Effect of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination on Symptoms from Post-Acute Sequelae of COVID-19: Results from the Nationwide VAXILONG Study

  1. Marc Scherlinger
  2. Luc Pijnenburg
  3. Emmanuel Chatelus
  4. Laurent Arnaud
  5. Jacques-Eric Gottenberg
  6. Jean Sibilia
  7. Renaud Felten

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Introduction: Few data are available concerning the effect of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination on the persistent symptoms associated with COVID-19, also called long-COVID or post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC). Patients and methods: We conducted a nationwide online study among adult patients with PASC as defined by symptoms persisting over 4 weeks following a confirmed or probable COVID-19, without any identified alternative diagnosis. Information concerning PASC symptoms, vaccine type and scheme and its effect on PASC symptoms were studied. Results: 620 questionnaires were completed and 567 satisfied the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. The respondents’ median age was 44 (IQR 25–75: 37–50) and 83.4% were women. The initial infection was proven in 365 patients (64%) and 5.1% had been hospitalized to receive oxygen. A total of 396 patients had received at least one injection of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine at the time of the survey, after a median of 357 (198–431) days following the initially-reported SARS-CoV-2 infection. Among the 380 patients who reported persistent symptoms at the time of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, 201 (52.8%) reported a global effect on symptoms following the injection, corresponding to an improvement in 21.8% and a worsening in 31%. There were no differences based on the type of vaccine used. After a complete vaccination scheme, 93.3% (28/30) of initially seronegative patients reported a positive anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG. A total of 170 PASC patients had not been vaccinated. The most common reasons for postponing the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine were fear of worsening PASC symptoms (55.9%) and the belief that vaccination was contraindicated because of PASC (15.6%). Conclusion: Our study suggests that SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is well tolerated in the majority of PASC patients and has good immunogenicity. Disseminating these reassuring data might prove crucial to increasing vaccine coverage in patients with PASC.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.3390/vaccines10010046
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.10.11.21264849: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Our study has limitations. First, the recruitment was conducted using social media platforms which could select a younger population. However, the age distribution of the PACS population was similar to that previously reported [3,10]. Second, the vast majority of patients received a mRNA-based vaccine, limiting the generalization of our findings to vector- or antigen-based vaccines. However, these data reflect the vaccines generally used in Europe or in the United States in this young population. In conclusion, our study suggests that SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is well tolerated in the majority of PACS patients and has good immunogenicity. Disseminating these reassuring data might prove crucial to increase vaccine coverage in patients with PACS.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.10.11.21264849 on medRxiv