-
Scientific Reports Aug 2021COVID-19 can involve persistence, sequelae, and other medical complications that last weeks to months after initial recovery. This systematic review and meta-analysis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
COVID-19 can involve persistence, sequelae, and other medical complications that last weeks to months after initial recovery. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to identify studies assessing the long-term effects of COVID-19. LitCOVID and Embase were searched to identify articles with original data published before the 1st of January 2021, with a minimum of 100 patients. For effects reported in two or more studies, meta-analyses using a random-effects model were performed using the MetaXL software to estimate the pooled prevalence with 95% CI. PRISMA guidelines were followed. A total of 18,251 publications were identified, of which 15 met the inclusion criteria. The prevalence of 55 long-term effects was estimated, 21 meta-analyses were performed, and 47,910 patients were included (age 17-87 years). The included studies defined long-COVID as ranging from 14 to 110 days post-viral infection. It was estimated that 80% of the infected patients with SARS-CoV-2 developed one or more long-term symptoms. The five most common symptoms were fatigue (58%), headache (44%), attention disorder (27%), hair loss (25%), and dyspnea (24%). Multi-disciplinary teams are crucial to developing preventive measures, rehabilitation techniques, and clinical management strategies with whole-patient perspectives designed to address long COVID-19 care.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Alopecia; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; COVID-19; Dyspnea; Fatigue; Headache; Humans; Middle Aged; SARS-CoV-2; Young Adult
PubMed: 34373540
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-95565-8 -
Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses Feb 2023Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is responsible for over 30 million lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) and 3 million hospitalizations worldwide each year.... (Review)
Review
Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is responsible for over 30 million lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) and 3 million hospitalizations worldwide each year. Despite the risk RSV poses to young children, older adults, and individuals with comorbidities or suppressed immunity, there is limited understanding of RSV symptom presentation across these at-risk groups, and there is no vaccine for RSV. We conducted two systematic literature reviews (SLRs) of studies that document signs and symptoms (S&S) of RSV in (1) children aged ≤5 years and (2) immunocompromised adolescents and adults, and adults at high risk for severe RSV due to age or comorbidities. Symptom duration and hospital length of stay (LOS) were explored. Electronic database searches were performed following PRISMA guidelines. Studies captured RSV S&S across community and hospital settings. Clinicians and caregivers reported ( = 25 studies) nasal discharge/congestion, cough, shortness of breath, feeding abnormalities, and fever in ≥40% of children across studies and settings. Median hospital stays for children ranged from 2 days in the United States to 7.5 days in China. High-risk adults with RSV ( = 6 studies) commonly (≥40% of adults) reported cough, sputum, dyspnea, and fever/feverishness. Median length of hospital stay in adults ranged from 6 to 15 days across studies. Caregivers and clinicians reported similar RSV S&S in young children, including upper and lower respiratory and systemic symptoms. In high-risk and immunocompromised adults, the most frequent (in multiple publications) and commonly reported RSV S&S were primarily LRTI symptoms. RSV symptoms could last for weeks and are variable based on geography.
Topics: Child; Humans; Infant; Child, Preschool; Aged; Adolescent; Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infections; Cough; Respiratory Syncytial Virus, Human; Hospitalization; Respiratory Tract Infections
PubMed: 36824394
DOI: 10.1111/irv.13100 -
Journal of Medical Virology Jan 2022There is an established literature on the symptoms and complications of COVID-19 but the after-effects of COVID-19 are not well understood with few studies reporting... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
There is an established literature on the symptoms and complications of COVID-19 but the after-effects of COVID-19 are not well understood with few studies reporting persistent symptoms and quality of life. We aim to evaluate the pooled prevalence of poor quality of life in post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PCS) and conducted meta-regression to evaluate the effects of persistent symptoms and intensive care unit (ICU) admission on the poor quality of life. We extracted data from observational studies describing persistent symptoms and quality of life in post-COVID-19 patients from March 10, 2020, to March 10, 2021, following PRISMA guidelines with a consensus of two independent reviewers. We calculated the pooled prevalence with 95% confidence interval (CI) and created forest plots using random-effects models. A total of 12 studies with 4828 PCS patients were included. We found that amongst PCS patients, the pooled prevalence of poor quality of life (EQ-VAS) was (59%; 95% CI: 42%-75%). Based on individual factors in the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire, the prevalence of mobility was (36, 10-67), personal care (8, 1-21), usual quality (28, 2-65), pain/discomfort (42, 28-55), and anxiety/depression (38, 19-58). The prevalence of persistent symptoms was fatigue (64, 54-73), dyspnea (39.5, 20-60), anosmia (20, 15-24), arthralgia (24.3, 14-36), headache (21, 3-47), sleep disturbances (47, 7-89), and mental health (14.5, 4-29). Meta-regression analysis showed the poor quality of life was significantly higher among post-COVID-19 patients with ICU admission (p = 0.004) and fatigue (p = 0.0015). Our study concludes that PCS is associated with poor quality of life, persistent symptoms including fatigue, dyspnea, anosmia, sleep disturbances, and worse mental health. This suggests that we need more research on PCS patients to understand the risk factors causing it and eventually leading to poor quality of life.
Topics: Adult; Age Factors; COVID-19; Female; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Male; Middle Aged; Quality of Life; Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome
PubMed: 34463956
DOI: 10.1002/jmv.27309 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2021Pulmonary rehabilitation is a proven, effective intervention for people with chronic respiratory diseases including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD),... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pulmonary rehabilitation is a proven, effective intervention for people with chronic respiratory diseases including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), interstitial lung disease (ILD) and bronchiectasis. However, relatively few people attend or complete a program, due to factors including a lack of programs, issues associated with travel and transport, and other health issues. Traditionally, pulmonary rehabilitation is delivered in-person on an outpatient basis at a hospital or other healthcare facility (referred to as centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation). Newer, alternative modes of pulmonary rehabilitation delivery include home-based models and the use of telehealth. Telerehabilitation is the delivery of rehabilitation services at a distance, using information and communication technology. To date, there has not been a comprehensive assessment of the clinical efficacy or safety of telerehabilitation, or its ability to improve uptake and access to rehabilitation services, for people with chronic respiratory disease.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and safety of telerehabilitation for people with chronic respiratory disease.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; six databases including MEDLINE and Embase; and three trials registries, up to 30 November 2020. We checked reference lists of all included studies for additional references, and handsearched relevant respiratory journals and meeting abstracts.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials of telerehabilitation for the delivery of pulmonary rehabilitation were eligible for inclusion. The telerehabilitation intervention was required to include exercise training, with at least 50% of the rehabilitation intervention being delivered by telerehabilitation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methods recommended by Cochrane. We assessed the risk of bias for all studies, and used the ROBINS-I tool to assess bias in non-randomised controlled clinical trials. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. Comparisons were telerehabilitation compared to traditional in-person (centre-based) pulmonary rehabilitation, and telerehabilitation compared to no rehabilitation. We analysed studies of telerehabilitation for maintenance rehabilitation separately from trials of telerehabilitation for initial primary pulmonary rehabilitation.
MAIN RESULTS
We included a total of 15 studies (32 reports) with 1904 participants, using five different models of telerehabilitation. Almost all (99%) participants had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Three studies were controlled clinical trials. For primary pulmonary rehabilitation, there was probably little or no difference between telerehabilitation and in-person pulmonary rehabilitation for exercise capacity measured as 6-Minute Walking Distance (6MWD) (mean difference (MD) 0.06 metres (m), 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.82 m to 10.94 m; 556 participants; four studies; moderate-certainty evidence). There may also be little or no difference for quality of life measured with the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score (MD -1.26, 95% CI -3.97 to 1.45; 274 participants; two studies; low-certainty evidence), or for breathlessness on the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) dyspnoea domain score (MD 0.13, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.40; 426 participants; three studies; low-certainty evidence). Participants were more likely to complete a program of telerehabilitation, with a 93% completion rate (95% CI 90% to 96%), compared to a 70% completion rate for in-person rehabilitation. When compared to no rehabilitation control, trials of primary telerehabilitation may increase exercise capacity on 6MWD (MD 22.17 m, 95% CI -38.89 m to 83.23 m; 94 participants; two studies; low-certainty evidence) and may also increase 6MWD when delivered as maintenance rehabilitation (MD 78.1 m, 95% CI 49.6 m to 106.6 m; 209 participants; two studies; low-certainty evidence). No adverse effects of telerehabilitation were noted over and above any reported for in-person rehabilitation or no rehabilitation.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review suggests that primary pulmonary rehabilitation, or maintenance rehabilitation, delivered via telerehabilitation for people with chronic respiratory disease achieves outcomes similar to those of traditional centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation, with no safety issues identified. However, the certainty of the evidence provided by this review is limited by the small number of studies, of varying telerehabilitation models, with relatively few participants. Future research should consider the clinical effect of telerehabilitation for individuals with chronic respiratory diseases other than COPD, the duration of benefit of telerehabilitation beyond the period of the intervention, and the economic cost of telerehabilitation.
