Lung function and exercise capacity 6 months after hospital discharge for critical COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The significant morbidity caused by COVID-19 necessitates further understanding of long-term recovery. Our aim was to evaluate long-term lung function, exercise capacity, and radiological findings in patients after critical COVID-19. METHODS: Patients who received treatment in ICU for COVID-19 between March 2020 and January 2021 underwent pulmonary function tests, a 6MWD and CXR 6 months after hospital discharge. RESULTS: A restrictive ventilatory defect was found in 35% (23/65) and an impaired diffusing capacity in 52% (32/62) at 6 months. The 6-minute walk distance was reduced in 33% (18/55), and 7% (4/55) of the patients had reduced exercise capacity. Chest X-ray was abnormal in 78% (52/67) at 6 months after hospital discharge. CONCLUSION: A significant number of patients had persisting lung function impairment and radiological abnormalities at 6 months after critical COVID-19. Reduced exercise capacity was rare.

Introduction and rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant and the dynamics of its sub-lineages BA.1 and BA.1.1, December 2021, Finland (preprint)

Multiple introductions of SARS-COV-2 Omicron variant BA.1. and BA.1.1. lineages to Finland were detected early December 2021, and comprised the majority over Delta variant in 3 weeks in the capital region. Our sequence analysis demonstrates emergence of a large cluster of BA.1.1 in community transmission.

Introduction and Rapid Spread of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant and Dynamics of BA.1 and BA.1.1 Sublineages, Finland, December 2021.

Multiple introductions of SARS-COV-2 Omicron variant BA.1 and BA.1.1. lineages to Finland were detected in early December 2021. Within 3 weeks, Omicron overtook Delta as the most common variant in the capital region. Sequence analysis demonstrated the emergence and spread through community transmission of a large cluster of BA.1.1 virus.

Use of biologicals in allergic and type-2 inflammatory diseases during the current COVID-19 pandemic: Position paper of Ärzteverband Deutscher Allergologen (AeDA)A, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Allergologie und Klinische Immunologie (DGAKI)B, Gesellschaft für Pädiatrische Allergologie und Umweltmedizin (GPA)C, Österreichische Gesellschaft für Allergologie und Immunologie (ÖGAI)D, Luxemburgische Gesellschaft für Allergologie und Immunologie (LGAI)E, Österreichische Gesellschaft für Pneumologie (ÖGP)F in co-operation with the German, Austrian, and Swiss ARIA groupsG, and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI)H.

BACKGROUND: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the treatment of patients with allergic and atopy-associated diseases has faced major challenges. Recommendations for "social distancing" and the fear of patients becoming infected during a visit to a medical facility have led to a drastic decrease in personal doctor-patient contacts. This affects both acute care and treatment of the chronically ill. The immune response after SARS-CoV-2 infection is so far only insufficiently understood and could be altered in a favorable or unfavorable way by therapy with monoclonal antibodies. There is currently no evidence for an increased risk of a severe COVID-19 course in allergic patients. Many patients are under ongoing therapy with biologicals that inhibit type 2 immune responses via various mechanisms. There is uncertainty about possible immunological interactions and potential risks of these biologicals in the case of an infection with SARS-CoV-2. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A selective literature search was carried out in PubMed, Livivo, and the internet to cover the past 10 years (May 2010 - April 2020). Additionally, the current German-language publications were analyzed. Based on these data, the present position paper provides recommendations for the biological treatment of patients with allergic and atopy-associated diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: In order to maintain in-office consultation services, a safe treatment environment must be created that is adapted to the pandemic situation. To date, there is a lack of reliable study data on the care for patients with complex respiratory, atopic, and allergic diseases in times of an imminent infection risk from SARS-CoV-2. Type-2-dominant immune reactions, as they are frequently seen in allergic patients, could influence various phases of COVID-19, e.g., by slowing down the immune reactions. Theoretically, this could have an unfavorable effect in the early phase of a SARS-Cov-2 infection, but also a positive effect during a cytokine storm in the later phase of severe courses. However, since there is currently no evidence for this, all data from patients treated with a biological directed against type 2 immune reactions who develop COVID-19 should be collected in registries, and their disease courses documented in order to be able to provide experience-based instructions in the future. CONCLUSION: The use of biologicals for the treatment of bronchial asthma, atopic dermatitis, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, and spontaneous urticaria should be continued as usual in patients without suspected infection or proven SARS-CoV-2 infection. If available, it is recommended to prefer a formulation for self-application and to offer telemedical monitoring. Treatment should aim at the best possible control of difficult-to-control allergic and atopic diseases using adequate rescue and add-on therapy and should avoid the need for systemic glucocorticosteroids. If SARS-CoV-2 infection is proven or reasonably suspected, the therapy should be determined by weighing the benefits and risks individually for the patient in question, and the patient should be involved in the decision-making. It should be kept in mind that the potential effects of biologicals on the immune response in COVID-19 are currently not known. Telemedical offers are particularly desirable for the acute consultation needs of suitable patients.

Considerations on biologicals for patients with allergic disease in times of the COVID-19 pandemic: An EAACI statement.

The outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2-induced coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic re-shaped doctor-patient interaction and challenged capacities of healthcare systems. It created many issues around the optimal and safest way to treat complex patients with severe allergic disease. A significant number of the patients are on treatment with biologicals, and clinicians face the challenge to provide optimal care during the pandemic. Uncertainty of the potential risks for these patients is related to the fact that the exact sequence of immunological events during SARS-CoV-2 is not known. Severe COVID-19 patients may experience a "cytokine storm" and associated organ damage characterized by an exaggerated release of pro-inflammatory type 1 and type 3 cytokines. These inflammatory responses are potentially counteracted by anti-inflammatory cytokines and type 2 responses. This expert-based EAACI statement aims to provide guidance on the application of biologicals targeting type 2 inflammation in patients with allergic disease. Currently, there is very little evidence for an enhanced risk of patients with allergic diseases to develop severe COVID-19. Studies focusing on severe allergic phenotypes are lacking. At present, noninfected patients on biologicals for the treatment of asthma, atopic dermatitis, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, or chronic spontaneous urticaria should continue their biologicals targeting type 2 inflammation via self-application. In case of an active SARS-CoV-2 infection, biological treatment needs to be stopped until clinical recovery and SARS-CoV-2 negativity is established and treatment with biologicals should be re-initiated. Maintenance of add-on therapy and a constant assessment of disease control, apart from acute management, are demanded.