Predicting SARS-CoV-2 infection duration at hospital admission:a deep learning solution.

COVID-19 cases are increasing around the globe with almost 5 million of deaths. We propose here a deep learning model capable of predicting the duration of the infection by means of information available at hospital admission. A total of 222 patients were enrolled in our observational study. Anagraphical and anamnestic data, COVID-19 signs and symptoms, COVID-19 therapy, hematochemical test results, and prior therapies administered to patients are used as predictors. A set of 55 features, all of which can be taken in the first hours of the patient's hospitalization, was considered. Different solutions were compared achieving the best performance with a sequential convolutional neural network-based model merged in an ensemble with two different meta-learners linked in cascade. We obtained a median absolute error of 2.7 days (IQR = 3.0) in predicting the duration of the infection; the error was equally distributed in the infection duration range. This tool could preemptively give an outlook of the COVID-19 patients' expected path and the associated hospitalization effort. The proposed solution could be viable in tackling the huge burden and the logistics complexity of hospitals or rehabilitation centers during the pandemic waves. With data taken ad admission, entering a PCA-based feature selection, a k-fold cross-validated CNN-based model was implemented. After external texting, a median absolute error of 2.7 days [IQR = 3 days].

Rehabilitation and COVID-19: rapid living systematic review by Cochrane Rehabilitation Field - third edition. Update as of June 30th, 2021.

INTRODUCTION: This paper updates and summarizes the current evidence informing rehabilitation of patients with COVID-19 and/or describing the consequences of the disease and its treatment. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Studies published from May 1st to June 30th, 2021 were selected, excluding descriptive studies and expert opinions. Papers were categorized according to study design, research question, COVID-19 phase, limitations of functioning of rehabilitation interest, and type of rehabilitation service involved. From this edition, we improved the quality assessment using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklists for observational studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for randomized-controlled clinical trials (RCTs). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Twenty-five, out of 3699 papers, were included. They were three RCTs, 13 cross-sectional studies and nine cohort studies. Twenty studies reported data on symptom prevalence (N.=13) or disease natural history (N.=7); and five studies reported intervention effectiveness at the individual level. All study participants were COVID survivors and 48% of studies collected information on participants 6 months or longer after COVID-19 onset. The most frequent risks of bias for RCTs concerned weaknesses in allocation concealment, blinding of therapists, and lack of intention-to-treat analysis. Most analytical studies failed to identify or deal with confounders, describe or deal with dropouts or eventually perform an appropriate statistical analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Most studies in this updated review targeted the prevalence of limitations of functioning of rehabilitation interest in COVID-19 survivors. This is similar to past review findings; however, data in the new studies was collected at longer follow-up periods (up to one year after symptom onset) and in larger samples of participants. More RCTs and analytical observational studies are available, but the methodological quality of recently published studies is low. There is a need for good quality intervention efficacy and effectiveness studies to complement the rapidly expanding evidence from observational studies.

The methodology of a "living" COVID-19 registry development in a clinical context.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe an innovative methodology of a registry development, constantly updated for the scientific assessment and analysis of the health status of the population with COVID-19. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A methodological study design to develop a multi-site, Living COVID-19 Registry of COVID-19 patients admitted in Fondazione Don Gnocchi centres started in March 2020. RESULTS: The integration of the living systematic reviews and focus group methodologies led to a development of a registry which includes 520 fields filled in for 748 COVID-19 patients recruited from 17 Fondazione Don Gnocchi centres. The result is an evidence and experience-based registry, according to the evolution of a new pathology which was not known before outbreak of March 2020 and with the aim of building knowledge to provide a better quality of care for COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSION: A Living COVID-19 Registry is an open, living and up to date access to large-scale patient-level data sets that could help identifying important factors and modulating variable for recognising risk profiles and predicting treatment success in COVID-19 patients hospitalized. This innovative methodology might be used for other registries, to be sure which the data collected is an appropriate means of accomplishing the scientific objectives planned. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: not applicable.

Mortality and characteristics of older people dying with COVID-19 in Lombardy nursing homes, Italy: An observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to describe the epidemiological characteristics of Nursing Homes (NHs) residents infected by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and to compute the related case-fatality rate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The outcomes were mortality and case-fatality rate with related epidemiological characteristics (age, sex, comorbidity, and frailty). RESULTS: During the COVID-19 outbreak lasted from March 1 to May 7, 2020, 330 residents died in Fondazione Don Gnocchi NHs bringing the mortality rate to 27% with a dramatic increase compared to the same period of 2019, when it was 7.5%. Naso/oropharyngeal swabs resulted positive for COVID-19 in 315 (71%) of the 441of the symptomatic/exposed residents tested. The COVID-19 population was 75% female, with a 17% overall fatality rate and sex-specific fatality rates of 19% and 13% for females and males, respectively. Fifty-six percent of deaths presented SARS-CoV-2-associated pneumonia, 15% cardiovascular, and 29% miscellaneous pathologies. CONCLUSION: Patients' complexity and frailty might influence SARS-CoV-2 infection case-fatality rate estimates. A COVID-19 register is needed to study COVID-19 frail patients' epidemiology and characteristics.

Effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions in adults with multi-organ dysfunction syndrome: A rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, defined as altered organ function in critically ill patients, is a possible consequence of COVID-19. Investigating the current evidence is therefore crucial in this pandemic, as early rehabilitation could be effective for the functioning of patients with multiple organ failure. This rapid review assesses the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions in adults with multiple organ dysfunction syndrome. METHODS: A rapid review was conducted including only randomised control trials, published until 30 November 2020. All databases were investigated and the results synthesized narratively, evaluating the risk of bias and quality of evidence in all included studies. RESULTS: A total of 404 records were identified through database searches. After removal of duplicates 346 articles remained. After screening, 3 studies (90 participants) met the inclusion criteria. All studies reported positive effects of neuromuscular electrical stimulation on muscle mass preservation compared with no treatment or standard physio-therapy. CONCLUSION: The lack of evidence on the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions does not allow any firm conclusion to be drawn. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation might be a possible rehabilitation intervention to prevent muscle volume loss and improve function in patients with multiple organ dysfunction syndrome. However, further studies are needed to support these preliminary findings.

Cochrane Rehabilitation: 2020 annual report.

During its fourth year of existence, Cochrane Rehabilitation went on to promote evidence-informed health decision-making in rehabilitation. In 2020, the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has made it necessary to alter priorities. In these challenging times, Cochrane Rehabilitation has firstly changed its internal organisation and established a new relevant project in line with pandemic needs: the REH-COVER (Rehabilitation - COVID-19 evidence-based response) action. The aim was to focus on the timely collection, review and dissemination of summarised and synthesised evidence relating to COVID-19 and rehabilitation. Cochrane Rehabilitation REH-COVER action has included in 2020 five main initiatives: 1) rapid living systematic reviews on rehabilitation and COVID-19; 2) interactive living evidence map on rehabilitation and COVID-19; 3) definition of the research topics on "rehabilitation and COVID-19" in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO) rehabilitation programme; 4) Cochrane Library special collection on Coronavirus (COVID-19) rehabilitation; and 5) collaboration with COVID-END for the topics "rehabilitation" and "disability." Furthermore, we are still carrying on five different special projects: Be4rehab; RCTRACK; definition of rehabilitation for research purposes; ebook project; and a prioritization exercise for Cochrane Reviews production. The Review Working Area continued to identify and "tag" the rehabilitation-relevant reviews published in the Cochrane library; the Publication Working Area went on to publish Cochrane Corners, working more closely with the Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) and Cochrane Networks, particularly with Cochrane Musculoskeletal, Oral, Skin and Sensory Network; the Education Working Area, the most damaged in 2020, tried to continue performing educational activities such as workshops in different online meetings; the Methodology Working Area organized the third and fourth Cochrane Rehabilitation Methodological (CRM) meetings respectively in Milan and Orlando; the Communication Working Area spread rehabilitation evidences through different channels and translated the contents in different languages.

Rehabilitation and COVID-19: a rapid living systematic review 2020 by Cochrane Rehabilitation Field. Update as of October 31st, 2020.

INTRODUCTION: This living systematic review presents the monthly update of the second edition of the rapid living systematic review 2020 conducted by Cochrane Rehabilitation REH-COVER Action Steering Committee. The aim of this study was to update the monthly COVID-19 and rehabilitation literature research up to October 31st, 2020. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Methodology described in the second edition of the rapid living systematic review 2020 conducted by Cochrane Rehabilitation REH-COVER action was applied. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and PEDro databases were searched, and papers related to COVID-19 and rehabilitation were retrieved and summarized descriptively. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The database search retrieved 2704 publications. Duplicates were removed, and 1185 unique records were screened for inclusion. After screening titles, abstracts and full-texts, 22 papers were included in the present review. According to OCEBM 2011 Levels of Evidence table, 17 studies (77%) fall within the level of evidence 4 category, while the remainder (23%) are categorized as level of evidence 3. Most studies (N.=19; 86%) provided epidemiological data about the disease natural history/determining factor or the clinical presentation of COVID-19 infection, while only two studies focused on health service organization and intervention efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: The most recent published COVID-19 research relevant to rehabilitation primarily provides data on the clinical course and the clinical presentation of the pathology, rather than on rehabilitation interventions or service delivery. Studies with high levels of evidence regarding the efficacy of interventions, long-term monitoring, or new health service organization models are lacking.

Rehabilitation and COVID-19: a rapid living systematic review by Cochrane Rehabilitation Field updated as of December 31st, 2020 and synthesis of the scientific literature of 2020.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 infection significantly increased mortality risk and the burden of disability in most survivors, regardless of symptom severity at onset. The rehabilitation needs of people infected are receiving growing attention, as evidenced by the increasing number of publications, including those addressing the chronic consequences of infection. This rapid living systematic review reports the evidence published in November and December 2020 and summarises the entire body of literature on rehabilitation in COVID-19 patients published in 2020. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: This update was performed using the methodology reported by the second edition conducted by Cochrane Rehabilitation REH-COVER Action. We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and Pedro databases. Papers related to COVID-19 and rehabilitation were retrieved and summarised descriptively. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The search retrieved 4441 studies. After the removal of duplicates and the screening for title and abstract, we retained 105 studies. Of these, we included 54 in the qualitative synthesis of this update. According to OCEBM 2011 levels of evidence table, most studies (64.8%) fall within the category of level 4 evidence. Up to 40.7% of papers included COVID-19 patients in the postacute phase. In 2020, our rapid living systematic review included 230 studies; most of these (73.9%) were level 4 studies, 25.7% were level 3, and only one study was level 2. The evidence level improved over time. While most studies (44.8%) included patients with acute COVID-19, we observed a gradual increase in the number of reports about chronic symptoms and the long-term consequences of the infection. CONCLUSIONS: The update of the rapid living systematic review by Cochrane Rehabilitation Field demonstrates an increase in the level of evidence of studies addressing the rehabilitation needs associated with COVID-19 infection. Although most studies are still case reports/series, there is a trend towards conducting prospective investigations of the early natural history of the disease (first months post onset). High-quality-level studies on the efficacy of rehabilitation, and long-term monitoring of the disease and its sequelae are yet to emerge.

Rehabilitation and COVID-19: a rapid living systematic review 2020 by Cochrane Rehabilitation Field. Update as of September 30th, 2020.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 outbreak response requires identifying and understanding the long-term consequences of this new pathology and how to manage these. This living systematic review presents the most current and seminal information coming from the scientific literature. It is the monthly update of the second edition of the rapid living systematic review 2020 conducted by Cochrane Rehabilitation REH-COVER Action Steering Committee. The aim of this review was to update the monthly COVID-19 and rehabilitation literature research up to September 30, 2020. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Methodology described in the second edition of the rapid living systematic review 2020 conducted by Cochrane Rehabilitation REH-COVER action was applied. The most important medical databases were searched, and papers related to COVID-19 and rehabilitation were retrieved and summarized descriptively. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The database search retrieved 2526 publications. Duplicates were removed, and 1150 unique records were screened for inclusion. After screening titles, abstracts and full-texts, 37 papers were included in the present review. According to OCEBM 2011 levels of evidence table, most studies (78.4%) fall within the level of evidence 4 category, while the remainder (22.6%) are categorized as level of evidence 3. Most studies described patients in acute (51.4%) or subacute (35.0%) phase, while no studies described the chronic consequences of COVID-19. Just one study dealt with rehabilitation interventions regarding COVID-19, and two discussed reorganization of rehabilitative services. CONCLUSIONS: The most recently published COVID-19 research focuses more on describing the clinical presentations and the natural history of the pathology, rather than rehabilitation interventions or service delivery. Studies with high levels of evidence regarding the efficacy of interventions, long-term monitoring, or new organization models remain lacking.

Rehabilitation and COVID-19: the Cochrane Rehabilitation 2020 rapid living systematic review. Update as of August 31st, 2020.

INTRODUCTION: A monthly systematic review update is carried out to maintain the currency of scientific literature on rehabilitation of patients with COVID-19 and/or describing consequences due to the disease and its treatment, as they relate to limitations in functioning of rehabilitation interest. The aim of this study was to provide an updated summary of the available evidence published in August 2020. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: An extensive search on the main medical literature databases from August 1st, 2020 to August 31st, 2020 was performed, according to the methodology described in the second edition of the Cochrane Rehabilitation 2020 rapid living systematic review. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: After removing duplicates, 1136 papers were identified, and 51 studies were finally included. According to OCEBM 2011 Levels of Evidence Table, they were Level 4 in most cases (76.5%) and Level 3 in the remaining (23.5%). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were not found. Thirty-two studies (62.7%) included COVID-19 patients who were assessed in the acute (20/32) or postacute phases (12/32). The other studies reported data on the impact of COVID-19 infection (7/19) or on the effect of lockdown restrictions (12/19) on subjects with pre-existing health conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The scientific literature of August 2020 mainly focused on limitations in functioning of nervous system structure and related functions. Albeit the increased availability of data from analytical studies (both cohort and cross-sectional), there is still a lack of well-conducted Level 2 studies, to improve the knowledge on the effects of rehabilitation in COVID-19 patients.

Rehabilitation and COVID-19: the Cochrane Rehabilitation 2020 rapid living systematic review. Update as of July 31st, 2020.

INTRODUCTION: This paper is the first update of the second edition of the rapid living systematic review on the latest scientific literature informing rehabilitation of patients with COVID-19 and/or describing consequences of the disease and its treatment, as they relate to limitations in functioning of rehabilitation interest. The aim of this study was to report data of a systematic search performed on papers published in July 2020. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The methodology described in the second edition of the rapid living systematic review was applied to search eligible papers included in the databases between July 1, 2020 and July 31, 2020. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Eight-hundred-ninety-two papers were identified through database searching (after removal of duplicates); of these, only 23 studies were included. According to OCEBM 2011 Levels of Evidence Table, they were level 3 in 30.5% cases and level 4 in 69.5%. No RCT was found. Nineteen papers studied COVID-19 patients, assessed in the acute (10 studies), post-acute (8 studies) and chronic phase (one study). Four studies reported data on the impact of COVID-19 on subjects with pre-existing health conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The current literature production still focuses more on describing all the possible aspects and complications of the pathology than on interventions or new organization models to deal with it. Albeit evidence on handling COVID-19 from a rehabilitative point of view is improving each month, further studies are still mandatory to report the role of rehabilitation in this scenario.

Rehabilitation and COVID-19: the Cochrane Rehabilitation 2020 rapid living systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: This paper improves the methodology of the first edition of the rapid living systematic review started in April 2020, with the aim to gather and present the current evidence informing rehabilitation of patients with COVID-19 and/or describing the consequences due to the disease and its treatment. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The Cochrane methodology for a rapid living systematic review was applied. Primary research papers, published from 1 January to 30 June 2020, reporting patients' data, with no limits of study design were included. Studies were categorized for study design, research question, COVID-19 phase, limitations of functioning (disability) of rehabilitation interest and type of rehabilitation service involved. Methodological quality assessment was based on the Cochrane Risk of Bias tools, and the level of evidence table (OCEBM 2011) for all the other studies. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Thirty-six, out of 3703 papers, were included. One paper was of level 2 (RCT), 7 were of level 3 (2 cohort studies, 2 cross-sectional studies and 3 case-control studies), and 28 papers of level 4 (descriptive studies); 61% of papers reported epidemiological data on clinical presentations, 5 investigated natural history/determining factors, 1 searched prevalence, 2 studies reported on intervention efficacy (though not on harms), and 5 studies looked at health service organization. CONCLUSIONS: Main issues emerging from the review: it is advised to test for COVID-19 people with neurological disorders presenting with symptom changes; dysphagia is a frequent complication after oro-tracheal intubation in COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU; after discharge, COVID-19 survivors may report persistent restrictive ventilatory deficits regardless of disease severity; there is only sparse and low quality evidence concerning the efficacy of any rehabilitation intervention to promote functional recovery; a substantial increase in resource (staff and equipment) is needed for rehabilitation.

Systematic rapid living review on rehabilitation needs due to COVID-19: update to May 31st, 2020.

INTRODUCTION: This paper adds to the series of systematic rapid living reviews, started in April 2020, to provide the rehabilitation community with updates on the latest scientific literature on rehabilitation needs due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study was to present the results of a systematic search performed on papers published from May 1^st to May 31^st, 2020. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: An extensive search on the main medical literature databases for articles published (including Epub), in English, from May 1^st to May 31^st, 2020 was performed, according to the methodology already described in the previous 2 rapid reviews, with 2 important improvements: first, we made the search string more comprehensive; second, we relied on accredited terminologies to describe the study designs and report the rehabilitation settings. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Fifty-eight out of 618 articles were finally included for qualitative analysis. The number of primary studies has increased, with respect to the previous months, although still around 60% papers are just expert opinions. Six papers report on the prevalence and /or characteristics of emerging disability after COVID-19, 12 on rehabilitation approaches to COVID-19 patients, up to 25 on the organization of rehabilitation services after COVID-19, 13 papers on the impact of COVID-19 on health conditions of rehabilitative interest and only 2 on late complications due to COVID-19 that may be of rehabilitative interest. CONCLUSIONS: Nowadays, all patients with disability, regardless of COVID-19 infection, are suffering because of restrictions imposed to rehabilitation service delivery. Neurological involvement is often present during acute and postacute stage, conveying the risk of a long-lasting disability. Accordingly, careful neurological monitoring should be granted. Although new therapies are under development, the main gap in the available scientific literature is the lack of high-quality primary studies, so experimental studies on the effects of rehabilitation are still warranted.