-
MedRxiv : the Preprint Server For... Jan 2021COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2, can involve sequelae and other medical complications that last weeks to months after initial recovery, which has come to be called...
COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2, can involve sequelae and other medical complications that last weeks to months after initial recovery, which has come to be called Long-COVID or COVID long-haulers. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to identify studies assessing long-term effects of COVID-19 and estimates the prevalence of each symptom, sign, or laboratory parameter of patients at a post-COVID-19 stage. LitCOVID (PubMed and Medline) and Embase were searched by two independent researchers. All articles with original data for detecting long-term COVID-19 published before 1 of January 2021 and with a minimum of 100 patients were included. 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. Heterogeneity was assessed using statistics. This systematic review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviewers and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, although the study protocol was not registered. 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. The follow-up time ranged from 14 to 110 days post-viral infection. The age of the study participants ranged between 17 and 87 years. It was estimated that 80% (95% CI 65-92) of the patients that were infected 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%). All meta-analyses showed medium (n=2) to high heterogeneity (n=13). In order to have a better understanding, future studies need to stratify by sex, age, previous comorbidities, severity of COVID-19 (ranging from asymptomatic to severe), and duration of each symptom. From the clinical perspective, 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.
PubMed: 33532785
DOI: 10.1101/2021.01.27.21250617 -
European Respiratory Review : An... Dec 2022Neuromuscular disease causes a progressive decline in ventilatory function which respiratory muscle training may address. Previous systematic reviews have focussed on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Neuromuscular disease causes a progressive decline in ventilatory function which respiratory muscle training may address. Previous systematic reviews have focussed on single diseases, whereas this study systematically reviewed the collective evidence for respiratory muscle training in children and adults with any neuromuscular disease.
METHODS
Seven databases were searched for randomised controlled trials. Three reviewers independently reviewed eligibility, extracted characteristics, results, determined risk of bias and combined results using narrative synthesis and meta-analysis.
RESULTS
37 studies (40 publications from 1986-2021, n=951 participants) were included. Respiratory muscle training improved forced vital capacity (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.40 (95% confidence interval 0.12-0.69)), maximal inspiratory (SMD 0.53 (0.21-0.85)) and maximal expiratory pressure (SMD 0.70 (0.35-1.04)) compared to control (usual care, sham or alternative treatment). No impact on cough, dyspnoea, voice, physical capacity or quality of life was detected. There was high degree of variability between studies.
DISCUSSION
Study heterogeneity (children and adults, different diseases, interventions, dosage and comparators) suggests that the results should be interpreted with caution. Including all neuromuscular diseases increased the evidence pool and tested the intervention overall.
CONCLUSIONS
Respiratory muscle training improves lung volumes and respiratory muscle strength in neuromuscular disease, but confidence is tempered by limitations in the underlying research.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Quality of Life; Breathing Exercises; Neuromuscular Diseases; Respiratory Muscles; Cough
PubMed: 36450369
DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0065-2022 -
Annals of Medicine Dec 2022The present systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) aimed to investigate the effects of pulmonary rehabilitation in individuals with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The present systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) aimed to investigate the effects of pulmonary rehabilitation in individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
METHODS
The RCTs of pulmonary rehabilitation programs published between 1999 and 2021 were retrieved from electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase). Two reviewers independently assessed the topical relevance and trial quality and extracted data for meta-analysis using the Stata software version 14.0.
RESULTS
A total of 39 trials involving 2,397 participants with COPD were evaluated. We found that patients who received pulmonary rehabilitation program had significant improvement in the 6-min walk test (6MWT), St. George Respiratory Questionnaire score, and the modified British Medical Research Council score as compared to those who received usual care. Yoga and Tai Chi showed significant improvement in the forced expiratory volume (FEV1)% in 1 s predicted value. However, no significant difference was detected in the modified Borg score, forced vital capacity (FVC), and FEV1/FVC predicted value between the pulmonary rehabilitation and usual care groups.
CONCLUSION
Yoga and Tai Chi showed a significant improvement in the FEV1% predicted value. Also, pulmonary rehabilitation program improved the exercise capacity, the quality of life, and dyspnoea in patients with COPD.Key messagesA total of 39 trials involving 2,397 participants with COPD were evaluated.We found that patients who received pulmonary rehabilitation program had significant improvement in the 6MWT, St. George Respiratory Questionnaire score, and the modified British Medical Research Council score as compared to those who received usual care.Yoga and Tai Chi showed significant improvement in the FEV1% predicted value.No significant difference was detected in the modified Borg score, FVC, and FEV1/FVC predicted value between the pulmonary rehabilitation and usual care groups.
Topics: Dyspnea; Exercise Tolerance; Humans; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory Function Tests
PubMed: 35037535
DOI: 10.1080/07853890.2021.1999494 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2021Chronic non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is increasingly being used to treat people with COPD who have respiratory failure, but the evidence supporting this treatment has... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is increasingly being used to treat people with COPD who have respiratory failure, but the evidence supporting this treatment has been conflicting.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of chronic non-invasive ventilation at home via a facial mask in people with COPD, using a pooled analysis of IPD and meta-analysis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Airways Register of Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, AMED, proceedings of respiratory conferences, clinical trial registries and bibliographies of relevant studies. We conducted the latest search on 21 December 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing chronic NIV for at least five hours per night for three consecutive weeks or more (in addition to standard care) versus standard care alone, in people with COPD. Studies investigating people initiated on NIV in a stable phase and studies investigating NIV commenced after a severe COPD exacerbation were eligible, but we reported and analysed them separately. The primary outcomes were arterial blood gases, health-related quality of life (HRQL), exercise capacity (stable COPD) and admission-free survival (post-exacerbation COPD). Secondary outcomes for both populations were: lung function, COPD exacerbations and admissions, and all-cause mortality. For stable COPD, we also reported respiratory muscle strength, dyspnoea and sleep efficiency.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. After inclusion of a study, we requested the IPD. We analysed continuous and time-to-event data using linear- and cox-regression mixed-effect models with a random effect on study level. We analysed dichotomous IPD using generalised estimating equations. We adjusted all models for age and sex. We assessed changes in outcomes after three and 12 months. We also conducted a meta-analysis on aggregated trial data.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 14 new RCTs in this review update, in addition to the seven previously included. Seventeen studies investigated chronic NIV in stable COPD and four studies investigated chronic NIV commenced after a severe COPD exacerbation. Three studies compared NIV to sham continuous positive airway pressure (2 to 4 cmHO). Seven studies used a nasal mask, one study used an oronasal mask and eight studies used both interfaces. Five studies did not report the interface. The majority of trials (20/21) were at high risk of performance bias due to an unblinded design. We considered 11 studies to have a low risk of selection bias and 13 to have a low risk of attrition bias. We collected and analysed the IPD from 13 stable COPD studies (n = 778, 68% of the participants included) and from three post-exacerbation studies (n = 364, 96% of the participants included). In the stable COPD group, NIV probably results in a minor benefit on the arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO) after three months (adjusted mean difference (AMD) 0.27 kPa, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.49; 9 studies, 271 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but there was little to no benefit at 12 months (AMD 0.09 kPa, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.42; 3 studies, 171 participants; low-certainty evidence). The arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO) was reduced in participants allocated to NIV after three months (AMD -0.61 kPa, 95% CI -0.77 to -0.45; 11 studies, 475 participants; high-certainty evidence) and persisted up to 12 months (AMD -0.42 kPa, 95% CI -0.68 to -0.16; 4 studies, 232 participants; high-certainty evidence). Exercise capacity was measured with the 6-minute walking distance (minimal clinical important difference: 26 m). There was no clinically relevant effect of NIV on exercise capacity (3 months: AMD 15.5 m, 95% CI -0.8 to 31.7; 8 studies, 330 participants; low-certainty evidence; 12 months: AMD 26.4 m, 95% CI -7.6 to 60.5; 3 studies, 134 participants; very low-certainty evidence). HRQL was measured with the Severe Respiratory Insufficiency and the St. Georges's Respiratory Questionnaire and may be improved by NIV, but only after three months (3 months: standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.39, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.62; 5 studies, 259 participants; very low-certainty evidence; 12 months: SMD 0.15, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.43; 4 studies, 200 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Lastly, the risk for all-cause mortality is likely reduced by NIV (adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) 0.75, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.97; 3 studies, 405 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In the post-exacerbation COPD group, there was little to no benefit on the PaO after three months, but there may be a slight decrease after 12 months (3 months: AMD -0.10 kPa, 95% CI -0.65 to 0.45; 3 studies, 234 participants; low-certainty evidence; 12 months: -0.27 kPa, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.32, 3 studies; 170 participants; low-certainty evidence). The PaCO was reduced by NIV at both three months (AMD -0.40 kPa, 95% CI -0.70 to -0.09; 3 studies, 241 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and 12 months (AMD -0.52 kPa, 95% CI -0.87 to -0.18; 3 studies, 175 participants; high-certainty evidence). NIV may have little to no benefit on HRQL (3 months: SMD 0.25, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.51; 2 studies, 219 participants; very low-certainty evidence; 12 months: SMD 0.25, 95% -0.06 to 0.55; 2 studies, 164 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Admission-free survival seems improved with NIV (AHR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.94; 2 studies, 317 participants; low-certainty evidence), but the risk for all-cause mortality does not seem to improve (AHR 0.97, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.28; 2 studies, 317 participants; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Regardless of the timing of initiation, chronic NIV improves daytime hypercapnia. In addition, in stable COPD, survival seems to be improved and there might be a short term HRQL benefit. In people with persistent hypercapnia after a COPD exacerbation, chronic NIV might prolong admission-free survival without a beneficial effect on HRQL. In stable COPD, future RCTs comparing NIV to a control group receiving standard care might no longer be warranted, but research should focus on identifying participant characteristics that would define treatment success. Furthermore, the optimal timing for initiation of NIV after a severe COPD exacerbation is still unknown.
Topics: Disease Progression; Dyspnea; Humans; Noninvasive Ventilation; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Quality of Life; Respiratory Insufficiency
PubMed: 34368950
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002878.pub3 -
European Respiratory Review : An... Dec 2020This systematic review aimed to systematise the different designs used to deliver pulmonary rehabilitation during acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) and explore which... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This systematic review aimed to systematise the different designs used to deliver pulmonary rehabilitation during acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) and explore which ones are the most effective. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EBSCO and Cochrane were searched. Randomised controlled trials comparing pulmonary rehabilitation or at least one of its components with usual care or comparing different components of pulmonary rehabilitation were included. Network meta-analysis was conducted in MetaXL 5.3 using a generalised pairwise modelling framework. Pooled effects compared each treatment to usual care. 42 studies were included. Most studies were conducted in an inpatient setting (57%) and started the intervention 24-48 h after hospital admission (24%). Exercise training (71%), education and psychosocial support (57%) and breathing techniques (55%) were the most used components. Studies combining exercise with breathing techniques presented the larger effects on exercise capacity (weighted mean difference (WMD) -41.06, 95% CI -131.70-49.58) and health-related quality of life (WMD 16.07, 95% CI 10.29-21.84), and breathing techniques presented the larger effects on dyspnoea (WMD 1.90, 95% CI 0.53-3.27) and length of hospitalisation (effect size =0.15, 95% CI -0.28-0.57). A few minor adverse events were found.Pulmonary rehabilitation is a safe intervention during AECOPD. Exercise, breathing techniques, and education and psychosocial support seem to be the core components for implementing pulmonary rehabilitation during AECOPD. Studies may now focus on comparisons of optimal timings to start the intervention, total duration of the intervention, duration and frequency of sessions, and intensity for exercise prescription.
Topics: Dyspnea; Exercise Tolerance; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Quality of Life
PubMed: 33208486
DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0039-2020 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Sep 2020To determine the clinical manifestations, risk factors, and maternal and perinatal outcomes in pregnant and recently pregnant women with suspected or confirmed... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To determine the clinical manifestations, risk factors, and maternal and perinatal outcomes in pregnant and recently pregnant women with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).
DESIGN
Living systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, Cochrane database, WHO COVID-19 database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang databases from 1 December 2019 to 6 October 2020, along with preprint servers, social media, and reference lists.
STUDY SELECTION
Cohort studies reporting the rates, clinical manifestations (symptoms, laboratory and radiological findings), risk factors, and maternal and perinatal outcomes in pregnant and recently pregnant women with suspected or confirmed covid-19.
DATA EXTRACTION
At least two researchers independently extracted the data and assessed study quality. Random effects meta-analysis was performed, with estimates pooled as odds ratios and proportions with 95% confidence intervals. All analyses will be updated regularly.
RESULTS
192 studies were included. Overall, 10% (95% confidence interval 7% to 12%; 73 studies, 67 271 women) of pregnant and recently pregnant women attending or admitted to hospital for any reason were diagnosed as having suspected or confirmed covid-19. The most common clinical manifestations of covid-19 in pregnancy were fever (40%) and cough (41%). Compared with non-pregnant women of reproductive age, pregnant and recently pregnant women with covid-19 were less likely to have symptoms (odds ratio 0.28, 95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.62; I2=42.9%) or report symptoms of fever (0.49, 0.38 to 0.63; I2=40.8%), dyspnoea (0.76, 0.67 to 0.85; I2=4.4%) and myalgia (0.53, 0.36 to 0.78; I2=59.4%). The odds of admission to an intensive care unit (odds ratio 2.13, 1.53 to 2.95; I2=71.2%), invasive ventilation (2.59, 2.28 to 2.94; I2=0%) and need for extra corporeal membrane oxygenation (2.02, 1.22 to 3.34; I2=0%) were higher in pregnant and recently pregnant than non-pregnant reproductive aged women. Overall, 339 pregnant women (0.02%, 59 studies, 41 664 women) with confirmed covid-19 died from any cause. Increased maternal age (odds ratio 1.83, 1.27 to 2.63; I2=43.4%), high body mass index (2.37, 1.83 to 3.07; I2=0%), any pre-existing maternal comorbidity (1.81, 1.49 to 2.20; I2=0%), chronic hypertension (2.0, 1.14 to 3.48; I2=0%), pre-existing diabetes (2.12, 1.62 to 2.78; I2=0%), and pre-eclampsia (4.21, 1.27 to 14.0; I2=0%) were associated with severe covid-19 in pregnancy. In pregnant women with covid-19, increased maternal age, high body mass index, non-white ethnicity, any pre-existing maternal comorbidity including chronic hypertension and diabetes, and pre-eclampsia were associated with serious complications such as admission to an intensive care unit, invasive ventilation and maternal death. Compared to pregnant women without covid-19, those with the disease had increased odds of maternal death (odds ratio 2.85, 1.08 to 7.52; I2=0%), of needing admission to the intensive care unit (18.58, 7.53 to 45.82; I2=0%), and of preterm birth (1.47, 1.14 to 1.91; I2=18.6%). The odds of admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (4.89, 1.87 to 12.81, I2=96.2%) were higher in babies born to mothers with covid-19 versus those without covid-19.
CONCLUSION
Pregnant and recently pregnant women with covid-19 attending or admitted to the hospitals for any reason are less likely to manifest symptoms such as fever, dyspnoea, and myalgia, and are more likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit or needing invasive ventilation than non-pregnant women of reproductive age. Pre-existing comorbidities, non-white ethnicity, chronic hypertension, pre-existing diabetes, high maternal age, and high body mass index are risk factors for severe covid-19 in pregnancy. Pregnant women with covid-19 versus without covid-19 are more likely to deliver preterm and could have an increased risk of maternal death and of being admitted to the intensive care unit. Their babies are more likely to be admitted to the neonatal unit.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42020178076.
READERS' NOTE
This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This version is update 1 of the original article published on 1 September 2020 (BMJ 2020;370:m3320), and previous updates can be found as data supplements (https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3320/related#datasupp). When citing this paper please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.
Topics: Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Coronavirus Infections; Female; Global Health; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Intensive Care, Neonatal; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Infectious; Premature Birth; Prognosis; Risk Factors; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 32873575
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m3320 -
Integrated disease management interventions for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2021People with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) show considerable variation in symptoms, limitations, and well-being; this often complicates medical care. A... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
People with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) show considerable variation in symptoms, limitations, and well-being; this often complicates medical care. A multi-disciplinary and multi-component programme that addresses different elements of care could improve quality of life (QoL) and exercise tolerance, while reducing the number of exacerbations.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effectiveness of integrated disease management (IDM) programmes versus usual care for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in terms of health-related quality of life (QoL), exercise tolerance, and exacerbation-related outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register of Trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL for potentially eligible studies. Searches were current as of September 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared IDM programmes for COPD versus usual care were included. Interventions consisted of multi-disciplinary (two or more healthcare providers) and multi-treatment (two or more components) IDM programmes of at least three months' duration.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. If required, we contacted study authors to request additional data. We performed meta-analyses using random-effects modelling. We carried out sensitivity analyses for the quality of included studies and performed subgroup analyses based on setting, study design, dominant intervention components, and region.
MAIN RESULTS
Along with 26 studies included in the 2013 Cochrane Review, we added 26 studies for this update, resulting in 52 studies involving 21,086 participants for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Follow-up periods ranged between 3 and 48 months and were classified as short-term (up to 6 months), medium-term (6 to 15 months), and long-term (longer than 15 months) follow-up. Studies were conducted in 19 different countries. The mean age of included participants was 67 years, and 66% were male. Participants were treated in all types of healthcare settings, including primary (n =15), secondary (n = 22), and tertiary care (n = 5), and combined primary and secondary care (n = 10). Overall, the level of certainty of evidence was moderate to high. We found that IDM probably improves health-related QoL as measured by St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score at medium-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) -3.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.16 to -1.63; 18 RCTs, 4321 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). A comparable effect was observed at short-term follow-up (MD -3.78, 95% CI -6.29 to -1.28; 16 RCTs, 1788 participants). However, the common effect did not exceed the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) of 4 points. There was no significant difference between IDM and control for long-term follow-up and for generic QoL. IDM probably also leads to a large improvement in maximum and functional exercise capacity, as measured by six-minute walking distance (6MWD), at medium-term follow-up (MD 44.69, 95% CI 24.01 to 65.37; 13 studies, 2071 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The effect exceeded the MCID of 35 metres and was even greater at short-term (MD 52.26, 95% CI 32.39 to 72.74; 17 RCTs, 1390 participants) and long-term (MD 48.83, 95% CI 16.37 to 80.49; 6 RCTs, 7288 participants) follow-up. The number of participants with respiratory-related admissions was reduced from 324 per 1000 participants in the control group to 235 per 1000 participants in the IDM group (odds ratio (OR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.81; 15 RCTs, median follow-up 12 months, 4207 participants; high-certainty evidence). Likewise, IDM probably results in a reduction in emergency department (ED) visits (OR 0.69, 95%CI 0.50 to 0.93; 9 RCTs, median follow-up 12 months, 8791 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), a slight reduction in all-cause hospital admissions (OR 0.75, 95%CI 0.57 to 0.98; 10 RCTs, median follow-up 12 months, 9030 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and fewer hospital days per person admitted (MD -2.27, 95% CI -3.98 to -0.56; 14 RCTs, median follow-up 12 months, 3563 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Statistically significant improvement was noted on the Medical Research Council (MRC) Dyspnoea Scale at short- and medium-term follow-up but not at long-term follow-up. No differences between groups were reported for mortality, courses of antibiotics/prednisolone, dyspnoea, and depression and anxiety scores. Subgroup analysis of dominant intervention components and regions of study suggested context- and intervention-specific effects. However, some subgroup analyses were marked by considerable heterogeneity or included few studies. These results should therefore be interpreted with caution.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review shows that IDM probably results in improvement in disease-specific QoL, exercise capacity, hospital admissions, and hospital days per person. Future research should evaluate which combination of IDM components and which intervention duration are most effective for IDM programmes, and should consider contextual determinants of implementation and treatment effect, including process-related outcomes, long-term follow-up, and cost-effectiveness analyses.
Topics: Aged; Disease Management; Dyspnea; Exercise Tolerance; Humans; Male; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Quality of Life
PubMed: 34495549
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009437.pub3 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2022Evidence increasingly suggested that impaired respiratory function remained in about 40% of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) after discharge,...
BACKGROUND
Evidence increasingly suggested that impaired respiratory function remained in about 40% of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) after discharge, jeopardizing their activities of daily living and quality of life (QoL) in a long term. Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) can improve exercise capacity and QoL in individuals with chronic lung disease; however, evidence on the effect of PR for patients with post-COIVD-19 was scarce. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of PR on lung impairment for patients with post-COVID-19.
METHODS
Five databases were searched for all the published trials of PR for patients with post-COVID-19 from 2019 to October 2021. Data were extracted using a standardized form. The risks of bias of included studies were assessed using the Cochrane risk of the bias assessment tool. Data were synthesized where possible; otherwise, qualitative analysis was done.
RESULTS
Among 6,000 retrieved studies, 3 studies with 233 patients after COVID-19 were included. The pooled estimate of PR effect on 6-min walk test (6-MWT) (50.41, 95% CI 34.34 to 66.48; < 0.0001) was in favor of the experiment group with clinical importance. It is found that PR could improve the symptom of dyspnea and QoL; however, its effect on pulmonary function test was inconsistent across studies. The risk of bias of included studies varied, with major concerns on the risk of blinding of participants and interventions performers.
CONCLUSION
The review showed that PR could improve exercise capacity measured by 6-MWT among patients with mild-to-moderate lung impairment after COVID-19. The interpretation of effects on lung function, dyspnea, and QoL should be cautious due to inadequate and conflicting data reported across studies.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021289562, identifier: CRD42021289562.
PubMed: 35265644
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2022.837420 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2022Asthma is a respiratory disease characterised by variable airflow limitation and the presence of respiratory symptoms including wheeze, chest tightness, cough and/or... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Asthma is a respiratory disease characterised by variable airflow limitation and the presence of respiratory symptoms including wheeze, chest tightness, cough and/or dyspnoea. Exercise training is beneficial for people with asthma; however, the response to conventional models of pulmonary rehabilitation is less clear.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate, in adults with asthma, the effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation compared to usual care on exercise performance, asthma control, and quality of life (co-primary outcomes), incidence of severe asthma exacerbations/hospitalisations, mental health, muscle strength, physical activity levels, inflammatory biomarkers, and adverse events.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified studies from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, from their inception to May 2021, as well as the reference lists of all primary studies and review articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials in which pulmonary rehabilitation was compared to usual care in adults with asthma. Pulmonary rehabilitation must have included a minimum of four weeks (or eight sessions) aerobic training and education or self-management. Co-interventions were permitted; however, exercise training alone was not. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Following the use of Cochrane's Screen4Me workflow, two review authors independently screened and selected trials for inclusion, extracted study characteristics and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We contacted study authors to retrieve missing data. We calculated between-group effects via mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) using a random-effects model. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using GRADE methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 studies involving 894 participants (range 24 to 412 participants (n = 2 studies involving n > 100, one contributing to meta-analysis), mean age range 27 to 54 years). We identified one ongoing study and three studies awaiting classification. One study was synthesised narratively, and another involved participants specifically with asthma-COPD overlap. Most programmes were outpatient-based, lasting from three to four weeks (inpatient) or eight to 12 weeks (outpatient). Education or self-management components included breathing retraining and relaxation, nutritional advice and psychological counselling. One programme was specifically tailored for people with severe asthma. Pulmonary rehabilitation compared to usual care may increase maximal oxygen uptake (VO max) after programme completion, but the evidence is very uncertain for data derived using mL/kg/min (MD between groups of 3.63 mL/kg/min, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.48 to 5.77; 3 studies; n = 129) and uncertain for data derived from % predicted VO max (MD 14.88%, 95% CI 9.66 to 20.1%; 2 studies; n = 60). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of pulmonary rehabilitation compared to usual care on incremental shuttle walk test distance (MD between groups 74.0 metres, 95% CI 26.4 to 121.4; 1 study; n = 30). Pulmonary rehabilitation may have little to no effect on VOmax at longer-term follow up (9 to 12 months), but the evidence is very uncertain (MD -0.69 mL/kg/min, 95% CI -4.79 to 3.42; I = 49%; 3 studies; n = 66). Pulmonary rehabilitation likely improves functional exercise capacity as measured by 6-minute walk distance, with MD between groups after programme completion of 79.8 metres (95% CI 66.5 to 93.1; 5 studies; n = 529; moderate certainty evidence). This magnitude of mean change exceeds the minimally clinically important difference (MCID) threshold for people with chronic respiratory disease. The evidence is very uncertain about the longer-term effects one year after pulmonary rehabilitation for this outcome (MD 52.29 metres, 95% CI 0.7 to 103.88; 2 studies; n = 42). Pulmonary rehabilitation may result in a small improvement in asthma control compared to usual care as measured by Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ), with an MD between groups of -0.46 (95% CI -0.76 to -0.17; 2 studies; n = 93; low certainty evidence); however, data derived from the Asthma Control Test were very uncertain (MD between groups 3.34, 95% CI -2.32 to 9.01; 2 studies; n = 442). The ACQ finding approximates the MCID of 0.5 points. Pulmonary rehabilitation results in little to no difference in asthma control as measured by ACQ at nine to 12 months follow-up (MD 0.09, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.53; 2 studies; n = 48; low certainty evidence). Pulmonary rehabilitation likely results in a large improvement in quality of life as assessed by the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score (MD -18.51, 95% CI -20.77 to -16.25; 2 studies; n = 440; moderate certainty evidence), with this magnitude of change exceeding the MCID. However, pulmonary rehabilitation may have little to no effect on Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) total scores, with the evidence being very uncertain (MD 0.87, 95% CI -0.13 to 1.86; 2 studies; n = 442). Longer-term follow-up data suggested improvements in quality of life may occur as measured by SGRQ (MD -13.4, 95% CI -15.93 to -10.88; 2 studies; n = 430) but not AQLQ (MD 0.58, 95% CI -0.23 to 1.38; 2 studies; n = 435); however, the evidence is very uncertain. One study reported no difference between groups in the proportion of participants who experienced an asthma exacerbation during the intervention period. Data from one study suggest adverse events attributable to the intervention are rare. Overall risk of bias was most commonly impacted by performance bias attributed to a lack of participant blinding to knowledge of the intervention. This is inherently challenging to overcome in rehabilitation studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate certainty evidence shows that pulmonary rehabilitation is probably associated with clinically meaningful improvements in functional exercise capacity and quality of life upon programme completion in adults with asthma. The certainty of evidence relating to maximal exercise capacity was very low to low. Pulmonary rehabilitation appears to confer minimal effect on asthma control, although the certainty of evidence is very low to low. Unclear reporting of study methods and small sample sizes limits our certainty in the overall body of evidence, whilst heterogenous study designs and interventions likely contribute to inconsistent findings across clinical outcomes and studies. There remains considerable scope for future research.
Topics: Adult; Asthma; Dyspnea; Hospitalization; Humans; Middle Aged; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Quality of Life
PubMed: 35993916
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013485.pub2 -
JAMA Network Open May 2021Infection with COVID-19 has been associated with long-term symptoms, but the frequency, variety, and severity of these complications are not well understood. Many...
IMPORTANCE
Infection with COVID-19 has been associated with long-term symptoms, but the frequency, variety, and severity of these complications are not well understood. Many published commentaries have proposed plans for pandemic control that are primarily based on mortality rates among older individuals without considering long-term morbidity among individuals of all ages. Reliable estimates of such morbidity are important for patient care, prognosis, and development of public health policy.
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review of studies examining the frequency and variety of persistent symptoms after COVID-19 infection.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
A search of PubMed and Web of Science was conducted to identify studies published from January 1, 2020, to March 11, 2021, that examined persistent symptoms after COVID-19 infection. Persistent symptoms were defined as those persisting for at least 60 days after diagnosis, symptom onset, or hospitalization or at least 30 days after recovery from the acute illness or hospital discharge. Search terms included COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, coronavirus, 2019-nCoV, long-term, after recovery, long-haul, persistent, outcome, symptom, follow-up, and longitudinal. All English-language articles that presented primary data from cohort studies that reported the prevalence of persistent symptoms among individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection and that had clearly defined and sufficient follow-up were included. Case reports, case series, and studies that described symptoms only at the time of infection and/or hospitalization were excluded. A structured framework was applied to appraise study quality.
FINDINGS
A total of 1974 records were identified; of those, 1247 article titles and abstracts were screened. After removal of duplicates and exclusions, 92 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility; 47 studies were deemed eligible, and 45 studies reporting 84 clinical signs or symptoms were included in the systematic review. Of 9751 total participants, 5266 (54.0%) were male; 30 of 45 studies reported mean or median ages younger than 60 years. Among 16 studies, most of which comprised participants who were previously hospitalized, the median proportion of individuals experiencing at least 1 persistent symptom was 72.5% (interquartile range [IQR], 55.0%-80.0%). Individual symptoms occurring most frequently included shortness of breath or dyspnea (26 studies; median frequency, 36.0%; IQR, 27.6%-50.0%), fatigue or exhaustion (25 studies; median frequency, 40.0%; IQR, 31.0%-57.0%), and sleep disorders or insomnia (8 studies; median 29.4%, IQR, 24.4%-33.0%). There were wide variations in the design and quality of the studies, which had implications for interpretation and often limited direct comparability and combinability. Major design differences included patient populations, definitions of time zero (ie, the beginning of the follow-up interval), follow-up lengths, and outcome definitions, including definitions of illness severity.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This systematic review found that COVID-19 symptoms commonly persisted beyond the acute phase of infection, with implications for health-associated functioning and quality of life. Current studies of symptom persistence are highly heterogeneous, and future studies need longer follow-up, improved quality, and more standardized designs to reliably quantify risks.
Topics: COVID-19; Dyspnea; Fatigue; Hospitalization; Humans; Pandemics; SARS-CoV-2; Sleep Wake Disorders; Survivors
PubMed: 34037731
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.11417