Topics: Bias; Chronic Disease; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Dyspnea; Exercise Tolerance; Humans; Internet; Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Patient Compliance; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration Disorders; Telephone; Telerehabilitation; Videoconferencing; Walk Test
PubMed: 33511633
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013040.pub2 -
JAMA Network Open Sep 2023Current rehabilitation guidelines for patients with post-COVID-19 condition (PCC) are primarily based on expert opinions and observational data, and there is an urgent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Current rehabilitation guidelines for patients with post-COVID-19 condition (PCC) are primarily based on expert opinions and observational data, and there is an urgent need for evidence-based rehabilitation interventions to support patients with PCC.
OBJECTIVE
To synthesize the findings of existing studies that report on physical capacity (including functional exercise capacity, muscle function, dyspnea, and respiratory function) and quality of life outcomes following rehabilitation interventions in patients with PCC.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic electronic search was performed from January 2020 until February 2023, in MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, and the Clinical Trials Registry. Key terms that were used to identify potentially relevant studies included long-covid, post-covid, sequelae, exercise therapy, rehabilitation, physical activity, physical therapy, and randomized controlled trial.
STUDY SELECTION
This study included randomized clinical trials that compared respiratory training and exercise-based rehabilitation interventions with either placebo, usual care, waiting list, or control in patients with PCC.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. A pairwise bayesian random-effects meta-analysis was performed using vague prior distributions. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool version 2, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE system by 2 independent researchers.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was functional exercise capacity, measured at the closest postintervention time point by the 6-minute walking test. Secondary outcomes were fatigue, lower limb muscle function, dyspnea, respiratory function, and quality of life. All outcomes were defined a priori. Continuous outcomes were reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) and binary outcomes were summarized as odds ratios with 95% CrIs. The between-trial heterogeneity was quantified using the between-study variance, τ2, and 95% CrIs.
RESULTS
Of 1834 identified records, 1193 were screened, and 14 trials (1244 patients; 45% female participants; median [IQR] age, 50 [47 to 56] years) were included in the analyses. Rehabilitation interventions were associated with improvements in functional exercise capacity (SMD, -0.56; 95% CrI, -0.87 to -0.22) with moderate certainty in 7 trials (389 participants). These improvements had a 99% posterior probability of superiority when compared with current standard care. The value of τ2 (0.04; 95% CrI, 0.00 to 0.60) indicated low statistical heterogeneity. However, there was significant uncertainty and imprecision regarding the probability of experiencing exercise-induced adverse events (odds ratio, 1.68; 95% CrI, 0.32 to 9.94).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that rehabilitation interventions are associated with improvements in functional exercise capacity, dyspnea, and quality of life, with a high probability of improvement compared with the current standard care; the certainty of evidence was moderate for functional exercise capacity and quality of life and low for other outcomes. Given the uncertainty surrounding the safety outcomes, additional trials with enhanced monitoring of adverse events are necessary.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Female; Middle Aged; Male; Quality of Life; Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome; Bayes Theorem; COVID-19; Dyspnea; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37725376
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.33838 -
Journal of Thoracic Disease Mar 2020Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a progressive disease associated with significant dyspnea and limited exercise capacity. This systematic review aimed to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a progressive disease associated with significant dyspnea and limited exercise capacity. This systematic review aimed to synthesize evidence of exercise interventions during pulmonary rehabilitation that aim to improve exercise capacity, dyspnea, and health-related quality of life (HRQL) in IPF patients.
METHODS
Searches were performed in MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, SPORTDiscus, PubMed and PEDro from inception to January 2019 using search terms for: (I) participants: 'IPF or interstitial lung disease'; (II) interventions: 'aerobic training or resistance training or respiratory muscle training'; and (III) outcomes: 'exercise capacity or dyspnea or health-related quality of life'. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts to identify eligible studies. Methodological quality of studies was assessed using the Downs and Black checklist and meta-analyses were performed.
RESULTS
Of 1,677 articles identified, 14 were included (four randomized controlled trials and 10 prospective pre-post design studies) that examined 362 patients receiving training and 95 control subjects. Exercise capacity was measured with the 6-minute walk distance, peak oxygen consumption, peak work rate, or endurance time for constant work rate cycling, which increased after exercise [aerobic exercise; aerobic and breathing exercises; aerobic and inspiratory muscle training (IMT) exercises] compared to the control groups. Dyspnea scores improved after aerobic and breathing exercises. HRQL also improved after aerobic exercise training alone or combined with breathing exercises. Aerobic training alone or combined with IMT or breathing exercises improved exercise capacity.
CONCLUSIONS
Breathing exercises appears to complement exercise training towards improved dyspnea and HRQL in patients with IPF.
PubMed: 32274173
DOI: 10.21037/jtd.2019.12.27 -
International Journal of Environmental... May 2022Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a complex and heterogeneous disease, with pulmonary and extrapulmonary manifestations, which leads to the need to... (Review)
Review
Inspiratory Muscle Training in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) as Part of a Respiratory Rehabilitation Program Implementation of Mechanical Devices: A Systematic Review.
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a complex and heterogeneous disease, with pulmonary and extrapulmonary manifestations, which leads to the need to personalize the assessment and treatment of these patients. The latest updates of national and international guidelines for the management of COPD reveal the importance of respiratory rehabilitation (RR) and its role in improving symptoms, quality of life, and psychosocial sphere of patients. Within RR, the inspiratory muscle training (IMT) has received special interest, showing benefits in maximum inspiratory pressure, perception of well-being, and health status in patients with chronic heart disease, respiratory diseases, and dyspnea during exercise. The aim of this review is to assess the efficacy of IMT in COPD patients through the use of inspiratory muscle training devices, compared with respiratory rehabilitation programs without inspiratory muscle training. In the last years, many mechanical devices focused on inspiratory muscle training have been developed, some of them, such as the AirOFit PRO™, PowerBreath, or FeelBreathe, have shown clear benefits. The active search for candidate patients to undergo the RR program with inspiratory muscle training using this type of device in COPD patients represents an advance in the treatment of this disease, with direct benefits on the quality of life of the patients. In this article, we review the available evidence on IMT in these patients and describe the different devices used for it.
Topics: Breathing Exercises; Exercise Tolerance; Humans; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Quality of Life; Respiratory Muscles
PubMed: 35564959
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19095564 -
Archives of Physical Medicine and... Oct 2022To qualitatively synthesize and quantitatively evaluate the effect of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) on dyspnea, lung functions, fatigue, exercise capacity, and quality... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Effect of Pulmonary Rehabilitation Approaches on Dyspnea, Exercise Capacity, Fatigue, Lung Functions, and Quality of Life in Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To qualitatively synthesize and quantitatively evaluate the effect of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) on dyspnea, lung functions, fatigue, exercise capacity, and quality of life (QoL) in patients with COVID-19.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched from January 2020 to April 2022.
DATA SELECTION
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of PR on dyspnea, lung functions, fatigue, exercise capacity, and QoL in patients with COVID-19.
DATA EXTRACTION
The mean difference (MD) and a 95% CI were estimated for all the outcome measures using random effect models. The following data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers: (1) first author; (2) publication year; (3) nationality; (4) number of patients included (5) comorbidities; (6) ventilatory support; (7) length of inpatient stay; (8) type of PR; (9) outcome measures; and (10) main findings. The risk of bias was evaluated using the cochrane risk of bias tool.
DATA SYNTHESIS
A total of 8 RCTs involving 449 participants were included in the review. PR was found to be significantly effective in improving dyspnea (5 studies, SMD -2.11 [95% CI, -2.96 to -1.27; P<.001]) and exercise capacity (MD 65.85 m [95% CI, 42.86 to 88.83; P<.001]) in patients with both acute and chronic COVID-19 with mild to severe symptoms, whereas fatigue (MD -2.42 [95% CI, -2.72 to -2.11, P<.05]) and lung functions (MD 0.26 L [95% CI, 0.04 to 0.48, P<.05]) were significantly improved in acute COVID-19 patients with mild symptoms. The effect of PR on QoL was inconsistent across studies. PR was found to be safe and feasible for patients with COVID-19.
CONCLUSION
Evidence from studies indicates that PR program is superior to no intervention in improving dyspnea, exercise capacity, lung functions, and fatigue in patients with COVID-19. PR appears to be safe and beneficial for both acute and chronic COVID-19 patients.
Topics: COVID-19; Dyspnea; Exercise Tolerance; Fatigue; Humans; Lung; Quality of Life
PubMed: 35908659
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2022.06.007 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2022Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic and progressive disease, often punctuated by recurrent flare-ups or exacerbations. Magnesium sulfate, having a... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic and progressive disease, often punctuated by recurrent flare-ups or exacerbations. Magnesium sulfate, having a bronchodilatory effect, may have a potential role as an adjunct treatment in COPD exacerbations. However, comprehensive evidence of its effects is required to facilitate clinical decision-making.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of magnesium sulfate for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal, EU Clinical Trials Register and Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials. We also searched the proceedings of major respiratory conferences and reference lists of included studies up to 2 August 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included single- or double-blind parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing magnesium sulfate in adults with COPD exacerbations. We excluded cross-over trials.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes were: hospital admissions (from the emergency room); need for non-invasive ventilation (NIV), assisted ventilation or admission to intensive-care unit (ICU); and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were: length of hospital stay, mortality, adverse events, dyspnoea score, lung function and blood gas measurements. We assessed confidence in the evidence using GRADE methodology. For missing data, we contacted the study investigators.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 11 RCTs (10 double-blind and 1 single-blind) with a total 762 participants. The mean age of participants ranged from 62 to 76 years. Trials were single- or two-centre trials conducted in Iran, New Zealand, Nepal, Turkey, the UK, Tunisia and the USA between 2004 and 2018. We judged studies to be at low or unclear risk of bias for most of the domains. Three studies were at high risk for blinding and other biases. Intravenous magnesium sulfate versus placebo Seven studies (24 to 77 participants) were included. Fewer people may require hospital admission with magnesium infusion compared to placebo (odds ratio (OR) 0.45, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.88; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 7; 3 studies, 170 participants; low-certainty evidence). Intravenous magnesium may result in little to no difference in the requirement for non-invasive ventilation (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.75; very low-certainty evidence). There were no reported cases of endotracheal intubation (2 studies, 107 participants) or serious adverse events (1 study, 77 participants) in either group. Included studies did not report intensive care unit (ICU) admission or deaths. Magnesium infusion may reduce the length of hospital stay by a mean difference (MD) of 2.7 days (95% CI 4.73 days to 0.66 days; 2 studies, 54 participants; low-certainty evidence) and improve dyspnoea score by a standardised mean difference of -1.40 (95% CI -1.83 to -0.96; 2 studies, 101 participants; low-certainty evidence). We were uncertain about the effect of magnesium infusion on improving lung function or oxygen saturation. For all adverse events, the Peto OR was 0.14 (95% CI 0.02 to 1.00; 102 participants); however, the event rate was too low to reach a robust conclusion. Nebulised magnesium sulfate versus placebo Three studies (20 to 172 participants) were included. Magnesium inhalation may have little to no impact on hospital admission (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.82; very low-certainty evidence) or need for ventilatory support (NIV or mechanical ventilation) (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.20; very low-certainty evidence). It may result in fewer ICU admissions compared to placebo (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.00; very low-certainty evidence) and improvement in dyspnoea (MD -14.37, 95% CI -26.00 to -2.74; 1 study, 20 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were no serious adverse events reported in either group. There was one reported death in the placebo arm in one trial, but the number of participants was too small for a conclusion. There was limited evidence about the effect of magnesium inhalation on length of hospital stay, lung function outcomes or oxygen saturation. Included studies did not report adverse events. Magnesium sulfate versus ipratropium bromide A single study with 124 participants assessed nebulised magnesium sulfate plus intravenous magnesium infusion versus nebulised ipratropium plus intravenous normal saline. There was little to no difference between these groups in terms of hospital admission (OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.78 to 3.37), endotracheal intubation (OR 1.69, 95% CI 0.61 to 4.71) and length of hospital stay (MD 1.10 days, 95% CI -0.22 to 2.42), all with very low-certainty evidence. There were no data available for non-invasive ventilation, ICU admission and serious adverse events. Adverse events were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous magnesium sulfate may be associated with fewer hospital admissions, reduced length of hospital stay and improved dyspnoea scores compared to placebo. There is no evidence of a difference between magnesium infusion and placebo for NIV, lung function, oxygen saturation or adverse events. We found no evidence for ICU admission, endotracheal intubation, serious adverse events or mortality. For nebulised magnesium sulfate, we are unable to draw conclusions about its effects in COPD exacerbations for most of the outcomes. Studies reported possibly lower ICU admissions and a lesser degree of dyspnoea with magnesium inhalation compared to placebo; however, larger studies are required to yield a more precise estimate for these outcomes. Similarly, we could not identify any robust evidence for magnesium sulfate compared to ipratropium bromide. Future well-designed multicentre trials with larger samples are required, including subgroups according to severity of exacerbations and COPD phenotypes.
Topics: Disease Progression; Dyspnea; Humans; Ipratropium; Magnesium; Magnesium Sulfate; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35616126
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013506.pub2 -
European Journal of Pediatrics Dec 2022A systematic literature review was conducted up to 15th February 2022 to summarize long COVID evidence and to assess prevalence and clinical presentation in children and... (Review)
Review
UNLABELLED
A systematic literature review was conducted up to 15th February 2022 to summarize long COVID evidence and to assess prevalence and clinical presentation in children and adolescents. Articles reporting long COVID prevalence and symptoms based on original data in the paediatric population were included. Case series quality was assessed through the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist. For observational studies, adherence to STROBE checklist was evaluated. Twenty-two articles were included: 19 observational studies (12 cohort/7 cross-sectional) and 3 case series. Nine studies provided a control group. We found a high variability in terms of prevalence (1.6-70%). The most frequently reported symptoms were fatigue (2-87%), headache (3.5-80%), arthro-myalgias (5.4-66%), chest tightness or pain (1.4-51%), and dyspnoea (2-57.1%). Five studies reported limitations in daily function due to long COVID. Alterations at brain imaging were described in one study, transient electrocardiographic abnormalities were described in a minority of children, while most authors did not evidence long-term pulmonary sequelae. Older age, female sex, and previous long-term pathological conditions were more frequently associated with persistent symptoms.
CONCLUSION
Long COVID evidence in children is limited, heterogeneous, and based on low-quality studies. The lockdown consequences are difficult to distinguish from long COVID symptoms. High-quality studies are required: WHO definition of long COVID should be used, controlled clinical studies should be encouraged, and the impact of new variants on long COVID prevalence should be investigated to ensure an objective analysis of long COVID characteristics in children and a proper allocation of healthcare system resources.
WHAT IS KNOWN
• Children rarely develop a severe respiratory disease in the acute phase of COVID-19. • A limited number of patients develop a multisystem inflammatory condition that can lead to multiorgan failure and shock.
WHAT IS NEW
• Persistent symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection are reported in children and limitations in daily function due to long COVID symptoms affect school attendance. • Functional complaints of post-acute COVID are difficult to be distinguished from those due to social restrictions.
Topics: Child; Adolescent; Humans; Female; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Prevalence; Cross-Sectional Studies; Communicable Disease Control; Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome
PubMed: 36107254
DOI: 10.1007/s00431-022-04600-x