ABSTRACT
This prospective study assessed the prevalence, type, and consequences of persistent symptoms following a nonhospitalized SARS‐CoV‐2 infection by comparing infected and noninfected children and adults of Dutch households. Two comparable prospective household studies were conducted during two pandemic phases. At baseline, all household members were tested for SARS‐CoV‐2 with 10 consecutive saliva samples during a 6‐week period using RT‐PCR. Questionnaires assessing persistent symptoms, health‐related quality of life (HRQoL), anxiety, and depressive symptoms were collected at 6 and 12 months. Of the 297 included participants (median age 34 years, IQR 12–48), 201 (67.7%) tested positive for SARS‐CoV‐2. At 6 months, only one child reported persistent symptoms. SARS‐CoV‐2‐infected adults (> 18 years) reported more pulmonary symptoms (15.2% vs. 3.4%, p = 0.023), and tended to report more fatigue (12.8% vs. 3.4%, p = 0.061) and exertion‐related symptoms (8.8% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.107) compared to the negative adults. Adult participants with persistent symptoms reported decreased HRQoL and increased anxiety and depressive symptoms. This study found that SARS‐CoV‐2‐positive adults tended to have higher prevalence of respiratory symptoms, fatigue, and exertion‐related symptoms 6 months after SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, whereas children rarely reported persistent symptoms. Persistent symptoms were associated with a reduced HRQoL and increased anxiety and depression.
Keywords: COVID‐19; household; post‐acute sequelae of COVID‐19 (PASC), long‐COVID, SARS‐CoV‐2
Abbreviations
- COVID‐19
coronavirus disease 2019
- HADS
hospital anxiety and depression scale
- HRQoL
health‐related quality of life
- MCS
mental component score
- PCS
physical component score
- SARSLIVA
SARS‐CoV‐2 in saLIVA
- SARS‐CoV‐2
severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2
- SF‐36
36‐Item Short Form Health Survey
- UMC
University Medical Center
- VOC
variant of concern
- WHO
World Health Association
1. Introduction
Persistent symptoms are frequently reported after a SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Estimates range from 7.5% to 35% in nonhospitalized and 53% to 72.5% in hospitalized adults [1, 2, 3]. In nonhospitalized children, estimates range from 0% to 40.0% [4, 5, 6]. An array of persistent symptoms has been reported; however, these symptoms are common in the general population, and many studies lack a control group. This may lead to an overestimation of persistent symptoms attributed to a SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. A recent systematic review reporting on persistent symptoms in children and adults after a SARS‐CoV‐2 infection only included studies with a control group [7]. It showed that the majority of reported symptoms were equally prevalent in SARS‐CoV‐2 patients compared to negative controls [7]. However, as noted in the article, the limited number of studies that could be included in the analysis necessitates a cautious interpretation of these findings, which underscores the need for additional comparative studies. Furthermore, this limited number of available studies included heterogeneous control groups [7]. This heterogeneity introduces variability in lifestyle factors, including differences in approaches to managing and addressing symptoms among cases and controls, which limits comparability. These confounders may undermine the ability to distill the true effect of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection on the prevalence of persistent symptoms. Studies conducted in household settings mitigate these challenges by leveraging shared genetics, environmental exposures, and lifestyle factors, resulting in more homogeneous control groups and enabling clear comparisons.
Therefore, this study analyzed the prevalence of persistent symptoms 6 and 12 months after a SARS‐CoV‐2 infection in nonhospitalized children and adults of Dutch households compared to uninfected household members. Moreover, this study aims to evaluate health‐related quality of life (HRQoL), anxiety, and depressive symptoms in participants with and without persistent symptoms, and to evaluate possible associations between patient characteristics and persistent symptoms.
2. Methods
This prospective questionnaire study is a 12‐month follow‐up of the SARSLIVA 1.0 (SL1) and SARSLIVA 2.0 cohort (SL2). These studies, with similar study designs, investigated SARS‐CoV‐2 household transmission during different stages of the COVID‐19 pandemic [8, 9]. These cohorts consist of participants aged 0–65 years from Dutch households. Participants from the SL1 cohort were included between October and December 2020, when the wild‐type variant was dominant in an immune naïve population. Participants from the SL2 cohort were included between March and April 2022, during the dominance of the Omicron BA.2 variant of concern (VOC), with varying population immune status through vaccinations and prior infections.
The households included at least one member with a laboratory‐confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and at least two additional household members willing to participate. Recent (< 8 weeks) SARS‐CoV‐2 infection was an exclusion criterion for SL2. Participant characteristics were collected at baseline. All participants, regardless of symptoms, were tested for a SARS‐CoV‐2 infection via (1) reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) on 10 consecutive saliva samples over 6 weeks and (2) IgG antibody titer increase in serum over the same period. For a more detailed description of SARS‐CoV‐2 test methods, see original papers and Supporting Information Materials [8, 9].
All participants included in the two studies were invited to participate in the follow‐up study, completing questionnaires at 6 and 12 months post‐inclusion. Adults completed a persistent symptom questionnaire that was adapted by University Medical Centre (UMC) Groningen (Supporting Information S1: Appendix 1) [10], while children (0–17 years) received a questionnaire developed by Amsterdam UMC and Spaarne Gasthuis (Supporting Information S1: Appendix 2). These questionnaires assessed the presence of symptoms not present before study onset, perceived to be related to SARS‐CoV‐2. Participants who reported persistent symptoms at 6 months were reassessed on persistent symptoms at 12 months.
Additionally, HRQoL and anxiety and depressive symptoms in adults were assessed by the validated 36‐Item Short Form Health Survey (SF‐36) and hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS), respectively. These questionnaires were administered at 6 and 12 months, regardless of the presence of persistent symptoms [11, 12].
Only participants who completed the 6‐month follow‐up questionnaire were included in our analyses. Participants who reported a SARS‐CoV‐2 (re‐)infection during the 12‐month follow‐up period were excluded from the subsequent follow‐up measurement. Participants who tested negative for SARS‐CoV‐2 during the initial study period were included as control group. Comparison between SARS‐CoV‐2‐positive and ‐negative participants was performed using Fisher's exact test for parametric data and Wilcoxon rank‐sum test for nonparametric data. Finally, possible associations between patient characteristics and persistent symptoms at 6 months were assessed in adults, using univariable logistic regression. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were conducted using R (version 2023.09.1 + 494). For a more detailed description of the study methods, see Supporting Information.
3. Results
Two hundred and ninety‐seven participants were included, of whom 141 originated from SL1 (50 households) and 156 from SL2 (49 households) (Figure 1). Of the 116 included children, 78 (67.2%) tested positive for SARS‐CoV‐2 (Table 1). Of the 181 included adults, 123 (68.0%) tested positive for SARS‐CoV‐2. Acute symptoms were more frequently reported by SARS‐CoV‐2‐positive participants, such as dyspnea, cough, myalgia, and headache (Table 1). No participants were hospitalized.
Figure 1.
Flowchart of participant selection and consent.
Table 1.
Baseline characteristics.
| SARS‐CoV‐2 infection | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | Positive | Negative (controls) | p valuea,* | |
| N = 297 | N = 201 | N = 96 | ||
| Cohort | 0.174 | |||
| SL1 (wild‐type cohort) | 141 (47.5%) | 101 (50.2%) | 40 (41.7%) | |
| SL2 (Omicron cohort) | 156 (52.5%) | 100 (49.8%) | 56 (58.3%) | |
| Sex | 0.322 | |||
| Male | 136 (45.8%) | 88 (43.8%) | 48 (50.0%) | |
| Female | 161 (54.2%) | 113 (56.2%) | 48 (50.0%) | |
| Age, years | 34 (12–48, 0–64) | 34 (12–47, 0–61) | 28 (12–48, 0–64) | 0.863 |
| Age group | 0.886 | |||
| 0–11 years old | 67 (22.6%) | 47 (23.4%) | 20 (20.8%) | |
| 12–17 years old | 49 (16.5%) | 31 (15.4%) | 18 (18.8%) | |
| 18–39 years old | 56 (18.9%) | 40 (19.9%) | 16 (16.7%) | |
| 40–49 years old | 78 (26.3%) | 51 (25.4%) | 27 (28.1%) | |
| 50 years and older | 47 (15.8%) | 32 (15.9%) | 15 (15.6%) | |
| Acute disease severityb | < 0.001* | |||
| Asymptomatic | 84 (28.3%) | 33 (16.4%) | 51 (53.1%) | |
| Mild | 158 (53.2%) | 127 (63.2%) | 31 (32.3%) | |
| Moderately severe | 55 (18.5%) | 41 (20.4%) | 14 (15.6%) | |
| Immunity childrenc | 0.052 | |||
| Naïve | 75 (64.7%) | 56 (71.8%) | 19 (50.0%) | |
| Previous infection | 21 (18.1%) | 13 (16.7%) | 8 (21.1%) | |
| Vaccination | 11 (9.5%) | 6 (7.7%) | 5 (13.2%) | |
| Hybrid immunity | 9 (7.8%) | 3 (3.8%) | 6 (15.8%) | |
| Immunity adults | 0.006* | |||
| Naïve | 87 (48.1%) | 63 (51.2%) | 24 (41.4%) | |
| Previous infection | 1 (0.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | 0 (0.0%) | |
| Vaccination | 69 (38.1%) | 50 (40.7%) | 19 (32.8%) | |
| Hybrid immunity | 24 (13.3%) | 9 (7.3%) | 15 (25.9%) | |
| BMI classd | 0.085 | |||
| Underweight | 15 (5.1%) | 11 (5.5%) | 4 (4.2%) | |
| Normal weight | 186 (62.6%) | 117 (58.2%) | 69 (71.9%) | |
| Overweight | 74 (24.9%) | 54 (26.9%) | 20 (20.8%) | |
| Obesity | 22 (7.4%) | 19 (9.5%) | 3 (3.1%) | |
| Comorbidities | ||||
| Any | 108 (36.4%) | 75 (37.3%) | 33 (34.4%) | 0.699 |
| Atopy | 80 (26.9%) | 55 (27.4%) | 25 (26.0%) | 0.889 |
| Asthma | 17 (5.7%) | 12 (6.0%) | 5 (5.2%) | 1.000 |
| Eczema | 26 (8.8%) | 20 (10.0%) | 6 (6.3%) | 0.382 |
| Hay fever | 46 (15.5%) | 30 (14.9%) | 16 (16.7%) | 0.733 |
| Dust mite allergy | 26 (8.8%) | 18 (9.0%) | 8 (8.3%) | 1.000 |
| Other allergy | 14 (4.7%) | 11 (5.5%) | 3 (3.1%) | 0.560 |
| Cardiac | 10 (3.4%) | 5 (2.5%) | 5 (5.2%) | 0.302 |
| Pulmonary | 2 (0.7%) | 2 (1.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1.000 |
| Immunological | 2 (0.7%) | 2 (1.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1.000 |
| Diabetes mellitus | 2 (0.7%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (2.1%) | 0.104 |
| Rheumatologic | 1 (0.3%) | 1 (0.5%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1.000 |
| Other | 25 (8.4%) | 20 (10.0%) | 5 (5.2%) | 0.188 |
| Smoking | 7 (2.4%) | 5 (2.5%) | 2 (2.1%) | 1.000 |
| Education (adults)e | 0.482 | |||
| Low to normal | 60 (37.5%) | 40 (35.7%) | 20 (41.7%) | |
| High | 100 (62.5%) | 72 (64.3%) | 28 (58.3%) | |
| Unknown | 21 | 11 | 10 | |
| Acute symptoms | ||||
| Any | 140 (47.1%) | 117 (58.2%) | 23 (24.0%) | < 0.001* |
| Cough | 93 (31.3%) | 76 (37.8%) | 17 (17.7%) | < 0.001* |
| Nasal congestion | 117 (39.4%) | 97 (48.3%) | 20 (20.8%) | < 0.001* |
| Wheezing | 17 (5.7%) | 15 (7.5%) | 2 (2.1%) | 0.067 |
| Dyspnea | 36 (12.1%) | 31 (15.4%) | 5 (5.2%) | 0.013* |
| Painful breathing | 9 (3.0%) | 8 (4.0%) | 1 (1.0%) | 0.280 |
| Sore throat | 62 (20.9%) | 52 (25.9%) | 10 (10.4%) | 0.002* |
| Anosmia/ageusia | 24 (8.5%) | 23 (11.4%) | 1 (1.1%) | 0.001* |
| Apnea | 2 (0.7%) | 2 (1.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1.000 |
| Loss appetite | 23 (7.7%) | 19 (9.5%) | 4 (4.2%) | 0.162 |
| Fever | 8 (2.7%) | 8 (4.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0.058 |
| Vomiting | 2 (0.7%) | 1 (0.5%) | 1 (1.0%) | 0.543 |
| Diarrhea | 6 (2.0%) | 6 (3.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0.182 |
| Headache | 81 (27.3%) | 67 (33.3%) | 14 (14.6%) | < 0.001* |
| Myalgia | 55 (18.5%) | 50 (24.9%) | 5 (5.2%) | < 0.001* |
| Otherf | 29 (9.8%) | 27 (13.4%) | 2 (2.1%) | 0.001* |
Note: Data is presented as N (%); median (25%–75%, minimum‐maximum).
Abbreviations: SL1, SARSLIVA 1 study; SL2, SARSLIVA 2 study.
Comparison between SARS‐CoV‐2‐positive and ‐negative participants using Fisher's exact test for parametric data and the Wilcoxon rank sum test for nonparametric data.
At baseline, all participants were asked about their disease severity, regardless of SARS‐CoV‐2 diagnosis, simultaneously with obtaining the 10 consecutive saliva samples. Maximal disease severity over these 10 time points was classified as: (1) asymptomatic; (2) mild: some complaints without fever, dyspnea, or hospital admission; or (3) moderate: fever and/or moderate to severe dyspnea without hospital admission.
Participants were divided based on self‐reported immunity status into naïve, previous infection only, previous vaccination only, and hybrid immunity (both SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccination and previous infection).
BMI categories for participants < 18 years of age were defined as BMI z‐score < −2, underweight; −2 to 1, normal weight; 1–2, overweight; > 2, obesity. (11) BMI categories participants ≥ 18 years of age were defined as < 18.5 kg/m2, underweight; 18.5–24.9 kg/m2, normal weight; 25.0–29.9 kg/m2, overweight; ≥ 30.0 kg/m2, obesity.
Education: (1) High: higher professional education or university education; (2) normal or low: secondary vocational education or lower; reported for adults only.
Other symptoms: extreme paleness, excessive sweating, temperature intolerance, new hypersensitivities, lymphadenopathy, difficulties chewing or swallowing, difficulties talking, shaking, bladder problems, and other symptoms.
p < 0.05.
From baseline to month 6, two participants reached adult age, resulting in 114 children and 183 adults at 6 months (Figure 1). Of the 114 children, only one reported persistent symptoms at 6 months follow‐up, which were resolved at 12 months follow‐up.
In adults, a larger, though statistically nonsignificant portion of adults of the SARS‐CoV‐2‐positive participants experienced reported persistent symptoms at 6 months follow‐up, compared to the negative participants (16.8% [21/125] vs. 10.3% [6/58]; p = 0.370, Table 2). SARS‐CoV‐2‐positive participants reported significantly more persistent respiratory symptoms compared to negative participants (15.2% vs. 3.4%, p = 0.023). The most common persistent symptom was dyspnea, which was reported by 10.4% of SARS‐CoV‐2‐positive adults, compared to 3.4% in the negative group (p = 0.150). Additionally, a nonsignificant trend for higher prevalence of fatigue was found in the positive group (12.8% vs. 3.4%, p 0.061), as for exertion‐related symptoms (8.8% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.107).
Table 2.
Persistent symptoms in adults at 6‐month follow‐up.
| SARS‐CoV‐2 infection | p valuea,* | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Positive (N = 125) | Negative (N = 58) (controls) | ||
| Any persistent symptoms | 21 (16.8%) | 6 (10.3%) | 0.370 |
| Respiratory symptoms | 19 (15.2%) | 2 (3.4%) | 0.023* |
| Dyspnea | 13 (10.4%) | 2 (3.4%) | 0.150 |
| Coughing | 5 (4.0%) | 1 (1.7%) | 0.666 |
| Painful breathing | 3 (2.4%) | 0 (0%) | 0.553 |
| Throat pain | 2 (1.6%) | 1 (1.7%) | 1.000 |
| Running nose | 4 (3.2%) | 1 (1.7%) | 1.000 |
| Anosmia | 8 (6.4%) | 1 (1.7%) | 0.276 |
| Ageusia | 9 (7.2%) | 1 (1.7%) | 0.174 |
| Cardiac symptoms | 8 (6.4%) | 3 (5.2%) | 1.000 |
| Palpitations | 3 (2.4%) | 1 (1.7%) | 1.000 |
| Chest pain | 7 (5.6%) | 2 (3.4%) | 0.721 |
| Gastrointestinal symptoms | 6 (4.8%) | 0 (0%) | 0.179 |
| Stomach ache | 3 (2.4%) | 0 (0%) | 0.553 |
| Nausea/vomiting | 2 (1.6%) | 0 (0%) | 1.000 |
| Change in stool | 3 (2.4%) | 0 (0%) | 0.553 |
| Loss of appetite | 1 (0.8%) | 0 (0%) | 1.000 |
| Weight loss | 1 (0.8%) | 0 (0%) | 1.000 |
| Neurocognitive symptoms | 12 (9.6%) | 3 (5.2%) | 0.395 |
| Headache | 5 (4.0%) | 1 (1.7%) | 0.666 |
| Hypersensitivity to light and sound | 5 (4.0%) | 0 (0%) | 0.180 |
| Concentration difficulties | 8 (6.4%) | 1 (1.7%) | 0.276 |
| Memory loss | 7 (5.6%) | 0 (0%) | 0.099 |
| Dizziness | 4 (3.2%) | 1 (1.7%) | 1.000 |
| Balance/coordination problems | 5 (4.0%) | 2 (3.4%) | 1.000 |
| Cognitive impairment | 8 (6.4%) | 2 (3.4%) | 0.508 |
| Double vision | 3 (2.4%) | 0 (0%) | 0.553 |
| Tingling sensation | 2 (1.6%) | 1 (1.7%) | 1.000 |
| Musculoskeletal symptoms | 11 (8.8%) | 2 (3.4%) | 0.232 |
| Muscle complaints | 10 (8.0%) | 2 (3.4%) | 0.344 |
| Joint complaints | 6 (4.8%) | 1 (1.7%) | 0.434 |
| Dermatological symptoms | 2 (1.6%) | 0 (0%) | 1.000 |
| Fever/cold shivers | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | — |
| Fatigue | 16 (12.8%) | 2 (3.4%) | 0.061 |
| Sleep disturbances | 9 (7.2%) | 3 (5.2%) | 0.755 |
| Exertion‐related symptoms | 11 (8.8%) | 1 (1.7%) | 0.107 |
| Other symptoms | 8 (6.4%) | 2 (3.4%) | 0.508 |
Note: Data is presented as N (%).
Fisher's exact test.
p < 0.05.
At 12 months follow‐up, five participants were lost to follow‐up, and two participants were excluded due to a SARS‐CoV‐2 (re‐)infection during the 12‐month follow‐up period (Figure 1). Of the 122 SARS‐CoV‐2‐positive adults included in the analysis, 9.0% (11/122) reported persistent symptoms at 12 months compared to 5.2% (3/58) of negative participants (p = 0.553; Supporting Information S1: Table 1). Respiratory symptoms (7.4% vs. 1.7%), neurocognitive symptoms (7.4% vs. 3.4%), and fatigue (5.7% vs. 1.7%) were most commonly reported, although no statistically significant differences were found in the prevalence of specific persistent symptoms at 12 months follow‐up.
Several factors were found to be statistically significantly associated with the presence of at least one persistent symptom in adults at 6 months (Table 3). The identified factors include obesity (OR 3.82; CI 1.14–12.15), moderate acute disease severity (OR 3.45; CI: 1.07–12.32), a history of eczema (OR 9.25; CI 3.17–27.72), and smoking (OR 26.96; CI 3.79–539.93). Of the acute symptoms, nasal congestion (OR 3.20; CI 1.38–7.90) and dyspnea (OR 3.05; CI 1.18–7.53) were statistically significantly associated with persistent symptoms, as well as a moderately severe acute disease course (OR 3.45; CI 1.07–12.32). The number of symptomatic cases was insufficient to perform risk factor analysis through multivariable analysis (n = 27).
Table 3.
Univariate analysis to test for factors associated with persistent symptoms at 6 months follow‐up in adult participants.
| Persistent symptoms | Univariate logistic regression | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes (n = 27) | No (n = 156) | OR (95% CI) | p valuea,* | |
| Sex | ||||
| Male | 13 (48.1%) | 71 (45.5%) | Ref. | |
| Female | 14 (51.9%) | 85 (54.5%) | 0.90 (0.40–2.06) | 0.800 |
| Age (median, IQR) | 48 (43–52, 17–60) | 45 (36–49, 17–64) | 1.04 (1.00–1.09) | 0.081 |
| SARS‐CoV‐2 test | ||||
| Negative (controls) | 6 (22.2%) | 52 (33.3%) | Ref. | |
| Positive | 21 (77.8%) | 104 (66.7%) | 1.75 (0.70–5.00) | 0.256 |
| SARS‐CoV‐2 variant | ||||
| Wildtype | 12 (44.4%) | 52 (33.3%) | Ref. | |
| Omicron | 9 (33.3%) | 52 (33.3%) | 0.75 (0.28–1.92) | 0.551 |
| Acute disease severityb | ||||
| Asymptomatic | 5 (18.5%) | 46 (29.5%) | Ref. | |
| Mild | 13 (48.1%) | 86 (55.1%) | 1.39 (0.49–4.55) | 0.554 |
| Moderate | 9 (33.3%) | 24 (15.4%) | 3.45 (1.07–12.32) | 0.043* |
| Immunity statusc | ||||
| None | 15 (55.6%) | 73 (46.8%) | Ref. | |
| Infection | 1 (3.7%) | 0 (0.0%) | NA | NA |
| Vaccination | 6 (22.2%) | 63 (40.4%) | 0.46 (0.16–1.21) | 0.134 |
| Hybrid | 5 (18.5%) | 20 (12.8%) | 1.22 (0.36–3.58) | 0.733 |
| BMI classd | ||||
| Underweight | 0 (0.0%) | 5 (3.2%) | 0.00 | 0.989 |
| Normal | 11 (40.7%) | 84 (53.8%) | Ref. | |
| Overweight | 10 (37.0%) | 55 (35.3%) | 1.39 (0.54–3.51) | 0.485 |
| Obese | 6 (22.2%) | 12 (7.8%) | 3.82 (1.14–12.15) | 0.024* |
| Comorbidities | ||||
| Any | 15 (55.6%) | 52 (33.3%) | 1.90 (0.83–4.39) | 0.128 |
| Any atopy | 12 (44.4%) | 43 (27.6%) | 2.10 (0.90–4.85) | 0.082 |
| Asthma | 4 (14.8%) | 10 (6.4%) | 2.54 (0.65–8.32) | 0.141 |
| Eczema | 9 (33.3%) | 8 (5.1%) | 9.25 (3.17–27.72) | < 0.001* |
| Hay fever | 8 (29.6%) | 27 (17.3%) | 2.01 (0.76–4.95) | 0.138 |
| Dust mite allergy | 4 (14.8%) | 14 (9.0%) | 1.76 (0.47–5.43) | 0.352 |
| Other allergy | 3 (11.1%) | 6 (3.8%) | 3.13 (0.63–12.71) | 0.124 |
| Cardiovascular disease | 0 (0.0%) | 10 (6.4%) | 0.00 | 0.990 |
| Pulmonary disease | 2 (7.4%) | 0 (0.0%) | NA | NA |
| Immune disorder | 1 (3.7%) | 1 (0.6%) | 5.96 (0.23–153.93) | 0.212 |
| Diabetes mellitus | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (1.3%) | 0.00 | 0.989 |
| Rheumatoid disease | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | NA | NA |
| Other | 2 (7.4%) | 15 (9.6%) | 0.75 (0.11–2.89) | 0.716 |
| Smoking | 4 (14.8%) | 1 (0.6%) | 26.96 (3.79–540) | 0.004* |
| Educatione | ||||
| Low/normal | 11 (40.7%) | 49 (31.4%) | Ref. | |
| High | 14 (51.9%) | 86 (55.1%) | 0.73 (0.31–1.75) | 0.466 |
| Acute symptoms | ||||
| Any | 19 (70.4%) | 79 (50.6%) | 2.31 (0.99–5.90) | 0.063 |
| Cough | 13 (48.1%) | 54 (34.6%) | 1.75 (0.76–4.02) | 0.181 |
| Nasal congestion | 18 (66.7%) | 60 (38.5%) | 3.20 (1.38–7.90) | 0.008* |
| Wheezing | 3 (11.1%) | 9 (5.7%) | 2.04 (0.43–7.42) | 0.309 |
| Dyspnea | 9 (33.3%) | 22 (14.1%) | 3.05 (1.18–7.53) | 0.017* |
| Painful breathing | 3 (11.1%) | 5 (3.2%) | 3.78 (0.74–16.42) | 0.082 |
| Throat pain | 9 (33.3%) | 35 (22.4%) | 1.73 (0.69–4.11) | 0.225 |
| Anosmia/ageusia | 4 (14.8%) | 16 (10.3%) | 1.61 (0.43–4.94) | 0.432 |
| Apnea | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (0.6%) | 0.00 | 0.992 |
| Loss appetite | 3 (11.1%) | 9 (5.8%) | 2.04 (0.43–7.42) | 0.309 |
| Fever | 1 (3.7%) | 4 (2.6%) | 1.46 (0.07–10.37) | 0.739 |
| Vomiting | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (0.6%) | 0.00 | 0.992 |
| Diarrhea | 2 (7.4%) | 3 (1.9%) | 4.08 (0.52–25.82) | 0.134 |
| Headache | 13 (48.1%) | 48 (30.8%) | 2.09 (0.90–4.81) | 0.081 |
| Muscle ache | 11 (40.7%) | 35 (22.4%) | 2.38 (0.99–5.56) | 0.047* |
| Otherf | 5 (18.5%) | 15 (9.6%) | 2.14 (0.64–6.16) | 0.179 |
Note: Data is presented as N (%); median (25%–75%, minimum–maximum).
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio.
Univariate logistic regression was used to assess the association between patient characteristics and persistent symptoms in adult participants (n = 183).
At baseline, all participants were asked about their disease severity, simultaneously with obtaining the 10 consecutive saliva samples. Maximal disease severity over these 10 time points was classified as: (1) asymptomatic; (2) mild: some complaints without fever, dyspnea, or hospital admission; or (3) moderate: fever and/or moderate to severe dyspnea without hospital admission.
Participants were divided based on self‐reported immunity status into naïve, previous infection only, previous vaccination only, and hybrid immunity (both SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccination and previous infection).
BMI categories for participants < 18 years of age were defined as BMI z‐score < −2, underweight; −2 to 1, normal weight; 1–2, overweight; > 2, obesity. (11) BMI categories participants ≥ 18 years of age were defined as < 18.5 kg/m2, underweight; 18.5–24.9 kg/m2, normal weight; 25.0–29.9 kg/m2, overweight; ≥ 30.0 kg/m2, obesity.
Education: (1) High: higher professional education or university education; (2) normal or low: secondary vocational education or lower; reported for adults only.
Other symptoms: extreme paleness, excessive sweating, temperature intolerance, new hypersensitivities, lymphadenopathy, difficulties chewing or swallowing, difficulties talking, shaking, bladder problems, and other symptoms.
p < 0.05.
In adults, HRQoL, anxiety, and depressive symptom scores did not differ statistically significantly between SARS‐CoV‐2‐positive and ‐negative participants at 6‐ and 12‐month follow‐up (Supporting Information S1: Tables 2 and 3). However, when comparing adults with and without persistent symptoms at 6 months follow‐up, participants with persistent symptoms reported lower HRQoL on most SF‐36 domains, including the physical and mental component scores (PCS and MCS, respectively) and reported a clinically relevant increase in anxiety and depressive symptoms at 6 months follow‐up (Supporting Information S1: Table 4). At 12 months follow‐up, adults with persistent symptoms scored lower, particularly on the physical domains of the SF‐36 and the PCS score (Supporting Information S1: Table 5). The same observations were made in a subgroup analysis comparing SARS‐CoV‐2‐positive adults with and without persistent symptoms (Supporting Information S1: Tables 6 and 7).
4. Discussion
This prospective questionnaire study reports on the occurrence of self‐reported persistent symptoms in nonhospitalized children and adults after a SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. By including noninfected household members as a control group, this study ensured a well‐matched comparison, enhancing the reliability and accuracy of the findings through minimized confounding factors. It demonstrates that both infected and noninfected children have a very low prevalence of persistent symptoms. Among adults, the occurrence of at least one symptom was not significantly different between infected and noninfected individuals. However, persistent respiratory symptoms were statistically significantly more often reported among SARS‐CoV‐2‐positive adults than negatively tested adults. Moreover, fatigue and exertion‐related symptoms tend to be more prevalent in SARS‐CoV‐2‐infected adults. Finally, we found that persistent symptoms lead to an impaired HRQoL and increased complaints of anxiety and depression.
The persistence of symptoms for at least 3 months postinfection is commonly used to define post‐acute sequelae of COVID‐19 (PASC), derived from the World Health Association (WHO)‐definition [13], often referred to as long‐COVID. However, the term “long‐COVID” is increasingly viewed as a broad, nonspecific label that encompasses a wide variety of symptoms, potentially oversimplifying the complexity of the condition [14]. Literature highlights that PASC manifests in multiple organ systems, such as respiratory, neurological, and cardiovascular, each with distinct underlying pathophysiological mechanisms [15]. Recent literature therefore emphasizes the importance of focusing on specific symptoms or symptom clusters rather than treating the condition as a singular entity, as this approach may improve understanding and treatment by acknowledging the multifaceted nature of the syndrome [14, 16]. Our findings on differences in specific symptoms align closely with existing literature, which reports a higher prevalence of fatigue, dyspnea, brain fog, and anosmia in nonhospitalized COVID‐19 adults [17]. Notably, our study reinforced these findings within a highly controlled cohort. Not all observed differences in specific symptoms reached statistical significance in this study, possibly due to the limited sample size and associated reduction in statistical power.
This study observed persistent symptoms in the SARS‐CoV‐2‐negative participants, indicating that long‐term symptoms are not exclusively related to SARS‐CoV‐2 infections. Previous research has identified other infectious diseases, including rhinovirus, influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, Epstein−Barr virus, and Lyme disease, as being associated with long‐term symptoms [18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23]. A recent study further highlighted that individuals with acute respiratory infections (other than SARS‐CoV‐2) had a significantly higher prevalence of persistent symptoms compared to those without respiratory infections, across all COVID‐19 pandemic phases [24]. The current study did not test for viral pathogens other than SARS‐CoV‐2. Yet, the acute symptoms observed in the negative participants suggest that other infections may have contributed to the high prevalence of persistent symptoms in the negative participants, supporting the need for further research into the role of persistent symptoms after (respiratory) infections in general.
The results of the current study demonstrate that adults with persistent symptoms experience a significantly decreased physical and mental HRQoL, alongside a clinically relevant increase in anxiety and depressive symptoms. Recent evidence in over 10 000 adult patients reinforces the profound impact of persistent symptoms. In individuals with post‐COVID symptoms ≥ 3 months after the initial infection, HRQoL remained “poor” up to 24 months after infection, with 22%–32% of participants reporting validated questionnaire scores indicative of anxiety or depressive disorder [25].
Moreover, various studies reported reduced work ability in individuals with persistent symptoms, underscoring the long‐term consequences on functionality and productivity [26, 27], which also contribute to a significant societal burden alongside the increased healthcare utilization and costs associated with these patients [28, 29, 30]. Studies suggest that the type of persistent symptoms strongly influences the degree of individual impairment and societal burden [31, 32], again highlighting the need for a symptom‐specific or symptom‐cluster approach to understand and manage this condition. These findings underscore the substantial disease burden of persistent symptoms after SARS‐CoV‐2 infections at both individual and societal levels, emphasizing the urgent need for comprehensive research to better understand and mitigate these effects.
A key strength of this study lies in its prospective design and comprehensive SARS‐CoV‐2 testing methodology. Another strength is the inclusion of SARS‐CoV‐2‐negative household members as the control group. Limitations include the small sample size, which may have resulted in (1) underdetection of differences in the occurrence of persistent symptoms between the SARS‐CoV‐2‐positive and ‐negative participants, and (2) constraints in our (multivariate) statistical analysis to study risk factors, including pandemic phase. Additionally, recall and selection bias toward participants with persistent symptoms are possible. The lack of a 3‐month follow‐up also prevents reporting the prevalence of post‐COVID condition as defined by the WHO [13]. However, in line with this definition, we specifically inquired about persistent symptoms perceived to be related to the SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Moreover, despite excluding participants who reported a SARS‐CoV‐2 (re)infection during the follow‐up period, asymptomatic SARS‐CoV‐2 infections cannot be ruled out. We recommend including serological testing at multiple time points in future studies.
In conclusion, this study found that SARS‐CoV‐2‐positive adults tend to have a higher prevalence of persistent fatigue, respiratory, and exertion‐related symptoms as compared to negative household members. Persistent symptoms were associated with a reduced HRQoL and increased anxiety and depression. Furthermore, the prevalence of persistent symptoms after a SARS‐CoV‐2 infection in children in this study was very low. These results underline the importance of incorporating a well‐matched control group in future studies and emphasize the necessity of heightened attention to recovery following infectious diseases in general.
Author Contributions
Steven F. L. v. Lelyveld, Marianne A. v. Houten, Mildred E. Haverkort, Judith G. C. Sluiter‐Post, Angelique M. A. M. Winkel, Coen R. Lap, and Adriana Tami contributed to the conception and design of the study. Angelique M. A. M. Winkel, Coen R. Lap, and Judith G. C. Sluiter‐Post. participated in the acquisition of data. Dirk Eggink coordinated the laboratory analyses. Angelique M. A. M. Winkel, Bastienne A. d. Jonghe, Steven F. L. v. Lelyveld, and Marianne A. v. Houten were responsible for data analyses and interpretation. Bastienne A. v. Jonghe, Angelique M. A. M. Winkel, Coen R. Lap, Steven F. L. v. Lelyveld, Judith G. C. Sluiter‐Post, Sjoerd M. Euser, Dirk Eggink, and Marianne A. v. Houten, Menno D. d. Jong verified the underlying data. Angelique M. A. M. Winkel, Bastienne A. d. Jonghe, Steven F. L. v. Lelyveld, and Marianne A. Houten wrote the manuscript. All authors had full access to all the data and reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Ethics Statement
Written informed consent was obtained from all participants. This study was reviewed and approved by the Medical Ethical Committee of the Amsterdam University Medical Centre, The Netherlands (Reference Numbers 2020.436 [SARSLIVA 1] and 2022.0073 [SARSLIVA 2.0]).
