Comparison of Long COVID-19 Caused by Different SARS-CoV-2 Strains: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Although many studies of long COVID-19 were reported, there was a lack of systematic research which assessed the differences of long COVID-19 in regard to what unique SARS-CoV-2 strains caused it. As such, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the characteristics of long COVID-19 that is caused by different SARS-CoV-2 strains. We systematically searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and ScienceDirect databases in order to find cohort studies of long COVID-19 as defined by the WHO (Geneva, Switzerland). The main outcomes were in determining the percentages of long COVID-19 among patients who were infected with different SARS-CoV-2 strains. Further, this study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022339964). A total of 51 studies with 33,573 patients was included, of which three studies possessed the Alpha and Delta variants, and five studies possessed the Omicron variant. The highest pooled estimate of long COVID-19 was found in the CT abnormalities (60.5%; 95% CI: 40.4%, 80.6%) for the wild-type strain; fatigue (66.1%; 95% CI: 42.2%, 89.9%) for the Alpha variant; and ≥1 general symptoms (28.4%; 95% CI: 7.9%, 49.0%) for the Omicron variant. The pooled estimates of ≥1 general symptoms (65.8%; 95% CI: 47.7%, 83.9%) and fatigue were the highest symptoms found among patients infected with the Alpha variant, followed by the wild-type strain, and then the Omicron variant. The pooled estimate of myalgia was highest among patients infected with the Omicron variant (11.7%; 95%: 8.3%, 15.1%), compared with those infected with the wild-type strain (9.4%; 95%: 6.3%, 12.5%). The pooled estimate of sleep difficulty was lowest among the patients infected with the Delta variant (2.5%; 95%: 0.2%, 4.9%) when compared with those infected with the wild-type strain (24.5%; 95%: 17.5%, 31.5%) and the Omicron variant (18.7%; 95%: 1.0%, 36.5%). The findings of this study suggest that there is no significant difference between long COVID-19 that has been caused by different strains, except in certain general symptoms (i.e., in the Alpha or Omicron variant) and in sleep difficulty (i.e., the wild-type strain). In the context of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and its emerging variants, directing more attention to long COVID-19 that is caused by unique strains, as well as implementing targeted intervention measures to address it are vital.

Precision management of post‐COVID pain: An evidence and clinical‐based approach

“…Similar results have been found in the meta-analysis by Du et al (Du et al, 2022). These authors pooled data for post-COVID pain and, surprisingly, observed that the prevalence of this symptom was higher in patients infected with the Omicron variant (11.7%) as compared with those infected with the historical strain (9.4%) (Du et al, 2022). The only study specifically comparing the prevalence of musculoskeletal post-COVID pain between different SARS-COV-2 variants found that post-COVID pain was more prevalent in individuals infected with the historical/wild-type strain (47.7%) than in those infected with the Alpha (38.3%) or Delta (41%) variants (Fernández-de-las-Peñas, Cancella-Cilleruelo, et al, 2022).…”

Higher COVID-19 Vaccination Rates Are Associated with Lower COVID-19 Mortality: A Global Analysis

“…We used data from several sources, including the Global Health Expenditure Database and Global Health Observatory data from the World Health Organization (WHO) [ 40 ], as well as World Bank Open Data [ 20 ]. Data regarding COVID-19 related outcomes, i.e., cases, deaths, and percent of the vaccinated population, were obtained from WHO’s publicly available COVID-19 dashboard [ 1 ].…”

“…Since the beginning of the pandemic, there has been considerable effort to contain the virus, including restrictive measures from governments [ 19 ] as well as efforts from researchers to understand the pandemic’s evolution and control. Some key areas of inquiry have been potential symptoms [ 20 ] and therapies [ 21 ], the effect of the pandemic on lifestyle factors such as diet [ 22 ], understanding the mechanism of transmission and human–pathogen interactions [ 23 , 24 , 25 ], and perhaps most crucially, vaccines.…”

Prevalence and risk factors of long COVID 6–12 months after infection with the Omicron variant among nonhospitalized patients in Hong Kong

“…The SARS‐CoV‐2 subvariants were not detected for patients in our study, the majority of COVID‐19 cases in the fifth wave of the Hong Kong outbreak were caused by Omicron BA.2 and related sublineages, the largest monophyletic lineage was BA.2.2, and only with limited detection of Omicron BA.1 and related sublineages and Delta AY.127 12 . A systematic review indicated that the prevalence of Omicron‐induced long COVID in 3 months (28.4%) was lower than other strains (wild‐type: 52.1%, Alpha: 65.8%, Delta: 34.6%) 27 . The milder symptoms of Omicron may represent less damage in organs than the previous variants, resulting in a lower prevalence of long COVID 14 .…”

“…12 A systematic review indicated that the prevalence of Omicron-induced long COVID in 3 months (28.4%) was lower than other strains (wild-type: 52.1%, Alpha: 65.8%, Delta: 34.6%). 27 The milder symptoms of Omicron may represent less damage in organs than the previous variants, resulting in a lower prevalence of long COVID. 14 Compared with other studies with different follow-up period of long COVID in Omicron cases, the prevalence of long COVID during 6-12 months postacute infection in Hong Kong is higher, for example, 8.2% of COVID-19 survivors reported long COVID symptoms at 73 days after the infection in Eastern India, 10.9% at 2 months in United States, 4.5% at 4 weeks in United Kingdom, and 18.5% at 6 months in South Africa.…”