Back

Post-acute health care burden after SARS-CoV-2 infection: A retrospective cohort study among 530,892 adults

McNaughton, C. D.; Augstin, P. C.; Sivaswamy, A.; Fang, J.; Abdel-Qadir, H.; Daneman, N.; Udell, J. A.; Wodchis, W.; Mostarac, I.; Atzema, C. L.

2022-05-07 epidemiology
10.1101/2022.05.06.22274782 medRxiv
Show abstract

ImportanceThe SARS-CoV-2 pandemic portends a significant increase in health care use related to post-acute COVID sequelae, but the magnitude is not known. ObjectiveTo assess the burden of post-acute health care use after a positive versus negative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for SARS-CoV-2. Design, Setting, and ParticipantsRetrospective cohort study of community-dwelling adults January 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021 in Ontario, Canada, using linked population-based health data. Follow-up began 56 days after PCR testing. ExposuresIndividuals with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test were matched 1:1 to individuals who tested negative based on hospitalization, test date, public health unit, sex, and a propensity score of socio-demographic and clinical characteristics. Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe health care utilization rate was the number of outpatient clinical encounters, homecare encounters, emergency department visits, days hospitalized, and days in long-term care per person-year. Mean health care utilization for test-positive versus negative individuals was compared using negative binomial regression, and rates at 95th and 99th percentiles were compared. Outcomes were also stratified by sex. ResultsAmong 530,232 unique, matched individuals, mean age was 44 years (sd 17), 51% were female, and 0.6% had received [≥]1 COVID-19 vaccine dose. The mean rate of health care utilization was 11% higher in test-positive individuals (RR 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10-1.13). At the 95th percentile, test-positive individuals had 2.1 (95% CI 1.5-2.6) more health care encounters per person-year, and at the 99th percentile 71.9 (95% CI 57.6-83.2) more health care encounters per person-year. At the 95th percentile, test-positive women had 3.8 (95% CI 2.8-4.8) more health care encounters per person-year while there was no difference for men. At the 99th percentile, test-positive women had 76.7 (95% CI 56.3-89.6) more encounters per person-year, compared to 37.6 (95% CI 16.7-64.3) per person-year for men. Conclusions and RelevancePost-acute health care utilization after a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test is significantly higher compared to matched test-negative individuals. Given the number of infections worldwide, this translates to a tremendous increase in use of health care resources. Stakeholders can use these findings to prepare for health care demand associated with long COVID. Key PointsO_ST_ABSQuestionC_ST_ABSHow does the burden of health care use [≥]56 days after a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test compare to matched individuals who tested negative? FindingsAfter accounting for multiple factors, the mean burden of post-acute health care use was 11% higher among those who tested positive, with higher rates of outpatient encounters, days hospitalized, and days in long-term care. Rates of homecare use were higher for test-positive women but lower for men. For perspective, for every day in January 2022 with 100,000 or more infections, this translates to an estimated 72,000 additional post-acute health care encounters per year for the 1% of people who experienced the most severe complications of SARS-CoV-2; among those in the top 50% of health care use, this translates to 245,000 additional health care encounters per year. This increase will occur in the context of an ongoing pandemic and, in many health care systems, a depleted workforce and backlogs of care. Unless addressed, this increase is likely to exacerbate existing health inequities. MeaningGiven the large number of people infected, stakeholders can use these findings to plan for health care use associated with long COVID.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.7%
2
The Lancet Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.1%
3
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
8.4%
4
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 2%
8.4%
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 22%
8.4%
6
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
6.4%
50% of probability mass above
7
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.1%
8
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
9
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.1%
10
The Lancet Global Health
24 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
11
Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses
44 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
12
Preventive Medicine
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.3%
13
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.3%
14
American Journal of Epidemiology
57 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.3%
15
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
16
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
17
Annals of Epidemiology
19 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
18
The Lancet
16 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
19
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 60%
0.9%
20
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
21
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.8%
22
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
71 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
23
Eurosurveillance
80 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
24
JAMA
17 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
25
BJGP Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
26
Canadian Medical Association Journal
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
27
The Lancet Regional Health - Americas
22 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
28
Annals of Internal Medicine
27 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
29
Public Health
34 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
30
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%