Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 23
Filter
1.
Thorax ; 2022 Jul 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1973866

ABSTRACT

The Winter Meeting of the British Thoracic Society (BTS) is a platform for the latest clinical and scientific research in respiratory medicine. This review summarises the key symposia and presentations from the BTS Winter Meeting 2021 held online due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

2.
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act ; 19(1): 94, 2022 Jul 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1962853

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Accelerometry/methods , Aftercare , Aged , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/therapy , Exercise , Female , Hospitalization , Hospitals , Humans , Male , Patient Discharge , Sleep
5.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 1: CD013254, 2022 01 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1838124

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Bronchiectasis is a common but under-diagnosed chronic disorder characterised by permanent dilation of the airways arising from a cycle of recurrent infection and inflammation. Symptoms including chronic, persistent cough and productive phlegm are a significant burden for people with bronchiectasis, and the main aim of treatment is to reduce exacerbation frequency and improve quality of life. Prophylactic antibiotic therapy aims to break this infection cycle and is recommended by clinical guidelines for adults with three or more exacerbations a year, based on limited evidence. It is important to weigh the evidence for bacterial suppression against the prevention of antibiotic resistance and further evidence is required on the safety and efficacy of different regimens of intermittently administered antibiotic treatments for people with bronchiectasis. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of intermittent prophylactic antibiotics in the treatment of adults and children with bronchiectasis. SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, which contains studies identified through multiple electronic searches and handsearches of other sources. We also searched trial registries and reference lists of primary studies. We conducted searches on 6 September 2021, with no restriction on language of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least three months' duration comparing an intermittent regime of prophylactic antibiotics with placebo, usual care or an alternate intermittent regimen. Intermittent prophylactic administration was defined as repeated courses of antibiotics with on-treatment and off-treatment intervals of at least 14 days' duration. We included adults and children with a clinical diagnosis of bronchiectasis confirmed by high resolution computed tomography (HRCT), plain film chest radiograph, or bronchography and a documented history of recurrent chest infections. We excluded studies where participants received high dose antibiotics immediately prior to enrolment or those with a diagnosis of cystic fibrosis, allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA), primary ciliary dyskinesia, hypogammaglobulinaemia, sarcoidosis, or a primary diagnosis of COPD. Our primary outcomes were exacerbation frequency and serious adverse events. We did not exclude studies on the basis of review outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) or relative risk (RRs) and continuous data as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs). We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We conducted GRADE assessments for the following primary outcomes: exacerbation frequency; serious adverse events and secondary outcomes: antibiotic resistance; hospital admissions; health-related quality of life. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight RCTs, with interventions ranging from 16 to 48 weeks, involving 2180 adults. All evaluated one of three types of antibiotics over two to six cycles of 28 days on/off treatment: aminoglycosides, ß-lactams or fluoroquinolones. Two studies also included 12 cycles of 14 days on/off treatment with fluoroquinolones. Participants had a mean age of 63.6 years, 65% were women and approximately 85% Caucasian. Baseline FEV1 ranged from 55.5% to 62.6% predicted. None of the studies included children. Generally, there was a low risk of bias in the included studies. Antibiotic versus placebo: cycle of 14 days on/off. Ciprofloxacin reduced the frequency of exacerbations compared to placebo (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93; I2 = 65%; 2 studies, 469 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), with eight people (95% CI 6 to 28) needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome. The intervention increased the risk of antibiotic resistance more than twofold (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.36 to 3.35; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 624 participants; high-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events, lung function (FEV1), health-related quality of life, and adverse effects did not differ between groups. Antibiotic versus placebo: cycle of 28 days on/off. Antibiotics did not reduce overall exacerbation frequency (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.02; I2 = 0%; 8 studies, 1695 participants; high-certainty evidence) but there were fewer severe exacerbations (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.93; I2 = 54%; 3 studies, 624 participants), though this should be interpreted with caution due to low event rates. The risk of antibiotic resistance was more than twofold higher based on a pooled analysis (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.42 to 3.42; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 685 participants; high-certainty evidence) and consistent with unpooled data from four further studies. Serious adverse events, time to first exacerbation, duration of exacerbation, respiratory-related hospital admissions, lung function, health-related quality of life and adverse effects did not differ between study groups. Antibiotic versus usual care. We did not find any studies that compared intermittent antibiotic regimens with usual care. Cycle of 14 days on/off versus cycle of 28 days on/off. Exacerbation frequency did not differ between the two treatment regimens (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.24; I2 = 71%; 2 studies, 625 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) However, inconsistencies in the results from the two trials in this comparison indicate that the apparent aggregated similarities may not be reliable. There was no evidence of a difference in antibiotic resistance between groups (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.48; I2 = 60%; 2 studies, 624 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events, adverse effects, lung function and health-related quality of life did not differ between the two antibiotic regimens. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, in adults who have frequent chest infections, long-term antibiotics given at 14-day on/off intervals slightly reduces the frequency of those infections and increases antibiotic resistance. Intermittent antibiotic regimens result in little to no difference in serious adverse events. The impact of intermittent antibiotic therapy on children with bronchiectasis is unknown due to an absence of evidence, and further research is needed to establish the potential risks and benefits.


Subject(s)
Bronchiectasis , Adult , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Antibiotic Prophylaxis , Bronchiectasis/drug therapy , Child , Ciprofloxacin/therapeutic use , Female , Fluoroquinolones/therapeutic use , Humans , Middle Aged
6.
Eur Respir Rev ; 30(162)2021 Dec 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1574091

ABSTRACT

Hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have a high mortality rate. There are an increasing number of published randomised controlled trials for anti-inflammatory, anti-viral and other treatments. The European Respiratory Society Living Guidelines for the Management of Hospitalised Adults with COVID-19 were published recently, providing recommendations on appropriate pharmacotherapy.Patient, Intervention, Comparator and Outcomes questions for key interventions were identified by an international panel and systematic reviews were conducted to identify randomised controlled trials meeting the inclusion criteria. The importance of end-points were rated, and mortality was identified as the key "critical" outcome for all interventions. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool studies and provide effect estimates for the impact of treatments on mortality.Corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, remdesivir, anti-interleukin (IL)-6 monoclonal antibodies, colchicine, lopinavir/ritonavir and interferon-ß have been reviewed.Our results found further evidence in support of the use of corticosteroids, particularly dexamethasone, and anti-IL-6 receptor monoclonal antibody therapy. These data support the need to identify additional therapies with beneficial effects on mortality.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Anti-Inflammatory Agents , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Humans , Respiration, Artificial , SARS-CoV-2
7.
Lancet Respir Med ; 9(12): 1467-1478, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1545512

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Respiration Disorders , Consensus , Humans , Research , SARS-CoV-2
8.
Lancet Respir Med ; 9(11): 1275-1287, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1514340

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The impact of COVID-19 on physical and mental health and employment after hospitalisation with acute disease is not well understood. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of COVID-19-related hospitalisation on health and employment, to identify factors associated with recovery, and to describe recovery phenotypes. METHODS: The Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) is a multicentre, long-term follow-up study of adults (aged ≥18 years) discharged from hospital in the UK with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19, involving an assessment between 2 and 7 months after discharge, including detailed recording of symptoms, and physiological and biochemical testing. Multivariable logistic regression was done for the primary outcome of patient-perceived recovery, with age, sex, ethnicity, body-mass index, comorbidities, and severity of acute illness as covariates. A post-hoc cluster analysis of outcomes for breathlessness, fatigue, mental health, cognitive impairment, and physical performance was done using the clustering large applications k-medoids approach. The study is registered on the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN10980107). FINDINGS: We report findings for 1077 patients discharged from hospital between March 5 and Nov 30, 2020, who underwent assessment at a median of 5·9 months (IQR 4·9-6·5) after discharge. Participants had a mean age of 58 years (SD 13); 384 (36%) were female, 710 (69%) were of white ethnicity, 288 (27%) had received mechanical ventilation, and 540 (50%) had at least two comorbidities. At follow-up, only 239 (29%) of 830 participants felt fully recovered, 158 (20%) of 806 had a new disability (assessed by the Washington Group Short Set on Functioning), and 124 (19%) of 641 experienced a health-related change in occupation. Factors associated with not recovering were female sex, middle age (40-59 years), two or more comorbidities, and more severe acute illness. The magnitude of the persistent health burden was substantial but only weakly associated with the severity of acute illness. Four clusters were identified with different severities of mental and physical health impairment (n=767): very severe (131 patients, 17%), severe (159, 21%), moderate along with cognitive impairment (127, 17%), and mild (350, 46%). Of the outcomes used in the cluster analysis, all were closely related except for cognitive impairment. Three (3%) of 113 patients in the very severe cluster, nine (7%) of 129 in the severe cluster, 36 (36%) of 99 in the moderate cluster, and 114 (43%) of 267 in the mild cluster reported feeling fully recovered. Persistently elevated serum C-reactive protein was positively associated with cluster severity. INTERPRETATION: We identified factors related to not recovering after hospital admission with COVID-19 at 6 months after discharge (eg, female sex, middle age, two or more comorbidities, and more acute severe illness), and four different recovery phenotypes. The severity of physical and mental health impairments were closely related, whereas cognitive health impairments were independent. In clinical care, a proactive approach is needed across the acute severity spectrum, with interdisciplinary working, wide access to COVID-19 holistic clinical services, and the potential to stratify care. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health Research.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Health Status , Mental Health , Acute Disease , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/complications , Cognition , Comorbidity , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , United Kingdom/epidemiology
9.
Pulm Pharmacol Ther ; 71: 102095, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1504574

ABSTRACT

Macrolide antibiotics are well known for their antibacterial properties, but extensive research in the context of inflammatory lung disease has revealed that they also have powerful immunomodulatory properties. It has been demonstrated that these drugs are therapeutically beneficial in various lung diseases, with evidence they significantly reduce exacerbations in patients with COPD, asthma, bronchiectasis and cystic fibrosis. The efficacy demonstrated in patients infected with macrolide tolerant organisms such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa supports the concept that their efficacy is at least partly related to immunomodulatory rather than antibacterial effects. Inconsistent data and an incomplete understanding of their mechanisms of action hampers the use of macrolide antibiotics as immunomodulatory therapies. Macrolides recently demonstrated no clinically relevant immunomodulatory effects in the context of COVID-19 infection. This review provides an overview of macrolide antibiotics and discusses their immunomodulatory effects and mechanisms of action in the context of inflammatory lung disease.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cystic Fibrosis , Anti-Bacterial Agents/pharmacology , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Cystic Fibrosis/drug therapy , Humans , Immunomodulation , Macrolides/pharmacology , SARS-CoV-2
12.
ERJ Open Res ; 7(2)2021 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1262495

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are believed to be at increased risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. It is not known to what extent the natural production of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 is protective against re-infection. METHODS: A prospective observational study of HCWs in Scotland (UK) from May to September 2020 was performed. The Siemens SARS-CoV-2 total antibody assay was used to establish seroprevalence in this cohort. Controls, matched for age and sex to the general local population, were studied for comparison. New infections (up to 2 December 2020) post antibody testing were recorded to determine whether the presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies protects against re-infection. RESULTS: A total of 2063 health and social care workers were recruited for this study. At enrolment, 300 HCWs had a positive antibody test (14.5%). 11 out of 231 control sera tested positive (4.8%). HCWs therefore had an increased likelihood of a positive test (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.85-6.16; p<0.0001). Dentists were most likely to test positive. 97.3% of patients who had previously tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcriptase (RT)-PCR had positive antibodies. 18.7% had an asymptomatic infection. There were 38 new infections with SARS-CoV-2 in HCWs who were previously antibody negative, and one symptomatic RT-PCR-positive re-infection. The presence of antibodies was therefore associated with an 85% reduced risk of re-infection with SARS-CoV-2 (hazard ratio 0.15, 95% CI 0.06-0.35; p=0.026). CONCLUSION: HCWs were three times more likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 than the general population. Almost all infected individuals developed an antibody response, which was 85% effective in protecting against re-infection with SARS-CoV-2.

13.
Eur Respir J ; 57(4)2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1190024

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as a result of SARS-CoV-2 infection have a high mortality rate and frequently require noninvasive respiratory support or invasive ventilation. Optimising and standardising management through evidence-based guidelines may improve quality of care and therefore patient outcomes. METHODS: A task force from the European Respiratory Society and endorsed by the Chinese Thoracic Society identified priority interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for the initial version of this "living guideline" using the PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) format. The GRADE approach was used for assessing the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Systematic literature reviews were performed, and data pooled by meta-analysis where possible. Evidence tables were presented and evidence to decision frameworks were used to formulate recommendations. RESULTS: Based on the available evidence at the time of guideline development (20 February, 2021), the panel makes a strong recommendation in favour of the use of systemic corticosteroids in patients requiring supplementary oxygen or ventilatory support, and for the use of anticoagulation in hospitalised patients. The panel makes a conditional recommendation for interleukin (IL)-6 receptor antagonist monoclonal antibody treatment and high-flow nasal oxygen or continuous positive airway pressure in patients with hypoxaemic respiratory failure. The panel make strong recommendations against the use of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir. Conditional recommendations are made against the use of azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine combined with azithromycin, colchicine, and remdesivir, in the latter case specifically in patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. No recommendation was made for remdesivir in patients requiring supplemental oxygen. Further recommendations for research are made. CONCLUSION: The evidence base for management of COVID-19 now supports strong recommendations in favour and against specific interventions. These guidelines will be regularly updated as further evidence becomes available.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Hospitalization , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , Adult , Humans , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Respiration, Artificial , Systematic Reviews as Topic
14.
Eur Respir J ; 57(1)2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1146538

Subject(s)
Pandemics , Publishing , Humans
15.
Eur Respir J ; 56(6)2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1001745
16.
Breathe (Sheff) ; 16(3): 200219, 2020 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-992423

ABSTRACT

Quickly publishing questions from people with lung conditions, answered by experts in multiple languages, provided a well-accessed source of evidence-based support for individuals across the globe during the first wave of the #COVID19 pandemic https://bit.ly/2F5ZP4k.

17.
Eur Respir Rev ; 29(157)2020 Sep 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-835811

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2. Consensus suggestions can standardise care, thereby improving outcomes and facilitating future research. METHODS: An International Task Force was composed and agreement regarding courses of action was measured using the Convergence of Opinion on Recommendations and Evidence (CORE) process. 70% agreement was necessary to make a consensus suggestion. RESULTS: The Task Force made consensus suggestions to treat patients with acute COVID-19 pneumonia with remdesivir and dexamethasone but suggested against hydroxychloroquine except in the context of a clinical trial; these are revisions of prior suggestions resulting from the interim publication of several randomised trials. It also suggested that COVID-19 patients with a venous thromboembolic event be treated with therapeutic anticoagulant therapy for 3 months. The Task Force was unable to reach sufficient agreement to yield consensus suggestions for the post-hospital care of COVID-19 survivors. The Task Force fell one vote shy of suggesting routine screening for depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. CONCLUSIONS: The Task Force addressed questions related to pharmacotherapy in patients with COVID-19 and the post-hospital care of survivors, yielding several consensus suggestions. Management options for which there is insufficient agreement to formulate a suggestion represent research priorities.


Subject(s)
Advisory Committees/organization & administration , Betacoronavirus , Consensus , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , International Cooperation , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pulmonary Medicine/standards , Societies, Medical , COVID-19 , Europe , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , United States
19.
Eur Respir J ; 56(4)2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-751249
20.
Thorax ; 75(12): 1109-1111, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-733133

ABSTRACT

The requirement for health and social care workers to self-isolate when they or their household contacts develop symptoms consistent with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection can lead to critical staff shortages in the context of a pandemic. In this report, we describe the implementation of a drive-through testing service in a single National Health Service region in Scotland. From 17 March 2020 to 11 April 2020, 1890 SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription PCR assay (RT-PCR) tests were performed. 22% of tests were positive. Allowing the remaining 78% of staff to return to work within 24 hours was estimated to save over 8000 working days during the peak pandemic period.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/analysis , COVID-19/diagnosis , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Social Support , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Observational Studies as Topic
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL