ABSTRACT
ObjectiveTo assess the responsiveness and quality of clinical management guidelines (CMGs) in SARS, MERS and COVID-19 and determine whether this has improved over time. DesignRapid literature review, quality assessment and focus group consultation. Data Sources- Google and Google Scholar were systematically searched from inception to 6th June 2020.This was supplemented with hand searches of national and international public health agency and infectious disease society websites as well as directly approaching clinical networks in regions where few CMGs had been identified via the primary search. Eligibility CriteriaCMGs for the treatment of COVID-19/SARS/MERS providing recommendations on supportive care and/or specific treatment. MethodsData extraction was performed using a standardised form. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE-II) tool was used to evaluate the quality of the CMGs. Six COVID-19 treatments were selected to assess the responsiveness of a subset of guidelines and their updates to 20th November 2020. We ran two sessions of focus groups with patient advocates to elicit their views on guideline development. ResultsWe included 37 COVID-19, six SARS, and four MERS CMGs. Evidence appraisals in CMGs generally focused on novel drugs rather than basic supportive care; where evidence for the latter was provided it was generally of a low quality. Most CMGs had major methodological flaws (only two MERS-CoV and four COVID-19 CMGs were recommended for use by both reviewers without modification) and there was no evidence of improvement in quality over time. CMGs scored lowest in the following AGREE-II domains: scope and purpose, editorial independence, stakeholder engagement, and rigour of development. Of the COVID-19 CMGs, only eight included specific guidance for the management of elderly patients and only ten for high-risk groups; a further eight did not specify the target patient group at all. Early in the pandemic, multiple guidelines recommended unproven treatments and whilst in general findings of major clinical trials were eventually adopted, this was not universally the case. Eight guidelines recommended that use of unproven agents should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Patient representatives expressed concern about the lack of engagement with them in CMG development and that these documents are not accessible to non-experts. ConclusionThe quality of most CMGs produced in coronaviridae outbreaks is poor and we have found no evidence of improvement over time, highlighting that current development frameworks must be improved. There is an need to strengthen the evidence base surrounding basic supportive care and develop methods to engage patients in CMG development from the beginning in outbreak settings. Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020167361
ABSTRACT
BackgroundWhile it is now apparent clinical sequelae (often called Long Covid) may persist after acute Covid-19, their nature, frequency, and aetiology are poorly characterised. This study aims to regularly synthesise evidence on Long Covid characteristics, to inform clinical management, rehabilitation, and interventional studies to improve long term outcomes. MethodsA living systematic review. Medline, CINAHL (EBSCO), Global Health (Ovid), WHO Global Research Database on Covid-19, LitCOVID, and Google Scholar were searched up to 17th March 2021. Published studies including at least 100 people with confirmed or clinically suspected Covid-19 at 12 weeks or more post-onset were included. Results were analysed using descriptive statistics and meta-analyses to estimate prevalence with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). ResultsThirty-nine studies were included: 32 cohort, six cross-sectional, and one case-control. Most showed high or moderate risk of bias. None were set in low-income countries, limited studies included children. Studies reported on 10,951 people (48% female) in 12 countries. Most followed-up post hospital discharge (78%, 8520/10951). The longest mean follow-up was 221.7 (SD: 10.9) days post Covid-19 onset. An extensive range of symptoms with wide prevalence was reported, most commonly weakness (41%; 95% CI 25% to 59%), malaise (33%; 95% CI 15% to 57%), fatigue (31%; 95% CI 24% to 39%), concentration impairment (26%; 95% CI 21% to 32%), and breathlessness (25%; 95% CI 18% to 34%). Other frequent symptoms included musculoskeletal, neurological, and psychological. 37% (95% CI 18% to 60%) of people reported reduced quality of life. ConclusionLong Covid is a complex condition with heterogeneous symptoms. The nature of the studies precludes a precise case definition or evaluation of risk factors. There is an urgent need for prospective, robust, standardised controlled studies into aetiology, risk factors, and biomarkers to characterise Long Covid in different at-risk populations and settings. Systematic review registrationThe protocol was prospectively registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42020211131). Section 1: What is already known?O_LIA significant number of people continue to describe ongoing symptoms long after the acute phase of Covid-19, often referred to as Long Covid. C_LIO_LILong Covid is a heterogeneous condition with an uncertain prevalence, for which there is currently no precise case definition. C_LI Section 2: What are the new findings?O_LIThis living systematic review provides a comprehensive summary of peer-reviewed published evidence on persistent symptoms of Covid-19 and will be regularly updated as new evidence emerges. C_LIO_LIThe breadth of reported symptoms suggests a complex, heterogeneous condition affecting both those who were hospitalised and those managed in the community. C_LIO_LIOur review identifies weakness (41%; 95% CI 25% to 59%), general malaise (33%; 95% confidence interval 15% to 57%), fatigue (31%; 95% CI 24% to 39%), concentration impairment (26%; 95% CI 21% to 32%) and breathlessness (25%; 95% CI 18% to 34%) as the most common symptoms. C_LI Section 3: What do the new findings imply?O_LIThe current evidence base of the clinical spectrum of Long Covid is limited, based on heterogenous data, and vulnerable to biases, hence caution should be used when interpreting or generalising the results. C_LIO_LIOur review identifies areas where further Long Covid research is critically needed to help characterise Long Covid in different populations and define its aetiology, risk factors, and biomarkers, as well as the impact on variants of concern and vaccination on long term outcomes. C_LI
ABSTRACT
BackgroundThe Coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) pandemic has spread rapidly across the globe. Accurate clinical characterisation studies conducted early in the pandemic are essential to informing research, diagnosis and clinical management efforts. In this scoping review we identify the clinical characteristics of patients admitted to hospital in the early months of the pandemic, focusing on symptoms, laboratory and imaging findings, and clinical outcomes. MethodsA scoping review. MEDLINE, EMBASE and Global Health databases were searched for studies published from January 1st 2020 to April 28th 2020. Studies which reported on at least 100 hospitalised patients with covid-19 of any age were included. ResultsOf 1,249 studies identified through the search 78 studies were eligible for inclusion; one randomized control trial and 77 observational studies presenting data on 77,443 patients admitted with covid-19. Most studies were conducted in China (82%), 9% in the US and 10% in Europe and two studies were set in more than one country. No studies included patients from low and middle income countries. Coagulopathy was underrecognised as a complication in the early months of the pandemic. Use of corticosteroids varied widely, and the use of anticoagulants was reported in only one study. Fever, cough and dyspnoea are less common in older adults; gastrointestinal symptoms, as the only presenting feature was underrecognised. The most common laboratory finding was lymphocytopenia. Inflammatory biomarkers were commonly elevated, including C-reactive protein and interleukin-6. Typical computed tomography findings include bilateral infiltrates however imaging may be normal in early disease. Data on clinical characteristics in children and vulnerable populations were limited. ConclusionsClinical characterisation studies from early in the pandemic indicated that covid-19 is a multisystem disease, with biomarkers indicating inflammation and coagulopathy. However, early data collection on symptoms and clinical outcomes did not consistently reflect this wide spectrum. Corticosteroid use varied widely, and anticoagulants were rarely used. Clinicians should remain vigilant to the possibility of covid-19 in patients presenting without fever, cough and dyspnoea, particularly in older adults. Further characterisation studies in different at-risk populations is needed. Review registrationAvailable at https://osf.io/r2ch9
