Evidence Hub

Long-term risks of respiratory diseases in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2: a longitudinal, population-based cohort study

Meijun Meng, Rui Wei, Yanjun Wu, Rui-Jie Zeng, D. Luo, Yu-Ying Ma, Li-Jun Zhang, Wen-Tao Huang et al.

EClinicalMedicine, 2024

112,311 participants · 33 citations

Abstract

Summary Background In the post-pandemic era, growing apprehension exists regarding the potential sequelae of COVID-19. However, the risks of respiratory diseases following SARS-CoV-2 infection have not been comprehensively understood. This study aimed to investigate whether COVID-19 increases the long-term risk of respiratory illness in patients with COVID-19. Methods In this longitudinal, population-based cohort study, we built three distinct cohorts age 37–73 years using the UK Biobank database; a COVID-19 group diagnosed in medical records between January 30th, 2020 and October 30th, 2022, and two control groups, a contemporary control group and a historical control group, with cutoff dates of October 30th, 2022 and October 30th, 2019, respectively. The follow-up period of all three groups was 2.7 years (the median (IQR) follow-up time was 0.8 years). Respiratory outcomes diagnosed in medical records included common chronic pulmonary diseases (asthma, bronchiectasis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), interstitial lung disease (ILD), pulmonary vascular disease (PVD), and lung cancer. For the data analysis, we calculated hazard ratios (HRs) along with their 95% CIs using Cox regression models, following the application of inverse probability weights (IPTW). Findings A total of 3 cohorts were included in this study; 112,311 individuals in the COVID-19 group with a mean age (±SDs) of 56.2 (8.1) years, 359,671 in the contemporary control group, and 370,979 in the…

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: 112,311 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