Predictors of non-recovery from fatigue and cognitive deficits after COVID-19: a prospective, longitudinal, population-based study.

Background: Despite the high prevalence and major disability associated with fatigue and cognitive deficits after SARS-CoV-2 infection, little is known about long-term trajectories of these sequelae. We aimed to assess long-term trajectories of these conditions and to identify risk factors for non-recovery. Methods: We analyzed longitudinal data from the population-based COVIDOM/NAPKON-POP cohort in Germany. Participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were assessed at least 6 months (baseline) and again at least 18 months (follow-up) after infection using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue) Scale (cutoff ≤ 30) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA, cutoff ≤ 25). Predictors of recovery from fatigue or cognitive deficits between assessments were identified through univariate and multivariable logistic regression models. The COVIDOM study is registered at the German registry for clinical studies (DRKS00023742) and at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04679584). Findings: Between 15 November 2020 and 9 May 2023, a total of 3038 participants were assessed at baseline (median 9 months after infection) and 83% responded to invitations for follow-up (median 26 months after infection). At baseline, 21% (95% confidence interval (CI) [20%, 23%]) had fatigue and 23% (95% CI [22%, 25%]) had cognitive deficits according to cutoff scores on the FACIT-Fatigue or MoCA. Participants with clinically relevant fatigue (at baseline) showed significant improvement in fatigue scores at follow-up (Hedges' g [95% CI] = 0.73 [0.60, 0.87]) and 46% (95% CI [41%, 50%]) had recovered from fatigue. Participants with cognitive deficits showed a significant improvement in cognitive scores (g [95% CI] = 1.12 [0.90, 1.33]) and 57% (95% CI [50%, 64%]) had recovered from cognitive deficits. Patients with fatigue exhibiting a higher depressive symptom burden and/or headache at baseline were significantly less likely to recover. Significant risk factors for cognitive non-recovery were male sex, older age and <12 years of school education. Importantly, SARS-CoV-2 reinfection had no significant impact on recovery from fatigue or cognitive deficits. Interpretation: Fatigue and cognitive deficits are common sequelae after SARS-CoV-2 infection. These syndromes improved over time and about half of the patients recovered within two years. The identified risk factors for non-recovery from fatigue and cognitive deficits could play an important role in shaping targeted strategies for treatment and prevention. Funding: Funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF; grant number 01KX2121) and German Research Foundation (DFG) Excellence Cluster "Position Medicine in Information".

Estimates of protection levels against SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19 in Germany before the 2022/2023 winter season: the IMMUNEBRIDGE project.

PURPOSE: Despite the need to generate valid and reliable estimates of protection levels against SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe course of COVID-19 for the German population in summer 2022, there was a lack of systematically collected population-based data allowing for the assessment of the protection level in real time. METHODS: In the IMMUNEBRIDGE project, we harmonised data and biosamples for nine population-/hospital-based studies (total number of participants n = 33,637) to provide estimates for protection levels against SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19 between June and November 2022. Based on evidence synthesis, we formed a combined endpoint of protection levels based on the number of self-reported infections/vaccinations in combination with nucleocapsid/spike antibody responses ("confirmed exposures"). Four confirmed exposures represented the highest protection level, and no exposure represented the lowest. RESULTS: Most participants were seropositive against the spike antigen; 37% of the participants ≥ 79 years had less than four confirmed exposures (highest level of protection) and 5% less than three. In the subgroup of participants with comorbidities, 46-56% had less than four confirmed exposures. We found major heterogeneity across federal states, with 4-28% of participants having less than three confirmed exposures. CONCLUSION: Using serological analyses, literature synthesis and infection dynamics during the survey period, we observed moderate to high levels of protection against severe COVID-19, whereas the protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection was low across all age groups. We found relevant protection gaps in the oldest age group and amongst individuals with comorbidities, indicating a need for additional protective measures in these groups.

Increased circulating fibronectin, depletion of natural IgM and heightened EBV, HSV-1 reactivation in ME/CFS and long COVID.

Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/ Chronic Fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) is a complex, debilitating, long-term illness without a diagnostic biomarker. ME/CFS patients share overlapping symptoms with long COVID patients, an observation which has strengthened the infectious origin hypothesis of ME/CFS. However, the exact sequence of events leading to disease development is largely unknown for both clinical conditions. Here we show antibody response to herpesvirus dUTPases, particularly to that of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) and HSV-1, increased circulating fibronectin (FN1) levels in serum and depletion of natural IgM against fibronectin ((n)IgM-FN1) are common factors for both severe ME/CFS and long COVID. We provide evidence for herpesvirus dUTPases-mediated alterations in host cell cytoskeleton, mitochondrial dysfunction and OXPHOS. Our data show altered active immune complexes, immunoglobulin-mediated mitochondrial fragmentation as well as adaptive IgM production in ME/CFS patients. Our findings provide mechanistic insight into both ME/CFS and long COVID development. Finding of increased circulating FN1 and depletion of (n)IgM-FN1 as a biomarker for the severity of both ME/CFS and long COVID has an immediate implication in diagnostics and development of treatment modalities.

The association between the number of symptoms and the severity of Post-COVID-Fatigue after SARS-CoV-2 infection treated in an outpatient setting.

BACKGROUND: Post-COVID-Fatigue (PCF) is one of the most reported symptoms following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Currently, research on persistent symptoms focuses mainly on severe infections, while outpatients are rarely included in observations. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the severity of PCF is related to the number of acute and persistent symptoms due to mild-to-moderate COVID-19 and to compare the most common symptoms during acute infection with the persistent symptoms in PCF patients. METHODS: A total of 425 participants were examined after COVID-19 treated as an outpatient (median 249 days [IQR: 135; 322] after acute disease) at the site of University Hospital Augsburg, Germany. The Fatigue Assessment Scale (FAS) was used to quantify the severity of PCF. The number of symptoms (maximum 41) during acute infection and persistent symptoms (during the last 14 days before examination) were added up to sum scores. Multivariable linear regression models were used to show the association between the number of symptoms and PCF. RESULTS: Of the 425 participants, 37% (n = 157) developed PCF; most were women (70%). The median number of symptoms was significantly higher in the PCF group than in the non-PCF group at both time points. In multivariable linear regression models, both sum scores were associated with PCF (acute symptoms: ß-estimate per additional symptom [95%-CI]: 0.48 [0.39; 0.57], p < 0.0001); persistent symptoms: ß-estimate per additional symptom [95%-CI]: 1.18 [1.02; 1.34], p < 0.0001). The acute symptoms strongest associated with PCF severity were difficulty concentrating, memory problems, dyspnea or shortness of breath on exertion, palpitations, and problems with movement coordination. CONCLUSION: Each additional symptom that occurs in COVID-19 increases the likelihood of suffering a higher severity of PCF. Further research is needed to identify the aetiology of PCF. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Nr. NCT04615026. Date of registration: November 4, 2020.

Barriers and facilitators in the implementation of mobilization robots in hospitals from the perspective of clinical experts and developers.

BACKGROUND: Early mobilization can help reduce severe side effects such as muscle atrophy that occur during hospitalization. However, due to time and staff shortages in intensive and critical care as well as safety risks for patients, it is often difficult to adhere to the recommended therapy time of twenty minutes twice a day. New robotic technologies might be one approach to achieve early mobilization effectively for patients and also relieve users from physical effort. Nevertheless, currently there is a lack of knowledge regarding the factors that are important for integrating of these technologies into complex treatment settings like intensive care units or rehabilitation units. METHODS: European experts from science, technical development and end-users of robotic systems (n = 13) were interviewed using a semi-structured interview guideline to identify barriers and facilitating factors for the integration of robotic systems into daily clinical practice. They were asked about structural, personnel and environmental factors that had an impact on integration and how they had solved challenges. A latent content analysis was performed regarding the COREQ criteria. RESULTS: We found relevant factors regarding the development, introduction, and routine of the robotic system. In this context, costs, process adjustments, a lack of exemptions, and a lack of support from the manufacturers/developers were identified as challenges. Easy handling, joint decision making between the end-users and the decision makers in the hospital, an accurate process design and the joint development of the robotic system of end-users and technical experts were found to be facilitating factors. CONCLUSION: The integration and preparation for the integration of robotic assistance systems into the inpatient setting is a complex intervention that involves many parties. This study provides evidence for hospitals or manufacturers to simplify the planning of integrations for permanent use. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS-ID: DRKS00023848; registered 10/12/2020.

[The use of robotic and technical systems for early mobilization of intensive care patients: A scoping review]. / Der Einsatz von robotischen und technischen Systemen zur Frühmobilisation von Intensivpatient_innen.

The use of robotic and technical systems for early mobilization of intensive care patients: A scoping review Abstract: Background: Intensive care patients are often subjected to immobility for too long. However, when they are mobilized early, positive effects on patient outcomes, such as improvement in physical function, can be demonstrated. One of the reasons for rare mobilization is that too less therapeutic equipment is available. Aims: This paper provides an overview of previous research on early robot- or technology-assisted mobilization of intensive care patients. Which robotic and technical aids are used in studies on early mobilization of adult intensive care patients by nurses or physiotherapists? What effect of early mobilization using robotic and technical systems on patient outcomes are reported in the studies? Methods: A systematic literature search was undertaken within the Databases Medline, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, IEEE Xplore, Scopus and WTI between May and July 2020 and in January 2022. In addition, a marginal search was performed via GoogleScolar and ResearchGate in the first search run. Results: 27 publications were included (9 RCTs, 7 texts and opinions, 3 cross-sectional studies, 2 case-control studies, 2 literature reviews, 2 case reports, 2 quasi-experimental intervention studies). It is evident that electronic bed-mounted exercise bicycles and tilt tables are the most commonly used assistive devices. There is an inconsistent data situation with regard to different patient outcomes. Conclusion: Further research on the use of technical and robotic early mobilization is, particularly in relation to different study populations, needed. Early mobilization robotics is not yet part of standard care.

Very Early Robot-Assisted Mobilization of Intensive Care Patients - A Scoping Review.

This scoping review gives an overview of current research activities in the field of very early mobilization with robotic devices of intensive care patients. It presents the effect of very early, robot-assisted mobilization on intensive care patients based on their outcomes.