Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Jul 25;19(7):e0306322. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306322

The association of sociodemographic characteristics and comorbidities with post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 in a Medicaid managed care population with and without HIV

Yiyi Wu 1,*,#, Eleni Mattas 1,, Carey Brandenburg 2,, Ethan Fusaris 2,, Richard Overbey 2,, Jerome Ernst 2,, Mark Brennan-Ing 1,#
Editor: Shuai Ren3
PMCID: PMC11271891  PMID: 39052582

Abstract

Understanding how post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) affects communities disproportionately affected by HIV is critically needed. This study aimed to identify the prevalence of PASC symptoms among Medicaid enrollees at risk for or living with HIV. Through a web survey, we received 138 valid responses from Medicaid-managed plan members who had received a COVID diagnosis. Participants’ mean age was 45.4 years (SD = 11.9) and most were non-Hispanic Black (43.5%) or Hispanic (39.1%). Almost thirty-two percent reported inadequate incomes and 77.5% were HIV-positive. In the overall population, the frequently reported symptoms included neck/back/low back pain, brain fog/difficulty concentrating, bone/joint pain, muscle aches, and fatigue. Findings indicate that there is no statistically significant difference in the prevalence and intensity of PASC symptoms lasting 6 months or more between individuals living with and without HIV. Multiple regression analysis found that the number of PASC symptoms 6 months or longer was independently associated with inadequate incomes and comorbidities (cardiac problems, cancer, fibromyalgia) (R2 = .34). Those with inadequate incomes and comorbidities have more numerous PASC symptoms. Implications for health care delivery and long-term COVID services will be discussed.

Introduction

While the median recovery time for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is between 2 and 6 weeks, at least 10% of symptomatic patients experience lasting symptoms and complications months beyond the acute phase of the illness, known as post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) or long COVID [1, 2]. The World Health Organization defines PASC as the “continuation or development of new symptoms 3 months after the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection, with these symptoms lasting for at least 2 months with no other explanation [3].” Many affected by PASC experience symptoms lasting 6 months or more [47]. PASC outcomes can vary greatly and affect multiple organ systems [8]. Common symptoms include, but are not limited to, fatigue, shortness of breath, chest pain and headache [5, 911]. Persistent PASC has not only detrimental effects on one’s overall physical and mental health but also on one’s functional abilities, social wellbeing and quality of life [7, 12].

Underlying comorbid conditions have been established as a key risk factor contributing to the acquisition and severity of COVID-19 [13, 14]. Therefore, the impact of COVID-19 on at-risk populations such as people living with HIV (PLWH) are a continuing concern. Existing research is equivocal as to whether HIV seropositivity alone is associated with higher disease prevalence and adverse outcomes in both acute COVID-19 infection and PASC [15, 16]. However, PWLH often face overlapping vulnerabilities related to other risk factors (e.g., age, comorbidities) and social determinants of health [17]. For example, there is an overlap between sociodemographic characteristics associated with increased risk of COVID infection severity, and mortality and disproportionate impact of HIV (e.g., race/ethnicity) [18, 19]. Consequently, PWLH, particularly those who are older and/or from historically marginalized communities have higher rates of COVID-19 incidence and hospitalization [16, 20].

Factors contributing to PASC development remain inadequately understood given the relative recent emergence of this syndrome. To-date, certain risk factors for PASC have been identified including female sex, older age, obesity, and tobacco use [1, 21, 22]. However, few studies have focused on race/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in PASC. While numerous comorbidities and health behaviors have been associated with greater risk and severity of SARS-COV-2 infection (e.g., diabetes, tobacco use, respectively), less is known about how factors are related to PASC [2325]. Given the substantial overlap between social determinants of health for HIV and for COVID-19, understanding how PASC affects PLWH is critical. The primary aim of this study was to identify the long-term symptoms of COVID-19 reported by a Medicaid managed care population and explore whether HIV serostatus, sociodemographic factors, and comorbidities are associated with COVID-19 symptoms and symptom duration. Based on the emergent literature, we focused on PASC symptoms experienced for six months or longer [47]. Given the exploratory nature of this research, we sought to answer the following research questions:

  1. Does the prevalence of PASC and intensity (number of PASC symptoms) differ between people with and those without HIV and other sociodemographic characteristics?

  2. What is the association between the intensity of PASC with comorbidities and health behaviors (substance use)?

To answer our research questions, we employed a web-based survey, including questions concerning experience of PASC symptoms, HIV serostatus, socio-demographic information, comorbidities and health behaviors, among a Medicaid managed care population who had been previously diagnosed with acute COVID-19 infection according to their health insurance records.

Methods

Procedures

This study partnered with a Medicaid Special Needs Plan (SNP) for people with and at risk for HIV. Data was collected using a web-based survey sent to enrolled members of the plan. Potential participants were identified through insurance claims data if they had received a diagnosis of COVID-19 infection. Eighty percent of the sample pool were HIV-positive. Recruitment occurred between July 2022 and January 2023 via text messaging and mailed flyers. Interested members could access the online Qualtrics survey via a link provided by the recruitment text messages or by a QR code on the mailed recruitment flier. Participants provided web-based informed consent and received a $20 gift card as compensation upon survey completion. Recruitment, informed consent, and survey materials were available in English and Spanish.

The study protocol was approved by the City University of New York Institutional Review Board. Before participants can proceed to the questionaries, they were prompted to review the informed consent page. All participants gave their electronic informed consent.

Measures

The survey consisted of 50 questions encompassing multiple-choice questions, likert scales, and open-ended responses. Initial sets of questions concerned participants’ socio-demographic information, including age, race/ethnicity, gender identity, sex assigned at birth, sexual orientation, educational attainment, income adequacy, and living arrangements. Participants were asked to rate their health and provide details about pre-existing risk factors for COVID-19, such as height and weight for computation of body mass index (BMI), substance use, and comorbidities. For the purpose of this study, we focused on ten comorbidities that had been identified as increasing risk for poor outcomes of COVID-19 infection: diabetes, hypertension, stroke/heart disease, asthma/COPD, cancer, depression/anxiety, fibromyalgia, bone/joint problems, hepatitis C/liver disease, and kidney disease. Additionally, participants were queried about their HIV serostatus. Participants who answered “yes” to being HIV positive were asked to report CD4 t-cell counts (most recent and nadir below 200) and HIV viral load (detectable/undetectable).

The body of the survey obtained information about PASC symptoms and impact adapted from a validated instrument (V. Tran et al., 2021) [26], which presented 49 PASC symptoms:

  • General (weight loss, loss of appetite, sweats, fever and chills, hot flashes, fatigue, sleeping more, difficulty sleeping, heat/cold intolerance, changing mood/impact on morale, body aches)

  • Thorax (rib cage pain, chest pressure, sharp sudden pain, chest burns, heart beating too fast/slow/irregular, cough)

  • Neurological (headache, tremor, dizziness/malaise, word finding problems, brain fog/difficulty concentrating, memory problems, pricking/tingling/creeping feeling on skin, impaired/decreased sense of touch, change/loss of taste, change/loss of smell)

  • Digestive (abdominal pain, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea)

  • Ear/nose/throat (sore throat/tongue/mouth, trouble swallowing, ear pain, clogged ears, tinnitus, congested/runny nose, sensitivity to sound)

  • Eyes (dry eyes, blurry vision, sensitivity to light)

  • Musculoskeletal (bone and joint pain, heavy legs/swelling of legs, muscle aches, neck/back/low back pain)

  • Blood and lymph node circulation (bulging veins, unexplained bruising, swollen lymph nodes, high or low blood pressure)

  • Skin and hair (dry/peeling skin, hair loss, skin rash, discoloration/swelling of hands and feet)

  • Urinary and gynecological problems (changes in menstrual cycle, problems with urination, erectile dysfunction)

Participants were asked to indicate which of the identified symptoms had emerged or worsened after their initial COVID-19 diagnosis, along with specifying the duration of each symptom (1 month or less, 2–5 months, 6 months or more). We computed the proportion of participants who experienced one or more symptoms for each time period, as well as the number of COVID symptoms experienced for each level of duration by summing the number of symptoms reported.

Participants

Any enrolled member of our partnered SNP who was at least 18 years of age and had a documented COVID-19 diagnosis in their medical record was eligible to participate. A total of 153 responses were received, of which 138 respondents answered the question on HIV serostatus and were usable for the current analysis.

Design and analysis

This study used a cross-sectional survey design to examine the association of PASC symptoms with sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, substance use, and HIV serostatus. Data were imported from Qualtrics into SPSS v.27 for cleaning and data analysis. Univariate analyses were conducted to examine measures of central tendency for continuous variables and frequencies and percentages for categorical variables. We conducted bivariate analyses of the associations between sociodemographic and individual COVID symptoms, as well as the number of symptoms reported lasting six months or more. In preparation for the multivariate regression analyses, we computed correlations between sociodemographic factors, comorbidities, substance use, and the number of COVID symptoms experienced at six months or longer.

The OLS regression model was derived based on the literature reporting on factors relating to SARS-COV-2 and PASC (HIV serostatus, sociodemographic, comorbidities, and substance use). Categorical variables with 3 or more categories were dummy-coded prior to analysis. Reference categories for dummy coded variables were as follows: race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic White, Asian, and other race); age group (20 to 39 years); gender identity (cisgender male), and income adequacy (enough money or money not a problem). Independent variables were examined for potential multicollinearity during the initial correlational analysis (i.e., r >.49) and by using collinearity diagnostics in the available OLS regression analysis. We used a hierarchical order of variable entry with sociodemographic and HIV serostatus entered in the first block and comorbidities and substance use entered in the second block. The regression was evaluated in terms of the significance of independent variables based on t-tests of regression coefficients and the significant explained variance (R2) for each block of variables in the model.

Results

Participants demographics

Of the 138 participants included in the analysis, 77.5% were HIV positive. Participants had a mean age of 45.4 years (SD = 11.79) with more than 40% of the sample being 50 years of age and older. Most identified themselves as non-Hispanic Black or Hispanic (43.5% and 39.1%, respectively). Regarding income adequacy, only 13.0% indicated having enough money, while 55.1% reported “just manage to get by,” and 31.9% reported inadequate incomes. Cisgender males comprised 45.7% of our sample, 29.7% were cisgender female, and 24.6% were transgender/gender diverse. The sample was relatively split between heterosexual (46.4%) and sexual minority individuals (53.6%). Among the participants, the most frequently reported comorbidity was depression or anxiety (n = 73, 52.9%). Approximately 37.7% (n = 52) the sample reported either asthma/COPD or hypertension as a comorbidity. The most frequently reported used substance was alcohol (n = 54, 39.1%), followed by marijuana (n = 42, 30.4%) and tobacco (n = 39, 28.3%).

Association of HIV serostatus with sociodemographic factors

To gain a better understanding of our sample, significant associations between demographic factors and HIV serostatus were examined (see Table 1). Participants with HIV were significantly older with 50% being aged 50 and older as compared with 5.6% in the HIV negative group. Among individuals with HIV, a higher proportion identified as non-Hispanic Black (45.8%) compared with those who were HIV-negative (35.5%). In regard to gender identity, among those with HIV, a majority identified as cis-male (54.2%) as compared to 16.1% in the HIV negative group. Similarly, 33.6% of those with HIV identified as cis-female, while only 16.1% of the HIV negative group identified as such. Meanwhile, transgender or gender diverse individuals accounted for only 12.1% of the HIV-positive group but constituted 67.7% of the HIV-negative group. No significant association was observed between HIV serostatus and sexual orientation or income adequacy. In regard to comorbidities, only hypertension was found to be significantly associated with HIV serostatus, with 43.9% of HIV-positive individuals reporting the condition as compared with 16.1% of those who were HIV-negative, which may be related to the greater age of the HIV-positive group. However, HIV-positive participants reported a higher prevalence of the remaining comorbidities compared to those who were HIV-negative although these differences were not statistically significant.

Table 1. Demographic and comorbid conditions by HIV serostatus.

Total HIV Positive HIV Negative Chi Square
N % N % N %
Age Groups x2 (2) = 14.549***
20 to 39 33 33.0 21 25.6 12 66.7
40 to 49 25 25.0 20 24.4 5 27.8
50 and older 42 42.0 41 50.0 1 5.6
Race and Ethnicity x2 (2) = 9.155**
Non-Hispanic Black 60 43.5 49 45.8 11 35.5
Hispanic 54 39.1 45 42.1 9 29.0
Non-Hispanic White, Asian, Mixed, Other 24 17.4 13 12.1 11 35.5
Gender Identity x2 (2) = 40.266***
Cisgender Male 63 45.7 58 54.2 5 16.1
Cisgender Female 41 29.7 36 33.6 5 16.1
Transgender/Gender Diverse 34 24.6 13 12.1 21 67.7
Sexual Identity x2 (1) = .024
Heterosexual 64 46.4 50 46.7 14 45.2
Queer 74 53.6 57 53.3 17 54.8
Income Adequacy x2 (1) = .821
Not enough money 44 31.9 35 32.7 9 29.0
Just manage to get by 76 55.1 59 55.1 17 54.8
Enough or not a problem 18 13.0 13 12.1 5 16.1
Comorbidities
Hypertension 52 37.7 47 43.9 5 16.1 x2 (1) = 7.908**
Diabetes 23 16.7 21 19.6 2 6.5 x2 (1) = 3.004
Stroke or Heart Disease 12 8.7 11 10.3 1 3.2 x2 (1) = 1.507
Asthma or COPD 52 37.7 43 40.2 9 29.0 x2 (1) = 1.274
Cancer 12 8.7 12 11.2 0 0.0 x2 (1) = 3.808
Depression or Anxiety 73 52.9 58 54.2 15 48.4 x2 (1) = .327
Fibromyalgia 4 2.9 3 2.8 1 3.2 x2 (1) = .015
Bone or Joint Problems 28 20.3 25 23.4 3 9.7 x2 (1) = 2.784
Hepatitis C/ Liver Disease 8 5.8 8 7.5 0 0.0 x2 (1) = 2.460
Kidney Disease 9 6.5 9 8.4 0 0.0 x2 (1) = 2.789

Note. N = 138. HIV Positive n = 107. HIV Negative n = 31.

*p < .05,

**p < .01,

***p < .001

Overall PASC symptoms prevalence

Out of the 138 participants, 65 (47.1%) reported one or more PASC symptoms that last for 6 months or more. Overall, the top 10 most frequently reported symptoms lasting over 6 months were neck, back, or low back pain (22.5%); brain fog or difficulty concentrating (21.0%); bone or joint pain (20.3%); muscle aches (20.3%); fatigue (19.6%); memory problems (18.8%); body aches (16.7%); difficulty sleeping (15.2%); changing mood/impact on morale (15.2%); problem finding the right words (15.2%); and dry eyes (15.2%).

HIV serostatus and PASC symptoms

In this study, we examined the association of HIV serostatus with individual PASC symptoms lasting six months or longer. Among participants living with HIV, 52 (48.6%) reported PASC symptoms lasting over 6 months as compared to 12 (41.9%) of those without HIV. However, this difference was not statistically significant [X2(1) = 0.428, p = 0.546].

As detailed in the supplementary material (See S1 File), the most frequently reported symptoms after 6 months mirrored the overall findings, including neck, back, or low back pain (26.2%), bone or joint pain (23.4%), muscle aches (22.4%), brain fog or difficulty concentrating (21.5%), memory problems (19.6%), fatigue (18.7%), difficulty sleeping (17.8%), body aches (16.8%), changing mood/impact on morale (16.8%), dry eyes (16.8%), and sensitivity to light (16.8%). Among the 31 participants without HIV, fatigue (22.6%), brain fog, difficulty concentrating (19.4%), body aches (16.1%), chest pressure (16.1%), problem finding the right words (16.1%), memory problem (16.1%), change/loss of taste (16.1%), muscle aches (12.9%), and sleeping more (12.9%) emerged as more frequently reported persistent PASC symptoms over 6 months. There were no significant differences in disease prevalence among the most frequently reported symptoms between people living with HIV and those without HIV.

Among the less frequently reported symptoms, there is a significant connection between HIV-positive status and the symptom of pricking, tingling, or creeping feeling on the skin (x2 (2) = 4.096*, p = 0.043). However, among the total 49 PASC symptoms examined, this association stands out as the sole statistically significant finding. Given the well documented link between neuropathy and HIV infection [27], we conclude that this isolated correlation cannot determine the overall association between HIV serostatus and PASC prevalence or intensity.

Demographic factors associated with PASC symptoms

We examined the association of demographic factors (age, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, income adequacy) with individual PASC symptoms of six months or greater duration, and found consistent patterns with regard to age and income adequacy. As indicated in Table 2, greater age was associated with an elevated risk of experiencing various PASC symptoms beyond 6 months. Muscle aches were more prevalent among the 50+ age group (23.8%) compared to the 40–49 and 20–39 age brackets (16.0% and 3.0%, respectively). The occurrence of neck, back and low back pain was more pronounced among those over 50 (28.6%) than the younger age groups (16.0% and 6.1%, respectively). Furthermore, age over 50 emerged as a strong predictor of heat/cold intolerance. While none of the younger counterparts reported experiencing heat/cold tolerance, 21.4% participants over 50 reported this symptom.

Table 2. PASC symptoms by age group.

Symptom Total 20 to 39 40 to 49 50 and older Chi-Square
N % N % N % N %
Heat/cold intolerance
No or less than five months 91 91.0 33 100.0 25 100.0 33 78.6
Six months or more 9 9.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 9 21.4 x2 (2) = 13.658***
Muscle aches
No or less than five months 85 85.0 32 97.0 21 84.0 32 76.2
Six months or more 15 15.0 1 3.0 4 16.0 10 23.8 x2 (2) = 6.284*
Neck, back, low back pain
No or less than five months 82 82.0 31 93.9 21 84.0 30 71.4
Six months or more 18 18.0 2 6.1 4 16.0 12 28.6 x2 (2) = 6.435*

Note. N = 100. 20 to 39 n = 33. 40 to 49 n = 25. 50 and older n = 42.

*p < .05,

**p < .01,

***p < .001

Regarding income adequacy (see Table 3), individuals with inadequate income were more susceptible to a wide range of symptoms, compared to those who just managed to get by or those with sufficient financial adequacy. These symptoms included sleep difficulty (27.3%, 9.2%, and 11.1%, respectively), rib cage pain (15.9%, 2.6%, and 5.6%, respectively), brain fog (34.1%, 17.1%, and 5.6%, respectively), dry eyes (27.3%, 7.9%, & 16.7%, respectively), muscle aches (34.1, 15.8%, and 5.6%, respectively), neck, back, or low back pain (36.4%, 17.1%, and 11.1%, respectively), and hair loss (20.5%, 9.2%, and 0%, respectively). Additionally, mood changes were strongly associated with income inadequacy (29.5%) compared to just managing to get by (9.2%) or having sufficient income (5.6%). More notably, individuals with inadequate incomes were significantly more likely to experience heat/cold intolerance (25.0% vs 5.3% vs 5.6%) and body aches (36.4% vs 6.6% vs 11.1%), compared to those just managing to get by or with sufficient income.

Table 3. PASC symptoms by income adequacy.

Symptoms Total Not Enough Money Just Manage to Get By Enough or Not a Problem Chi-Square
N % N % N % N %
Difficulty sleeping
No or less than five months 117 84.8 32 72.7 69 90.8 16 88.9
Six months or more 21 15.2 12 27.3 7 9.2 2 11.1 x2 (2) = 7.317*
Heat/cold intolerance
No or less than five months 122 88.4 33 75.0 72 94.7 17 94.4
Six months or more 16 11.6 11 25.0 4 5.3 1 5.6 x2 (2) = 11.327***
Changing mood/impact on morale
No or less than five months 117 84.8 31 70.5 69 90.8 17 94.4
Six months or more 21 15.2 13 29.5 7 9.2 1 5.6 x2 (2) = 10.429**
Body aches
No or less than five months 115 83.3 28 63.6 71 93.4 16 88.9
Six months or more 23 16.7 16 36.4 5 6.6 2 11.1 x2 (2) = 18.259***
Rib cage pain
No or less than five months 128 92.8 37 84.1 74 97.4 17 94.4
Six months or more 10 7.2 7 15.9 2 2.6 1 5.6 x2 (2) = 7.397*
Brain fog, difficulty concentrating
No or less than five months 109 79.0 29 65.9 63 82.9 17 94.4
Six months or more 29 21.0 15 34.1 13 17.1 1 5.6 x2 (2) = 7.824*
Abdominal pain
No or less than five months 133 96.4 41 93.2 76 100.0 16 88.9
Six months or more 5 3.6 3 6.8 0 0.0 2 11.1 x2 (2) = 7.034*
Dry eyes
No or less than five months 117 84.8 32 72.7 70 92.1 15 83.3
Six months or more 21 15.2 12 27.3 6 7.9 3 16.7 x2 (2) = 8.144*
Muscle aches
No or less than five months 110 79.7 29 65.9 64 84.2 17 94.4
Six months or more 28 20.3 15 34.1 12 15.8 1 5.6 x2 (2) = 8.550*
Neck, back, low back pain
No or less than five months 107 77.5 28 63.6 63 82.9 16 88.9
Six months or more 31 22.5 16 36.4 13 17.1 2 11.1 x2 (2) = 7.466*
Hair loss
No or less than five months 122 88.4 35 79.5 69 90.8 18 100.0
Six months or more 16 11.6 9 20.5 7 9.2 0 0.0 x2 (2) = 6.152*

Note. N = 138. Not enough money, n = 44. Just manage to get by, n = 76. Enough or not a problem, n = 18.

*p < .05,

**p < .01,

***p < .001

Multivariate analysis

We conducted an OLS regression analysis regarding our second research question concerning the association of sociodemographic factors, comorbidities, and health behaviors (e.g., tobacco use) that have been associated with SARS-COV-2 incidence and severity with the number of PASC symptoms lasting 6 months or more reported by Medicaid Managed Care enrollees having or being at risk for HIV. We included those who reported no PASC symptoms of six months or more in this analysis. Prior to regression analysis, we examined the bivariate correlations of independent variables with the number of PASC symptoms lasting 6 months or more to develop a parsimonious regression model that would be sufficiently powered given our available sample size. Only variables that were significantly correlated with PASC symptoms at 6 months were included in the regression model, with the exception of those we considered to be important control factors based on the literature (i.e., race/ethnicity) and the composition of our sample (i.e., HIV serostatus). Variables of the regression analysis were entered in 2 blocks; 1) sociodemographic factors (race/ethnicity, income inadequacy, and HIV serostatus) and 2) comorbidities and health behaviors (stroke/cardiac condition, cancer, depression/anxiety, fibromyalgia, bone/joint problems, tobacco use) (see Table 4). We included HIV serostatus in the first block since it was a defining characteristic of our sample.

Table 4. Multiple regression analysis on number of long-COVID symptoms at six-months in a Medicaid managed care population.

Variable r B SE β t p R2 Change
Block One:
Non-Hispanic Black -.116 -2.262 1.667 -.144 -1.357 .177
Hispanic .045 -1.992 1.705 -.125 -1.168 .245
Inadequate Income .286*** 2.946 1.252 .176 2.354 .020
HIV+ -.084 -0.603 1.441 -.032 -0.419 .676
.103**
Block Two:
Stroke or Cardiac .383*** 7.386 2.218 .267 3.329 .001
Cancer .254*** 5.478 2.078 .198 2.636 .009
Depression or Anxiety .213** 1.888 1.170 .121 1.614 .109
Fibromyalgia .240** 7.409 3.546 .159 2.089 .039
Bone or Joint Problem .267*** 1.952 1.596 .101 1.223 .223
Use Tobacco .239** 2.429 1.355 .140 1.793 .075
.238***

Note. N = 138. Total R2 = .341.

* p < .05,

** p < .01,

*** p < .001

Among the sociodemographic variables in Block One, only reporting inadequate income was significantly associated with the number of PASC symptoms lasting six months or more (β = .176), Sociodemographic variables explained 10% of the variance in 6-months+ PASC symptoms. In Block Two, the comorbidities of stroke/cardiac conditions (β = .267), cancer (β = .198, and fibromyalgia (β = .159) were significantly associated with PASC symptoms lasting 6 months or longer. Depression/anxiety, bone/joint problems, and tobacco use were not significantly associated with the number of PASC symptoms 6-month+ when controlling for sociodemographic factors and other comorbidities. Block Two explained 24% of the variance in the number of PASC symptoms lasting 6 months or more (see Table 4). In summary, the number of long duration PASC symptoms were positively associated with income inadequacy and several comorbidities (cardiac/stroke, cancer, fibromyalgia) among Medicaid managed care enrollees with or at risk for HIV. However, HIV-status per se was not significantly related to the number of PASC symptoms at 6-months or more either in bivariate analysis or when controlling for sociodemographic factors, comorbidities, or health behaviors.

Discussion

Aligning with national demographic trends concerning individuals at elevated risk for HIV [28], in our study, those living with HIV are more likely to identify as non-Hispanic Black. Reflecting the average age of individuals living with HIV in the U.S., half of our participants with HIV are over 50. HIV positive status is significantly associated with hypertensions, which may also be attributed to the older profile of this group. It is important to recognize that all the participants in the study belonged to the same Medicaid managed plan for people with or at risk for HIV. The homogeneity of our sample may consequently contribute to the lack of association between HIV serostatus noted in other samples. Nevertheless, this study draws meaningful comparisons and findings in an overall low-income population with similar access to healthcare and benefits.

Based on data from a Medicaid Managed population, this study demonstrated that lower income adequacy, and a range of comorbidities are associated with a higher prevalence of persistent symptoms of PASC at more than 6 months after the initial acute COVID-19 infection.

Most of the common symptoms reported by this population are consistent with past findings, which included musculoskeletal conditions (body ache, low back pain etc.), brain fog, fatigue, sleep difficulties, and neurocognitive issues (memory loss, bone, or joint pain etc.) [5, 811].

Despite the statistically significant link between one PASC symptom (pricking, tingling, and creeping feeling on the skin) and HIV serostatus, we did not find a significant association between HIV serostatus and either the likelihood of experiencing one or more PASC symptoms six months after infection nor the number of PASC symptoms at six months. This finding contradicts with Peluso and colleague’s study (2022) that measured COVID-19 humoral and cellular response in PWLH and predicted a positive correlation between HIV serostatus and PASC acquisition and persistent symptoms [2]. However, it is important to note that the current evidence on the long-term clinical consequences of COVID-19 among PLWH is still quite limited, leaving this study with very few other research to draw meaningful comparison. Additionally, participants in this study all came from the same Medicaid-managed plan, representing a relatively homogenous population, while the existing few studies demonstrating a significant link between positive HIV serostatus and PASC intensity were conducted in more heterogenous population [29].

Moreover, the lack of association between HIV and PASC is not entirely surprising, as several studies on HIV and the acute COVID infection suggested a similar conclusion, indicating that comorbidities and sociodemographic factors may play a more prominent role in determining COVID-19 outcomes than HIV serostatus in PLWH [15, 17, 30, 31]. This study represents one of the very first few studies that integrated PASC and HIV co-infection, aiming to inform the ongoing exploration of future studies in this area.

Multiple studies have collectively identified older age and female sex as the potential risk factors for PASC and longer disease persistence [1, 21, 22]. A few studies also have revealed that non-Hispanic Black and Hispanics have a higher likelihood of developing PASC and experiencing a wide range of symptoms compared to their non-Hispanic White counterparts [32, 33]. In the present study, while the association between growing age and the heightened risks of certain PASC symptoms is further strengthened, no apparent pattern was observed between race/ethnicity, gender/sex and the prevalence of PASC or the number of symptoms reported. A plausible explanation to such a difference could be the uniqueness of the study sample that primarily consisted of a Medicaid managed population, in other words, an overall low-income population. In the current sample, there was no significant association between race/ethnicity and income adequacy, therefore further suggesting the possibility that income adequacy could function as an independent risk factor for PASC.

The current study has several limitations including a limited sample size drawn from a distinct clinical population and the use of retrospective self-report data on PASC symptoms, thus, findings may not be generalizable to populations that are not Medicaid enrollees or who do not have or are not at risk for HIV. In addition, there is an imbalance in numbers between people living with HIV and those without, with people living with HIV constituting the majority. This discrepancy may account for the lack of significant findings regarding the correlation between PASC prevalence and HIV serostatus. However, the use of such a homogeneous population did allow us to compare individuals with similar access to healthcare and healthcare benefits, and our multivariate analysis explained over one-third for the variance in long-duration PASC symptoms and were consistent with other reported findings. Further, we observed adequate statistical power in our regression analysis based on the proportion of variance explained in our model (R2 = .341).

Although empirical findings on the socioeconomic disparity in PASC are scarce, this study’s findings aligned with two existing studies that described the increased risk of PASC acquisition and severity among people who are economically disadvantaged [33, 34]. It is worth noting that these two large community-based studies encompassed participants with a wider range of socioeconomic statuses, whereas all of the participants in this study were already low-income. The study findings illustrate the deleterious impact of financial strain even among those with limited financial means in the development of PASC. These findings highlight the need for targeted interventions and support for low-income individuals who are disproportionately affected by PASC, particularly for those who are struggling financially.

Public health implications

Income inadequacy is a known social determinant of health and was the only demographic characteristic consistently associated with PASC symptoms experienced for six months or longer. Access to healthcare can be directly linked to socioeconomic status, however, the study sample were all Medicaid managed care enrollees and could be assumed to have the same level of access to healthcare. But an additional factor is that those who struggle financially often work multiple jobs and may have difficulty accessing health care and treatments that can limit the long-term impact of SARS-COV-2 and other diseases (e.g., Paxlovid) due to time constraints. COVID-19 has had a disproportionate impact on disadvantaged communities and including those of low socioeconomic position. Acknowledging the potential long-term physical, social, and economic effects of COVID-19 is a crucial first step in improving the public health response to this disease and other health inequities.

Supporting information

S1 File. All 49 PASC symptoms by HIV serostatus.

(DOCX)

pone.0306322.s001.docx (41.6KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

This work would not have been possible without the participants of this study. Their insights and openness to share their stories have been invaluable. Furthermore, we want to express our deep gratitude to our colleagues at Amida Care and its Member Advisory Committee for their support in recruitment and operational support.

Data Availability

The data collected for this study are not publicly available, nor are they available on request, as it would constitute a violation of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) protocol. Additionally, as part of the informed consent agreement, participants were assured that their data would not be shared with researchers beyond our institution or used for future research purposes. We are committed to upholding these ethical standards to protect participant confidentiality and privacy.

Funding Statement

This research was fully funded by an Investigator Sponsored Research Grant (CO-US-540-6404) from Gilead Sciences. The funder played a role in consulting our study design and data collection.

References

  • 1.Ballering AV, Sander K R van Z, Olde Hartman T,C., Rosmalen JGM. Persistence of somatic symptoms after COVID-19 in the Netherlands: an observational cohort study. The Lancet. 2022;400(10350):452–461. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01214-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Peluso MJ, Spinelli MA, Deveau TM, et al. Postacute sequelae and adaptive immune responses in people with HIV recovering from SARS-COV-2 infection. AIDS. 2022;36(12):F7–F16. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000003338 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Post-COVID Conditions (Long COVID). World Health Organization. December 7, 2022. Accessed May 22, 2023. https://www.who.int/europe/news-room/fact-sheets/item/post-covid-19-condition
  • 4.Astin R, Banerjee A, Baker MR, et al. Long COVID: mechanisms, risk factors and recovery. Exp Physiol. 2023;108(1):12–27. doi: 10.1113/EP090802 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Perlis RH, Santillana M, Ognyanova K, et al. Prevalence and Correlates of Long COVID Symptoms Among US Adults. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(10):e2238804. Published 2022 Oct 3. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.38804 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Munblit D, Bobkova P, Spiridonova E, et al. Risk factors for long-term consequences of COVID-19 in hospitalised adults in Moscow using the ISARIC Global follow-up protocol: StopCOVID cohort study. medRxiv; 2021.
  • 7.Huang C, Huang L, Wang Y, et al. 6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study. Lancet. 2021;397(10270):220–232. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32656-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Davis HE, McCorkell L, Vogel JM, Topol EJ. Author Correction: Long COVID: major findings, mechanisms and recommendations. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2023;21(6):408. doi: 10.1038/s41579-023-00896-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Thaweethai T, Jolley SE, Karlson EW, et al. Development of a Definition of Postacute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection. JAMA. 2023;329(22):1934–1946. doi: 10.1001/jama.2023.8823 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Sudre CH, Murray B, Varsavsky T, et al. Attributes and predictors of long COVID [published correction appears in Nat Med. 2021 Jun;27(6):1116]. Nat Med. 2021;27(4):626–631. doi: 10.1038/s41591-021-01292-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Sanchez-Ramirez DC, Normand K, Zhaoyun Y, Torres-Castro R. Long-Term Impact of COVID-19: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis. Biomedicines. 2021;9(8):900. Published 2021 Jul 27. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines9080900 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Havervall S, Rosell A, Phillipson M, et al. Symptoms and Functional Impairment Assessed 8 Months After Mild COVID-19 Among Health Care Workers. JAMA. 2021;325(19):2015–2016. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.5612 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Degarege A, Naveed Z, Kabayundo J, Brett-Major D. Heterogeneity and Risk of Bias in Studies Examining Risk Factors for Severe Illness and Death in COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Pathogens. 2022;11(5):563. Published 2022 May 10. doi: 10.3390/pathogens11050563 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Booth A, Reed AB, Ponzo S, et al. Population risk factors for severe disease and mortality in COVID-19: A global systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2021;16(3):e0247461. Published 2021 Mar 4. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247461 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Dzinamarira T, Murewanhema G, Chitungo I, et al. Risk of mortality in HIV-infected COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis [published online ahead of print, 2022 May 16]. J Infect Public Health. 2022;15(6):654–661. doi: 10.1016/j.jiph.2022.05.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Danwang C, Noubiap JJ, Robert A, Yombi JC. Outcomes of patients with HIV and COVID-19 co-infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AIDS Res Ther. 2022;19(1):3. Published 2022 Jan 14. doi: 10.1186/s12981-021-00427-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Fredman E. SARS-CoV-2 percent positivity and risk factors among people with HIV at an urban academic medical center. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254994 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Beltran R. M., Holloway I. W., Hong C., Miyashita A., Cordero L., Wu E., et al. (2022). Social Determinants of Disease: HIV and COVID-19 Experiences. Current HIV/AIDS reports, 19(1), 101–112. doi: 10.1007/s11904-021-00595-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Bowleg L. We’re Not All in This Together: On COVID-19, Intersectionality, and Structural Inequality. Am J Public Health. 2020;110(7):917. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2020.305766 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Tesoriero J. M., Swain C. E., Pierce J. L., Zamboni L., Wu M., Holtgrave D. R., et al. (2021). COVID-19 Outcomes Among Persons Living With or Without Diagnosed HIV Infection in New York State. JAMA network open, 4(2), e2037069. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.37069 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Tsampasian V, Elghazaly H, Chattopadhyay R, et al. Risk Factors Associated With Post–COVID-19 Condition: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. Published online March 23, 2023. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.0750 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Asadi-Pooya AA, Akbari A, Emami A, et al. Risk Factors Associated with Long COVID Syndrome: A Retrospective Study. Iran J Med Sci. 2021;46(6):428–436. doi: 10.30476/ijms.2021.92080.2326 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Sanyaolu A, Okorie C, Marinkovic A, et al. Comorbidity and its Impact on Patients with COVID-19. SN Compr Clin Med. 2020;2(8):1069–1076. doi: 10.1007/s42399-020-00363-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Ko JY, Danielson ML, Town M, Dorado G, Greenlund KJ et al. Risk Factors for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)-Associated Hospitalization: COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network and Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Clin. Infect. Dis. 72(11): e695–e703. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1419 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Reddy RK, Charles WN, Sklavounos A, Dutt A, Seed PT, Khajuria A. The effect of smoking on COVID-19 severity: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Virol. 2021;93(2):1045–1056. doi: 10.1002/jmv.26389 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Tran VT, Riveros C, Clepier B, Desvarieux M, Collet C, Yordanov Y, et al. Development and validation of the long covid symptom and impact tools, a set of patient-reported instruments constructed from patients’ lived experience. Clin Infect Dis. 2021. Apr 29:ciab352 (Abstract) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Motwani L, Asif N, Patel A, Vedantam D, Poman DS. Neuropathy in Human Immunodeficiency Virus: A Review of the Underlying Pathogenesis and Treatment. Cureus. 2022; 14(6):e25905. doi: 10.7759/cureus.25905 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Center for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV Surveillance Report 2023 [Internet]. 2021. [updated 2023 May 23; Cited 2024 April 10]. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/library/reports/hiv-surveillance/vol-34/index.html
  • 29.Yang X, Liu Z, Zhang J, Olatosi B, Weissman S, Li X. (2024). Long COVID between people with and without HIV: a statewide cohort analysis. Poster presented at: Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; 2024 March 3–6; Denvor, CO.
  • 30.SeyedAlinaghi S., Karimi A., MohsseniPour M., Barzegary A., Mirghaderi S.P., Fakhfouri A., et al. The clinical outcomes of COVID-19 in HIV-positive patients: a systematic review of current evidence. Immun Inflamm Dis. 2021;9(4):1160–1185. doi: 10.1002/iid3.497 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Cooper TJ, Woodward BL, Alom S, Harky A. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes in HIV/AIDS patients: a systematic review. HIV Med. 2020;21(9):567–577. doi: 10.1111/hiv.12911 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Khullar D, Zhang Y, Ang C, et al. Racial and ethnic disparities in the incidence of post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection among hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients in New York City: An EHR-based cohort study from the RECOVER program. J Gen Intern Med 2023. doi: 10.1007/s11606-022-07997-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Subramanian A., Nirantharakumar K., Hughes S. et al. Symptoms and risk factors for long COVID in non-hospitalized adults. Nat Med 28, 1706–1714 (2022). doi: 10.1038/s41591-022-01909-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Shabnam S, Razieh C, Dambha-Miller H, et al. Socioeconomic inequalities of Long COVID: a retrospective population-based cohort study in the United Kingdom [published online ahead of print, 2023 May 10]. J R Soc Med. 2023;1410768231168377. doi: 10.1177/01410768231168377 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Shuai Ren

6 Mar 2024

PONE-D-23-39018The association of sociodemographic characteristics and comorbidities with post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 in a Medicaid managed care population with and without HIVPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 20 2024 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,

Shuai Ren

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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

 [copy in funding statement].  

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. In the online submission form, you indicated that [Data are available upon reasonable request to the authors.]. 

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval. 

4. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

5. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

**********

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: No

**********

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

**********

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: PLOS ONE

PONE-D-23-39018

Original research

The association of sociodemographic characteristics and comorbidities with post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 in a Medicaid managed care population with and without HIV.

Wu et al. investigate the prevalence of post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) between people with and those without HIV from a Medicaid Managed population using a web-based survey. Authors also evaluate the nature of PASC symptoms in the two populations as well as the influence of sociodemographic factors, comorbidities and health behaviors in the number of PASC symptoms.

The study unveils relevant data on the lack of significant association between HIV status and PASC.

Authors should better clarify several methodological issues, before the manuscript can be considered for publication:

1. Structured abstract section should clearly describe the results according to the study research questions

2. Authors claim the study is a cohort-based study (page 16, line 295). Please, explain

3. Introduction section: For such relevant research question, is the methodology appropriate (Page 3, lines 82-83)? Please, explain

4. Methods section: How accurate is the methodology used to identify people at risk for or living with HIV: “Participants who answered “yes” to being with HIV positive were asked to report CD4 t-cell counts and HIV viral load (detectable / undetectable)” (Page 4, lines 113-115). Please, comment.

5. Methods section: How was the diagnosis of COVID-19 confirmed? What does 6 months or more refers to (Page 9, line 213)? Authors should inform the time since the acute SARS-CoV-2 infection.

6. Results section: Percentage of included people reporting HIV and non-HIV is unbalanced. Could this finding affect the study results? Please, clarify and discuss.

7. Results section: Table 1 introduces the demographic and comorbid conditions by HIV status: According to age count there is information of only 100 participants (Page 8, line 2090, not 153 (Page 1, line 320, nor of the 142 participants included in the study 9page 7, line 176). For race and ethnicity, gender identify, sexual identify and income adequacy authors provide data from 138 participants (Page 8, line 209). Please, clarify.

8. Results section: Prevalence of long COVID symptoms only informs the total prevalence, and NOT the difference found in people with and those without HIV (Page 9, lines 212-218).

9. Results section: Table 2 introduces the percentage of PASC symptoms by age group, but not by HIV status (Page 10, line 235). Table 3 introduces the percentage of PASC symptoms by income adequacy, but not by HIV status (Page 11, line 250).

10. Results section: Table 4 presents the multiple regression analysis on the number of Long-COVID symptoms at six-months in a Medicaid Managed Care Population: is data derived from the HIV population only? Is data derived from people who represented symptoms only at six-months? Please, kindly clarify.

11. Discussion section should include relevant comments regarding study findings based on HIV status. How did sociodemographic characteristics and comorbidities differ in people with and without HIV?

12. Long COVID (Page 9, line 212; Page 14, line 269). Authors should consider harmonizing terminology.

**********

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

**********

[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. 2024 Jul 25;19(7):e0306322. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306322.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


11 Apr 2024

Dear Editor and Reviewer at PlosOne,

Thank you so much for the opportunity to revise our manuscript “The association of sociodemographic characteristics and comorbidities with post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 in a Medicaid managed care population with and without HIV.” We appreciate your very insightful feedback and we have made improvements to our manuscript. We have addressed each of your comment as listed below.

Editor’s Comment 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.

Response: Thank you so much for your comment! We have made several formatting adjustments based on the guidelines. We hope that these changes adequately resolve all formatting-related issues.

Editor’s Comment 2: Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: [copy in funding statement]. Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. “If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Response: Thank you so much for seeking clarification! In our study, the funder played a role in consulting our study design and data collection. Additionally, in accordance with our contract agreement, the funder reviewed the manuscript before its submission.

Editor’s Comment 3: In the online submission form, you indicated that [Data are available upon reasonable request to the authors.]. All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

Response: The data collected for this study are not publicly available, nor are they available on request, as it would constitute a violation of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) protocol. Additionally, as part of the informed consent agreement, participants were assured that their data would not be shared with researchers beyond our institution or used for future research purposes. We are committed to upholding these ethical standards to protect participant confidentiality and privacy.

Editor’s Comment 4: We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

Response: Thank you so much for your comment. As indicated in our last response, we have revised our data availability statement to reflect on the ethical and legal constraints imposed by the Institutional Review Board at the City University of New York. The new data availability statement is presented as below:

“The data collected for this study are not publicly available, nor are they available on request, as it would constitute a violation of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) protocol. Additionally, as part of the informed consent agreement, participants were assured that their data would not be shared with researchers beyond our institution or used for future research purposes. We are committed to upholding these ethical standards to protect participant confidentiality and privacy.”

Editor’s Comment 5: Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

Response: Thank you so much for your comment. I have inserted the ethics statement in the methods section with detailed description of informed consent obtainment process.

