Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience. Paper 5: decisions on methods for evidence synthesis and recommendation development for living guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: Producing living guidelines requires making important decisions about methods for evidence identification, appraisal, and integration to allow the living mode to function. Clarifying what these decisions are and the trade-offs between options is necessary. This article provides living guideline developers with a framework to enable them to choose the most suitable model for their living guideline topic, question, or context. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We developed this guidance through an iterative process informed by interviews, feedback, and a consensus process with an international group of living guideline developers. RESULTS: Several key decisions need to be made both before commencing and throughout the continual process of living guideline development and maintenance. These include deciding what approach is taken to the systematic review process; decisions about methods to be applied for the evidence appraisal process, including the use of unpublished data; and selection of "triggers" to incorporate new studies into living guideline recommendations. In each case, there are multiple options and trade-offs. CONCLUSION: We identify trade-offs and important decisions to be considered throughout the living guideline development process. The most appropriate, and most sustainable, mode of development and updating will be dependent on the choices made in each of these areas.

Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience. Paper 4: search methods and approaches for living guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the key features of a continual evidence surveillance process that can be implemented for living guidelines and to outline the considerations and trade-offs in adopting different approaches. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Members of the Australian Living Evidence Consortium (ALEC), National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and the US GRADE Network (USGN) shared their practical experiences of and approaches to establishing surveillance systems for living guidelines. We identified several common components of evidence surveillance and listed the key features and considerations for each component drawn from case studies, highlighting differences with standard guidelines. RESULTS: We developed guidance that covers the initial information needed to support decisions around suitability for living mode and the practical considerations in setting up continual search surveillance systems (search frequency, sources to search, use of automation, reporting the search, ongoing resources, and evaluation). The case studies draw on our experiences with developing guidelines for COVID-19, as well as for other conditions such as stroke and diabetes, and cover a range of practical approaches, including the use of automation. CONCLUSION: This paper highlights different approaches to continual evidence surveillance that can be implemented in living guidelines.

Testing guidelines during times of crisis: challenges and limitations of developing rapid and living guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The start of the COVID-19 pandemic presented a situation in which there was an urgent need for decision-making that relates to diagnosis, but the evidence was lacking, of low certainty or constantly changing. Rapid and living guideline development methods were needed and had to be applied to rigorous guideline approaches, such as the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. OBJECTIVES: To describe the process of developing rapid diagnosis guidelines when there is limited and imperfect available data at the time of crisis. SOURCES: Case example from four Infectious Disease Society of America COVID-19 diagnostic guidelines. CONTENT: As the world was experiencing panic with COVID-19, there were serious doubts about the feasibility of following a rigorous process for guideline development when timeliness was of extreme value. The Infectious Disease Society of America guideline panels supported by several methodologists strongly believed that at times of crisis, it is more important than ever to follow a rigorous process. The panel adopted a rapid and living systematic review methodology and applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to four diagnosis guidelines despite the challenges of scarce and dynamic evidence. We describe the methodological details of the rapid and living approach (data extraction, meta-analysis, Evidence to Decision framework, and recommendation development), the challenge of resources, the challenge of scarce evidence, the challenge of rapidly changing evidence, as well as 'wins' from the Infectious Disease Society of America experience. IMPLICATIONS: Mitigation of pandemics relies on rapid and accurate diagnosis, which is challenged by many knowledge gaps. This necessitates emerging evidence is rapidly incorporated in a living fashion with several decisional and contextual factors to ensure the best public health strategies and care for patients. This process must be systematic and transparent for developing trustworthy guidelines and should be supported by all stakeholders, including researchers, editors, publishers, professional societies, and policymakers.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Antigen Testing.

BACKGROUND: Immunoassays designed to detect SARS-CoV-2 protein antigens (Ag) are commonly used to diagnose COVID-19. The most widely used tests are lateral flow assays that generate results in approximately 15 minutes for diagnosis at the point-of-care. Higher throughput, laboratory-based SARS-CoV-2 Ag assays have also been developed. The number of commercially available SARS-CoV-2 Ag detection tests has increased rapidly, as has the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the literature and develop best practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 Ag testing. This guideline is an update to the third in a series of frequently updated COVID-19 diagnostic guidelines developed by the IDSA. OBJECTIVE: The IDSA's goal was to develop evidence-based recommendations or suggestions that assist clinicians, clinical laboratories, patients, public health authorities, administrators and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests in both medical and non-medical settings. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists and experts in systematic literature review identified and prioritized clinical questions related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests. A review of relevant, peer-reviewed published literature was conducted through April 1, 2022. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. RESULTS: The panel made ten diagnostic recommendations. These recommendations address Ag testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals and assess single versus repeat testing strategies. CONCLUSIONS: U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests with Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) have high specificity and low to moderate sensitivity compared to nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT). Ag test sensitivity is dependent on the presence or absence of symptoms, and in symptomatic patients, on timing of testing after symptom onset. In contrast, Ag tests have high specificity, and, in most cases, positive Ag results can be acted upon without confirmation. Results of point-of-care testing are comparable to those of laboratory-based testing, and observed or unobserved self-collection of specimens for testing yields similar results. Modeling suggests that repeat Ag testing increases sensitivity compared to testing once, but no empirical data were available to inform this question. Based on these observations, rapid RT-PCR or laboratory-based NAAT remains the testing method of choice for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, when timely molecular testing is not readily available or is logistically infeasible, Ag testing helps identify individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were insufficient to make a recommendation about the utility of Ag testing to guide release of patients with COVID-19 from isolation. The overall quality of available evidence supporting use of Ag testing was graded as very low to moderate.

COVID-19 Pandemic Effects on the Well-Being of Professional Pilots.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to evaluate the well-being of professional pilots using a survey that included the World Health Organization (WHO)-5 Well-Being Index.METHODS: An electronic survey was sent to pilots between June 17-August 2, 2021. Pilots self-categorized as: airline transport pilot (ATP), commercial pilot, or both. Chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests were used to evaluate differences between variables. Logistic regression was used to estimate the odds of impaired well-being.RESULTS: A total of 639 individuals returned the survey. The majority of respondents were ATPs and a majority identified as male. The average well-being score was 68.0 out of 100 possible, with 22% of respondents meeting the threshold definition of impaired well-being. The odds of having impaired well-being were not dependent on gender. In unadjusted analysis, the odds of impaired well-being were higher for those flying as commercial pilots as compared to airline transport pilots/both. Age was also strongly associated with impaired well-being, with younger pilots having greater odds of impaired well-being as compared to older pilots. Only a little over half of the surveyed pilots agreed or strongly agreed that pilot risk of occupational exposure to COVID-19 was appropriately controlled.CONCLUSION: This survey suggests an important connection between pilot age and impaired well-being scores during the COVID-19 pandemic. Future studies targeting the well-being of younger pilots will be of interest. Additionally, measures to reduce occupational risk of COVID-19 exposure may be helpful in view of the substantial fraction of pilots expressing concern regarding that risk.Stratton E, Haddon R, Murad MH, Petterson T, Nelson M, Cowl CT. COVID-19 pandemic effects on the well-being of professional pilots. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2022; 93(10):734-738.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in COVID-19 compared to other etiologies of acute respiratory failure: A single-center experience.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a boom in the use of V-V ECMO for ARDS secondary to COVID. Comparisons of outcomes of ECMO for COVID to ECMO for influenza have emerged. Very few comparisons of ECMO for COVID to ECMO for ARDS of all etiologies are available. OBJECTIVES: To compare clinically important outcome measures in recipients of ECMO for COVID to those observed in recipients of ECMO for ARDS of other etiologies. METHODS: V-V ECMO recipients between March 2020 and March 2022 consisted exclusively of COVID patients and formed the COVID ECMO group. All patients who underwent V-V ECMO for ARDS between January 2014 and March 2020 were eligible for analysis as the non-COVID ECMO comparator group. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included ECMO decannulation, ECMO duration >30 days, and serious complications. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients comprised the COVID ECMO group and were compared to 18 non-COVID ECMO patients. Survival to hospital discharge was not significantly different between the two groups (33% in COVID vs. 50% in non-COVID; p = 0.255) nor was there a significant difference in the rate of non-palliative ECMO decannulation. The proportion of patients connected to ECMO for >30 days was significantly higher in the COVID ECMO group: 69% vs. 17%; p = 0.001. There was no significant difference in serious complications. CONCLUSION: This study could not identify a statistically significant difference in hospital survival and rate of successful ECMO decannulation between COVID ECMO and non-COVID ECMO patients. Prolonged ECMO may be more common in COVID. Complications were not significantly different.

Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Treatment and Management of Patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: There are many pharmacologic therapies that are being used or considered for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with rapidly changing efficacy and safety evidence from trials. OBJECTIVE: Develop evidence-based, rapid, living guidelines intended to support patients, clinicians, and other healthcare professionals in their decisions about treatment and management of patients with COVID-19. METHODS: In March 2020, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel of infectious disease clinicians, pharmacists, and methodologists with varied areas of expertise to regularly review the evidence and make recommendations about the treatment and management of persons with COVID-19. The process used a living guideline approach and followed a rapid recommendation development checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. A systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted at regular intervals. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. RESULTS: Based on the most recent search conducted on May 31, 2022, the IDSA guideline panel has made 30 recommendations for the treatment and management of the following groups/populations: pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis, ambulatory with mild-to-moderate disease, hospitalized with mild-to-moderate, severe but not critical, and critical disease. As these are living guidelines, the most recent recommendations can be found online at: https://idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: At the inception of its work, the panel has expressed the overarching goal that patients be recruited into ongoing trials. Since then, many trials were done which provided much needed evidence for COVID-19 therapies. There still remain many unanswered questions as the pandemic evolved which we hope future trials can answer.

Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on Infection Prevention for Healthcare Personnel Caring for Patients with Suspected or Known COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Since its emergence in late 2019, SARS-CoV-2 continues to pose a risk to healthcare personnel (HCP) and patients in healthcare settings. Although all clinical interactions likely carry some risk of transmission, human actions like coughing and care activities like aerosol-generating procedures likely have a higher risk of transmission. The rapid emergence and global spread of SARS-CoV-2 continues to create significant challenges in healthcare facilities, particularly with shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) used by HCP. Evidence-based recommendations for what PPE to use in conventional, contingency, and crisis standards of care continue to be needed. Where evidence is lacking, the development of specific research questions can help direct funders and investigators. OBJECTIVE: Develop evidence-based rapid guidelines intended to support HCP in their decisions about infection prevention when caring for patients with suspected or known COVID-19. METHODS: IDSA formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel including frontline clinicians, infectious disease specialists, experts in infection control, and guideline methodologists with representation from the disciplines of public health, medical microbiology, pediatrics, critical care medicine and gastroenterology. The process followed a rapid recommendation checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. Then a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. RESULTS: The IDSA guideline panel agreed on eight recommendations, including two updated recommendations and one new recommendation added since the first version of the guideline. Narrative summaries of other interventions undergoing evaluations are also included. CONCLUSIONS: Using a combination of direct and indirect evidence, the panel was able to provide recommendations for eight specific questions on the use of PPE for HCP providing care for patients with suspected or known COVID-19. Where evidence was lacking, attempts were made to provide potential avenues for investigation. There remain significant gaps in the understanding of the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 and PPE recommendations may need to be modified in response to new evidence. These recommendations should serve as a minimum for PPE use in healthcare facilities and do not preclude decisions based on local risk assessments or requirements of local health jurisdictions or other regulatory bodies.

Community Health Needs Assessment Data and Community Recovery From COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact beyond physical morbidity and mortality. A mid-cycle Community Health Needs Assessment survey was administered in 1 community to generate data to evaluate change in community well-being since the beginning of the pandemic. METHODS: Surveys were mailed to 2,000 randomly selected residents in Olmsetd County, Minnesota. The surveys included the WHO Well-being Index (previously included in the 2018 Community Health Needs Assessment) and new subjective questions regarding behavior change. Changes in well-being were calculated using a propensity-matched cohort, and behavior change was reported as proportions of the whole. Data analysis was completed in 2021. RESULTS: Total survey respondents were 569 people in 2018 and 723 people in 2021. Well-being scores from the WHO Well-being Index showed a statistically significant decrease (score reduction of -8.44) from 2018 to 2021. All the 5 questions from the WHO Well-being Index also had an individual significant decrease; with the question regarding interest in life showing the greatest decrease. Individuals reported decreased subjective physical and mental well-being and increased substance use (alcohol, marijuana, and tobacco). Households also reported decreased household incomes and worse household finances since the start of the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Using the Community Health Needs Assessment infrastructure, 1 community was able to compare prepandemic with postpandemic data, which showed decreased well-being and increased substance use and financial stress. Other public health planners can similarly conduct interval surveys on the basis of their Community Health Needs Assessment questionnaires to tailor ongoing Community Health Improvement Plan programming to postpandemic needs and track community mental health and well-being recovery.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Antigen Testing.

BACKGROUND: Immunoassays designed to detect SARS-CoV-2 protein antigens are now commercially available. The most widely used tests are rapid lateral flow assays that generate results in approximately 15 minutes for diagnosis at the point-of-care. Higher throughput, laboratory-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen (Ag) assays have also been developed. The overall accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests, however, is not well defined. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the literature and develop best practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 Ag testing. This guideline is the third in a series of rapid, frequently updated COVID-19 diagnostic guidelines developed by IDSA. OBJECTIVE: IDSA's goal was to develop evidence-based recommendations or suggestions that assist clinicians, clinical laboratories, patients, public health authorities, administrators and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests in both medical and non-medical settings. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists and experts in systematic literature review identified and prioritized clinical questions related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. RESULTS: The panel agreed on five diagnostic recommendations. These recommendations address antigen testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals as well as assess single versus repeat testing strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Data on the clinical performance of U.S. Food and Drug Administration SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests with Emergency Use Authorization is mostly limited to single, one-time testing versus standard nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) as the reference standard. Rapid Ag tests have high specificity and low to modest sensitivity compared to reference NAAT methods. Antigen test sensitivity is heavily dependent on viral load, with differences observed between symptomatic compared to asymptomatic individuals and the time of testing post onset of symptoms. Based on these observations, rapid RT-PCR or laboratory-based NAAT remain the diagnostic methods of choice for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, when molecular testing is not readily available or is logistically infeasible, Ag testing can help identify some individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The overall quality of available evidence supporting use of Ag testing was graded as very low to moderate.

Role of senescence in the chronic health consequences of COVID-19.

While the full impact of COVID-19 is not yet clear, early studies have indicated that upwards of 10% of patients experience COVID-19 symptoms longer than 3 weeks, known as Long-Hauler's Syndrome or PACS (postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection). There is little known about risk factors or predictors of susceptibility for Long-Hauler's Syndrome, but older adults are at greater risk for severe outcomes and mortality from COVID-19. The pillars of aging (including cellular senescence, telomere dysfunction, impaired proteostasis, mitochondrial dysfunction, deregulated nutrient sensing, genomic instability, progenitor cell exhaustion, altered intercellular communication, and epigenetic alterations) that contribute to age-related dysfunction and chronic diseases (the "Geroscience Hypothesis") may interfere with defenses against viral infection and consequences of these infections. Heightening of the low-grade inflammation that is associated with aging may generate an exaggerated response to an acute COVID-19 infection. Innate immune system dysfunction that leads to decreased senescent cell removal and/or increased senescent cell formation could contribute to accumulation of senescent cells with both aging and viral infections. These processes may contribute to increased risk for long-term COVID-19 sequelae in older or chronically ill patients. Hence, senolytics and other geroscience interventions that may prolong healthspan and alleviate chronic diseases and multimorbidity linked to fundamental aging processes might be an option for delaying, preventing, or alleviating Long-Hauler's Syndrome.

Association Between SARS-CoV-2 Cycle Threshold Values and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Cycle threshold (CT) values are correlated with the amount of viral nucleic acid in a sample and may be obtained from some qualitative real-time polymerase chain reaction tests used for diagnosis of most patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, CT values cannot be directly compared across assays, and they must be interpreted with caution as they are influenced by sample type, timing of sample collection, and assay design. Presently, the correlation between CT values and clinical outcomes is not well understood. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies through April 19, 2021, that reported an association between CT values and hospitalization, disease severity, and mortality in patients ≥18 years old with SARS-CoV-2. A meta-analysis of 7 studies showed no significant difference in mean CT values between hospitalized and nonhospitalized patients. Among hospitalized patients, those with CT values <25 had a high risk of more severe disease and mortality than patients with CT values >30 (odds ratio [OR], 2.31; 95% CI, 1.70 to 3.13; and OR, 2.95; 95% CI, 2.19 to 3.96; respectively). The odds of increased disease severity and mortality were less pronounced in patients with CT values of 25-30 compared with >30.

Comparison of pulse-dose and high-dose corticosteroids with no corticosteroid treatment for COVID-19 pneumonia in the intensive care unit.

Corticosteroid dosing in the range of 0.5-2 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone equivalents has become a standard part of the management of intensive care unit (ICU) patients with COVID-19 pneumonia based on positive results of randomized trials and a meta-analysis. Alongside such conventional dosing, administration of 1 gm of methylprednisolone daily (pulse dosing) has also been reported in the literature with claims of favorable outcomes. Comparisons between such disparate approaches to corticosteroids for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia are lacking. In this retrospective study of patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19 pneumonia, we compared patients treated with 0.5-2 mg/kg/day in methylprednisolone equivalents (high-dose corticosteroids) and patients treated with 1 gm of methylprednisolone (pulse-dose corticosteroids) to those who did not receive any corticosteroids. The endpoints of interest were hospital mortality, ICU-free days at Day 28, and complications potentially attributable to corticosteroids. Pulse-dose corticosteroid therapy was associated with a significant increase in ICU-free days at Day 28 compared to no receipt: adjusted relative risk (aRR): 1.45 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-2.02; p = 0.03) and compared with high-dose corticosteroid administration (p = 0.003). Nonetheless, receipt of high-dose corticosteroids-but not of pulse-dose corticosteroids-significantly reduced the odds of hospital mortality compared to no receipt: adjusted Odds ratio (aOR) 0.31 (95% CI: 0.12-0.77; p = 0.01). High-dose corticosteroids reduced mortality compared to pulse-dose corticosteroids (p = 0.04). Pulse-dose corticosteroids-but not high-dose corticosteroids-significantly increased the odds of acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy compared to no receipt: aOR 3.53 (95% CI: 1.27-9.82; p = 0.02). The odds of this complication were also significantly higher in the pulse-dose group when compared to the high-dose group (p = 0.05 for the comparison). In this single-center study, pulse-dose corticosteroid therapy for COVID-19 pneumonia in the ICU was associated with an increase in ICU-free days but failed to impact hospital mortality, perhaps because of its association with development of severe renal failure. In line with existing trial data, the effect of high-dose corticosteroids on mortality was favorable.

Effectiveness of Messenger RNA Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccines Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection in a Cohort of Healthcare Personnel.

In a large cohort of United States healthcare personnel without prior coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection, 94 382 doses of messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccine were administered to 49 220 individuals. The adjusted vaccine effectiveness following 2 doses of each of the 2 available brands of mRNA vaccine exceeded 96%.

Thromboinflammatory Biomarkers in COVID-19: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 17,052 Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate differences in thromboinflammatory biomarkers between patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection/death and mild infection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, EBSCO, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases were searched for studies comparing thromboinflammatory biomarkers in COVID-19 among patients with severe COVID-19 disease or death (severe/nonsurvivors) and those with nonsevere disease or survivors (nonsevere/survivors) from January 1, 2020, through July 11, 2020. Inclusion criteria were (1) hospitalized patients 18 years or older comparing severe/nonsurvivors vs nonsevere/survivors and (2) biomarkers of inflammation and/or thrombosis. A random-effects model was used to estimate the weighted mean difference (WMD) between the 2 groups of COVID-19 severity. RESULTS: We included 75 studies with 17,052 patients. The severe/nonsurvivor group was older, had a greater proportion of men, and had a higher prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, cardiac or cerebrovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, malignancy, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Thromboinflammatory biomarkers were significantly higher in patients with severe disease, including D-dimer (WMD, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.71; I 2 =83.85%), fibrinogen (WMD, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.67; I 2 =61.88%; P<.001), C-reactive protein (CRP) (WMD, 35.74; 95% CI, 30.16 to 41.31; I 2 =85.27%), high-sensitivity CRP (WMD, 62.68; 95% CI, 45.27 to 80.09; I 2 =0%), interleukin 6 (WMD, 22.81; 95% CI, 17.90 to 27.72; I 2 =90.42%), and ferritin (WMD, 506.15; 95% CI, 356.24 to 656.06; I 2 =52.02%). Moderate to significant heterogeneity was observed for all parameters (I 2 > 25%). Subanalysis based on disease severity, mortality, and geographic region of the studies revealed similar inferences. CONCLUSION: Thromboinflammatory biomarkers (D-dimer, fibrinogen, CRP, high-sensitivity CRP, ferritin, and interleukin 6) and marker of end-organ damage (high-sensitivity troponin I) are associated with increased severity and mortality in COVID-19 infection.

Post-COVID-19 Syndrome (Long Haul Syndrome): Description of a Multidisciplinary Clinic at Mayo Clinic and Characteristics of the Initial Patient Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To describe characteristics of a series of patients reporting prolonged symptoms after an infection with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study describes the multidisciplinary COVID-19 Activity Rehabilitation Program, established at Mayo Clinic to evaluate and treat patients with post-COVID syndrome, and reports the clinical characteristics of the first 100 patients receiving evaluation and management during the timeframe of June 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 100 patients (mean age, 45.4±14.2 years; 68% women; mean body mass index, 30.2 kg/m2; presenting a mean of 93 days after infection). Common preexisting conditions were respiratory (23%) and mental health, including depression and/or anxiety (34%). Most (75%) had not been hospitalized for COVID-19. Common presenting symptoms ware fatigue (80%), respiratory complaints (59%), and neurological complaints (59%) followed by subjective cognitive impairment, sleep disturbance, and mental health symptoms. More than one-third of patients (34%) reported difficulties in performing basic activities of daily living. Only 1 in 3 patients had returned to unrestricted work duty at the time of the analysis. For most patients, laboratory and imaging tests showed no abnormalities or were nondiagnostic despite debilitating symptoms. Most patients required physical therapy, occupational therapy, or brain rehabilitation. Face-to-face and virtual care delivery modalities were feasible. CONCLUSION: Most of the patients did not have COVID-19-related symptoms that were severe enough to require hospitalization, were younger than 65 years, and were more likely to be female, and most had no preexisting comorbidities before severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. Symptoms including mood disorders, fatigue, and perceived cognitive impairment resulted in severe negative impacts on resumption of functional and occupational activities in patients experiencing prolonged effects.