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Supporting information
Supplementary_material_Clean.
Acknowledgments
We thank the team of the Public Health Services (GGD) Kennemerland for providing information to the (possible) participants and the research team of the Spaarne Gasthuis Academy, particularly Jacqueline Zonneveld, Sandra Kaamer van Hoegee, Mara van Roermund, and Josseline Veldhuijzen, for their hard work and efforts concerning the continuation of the SARSLIVA follow‐up studies. Moreover, we thank the researchers of the COVID HOME team and the researchers that originally developed the long‐COVID questionnaire used in our study: Bernardina T. F. van der Gun and María F. Vincenti‐González (Department of Medical Microbiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands) and Prof. Luis Nacul (Department of Clinical Research, Faculty of Medicine and London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada). The SARSLIVA 1 study was supported by internal funds from the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), and by the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw), grant number 10430012010017, financed in part by the Netherlands Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. E.A.M.S. reports employment with RIVM, who supported the research for this study. Moreover, both SARSLIVA studies were supported by internal funds from Spaarne Gasthuis.
Winkel A. M. A. M., de Jonghe B. A., Lap C. R., et al., “Persistent Symptoms in SARS‐CoV‐2‐Infected and Non‐Infected Household Members: A Prospective Cohort Study,” Journal of Medical Virology 97 (2025): 1‐10, 10.1002/jmv.70727.
Angelique M. A. M. Winkel and Bastienne A. Jonghe contributed equally to this study. Steven F. L. Lelyveld and Marianne A. Houten also contributed equally.
Data Availability Statement
Deidentified data collected for the study, including individual participant data collected during the study and a data dictionary, are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Requests should be directed to s.van.lelyveld@spaarnegasthuis.nl or mavanhouten@spaarnegasthuis.nl. These requests will be discussed with all project partners (Spaarne Gasthuis, Public Health Services Kennemerland, and RIVM). These requests will be reviewed and approved by the investigator and project partners based on scientific merit. To gain access, data requesters will need to sign a data access agreement. Privacy‐sensitive data, which is traceable to the participant, will not be shared.
References
- 1. Nasserie T., Hittle M., and Goodman S. N., “Assessment of the Frequency and Variety of Persistent Symptoms Among Patients With COVID‐19,” JAMA Network Open 4, no. 5 (2021): e2111417, 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.11417. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Atchison C. J., Davies B., Cooper E., et al., “Long‐Term Health Impacts of COVID‐19 Among 242,712 Adults in England,” Nature Communications 14, no. 1 (2023): 6588, 10.1038/s41467-023-41879-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. O'Mahoney L. L., Routen A., Gillies C., et al., “The Prevalence and Long‐Term Health Effects of Long Covid Among Hospitalised and Non‐Hospitalised Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis,” EClinicalMedicine 55 (2023): 101762, 10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101762. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Funk A. L., Kuppermann N., Florin T. A., et al., “Post–COVID‐19 Conditions Among Children 90 Days After SARS‐CoV‐2 Infection,” JAMA Network Open 5, no. 7 (2022): e2223253, 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.23253. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Sluiter‐Post J. G. C., Fourie E., Wildenbeest J. G., van Lelyveld S. F. L., Bruijning‐Verhagen P. C. J. L., and van Houten M. A., “Long Term Sequelae After SARS‐CoV‐2 Infection in Children: A Household Study,” Virology Journal 20, no. 1 (2023): 137, 10.1186/s12985-023-02094-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Wulf Hanson S., Abbafati C., Aerts J. G., et al., “Estimated Global Proportions of Individuals With Persistent Fatigue, Cognitive, and Respiratory Symptom Clusters Following Symptomatic COVID‐19 in 2020 and 2021,” Journal of the American Medical Association 328, no. 16 (2022): 1604, 10.1001/jama.2022.18931. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Azzam A., Khaled H., Refaey N., et al., “The Burden of Persistent Symptoms After COVID‐19 (Long COVID): A Meta‐Analysis of Controlled Studies in Children and Adults,” Virology Journal 21, no. 1 (2024): 16, 10.1186/s12985-024-02284-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Kolodziej L. M., van Lelyveld S. F. L., Haverkort M. E., et al., “High Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) Household Transmission Rates Detected by Dense Saliva Sampling,” Clinical Infectious Diseases 75, no. 1 (2022): e10–e19, 10.1093/cid/ciac261. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Winkel A., Kozanli E., Haverkort M. E., et al., “Lower Levels of Household Transmission of SARS‐CoV‐2 Omicron Variant of Concern vs Wild Type: An Interplay Between Transmissibility and Immune Status,” Journal of Infectious Diseases 231, no. 3 (2025): 653–664, 10.1093/infdis/jiae546. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Tami A., van der Gun B. T. F., Wold K. I., et al., “The COVID HOME Study Research Protocol: Prospective Cohort Study of Non‐Hospitalised COVID‐19 Patients,” PLoS One 17, no. 11 (2022): e0273599, 10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0273599. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Aaronson N. K., Muller M., Cohen P. D. A., et al., “Translation, Validation, and Norming of the Dutch Language Version of the SF‐36 Health Survey in Community and Chronic Disease Populations,” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 51, no. 11 (1998): 1055–1068, 10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00097-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Spinhoven P., Ormel J., Sloekers P. P. A., Kempen G. I. J. M., Speckens A. E. M., and Hemert A. M. V., “A Validation Study of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) in Different Groups of Dutch Subjects,” Psychological Medicine 27, no. 2 (1997): 363–370, 10.1017/S0033291796004382. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. World Health Organization (WHO) , “A Clinical Case Definition of Post COVID‐19 Condition by a Delphi Consensus,” October 6, 2021, https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-Post_COVID-19_condition-Clinical_case_definition-2021.1.
- 14. Blankestijn J. M., Abdel‐Aziz M. I., Baalbaki N., et al., “Long COVID Exhibits Clinically Distinct Phenotypes at 3–6 Months Post‐SARS‐CoV‐2 Infection: Results From the P4O2 Consortium,” BMJ Open Respiratory Research 11, no. 1 (2024): e001907, 10.1136/BMJRESP-2023-001907. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.“Clinical Overview of Long COVID,” CDC, accessed December 16, 2024, https://www.cdc.gov/covid/hcp/clinical-overview/index.html.
- 16. Kenny G., McCann K., O'Brien C., et al., “Identification of Distinct Long COVID Clinical Phenotypes Through Cluster Analysis of Self‐Reported Symptoms,” Open Forum Infectious Diseases 9, no. 4 (2022): ofac060, 10.1093/OFID/OFAC060. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Azzam A., Khaled H., Refaey N., et al., “The Burden of Persistent Symptoms After COVID‐19 (Long COVID): A Meta‐Analysis of Controlled Studies in Children and Adults,” Virology Journal 21, no. 1 (2024): 16, 10.1186/s12985-024-02284-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Narasimhan H., Wu Y., Goplen N. P., and Sun J., “Immune Determinants of Chronic Sequelae After Respiratory Viral Infection,” Science Immunology 7, no. 73 (2022): eabm7996, 10.1126/sciimmunol.abm7996. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Vrijmoeth H. D., Ursinus J., Harms M. G., et al., “Determinants of Persistent Symptoms After Treatment for Lyme Borreliosis: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study,” EBioMedicine 98 (2023): 104825, 10.1016/j.ebiom.2023.104825. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Hickie I., Davenport T., Wakefield D., et al., “Post‐Infective and Chronic Fatigue Syndromes Precipitated by Viral and Non‐Viral Pathogens: Prospective Cohort Study,” BMJ 333, no. 7568 (2006): 575, 10.1136/bmj.38933.585764.AE. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Vivaldi G., Pfeffer P. E., Talaei M., Basera T. J., Shaheen S. O., and Martineau A. R., “Long‐Term Symptom Profiles After COVID‐19 vs Other Acute Respiratory Infections: An Analysis of Data From the COVIDENCE UK Study,” EClinicalMedicine 65 (2023): 102251, 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102251. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Taquet M., Dercon Q., Luciano S., Geddes J. R., Husain M., and Harrison P. J., “Incidence, Co‐Occurrence, and Evolution of Long‐COVID Features: A 6‐Month Retrospective Cohort Study of 273,618 Survivors of COVID‐19,” PLoS Medicine 18, no. 9 (2021): e1003773, 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003773. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Quinn K. L., Stukel T. A., Huang A., et al., “Comparison of Medical and Mental Health Sequelae Following Hospitalization for COVID‐19, Influenza, and Sepsis,” JAMA Internal Medicine 183, no. 8 (2023): 806, 10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.2228. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Beale S., Yavlinsky A., Fong W. L. E., et al., “Long‐Term Outcomes of SARS‐CoV‐2 Variants and Other Respiratory Infections: Evidence From the Virus Watch Prospective Cohort in England,” Epidemiology and Infection 152 (2024): e77, 10.1017/S0950268824000748. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Brus I. M., Spronk I., Haagsma J. A., et al., “The Prolonged Impact of COVID‐19 on Symptoms, Health‐Related Quality of Life, Fatigue and Mental Well‐Being: A Cross‐Sectional Study,” Frontiers in Epidemiology 3 (2023): 1144707, 10.3389/FEPID.2023.1144707/FULL. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Kerksieck P., Ballouz T., Haile S. R., et al., “Post COVID‐19 Condition, Work Ability and Occupational Changes in a Population‐Based Cohort,” Lancet Regional Health‐Europe 31 (2023): 100671, 10.1016/j.lanepe.2023.100671. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Ottiger M., Poppele I., Sperling N., Schlesinger T., and Müller K., “Work Ability and Return‐to‐Work of Patients With Post‐COVID‐19: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis,” BMC Public Health 24, no. 1 (2024): 1811, 10.1186/S12889-024-19328-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Koumpias A. M., Schwartzman D., and Fleming O., “Long‐Haul COVID: Healthcare Utilization and Medical Expenditures 6 Months Post‐Diagnosis,” BMC Health Services Research 22, no. 1 (2022): 1010, 10.1186/S12913-022-08387-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Tene L., Bergroth T., Eisenberg A., David S. S. B., and Chodick G., “Risk Factors, Health Outcomes, Healthcare Services Utilization, and Direct Medical Costs of Patients With Long COVID,” International Journal of Infectious Diseases 128 (2023): 3–10, 10.1016/J.IJID.2022.12.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Nehme M., Braillard O., Chappuis F., et al., “The Chronification of Post‐COVID Condition Associated With Neurocognitive Symptoms, Functional Impairment and Increased Healthcare Utilization,” Scientific Reports 12, no. 1 (2022): 14505, 10.1038/S41598-022-18673-Z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Wang Y., Alcalde‐Herraiz M., Güell K. L., et al., “Refinement of Post‐COVID Condition Core Symptoms, Subtypes, Determinants, and Health Impacts: A Cohort Study Integrating Real‐World Data and Patient‐Reported Outcomes,” EBioMedicine 111 (2025): 105493, 10.1016/J.EBIOM.2024.105493. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Gentilotti E., Górska A., Tami A., et al., “Clinical Phenotypes and Quality of Life to Define Post‐COVID‐19 Syndrome: A Cluster Analysis of the Multinational, Prospective ORCHESTRA Cohort,” EClinicalMedicine 62 (2023): 102107, 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Supplementary_material_Clean.
Data Availability Statement
Deidentified data collected for the study, including individual participant data collected during the study and a data dictionary, are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Requests should be directed to s.van.lelyveld@spaarnegasthuis.nl or mavanhouten@spaarnegasthuis.nl. These requests will be discussed with all project partners (Spaarne Gasthuis, Public Health Services Kennemerland, and RIVM). These requests will be reviewed and approved by the investigator and project partners based on scientific merit. To gain access, data requesters will need to sign a data access agreement. Privacy‐sensitive data, which is traceable to the participant, will not be shared.