Determinants of recovery from post-COVID-19 dyspnoea: analysis of UK prospective cohorts of hospitalised COVID-19 patients and community-based controls.

Background: The risk factors for recovery from COVID-19 dyspnoea are poorly understood. We investigated determinants of recovery from dyspnoea in adults with COVID-19 and compared these to determinants of recovery from non-COVID-19 dyspnoea. Methods: We used data from two prospective cohort studies: PHOSP-COVID (patients hospitalised between March 2020 and April 2021 with COVID-19) and COVIDENCE UK (community cohort studied over the same time period). PHOSP-COVID data were collected during hospitalisation and at 5-month and 1-year follow-up visits. COVIDENCE UK data were obtained through baseline and monthly online questionnaires. Dyspnoea was measured in both cohorts with the Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify determinants associated with a reduction in dyspnoea between 5-month and 1-year follow-up. Findings: We included 990 PHOSP-COVID and 3309 COVIDENCE UK participants. We observed higher odds of improvement between 5-month and 1-year follow-up among PHOSP-COVID participants who were younger (odds ratio 1.02 per year, 95% CI 1.01-1.03), male (1.54, 1.16-2.04), neither obese nor severely obese (1.82, 1.06-3.13 and 4.19, 2.14-8.19, respectively), had no pre-existing anxiety or depression (1.56, 1.09-2.22) or cardiovascular disease (1.33, 1.00-1.79), and shorter hospital admission (1.01 per day, 1.00-1.02). Similar associations were found in those recovering from non-COVID-19 dyspnoea, excluding age (and length of hospital admission). Interpretation: Factors associated with dyspnoea recovery at 1-year post-discharge among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 were similar to those among community controls without COVID-19. Funding: PHOSP-COVID is supported by a grant from the MRC-UK Research and Innovation and the Department of Health and Social Care through the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) rapid response panel to tackle COVID-19. The views expressed in the publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the National Health Service (NHS), the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.COVIDENCE UK is supported by the UK Research and Innovation, the National Institute for Health Research, and Barts Charity. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funders.

Characteristics and risk factors for post-COVID-19 breathlessness after hospitalisation for COVID-19.

Background: Persistence of respiratory symptoms, particularly breathlessness, after acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection has emerged as a significant clinical problem. We aimed to characterise and identify risk factors for patients with persistent breathlessness following COVID-19 hospitalisation. Methods: PHOSP-COVID is a multicentre prospective cohort study of UK adults hospitalised for COVID-19. Clinical data were collected during hospitalisation and at a follow-up visit. Breathlessness was measured by a numeric rating scale of 0-10. We defined post-COVID-19 breathlessness as an increase in score of ≥1 compared to the pre-COVID-19 level. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify risk factors and to develop a prediction model for post-COVID-19 breathlessness. Results: We included 1226 participants (37% female, median age 59 years, 22% mechanically ventilated). At a median 5 months after discharge, 50% reported post-COVID-19 breathlessness. Risk factors for post-COVID-19 breathlessness were socioeconomic deprivation (adjusted OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.14-2.44), pre-existing depression/anxiety (adjusted OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.06-2.35), female sex (adjusted OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.21-2.00) and admission duration (adjusted OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02). Black ethnicity (adjusted OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.35-0.89) and older age groups (adjusted OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.14-0.66) were less likely to report post-COVID-19 breathlessness. Post-COVID-19 breathlessness was associated with worse performance on the shuttle walk test and forced vital capacity, but not with obstructive airflow limitation. The prediction model had fair discrimination (concordance statistic 0.66, 95% CI 0.63-0.69) and good calibration (calibration slope 1.00, 95% CI 0.80-1.21). Conclusions: Post-COVID-19 breathlessness was commonly reported in this national cohort of patients hospitalised for COVID-19 and is likely to be a multifactorial problem with physical and emotional components.

Characteristics and risk factors for post-COVID breathlessness after hospitalisation for COVID-19

Background Persistence of respiratory symptoms—particularly breathlessness—after acute COVID-19 infection has emerged as a significant clinical problem. We aimed to characterise and identify risk factors for patients with persistent breathlessness following COVID-19 hospitalisation. Methods PHOSP-COVID is a multi-centre prospective cohort study of UK adults hospitalised for COVID-19. Clinical data were collected during hospitalisation and at a follow-up visit. Breathlessness was measured by a numeric rating scale of 0–10. We defined post-COVID breathlessness as an increase in score of 1 or more compared to the pre-COVID-19 level. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify risk factors, and to develop a prediction model for post-COVID breathlessness. Results We included 1226 participants (37% female, median age 59 years, 22% mechanically ventilated). At a median five months after discharge, 50% reported post-COVID breathlessness. Risk factors for post-COVID breathlessness were socio-economic deprivation (adjusted odds ratio, 1.67;95% confidence interval, 1.14–2.44), pre-existing depression/anxiety (1.58;1.06–2.35), female sex (1.56;1.21–2.00) and admission duration (1.01;1.00–1.02). Black ethnicity (0.56;0.35–0.89) and older age groups (0.31;0.14–0.66) were less likely to report post-COVID breathlessness. Post-COVID breathlessness was associated with worse performance on the shuttle walk test and forced vital capacity, but not with obstructive airflow limitation. The prediction model had fair discrimination (concordance-statistic 0.66;0.63–0.69), and good calibration (calibration slope 1.00;0.80–1.21). Conclusions Post-COVID breathlessness was commonly reported in this national cohort of patients hospitalised for COVID-19 and is likely to be a multifactorial problem with physical and emotional components.

Prevalence, risk factors and treatments for post-COVID-19 breathlessness: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Persistent breathlessness >28 days after acute COVID-19 infection has been identified as a highly debilitating post-COVID symptom. However, the prevalence, risk factors, mechanisms and treatments for post-COVID breathlessness remain poorly understood. We systematically searched PubMed and Embase for relevant studies published from 1 January 2020 to 1 November 2021 (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021285733) and included 119 eligible papers. Random-effects meta-analysis of 42 872 patients with COVID-19 reported in 102 papers found an overall prevalence of post-COVID breathlessness of 26% (95% CI 23-29) when measuring the presence/absence of the symptom, and 41% (95% CI 34-48) when using Medical Research Council (MRC)/modified MRC dyspnoea scale. The pooled prevalence decreased significantly from 1-6 months to 7-12 months post-infection. Post-COVID breathlessness was more common in those with severe/critical acute infection, those who were hospitalised and females, and was less likely to be reported by patients in Asia than those in Europe or North America. Multiple pathophysiological mechanisms have been proposed (including deconditioning, restrictive/obstructive airflow limitation, systemic inflammation, impaired mental health), but the body of evidence remains inconclusive. Seven cohort studies and one randomised controlled trial suggested rehabilitation exercises may reduce post-COVID breathlessness. There is an urgent need for mechanistic research and development of interventions for the prevention and treatment of post-COVID breathlessness.

Perceptions on Home-Administration of Biologics in the Context of Severe Asthma: An International Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Biologics are an effective therapy for severe asthma. Home administration of biologics by patients is likely to facilitate their accessibility. Yet little is known about patients' and health care providers' (HCPs) perceptions regarding home administration of biologics. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to create more insight into the perceptions and experiences of patients and HCPs regarding home administration of biologics in the context of the treatment of severe asthma. METHODS: A qualitative international study was performed in the Netherlands, United States, Australia, and United Kingdom. In each country, 2 focus groups were held with potential/recent and long-term users of biologics at home. Prior to the focus groups, patients were prompted with themes on online forums. For triangulation purposes, interviews were held with HCPs to discuss salient findings from forums and focus groups. Data were analyzed with qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: In total, 75 patients participated in the forums, of which 40 participated in the focus groups. Furthermore, 12 HCPs were interviewed. The following overarching themes were identified: living with severe asthma; practical aspects of using biologics; the role of HCPs regarding biologics; social support from family, friends, and others; effectiveness of biologics and other treatments; side effects of biologics. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that, for those using biologics for severe asthma, the benefits of home administration of biologics usually outweigh inconvenience and side effects. Guided practice, accessible support contact, and monitoring including social support should be central in the transition from hospital to home administration of asthma biologics.

