Cargando…
Comparison of Long COVID-19 Caused by Different SARS-CoV-2 Strains: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Although many studies of long COVID-19 were reported, there was a lack of systematic research which assessed the differences of long COVID-19 in regard to what unique SARS-CoV-2 strains caused it. As such, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the characteristics of long COVID-19...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9736973/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36498103 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192316010 |
_version_ | 1784847168641695744 |
---|---|
author | Du, Min Ma, Yirui Deng, Jie Liu, Min Liu, Jue |
author_facet | Du, Min Ma, Yirui Deng, Jie Liu, Min Liu, Jue |
author_sort | Du, Min |
collection | PubMed |
description | Although many studies of long COVID-19 were reported, there was a lack of systematic research which assessed the differences of long COVID-19 in regard to what unique SARS-CoV-2 strains caused it. As such, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the characteristics of long COVID-19 that is caused by different SARS-CoV-2 strains. We systematically searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and ScienceDirect databases in order to find cohort studies of long COVID-19 as defined by the WHO (Geneva, Switzerland). The main outcomes were in determining the percentages of long COVID-19 among patients who were infected with different SARS-CoV-2 strains. Further, this study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022339964). A total of 51 studies with 33,573 patients was included, of which three studies possessed the Alpha and Delta variants, and five studies possessed the Omicron variant. The highest pooled estimate of long COVID-19 was found in the CT abnormalities (60.5%; 95% CI: 40.4%, 80.6%) for the wild-type strain; fatigue (66.1%; 95% CI: 42.2%, 89.9%) for the Alpha variant; and ≥1 general symptoms (28.4%; 95% CI: 7.9%, 49.0%) for the Omicron variant. The pooled estimates of ≥1 general symptoms (65.8%; 95% CI: 47.7%, 83.9%) and fatigue were the highest symptoms found among patients infected with the Alpha variant, followed by the wild-type strain, and then the Omicron variant. The pooled estimate of myalgia was highest among patients infected with the Omicron variant (11.7%; 95%: 8.3%, 15.1%), compared with those infected with the wild-type strain (9.4%; 95%: 6.3%, 12.5%). The pooled estimate of sleep difficulty was lowest among the patients infected with the Delta variant (2.5%; 95%: 0.2%, 4.9%) when compared with those infected with the wild-type strain (24.5%; 95%: 17.5%, 31.5%) and the Omicron variant (18.7%; 95%: 1.0%, 36.5%). The findings of this study suggest that there is no significant difference between long COVID-19 that has been caused by different strains, except in certain general symptoms (i.e., in the Alpha or Omicron variant) and in sleep difficulty (i.e., the wild-type strain). In the context of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and its emerging variants, directing more attention to long COVID-19 that is caused by unique strains, as well as implementing targeted intervention measures to address it are vital. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9736973 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-97369732022-12-11 Comparison of Long COVID-19 Caused by Different SARS-CoV-2 Strains: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Du, Min Ma, Yirui Deng, Jie Liu, Min Liu, Jue Int J Environ Res Public Health Review Although many studies of long COVID-19 were reported, there was a lack of systematic research which assessed the differences of long COVID-19 in regard to what unique SARS-CoV-2 strains caused it. As such, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the characteristics of long COVID-19 that is caused by different SARS-CoV-2 strains. We systematically searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and ScienceDirect databases in order to find cohort studies of long COVID-19 as defined by the WHO (Geneva, Switzerland). The main outcomes were in determining the percentages of long COVID-19 among patients who were infected with different SARS-CoV-2 strains. Further, this study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022339964). A total of 51 studies with 33,573 patients was included, of which three studies possessed the Alpha and Delta variants, and five studies possessed the Omicron variant. The highest pooled estimate of long COVID-19 was found in the CT abnormalities (60.5%; 95% CI: 40.4%, 80.6%) for the wild-type strain; fatigue (66.1%; 95% CI: 42.2%, 89.9%) for the Alpha variant; and ≥1 general symptoms (28.4%; 95% CI: 7.9%, 49.0%) for the Omicron variant. The pooled estimates of ≥1 general symptoms (65.8%; 95% CI: 47.7%, 83.9%) and fatigue were the highest symptoms found among patients infected with the Alpha variant, followed by the wild-type strain, and then the Omicron variant. The pooled estimate of myalgia was highest among patients infected with the Omicron variant (11.7%; 95%: 8.3%, 15.1%), compared with those infected with the wild-type strain (9.4%; 95%: 6.3%, 12.5%). The pooled estimate of sleep difficulty was lowest among the patients infected with the Delta variant (2.5%; 95%: 0.2%, 4.9%) when compared with those infected with the wild-type strain (24.5%; 95%: 17.5%, 31.5%) and the Omicron variant (18.7%; 95%: 1.0%, 36.5%). The findings of this study suggest that there is no significant difference between long COVID-19 that has been caused by different strains, except in certain general symptoms (i.e., in the Alpha or Omicron variant) and in sleep difficulty (i.e., the wild-type strain). In the context of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and its emerging variants, directing more attention to long COVID-19 that is caused by unique strains, as well as implementing targeted intervention measures to address it are vital. MDPI 2022-11-30 /pmc/articles/PMC9736973/ /pubmed/36498103 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192316010 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Review Du, Min Ma, Yirui Deng, Jie Liu, Min Liu, Jue Comparison of Long COVID-19 Caused by Different SARS-CoV-2 Strains: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title | Comparison of Long COVID-19 Caused by Different SARS-CoV-2 Strains: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title_full | Comparison of Long COVID-19 Caused by Different SARS-CoV-2 Strains: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Long COVID-19 Caused by Different SARS-CoV-2 Strains: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Long COVID-19 Caused by Different SARS-CoV-2 Strains: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title_short | Comparison of Long COVID-19 Caused by Different SARS-CoV-2 Strains: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title_sort | comparison of long covid-19 caused by different sars-cov-2 strains: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9736973/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36498103 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192316010 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT dumin comparisonoflongcovid19causedbydifferentsarscov2strainsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT mayirui comparisonoflongcovid19causedbydifferentsarscov2strainsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT dengjie comparisonoflongcovid19causedbydifferentsarscov2strainsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT liumin comparisonoflongcovid19causedbydifferentsarscov2strainsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT liujue comparisonoflongcovid19causedbydifferentsarscov2strainsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |