cohorts
1
,*Abstract
Background
Post COVID-19 condition (PCC) is an important complication of SARS-CoV-2 infection, affecting millions worldwide. This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence and severity of post COVID-19 condition (PCC) with novel SARS-CoV-2 variants and after prior vaccination.
Methods
We used pooled data from 1350 SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals from two representative population-based cohorts in Switzerland, diagnosed between Aug 5, 2020, and Feb 25, 2022. We descriptively analysed the prevalence and severity of PCC, defined as the presence and frequency of PCC-related symptoms six months after infection, among vaccinated and non-vaccinated individuals infected with Wildtype, Delta, and Omicron SARS-CoV-2. We used multivariable logistic regression models to assess the association and estimate the risk reduction of PCC after infection with newer variants and prior vaccination. We further assessed associations with the severity of PCC using multinomial logistic regression. To identify groups of individuals with similar symptom patterns and evaluate differences in the presentation of PCC across variants, we performed exploratory hierarchical cluster analyses.
Results
We found strong evidence that vaccinated individuals infected with Omicron had reduced odds of developing PCC compared to non-vaccinated Wildtype-infected individuals (odds ratio 0.42, 95% confidence interval 0.24–0.68). The odds among non-vaccinated individuals were similar after infection with Delta or Omicron compared to Wildtype SARS-CoV-2. We found no differences in PCC prevalence with respect to the number of received vaccine doses or timing of last vaccination. The prevalence of PCC-related symptoms among vaccinated, Omicron-infected individuals was lower across severity levels. In cluster analyses, we identified four clusters of diverse systemic, neurocognitive, cardiorespiratory, and musculoskeletal symptoms, with similar patterns across variants.
Conclusion
The risk of PCC appears to be lowered with infection by the Omicron variant and after prior vaccination. This evidence is crucial to guide future public health measures and vaccination strategies.
Introduction
Post COVID-19 condition (PCC) is an important complication of SARS-CoV-2 infection, posing a substantial burden on health care systems worldwide [1,2]. Population-based studies have estimated that about 20–30% of non-vaccinated individuals with a confirmed Wildtype SARS-CoV-2 infection develop PCC [3], defined as symptoms persisting beyond three months after infection and not explained by an alternative diagnosis [1]. As of writing, half a billion SARS-CoV-2 infections have been diagnosed worldwide [4], and more than 144 million people are estimated to have been affected by PCC in 2020 and 2021 [2]. With the global implementation of vaccination campaigns and the emergence of novel SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, future pandemic management will depend on the incidence of PCC in vaccinated individuals infected with novel variants.
Current evidence suggests that the risk of PCC is relevantly reduced by vaccination with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination [5]. Several studies based on different designs and populations found that the risk of PCC is approximately halved in vaccinated compared to non-vaccinated individuals [6–16]. While most evaluated symptoms persisting for more than four [7,8,16] to 12 weeks [9,11,12,14,15] after SARS-CoV-2 infection, few assessed symptoms beyond six months and found a lower [6] or no [10,13] risk reduction with vaccination.
Meanwhile, the evidence regarding infection with novel SARS-CoV-2 variants remains limited and inconsistent. Some evidence suggests that infections with the Omicron variant results in lower risk of developing PCC compared to the Delta [17] or any previous variant [18]. One study demonstrated a reduced risk with the Alpha variant, but not with Delta or Omicron compared to Wildtype SARS-CoV-2 [8]. Another study reported a higher risk of PCC and greater PCC-related symptom burden with Wildtype SARS-CoV-2 compared to the Alpha and Delta variants [19]. However, all four studies included specific samples not representative of the general population, and only one evaluated PCC beyond 12 weeks after infection [19]. Therefore, more knowledge regarding the expected risk reduction through infection with newer variants and preventive effects of vaccination on PCC in the longer-term is urgently needed.
This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence and severity of PCC in individuals infected by Wildtype, Delta, and Omicron SARS-CoV-2 with and without prior vaccination. Specific objectives were to assess the difference in risk of developing PCC with emerging variants and vaccination, evaluate changes in symptom severity, and identify prevalent symptom clusters and their evolution across pandemic waves.
Methods
Study design and participants
This study is based on pooled data from two population-based cohorts in Switzerland (S1 Table). The Zurich SARS-CoV-2 Cohort is a prospective longitudinal cohort of 1106 SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals, recruited shortly after infection based on an age-stratified random sample of all diagnosed cases between Aug 6, 2020, and Jan 19, 2021, through the Department of Health of the canton of Zurich, Switzerland [20,21]. The study was preregistered (https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN14990068) and approved by the ethics committee of the canton of Zurich (BASEC 2020–01739). The Corona Immunitas seroprevalence study is a prospective longitudinal cohort of an age-stratified random population sample derived through the Swiss Federal Statistical Office [22,23]. For this study, we leveraged data from the fifth phase of Corona Immunitas including 1844 participants from the cantons of Zurich and Ticino, Switzerland, for which baseline assessments took place between Mar 1–31, 2022 [24]. The study was registered (https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN18181860) and approved by the ethics committees of the cantons of Zurich (BASEC 2020–01247) and Ticino (BASEC 2020–01514). All participants provided electronic (Zurich SARS-CoV-2 Cohort) or written (Corona Immunitas) informed consent prior to participation.
Data collection and pooling
We collected data using electronic questionnaires, managed through the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) platform [25,26]. In both cohorts, participants completed baseline and regular follow-up questionnaires (S1 Table) [20–24]. Questionnaires were closely aligned and used the same wording for critical questions related to sociodemographic characteristics, current symptoms, and current health status. The presence of PCC-related symptoms was elicited using a list of 23 symptoms frequently reported in the literature (S2 Table). From the Zurich SARS-CoV-2 Cohort, we included all participants who had completed follow-up at six months after SARS-CoV-2 infection (a range of five to seven months after infection was allowed). From Corona Immunitas, we included all participants who, either at baseline or during follow-up, reported having last been infected by SARS-CoV-2 during the timeframes of predominance of the Delta and Omicron variants, and completed the baseline or either of the follow-up assessments approximately six (five to seven) months after the most recent reported infection (S1 Fig).
Outcome definition
We defined the primary outcome of PCC as symptoms present within the last seven days at six months after the most recent diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection, reported by participants to be related to COVID-19. This outcome definition has previously been shown to likely adequately capture the presence of PCC at a population level [21]. Secondary outcomes were individual PCC-related symptoms and severity of PCC at six months, assessed based on symptom count at follow-up (stratified into groups with 1–2, 3–5, and ≥6 symptoms). In sensitivity analyses, we categorised severity based on the EuroQoL visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) and previously applied cut-offs [21,27,28] as having mild (EQ-VAS >70), moderate (EQ-VAS 51–70), or severe (EQ-VAS ≤50) PCC.
In lack of viral samples for genetic analysis of SARS-CoV-2 variants, we determined the most likely infecting variant based on reported infection dates. We categorised all Zurich SARS-CoV-2 Cohort participants as infected by Wildtype SARS-CoV-2. In accordance with viral predominance (≥80% of diagnosed infections) in Switzerland, we determined infections between Jul 7, 2021, and Dec 31, 2021, as most likely due to Delta, and infections from Jan 1, 2022, as most likely due to Omicron SARS-CoV-2 [29]. We used the date of the first positive SARS-CoV-2 test as infection date, while positive tests more than 60 days before were considered a separate prior infection.
Statistical analyses
We descriptively analysed population characteristics and the prevalence of PCC, overall and stratified by SARS-CoV-2 variants, prior vaccination, and symptom severity. We calculated 95% Wilson confidence intervals (CIs) for proportions. We used multivariable logistic regression models to evaluate associations of infection during different variant timeframes and prior vaccination with PCC. In the primary analysis model, we combined variant and vaccination status information to evaluate the joint association within vaccinated or non-vaccinated, Delta- or Omicron-infected individuals compared to non-vaccinated, Wildtype-infected individuals, while adjusting for prior infection. Model selection was based on prior knowledge (a priori variables: age, sex, presence of comorbidities (any of hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, chronic respiratory disease, malignancy, or immune suppression), and initial hospitalization due to COVID-19) and the Akaike and Bayesian Information Criteria (no further variables added). In sensitivity analyses and to ensure comparability with other studies [8,18], we used an alternative model including SARS-CoV-2 variant, vaccination status, and prior infection as separate variables. We additionally estimated the absolute risk reduction (i.e., adjusted risk differences) based on a logistic regression model using an identity link [30]. Furthermore, we conducted multivariable multinomial logistic regression analyses to evaluate the association of different strains with the severity of PCC, including sensitivity analyses using alternative definitions for PCC severity.
In exploratory analyses, we assessed the presence of specific clusters of PCC-related symptoms at six months using multiple correspondence combined with hierarchical cluster analyses [31]. Sixteen long-term symptoms reported by at least five percent of participants with PCC were included, on which a multiple correspondence analysis was performed. We retained dimensions that explained 90% of the variance and performed an agglomerative hierarchal clustering on the selected dimensions using Ward minimum-variance linkage methods [31,32]. We based the selection of the number of clusters on findings from other studies [33–35] and by maximizing the relative loss of inertia. We selected four clusters for the main analysis, but present findings from sensitivity analyses assuming five and six clusters for future comparison. We descriptively evaluated PCC-related symptoms and participant characteristics across clusters to identify factors potentially associated with membership in each of the clusters.
We performed all analyses in R (version 4.0.3).
Results
Participant characteristics
We included data from 1045 Zurich SARS-CoV-2 Cohort participants and 305 Corona Immunitas participants reporting a SARS-CoV-2 infection with six months of follow-up (Table 1 and S1 Fig and S3 and S4 Tables). Median follow-up was 183 days (interquartile range [IQR] 182–186 days) across all participants. Zurich SARS-CoV-2 Cohort participants were slightly older on average, with a median age of 51 years (IQR 35–66) compared to 43 years (30–54) among Corona Immunitas participants. The proportion of female participants was 50.7% (n = 530) and 58.7% (n = 179), respectively. Zurich SARS-CoV-2 Cohort participants more frequently reported the presence of at least one medical comorbidity (29.5%) compared to Corona Immunitas (14.1%). 232 (77.1%) Corona Immunitas participants reported to have received at least one COVID-19 vaccine prior to infection, among which 173 (74.6%) had received one or two doses, and 59 (25.4%) had received three doses. Almost all (n = 231, 99.6%) had received a mRNA-based vaccine (i.e., BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273), while one participant had received a vector-based vaccine (i.e., JNJ-78436735). A previous SARS-CoV-2 infection was reported by 36 (11.8%) Corona Immunitas participants.
Table 1
| Zurich SARS-CoV-2 Cohort | Corona Immunitas | Overall | |
|---|---|---|---|
| (N = 1045) | (N = 305) | (N = 1350) | |
| Timeframe of diagnosis | Aug 5, 2020 –Jan 19, 2021 | Jul 15, 2021 –Feb 25, 2022 | Aug 5, 2020 –Feb 25, 2022 |
| Median follow-up (IQR; days) | 183.5 (182–186) | 181 (164–196) | 183 (182–186) |
| Age, median (IQR) | 51 (35–66) | 43 (30–54) | 48 (34–63) |
| Female sex | 530 (50.7%) | 179 (58.7%) | 709 (52.5%) |
| Presence of chronic comorbidity | 308 (29.5%) | 43 (14.1%) | 351 (26.0%) |
| Smoking status | |||
| Non-smoker | 625 (60.1%) | 201 (65.9%) | 826 (61.4%) |
| Ex-smoker | 282 (27.1%) | 62 (20.3%) | 344 (25.6%) |
| Smoker | 133 (12.8%) | 42 (13.8%) | 175 (13.0%) |
| Missing | 5 | 0 | 5 |
| Body mass index, median (IQR; kg/m2) | 24.2 (21.9–26.6) | 23.3 (21.5–26.0) | 24.0 (21.7–26.5) |
| Highest education | |||
| None or mandatory school | 41 (3.9%) | 18 (5.9%) | 59 (4.4%) |
| Vocational training or specialised baccalaureate | 438 (42.2%) | 154 (50.8%) | 592 (44.1%) |
| Higher technical school or college | 276 (26.6%) | 36 (11.9%) | 312 (23.2%) |
| University | 284 (27.3%) | 95 (31.4%) | 379 (28.2%) |
| Missing | 6 | 2 | 8 |
| Employment status | |||
| Employed | 668 (64.2%) | 57 (18.8%) | 725 (53.9%) |
| Retired | 256 (24.6%) | 181 (59.5%) | 437 (32.5%) |
| Student | 50 (4.8%) | 32 (10.5%) | 82 (6.1%) |
| Unemployed or other | 67 (6.4%) | 34 (11.2%) | 101 (7.5%) |
| Missing | 4 | 1 | 5 |
| Hospitalised due to COVID-19 | 44 (4.2%) | 2 (0.7%) | 46 (3.4%) |
| SARS-CoV-2 variant | |||
| Wildtype | 1045 (100%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1045 (77.4%) |
| Delta | 0 (0.0%) | 99 (32.5%) | 99 (7.3%) |
| Omicron | 0 (0.0%) | 206 (67.5%) | 206 (15.3%) |
| Prior vaccination | 0 (0.0%) | 232 (77.1%) | 232 (17.2%) |
 Vaccine dosesa | |||
| 1–2 doses | – | 173 (74.6%) | 173 (74.6%) |
| 3 doses | – | 59 (25.4%) | 59 (25.4%) |
| Time since last vaccine dosea | |||
| <6 months | – | 180 (77.6%) | 180 (77.6%) |
| ≥6 months | – | 52 (22.4%) | 52 (22.4%) |
| Type of vaccines receiveda | |||
| mRNA | – | 231 (99.6%) | 231 (99.6%) |
| Adenovirus vector | – | 1 (0.4%) | 1 (0.4%) |
| Prior SARS-CoV-2 infection | 0 (0.0%) | 36 (11.8%) | 36 (2.7%) |
Legend: BMI = body mass index, IQR = interquartile range.
a Percentages among those that have received at least one vaccine dose prior to infection.
Association of variants and vaccination with post COVID-19 condition
Overall, 25.3% (95% CI 22.7–28.0%, n = 264) of individuals infected with Wildtype SARS-CoV-2, 17.2% (11.0–25.8%, n = 17) of Delta-infected, and 13.1% (9.2–18.4%, n = 27) of Omicron-infected individuals had PCC six months after infection. The proportion of participants with PCC among non-vaccinated individuals infected with the Delta (21.6%, 11.4–37.2%, n = 8) and Omicron (21.9%, 11.0–38.8%, n = 7) variants were similar to Wildtype infection without prior vaccination. Among vaccinated individuals, 14.8% (8.0–25.7%, n = 9) had PCC after Delta, and 11.1% (7.2–16.7%, n = 19) after Omicron infection. We observed no clear patterns in PCC-related symptoms across individuals infected with different variants (S2 Fig).
When assessing the association between infection with different SARS-CoV-2 variants and prior vaccination with PCC at six months, there was strong evidence for a reduction in the odds among vaccinated individuals infected by the Omicron variant (odds ratio [OR] 0.42, 95% CI 0.24–0.68, p = 0.0008) compared to non-vaccinated, Wildtype SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals, based on multivariable logistic regression analyses adjusted for age, sex, presence of comorbidities, hospitalization due to COVID-19, and prior infection (Fig 1). The estimated absolute risk reduction for PCC was -10.6% (-16.2% to -5.0%). Meanwhile, there was insufficient evidence for a reduction in the odds among vaccinated, Delta-infected individuals (OR 0.55, 0.25–1.08, p = 0.11), and among non-vaccinated individuals infected by the Delta (OR 0.84, 0.34–1.87, p = 0.69) or Omicron (OR 0.87, 0.33–2.06, p = 0.77) variant. The corresponding absolute risk reduction was -6.5% (-16.0% to 3.0%) for vaccinated individuals infected with Delta, -3.5% (-16.8% to 9.8%) for non-vaccinated, Delta-infected individuals, and -3.4% (-17.7% to 11.0%) for non-vaccinated, Omicron-infected individuals. In sensitivity analyses including variant and vaccination as separate variables, results were similar for associations of Delta (OR 0.92, 0.44–1.83, p = 0.83) and Omicron (OR 0.78, 0.35–1.65, p = 0.54) infection, as well as prior vaccination with PCC (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.26–1.19, p = 0.12; S3 Fig).
Panels A and B show odds ratios and adjusted risk differences among non-vaccinated and vaccinated individuals infected with the Delta or Omicron variant compared to non-vaccinated individuals infected by SARS-CoV-2, based on multivariable logistic regression models adjusted for age, sex, presence of comorbidities, initial hospitalization due to COVID-19, and prior infection. Panels C and D show odds ratios for having received one or two vaccine doses or three doses prior to infection and for having been vaccinated less than six months prior or six or more months prior to infection with the Delta or Omicron variants, based on multivariable logistic regression models adjusted for age, sex, presence of comorbidities, initial hospitalization due to COVID-19, and prior infection. Legend: aRD = adjusted risk difference, CI = confidence interval, OR = odds ratio, Ref. = reference group.
In analyses stratified by the number of vaccine doses received prior to infection, there was no evidence for a difference in the odds of PCC between individuals having received 1–2 vaccine doses and individuals having received three doses among individuals infected with the Delta variant, while there was a tendency for a stronger association with three (OR 0.30, 0.10–0.70, p = 0.012) compared to 1–2 doses (OR 0.49, 0.26–0.86, p = 0.019) among Omicron-infected individuals (Fig 1). The odds of PCC independent of variant was equally reduced for both 1–2 doses and three doses compared to non-vaccinated individuals, however with high uncertainty (S3 Fig). When evaluating the timing since the last vaccine dose at infection, there was no evidence for a difference between individuals that were vaccinated six or more months prior, and individuals vaccinated less than six months prior to infection both after Delta and Omicron infection (Fig 1). Findings were similar in a sensitivity analysis of associations independent of variant (S3 Fig).
Symptom severity
Regarding the severity of PCC-related symptoms at six months, there were similar patterns across groups infected by different variants and with and without prior vaccination (Fig 2). In accordance with the overall prevalence of PCC, we observed lower prevalences of individuals reporting 1–2, 3–5, and ≥6 PCC-related symptoms among vaccinated, Omicron-infected individuals compared to other groups. Sensitivity analyses using different severity definitions resulted in similar findings (S4 Fig). While symptom prevalence among vaccinated, Omicron-infected individuals was lower for those reporting ≥3 symptoms, 4% (n = 7) still reported such symptoms after six months. In multivariable multinomial logistic regression analyses, there was strong evidence for a reduction in the odds among those reporting 1–2 symptoms among vaccinated, Omicron-infected individuals compared to non-vaccinated, Wildtype-infected individuals (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.21–0.74, p = 0.0038), while the statistical evidence for a reduction in the odds among those reporting 3–5 (OR 0.44, 0.16–1.19, p = 0.11) and ≥6 symptoms (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.11–2.21, p = 0.36) was insufficient (Tables (Tables22 and S5–S7).
Analyses were stratified by SARS-CoV-2 variant and vaccination status. Points represent point estimate and error bars represent 95% Wilson confidence intervals for estimated proportions.
Table 2
| Characteristic | 1–2 symptoms | 3–5 symptoms | ≥6 symptoms | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | p-value | OR (95% CI) | p-value | OR (95% CI) | p-value | |
| Non-vaccinated Wildtype | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | |||
| Non-vaccinated Delta | 0.50 (0.15–1.74) | 0.28 | 0.76 (0.15–3.72) | 0.73 | 3.91 (0.97–15.7) | 0.055 |
| Non-vaccinated Omicron | 0.80 (0.26–2.45) | 0.69 | 0.76 (0.14–4.08) | 0.75 | 1.95 (0.23–16.6) | 0.54 |
| Vaccinated Delta | 0.46 (0.18–1.18) | 0.11 | 0.49 (0.11–2.07) | 0.33 | 1.36 (0.31–6.02) | 0.69 |
| Vaccinated Omicron | 0.39 (0.21–0.74) | 0.0038 | 0.44 (0.16–1.19) | 0.11 | 0.50 (0.11–2.21) | 0.36 |
Legend: CI = confidence interval, OR = odds ratio, Ref. = reference group.
Symptom clusters
Cluster analyses resulted in the identification of four clusters with different patterns of PCC-related symptoms (Fig 3). Based on predominant symptom patterns in each cluster, we categorised them into groups with diverse systemic (n = 219 of participants with PCC), neurocognitive (n = 47), cardiorespiratory (n = 23), and musculoskeletal symptoms (n = 19). Certain symptoms were prevalent in all clusters, such as fatigue, post-exertional malaise, headache, and taste or smell disturbances. In sensitivity analyses assuming five or six clusters, additional groups predominantly affected by gastrointestinal disturbances or hair loss, and by vertigo or dizziness were identified (S5 and S6 Figs). Across infections with different SARS-CoV-2 variants, we observed no clear differences in the proportion of participants belonging to each cluster (Fig 3). Female participants were more prevalent in the neurocognitive and cardiorespiratory clusters and older participants and individuals with comorbidities were more prevalent in the cardiorespiratory and musculoskeletal clusters, while the majority of participants with diverse systemic symptoms reported having one PCC-related symptom (S8 Table).
Four clusters of individuals with post COVID-19 condition at six months after infection were identified based on multiple correspondence and hierarchical cluster analyses, consisting of individuals with (1) diverse systemic symptoms and lower symptom count, and with (2) predominantly neurocognitive, (3) cardiorespiratory, or (4) musculoskeletal symptoms. Panel A depicts distributions of specific post COVID-19 condition-related symptoms across clusters. Panel B shows the proportion of individuals belonging to each cluster across infections with Wildtype, Delta, and Omicron SARS-CoV-2. Points represent point estimate and error bars represent 95% Wilson confidence intervals for estimated proportions.
Discussion
Main findings in context
In this pooled analysis of 1350 SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals from two population-based cohorts, we found that infection with the Omicron variant and prior vaccination were associated with lower odds of PCC six months after infection compared to non-vaccinated, Wildtype-infected individuals. Meanwhile, the odds among non-vaccinated individuals infected with the Delta or Omicron variant were similar to those infected with Wildtype SARS-CoV-2. We found no differences in the reduction in odds of developing PCC between individuals having received 1–2 vaccine doses and those having received three vaccine doses, and between individuals last vaccinated more or less than six months prior infection. Compared to non-vaccinated individuals infected with Wildtype SARS-CoV-2, the severity of PCC symptoms was lower among vaccinated individuals infected with the Omicron variant, while a risk for developing PCC even of high severity was still present.
To our knowledge, this study is the first to simultaneously evaluate the impact of prior vaccination and infection with the Omicron variant on developing PCC up to six months after infection. In our study, the odds among non-vaccinated individuals infected with the Omicron variant were reduced by 13% compared to those infected by Wildtype SARS-CoV-2, corresponding to an absolute risk reduction of about 3 in 100 infected individuals. Among vaccinated individuals, the odds were reduced by 45% and 58% for Delta and Omicron infection, respectively, compared to non-vaccinated, Wildtype-infected individuals. This corresponds to an absolute risk reduction in Omicron-infected of about 4 in 100 compared to vaccinated, Delta-infected individuals and of 10 in 100 compared to non-vaccinated, Wildtype-infected individuals. These estimates are in line with a relative risk reduction of 33% between infections with Omicron and prior variants at three months reported in a previous study [18]. While one further study reported no association of pooled Omicron and Delta infection with PCC compared to Wildtype infection at four weeks [8], another reported a stronger reduction in the odds of PCC between Omicron and Delta infection among vaccinated individuals [17]. The authors also found a stronger reduction in odds among those vaccinated more than three months prior infection compared to those vaccinated less than three months before. In our study, we did not identify a difference depending on whether the last vaccination was received more or less than six months prior to infection. One previous study found a lower PCC-related symptom count among non-vaccinated individuals infected with the Alpha and Delta variants [19], but no other study investigated potential effects on severity of PCC. Further evidence from representative population-based studies is thus necessary to better estimate the reduction in the risk and severity of PCC in the longer-term while accounting for vaccination. While it cannot be excluded that future variants may bear a higher risk for PCC, this population-based study provides important early evidence on its longer-term risk and severity with the Omicron variant.
There is substantial heterogeneity between existing studies evaluating the effects of vaccination on PCC [5]. Our findings together with those from others imply that vaccination may reduce the risk of PCC by up to 50% [6–8,11,12,14–16], with an estimated reduction in the odds of 52% among Omicron-infected, and 35% among Delta-infected in our study. Despite important differences in study populations, study designs, analytical methods, and definitions of PCC across existing studies, our estimates are in line with previous evidence, albeit of smaller magnitude compared with one other study simultaneously investigating differences between SARS-CoV-2 variants and prior vaccination among non-hospitalised healthcare workers [8]. The accumulating evidence on potential preventive effects of vaccination on PCC has important implications for vaccination strategies and may be used to inform and positively influence individual decisions regarding booster vaccinations. However, a rigorous evaluation of the evidence, taking into account the substantial heterogeneity in study designs and the time periods during which they took place, is warranted prior to issuing recommendations regarding the prevention of PCC through vaccination.
In cluster analyses, we identified four distinct clusters of PCC-related symptoms across different variants, which we categorised as diverse systemic, neurocognitive, cardiorespiratory, and musculoskeletal symptoms. One study so far has investigated symptom clusters in the context of different SARS-CoV-2 variants [33]. The authors reported three main emerging PCC symptom clusters (i.e., central neurological, cardiorespiratory, and systemic/inflammatory), while the total number of identified clusters and cluster profiles varied across Wildtype, Alpha, and Delta variants. In our study, we found no substantial variation in the prevalence of symptom clusters across infections with different variants, but relevant variation in participant characteristics across clusters. Further studies have investigated the clustering of PCC-related symptoms, leading to the identification of similar groups with neurocognitive, cardiorespiratory, musculoskeletal and pain-related, and systemic or diverse symptoms [34,35]. Our findings are thus in line with existing evidence and suggest that some symptoms may be common to all presentations of PCC, while there may be distinct phenotypes of PCC that may also have different pathophysiological explanations or require different clinical management or treatment.
Strengths and limitations
This study has several strengths, including the representative population-based sample and the prospective design, alongside evaluating PCC six months after infection. Meanwhile, several limitations have to be considered when interpreting the results. First, we pooled data from two closely aligned cohorts. Due to the different sampling, recruitment, and timeframes of data collection, there may still be residual confounding relating to differences between the participants in the two cohorts (e.g., socio-economic factors or behavioural aspects) that we could not fully account for in adjusted analyses. Second, selection may have occurred if participants with long-term symptoms were more likely to be enrolled or complete the questionnaire. However, in the Zurich SARS-CoV-2 Cohort, participants were enrolled prior to the possible occurrence of PCC, and there was minimal loss to follow-up. Corona Immunitas was a highly public, governmentally supported seroprevalence study using a random population sample, from which we included all individuals with diagnosed infection. While some asymptomatically infected individuals in this study may not have sought testing and thus were excluded, we consider the probability of relevant selection bias regarding our findings to be low in both cohorts. Third, we relied on self-reported measures and could not perform a clinical validation of the relation of symptoms with initial SARS-CoV-2 infection or alternative diagnoses. While information bias cannot be excluded, we consider its potential effect on our findings to be minimal. In addition, it may be that some individuals in the Corona Immunitas Cohort had an asymptomatic or undiagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection prior to the infection event evaluated in this analysis. Hence, the percentage of individuals with prior infection may be underestimated. Due to the design of the study, it was not possible to reliably ascertain prior infections using serological testing. Based on current evidence, it is unclear whether, to what extent, and in what direction any misclassification in our study could have biased our findings. Fourth, we did not have direct genetic data from viral sequencing and may have misclassified some participants infected with the Delta or Omicron variant based on our timeframe cut-offs. Fifth, we determined severity of PCC based on symptom count and EQ-VAS, of which the first may not be a direct correlate of severity and the latter may be influenced by baseline health status. While we tried to account for this in sensitivity analyses leading to broadly similar findings, results may still be confounded. Sixth, vaccinated participants were almost exclusively vaccinated with mRNA-based vaccines, so that our findings may not be fully generalisable to other vaccine types. Seventh, the study was not adequately powered to investigate differences between non-vaccinated individuals infected with Delta or Omicron and those infected with Wildtype SARS-CoV-2, and between individuals vaccinated once or twice and individuals that received three vaccine doses, leading to substantial statistical uncertainty. While estimates of greater precision from other studies are desirable, we consider the reliability of our findings as high due to the representative study populations. Last, the exploratory cluster analyses bear various limitations inherent in the structure and parametrisation of the model. Identified clusters are probabilistic and sample-bound, and may not coincide with phenotypes of PCC encountered in clinical practice. While our findings align with those by others, further research is necessary to more clearly identify different phenotypes based on their clinical and pathophysiological presentation.
Conclusions
This study demonstrated that infection with the Omicron variant among individuals with prior vaccination is associated with a substantially reduced risk of PCC at six months post-infection compared to Wildtype SARS-CoV-2 infection among non-vaccinated individuals. While the risk of developing PCC appears to persist in the context of vaccination and novel variants, the risk reduction through vaccination was of greater magnitude than with infection by the Delta or Omicron variant. As the pandemic continues to evolve, vaccination will remain key in reducing the acute and long-term burden of SARS-CoV-2. Findings from this study underscore the significance of infection prevention and have important implications for public health messaging. Specifically, this information should be considered in vaccination campaigns and communication strategies, as well as for further vaccine development and the planning of public health measures for future pandemic waves.
Supporting information
S1 Fig
Flowchart of the enrolment, data collection, and inclusion of participants from the Zurich SARS-CoV-2 Cohort and from Phase 5 of the Corona Immunitas seroprevalence study.(DOCX)
S2 Fig
Specific symptoms related to post COVID-19 condition across individuals infected with Wildtype, Delta, and Omicron SARS-CoV-2.(DOCX)
S3 Fig
Results from sensitivity analysis of the association of Delta and Omicron SARS-CoV-2 infection, prior vaccination, and prior infection with post COVID-19 syndrome six months after SARS-CoV-2 infection, and of the association of vaccination with post COVID-19 syndrome stratified by number of received vaccine doses and timing of vaccination.(DOCX)
S4 Fig
Results from sensitivity analyses regarding the prevalence of post COVID-19 condition six months after infection at different levels of severity.(DOCX)
S5 Fig
Prevalence of specific post COVID-19 condition-related symptoms six months after SARS-CoV-2 infection across symptom clusters, based on a sensitivity analysis assuming five clusters.(DOCX)
S6 Fig
Prevalence of specific post COVID-19 condition-related symptoms six months after SARS-CoV-2 infection across symptom clusters, based on a sensitivity analysis assuming six clusters.(DOCX)
S1 Table
Eligibility criteria, recruitment timeframes, and assessments of the Zurich SARS-CoV-2 Cohort and Phase 5 of the Corona Immunitas seroprevalence study.(DOCX)
S2 Table
List of the 23 post COVID-19 condition-related symptoms elicited in the Zurich SARS-CoV-2 Cohort and the Corona Immunitas seroprevalence study questionnaires.(DOCX)
S3 Table
Detailed participant characteristics of Wildtype, Delta, or Omicron SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals from the Zurich SARS-CoV-2 Cohort and from Phase 5 of the Corona Immunitas seroprevalence study, stratified by study site.(DOCX)
S4 Table
Comparison of participant characteristics of Phase 5 Corona Immunitas seroprevalence study participants in Zurich and Ticino, Switzerland, with non-included individuals (stratified by infection status).(DOCX)
S5 Table
Results from sensitivity analyses of the association of SARS-CoV-2 variant and vaccination with severity of post COVID-19 condition based on multinomial logistic regression models, using symptom count restricted to six symptoms previously found to be in excess among those with post COVID-19 condition compared to the general population as severity categories.(DOCX)
S6 Table
Results from sensitivity analyses of the association of SARS-CoV-2 variant and vaccination with severity of post COVID-19 condition based on multinomial logistic regression models, using current health status based on EQ-VAS scores as severity categories.(DOCX)
S7 Table
Results from sensitivity analyses of the association of SARS-CoV-2 variant and vaccination with severity of post COVID-19 condition based on multinomial logistic regression, using current health status based on EQ-VAS scores as severity categories and restricting the analysis to individuals with no reported comorbidities at baseline to account for potential confounding by impaired baseline health status.(DOCX)
S8 Table
Participant characteristics among infected individuals with post COVID-19 condition in the four clusters identified through cluster analysis.(DOCX)
S1 File
Minimal dataset underlying the analyses in the study.(XLSX)
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the study administration teams in Zurich and Ticino for their dedicated support of the study. Furthermore, the authors thank Hélène E. Aschmann and Anja Domenghino for their contribution to recruitment in the Zurich SARS-CoV-2 Cohort, and Sarah R. Haile for her statistical advice. Last, the authors thank the study participants for their valuable contribution to this project.
Funding Statement
This study is part of the Corona Immunitas research network, coordinated by the Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), and funded by fundraising of SSPH+ including funds of the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health and private funders (ethical guidelines for funding stated by SSPH+ were respected), by funds of the cantons of Switzerland (Vaud, Zurich, and Basel), and by institutional funds of the Universities. Additional funding specific for the two cohorts included in this study was received from the Department of Health of the canton of Zurich, the University of Zurich (UZH) Foundation, and the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health. TB received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 801076, through the SSPH+ Global PhD Fellowship Programme in Public Health Sciences (GlobalP3HS) of the SSPH+. DM received funding by the UZH Postdoc Grant, grant no. FK-22-053. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
References
Decision Letter 0
21 Nov 2022
PONE-D-22-29701Post COVID-19 condition after Wildtype, Delta, and Omicron SARS-CoV-2 infection and prior vaccination: pooled analysis of two population-based cohortsPLOS ONE
Dear Dr. Puhan,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.
Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 05 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at gro.solp@enosolp. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.
Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.
If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.
We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.
Kind regards,
Dong Keon Yon, MD, FACAAI
Academic Editor
PLOS ONE
Journal Requirements:
When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.
1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and
2. In ethics statement in the manuscript and in the online submission form, please provide additional information about the patient records/samples used in your retrospective study. Specifically, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data/samples were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data/samples from their medical records used in research, please include this information.
3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.
When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.
4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.
5. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.
6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.
Additional Editor Comments:
Thank you for submitting your manuscript. The reviewers and I believe it is of potential value for our readers. However, the reviewers have raised a number of very important issues, and their excellent comments will need to be adequately addressed in a revision before the acceptability of your manuscript for publication in the Journal can be determined. We cannot guarantee that your revised paper will be chosen for publication; this would be solely based on how satisfactorily you have addressed the reviewer comments.
#1. Ref (4) is not a peer-reviewed article. Please cite a peer-reviewed article such as DOI: https://doi.org/10.54724/lc.2022.e10
[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer's Responses to Questions
Comments to the Author
1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?
The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.
Reviewer #1: Yes
Reviewer #2: Yes
Reviewer #3: Yes
Reviewer #4: Yes
**********
2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?
Reviewer #1: Yes
Reviewer #2: I Don't Know
Reviewer #3: Yes
Reviewer #4: Yes
**********
3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?
The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.
Reviewer #1: Yes
Reviewer #2: Yes
Reviewer #3: Yes
Reviewer #4: Yes
**********
4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?
PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.
Reviewer #1: Yes
Reviewer #2: Yes
Reviewer #3: Yes
Reviewer #4: Yes
**********
5. Review Comments to the Author
Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)
Reviewer #1: Study is fine author has nicely compared two cohort. Though the findings from different studies are different, furthermore study is required for more generalizable of findings. It would have been more precise if the number in both cohort would be same or close enough.
Reviewer #2: The research reported in this manuscript is an important study that aims to add on to the building evidence surrounding the benefits of vaccination for COVID-19, and possibly for immune medicine in general.
The manuscript is well-written, easy to read and tables are informative. The study objectives are clearly set forth in the introduction and answered in the results lay out and discussion.
An important point of concern:
The description of the cohorts does not indicate to what extent seropravelent studies were employed to rule out possible prior asymptomatic infection amongst the Corona Immunitas cohort. Even though a percentage of that group is reported to have had previous infections, this appears to be based on self-report and not through an objective seroprevalence testing. To what extent was it possible that there was a higher percentage of previously asymptomatic infected persons ( and hence objectively unaware) in the Corona Immunitas group? Is it possible that previous (though asymptomatic) infection itself could confer some level of protection against PCC in itself, aside infection with Delta and Omicron variants? Does this not present a more serious confounding to the findings in the Corona Immunitas cohort?
Even though this is lightly discussed in limitations section, this could represent a more serious confounding and may require a more thorough discussion of any efforts to mitigate such or more clarity on the inability to objectively assess previous infection amongst Corona Immunitas cohort should be included when describing the cohort selection procedure. This may well assist readers to form a more balanced view of the study findings.
Reviewer #3: Dear authors,
I have read and reviewed the manuscript.
Please kindly find my recommendations below:
The manuscript has emphasized the importance of the preventive measures (especially vaccination). You have also mentioned the limitations of the study in an acceptable manner.
I would suggest the authors to discuss on the confounders and other variables which could not have been included in the study.
Recommendations in the last part might also be enlarged.
Regards,
Reviewer #4: Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting manuscript by Ballouz and colleagues. I have reviewed the research work with great interest and enthusiasm. It is timely, and I strongly believe the findings will hugely contribute for the field. The manuscript is well-written, and the statistical methods are clearly described. I do have a few suggestions for the authors. The authors calculated odds ratio and reported risk of post COVID conditions as if they calculated risk ratio. Based on the their results, they are supposed to report odds of post COVID conditions not risk post COVID conditions. Their reporting need to be consistent with their analysis and results. The other thing, the supplementary table S3 shows that the Zurich SARS-CoV-2 Cohort had no history of Delta or Omicron variant infection, and had not been vaccinated. The authors may need to discuss the implication of this on their analysis and conclusion.
Overall, the manuscript is well written and I wish good luck for the authors.
Best regards,
Fekede
**********
6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.
If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.
Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.
Reviewer #1: No
Reviewer #2: No
Reviewer #3: No
Reviewer #4: Yes: Fekede Asefa
**********
[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]
While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at gro.solp@serugif. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.
Author response to Decision Letter 0
7 Dec 2022
Editor Comments:
Thank you for submitting your manuscript. The reviewers and I believe it is of potential value for our readers. However, the reviewers have raised a number of very important issues, and their excellent comments will need to be adequately addressed in a revision before the acceptability of your manuscript for publication in the Journal can be determined. We cannot guarantee that your revised paper will be chosen for publication; this would be solely based on how satisfactorily you have addressed the reviewer comments.
Thank you very much for your positive evaluation and your valuable time for assessing our manuscript. We address your and the reviewers' comments in the following paragraphs.
#1. Ref (4) is not a peer-reviewed article. Please cite a peer-reviewed article such as DOI: https://doi.org/10.54724/lc.2022.e10
While we agree that a peer-reviewed article would be ideal, there are none on the current number of SARS-CoV-2 cases. Furthermore, it has been common practice during the pandemic for many articles to refer to the Worldometer, John Hopkins University, or WHO COVID-19 dashboards as they provide regularly updated case numbers (for examples see: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03914-4, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00947-8, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31142-9, http://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577). The ICMJE reference samples also lists the possibility of citing electronic material: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/uniform_requirements.html. For this reason, we would prefer to keep the reference as it currently is.
1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and
The manuscript and Supplementary Information have been edited to meet the style requirements of PLOS ONE. Please find the changes highlighted within the text. As part of this revision, the Supplementary Information is now provided in individual files.
2. In ethics statement in the manuscript and in the online submission form, please provide additional information about the patient records/samples used in your retrospective study. Specifically, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data/samples were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data/samples from their medical records used in research, please include this information.
Our study is based on two prospective longitudinal cohorts in which all participants provided electronic (Zurich SARS-CoV-2 Cohort) or written (Corona Immunitas) informed consent prior to participation. This information is reported in the Methods section (Lines 85-100). We did not access patient records or use any samples collected in routine clinical practice.
3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.
Apologies for this discrepancy. We have now aligned the Funding Information and Financial Disclosure sections.
4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.
We have included a de-identified individual participant data as part of this submission (S15 File). All presented main analyses can be reproduced with the data provided.
5. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.
We have removed the ethics statement from the Disclosures section and now only report it within the Methods section.
6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.
Captions for Supporting Information have been added at the end of the manuscript.
Reviewers' comments:
1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.
Reviewer #1: Yes
Reviewer #2: Yes
Reviewer #3: Yes
Reviewer #4: Yes
We thank the reviewers very much for their time and effort in evaluating our manuscript. There is no point to address with respect to this item.
2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?
Reviewer #1: Yes
Reviewer #2: I Don't Know
Reviewer #3: Yes
Reviewer #4: Yes
We can confirm that we have applied all due diligence with respect to the statistical analysis within the manuscript. Since the minimal dataset will be made available, it will be possible to verify all results.
3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.
Reviewer #1: Yes
Reviewer #2: Yes
Reviewer #3: Yes
Reviewer #4: Yes
A minimal dataset allowing the reproduction of all results will be uploaded with the revised manuscript.
4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.
Reviewer #1: Yes
Reviewer #2: Yes
Reviewer #3: Yes
Reviewer #4: Yes
Thank you. There is no point to address with respect to this item.
5. Review Comments to the Author. Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)
Reviewer #1:
Study is fine author has nicely compared two cohort. Though the findings from different studies are different, furthermore study is required for more generalizable of findings. It would have been more precise if the number in both cohort would be same or close enough.
Thank you very much for your comment. We agree that a larger sample size of individuals infected with Delta or Omicron would have been desirable and would have provided more precise estimates, particularly in the comparison of non-vaccinated individuals with Delta or Omicron compared to Wildtype SARS-CoV-2. However, in many populations worldwide the percentage of persons with infection but without vaccination has become so small that a high precision of estimates can only be achieved based on routine or surveillance data (which have their own limitations). Prospective cohort studies like ours would need to be very large to provide precise estimates. We have expanded on this point in the limitations section (lines 409-414):
“Seventh, the study was not adequately powered to investigate differences between non-vaccinated individuals infected with Delta or Omicron and those infected with Wildtype SARS-CoV-2, and between individuals vaccinated once or twice and individuals that received three vaccine doses, leading to substantial statistical uncertainty. While estimates of greater precision from other studies are desirable, we consider the reliability of our findings as high due to the representative study population and prospective follow-up.”
Reviewer #2:
The research reported in this manuscript is an important study that aims to add on to the building evidence surrounding the benefits of vaccination for COVID-19, and possibly for immune medicine in general.
The manuscript is well-written, easy to read and tables are informative. The study objectives are clearly set forth in the introduction and answered in the results lay out and discussion.
Thank you very much for your positive evaluation.
An important point of concern: The description of the cohorts does not indicate to what extent seropravelent studies were employed to rule out possible prior asymptomatic infection amongst the Corona Immunitas cohort. Even though a percentage of that group is reported to have had previous infections, this appears to be based on self-report and not through an objective seroprevalence testing. To what extent was it possible that there was a higher percentage of previously asymptomatic infected persons ( and hence objectively unaware) in the Corona Immunitas group? Is it possible that previous (though asymptomatic) infection itself could confer some level of protection against PCC in itself, aside infection with Delta and Omicron variants? Does this not present a more serious confounding to the findings in the Corona Immunitas cohort?
Even though this is lightly discussed in limitations section, this could represent a more serious confounding and may require a more thorough discussion of any efforts to mitigate such or more clarity on the inability to objectively assess previous infection amongst Corona Immunitas cohort should be included when describing the cohort selection procedure. This may well assist readers to form a more balanced view of the study findings.
This is a very important point. We agree that it is possible that some individuals in the Corona Immunitas seroprevalence study may have had an asymptomatic or symptomatic but undiagnosed infection prior to the infection event used in the study. Unfortunately, serological testing could not be used to ascertain this since 1) around 80% were vaccinated (hence, we could not reliably distinguish prior infection and vaccination by anti-S antibodies, and anti-N antibodies are not detectable in all infections and wane relatively rapidly (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-32573-w)) and 2) we did not collect data or samples prior to the infection event. As you correctly state, it is thus not reliably possible to determine prior infection status in this study other than through the questionnaires.
One could hypothesize that prior infection confers some level of protection from PCC. Meanwhile, a prominent study recently has found the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection-related complications to be increased (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-02051-3). For this reason, it is unclear whether, to what extent, and in what direction any misclassification in our study could have biased our findings. We agree that this is an important limitation and have added it more explicitly to the limitations section (lines 395-401):
"In addition, it may be that some individuals in the Corona Immunitas Cohort had an asymptomatic or undiagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection prior to the infection event evaluated in this analysis. Hence, the percentage of individuals with prior infection may be underestimated. Due to the design of the study, it was not possible to reliably ascertain prior infections using serological testing. Based on current evidence, it is unclear whether, to what extent, and in what direction any misclassification in our study could have biased our findings."
Reviewer #3:
Dear authors,
I have read and reviewed the manuscript. Please kindly find my recommendations below:
The manuscript has emphasized the importance of the preventive measures (especially vaccination). You have also mentioned the limitations of the study in an acceptable manner.
I would suggest the authors to discuss on the confounders and other variables which could not have been included in the study.
Recommendations in the last part might also be enlarged. Regards,
Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. As we mention in the limitation section, it is possible that there may be residual confounding in our study relating to differences between the two populations. We have now slightly extended on this point to highlight it more (lines 380-383):
“Due to the different sampling, recruitment, and timeframes of data collection, there may still be residual confounding relating to differences between the participants in the two cohorts (e.g., socio-economic factors or behavioural aspects) that we could not fully account for in adjusted analyses.”
The conclusion has also been slightly expanded (lines 422-433):
“This study demonstrated that infection with the Omicron variant among individuals with prior vaccination is associated with a substantially reduced risk of PCC at six months post-infection compared to Wildtype SARS-CoV-2 infection among non-vaccinated individuals. While the risk of developing PCC appears to persist in the context of vaccination and novel variants, the risk reduction through vaccination was of greater magnitude than with infection by the Delta or Omicron variant. As the pandemic continues to evolve, vaccination will remain key in reducing the acute and long-term burden of SARS-CoV-2. Findings from this study underscore the significance of infection prevention and have important implications for public health messaging. Specifically, this information should be considered in vaccination campaigns and communication strategies, as well as for further vaccine development and the planning of public health measures for future pandemic waves.“
Reviewer #4:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting manuscript by Ballouz and colleagues. I have reviewed the research work with great interest and enthusiasm. It is timely, and I strongly believe the findings will hugely contribute for the field. The manuscript is well-written, and the statistical methods are clearly described. I do have a few suggestions for the authors. The authors calculated odds ratio and reported risk of post COVID conditions as if they calculated risk ratio. Based on the their results, they are supposed to report odds of post COVID conditions not risk post COVID conditions. Their reporting need to be consistent with their analysis and results. The other thing, the supplementary table S3 shows that the Zurich SARS-CoV-2 Cohort had no history of Delta or Omicron variant infection, and had not been vaccinated. The authors may need to discuss the implication of this on their analysis and conclusion.
Overall, the manuscript is well written and I wish good luck for the authors. Best regards, Fekede
Thank you very much for your evaluation and helpful comments. You are right that since we calculated odds ratios, we should be report the results as odds rather than risks. We now consistently use odds in the Results section of the manuscript. However, we kept the interpretation of the results in some parts of the discussion using the term "risk" where it refers to the estimated absolute risk reduction, or more generally to the existing evidence for easier interpretation. Regarding your comment on the participants of the Zurich SARS-CoV-2 Cohort, the enrolment timeframe of the study covered a period where Wildtype was the predominant strain and vaccination was not yet available in Switzerland. While it certainly would have been preferable to have individuals with different vaccination status and infected with different strains within the same cohort for the analyses, this was not possible. However, since participants in both cohorts were drawn at random, we do not perceive this to have significant implications on our data, other than that there may be residual confounding relating to differences in the participants of the Zurich SARS-CoV-2 Cohort and Corona Immunitas which we did not adjust for (mentioned in lines 379-383):
“First, we pooled data from two closely aligned cohorts. Due to the different sampling, recruitment, and timeframes of data collection, there may still be residual confounding relating to differences between the participants in the two cohorts (e.g., socio-economic factors or behavioural aspects) that we could not fully account for in adjusted analyses.”
6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.
Reviewer #1: No
Reviewer #2: No
Reviewer #3: No
Reviewer #4: Yes: Fekede Asefa
There is no point to address with respect to this item.
Attachment
Submitted filename: ZSAC_CI_PCC_Response to Reviewers_R1_20221207_final.docx
Decision Letter 1
24 Jan 2023
Post COVID-19 condition after Wildtype, Delta, and Omicron SARS-CoV-2 infection and prior vaccination: pooled analysis of two population-based cohorts
PONE-D-22-29701R1
Dear Dr. Puhan,
We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.
Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.
An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at gro.solp@gnillibrohtua.
If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact gro.solp@sserpeno.
Kind regards,
Dong Keon Yon, MD, FACAAI
Academic Editor
PLOS ONE
Additional Editor Comments (optional):
This is an excellent paper.
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer's Responses to Questions
Comments to the Author
1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.
Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed
Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed
Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed
**********
2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?
The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.
Reviewer #2: Yes
Reviewer #3: Yes
Reviewer #4: Yes
**********
3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?
Reviewer #2: I Don't Know
Reviewer #3: Yes
Reviewer #4: Yes
**********
4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?
The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.
Reviewer #2: Yes
Reviewer #3: Yes
Reviewer #4: Yes
**********
5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?
PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.
Reviewer #2: Yes
Reviewer #3: Yes
Reviewer #4: Yes
**********
6. Review Comments to the Author
Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)
Reviewer #2: (No Response)
Reviewer #3: Dear authors,
My recommendations are covered in the revized manuscript.
This revision will hopefully help to understand the content better.
Regards,
Reviewer #4: Dear authors,
You have addressed all the the comments I provided to you.
I wish you all the best.
**********
7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.
If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.
Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.
Reviewer #2: Yes: Joshua Appiah Arthur
Reviewer #3: No
Reviewer #4: Yes: Fekede Asefa
**********
Acceptance letter
26 Jan 2023
PONE-D-22-29701R1
Post COVID-19 condition after Wildtype, Delta, and Omicron SARS-CoV-2 infection and prior vaccination: pooled analysis of two population-based cohorts
Dear Dr. Puhan:
I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.
If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact gro.solp@sserpeno.
If we can help with anything else, please email us at gro.solp@enosolp.
Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.
Kind regards,
PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff
on behalf of
Dr. Dong Keon Yon
Academic Editor
PLOS ONE
Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS
Full text links
Read article at publisher's site: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281429
Read article for free, from open access legal sources, via Unpaywall:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0281429&type=printable
Citations & impact
Impact metrics
Citations of article over time
Alternative metrics
Discover the attention surrounding your research
https://www.altmetric.com/details/142811888
Smart citations by scite.ai
Explore citation contexts and check if this article has been
supported or disputed.
https://scite.ai/reports/10.1371/journal.pone.0281429
Article citations
Cluster analysis identifies long COVID subtypes in Belgian patients.
Biol Methods Protoc, 9(1):bpae076, 09 Oct 2024
Cited by: 0 articles | PMID: 39478809 | PMCID: PMC11522879
The Omicron Variant Is Associated with a Reduced Risk of the Post COVID-19 Condition and Its Main Phenotypes Compared to the Wild-Type Virus: Results from the EuCARE-POSTCOVID-19 Study.
Viruses, 16(9):1500, 23 Sep 2024
Cited by: 0 articles | PMID: 39339976 | PMCID: PMC11437468
Effects of Pycnogenol® in people with post-COVID-19 condition (PYCNOVID): study protocol for a single-center, placebo controlled, quadruple-blind, randomized trial.
Trials, 25(1):385, 15 Jun 2024
Cited by: 0 articles | PMID: 38879571 | PMCID: PMC11179231
Insights into early recovery from Long COVID-results from the German DigiHero Cohort.
Sci Rep, 14(1):8569, 13 Apr 2024
Cited by: 1 article | PMID: 38609482 | PMCID: PMC11015032
Long-term symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection in a cohort of people living with HIV.
Infection, 03 May 2024
Cited by: 0 articles | PMID: 38700658
Go to all (20) article citations
Similar Articles
To arrive at the top five similar articles we use a word-weighted algorithm to compare words from the Title and Abstract of each citation.
Association between SARS-CoV-2 variants and post COVID-19 condition: findings from a longitudinal cohort study in the Belgian adult population.
BMC Infect Dis, 23(1):774, 08 Nov 2023
Cited by: 4 articles | PMID: 37940843 | PMCID: PMC10634063
Association between virus variants, vaccination, previous infections, and post-COVID-19 risk.
Int J Infect Dis, 136:14-21, 25 Aug 2023
Cited by: 16 articles | PMID: 37634619
Cutaneous manifestations of SARS-CoV-2 infection during the Delta and Omicron waves in 348 691 UK users of the UK ZOE COVID Study app.
Br J Dermatol, 187(6):900-908, 10 Oct 2022
Cited by: 10 articles | PMID: 35869671 | PMCID: PMC9349964
Long-COVID Symptoms in Individuals Infected with Different SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern: A Systematic Review of the Literature.
Viruses, 14(12):2629, 25 Nov 2022
Cited by: 77 articles | PMID: 36560633 | PMCID: PMC9785120
Review
Free full text in Europe PMC
Funding
Funders who supported this work.
Department of Health, Canton of Zurich, Switzerland
H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (1)
Grant ID: 801076
Swiss Federal Office of Public Health
Swiss School of Public Health
University of Zurich (UZH) Foundation
University of Zurich (UZH) Postdoc Grant (1)
Grant ID: FK-22-053
