Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2023 Nov 22;18(11):e0294780. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0294780

Association between long COVID and vaccination: A 12-month follow-up study in a low- to middle-income country

Samar Fatima 1,#, Madiha Ismail 2,*,#, Taymmia Ejaz 1,, Zarnain Shah 1,, Summaya Fatima 1,, Mohammad Shahzaib 1,, Hassan Masood Jafri 2,
Editor: Yatin N Dholakia3
PMCID: PMC10664948  PMID: 37992084

Abstract

Objective

There is a lack of estimates regarding the at-risk population associated with long COVID in Pakistan due to the absence of prospective longitudinal studies. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of long COVID and its association with disease severity and vaccination status of the patient.

Design and data sources

This prospective cohort study was conducted at the Aga Khan University Hospital and recruited patients aged > 18 years who were admitted between February 1 and June 7, 2021. During this time, 901 individuals were admitted, after excluding patients with missing data, a total of 481 confirmed cases were enrolled.

Results

The mean age of the study population was 56.9±14.3 years. Among patients with known vaccination status (n = 474), 19%(n = 90) and 19.2%(n = 91) were fully and partially vaccinated, respectively. Severe/critical disease was present in 64%(n = 312). The mortality rate following discharge was 4.58%(n = 22). Around 18.9%(n = 91) of the population required readmission to the hospital, with respiratory failure (31.8%, n = 29) as the leading cause. Long COVID symptoms were present in 29.9%(n = 144), and these symptoms were more prevalent in the severe/critical (35.5%, n = 111) and unvaccinated (37.9%, n = 105) cohort. The most prominent symptoms were fatigue (26.2%, n = 126) and shortness of breath (24.1%, n = 116), followed by cough (15.2%, n = 73). Vaccinated as compared to unvaccinated patients had lower readmissions (13.8% vs. 21.51%) and post-COVID pulmonary complications (15.4% vs. 24.2%). On multivariable analysis, after adjusting for age, gender, co-morbidity, and disease severity, lack of vaccination was found to be an independent predictor of long COVID with an Odds ratio of 2.42(95% CI 1.52–3.84). Fully and partially vaccinated patients had 62% and 56% reduced risk of developing long COVID respectively.

Conclusions

This study reports that the patients continued to have debilitating symptoms related to long COVID, one year after discharge, and most of its effects were observed in patients with severe/critical disease and unvaccinated patients.

Introduction

Emerging evidence indicates that COVID-19 has long-term consequences on the immunological, respiratory, neuropsychiatric, cardiac, haematological, and functional abilities of patients [13]. Although acute damage to multiple organs has already been established in this disease, the long-term effects of this disease need to be considered [4]. Around 5% of individuals with COVID-19 experience a severe form of the illness that necessitates hospitalization in an intensive care unit (ICU), and approximately two-thirds of these individuals develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), with only 25% surviving the illness [5]. Severe and critical forms of the disease that develop ARDS during hospital admission can lead to a disorder characterized by persistent fatigue, weakness, and limited exercise tolerance [6]. These patients often have sequelae from their illness and hospital stay, which impair their overall health status and create significant health needs after hospitalization. The occurrence of debilitating, ongoing symptoms of COVID-19 is common. Even those with milder infections have reported persistent problems. They belong to a vulnerable population, and therefore the burden of care for this population is suspected to be substantial.

While research efforts have been expedited to address treatment and vaccination for preventing transmission and mortality, there has been a notable lack of research in areas such as diagnostic criteria, establishing a consistent definition, understanding the pathophysiology, and developing effective strategies for managing and treating long COVID. Globally, it has been estimated that at least 65 to 144 million individuals may have developed long COVID by the end of 2021 [7]. Based on 3.92 billion SARS-COV-2 infections by 2021, with 3.7% of these reporting long COVID symptoms, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) conducted disease modelling for the estimation of long COVID cases. Bayesian meta-regression used data from 54 studies and 2 record databases on 1.2 million patients from 22 countries and estimated that 144.7 million (95% CI 54.8–312.9) people suffered from any of the three symptom clusters of long COVID [8], with 15.1% of the individuals having persistent symptoms at 12 months, that comes to an estimated burden of 21 million individuals suffering from long COVID. The economic, social, and psychological impact of long COVID has also been huge. In the United States alone, the economic ramifications of long COVID are estimated to amount to approximately $170 billion in lost wages. In a large-scale survey, 18% of patients who had full-time employment before COVID, could not return to work due to long COVID symptoms [9]. It has been observed that low antibody titers to SARS-CoV-2 have been associated with a greater likelihood of experiencing long COVID, regardless of hospitalization status [10]. Perlis et al. conducted a study and observed that full vaccination resulted in a lower risk of developing long COVID with an OR of 0.72 [11].

While studies on the impact of vaccination using real-time surveillance, have reported a reduction in hospitalization and mortality [12], the long-term impact of vaccination and the number of doses or booster doses in reducing long COVID symptoms has not been widely studied, particularly in lower-middle-income countries (LMICs). Due to a lack of standardized measures, the actual extent of the disease burden remains uncertain. As per Fan et al., the global burden of COVID during the years 2020–2021 was found to be 31,930,000 DALYs (Disability-adjusted Life Years) [13, 14]. Furthermore, studies are required on long COVID prevalence, clinical presentations, waning, or improvement in symptoms over time, and the factors that predict these outcomes. This research is crucial for understanding the overall burden, economic consequences, healthcare planning, and facilitating the return to employment for affected individuals.

To the best of our knowledge, the characteristics and long-term outcomes of COVID-19 survivors discharged from hospitals to home settings in LMICs, especially those with severe/critical disease, along with the effect of vaccines on their subsequent health, are yet to be ascertained. Therefore, this study was conducted to prospectively investigate the long-term sequelae of COVID-19 infection on symptoms, mental health, and functional recovery according to the disease severity and vaccination status after one year following discharge from the hospital. This information will offer insights into the current physical and mental health status of the patient population, enabling us to develop tailored rehabilitation programs for those who have survived the pandemic while being affected by severe and critical forms of the disease.

Methods

Study design/data source

This prospective cohort longitudinal follow-up study was conducted at Aga Khan University Hospital (AKUH). As the largest tertiary care centre in Pakistan, AKUH serves patients from across the nation and offers comprehensive treatment for a wide spectrum of diseases and conditions regardless of their severity. AKUH is a 740-bed hospital with fully equipped emergency rooms, well-appointed critical care units, and specialized wards, all aimed at maintaining a high standard of quality care for all admitted patients. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, AKUH allocated a separate building for the treatment of COVID-19 patients and has, to date, admitted and provided care for more than 5,200 individuals affected by the virus.

Eligibility criteria and data collection

Adult patients admitted between February 1 and June 7, 2021, who had at least one positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR result in a nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swab/tracheal sample were included in the study. Patients with symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 infection but negative RT-PCR results were excluded from the study.

During this time, 901 individuals were admitted to AKUH intensive care/high dependency units and wards with confirmed COVID-19 infection. The in-hospital mortality was 11.5%. After excluding the patients with missing data, a total of 481 confirmed cases admitted to AKUH were recruited, medical records reviewed, and data recorded in predesigned proforma. Around twenty-two patients (4.58%) died after discharge from the hospital, however, it was difficult for us to assess the cause of death through telephonic interviews. Patients who could not be contacted by phone and those who refused to participate in the study were excluded, see Fig 1.

Fig 1. STROBE patient selection flow chart.

Fig 1

STROBE, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology.

Patients were contacted via phone 1 year after the discharge. After telephonic consent, the research assistant utilized a standard, pre-designed questionnaire to collect the outcome data. The questionnaire inquired about details of daily activities, current health, and symptoms such as dyspnoea with exertion as defined by the New York Heart Association (NYHA) class. General symptoms referring to the survivors’ overall discomfort, including physical decline or fatigue, cough, shortness of breath, and other respiratory symptoms, including chest tightness, wheezing, and chest pain were also noted. Depression and anxiety were assessed using a validated Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) questionnaire and were noted on the preformed questionnaire. The HADS consists of 14 questions and is divided into two subscales: depression and anxiety. Each response has a four-point rating, with the highest score for anxiety and depression being 21. Scores of 11 or above on either subscale indicate a major "case" of psychological morbidity, whereas 8–10 indicate "borderline" and 0–7 indicate "normal" mental health [15].

Disease severity was defined as non-severe, severe, and critical according to the National Institute of Health (NIH) Pakistan guidelines. The non-severe disease was defined as patients with no symptoms or only mild symptoms with room air SpO2 of greater than 94%. The patient was classified as having severe disease when the SpO2 was below 94% on room air or when the chest X-ray findings showed lung infiltrates >50% and critical disease when they had respiratory failure requiring invasive or non-invasive ventilation (NIV).

Patients were classified according to their vaccination status into three categories: fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated, and unvaccinated. An individual was considered as “fully vaccinated” when they became symptomatic after 14 days of receiving the second dose of the vaccine, however, the patient was considered as being “partially vaccinated” when they became symptomatic ≥ 2 weeks after receiving the first dose, did not receive the second dose, or became symptomatic ≤ 2 weeks after receiving the second dose. Those who did not receive any vaccine dose were labelled as “unvaccinated” [12]. According to World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines, long COVID or post-COVID condition (PCC) was defined as the persistence of existing symptoms or the emergence of new symptoms at least three months after the first SARS-CoV-2 infection and lasting two months with no other explanation [16]. These terms are also interchangeable with post-acute COVID-19 syndrome or persistent post-COVID-19 syndrome.

