One‐Year Quality of Life Among Survivors of Hospitalization for Omicron Infection in Brazil: A Multicentre Prospective Cohort Study
Rattachement africain : br, ec. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
The lingering effects of COVID-19 may impair survivors' long-term health-related quality of life (HRQoL). However, multicentre studies focusing on the Omicron variant, particularly in middle- and low-income settings, are scarce. We conducted a prospective cohort study across 24 Brazilian hospitals between December 2021 and March 2024, when Omicron was the predominant variant. Adult COVID-19 survivors were followed for 12 months via telephone interviews. The primary outcome was HRQoL at 12 months, assessed using the EuroQol five-dimension three-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L; range -0.17 to 1.0). All-cause mortality was a secondary outcome. Among 649 participants (47.9% women; median age 71 years), the median EQ-5D-3L utility score at 12 months was 0.69 (IQR 0.41-0.80), and survival was 86.6%. Factors associated with lower HRQoL included female sex, age ≥ 60 years, Charlson comorbidity index ≥ 1, and need for respiratory support. Mortality was associated with age ≥ 60 years (HR 2.81), CCI ≥ 2 (HR 2.17), need for low-flow oxygen therapy (HR 2.03), and BMI ≥ 25 kg/m² (HR 0.58). One year after hospitalization, Omicron survivors in Brazil showed impaired HRQoL and high mortality. Older age, comorbidities, and need for oxygen therapy were linked to worse outcomes. Long-term support strategies are needed for these vulnerable populations.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- One‐Year Quality of Life Among Survivors of Hospitalization for Omicron Infection in Brazil: A Multicentre Prospective Cohort Study
- Date Crossref
- 01/11/2025
- Éditeur
- Wiley
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.