Evidence Hub

Risk of persistent and new clinical sequelae among adults aged 65 years and older during the post-acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection: retrospective cohort study

K. Cohen, Sheng Ren, Kevin N. Heath, M. C. Dasmariñas, K. Jubilo, Yinglong Guo, M. Lipsitch, Sarah E. Daugherty

British medical journal, 2022

100 participants · 193 citations

Abstract

Abstract Objective To characterize the risk of persistent and new clinical sequelae in adults aged ≥65 years after the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting UnitedHealth Group Clinical Research Database: deidentified administrative claims and outpatient laboratory test results. Participants Individuals aged ≥65 years who were continuously enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan with coverage of prescription drugs from January 2019 to the date of diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, matched by propensity score to three comparison groups that did not have covid-19: 2020 comparison group (n=87 337), historical 2019 comparison group (n=88 070), and historical comparison group with viral lower respiratory tract illness (n=73 490). Main outcome measures The presence of persistent and new sequelae at 21 or more days after a diagnosis of covid-19 was determined with ICD-10 (international classification of diseases, 10th revision) codes. Excess risk for sequelae caused by infection with SARS-CoV-2 was estimated for the 120 days after the acute phase of the illness with risk difference and hazard ratios, calculated with 95% Bonferroni corrected confidence intervals. The incidence of sequelae after the acute infection was analyzed by age, race, sex, and whether patients were admitted to hospital for covid-19. Results Among individuals who were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2, 32% (27 698 of 87 337) sought medical attention in the post-acute period for…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 100 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free