“The study protocol was approved by the City University of New York Institutional Review Board. Before participants can proceed to the questionaries, they were prompted to review the informed consent page. All participants gave their informed consent digitally.” [LN102-104 in file “Manuscript”]

Reviewer’s comment 1: Structured abstract section should clearly describe the results according to the study research questions.

Response: Thank you so much for your comment! We have revised the abstract as instructed. Now the response to the research questions is more clearly listed.

Reviewer’s comment 2: Authors claim the study is a cohort-based study (page 16, line 295). Please, explain.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out! We initially included the “cohort-based” to indicate the cohort of the care population. However, we realized that it may have caused confusion. We have deleted the term “cohort-based” throughout our study.

Reviewer’s comment 3: Introduction section: For such relevant research question, is the methodology appropriate (Page 3, lines 82-83)? Please, explain.

Response: Thank you so much for your comment! We have modified the languages in the manuscript to make it more clearly align with the research questions. [LN 82-89 in file “Manuscript”]

Reviewer’s comment 4: Methods section: How accurate is the methodology used to identify people at risk for or living with HIV: “Participants who answered “yes” to being with HIV positive were asked to report CD4 t-cell counts and HIV viral load (detectable / undetectable)” (Page 4, lines 113-115). Please, comment.

Response: Thank you so much for your request of clarification! The HIV status in this study is self-reported. We understand that self-report status can be inaccurate in some cases. However, as we clearly stated in the manuscripts that all participants are from a Medicaid managed plan particularly for people live with or at risk for HIV. Please let us know if this addresses your concerns.

Reviewer’s comment 5: Methods section: How was the diagnosis of COVID-19 confirmed? What does 6 months or more refers to (Page 9, line 213)? Authors should inform the time since the acute SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Response: Thank you so much for your comment! We have clarified that we identified this population through participants’ medical record [LN 89; LN 151]. In other words, only those who “had a documented COVID-19 diagnosis in their medical record was eligible to participate. [LN 151]” “6 months or more” refers to symptoms that last 6 months or more. Now, we have modified that language [LN 216].

Reviewer’s comment 6: Results section: Percentage of included people reporting HIV and non-HIV is unbalanced. Could this finding affect the study results? Please, clarify and discuss.

Response: Thank you for pointing out this issue! We are aware of the imbalance between people reporting HIV and non-HIV, which could affect the study result. Now we have included a few sentences in our discussion in the revised manuscript [LN 367-370].

Reviewer’s comment 7: Results section: Table 1 introduces the demographic and comorbid conditions by HIV status: According to age count there is information of only 100 participants (Page 8, line 2090, not 153 (Page 1, line 320, nor of the 142 participants included in the study 9page 7, line 176). For race and ethnicity, gender identify, sexual identify and income adequacy authors provide data from 138 participants (Page 8, line 209). Please, clarify.

Response: Thank you for pointing this issue out! Such a difference in the number of participants is due to the fact that it is a survey study, and participants were not obligated to answer every single question. Nevertheless, as you insightfully pointed out, such an inconsistency may have caused confusion. Now, we have adjusted the valid responses as the 138 participants who had responded to the HIV status question. In response, we have adjusted the tables, demographic information, as well as the analysis accordingly.

Reviewer’s comment 8: Results section: Prevalence of long COVID symptoms only informs the total prevalence, and NOT the difference found in people with and those without HIV (Page 9, lines 212-218).

Response: Thank you for your insights! As demonstrated in the study, HIV serostatus is not significantly associated with PASC symptoms. To make this finding more explicit and clearer, we have now dedicated a whole sub-section titled “HIV serostatus and PASC symptoms” with an addition of a supplementary material demonstrating the prevalence of 49 PASC symptoms by HIV status.

Reviewer’s comment 9: Results section: Table 2 introduces the percentage of PASC symptoms by age group, but not by HIV status (Page 10, line 235). Table 3 introduces the percentage of PASC symptoms by income adequacy, but not by HIV status (Page 11, line 250).

Response: Thank you for your insights! We have now dedicated a whole sub-section in findings titled “HIV serostatus and PASC symptoms” and added a supplementary material demonstrating the prevalence of 49 PASC symptoms by HIV serostatus.

Reviewer’s comment 10: Results section: Table 4 presents the multiple regression analysis on the number of Long-COVID symptoms at six-months in a Medicaid Managed Care Population: is data derived from the HIV population only? Is data derived from people who represented symptoms only at six-months? Please, kindly clarify.

Response: Thank you so much for your comment! The table derived from people who represented symptoms only at six months. We have now included the clarification in the manuscript! [LN 280-282]

Reviewer’s comment 11: Discussion section should include relevant comments regarding study findings based on HIV status. How did sociodemographic characteristics and comorbidities differ in people with and without HIV?

Response: Thank you so much for your comment! We have now included a discussion regarding demographic findings based on HIV status in the discussion section [LN312-320].

Reviewer’s comment 12: Long COVID (Page 9, line 212; Page 14, line 269). Authors should consider harmonizing terminology.

Response: Thank you so much for your comment! We have revised the terminology and made sure it is consistent throughout the manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: ResponsetoReviewers_040824.docx

pone.0306322.s002.docx (22.4KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Shuai Ren

17 Jun 2024

The association of sociodemographic characteristics and comorbidities with post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 in a Medicaid managed care population with and without HIV

PONE-D-23-39018R1

Dear Dr. Wu,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Shuai Ren

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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 #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 #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 #2: The authors have addressed my prior concerns. I do have a few minor suggestions. First, line 122 has a misplaced period (.). Two, SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-COV-2 are used in the title and text. SARS-CoV-2 is the standard notation for the virus. Three, another potential consideration for the discussion is that symptoms may vary based on strain and inoculum, and some evidence suggests that ART or PrEP may have an effect on SARS-CoV-2 related morbidity and mortality.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Shuai Ren

20 Jun 2024

PONE-D-23-39018R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wu,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Shuai Ren

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 File. All 49 PASC symptoms by HIV serostatus.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0306322.s001.docx (41.6KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: ResponsetoReviewers_040824.docx

    pone.0306322.s002.docx (22.4KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    The data collected for this study are not publicly available, nor are they available on request, as it would constitute a violation of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) protocol. Additionally, as part of the informed consent agreement, participants were assured that their data would not be shared with researchers beyond our institution or used for future research purposes. We are committed to upholding these ethical standards to protect participant confidentiality and privacy.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES