Long-Term Consequences of COVID-19: A 1-Year Analysis.

Long-lasting symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection have been described many times in the literature and are referred to as Long COVID. In this prospective, longitudinal, monocentric, observational study, we collected the health complaints of 474 patients (252 ambulatory and 222 hospitalized) at Lausanne University Hospital 1 year after COVID-19 diagnosis. Using a self-reported health survey, we explored cardiopulmonary, vascular, neurological, and psychological complaints. Our results show that age, Charlson comorbidity index, and smoking habits were associated with hospital admission. Regarding the vascular system, we found that having had thromboembolism before SARS-CoV-2 infection was significantly associated with a higher risk of recurrence of thromboembolism at 1 year. In the neurologic evaluation, the most frequent symptom was fatigue, which was observed in 87.5% of patients, followed by "feeling slowed down", headache, and smell disturbance in 71.5%, 68.5%, and 60.7% of cases, respectively. Finally, our cohort subjects scored higher overall in the STAI, CESD, Maastricht, and PSQI scores (which measure anxiety, depression, fatigue, and sleep, respectively) than the healthy population. Using cluster analysis, we identified two phenotypes of patients prone to developing Long COVID. At baseline, CCS score, prior chronic disease, stroke, and atrial fibrillation were associated with Long COVID. During COVID infection, mechanical ventilation and five neurological complaints were also associated with Long COVID. In conclusion, this study confirms the wide range of symptoms developed after COVID with the involvement of all the major systems. Early identification of risk factors associated with the development of Long COVID could improve patient follow-up; nevertheless, the low specificity of these factors remains a challenge to building a systematic approach.

Personalized predictions of adverse side effects of the COVID-19 vaccines.

Background: Misconceptions about adverse side effects are thought to influence public acceptance of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines negatively. To address such perceived disadvantages of vaccines, a novel machine learning (ML) approach was designed to generate personalized predictions of the most common adverse side effects following injection of six different COVID-19 vaccines based on personal and health-related characteristics. Methods: Prospective data of adverse side effects following COVID-19 vaccination in 19943 participants from Iran and Switzerland was utilized. Six vaccines were studied: The AZD1222, Sputnik V, BBIBP-CorV, COVAXIN, BNT162b2, and the mRNA-1273 vaccine. The eight side effects were considered as the model output: fever, fatigue, headache, nausea, chills, joint pain, muscle pain, and injection site reactions. The total input parameters for the first and second dose predictions were 46 and 54 features, respectively, including age, gender, lifestyle variables, and medical history. The performances of multiple ML models were compared using Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (ROC-AUC). Results: The total number of people receiving the first dose of the AZD1222, Sputnik V, BBIBP-CorV, COVAXIN, BNT162b2, and mRNA-1273 were 6022, 7290, 5279, 802, 277, and 273, respectively. For the second dose, the numbers were 2851, 5587, 3841, 599, 242 and 228. The Logistic Regression model for predicting different side effects of the first dose achieved ROC-AUCs of 0.620-0.686, 0.685-0.716, 0.632-0.727, 0.527-0.598, 0.548-0.655, 0.545-0.712 for the AZD1222, Sputnik V, BBIBP-CorV, COVAXIN, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines, respectively. The second dose models yielded ROC-AUCs of 0.777-0.867, 0.795-0.848, 0.857-0.906, 0.788-0.875, 0.683-0.850, and 0.486-0.680, respectively. Conclusions: Using a large cohort of recipients vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines, a novel and personalized strategy was established to predict the occurrence of the most common adverse side effects with high accuracy. This technique can serve as a tool to inform COVID-19 vaccine selection and generate personalized factsheets to curb concerns about adverse side effects.

Pulmonary Recovery 12 Months after Non-Severe and Severe COVID-19: The Prospective Swiss COVID-19 Lung Study.

BACKGROUND: Lung function impairment persists in some patients for months after acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Long-term lung function, radiological features, and their association remain to be clarified. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to prospectively investigate lung function and radiological abnormalities over 12 months after severe and non-severe COVID-19. METHODS: 584 patients were included in the Swiss COVID-19 lung study. We assessed lung function at 3, 6, and 12 months after acute COVID-19 and compared chest computed tomography (CT) imaging to lung functional abnormalities. RESULTS: At 12 months, diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCOcorr) was lower after severe COVID-19 compared to non-severe COVID-19 (74.9% vs. 85.2% predicted, p < 0.001). Similarly, minimal oxygen saturation on 6-min walk test and total lung capacity were lower after severe COVID-19 (89.6% vs. 92.2%, p = 0.004, respectively, 88.2% vs. 95.1% predicted, p = 0.011). The difference for forced vital capacity (91.6% vs. 96.3% predicted, p = 0.082) was not statistically significant. Between 3 and 12 months, lung function improved in both groups and differences in DLCO between non-severe and severe COVID-19 patients decreased. In patients with chest CT scans at 12 months, we observed a correlation between radiological abnormalities and reduced lung function. While the overall extent of radiological abnormalities diminished over time, the frequency of mosaic attenuation and curvilinear patterns increased. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective cohort study, patients who had severe COVID-19 had diminished lung function over the first year compared to those after non-severe COVID-19, albeit with a greater extent of recovery in the severe disease group.

[Novelties in the Treatment of Asthma]. / Nouveautés dans la prise en charge de l'asthme.

For general practitioners there have been important novelties in the treatment of asthma due to recent modifications of the international guidelines from Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA). In Step 1, use of short-acting beta2-agonists (SABA) without concomitant inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as controller is no longer recommended for lack of efficacy and safety reasons. Instead, low dose ICS-formoterol as needed is recommended. In Step 5, in patients with severe uncontrolled asthma GINA recommends targeted biologic therapies like interleukin antibodies. Asthma patients presenting simultaneously with symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) should receive treatment containing ICS. Independent of the current corona pandemic, GINA recommendations stay in place.

Les nouvelles recommandations GINA (Global Initiative for Asthma) modifient radicalement la prise en charge des patients asthmatiques pour le médecin de premier recours. Dans l'asthme léger (palier 1 GINA), les bêta2-agonistes à courte durée d'action (SABA) seuls comme traitement de secours ne sont plus recommandés au profit d'une association de corticostéroïdes inhalés (CSI) faiblement dosés avec un bronchodilatateur à longue durée d'action à début d'action rapide (formotérol). Dans l'asthme sévère non contrôlé (palier 5 GINA), l'objectif est d'éviter la corticothérapie orale au profit de thérapies biologiques ciblées (par exemple, anticorps anti-interleukine). Un traitement contenant des CSI doit être maintenu chez les asthmatiques même si une BPCO est associée. Les recommandations GINA ne sont pas modifiées par les conditions actuelles de pandémie.

Frailty assessment for COVID-19 follow-up: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is increasingly used for clinical decision making in acute care but little is known about frailty after COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To investigate frailty and the CFS for post-COVID-19 follow-up. METHODS: This prospective multicentre cohort study included COVID-19 survivors aged ≥50 years presenting for a follow-up visit ≥3 months after the acute illness. Nine centres retrospectively collected pre-COVID-19 CFS and prospectively CFS at follow-up. Three centres completed the Frailty Index (FI), the short physical performance battery (SPPB), 30 s sit-to-stand test and handgrip strength measurements. Mixed effect logistic regression models accounting for repeated measurements and potential confounders were used to investigate factors associated with post-COVID-19 CFS. Criterion and construct validity were determined by correlating the CFS to other concurrently assessed frailty measurements and measures of respiratory impairment, respectively. RESULTS: Of the 288 participants 65% were men, mean (SD) age was 65.1 (9) years. Median (IQR) CFS at follow-up was 3 (2-3), 21% were vulnerable or frail (CFS ≥4). The CFS was responsive to change, correlated with the FI (r=0.69, p<0.001), the SPPB score (r=-0.48, p<0.001) (criterion validity) and with the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score (r=0.59, p<0.001), forced vital capacity %-predicted (r=-0.25, p<0.001), 6 min walk distance (r=-0.39, p<0.001) and modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) (r=0.59, p<0.001). Dyspnoea was significantly associated with a higher odds for vulnerability/frailty (per one mMRC adjusted OR 2.01 (95% CI 1.13 to 3.58), p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The CFS significantly increases with COVID-19, and dyspnoea is an important risk factor for post-COVID-19 frailty and should be addressed thoroughly.

Swiss Recommendations for the Follow-Up and Treatment of Pulmonary Long COVID.

INTRODUCTION: Emerging evidence suggests that long-term pulmonary symptoms and functional impairment occurs in a proportion of individuals following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Although the proportion of affected patients remains to be determined, physicians are increasingly being confronted with patients reporting respiratory symptoms and impairment beyond the acute phase of COVID-19. In face of limited evidence, the Swiss Society for Pulmonology established a working group to address this area of unmet need and formulated diagnostic and treatment recommendations for the care of patients with pulmonary long COVID (LC). METHOD: The Swiss COVID Lung Study group and Swiss Society for Pulmonology (SSP) formulated 13 questions addressing the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary LC. A survey within the SSP special interest groups involved in care of LC patients was conducted in Switzerland. A CORE process/Delphi-like process was used to formulate recommendations. Forty experienced pulmonologists replied to the first survey and 22 completed the second follow-up survey. Agreement of ≥70% consensus led to formulation of a recommendation. RESULTS: The participants in the survey reached consensus and formulated a strong recommendation for regarding the following points. Patients hospitalized for COVID-19 should have a pulmonary assessment including pulmonary function tests. Symptomatic subjects affected by COVID-19, including those with mild disease, should benefit from a pulmonary follow-up. Persistent respiratory symptoms after COVID-19 should be investigated by a pulmonary follow-up including plethysmography, diffusion capacity measurement, and blood gases analysis. Individuals having suffered from COVID-19 and who present with persistent respiratory symptoms should be offered a rehabilitation. Additional questions were given moderateor weak recommendations for. The panel did not reach sufficient consensus for pharmacological therapy (e.g., therapy specifically targeting lung fibrosis) to formulate recommendations for LC drug treatment. CONCLUSION: The formulated recommendations should serve as an interim guidance to facilitate diagnosis and treatment of patients with pulmonary LC. As new evidence emerges, these recommendations may need to be adapted.

Successful Treatment of Covid-19 Associated Cytokine Release Syndrome with Colchicine. A Case Report and Review of Literature.

We describe the case of a 42 year old, healthy patient with Covid-19 who despite improvement in his respiratory symptoms developed a mild to moderate cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and an associated monoarticular gout flare. Since the patient refused admission to the hospital and had stable vital signs, we chose to treat him with a safe anti-inflammatory and non-immunosuppressive therapy. To hit two birds with one stone, we considered colchicine, as it has systemic anti-inflammatory effects and is also effective in gout flare. Unexpectedly, 48 hours after treatment, not only did his ongoing fever and toe pain disappear, he also had significant improvements in his general state of health and all his inflammatory markers including fibrinogen, ferritin, D-dimer, and IL-6 levels normalized. To our knowledge, the use of colchicine in Covid-19 and CRS has not been reported. This observation merits the consideration of colchicine as a safe, inexpensive and oral medication for the treatment of mild to moderate CRS in Covid-19 patients. More importantly, in Covid-19 patients with early lung involvement colchicine may be an appropriate candidate to prevent CRS in adjunction with routine antiviral agents. Indeed, multicenter, randomized controlled studies are required to evaluate the benefits of this therapy.

ESMO Management and treatment adapted recommendations in the COVID-19 era: Lung cancer.

The COVID-19 pandemic, characterised by a fast and global spread during the first months of 2020, has prompted the development of a structured set of recommendations for cancer care management, to maintain the highest possible standards. Within this framework, it is crucial to ensure no disruption to essential oncological services and guarantee the optimal care.This is a structured proposal for the management of lung cancer, comprising three levels of priorities, namely: tier 1 (high priority), tier 2 (medium priority) and tier 3 (low priority)-defined according to the criteria of the Cancer Care Ontario, Huntsman Cancer Institute and Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale.The manuscript emphasises the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on lung cancer care and reconsiders all steps from diagnosis, staging and treatment.These recommendations should, therefore, serve as guidance for prioritising the different aspects of cancer care to mitigate the possible negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the management of our patients.As the situation is rapidly evolving, practical actions are required to guarantee the best patients' treatment while protecting and respecting their rights, safety and well-being. In this environment, cancer practitioners have great responsibilities: provide timely, appropriate, compassionate and justified cancer care, while protecting themselves and their patients from being infected with COVID-19. In case of shortages, resources must be distributed fairly. Consequently, the following recommendations can be applied with significant nuances, depending on the time and location for their use, considering variable constraints imposed to the health systems. An exceptional flexibility is required from cancer caregivers.