Large scale clinical trials: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has presented substantial new challenges to clinical and research teams. Our objective was to analyse the experience of investigators and research delivery staff regarding the research response to COVID-19 in order to identify these challenges as well as solutions for future pandemic planning. METHODS: We conducted a survey of diverse research staff involved in delivery of COVID-19 clinical trials across the UK. This was delivered online across centres linked to the NIHR Respiratory Translational Research Collaboration. Responses were analysed using a formal thematic analysis approach to identify common themes and recommendations. RESULTS: 83 survey participants from ten teaching hospitals provided 922 individual question responses. Respondents were involved in a range of research delivery roles but the largest cohort (60%) was study investigators. A wide range of research experiences were captured, including early and late phase trials. Responses were coded into overarching themes. Among common observations, complex protocols without adaptation to a pandemic were noted to have hampered recruitment. Recommendations included the need to develop and test pandemic-specific protocols, and make use of innovations in information technology. Research competition needs to be avoided and drug selection processes should be explicitly transparent. CONCLUSIONS: Delivery of clinical trials, particularly earlier phase trials, in a pandemic clinical environment is highly challenging, and was reactive rather than anticipatory. Future pandemic studies should be designed and tested in advance, making use of pragmatic study designs as far as possible and planning for integration between early and later phase trials and regulatory frameworks.

The long-term sequelae of COVID-19: an international consensus on research priorities for patients with pre-existing and new-onset airways disease.

Persistent ill health after acute COVID-19-referred to as long COVID, the post-acute COVID-19 syndrome, or the post-COVID-19 condition-has emerged as a major concern. We undertook an international consensus exercise to identify research priorities with the aim of understanding the long-term effects of acute COVID-19, with a focus on people with pre-existing airways disease and the occurrence of new-onset airways disease and associated symptoms. 202 international experts were invited to submit a minimum of three research ideas. After a two-phase internal review process, a final list of 98 research topics was scored by 48 experts. Patients with pre-existing or post-COVID-19 airways disease contributed to the exercise by weighting selected criteria. The highest-ranked research idea focused on investigation of the relationship between prognostic scores at hospital admission and morbidity at 3 months and 12 months after hospital discharge in patients with and without pre-existing airways disease. High priority was also assigned to comparisons of the prevalence and severity of post-COVID-19 fatigue, sarcopenia, anxiety, depression, and risk of future cardiovascular complications in patients with and without pre-existing airways disease. Our approach has enabled development of a set of priorities that could inform future research studies and funding decisions. This prioritisation process could also be adapted to other, non-respiratory aspects of long COVID.

Physical, cognitive, and mental health impacts of COVID-19 after hospitalisation (PHOSP-COVID): a UK multicentre, prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The impact of COVID-19 on physical and mental health and employment after hospitalisation with acute disease is not well understood. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of COVID-19-related hospitalisation on health and employment, to identify factors associated with recovery, and to describe recovery phenotypes. METHODS: The Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) is a multicentre, long-term follow-up study of adults (aged ≥18 years) discharged from hospital in the UK with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19, involving an assessment between 2 and 7 months after discharge, including detailed recording of symptoms, and physiological and biochemical testing. Multivariable logistic regression was done for the primary outcome of patient-perceived recovery, with age, sex, ethnicity, body-mass index, comorbidities, and severity of acute illness as covariates. A post-hoc cluster analysis of outcomes for breathlessness, fatigue, mental health, cognitive impairment, and physical performance was done using the clustering large applications k-medoids approach. The study is registered on the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN10980107). FINDINGS: We report findings for 1077 patients discharged from hospital between March 5 and Nov 30, 2020, who underwent assessment at a median of 5·9 months (IQR 4·9-6·5) after discharge. Participants had a mean age of 58 years (SD 13); 384 (36%) were female, 710 (69%) were of white ethnicity, 288 (27%) had received mechanical ventilation, and 540 (50%) had at least two comorbidities. At follow-up, only 239 (29%) of 830 participants felt fully recovered, 158 (20%) of 806 had a new disability (assessed by the Washington Group Short Set on Functioning), and 124 (19%) of 641 experienced a health-related change in occupation. Factors associated with not recovering were female sex, middle age (40-59 years), two or more comorbidities, and more severe acute illness. The magnitude of the persistent health burden was substantial but only weakly associated with the severity of acute illness. Four clusters were identified with different severities of mental and physical health impairment (n=767): very severe (131 patients, 17%), severe (159, 21%), moderate along with cognitive impairment (127, 17%), and mild (350, 46%). Of the outcomes used in the cluster analysis, all were closely related except for cognitive impairment. Three (3%) of 113 patients in the very severe cluster, nine (7%) of 129 in the severe cluster, 36 (36%) of 99 in the moderate cluster, and 114 (43%) of 267 in the mild cluster reported feeling fully recovered. Persistently elevated serum C-reactive protein was positively associated with cluster severity. INTERPRETATION: We identified factors related to not recovering after hospital admission with COVID-19 at 6 months after discharge (eg, female sex, middle age, two or more comorbidities, and more acute severe illness), and four different recovery phenotypes. The severity of physical and mental health impairments were closely related, whereas cognitive health impairments were independent. In clinical care, a proactive approach is needed across the acute severity spectrum, with interdisciplinary working, wide access to COVID-19 holistic clinical services, and the potential to stratify care. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health Research.

Risk Predictors and Symptom Features of Long COVID Within a Broad Primary Care Patient Population Including Both Tested and Untested Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Symptoms may persist after the initial phases of COVID-19 infection, a phenomenon termed long COVID. Current knowledge on long COVID has been mostly derived from test-confirmed and hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Data are required on the burden and predictors of long COVID in a broader patient group, which includes both tested and untested COVID-19 patients in primary care. METHODS: This is an observational study using data from Platform C19, a quality improvement program-derived research database linking primary care electronic health record data (EHR) with patient-reported questionnaire information. Participating general practices invited consenting patients aged 18-85 to complete an online questionnaire since 7th August 2020. COVID-19 self-diagnosis, clinician-diagnosis, testing, and the presence and duration of symptoms were assessed via the questionnaire. Patients were considered present with long COVID if they reported symptoms lasting ≥4 weeks. EHR and questionnaire data up till 22nd January 2021 were extracted for analysis. Multivariable regression analyses were conducted comparing demographics, clinical characteristics, and presence of symptoms between patients with long COVID and patients with shorter symptom duration. RESULTS: Long COVID was present in 310/3151 (9.8%) patients with self-diagnosed, clinician-diagnosed, or test-confirmed COVID-19. Only 106/310 (34.2%) long COVID patients had test-confirmed COVID-19. Risk predictors of long COVID were age ≥40 years (adjusted Odds Ratio [AdjOR]=1.49 [1.05-2.17]), female sex (adjOR=1.37 [1.02-1.85]), frailty (adjOR=2.39 [1.29-4.27]), visit to A&E (adjOR=4.28 [2.31-7.78]), and hospital admission for COVID-19 symptoms (adjOR=3.22 [1.77-5.79]). Aches and pain (adjOR=1.70 [1.21-2.39]), appetite loss (adjOR=3.15 [1.78-5.92]), confusion and disorientation (adjOR=2.17 [1.57-2.99]), diarrhea (adjOR=1.4 [1.03-1.89]), and persistent dry cough (adjOR=2.77 [1.94-3.98]) were symptom features statistically more common in long COVID. CONCLUSION: This study reports the factors and symptom features predicting long COVID in a broad primary care population, including both test-confirmed and the previously missed group of COVID-19 patients.

The impact of the first COVID-19 surge on severe asthma patients in the UK. Which is worse: the virus or the lockdown?

Asthma therapy, including monoclonal antibodies, was not associated with #COVID19 infection or hospitalisation in a UK severe asthma population. Shielding led to a reported worsening of mental health in nearly half of patients contacted (47%). https://bit.ly/3jImUsG.