Patient and public involvement statement

This prospective study was conducted by reviewing medical charts and electronic data. Patients were interviewed by phone after obtaining informed verbal consent. Patient confidentiality and anonymity were maintained. No identifiers that could be used to track participants were used, and the research questionnaire was identified by a serial number. The study was approved by the ethical review committee (ERC) of AKUH, Karachi, Pakistan (ERC reference number: 2021-6336-19452).

Statistical analysis

Data were entered and analyzed in Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25.

First, the descriptive statistics were calculated. The normality of the data was checked using the Shapiro–Wilk test. The mean± standard deviation (SD) was calculated for quantitative continuous symmetric data, whereas median and intra quartile range (IQR) were calculated for quantitative continuous skewed data such as readmission number of visits and length of stay. Frequencies and percentages were calculated for the categorical data. For the comparison of categorical variables, the chi-square test was applied for parametric data, while Fisher’s exact was applied for non-parametric data. Independent samples student t-test and Mann-Whitney U Test were applied for parametric and non-parametric continuous variables, respectively. Multi-variable logistic regression analysis was conducted to evaluate independent predictors of long COVID. A p-value of ≤0.05 was considered significant.

Results

Baseline characteristics of the study subjects

In total, 481 admissions were included in this study. The mean age of the study population was 56.9±14.3 (range 22–94) years. The majority were males 61.7% (n = 297), and the most common comorbid condition was diabetes mellitus (55%, n = 213) followed by hypertension (26%, n = 101). Among the study population, we were able to determine the vaccination status of 474 patients, with 19% (n = 90) and 19.2% (n = 91) fully and partially vaccinated, respectively; however, many of the admitted population were unvaccinated (61.8%, n = 293). Sixty-four percent (n = 312) of the individuals had severe/critical disease, and 25.6%(n = 120) required non-invasive (NIV)/invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). The median length of hospital stay at the first admission was 4 (2–7) days, with a prolonged length of stay in patients with critical disease (median 8, 6–11 days). Following discharge, 18.9% (n = 91) of the population required readmission to the emergency department, with 13.9% (n = 67) requiring inpatient hospitalization and 65.6% (n = 44) being admitted to a Special Care Unit (SCU)/Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Around 28.3% (n = 136) of patients had their chest X-rays done in the OPD (at any point from their hospital discharge up to the one-year interview). Fibrosis and consolidation were observed in 8.7% (n = 42) and 7.7% (n = 37) of the patients respectively, the rest of the chest X-rays were reported as normal. The mortality rate following discharge from the hospital after the initial/index admission was around 4.58% (n = 22). The patients who expired following their discharge had a median survival duration of 31.5 days (IQR 7.5–213), see Table 1.

Table 1. Baseline characteristics of patients with COVID-19 survivors on follow-up (n = 481).

Characteristics % (n)
Age in years (mean ± SD) 56.9±14.3
Age range (years) 22–94
Sex
Male 61.7% (297)
Female 38.3% (184)
Comorbidities
Diabetes 55% (213)
Hypertension 26% (101)
Other comorbidities 19% (73)
Vaccination status, n = 474
Vaccinated (fully and partially vaccinated) n = 181.
Fully vaccinated 19% (90)
Partially vaccinated 19.2% (91)
Unvaccinated 61.8% (293)
Vaccination status not known 1.4% (7)
Disease severity
Non-Severe 35.1% (169)
Severe/Critical 64.2% (312)
Severe disease requiring NIV or IMV(Critical) 25.6% (120)
Invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) 3.3% (16)
Non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) 22.9% (110)
Length of stay (index visit) days (median, IQR) 4(2–7)
Readmission/revisit to the Emergency department 18.9% (91)
Readmission requiring Inpatient hospitalization. 13.9% (67)
Mortality rate on follow-up after the initial/index admission 4.58% (22)

Reasons for readmission of COVID-19 survivors on follow-up

Among the 91 patients who required readmission, the leading complaints/diagnoses were related to respiratory involvement (31.8%, n = 29) and infections (17.6%, n = 16), followed by cardiovascular-related impairment in 12%(n = 11) of cases. Respiratory failure (27.4%, n = 25) and infection (17.1%, n = 17) were the most common diagnoses on readmission. Many of the readmitted patients had more than one diagnosis and more than one visit to the ER/hospitalization. Nonetheless, we did not find long COVID as a contributing factor for the readmissions, see Table 2.

Table 2. Reasons for readmission of COVID-19 survivors on follow-up (n = 91).

Reasons for readmission % (n)
Respiratory impairment 31.8% (29)
Infections 17.6% (16)
Cardiac impairment (myocardial infarction, arrhythmias, heart failure) 12% (11)
GI impairment 17.6% (16)
Neurological 2.2% (2)
Miscellaneous causes 18.6% (17)
Respiratory failure 27.4% (25)
Infections (UTI, Dengue, Pneumonia) 17.1% (17)
Myocardial Infarction 8.7% (8)
Acute gastroenteritis 7.6% (7)
Venous thromboembolism (Pulmonary embolism, deep venous thrombosis) 7.6% (7)
Gastrointestinal bleeding 5.4% (5)

COVID-19 survivors’ health-related characteristics stratified according to vaccination status

Severe disease (including critical) was found to be higher in unvaccinated patients as compared to the vaccinated cohort (68.2% vs 58.5%), with the critical disease in 27.3% (n = 80) and 20.4% (n = 37) of the unvaccinated and vaccinated population respectively (p-value = 0.03).

Overall, 21.5% (n = 63) of the unvaccinated individuals required readmission to emergency/inpatient services, compared to the fully/partially vaccinated (13.8%, n = 25) group with a significant p-value. Twenty-four percent (n = 71) of the unvaccinated patients’ admissions were secondary to pulmonary complications. New/worsened/persistent symptoms related to long COVID were more common in 37.9% (n = 105) of the unvaccinated as compared to 20% (n = 35) of the vaccinated population. Severe fatigue (33.9% vs. 17.1%), shortness of breath (30% vs. 17.1%), cough (20.9% vs. 8%), difficulty ambulating due to breathlessness (15.8% vs. 8%), and feverish feeling (8.3% vs. 2.2%) were also more common in the unvaccinated cohort than in the vaccinated cohort. More (45.7%, n = 80) patients were able to return to work in the vaccinated cohort, see Tables 3 and 4.

Table 3. COVID-19 survivors’ health-related characteristics stratified according to vaccination status.

Characteristics of disease on index admission based on Vaccination status, n = 474
Vaccinated n = 181 (full/partial) Unvaccinated n = 293 p-value Crude Odds Ratio (95% CI)
Disease Severity
Non-Severe 41.5% (75) 31.8% (93) 0.032 1.52 (1.03–2.23)
Severe/Critical 58.5% (106) 68.2% (200)
Invasive mechanical ventilation 1.10% (2) 4.44% (13) 0.063 4.15 (0.92–18.6)
Readmission 13.8% (25) 21.51% (63) 0.005 1.81 (1.09–3.01)
Pulmonary complications$ 15.47% (28) 24.2% (71) 0.023 1.74 (1.07–2.83)
Health-related characteristics on follow-up stratified on vaccination, n = 452
Vaccinated (full/partial) = 175 Unvaccinated n = 277 p-value
Asymptomatic 80 (140) 62 (172) 0.000 1.79 (1.31–2.45)
New/worsened/persistent symptoms related to long COVID 20 (35) 37.9 (105) 0.000
Severe fatigue (n = 124) 17.1 (30) 33.9 (94) 0.000 2.51 (1.57–3.9)
Minimal (n = 42) 10.2 (18) 8.6 (24)
Shortness of breath (SOB)/ chest tightness/ wheezing 17.1 (30) 30 (84) 0.002 2.12 (1.33–3.40)
Cough (n = 72) 8 (14) 20.9 (58) 0.000 3.04 (1.64–5.65)
Difficulty ambulating due to breathlessness 8 (14) 15.8 (44) 0.015 2.30 (1.16 4.15)
Feverish 2.2 (4) 8.3 (23) 0.013 3.89 (1.323–11.462)
Continued loss of taste and/or smell 1.7 (3) 2.8 (8) 0.430 1.7 (0.44–6.5)

$Pulmonary Complications (Respiratory impairment during readmission and/or on outpatient follow-up

~ Patients who had answered the relevant question included.

Table 4. COVID-19 survivors’ return to work and HADS score stratified according to vaccination status.

Vaccinated (full/partial) n = 175 Unvaccinated n = 277 p-value
Return to Employment (n = 266, NA = 193) 0.000
Yes (202) 45.7 (80) 44 (122)
No (61) 4 (7) 19.4 (54)
Able to return to work in 60 days following discharge. 0.072
Yes 42.2 (74) 39.7 (110)
No 3.4 (6) 7.5 (21)
Anxiety (HADS-A score >11)
n = 16 5.7 (10) 2.1 (6) 0.047
Depression (HADS-D score >11)
n = 20 2.8 (5) 5.4 (15) 0.198
Combined anxiety and depression (HADS-A
and/or HADS-D score >11) (28) 5.7 (10) 6.4 (18) 0.73

Health-related characteristics of COVID-19 survivors stratified by disease severity

Approximately 459 survivors were interviewed for the presence of symptoms and other health-related ailments. The majority (65%, n = 315) of patients were asymptomatic at the time of the interview, with a higher percentage in the non-severe cohort than in the severe cohort (75.7% vs. 59.9%), p-value of 0.000. New/worsened/persistent symptoms associated with long COVID were present in 29.9% (n = 144) of the respondents, and these symptoms were more prevalent in the severe/critical cohort (35.5%,n = 111). The most prominent symptoms that persisted even one year after the discharge from the hospital, were severe fatigue (26.2%, n = 126) and shortness of breath/chest tightness/wheezing (24.1%, n = 116), followed by cough (15.2%, n = 73). Approximately 12.3% (n = 59) of the respondents had difficulty in ambulating due to shortness of breath, and many had more than one symptom. Compared to the non-severe group, a significantly higher number of individuals with severe/critical disease suffered from fatigue (15.3% vs. 32%), shortness of breath (13.6% vs. 29.8%), cough (8.8% vs. 18.5%), and difficulty in ambulating due to breathlessness (5.9% vs. 15.7%), p-value <0.005. Approximately 18.1% (n = 87), with 27.2% (n = 85) of the severe/critical cohort continued to require oxygen supplementation at home for a few weeks to months after discharge from the hospital. None of the patients was on supplemental oxygen at the time of the interview.

Among the 266 patients who answered questions regarding employment status, 45% (n = 207), as opposed to 12.8% (n = 59), were able to return to employment, with 40.9% (n = 188) able to return to work by 60 days after discharge. Even a year after discharge from the hospital, over 33.9% (n = 163) and 31% (n = 149) of patients reported emotional and financial difficulties, respectively. Considering disease severity, the emotional impact was greater in the severe/critical disease group (p = 0.008). There were 6.1% (n = 28) patients, who had HADS anxiety and depression score > 11, with 3.4% (n = 16) and 4.3% (n = 20) of the patients having anxiety and depression respectively, but there was no significant difference observed between the two cohorts stratified on severity basis, see Table 5.

Table 5. COVID-19 survivor’s health-related characteristics stratified on severity basis (n = 459).

Follow-up data of study participants Total Non-Severe %, n = 169 Severe/Critical p-value
%, n = 459 %, n = 312
Asymptomatic 65.5% (315) 75.7 (128) 59.9 (187) 0.000
New/worsened/persistent symptoms related to illness (Long COVID) 29.9% (144) 19.5 (33) 35.5 (111) 0.000
Severe fatigue 26.2% (126) 15.3 (26) 32 (100) 0.000
Minimal fatigue 9.3% (43) 5.9 (10) 10.5 (33)
Shortness of breath (SOB)/ chest tightness/ wheezing 24.1% (116) 13.6 (23) 29.8 (93) 0.000
Cough 15.2% (73) 8.8 (15) 18.58 (58) 0.005
Difficulty ambulating due to breathlessness. 12.3% (59) 5.9 (10) 15.7 (49) 0.001
Feverish 5.6% (27) 3.5 (6) 6.7 (21) 0.151
Continued loss of taste and/or smell 2.3% (11) 1.18 (2) 2.8 (9) 0.343
Supplemental oxygen 18.1% (87) 0.5 (1) 27.2 (85) 0.000
Return to employment.
Yes 45% (207) 46.7 (79) 41 (128) 0.165
No 12.8% (59)
Not Applicable 42% (193)
Able to return to work within 60 days following discharge 40.9% (188) 46.1 (78) 35.2 (110) 0.001
Emotional impact 33.9% (163) 43.7 (74) 28.5 (89) 0.008
Financial impact 31% (149) 36.6 (62) 27.8 (87) 0.208
Anxiety (HADS-A score >11) 3.4% (16) 3.5 (6) 3.2 (10) 0.83
Depression (HADS-D score >11) 4.3% (20) 4.14 (7) 4.1 (13) 0.994
Combined anxiety and depression (HADS-A and/or HADS-D score >11) 6.1% (28) 5.3 (9) 6 (19) 0.737

Most of the patients had HADS anxiety and depression score between 0–8 and the median HADS anxiety and depression score among the studied population was 2 (0–5), see Table 6.

Table 6. Anxiety and depression in COVID-19 survivors.

Anxiety Depression
HADS score Total % (n) HADS score Total % (n)
Category 1: 0–7 91.7 (421) Category 1: 0–7 89.5 (411)
Category 2: 8–10 4.8 (22) Category 2: 8–10 6.1 (28)
Category 3: > = 11 3.5 (16) Category 3: > = 11 4.4 (20)
HADS Anxiety score (median IQR) 2 (0–4) HADS Depression score (median IQR) 2 (0–5)

After one year of infection, the majority (59.3%, n = 272) of patients continued to have NYHA class 1. However, 12% (n = 55) and 2.6% (n = 13) of the patients became NYHA 4, compared to 7% (n = 32), and 0.20% (n = 1) previously, see Fig 2.

Fig 2. NYHA class pre- and post-hospitalization at one-year follow-up (n = 459).

Fig 2

Multivariable analysis for factors associated with long COVID

On multivariable analysis, after adjusting for age, gender, presence of co-morbid conditions, and disease severity, lack of vaccination was found to be an independent predictor of long COVID with an Odds ratio of 2.42 (95% CI 1.52–3.84). Fully vaccinated and partially vaccinated patients had 62% and 56% reduced risk of developing long COVID respectively, see Table 7.

Table 7. Multivariate analysis for factors associated with long COVID.

Variables adjusted Odds ratio (95% Confidence interval) p-value
Female gender 1.14 (0.76–1.70) 0.654
Age > 60 years 2.62 (1.70–4.04) 0.000
>2 comorbid conditions 1.24 (0.70–2.21) 0.463
Severe Disease 1.84 (1.13–2.97) 0.014
Fully vaccinated 0.38 (0.20–0.7) 0.002
Partially vaccinated 0.44 (0.24–0.80) 0.007

aOR(adjusted odd ratio) for unvaccinated 2.42 (1.52–3.84)

Discussion

There is increasing anecdotal awareness of patients with “Long COVID” in whom residual symptoms persist beyond the acute viral illness [1720]. This study reports the long-term health outcomes of COVID-19 survivors at 1 year following hospital discharge in a large cohort of patients. Our study observed that the patients who required hospitalization due to severe/critical COVID-19 infection or had an unvaccinated status continued to have debilitating symptoms and functional status with significant financial and emotional impact on their lives. Additionally, it was observed that patients with severe/critical disease and unvaccinated status had higher readmission rates due to various reasons (unrelated to long COVID).

Xue Zhang et al. and MM Maestre-Muñiz et al. did a similar study and reported the persistence of symptoms in COVID-19 survivors one year after discharge from the hospital in 45% and 56.9% of the interviewees respectively. Fatigue, breathlessness, sweating, chest tightness, anxiety, ageusia, anosmia, and myalgia were the most common symptoms. Fatigue was higher in patients with older age, female sex, and severe disease [21, 22]. Compared to this, most (65.5%) of our patients were asymptomatic and only 29.9% reported persistent symptoms related to the illness; however, fatigue, breathlessness, and chest tightness continued to be common among both populations. MM Maestre-Muñiz and colleagues conducted a thorough study, but they did not categorize symptoms based on disease severity and vaccination status. On the other hand, Xue Zhang and their team stratified the cohort into non-severe and severe disease categories, but the criteria for defining COVID-19 severity were not clearly outlined. Additionally, neither of these studies assessed the emotional and financial hardships experienced by COVID-19 survivors. Lixue Huang et al. conducted a study and observed that around 49% of the patients had at least one sequela at 12 months follow-up. Dyspnea and depression were reported in 30% and 26% of the patients compared to 24.1% and 4.3% respectively in our study. This difference in observations made for depression and anxiety may be due to the difference in the scales. Lixue Huang et al. study is remarkable in a way as it included face-to-face interviews, however, stratification according to the severity of the disease and vaccination status remains to be addressed [23]. We also found two regional studies by FNU Shivani et al. (12 months follow-up, hospitalized patients) and Madeeha Khan et al. (12-week follow-up, only 16.7% hospitalized patients), and observed that fatigue and breathing problems were the most common symptoms of COVID-19 survivors [24, 25]. In both regional studies, further analysis based on the severity of the disease and vaccination status was not done.

A study conducted in an intensive care unit (on NIV/invasive ventilation/high nasal flow cannula), found that 82% of the patients suffered from fatigue (compared to 35% of our population). This study reported health impairments in critically ill patients but had limitations due to the absence of a control group and a small sample size, including patients from the first wave [26].

Taquet et al. analysed electronic healthcare data from 81 million patients and reported that 36.5% of the COVID survivors developed long COVID symptoms between 3 and 6 months [27]. Another study conducted in Germany between October 2020 and August 2021, on 51,630 patients observed that 8.3% of the patients in general practices suffered from long COVID i.e., in the initial pandemic waves [28]. A meta-analysis of 137 studies revealed that the initial symptoms decreased from 92% to 55% at 1 month and remained stable at 54% at 6 and 12 months [29]. Another meta-analysis showed no significant difference in the short-term (1-month) and long-term (>6 months) prevalence of post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) among patients requiring hospitalization. Almost 54% of patients reported at least one PASC at 6 or more months. Notably, 79% of the studies included in the analysis were from high-income counties and they did not include data regarding symptom reduction, improvement, or deterioration [30].

In a systematic review of the effect of vaccination in reducing long COVID symptoms, Byambasuren et al. reported the lowest odds ratio of 0.48 to 1.01 for developing long COVID even with “any dose” of vaccine before infection [31]. Most studies have reported a reduction in long COVID risk with immunization, ranging between 15% to 41% [10]; however, few studies have been reported on symptom-specific reduction. Taquet et al. in a study on breakthrough infections in 10,024 COVID-19 patients, reported lower odds of death (0.66) in vaccinated patients. Furthermore, receiving two vaccine doses i.e., being fully vaccinated was associated with lower risk for most of the long COVID symptoms but not all Post-COVID Conditions (PCC) [32]. Similarly, Kuodi et al. from Israel observed that patients vaccinated twice with the BNT162b2 vaccine reported fewer PCC symptoms [33]. From the UK, at 12 weeks of follow-up, Daniel et al. [34] observed that full vaccination was associated with a 41% reduction in the odds of developing long COVID. In another cohort-based study from the UK, Antonelli et al. reported a risk reduction halved in vaccinated patients at a four-week follow-up [35]. Similar to their findings, our study also noted a decrease in post-COVID symptoms with vaccination, especially among patients under 60 years. Mizrahi et al. reported a higher risk of dyspnoea in unvaccinated with a hazard ratio of 1.58 which was similar to OR 2.42 in our study [36].

Due to long COVID, an estimated 9–40% of patients requiring hospitalization were absent from work at 60 and 90 days after discharge [37]. Around 86–88% of the patients who were employed before COVID-19 had returned to their original work at 12 months, and all the patients with ARDS achieved independence in ADL at 12 months [23, 38]. Karpman et al reported that [39], adult patients with long COVID (PCC) faced more barriers to accessing health care due to costs; lack of specific clinics, and finding appointments. Moreover, the economic implications of the long COVID pandemic have not been studied in LMIC, where healthcare resources are already constrained.

Based on our study and literature review we have certain recommendations that might result in improvement in data collection on long COVID and improve preparation for the post-Pandemic wave of post-COVID conditions [40]. We recommend long-term studies across 1–3 years to estimate the true number of cases developing long COVID, a few examples of these are a LOCUS study (Long COVID–Understanding Symptoms, events and Use of Services in Portugal) [41] and an open registry with 6 monthly follow-up for 3 years in Bavaria [42]. Using data on vaccination available in government databases; the long-term impact of the total number of doses; the need for boosters and the time to vaccination in our population can be evaluated. To unveil the true burden of disease, data collection in terms of DALYs should be conducted in comparison to age-standardized mortality rates, incidence, and prevalence, as this will also be useful in terms of comparison of disease burden with other NCDs (Non-Communicable diseases) across different countries. In, Germany, for 2020, approximately 1-year DALYs were found to be 305,641 [43]. Estimates from Scotland ranged from 96,500 to 108,200 and surprisingly COVID-19 DALYs were second to ischemic heart disease among NCDs [44]. Importantly, the mortality rate contributed a small share to this morbidity in DALYs, and therefore allocation of resources should be prioritized not only for the prevention of mortality but also for the reduction in long COVID [45, 46]. Furthermore, we also recommend symptom-specific data collection, registries, multidisciplinary research clinics, and the development of clinical practice guidelines. Training of healthcare professionals along with improving access to specialist care for conditions such as post-COVID fibrosis, is paramount in reducing costs and improving affordability.

Our study has certain limitations. This single-centre observational study was conducted in a large private tertiary care hospital; without control groups, therefore, the results cannot be generalized to the entire population. Second, 44% of the eligible population were not interviewed, because they were not accessible, and few declined to participate in the study. There was also survivor bias as we were not able to recruit the patients who died after a few months of discharge. Another constraint of this study was the potential limitation associated with telephone interviews, which may not be as precise as face-to-face interactions. Furthermore, the interviews relied on subjective information provided by the participants and did not incorporate objective evidence obtained through further investigative procedures. Readmission frequency may have been underreported as few patients may have been readmitted to another healthcare facility. COVID-19 is known to unmask preexisting diabetes and cause thyroid disease, the symptoms of which may resemble those of long COVID, we did not assess this in our study as these diagnoses (new-onset diabetes or hypothyroidism) would have required a review of the diagnostic labs/criteria.

Despite these limitations, to our knowledge, this is the first reported data from Pakistan, on the outcomes of patients past one year of hospitalization with COVID-19 infection. This study not only evaluated the impact of severity of the disease on long COVID but also assessed the role of vaccination status in prevention. In comparison to other studies, we did not rely solely on electronic health records but also interviewed patients for symptom evaluation. The emotional, mental, and financial toll of the disease was also evaluated and risk factors specifically predictive of long Covid were identified in our population. Another strength of the study is the inclusion of patients with positive RT-PCR or rapid antigen tests as other studies included patients based on clinical symptoms without confirmatory tests.

Conclusion

This study evaluated the long-term consequences of COVID-19 on symptoms, mental health, and functional recovery according to disease severity a year after hospitalization. Based on our findings, individuals who experienced severe and critical forms of the disease are more susceptible to enduring debilitating symptoms like fatigue and breathlessness, persisting for several months following their hospital discharge. Patients with severe and critical disease also reported financial and emotional difficulties compared to those with non-severe disease. Thus, healthcare providers should emphasize the rehabilitation of COVID-19 survivors along with their long-term follow-up with necessary investigations and treatment. Vaccination resulted in a reduction in both mortality and risk of long COVID, this finding can be used to emphasize the long-term importance of vaccination after the pandemic and might increase vaccination uptake rates.

Supporting information

S1 Data. Additional data that provides an overview of the health-related characteristics of COVID-19 survivors based on their vaccination status (i.e., vaccinated, partially vaccinated, and unvaccinated) can be found in S1 and S2 Tables in S2 File.

(CSV)

S1 File

(DOCX)

S2 File. Contains supporting tables.

(DOCX)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The authors received no funding for their work.

References

  • 1.Louis TJ, Qasem A, Abdelli LS, Naser SA. Extra-Pulmonary Complications in SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Comprehensive Multi Organ-System Review. Microorganisms. 2022;10(1):153. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms10010153 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Willi S, Lüthold R, Hunt A, Hänggi NV, Sejdiu D, Scaff C, et al. COVID-19 sequelae in adults aged less than 50 years: a systematic review. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2021;40:101995. doi: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2021.101995 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Leung T, Chan A, Chan E, Chan V, Chui C, Cowling B, et al. Short-and potential long-term adverse health outcomes of COVID-19: a rapid review. Emerging microbes & infections. 2020;9(1):2190–9. doi: 10.1080/22221751.2020.1825914 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Balachandar V, Mahalaxmi I, Subramaniam M, Kaavya J, Kumar NS, Laldinmawii G, et al. Follow-up studies in COVID-19 recovered patients-is it mandatory? Sci Total Environ. 2020;729:139021. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Yang X, Yu Y, Xu J, Shu H, Liu H, Wu Y, et al. Clinical course and outcomes of critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a single-centered, retrospective, observational study. The lancet respiratory medicine. 2020;8(5):475–81. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30079-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Bein T, Weber-Carstens S, Apfelbacher C. Long-term outcome after the acute respiratory distress syndrome: different from general critical illness? Curr Opin Crit Care. 2018;24(1):35. doi: 10.1097/MCC.0000000000000476 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.The L. Long COVID: 3 years in. Lancet. 2023;401(10379):795. Epub 2023/03/12. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00493-2 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9998094. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Collaborators GBoDLC. Estimated Global Proportions of Individuals With Persistent Fatigue, Cognitive, and Respiratory Symptom Clusters Following Symptomatic COVID-19 in 2020 and 2021. JAMA. 2022;328(16):1604–15. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.18931 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Suran M. Long COVID Linked With Unemployment in New Analysis. JAMA. 2023;329(9):701–2. doi: 10.1001/jama.2023.0157 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Davis HE, McCorkell L, Vogel JM, Topol EJ. Long COVID: major findings, mechanisms and recommendations. Nature Reviews Microbiology. 2023;21(3):133–46. doi: 10.1038/s41579-022-00846-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Perlis RH, Santillana M, Ognyanova K, Safarpour A, Lunz Trujillo K, Simonson MD, et al. Prevalence and Correlates of Long COVID Symptoms Among US Adults. JAMA network open. 2022;5(10):e2238804-e. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.38804 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Fatima S, Zafar A, Afzal H, Ejaz T, Shamim S, Saleemi S, et al. COVID-19 infection among vaccinated and unvaccinated: Does it make any difference? PLoS One. 2022;17(7):e0270485. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270485 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Gebeyehu DT, East L, Wark S, Islam MS. Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) based COVID-19 health impact assessment: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2023;23(1):334. doi: 10.1186/s12889-023-15239-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Fan C-Y, Fann JC-Y, Yang M-C, Lin T-Y, Chen H-H, Liu J-T, et al. Estimating global burden of COVID-19 with disability-adjusted life years and value of statistical life metrics. J Formos Med Assoc. 2021;120:S106–S17. doi: 10.1016/j.jfma.2021.05.019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983;67(6):361–70. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Soriano J, Murthy S, Marshall J, Relan P, Diaz J. Condition WHOCCDWGoP-C-. A clinical case definition of post-COVID-19 condition by a Delphi consensus. Lancet Infect Dis. 2021;3099(21):00703–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Deer RR, Rock MA, Vasilevsky N, Carmody L, Rando H, Anzalone AJ, et al. Characterizing long COVID: deep phenotype of a complex condition. EBioMedicine. 2021;74:103722. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2021.103722 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Nalbandian A, Sehgal K, Gupta A, Madhavan MV, McGroder C, Stevens JS, et al. Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome. Nat Med. 2021;27(4):601–15. doi: 10.1038/s41591-021-01283-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Gorna R, MacDermott N, Rayner C, O’Hara M, Evans S, Agyen L, et al. Long COVID guidelines need to reflect lived experience. The Lancet. 2021;397(10273):455–7. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32705-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Zettersten E, Engerström L, Bell M, Jäderling G, Mårtensson J, Block L, et al. Long-term outcome after intensive care for COVID-19: differences between men and women—a nationwide cohort study. Critical Care. 2021;25(1):1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Zhang X, Wang F, Shen Y, Zhang X, Cen Y, Wang B, et al. Symptoms and Health Outcomes Among Survivors of COVID-19 Infection 1 Year After Discharge From Hospitals in Wuhan, China. JAMA network open. 2021;4(9):e2127403. Epub 2021/09/30. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.27403 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8482055 GlaxoSmithKline Employee and stocks and shares from GlaxoSmithKline outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Maestre-Muñiz MM, Arias Á, Mata-Vázquez E, Martín-Toledano M, López-Larramona G, Ruiz-Chicote AM, et al. Long-term outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 at one year after hospital discharge. Journal of clinical medicine. 2021;10(13):2945. doi: 10.3390/jcm10132945 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Huang L, Yao Q, Gu X, Wang Q, Ren L, Wang Y, et al. 1-year outcomes in hospital survivors with COVID-19: a longitudinal cohort study. Lancet. 2021;398(10302):747–58. Epub 2021/08/30. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01755-4 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8389999. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Shivani F, Kumari N, Bai P, Rakesh F, Haseeb M, Kumar S, et al. Long-term symptoms of COVID-19: One-year follow-up study. Cureus. 2022;14(6). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Khan M, Majeed S, Ain Q, Nawaz A, Sumra KA, Lammi V, et al. Analysing the psychosocial and health impacts of Long COVID in Pakistan: A cross sectional study. medRxiv. 2023:2023.05. 22.23290323. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Larsson M, Hultström M, Lipcsey M, Frithiof R, Rubertsson S, Wallin E. Poor long-term recovery after critical COVID-19 during 12 months longitudinal follow-up. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2023;74:103311. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Taquet M, Dercon Q, Luciano S, Geddes JR, Husain M, Harrison PJ. Incidence, co-occurrence, and evolution of long-COVID features: A 6-month retrospective cohort study of 273,618 survivors of COVID-19. PLoS Med. 2021;18(9):e1003773. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003773 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Kostev K, Smith L, Koyanagi A, Jacob L. Prevalence of and Factors Associated With Post-Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Condition in the 12 Months After the Diagnosis of COVID-19 in Adults Followed in General Practices in Germany. Open Forum Infectious Diseases. 2022;9(7). doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofac333 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Huang Q, Jia M, Sun Y, Jiang B, Cui D, Feng L, et al. One-Year Temporal Changes in Long COVID Prevalence and Characteristics: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Value Health. 2023;26(6):934–42. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2022.11.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Groff D, Sun A, Ssentongo AE, Ba DM, Parsons N, Poudel GR, et al. Short-term and Long-term Rates of Postacute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Systematic Review. JAMA network open. 2021;4(10):e2128568-e. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.28568 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Byambasuren O, Stehlik P, Clark J, Alcorn K, Glasziou P. Effect of covid-19 vaccination on long covid: systematic review. BMJ medicine. 2023;2(1). doi: 10.1136/bmjmed-2022-000385 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Taquet M, Dercon Q, Harrison PJ. Six-month sequelae of post-vaccination SARS-CoV-2 infection: A retrospective cohort study of 10,024 breakthrough infections. Brain Behav Immun. 2022;103:154–62. Epub 2022/04/22. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2022.04.013 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9013695. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Kuodi P, Gorelik Y, Zayyad H, Wertheim O, Wiegler KB, Abu Jabal K, et al. Association between BNT162b2 vaccination and reported incidence of post-COVID-19 symptoms: cross-sectional study 2020–21, Israel. NPJ Vaccines. 2022;7(1):101. Epub 2022/08/27. doi: 10.1038/s41541-022-00526-5 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9411827. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Ayoubkhani D, Bosworth ML, King S, Pouwels KB, Glickman M, Nafilyan V, et al. Risk of Long COVID in People Infected With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 After 2 Doses of a Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccine: Community-Based, Matched Cohort Study. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2022;9(9):ofac464. Epub 2022/09/29. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofac464 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9494414. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Antonelli M, Penfold RS, Merino J, Sudre CH, Molteni E, Berry S, et al. Risk factors and disease profile of post-vaccination SARS-CoV-2 infection in UK users of the COVID Symptom Study app: a prospective, community-based, nested, case-control study. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2022;22(1):43–55. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00460-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Mizrahi B, Sudry T, Flaks-Manov N, Yehezkelli Y, Kalkstein N, Akiva P, et al. Long covid outcomes at one year after mild SARS-CoV-2 infection: nationwide cohort study. BMJ. 2023;380:e072529. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2022-072529 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Nittas V, Gao M, West EA, Ballouz T, Menges D, Wulf Hanson S, et al. Long COVID Through a Public Health Lens: An Umbrella Review. Public Health Rev. 2022;43:1604501. Epub 2022/04/02. doi: 10.3389/phrs.2022.1604501 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8963488. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Latronico N, Peli E, Calza S, Rodella F, Novelli MP, Cella A, et al. Physical, cognitive and mental health outcomes in 1-year survivors of COVID-19-associated ARDS. Thorax. 2022;77(3):300–3. doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2021-218064 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Karpman M, Zuckerman S, Morriss S. Health Care Access and Affordability Among US Adults Aged 18 to 64 Years With Self-reported Post–COVID-19 Condition. JAMA network open. 2023;6(4):e237455-e. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.7455 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Rajan S, Khunti K, Alwan N, Steves C, MacDermott N, Morsella A, et al. European Observatory Policy Briefs. In the wake of the pandemic: Preparing for Long COVID. Copenhagen (Denmark): European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies © World Health Organization 2021 (acting as the host organization for, and secretariat of, the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies). 2021. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Dinis Teixeira JP, Santos MJDS, Soares P, Azevedo Ld, Barbosa P, Boas AV, et al. LOCUS (LOng Covid–Understanding Symptoms, events and use of services in Portugal): A three-component study protocol. PLoS One. 2023;18(4):e0285051. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285051 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Gensichen J, Zöllinger I, Gagyor I, Hausen A, Hölscher M, Janke C, et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on people in need of care or support: protocol for a SARS-CoV-2 registry. BMJ Open. 2023;13(5):e071134. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-071134 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Rommel A, Lippe EV, Plass D, Ziese T, Diercke M, Heiden MA, et al. The COVID-19 Disease Burden in Germany in 2020—Years of Life Lost to Death and Disease Over the Course of the Pandemic. Deutsches Arzteblatt international. 2021;118(9):145–51. Epub 2021/05/08. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.m2021.0147 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8212397. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Wyper GMA, Fletcher E, Grant I, McCartney G, Fischbacher C, Harding O, et al. Measuring disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) due to COVID-19 in Scotland, 2020. Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique. 2022;80(1):105. Epub 2022/04/03. doi: 10.1186/s13690-022-00862-x ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8972687. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Moran DP, Pires SM, Wyper GMA, Devleesschauwer B, Cuschieri S, Kabir Z. Estimating the Direct Disability-Adjusted Life Years Associated With SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) in the Republic of Ireland: The First Full Year. International Journal of Public Health. 2022;67. doi: 10.3389/ijph.2022.1604699 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Smith MP. Estimating total morbidity burden of COVID-19: relative importance of death and disability. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;142:54–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.10.018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Yatin N Dholakia

21 Aug 2023

PONE-D-23-22756The Post-Pandemic Aftermath in a LMIC: A 12-month follow-up study on Long COVID symptoms and the impact of vaccination in hospitalized patientsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ismail,

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.

Long covid is a topic of interest in recent times and can be studied in relation to the variant, severity of disease, comorbid conditions and vaccination status 

The reviewers have suggested changes in the analysis and some minor changes which will help strengthen the manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 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 plosone@plos.org. 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,

Yatin N. Dholakia, MD

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 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.  

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following: 

● The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

● A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

● A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

3. 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:

Long Covid has been the topic of interest in recent times. The symptoms depend on various factors such as vaccination status, age, comorbidities and severity of SARS Cov2 infection and many other which are under research.

The manuscript has been reviewed and there are comments from the reviewers which will help strengthen the same.

[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: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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

**********

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

**********

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: 1. Severe/critical disease was present in 64% of the population, and 25.6% required non-invasive/invasive mechanical ventilation.

64% of the 481 patients analysed, right ? Please write numbers along with percentage

2. The authors mention that ,”On Long COVID, to the best of our, knowledge, prevalence data, estimates of the at-risk population, and the burden have not been reported from Pakistan”. However there is a study , “Analysing the psychosocial and health impacts of Long COVID in Pakistan: A cross sectional study” from AGKU by Madeeha Khan et al. Please clarify this and highlight the differences between the two studies.

4. As per the above study (by Madeeha Khan et al), A small proportion (n=9; 16.7%) of these long haulers were hospitalized during the acute phase. In other studies too, symptoms of long COVID have been observed in patients who had mild symptoms, in contrast to your study where most had severe symptoms.

5.Expedited NOT expeditated

6. Low antibodies titres in patients with COVID-19 have been reported to be predictive of Long COVID regardless of hospitalization status[10], and Perlis et al from USA reported that full vaccination resulted in a lower risk for Long COVID with OR 0.72[11]

Suggest rephrasing to ..Low antibody titres to SARSCoV 2 in patients………….

7. The abstract mentions the study period as between 1st January 21 to 30th June 21, whereas the article mentions it as 1st Feb 21 to 7th June 21.

8. COVID 19 is known to unmask pre existing diabetes and also cause thyroid disease, the symptoms of which may resemble those of Long COVID. Were patients asked for new onset diabetes or hypothyroidism, following COVID 19 ?

9. Grammatical errors need to be addressed.

Reviewer #2: Dr Fatima and colleagues carried out a prospective study to explore the association between vaccination status and long COVID symptoms after hospitalization for COVID-19 in Pakistan. The following comments may be useful to the authors.

General comments:

1. Page 1, Title, “The Post-Pandemic Aftermath in a LMIC: A 12-month follow-up study on Long COVID symptoms and the impact of vaccination in hospitalized patients”: This title seems vague. The authors may consider rephrasing to “Association between vaccination status and occurrence of long COVID symptoms after hospitalization for COVID-19 in a low- or middle-income country”.

2. In accordance with my first comment, the authors may wish to reconstruct their manuscript focusing on the association between vaccination status and long COVID. Although there are studies on this subject from high-income countries (summarized in Byambasuren O et al. BMJMed 2023), data from low- or middle-income countries (LMIC) are scarce and useful.

3. If the authors choose to follow the above suggestion, then they should reformat their Tables. For example, Table 1 and Table 3 could present baseline characteristics and long COVID symptoms of COVID-19 survivors according to vaccination status (i.e., non-vaccinated, partially vaccinated and fully vaccinated).

4. Following the above comment, the categorization into three groups (i.e., non-vaccinated, partially vaccinated and fully vaccinated) may be more informative than the current categorization (Tables 5-6) into two groups (i.e., non-vaccinated versus partially/fully vaccinated).

5. This categorization into three groups could be applied in the multivariate analysis exploring factors associated with long COVID (Table 6 of page 19). It would be nice to see whether there is a “dose-dependent” effect; i.e., is the odds ratio for the association between full vaccination status and long COVID nominally smaller that the odds ratio for the association between partial vaccination status and long COVID?

6. In general, language editing may substantially benefit the manuscript. In specific, the authors may wish to use short sentences. Take for example, in page 2, Abstract, the long sentence: “On Long COVID, to the best of our, knowledge, prevalence data, estimates of the at-risk population, and the burden have not been reported from Pakistan, due to absence of prospective longitudinal studies on COVID-19 patients”.

Specific comments:

7. Page 3, Abstract: In the Results paragraph, it is written that “The most prominent symptoms that persisted even one year after infection…”. However, in the Conclusions paragraph, it is written that “This study reports the long-term health outcomes of COVID-19 survivors at 1-year following hospital discharge…”. The authors may wish to clarify when they assessed the study outcome; at one year after infection or at one year after hospital discharge?

8. Page 6, Eligibility criteria and data collection, “Adult patients admitted between February 1, 2021, and June 7, 2021…”: In page 2, Abstract, it was written “…recruited patients aged > 18 years who were admitted between 1st January and June 30, 2021”. The authors may wish to correct such inconsistencies throughout their manuscript.

9. There are two Tables 6; one in page 18 and one in page 19.

10. Page 19, Figure 2 could be polished. For example, the authors could delete the “Chart title”.

11. Pages 20-27: Discussion could be substantially shortened.

**********

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

**********

[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 figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Nov 22;18(11):e0294780. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0294780.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


1 Oct 2023

Response to Reviewer

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for considering our manuscript, titled "The Post-Pandemic Aftermath in a LMIC: A 12-month follow-up study on Long COVID symptoms and the impact of vaccination in hospitalized patients," for review at PLOS ONE.We greatly appreciate the time and effort put forth by both you and the reviewers in evaluating our work. In response to the insightful comments provided by the reviewers, we have diligently revised and modified our manuscript. Every suggestion made by the reviewers has been incorporated into the manuscript to enhance its quality and clarity.

With these revisions, we believe that our manuscript is now well-aligned with the high standards of PLOS ONE and is suitable for publication. We eagerly await your feedback on the revised submission and are ready to address any further questions or comments you may have.

Yours sincerely,

On behalf of all the authors,

Dr.Madiha Ismail

Journal 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

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

● The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

● A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

● A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

3. 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.

Reply:

●We have made corrections according to PLOS ONE's style requirementsand also copyedit the manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar.

●The name of the colleague that has edited our manuscript is Akbar Shoukat Ali (Research Associate, Department of Medicine, Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan)

●A copy of the revised manuscript showing track changes has been uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

● A clean copy of the edited manuscript has been uploaded as the new *manuscript* file

"The following represents our response to the reviewers' comments."

Reviewer 1

Comment 1:

Severe/critical disease was present in 64% of the population, and 25.6% required non-invasive/invasive mechanical ventilation.

64% of the 481 patients analysed, right? Please write numbers along with percentage

Reply:

We have added numbers with the percentages as per your recommendation. This has also been corrected and highlighted in the manuscript. For further clarification, we have also added here.

Severe/critical disease was present in 64%(312/481) of the population, and 25.6%(120/481) required non-invasive/invasive mechanical ventilation

Comment 2:

The authors mention that ,”On Long COVID, to the best of our, knowledge, prevalence data, estimates of the at-risk population, and the burden have not been reported from Pakistan”. However there is a study ,“Analysing the psychosocial and health impacts of Long COVID in Pakistan: A cross sectional study” from AGKU by Madeeha Khan et al. Please clarify this and highlight the differences between the two studies.

Reply :

Thank you for bringing this study to our attention. We did not include this study in our manuscript because this is a pre-print version. Additionally, at the time of manuscript preparation, this preprint was notavailable and it was published online on May 23, 2023.The participants included in the study done byMadeeha Khan et al. differ from ours and we are mentioning the differenceshere and alsohaveincluded this in the discussion section of the manuscript.(doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.05.22.23290323)

1) In our study we looked for Long COVID symptoms in patients who were hospitalized between February 1, 2021, and June 7, 2021, and interviewed them for Long COVID one year after their discharge from the hospital, while in the study by Madeeha Khan et al.,only 8.4% (n=13)required hospitalizationand most of participant included were outpatient.Moreover, only a small proportion (n=9; 16.7%) of these long haulers were hospitalized during the acute phase.

2) The author evaluated Long COVID symptoms at 12 weeks following infection from COVID-19 disease, as compared to our study in which we interviewed the patients one year after their discharge from the hospital.

3) Madeeha Khan et al. assessed the health symptoms as wellas psychological impact but did notanalyze it based onthe severity of the disease and vaccination status.

4) Among the 155 COVID-19-positive patients, 54 (35%) continued to experience symptoms for more than 12 weeks after infection, compared to 29.9% of our patients at the one-year mark.

5) The most frequent symptoms in the Madeeha et al study were muscle problems and fatigue (14.7%) followed by breathing difficulties such as breathlessness, dyspnea, painful breathing, or cough (12.6%). However, in our study, this percentage was higherwith fatigue reported at 26.2% and symptoms like shortness of breath, chest tightness, and wheezing at 24.1%.The elevated occurrence of this disparity within our patient population may stem from the fact that a substantial majority of our patients, comprising 64% (312 out of 481), suffered from severe or critical disease. Moreover, all our patients were hospitalized.

6) The author used different scales for assessing stress, anxiety and depression as compared to our study.

7) We only included patientswith confirmed positiveSARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. However, in their study, among 300 patients, 155 (51.7%) had COVID-19 either confirmed by positive RT-PCR and/or diagnosed by a general physician on clinical grounds without any testing.

Comment 3:

As per the above study (by Madeeha Khan et al.), A small proportion (n=9; 16.7%) of these long haulers were hospitalized during the acute phase. In other studies too, symptoms of long COVID have been observed in patients who had mild symptoms, in contrast to your study where most had severe symptoms.

Reply :

In our study as well, patients with non-severe COVID suffered from long COVID symptoms, however as compared to severe/critical disease, individuals with severe/critical disease were more likely to have long COVID. This observation aligns with the findings of Xue Zhang et al. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8482055/).

Furthermore, weonly included patients necessitating hospitalization and testing positive through RT-PCR or Antigen tests. Given that patients with mild disease typically do not require hospitalization, our study naturally demonstrated a lower proportion of such cases in comparison.Madeeha Khan et al reportedthat only 13 (8.4%) in their study population hadrequired hospitalization.

Comment 4:

Expedited NOT expeditated

Reply :

We have corrected the spelling error.

Comment 5:

Low antibody titres in patients with COVID-19 have been reported to be predictive of Long COVID regardless of hospitalization status[10], and Perlis et al from USA reported that full vaccination resulted in a lower risk for Long COVID with OR 0.72[11]

Suggest rephrasing to ..Low antibody titres to SARSCoV 2 in patients………….

Reply :

This has been rephrased to:

It has been observed that low antibody titres to SARS CoV 2 have been associated with a greater likelihood of experiencing Long COVID, regardless of hospitalization status. Perlis et al. conducted a study and observedthat full vaccination resulted in a lower risk of developing long COVID with an OR of 0.72.

Comment 6:

The abstract mentions the study period as between 1st January 21 to 30th June 21, whereas the article mentions it as 1st Feb 21 to 7th June 21.

Reply :

This has been corrected and highlighted in the manuscript. The studyrecruited patients who were admitted between February 1, 2021, and June 7, 2021, and it has been rechecked from the data.

Comment 7:

COVID-19 is known to unmask pre-existing diabetes and also cause thyroid disease, the symptoms of which may resemble those of Long COVID. Were patients asked for new onset diabetes or hypothyroidism, following COVID 19 ?

Reply :

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. It is an area of interest for us too. However, these could not be assessed in our study as these diagnoses(new onset diabetes or hypothyroidism) would have required a review of the diagnostic labs/criteria. We will mention this in our limitation section.

Comment 8:

Grammatical errors need to be addressed.

Reply :

We have corrected the grammatical errors and the manuscript has been revised.

Reviewer 2

Comment 1:

Page 1, Title, “The Post-Pandemic Aftermath in a LMIC: A 12-month follow-up study on Long COVID symptoms and the impact of vaccination in hospitalized patients”: This title seems vague. The authors may consider rephrasing to “Association between vaccination status and occurrence of long COVID symptoms after hospitalization for COVID-19 in a low- or middle-income country”.

Reply :

We appreciate your input and agree that clarity in the title is important. We have considered your suggestion, and our revised title is now:

Association between Long COVID and Vaccination: A 12-Month Follow-up Study in a Low- to Middle-Income Country

Comment 2:

In accordance with my first comment, the authors may wish to reconstruct their manuscript focusing on the association between vaccination status and long COVID. Although there are studies on this subject from high-income countries (summarized in Byambasuren O et al. BMJMed 2023), data from low- or middle-income countries (LMIC) are scarce and useful.

Reply :

In response to the suggestion provided in your first comment, we appreciate the emphasis on exploring the association between vaccination status and long-term COVID. It is indeed a valuable point that data from low- or middle-income countries (LMIC) are limited in this context.On your advice, we have reconstructed our manuscript with more focus on the association between vaccination status and long COVID.

However, in our study, we aimed to address not only the association between long COVID and vaccination but also its relationship with the severity of the disease. This comprehensive approach allows us to provide a more holistic understanding of Long COVID in our specific population.

Comment 3:

If the authors choose to follow the above suggestion, then they should reformat their Tables. For example, Table 1 and Table 3 could present baseline characteristics and long COVID symptoms of COVID-19 survivors according to vaccination status (i.e., non-vaccinated, partially vaccinated and fully vaccinated).

Reply :

Thank you for your suggestion. Initially, we had intended to follow the same approach. However, due to a disparity in the total population number between the baseline characteristics (n=481) and the total number of patients for whom vaccination status was available (n=474, with Long COVID symptoms assessed in 452patient-survivors), we decided to create separate tables, one for baseline characteristics and another for vaccination. This choice was made to prevent any potential confusion during the reading of our manuscript as well as in the analysis. Additionally, we aimed to assess Long COVID based on its severity.

Furthermore, for chi-square testing and calculation of the odd ratio, we needed two categories, so we opted for vaccinated(partially/fully) and unvaccinated groups.

However, recognizing the merit of your insightful suggestion, we have taken it into account and have included a comprehensive table detailing the disparities in outcomes among partially vaccinated, fully vaccinated, and unvaccinated individuals in the supplementary file.We are also including these tables in this document.

Table 8: COVID-19 survivors’ health-related characteristics stratified according to vaccination status.

Characteristics of disease on index admission based on Vaccination status, n=474

Fully vaccinated % (n=90) Partially vaccinated % (n=91) Unvaccinated % (n=293) p-value

Disease Severity

Non-Severe 45.6 (41) 37.4 (34) 31.8 (93) 0.052

Severe/Critical 54.4 (49) 62.6 (57) 68.2 (200)

Invasive mechanical ventilation 0 2.2 (2) 4.44 (13) 0.077

Readmission 15.6 (14) 12.2 (11) 21.51 (63) 0.056

Pulmonary complications$ 13.4 (12) 17.6 (16) 24.2 (71) 0.023

Health-related characteristics on follow-up stratified on vaccination, n=452

Fully vaccinated n=87 Partially vaccinated

n= 88 Unvaccinated n=277 p-value

Asymptomatic 80.5 (70) 79.5 (70) 62.1 (172) <0.000

New/worsened/persistent symptoms related to Long COVID 19.5 (17) 20.5 (18) 37.9 (105) 0.000

Fatigue (n=124) 17.2 (15) 17.1 (15) 33.9 (94) 0.000

Minimal (n=42) 11.9 (5) 14.8 (13) 8.6 (24)

Shortness of breath (SOB)/ chest tightness/ wheezing 14.9 (13) 19.1 (17) 30 (84) 0.005

Cough (n= 72) 3.4 (3) 12.5% (11) 20.9 (58) 0.000

Difficulty ambulating due to breathlessness 9.2 (8) 6.7 (6) 15.8 (44) 0.04

Feverish 1.1 (1) 3.4 (3) 8.3 (23) 0.025

Continued loss of taste and/or smell 2.3 (2) 1.1 (1) 2.8 (8) 0.83

Table 9: COVID-19 survivors’ return to work and HADS score stratified according to vaccination status.

Fully vaccinated % (n=87) Partially vaccinated

% (n= 88) Unvaccinated % (n=277) p-value

Return to Employment (n=266, NA=193) n=40 n=47 n=176

Yes (202) 87.5 (35) 95.7 (45) 69.4 (122) 0.000

No (61) 12.5 (5) 4.3 (2) 30.7 (54)

Able to return to work in 60 days following discharge. n=36 n=44 n=131

Yes 94.4 (34) 90.0 (40) 84 (110) 0.177

No 5.6 (2) 3.4 (6) 16 (21)

Anxiety (HADS-A score >11)

n =16 8 (7) 3.4(3) 2.1(6) 0.035

Depression (HADS-D score >11)

n =20 4.6 (4) 1.1 (1) 5.4 (15) 0.246

Combined anxiety and depression (HADS-A and/or HADS-D score >11) (28)

8 (7) 3.4 (3) 6.4 (18) 0.42

Comment 4:

Following the above comment, the categorization into three groups (i.e., non-vaccinated, partially vaccinated and fully vaccinated) may be more informative than the current categorization (Tables 5-6) into two groups (i.e., non-vaccinated versus partially/fully vaccinated).

Reply :

This table has been added as a supplementary file.

Comment 5:

This categorization into three groups could be applied in the multivariate analysis exploring factors associated with long COVID (Table 6 of page 19). It would be nice to see whether there is a “dose-dependent” effect; i.e., is the odds ratio for the association between full vaccination status and long COVID nominally smaller than the odds ratio for the association between partial vaccination status and long COVID?

Reply :

As per your advice, this has been changed.

On multivariable analysis, after adjusting for age, gender, presence of co-morbid conditions and disease severity, vaccination status was found to be an independent predictor of Long COVID with an Odds ratio of 2.42(95% CI 1.52-3.84) for the unvaccinated cohort. Fully vaccinated and partially vaccinated patients had 62% and 56% reduced risk of developing Long COVID respectively. See Table 7.

Table 7: Multivariate analysis for factors associated with Long COVID

Variables adjusted Odds ratio (95% Confidence interval) p-value

Female gender 1.14 (0.76-1.70) 0.654

Age > 60 years 2.62(1.70-4.04) 0.000

>2 comorbid conditions 1.24(0.70-2.21) 0.463

Severe Disease 1.84(1.13-2.97) 0.014

Fully vaccinated 0.38 (0.20-0.7) 0.002

Partially vaccinated 0.44(0.24-0.80) 0.007

aOR(adjusted odd ratio) for unvaccinated 2.42(1.52-3.84)

Comment 6:

In general, language editing may substantially benefit the manuscript. In specific, the authors may wish to use short sentences. Take for example, on page 2, Abstract, the long sentence: “On Long COVID, to the best of our, knowledge, prevalence data, estimates of the at-risk population, and the burden have not been reported from Pakistan, due to absence of prospective longitudinal studies on COVID-19 patients”.

Reply :

We appreciate your suggestion regarding language editing. Ensuring the manuscript's language and presentation meet the highest standards is crucial. We have worked on improving the manuscript's overall language and readability to enhance its clarity and impact

We have shortened the sentence and changed it in the manuscript accordingly:

As of now, there is a lack of prevalence data, estimates regarding at-risk populations, or any burden associated with Long COVID in Pakistan. This gap in knowledge primarily results from the absence of prospective longitudinal studies in the region.

Comment 7:

Page 3, Abstract: In the Results paragraph, it is written that “The most prominent symptoms that persisted even one year after infection…”. However, in the Conclusions paragraph, it is written that “This study reports the long-term health outcomes of COVID-19 survivors at 1-year following hospital discharge…”. The authors may wish to clarify when they assessed the study outcome; at one year after infection or one year after hospital discharge

Reply :

This has been rephrased in the manuscript, we did the study one year after discharge from the hospital.

Comment 8:

Page 6, Eligibility criteria and data collection, “Adult patients admitted between February 1, 2021, and June 7, 2021…”: In page 2, Abstract, it was written “…recruited patients aged > 18 years who were admitted between 1st January and June 30, 2021”. The authors may wish to correct such inconsistencies throughout their manuscript.

Reply :

We apologize for this error, this has been corrected in the manuscript.

Comment 9:

There are two Tables 6; one in page 18 and one in page 19.

Reply :

This has been corrected.

Comment 10:

Page 19, Figure 2 could be polished. For example, the authors could delete the “Chart title”.

Reply :

This has been changed.

Comment 11:

Pages 20-27: Discussion could be substantially shortened.

Reply :

As per your suggestion, we have shortened the discussion, from around 2416 words, we have reduced the discussion to 1995 words(pages 21-26)

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Yatin N Dholakia

13 Oct 2023

PONE-D-23-22756R1Association between Long COVID and Vaccination: A 12-Month Follow-up Study in a Low- to Middle-Income countryPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ismail,

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.

==============================

There are clarifications and edits that need to be addressed.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 27 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 plosone@plos.org. 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,

Yatin N. Dholakia, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

There are some clarifications and edits that are requested which please address.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

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 #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: 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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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 #1: 1. Were long COVID symptoms the reason for re admission in any of the readmitted patients ?

2. “On multivariable analysis, after adjusting for age, gender, co-morbidity, and disease severity, vaccination was found to be an independent predictor of long COVID with an Odds ratio of 2.42(95% CI 1.52-3.84) for the unvaccinated cohort”.

This could probably be rephrased to lack of vaccination was found to be an independent predictor of long COVID……….

3. “Around 22 patients (4.58%) died after discharge from the hospital, however, it was difficult for us to assess the cause of death through telephonic interviews.”

a) Could you ascertain the point of time at which these deaths occurred….after 6 months or a year after discharge?

b) And, were the patients contacted anytime in between or directly after a year ?

c) Were the patients following up elsewhere during the year ?

d) Was imaging of the chest performed on OPD basis in any of the patients, to attribute the fatigue to post COVID sequelae like fibrosis ?

4. Taken together, it was observed that patients with severe/critical disease and unvaccinated status had an increased risk of long COVID and higher readmission rates than those in the non-severe and vaccinated cohort.

The above statement gives the impression that higher readmission rates were due to long COVID 19

5. Reported data regarding post-COVID sequelae one year after discharge from the hospital are similar and showed the persistence of symptoms in COVID-19 survivors…please clarify this statement

6. The discussion does appear long. Can be made crisper and to the point in order to hold the reader’s attention.

Reviewer #2: The authors addressed my comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

**********

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 #1: Yes: Dr. Mala Kaneria

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[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 figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Nov 22;18(11):e0294780. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0294780.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


7 Nov 2023

Thank you for your feedback on our revised manuscript (PONE-D-23-22756R1), titled “Association between Long COVID and Vaccination: A 12-Month Follow-up Study in a Low- to Middle-Income Country” at PLOS ONE. We are pleased to address the queries raised by Reviewer 1 and are equally delighted to learn that our response has met the satisfaction of Reviewer 2.

In response to Reviewer 1's thoughtful input, we have diligently refined our manuscript. These revisions have been made with great care to align our work with PLOS ONE's stringent publication standards. We eagerly await your assessment of the revised submission and remain at your disposal for any further questions or comments.

Yours sincerely,

On behalf of all the authors,

Dr. Madiha Ismail

Journal Requirements:

1. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

2. Additional Editor Comments:

There are some clarifications and edits that are requested, please address.

Reply:

● In response to your request for a review of our reference list to ensure its completeness and accuracy, we have thoroughly examined the references cited in our manuscript. We have checked and found that there were no retracted papers in our reference list. However, we have removed 2 references as we had to reduce the discussion as per the reviewer's advice.

• Sure we are providing the answer to the queries raised by Reviewer 1

"The following represents our response to the reviewers' comments."

Reviewer 1

Comment 1:

Were long COVID symptoms the reason for re-admission in any of the readmitted patients?

Reply:

We would like to express our gratitude to the reviewers for their insightful feedback. Regarding the question about whether Long COVID symptoms were the reason for re-admission in any of the readmitted patients, it's worth noting that while Long COVID symptoms were not documented as the principal or associated diagnosis in any of the discharge summaries/medical files, it is possible that some of the patients may be experiencing symptoms related to Long COVID at the time of readmission, but we did not find any documentation. We will incorporate this point in the manuscript.

Comment 2:

“On multivariable analysis, after adjusting for age, gender, co-morbidity, and disease severity, vaccination was found to be an independent predictor of long COVID with an Odds ratio of 2.42(95% CI 1.52-3.84) for the unvaccinated cohort”.

This could probably be rephrased to lack of vaccination was found to be an independent predictor of long COVID……….

Reply :

Thank you for the suggestion. The proposed rephrasing is more rational and we have incorporated this change in the revised manuscript using 'track changes’.

Comment 3:

3. “Around 22 patients (4.58%) died after discharge from the hospital, however, it was difficult for us to assess the cause of death through telephonic interviews.”

a) Could you ascertain the point of time at which these deaths occurred….after 6 months or a year after discharge?

b) And, were the patients contacted anytime in between or directly after a year ?

c) Were the patients following up elsewhere during the year ?

d) Was imaging of the chest performed on an OPD basis in any of the patients, to attribute the fatigue to post COVID sequelae like fibrosis ?

Reply :

The answers to comment 3 are given as follows:

a) Yes, we did examine the timing of these post-discharge deaths. The patients who expired following their discharge had a median survival duration of 31.5 days (IQR 7.5-213).

b) The patients were contacted and interviewed one year after their discharge from the hospital. We did not contact them in between.

c) While some patients may have sought follow-up care at other healthcare facilities during the year following their discharge, however, we did not include this query as part of our interview.

d) Around 28.3% (n=136) of patients have chest X-rays done in the OPD (at any point from their hospital discharge up to the one-year interview). Fibrosis and consolidation were observed in 8.7% (n=42) and 7.7% (n=37) of the patients respectively, the rest of the chest X-rays were reported as normal. However, this percentage is underestimated as many of the patients may have chest X-rays done outside of our healthcare system.

We have included these points in our manuscript and can be seen as track changes.

Comment 4:

4. Taken together, it was observed that patients with severe/critical disease and unvaccinated status had an increased risk of long COVID and higher readmission rates than those in the non-severe and vaccinated cohort.

The above statement gives the impression that higher readmission rates were due to long COVID 19

Reply :

I appreciate your observation, and I can see how the statement may have given that impression. We have removed this statement and provided clarity wherever we have mentioned readmissions.

Comment 5:

Reported data regarding post-COVID sequelae one year after discharge from the hospital are similar and showed the persistence of symptoms in COVID-19 survivors…please clarify this statement

Reply :

We wanted to say that the data from across the world also show similar results but this statement was removed while we were revising our discussion.

Comment 6:

The discussion does appear long. Can be made crisper and to the point to hold the reader’s attention.

Reply :

We understand your advice for a more concise and focused discussion. So as per your recommendation, we have rewritten the discussion to hold the reader's attention.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 2.docx

Decision Letter 2

Yatin N Dholakia

9 Nov 2023

Association between Long COVID and Vaccination: A 12-Month Follow-up Study in a Low- to Middle-Income country

PONE-D-23-22756R2

Dear Dr. Madiha Ismail,

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 authorbilling@plos.org.

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 onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Yatin N. Dholakia, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Yatin N Dholakia

13 Nov 2023

PONE-D-23-22756R2

Association between Long COVID and Vaccination: A 12-Month Follow-up Study in a Low- to Middle-Income country 

Dear Dr. Ismail:

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 onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Yatin N. Dholakia

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data. Additional data that provides an overview of the health-related characteristics of COVID-19 survivors based on their vaccination status (i.e., vaccinated, partially vaccinated, and unvaccinated) can be found in S1 and S2 Tables in S2 File.

    (CSV)

    S1 File

    (DOCX)

    S2 File. Contains supporting tables.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 2.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES