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.

Small airway function in Finnish COVID-19 survivors.

Follow-up studies of COVID-19 patients have found lung function impairment up to six months after initial infection, but small airway function has not previously been studied. Patients (n = 20) hospitalised for a severe SARS-CoV-2 infection underwent spirometry, impulse oscillometry, and multiple measurements of alveolar nitric oxide three to six months after acute infection. None of the patients had small airway obstruction, nor increased nitric oxide concentration in the alveolar level. None of the patients had a reduced FEV1/FVC or significant bronchodilator responses in IOS or spirometry. In conclusion, we found no evidence of inflammation or dysfunction in the small airways.

Women report more symptoms and impaired quality of life: a survey of Finnish COVID-19 survivors.

BACKGROUND: The long-term sequelae after COVID-19 are not yet fully known. Our aim was to evaluate subjective symptoms and quality of life in Finnish hospitalized COVID-19 patients at six months follow-up. METHODS: Hospitalised adult patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection from March to June 2020 were recruited. We conducted a survey on demographics and comorbidities, ten specific symptoms, and a RAND-36 quality of life questionnaire six months after hospital discharge. We collected clinical data manually from medical records. RESULTS: 101 patients (54 male) out of 246 invited completed the survey. Their median age was 60 years, and the mean hospital length of stay was 15 d. Most patients (90%) experienced symptoms, the most common of which were tiredness (88%), fatigue (79%), sleeping problems (76%), and dyspnoea (70%). In regard to gender, women showed a shorter time of hospitalization (p = .048) and lower peak flow of supplementary oxygen (p = .043). Women reported more frequently dyspnoea, fatigue, tiredness, sleeping problems, and mood problems (p = .008-.033), and a lower quality of life in seven of eight dimensions (p < .001-.015). Five explanatory variables for the reduced quality of life were identified in multivariate analysis: age, female sex, BMI, sleep apnoea, and duration of mechanical ventilation. Of the patients who worked full-time before COVID-19, 11% had not returned to work. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients experienced symptoms six months after hospital discharge. Women reported more symptoms and a lower quality of life than men. These findings highlight the differences in recovery between men and women and call for active rehabilitation of COVID-19 patients.

Real-life clinical sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test in symptomatic patients.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the false negative rates of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing is pivotal for the management of the COVID-19 pandemic and it has implications for patient management. Our aim was to determine the real-life clinical sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. METHODS: This population-based retrospective study was conducted in March-April 2020 in the Helsinki Capital Region, Finland. Adults who were clinically suspected of SARS-CoV-2 infection and underwent SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing, with sufficient data in their medical records for grading of clinical suspicion were eligible. In addition to examining the first RT-PCR test of repeat-tested individuals, we also used high clinical suspicion for COVID-19 as the reference standard for calculating the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. RESULTS: All 1,194 inpatients (mean [SD] age, 63.2 [18.3] years; 45.2% women) admitted to COVID-19 cohort wards during the study period were included. The outpatient cohort of 1,814 individuals (mean [SD] age, 45.4 [17.2] years; 69.1% women) was sampled from epidemiological line lists by systematic quasi-random sampling. The sensitivity (95% CI) for laboratory confirmed cases (repeat-tested patients) was 85.7% (81.5-89.1%) inpatients; 95.5% (92.2-97.5%) outpatients, 89.9% (88.2-92.1%) all. When also patients that were graded as high suspicion but never tested positive were included in the denominator, the sensitivity (95% CI) was: 67.5% (62.9-71.9%) inpatients; 34.9% (31.4-38.5%) outpatients; 47.3% (44.4-50.3%) all. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing was only moderate at best. The relatively high false negative rates of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing need to be accounted for in clinical decision making, epidemiological interpretations, and when using RT-PCR as a reference for other tests.