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.

Prevalence of physical frailty, including risk factors, up to 1 year after hospitalisation for COVID-19 in the UK: a multicentre, longitudinal cohort study.

Background: The scale of COVID-19 and its well documented long-term sequelae support a need to understand long-term outcomes including frailty. Methods: This prospective cohort study recruited adults who had survived hospitalisation with clinically diagnosed COVID-19 across 35 sites in the UK (PHOSP-COVID). The burden of frailty was objectively measured using Fried's Frailty Phenotype (FFP). The primary outcome was the prevalence of each FFP group-robust (no FFP criteria), pre-frail (one or two FFP criteria) and frail (three or more FFP criteria)-at 5 months and 1 year after discharge from hospital. For inclusion in the primary analysis, participants required complete outcome data for three of the five FFP criteria. Longitudinal changes across frailty domains are reported at 5 months and 1 year post-hospitalisation, along with risk factors for frailty status. Patient-perceived recovery and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were retrospectively rated for pre-COVID-19 and prospectively rated at the 5 month and 1 year visits. This study is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN10980107. Findings: Between March 5, 2020, and March 31, 2021, 2419 participants were enrolled with FFP data. Mean age was 57.9 (SD 12.6) years, 933 (38.6%) were female, and 429 (17.7%) had received invasive mechanical ventilation. 1785 had measures at both timepoints, of which 240 (13.4%), 1138 (63.8%) and 407 (22.8%) were frail, pre-frail and robust, respectively, at 5 months compared with 123 (6.9%), 1046 (58.6%) and 616 (34.5%) at 1 year. Factors associated with pre-frailty or frailty were invasive mechanical ventilation, older age, female sex, and greater social deprivation. Frail participants had a larger reduction in HRQoL compared with before their COVID-19 illness and were less likely to describe themselves as recovered. Interpretation: Physical frailty and pre-frailty are common following hospitalisation with COVID-19. Improvement in frailty was seen between 5 and 12 months although two-thirds of the population remained pre-frail or frail. This suggests comprehensive assessment and interventions targeting pre-frailty and frailty beyond the initial illness are required. Funding: UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health Research.

Relationship between asthma and severe COVID-19: a national cohort study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine whether children and adults with poorly controlled or more severe asthma have greater risk of hospitalisation and/or death from COVID-19. METHODS: We used individual-level data from the Office for National Statistics Public Health Data Asset, based on the 2011 census in England, and the General Practice Extraction Service data for pandemic planning and research linked to death registration records and Hospital Episode Statistics admission data. Adults were followed from 1 January 2020 to 30 September 2021 for hospitalisation or death from COVID-19. For children, only hospitalisation was included. RESULTS: Our cohort comprised 35 202 533 adults and 2 996 503 children aged 12-17 years. After controlling for sociodemographic factors, pre-existing health conditions and vaccine status, the risk of death involving COVID-19 for adults with asthma prescribed low dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) was not significantly different from those without asthma. Adults with asthma prescribed medium and high dosage ICS had an elevated risk of COVID-19 death; HRs 1.18 (95% CI 1.14 to 1.23) and 1.36 (95% CI 1.28 to 1.44), respectively. A similar pattern was observed for COVID-19 hospitalisation; fully adjusted HRs 1.53 (95% CI 1.50 to 1.56) and 1.52 (95% CI 1.46 to 1.56) for adults with asthma prescribed medium and high-dosage ICS, respectively. Risk of hospitalisation was greater for children with asthma prescribed one (2.58 (95% CI 1.82 to 3.66)) or two or more (3.80 (95% CI 2.41 to 5.95)) courses of oral corticosteroids in the year prior to the pandemic. DISCUSSION: People with mild and/or well-controlled asthma are neither at significantly increased risk of hospitalisation with nor more likely to die from COVID-19 than adults without asthma.

COVID-19 booster vaccination uptake and infection breakthrough amongst health care workers in Wales: A national prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: From September 2021, Health Care Workers (HCWs) in Wales began receiving a COVID-19 booster vaccination. This is the first dose beyond the primary vaccination schedule. Given the emergence of new variants, vaccine waning vaccine, and increasing vaccination hesitancy, there is a need to understand booster vaccine uptake and subsequent breakthrough in this high-risk population. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, national-scale, observational cohort study of HCWs in Wales using anonymised, linked data from the SAIL Databank. We analysed uptake of COVID-19 booster vaccinations from September 2021 to February 2022, with comparisons against uptake of the initial primary vaccination schedule. We also analysed booster breakthrough, in the form of PCR-confirmed SARS-Cov-2 infection, comparing to the second primary dose. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate associations for vaccination uptake and breakthrough regarding staff roles, socio-demographics, household composition, and other factors. RESULTS: We derived a cohort of 73,030 HCWs living in Wales (78% female, 60% 18-49 years old). Uptake was quickest amongst HCWs aged 60 + years old (aHR 2.54, 95%CI 2.45-2.63), compared with those aged 18-29. Asian HCWs had quicker uptake (aHR 1.18, 95%CI 1.14-1.22), whilst Black HCWs had slower uptake (aHR 0.67, 95%CI 0.61-0.74), compared to white HCWs. HCWs residing in the least deprived areas were slightly quicker to have received a booster dose (aHR 1.12, 95%CI 1.09-1.16), compared with those in the most deprived areas. Strongest associations with breakthrough infections were found for those living with children (aHR 1.52, 95%CI 1.41-1.63), compared to two-adult only households. HCWs aged 60 + years old were less likely to get breakthrough infections, compared to those aged 18-29 (aHR 0.42, 95%CI 0.38-0.47). CONCLUSION: Vaccination uptake was consistently lower among black HCWs, as well as those from deprived areas. Whilst breakthrough infections were highest in households with children.

SARS-CoV-2-specific nasal IgA wanes 9 months after hospitalisation with COVID-19 and is not induced by subsequent vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Most studies of immunity to SARS-CoV-2 focus on circulating antibody, giving limited insights into mucosal defences that prevent viral replication and onward transmission. We studied nasal and plasma antibody responses one year after hospitalisation for COVID-19, including a period when SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was introduced. METHODS: In this follow up study, plasma and nasosorption samples were prospectively collected from 446 adults hospitalised for COVID-19 between February 2020 and March 2021 via the ISARIC4C and PHOSP-COVID consortia. IgA and IgG responses to NP and S of ancestral SARS-CoV-2, Delta and Omicron (BA.1) variants were measured by electrochemiluminescence and compared with plasma neutralisation data. FINDINGS: Strong and consistent nasal anti-NP and anti-S IgA responses were demonstrated, which remained elevated for nine months (p < 0.0001). Nasal and plasma anti-S IgG remained elevated for at least 12 months (p < 0.0001) with plasma neutralising titres that were raised against all variants compared to controls (p < 0.0001). Of 323 with complete data, 307 were vaccinated between 6 and 12 months; coinciding with rises in nasal and plasma IgA and IgG anti-S titres for all SARS-CoV-2 variants, although the change in nasal IgA was minimal (1.46-fold change after 10 months, p = 0.011) and the median remained below the positive threshold determined by pre-pandemic controls. Samples 12 months after admission showed no association between nasal IgA and plasma IgG anti-S responses (R = 0.05, p = 0.18), indicating that nasal IgA responses are distinct from those in plasma and minimally boosted by vaccination. INTERPRETATION: The decline in nasal IgA responses 9 months after infection and minimal impact of subsequent vaccination may explain the lack of long-lasting nasal defence against reinfection and the limited effects of vaccination on transmission. These findings highlight the need to develop vaccines that enhance nasal immunity. FUNDING: This study has been supported by ISARIC4C and PHOSP-COVID consortia. ISARIC4C is supported by grants from the National Institute for Health and Care Research and the Medical Research Council. Liverpool Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre provided infrastructure support for this research. The PHOSP-COVD study is jointly funded by UK Research and Innovation and National Institute of Health and Care Research. The funders were not involved in the study design, interpretation of data or the writing of this manuscript.

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.

Respiratory diseases in survivors of adult cancer compared with the general population: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: There is concern that survivors of adult cancers may be at increased risk of respiratory infections and of exacerbations of pre-existing respiratory conditions. Considering the high prevalence of respiratory disease in the general population, increased respiratory disease risk in survivors of adult cancers could translate into an important impact on morbidity and mortality. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise and assess the quality of all studies comparing respiratory outcomes between adult cancer survivors and individuals with no history of cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This systematic literature review will be conducted using Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane. We will include cohort or case-control studies that provide a comparative estimate of the risk of a respiratory disease of interest in survivors of adult cancer against a comparator cohort of cancer-free individuals. No geographic, time or language restrictions will be applied. We will assess the risk of bias using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology checklists. Results will be summarised by type of respiratory outcome, cancer type and cancer survivorship definition. If sufficient numbers of homogeneous studies are found, summary measures of association will be calculated using random effects meta-analysis models. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not applicable to our study. The results will be used to identify evidence gaps and priorities for future research to understand respiratory morbidity in survivors of adult cancers and identify possible mitigation strategies. Results from this review will be disseminated to clinical audiences and submitted to a peer-reviewed journal when completed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This study has been registered on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42022311557).

Determinants of Shielding Behavior During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Associations With Well-being Among National Health Service Patients: Longitudinal Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: The UK National Health Service (NHS) classified 2.2 million people as clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) during the first wave of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, advising them to "shield" (to not leave home for any reason). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to measure the determinants of shielding behavior and associations with well-being in a large NHS patient population for informing future health policy. METHODS: Patients contributing to an ongoing longitudinal participatory epidemiology study (Longitudinal Effects on Wellbeing of the COVID-19 Pandemic [LoC-19], n=42,924) received weekly email invitations to complete questionnaires (17-week shielding period starting April 9, 2020) within their NHS personal electronic health record. Question items focused on well-being. Participants were stratified into four groups by self-reported CEV status (qualifying condition) and adoption of shielding behavior (baselined at week 1 or 2). The distribution of CEV criteria was reported alongside situational variables and univariable and multivariable logistic regression. Longitudinal trends in physical and mental well-being were displayed graphically. Free-text responses reporting variables impacting well-being were semiquantified using natural language processing. In the lead up to a second national lockdown (October 23, 2020), a follow-up questionnaire evaluated subjective concern if further shielding was advised. RESULTS: The study included 7240 participants. In the CEV group (n=2391), 1133 (47.3%) assumed shielding behavior at baseline, compared with 633 (13.0%) in the non-CEV group (n=4849). CEV participants who shielded were more likely to be Asian (odds ratio [OR] 2.02, 95% CI 1.49-2.76), female (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.05-1.45), older (OR per year increase 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02), living in a home with an outdoor space (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.06-1.70) or three to four other inhabitants (three: OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.15-1.94; four: OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.10-2.01), or solid organ transplant recipients (OR 2.85, 95% CI 2.18-3.77), or have severe chronic lung disease (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.30-2.04). Receipt of a government letter advising shielding was reported in 1115 (46.6%) CEV participants and 180 (3.7%) non-CEV participants, and was associated with adopting shielding behavior (OR 3.34, 95% CI 2.82-3.95 and OR 2.88, 95% CI 2.04-3.99, respectively). In CEV participants, shielding at baseline was associated with a lower rating of mental well-being and physical well-being. Similar results were found for non-CEV participants. Concern for well-being if future shielding was required was most prevalent among CEV participants who had originally shielded. CONCLUSIONS: Future health policy must balance the potential protection from COVID-19 against our findings that shielding negatively impacted well-being and was adopted in many in whom it was not indicated and variably in whom it was indicated. This therefore also requires clearer public health messaging and support for well-being if shielding is to be advised in future pandemic scenarios.

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.

Reporting of data on participant ethnicity and socioeconomic status in high-impact medical journals: a targeted literature review.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the frequency of reporting of ethnicity (or 'race') and socioeconomic status (SES) indicators in high-impact journals. DESIGN: Targeted literature review. DATA SOURCES: The 10 highest ranked general medical journals using Google scholar h5 index. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria were, human research, reporting participant level data. Exclusion criteria were non-research article, animal/other non-human participant/subject or no participant characteristics reported. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Working backwards from 19 April 2021 in each journal, two independent reviewers selected the 10 most recent articles meeting inclusion/exclusion criteria, to create a sample of 100 articles. Data on the frequency of reporting of ethnicity (or 'race') and SES indicators were extracted and presented using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of 100 research articles included, 35 reported ethnicity and 13 SES. By contrast, 99 reported age, and 97 reported sex or gender. Among the articles not reporting ethnicity, only 3 (5%) highlighted this as a limitation, and only 6 (7%) where SES data were missing. Median number of articles reporting ethnicity per journal was 2.5/10 (range 0 to 9). Only two journals explicitly requested reporting of ethnicity (or race), and one requested SES. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of research published in high-impact medical journals does not include data on the ethnicity and SES of participants, and this omission is rarely acknowledged as a limitation. This situation persists despite the well-established importance of this issue and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations to include relevant demographic variables to ensure representative samples. Standardised explicit minimum standards are required.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on asthma exacerbations: Retrospective cohort study of over 500,000 patients in a national English primary care database.

Background: Several countries reported a substantial reduction in asthma exacerbations associated with COVID-19 pandemic-related restrictions. However, it is not known if these early reported declines were short-term and if these have rebounded to pre-pandemic levels following easing of lockdown restrictions. Methods: We undertook a retrospective, cohort study of all asthma patients in a national primary care database of almost 10 million patients, Optimum Patient Care Database (OPCRD), identified from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2015, using a previously validated algorithm. We subsequently followed the identified cohort of asthma patients from January 1, 2016, to October 3, 2021, and identified every asthma exacerbation episode with a validated algorithm. To quantify any pandemic-related change in exacerbations, we created a control time-series (mean of 2016-2019) and then compared the change in exacerbation rate in 2020-2021 over quarterly periods when compared with the control period (the pre-pandemic period). We undertook overall and stratified analyses by age group, sex, and English region. Findings: We identified 100,362 asthma patients (502,669 patient-years) from across England who experienced at least one exacerbation episode (298,390 exacerbation episodes during the entire follow-up). Except for the first quarter of 2020, the exacerbation rates were substantially lower (>25%) during all quarters in 2020-2021 when compared with the rates during 2016-2019 (39.7% (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 34.6, 44.9) in quarter-2, 2020; 46.5% (95%CI: 36.7, 56.4) in quarter-3, 2020; 56.3% (95%CI: 48.7, 63.9) in quarter-4, 2020; 63.2% (95%CI: 53.9, 72.5) in quarter-1, 2021; 57.7% (95%CI: 52.9, 62.4) in quarter-2, 2021; 53.3% (95%CI: 43.8, 62.8) in quarter-3, 2021). Interpretation: There was a substantial and persistent reduction in asthma exacerbations across England over the first 18 months after the first lockdown. This is unlikely to be adequately explained by changes in health-seeking behaviour, pandemic-related healthcare service disruption, or any air-quality improvements. Funding: Asthma UK, Health Data Research UK (HDR UK), Medical Research Council (MRC), National Institute for Health Research (NIHR).

Device-assessed sleep and physical activity in individuals recovering from a hospital admission for COVID-19: a multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: The number of individuals recovering from severe COVID-19 is increasing rapidly. However, little is known about physical behaviours that make up the 24-h cycle within these individuals. This study aimed to describe physical behaviours following hospital admission for COVID-19 at eight months post-discharge including associations with acute illness severity and ongoing symptoms. METHODS: One thousand seventy-seven patients with COVID-19 discharged from hospital between March and November 2020 were recruited. Using a 14-day wear protocol, wrist-worn accelerometers were sent to participants after a five-month follow-up assessment. Acute illness severity was assessed by the WHO clinical progression scale, and the severity of ongoing symptoms was assessed using four previously reported data-driven clinical recovery clusters. Two existing control populations of office workers and individuals with type 2 diabetes were comparators. RESULTS: Valid accelerometer data from 253 women and 462 men were included. Women engaged in a mean ± SD of 14.9 ± 14.7 min/day of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), with 12.1 ± 1.7 h/day spent inactive and 7.2 ± 1.1 h/day asleep. The values for men were 21.0 ± 22.3 and 12.6 ± 1.7 h /day and 6.9 ± 1.1 h/day, respectively. Over 60% of women and men did not have any days containing a 30-min bout of MVPA. Variability in sleep timing was approximately 2 h in men and women. More severe acute illness was associated with lower total activity and MVPA in recovery. The very severe recovery cluster was associated with fewer days/week containing continuous bouts of MVPA, longer total sleep time, and higher variability in sleep timing. Patients post-hospitalisation with COVID-19 had lower levels of physical activity, greater sleep variability, and lower sleep efficiency than a similarly aged cohort of office workers or those with type 2 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Those recovering from a hospital admission for COVID-19 have low levels of physical activity and disrupted patterns of sleep several months after discharge. Our comparative cohorts indicate that the long-term impact of COVID-19 on physical behaviours is significant.

Deriving and validating a risk prediction model for long COVID-19: protocol for an observational cohort study using linked Scottish data.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 is commonly experienced as an acute illness, yet some people continue to have symptoms that persist for weeks, or months (commonly referred to as 'long-COVID'). It remains unclear which patients are at highest risk of developing long-COVID. In this protocol, we describe plans to develop a prediction model to identify individuals at risk of developing long-COVID. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will use the national Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19 (EAVE II) platform, a population-level linked dataset of routine electronic healthcare data from 5.4 million individuals in Scotland. We will identify potential indicators for long-COVID by identifying patterns in primary care data linked to information from out-of-hours general practitioner encounters, accident and emergency visits, hospital admissions, outpatient visits, medication prescribing/dispensing and mortality. We will investigate the potential indicators of long-COVID by performing a matched analysis between those with a positive reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) test for SARS-CoV-2 infection and two control groups: (1) individuals with at least one negative RT-PCR test and never tested positive; (2) the general population (everyone who did not test positive) of Scotland. Cluster analysis will then be used to determine the final definition of the outcome measure for long-COVID. We will then derive, internally and externally validate a prediction model to identify the epidemiological risk factors associated with long-COVID. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The EAVE II study has obtained approvals from the Research Ethics Committee (reference: 12/SS/0201), and the Public Benefit and Privacy Panel for Health and Social Care (reference: 1920-0279). Study findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences. Understanding the predictors for long-COVID and identifying the patient groups at greatest risk of persisting symptoms will inform future treatments and preventative strategies for long-COVID.

Variation in global COVID-19 symptoms by geography and by chronic disease: A global survey using the COVID-19 Symptom Mapper.

Background: COVID-19 is typically characterised by a triad of symptoms: cough, fever and loss of taste and smell, however, this varies globally. This study examines variations in COVID-19 symptom profiles based on underlying chronic disease and geographical location. Methods: Using a global online symptom survey of 78,299 responders in 190 countries between 09/04/2020 and 22/09/2020, we conducted an exploratory study to examine symptom profiles associated with a positive COVID-19 test result by country and underlying chronic disease (single, co- or multi-morbidities) using statistical and machine learning methods. Findings: From the results of 7980 COVID-19 tested positive responders, we find that symptom patterns differ by country. For example, India reported a lower proportion of headache (22.8% vs 47.8%, p<1e-13) and itchy eyes (7.3% vs. 16.5%, p=2e-8) than other countries. As with geographic location, we find people differed in their reported symptoms if they suffered from specific chronic diseases. For example, COVID-19 positive responders with asthma (25.3% vs. 13.7%, p=7e-6) were more likely to report shortness of breath compared to those with no underlying chronic disease. Interpretation: We have identified variation in COVID-19 symptom profiles depending on geographic location and underlying chronic disease. Failure to reflect this symptom variation in public health messaging may contribute to asymptomatic COVID-19 spread and put patients with chronic diseases at a greater risk of infection. Future work should focus on symptom profile variation in the emerging variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This is crucial to speed up clinical diagnosis, predict prognostic outcomes and target treatment. Funding: We acknowledge funding to AAF by a UKRI Turing AI Fellowship and to CEC by a personal NIHR Career Development Fellowship (grant number NIHR-2016-090-015). JKQ has received grants from The Health Foundation, MRC, GSK, Bayer, BI, Asthma UK-British Lung Foundation, IQVIA, Chiesi AZ, and Insmed. This work is supported by BREATHE - The Health Data Research Hub for Respiratory Health [MC_PC_19004]. BREATHE is funded through the UK Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund and delivered through Health Data Research UK. Imperial College London is grateful for the support from the Northwest London NIHR Applied Research Collaboration. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Joint patient and clinician priority setting to identify 10 key research questions regarding the long-term sequelae of COVID-19.

Given the large numbers of people infected and high rates of ongoing morbidity, research is clearly required to address the needs of adult survivors of COVID-19 living with ongoing symptoms (long COVID). To help direct resource and research efforts, we completed a research prioritisation process incorporating views from adults with ongoing symptoms of COVID-19, carers, clinicians and clinical researchers. The final top 10 research questions were agreed at an independently mediated workshop and included: identifying underlying mechanisms of long COVID, establishing diagnostic tools, understanding trajectory of recovery and evaluating the role of interventions both during the acute and persistent phases of the illness.

Impact of COVID-19 on people with asthma: a mixed methods analysis from a UK wide survey.

INTRODUCTION: The impact of acute COVID-19 on people with asthma appears complex, being moderated by multiple interacting disease-specific, demographic and environmental factors. Research regarding longer-term effects in this group is limited. We aimed to assess impacts of COVID-19 and predictors of persistent symptoms, in people with asthma. METHODS: Using data from an online UK-wide survey of 4500 people with asthma (median age 50-59 years, 81% female), conducted in October 2020, we undertook a mixed methods analysis of the characteristics and experience of those reporting having had COVID-19. RESULTS: The COVID-19 group (n=471, 10.5%) reported increased inhaler use and worse asthma management, compared with those not reporting COVID-19, but did not differ by gender, ethnicity or household income. Among the COVID-19 group, 56.1% reported having long COVID, 20.2% were 'unsure'. Those with long COVID were more likely than those without long COVID to describe: their breathing as worse or much worse after their initial illness (73.7% vs 34.8%, p<0.001), increased inhaler use (67.8% vs 34.8%, p<0.001) and worse or much worse asthma management (59.6% vs 25.6%, p<0.001). Having long COVID was not associated with age, gender, ethnicity, UK nation or household income.Analysis of free text survey responses identified three key themes: (1) variable COVID-19 severity, duration and recovery; (2) symptom overlap and interaction between COVID-19 and asthma; (3) barriers to accessing healthcare. CONCLUSIONS: Persisting symptoms are common in people with asthma following COVID-19. Measures are needed to ensure appropriate healthcare access including clinical evaluation and investigation, to distinguish between COVID-19 symptoms and asthma.

GP consultation rates for sequelae after acute covid-19 in patients managed in the community or hospital in the UK: population based study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the rates for consulting a general practitioner (GP) for sequelae after acute covid-19 in patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 and those managed in the community, and to determine how the rates change over time for patients in the community and after vaccination for covid-19. DESIGN: Population based study. SETTING: 1392 general practices in England contributing to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum database. PARTICIPANTS: 456 002 patients with a diagnosis of covid-19 between 1 August 2020 and 14 February 2021 (44.7% men; median age 61 years), admitted to hospital within two weeks of diagnosis or managed in the community, and followed-up for a maximum of 9.2 months. A negative control group included individuals without covid-19 (n=38 511) and patients with influenza before the pandemic (n=21 803). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Comparison of rates for consulting a GP for new symptoms, diseases, prescriptions, and healthcare use in individuals admitted to hospital and those managed in the community, separately, before and after covid-19 infection, using Cox regression and negative binomial regression for healthcare use. The analysis was repeated for the negative control and influenza cohorts. In individuals in the community, outcomes were also described over time after a diagnosis of covid-19, and compared before and after vaccination for individuals who were symptomatic after covid-19 infection, using negative binomial regression. RESULTS: Relative to the negative control and influenza cohorts, patients in the community (n=437 943) had significantly higher GP consultation rates for multiple sequelae, and the most common were loss of smell or taste, or both (adjusted hazard ratio 5.28, 95% confidence interval 3.89 to 7.17, P<0.001); venous thromboembolism (3.35, 2.87 to 3.91, P<0.001); lung fibrosis (2.41, 1.37 to 4.25, P=0.002), and muscle pain (1.89, 1.63 to 2.20, P<0.001); and also for healthcare use after a diagnosis of covid-19 compared with 12 months before infection. For absolute proportions, the most common outcomes ≥4 weeks after a covid-19 diagnosis in patients in the community were joint pain (2.5%), anxiety (1.2%), and prescriptions for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (1.2%). Patients admitted to hospital (n=18 059) also had significantly higher GP consultation rates for multiple sequelae, most commonly for venous thromboembolism (16.21, 11.28 to 23.31, P<0.001), nausea (4.64, 2.24 to 9.21, P<0.001), prescriptions for paracetamol (3.68, 2.86 to 4.74, P<0.001), renal failure (3.42, 2.67 to 4.38, P<0.001), and healthcare use after a covid-19 diagnosis compared with 12 months before infection. For absolute proportions, the most common outcomes ≥4 weeks after a covid-19 diagnosis in patients admitted to hospital were venous thromboembolism (3.5%), joint pain (2.7%), and breathlessness (2.8%). In patients in the community, anxiety and depression, abdominal pain, diarrhoea, general pain, nausea, chest tightness, and tinnitus persisted throughout follow-up. GP consultation rates were reduced for all symptoms, prescriptions, and healthcare use, except for neuropathic pain, cognitive impairment, strong opiates, and paracetamol use in patients in the community after the first vaccination dose for covid-19 relative to before vaccination. GP consultation rates were also reduced for ischaemic heart disease, asthma, and gastro-oesophageal disease. CONCLUSIONS: GP consultation rates for sequelae after acute covid-19 infection differed between patients with covid-19 who were admitted to hospital and those managed in the community. For individuals in the community, rates of some sequelae decreased over time but those for others, such as anxiety and depression, persisted. Rates of some outcomes decreased after vaccination in this group.

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.

Patient symptoms and experience following COVID-19: results from a UK-wide survey.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the experience of people who continue to be unwell after acute COVID-19, often referred to as 'long COVID', both in terms of their symptoms and their interactions with healthcare. DESIGN: We conducted a mixed-methods analysis of responses to a survey accessed through a UK online post-COVID-19 support and information hub, between April and December 2020, about people's experiences after having acute COVID-19. PARTICIPANTS: 3290 respondents, 78% female, 92.1% white ethnicity and median age range 45-54 years; 12.7% had been hospitalised. 494(16.5%) completed the survey between 4 and 8 weeks of the onset of their symptoms, 641(21.4%) between 8 and 12 weeks and 1865 (62.1%) >12 weeks after. RESULTS: The ongoing symptoms most frequently reported were: breathing problems (92.1%), fatigue (83.3%), muscle weakness or joint stiffness (50.6%), sleep disturbances (46.2%), problems with mental abilities (45.9%), changes in mood, including anxiety and depression (43.1%) and cough (42.3%). Symptoms did not appear to be related to the severity of the acute illness or to the presence of pre-existing medical conditions. Analysis of free-text responses revealed three main themes: (1) experience of living with COVID-19: physical and psychological symptoms that fluctuate unpredictably; (2) interactions with healthcare that were unsatisfactory; (3) implications for the future: their own condition, society and the healthcare system, and the need for research CONCLUSION: Consideration of patient perspectives and experiences will assist in the planning of services to address problems persisting in people who remain symptomatic after the acute phase of COVID-19.