Fibrotic-like abnormalities notably prevalent one year after hospitalization with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: We investigated whether COVID-19 leads to persistent impaired pulmonary function, fibrotic-like abnormalities or psychological symptoms 12 months after discharge and whether severely ill patients (ICU admission) recover differently than moderately ill patients. METHODS: This single-centre cohort study followed adult COVID-19 survivors for a period of one year after discharge. Patients underwent pulmonary function tests 6 weeks, 3 months and 12 months after discharge and were psychologically evaluated at 6 weeks and 12 months. Computed tomography (CT) was performed after 3 months and 12 months. RESULTS: 66 patients were analysed, their median age was 60.5 (IQR: 54-69) years, 46 (70%) patients were male. 38 (58%) patients had moderate disease and 28 (42%) patients had severe disease. Most patients had spirometric values within normal range after 12 months of follow-up. 12 (23%) patients still had an impaired lung diffusion after 12 months. Impaired pulmonary diffusion capacity was associated with residual CT abnormalities (OR 5.1,CI-95: 1.2-22.2), shortness of breath (OR 7.0, CI-95: 1.6-29.7) and with functional limitations (OR 5.8, CI-95: 1.4-23.8). Ground-glass opacities resolved in most patients during follow-up. Resorption of reticulation, bronchiectasis and curvilinear bands was rare and independent of disease severity. 81% of severely ill patients and 37% of moderately ill patients showed residual abnormalities after 12 months (OR 8.1, CI-95: 2.5-26.4). A minority of patients had symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression and cognitive failure during follow-up. CONCLUSION: Some patients still had impaired lung diffusion 12 months after discharge and fibrotic-like residual abnormalities were notably prevalent, especially in severely ill patients.

COVID-box Experiences of Patients and Health Care Professionals (COVID-box Project): Single-Center, Retrospective, Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, several home monitoring programs have described the success of reducing hospital admissions, but only a few studies have investigated the experiences of patients and health care professionals. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to determine patients' and health care professionals' experiences and satisfaction with employing the COVID-box. METHODS: In this single-center, retrospective, observational study, patients and health care professionals were asked to anonymously fill out multiple-choice questionnaires with questions on a 5-point or 10-point Likert scale. The themes addressed by patients were the sense of reassurance and safety, experiences with teleconsultations, their appreciation for staying at home, and the instructions for using the COVID-box. The themes addressed by health care professionals who treated patients with the COVID-box were the characteristics of the COVID-box, the technical support service and general satisfaction, and their expectations and support for this telemonitoring concept. Scores were interpreted as insufficient (≤2 or ≤5, respectively), sufficient (3 or 6-7, respectively), or good (≥4 or ≥8, respectively) on a 5-point or 10-point Likert scale. RESULTS: A total of 117 patients and 25 health care professionals filled out the questionnaires. The median score was 4 (IQR 4-5) for the sense of safety, the appreciation for staying at home, and experiences with teleconsultations, with good scores from 76.5% (88/115), 86% (56/65), and 83.6% (92/110) of the patients, respectively. Further, 74.4% (87/117) of the patients scored the home monitoring program with a score of ≥8. Health care professionals scored the COVID-box with a minimum median score of 7 (IQR 7-10) on a 10-point scale for all domains (ie, the characteristics of the COVID-box and the technical support service and general satisfaction). For the sense of safety, user-friendliness, and additional value of the COVID-box, the median scores were 8 (IQR 8-10), 8 (IQR 7-9), and 10 (IQR 8-10), respectively, with good scores from 86% (19/22), 75% (15/20), and 96% (24/25) of the health care professionals, respectively. All health care professionals (25/25, 100%) gave a score of ≥8 for supporting this home monitoring concept, with a median score of 10 (IQR 10-10). CONCLUSIONS: The positive experiences and satisfaction of involved users are key factors for the successful implementation of a novel eHealth solution. In our study, patients, as well as health care professionals, were highly satisfied with the use of the home monitoring program-the COVID-box project. Remote home monitoring may be an effective approach in cases of increased demand for hospital care and high pressure on health care systems.

Home monitoring of lung function, symptoms and quality of life after admission with COVID-19 infection: The HOMECOMIN' study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To develop targeted and efficient follow-up programmes for patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), structured and detailed insights in recovery trajectory are required. We aimed to gain detailed insights in long-term recovery after COVID-19 infection, using an online home monitoring programme including home spirometry. Moreover, we evaluated patient experiences with the home monitoring programme. METHODS: In this prospective multicentre study, we included adults hospitalized due to COVID-19 with radiological abnormalities. For 6 months after discharge, patients collected weekly home spirometry and pulse oximetry measurements, and reported visual analogue scales on cough, dyspnoea and fatigue. Patients completed the fatigue assessment scale (FAS), global rating of change (GRC), EuroQol-5D-5L (EQ-5D-5L) and online tool for the assessment of burden of COVID-19 (ABCoV tool). Mixed models were used to analyse the results. RESULTS: A total of 133 patients were included in this study (70.1% male, mean age 60 years [SD 10.54]). Patients had a mean baseline forced vital capacity of 3.25 L (95% CI: 2.99-3.44 L), which increased linearly in 6 months with 19.1% (Δ0.62 L, p < 0.005). Patients reported substantial fatigue with no improvement over time. Nevertheless, health status improved significantly. After 6 months, patients scored their general well-being almost similar as before COVID-19. Overall, patients considered home spirometry useful and not burdensome. CONCLUSION: Six months after hospital admission for COVID-19, patients' lung function and quality of life were still improving, although fatigue persisted. Home monitoring enables detailed follow-up for patients with COVID-19 at low burden for patients and for the healthcare system.

Imatinib in patients with severe COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The major complication of COVID-19 is hypoxaemic respiratory failure from capillary leak and alveolar oedema. Experimental and early clinical data suggest that the tyrosine-kinase inhibitor imatinib reverses pulmonary capillary leak. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial was done at 13 academic and non-academic teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. Hospitalised patients (aged ≥18 years) with COVID-19, as confirmed by an RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2, requiring supplemental oxygen to maintain a peripheral oxygen saturation of greater than 94% were eligible. Patients were excluded if they had severe pre-existing pulmonary disease, had pre-existing heart failure, had undergone active treatment of a haematological or non-haematological malignancy in the previous 12 months, had cytopenia, or were receiving concomitant treatment with medication known to strongly interact with imatinib. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either oral imatinib, given as a loading dose of 800 mg on day 0 followed by 400 mg daily on days 1-9, or placebo. Randomisation was done with a computer-based clinical data management platform with variable block sizes (containing two, four, or six patients), stratified by study site. The primary outcome was time to discontinuation of mechanical ventilation and supplemental oxygen for more than 48 consecutive hours, while being alive during a 28-day period. Secondary outcomes included safety, mortality at 28 days, and the need for invasive mechanical ventilation. All efficacy and safety analyses were done in all randomised patients who had received at least one dose of study medication (modified intention-to-treat population). This study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2020-001236-10). FINDINGS: Between March 31, 2020, and Jan 4, 2021, 805 patients were screened, of whom 400 were eligible and randomly assigned to the imatinib group (n=204) or the placebo group (n=196). A total of 385 (96%) patients (median age 64 years [IQR 56-73]) received at least one dose of study medication and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. Time to discontinuation of ventilation and supplemental oxygen for more than 48 h was not significantly different between the two groups (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·95 [95% CI 0·76-1·20]). At day 28, 15 (8%) of 197 patients had died in the imatinib group compared with 27 (14%) of 188 patients in the placebo group (unadjusted HR 0·51 [0·27-0·95]). After adjusting for baseline imbalances between the two groups (sex, obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease) the HR for mortality was 0·52 (95% CI 0·26-1·05). The HR for mechanical ventilation in the imatinib group compared with the placebo group was 1·07 (0·63-1·80; p=0·81). The median duration of invasive mechanical ventilation was 7 days (IQR 3-13) in the imatinib group compared with 12 days (6-20) in the placebo group (p=0·0080). 91 (46%) of 197 patients in the imatinib group and 82 (44%) of 188 patients in the placebo group had at least one grade 3 or higher adverse event. The safety evaluation revealed no imatinib-associated adverse events. INTERPRETATION: The study failed to meet its primary outcome, as imatinib did not reduce the time to discontinuation of ventilation and supplemental oxygen for more than 48 consecutive hours in patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen. The observed effects on survival (although attenuated after adjustment for baseline imbalances) and duration of mechanical ventilation suggest that imatinib might confer clinical benefit in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, but further studies are required to validate these findings. FUNDING: Amsterdam Medical Center Foundation, Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek/ZonMW, and the European Union Innovative Medicines Initiative 2.