Search

Background: Reports have suggested a reduction in exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, particularly hospital admissions for severe exacerbations. However, the magnitude of this reduction varies between studies., Method: Electronic databases were searched from January 2020 to May 2021. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts and, when necessary, full text to determine if studies met inclusion criteria. A modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess study quality. A narrative summary of eligible studies was synthesised, and meta-analysis was conducted using a random effect model to pool the rate ratio and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for hospital admissions. Exacerbation reduction was compared against the COVID-19 Containment and Health Index., Results: A total of 13 of 745 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review, with data from nine countries. Nine studies could be included in the meta-analysis. The pooled rate ratio of hospital admissions for COPD exacerbations during the pandemic period was 0.50 (95% CI 0.44-0.57). Findings on the rate of community-treated exacerbations were inconclusive. Three studies reported a significant decrease in the incidence of respiratory viral infections compared with the pre-pandemic period. There was not a significant relationship between exacerbation reduction and the COVID-19 Containment and Health Index (rho = 0.20, p = 0.53)., Conclusion: There was a 50% reduction in admissions for COPD exacerbations during the COVID-19 pandemic period compared to pre-pandemic times, likely associated with a reduction in respiratory viral infections that trigger exacerbations. Future guidelines should consider including recommendations on respiratory virus infection control measures to reduce the burden of COPD exacerbations beyond the pandemic period., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Individuals with COPD are at higher risk of severe disease and mortality if they contract COVID-19. Shielding and social distancing have negatively impacted the delivery of routine care for COPD patients, which should be maintained to avoid further deterioration. We aimed to review the literature about the key toolkits of non-pharmacological treatments of COPD patients before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, we focused on smoking cessation, pulmonary rehabilitation, and telehealth delivery approaches during the COVID-19 crisis. Smoking cessation services are important to mitigate the spread of the virus, especially in people with chronic lung disease; the pandemic, in one way or another, has helped to enhance people's motivation to quit smoking. Also, tele-rehabilitation is considered as effective as conventional pulmonary rehabilitation in controlling symptoms of disease, promoting physical activity, and enhancing self-management of COPD. Tele-rehabilitation offers flexibility and it could be the dominant mode for providing a pulmonary rehabilitation programme. Finally, the use of telehealth (TH) modes has trended during the pandemic. Consensus about the effectiveness of TH in reducing exacerbation events is still inconclusive. In the context of COPD, further clinical research must concentrate on understanding attitudes, behaviours, and motivations towards smoking cessation. Further recommendations include gauging the feasibility of a long-term tele-rehabilitation programme in large COPD populations, designing more COPD-related mobile apps, and evaluating the feasibility of tele-rehabilitation in clinical practice., (© 2021 The Author(s). Published by BRI.)

aimi,13 Jerome Sullivan,14 Mohammed A Almeshari,15 Antonio Esquinas161UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK; 2Department of Respiratory Care, Prince Sultan Military College of Health Sciences, Dammam, Saudi Arabia; 3Department of Physical Therapy, Cardiopulmonary Physiotherapy Laboratory, Federal University of São Carlos, São Paulo, Brazil; 4Respiratory Care Department, Faculty of Applied Medical Sciences, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia; 5Pulmonary Diagnostics & Respiratory Therapy Services, University of Virginia Medical Center, Charlottesville, VA, USA; 6Dammam Health Network, Dammam, Saudi Arabia; 7Consultant Physiotherapist, Physiotherapy Department St Vincent's Hospital Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; 8National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK; 9Faculty of Applied Medical Sciences, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia; 10Respiratory Care, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia; 11UCL Institute for Liver and Digestive Health, London, UK; 12Emergency Department, Ospedale Sant'Andrea, Vercelli 13100, Italy; 13Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia; 14President, International Council for Respiratory Care, Professor Emeritus & Respiratory Care Program Director, The University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA; 15Rehabilitation Health Sciences Department, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 16Director International NIV School, Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Morales Meseguer, Murcia, SpainCorrespondence: Jaber S AlqahtaniUCL Respiratory, University College London, Rowland Hill Street, London NW3 2PF, UKEmail Alqahtani-Jaber@hotmail.com Background: As the global outbreak of COVID-19 continues to ravage the world, it is important to understand how frontline clinicians manage ventilatory support and the various limiting factors. Methods: An online survey composed of 32 questions was developed and validated by an international expert panel. Results: Overall, 502 respondents from 40 countries across six continents completed the survey. The mean number (±SD) of ICU beds was 64 ± 84. The most popular initial diagnostic tools used for treatment initiation were arterial blood gas (48%) and clinical presentation (37.5%), while the national COVID-19 guidelines were the most used (61.2%). High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) (53.8%), non-invasive ventilation (NIV) (47%), and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) (92%) were mostly used for mild, moderate, and severe COVID-19 cases, respectively. However, only 38.8%, 56.6% and 82.9% of the respondents had standard protocols for HFNC, NIV, and IMV, respectively. The most frequently used modes of IMV and NIV were volume control (VC) (36.1%) and continuous positive airway pressure/pressure support (CPAP/PS) (40.6%). About 54% of the respondents did not adhere to the recommended, regular ventilator check interval. The majority of the respondents (85.7%) used proning with IMV, with 48.4% using it for 12– 16 hours, and 46.2% had tried awake proning in combination with HFNC or NIV. Increased staff workload (45.02%), lack of trained staff (44.22%) and shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE) (42.63%) were the main barriers to COVID-19 management. Conclusion: Our results show that general clinical practices involving ventilatory support were highly heterogeneous, with limited use of standard protocols and most frontline clinicians depending on isolated and varied management guidelines. We found increased staff workload, lack of trained staff and shortage of PPE to be the main limiting factors affecting global COVID-19 ventilatory support management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an evolving infectious disease that dramatically spread all over the world in the early part of 2020. No studies have yet summarized the potential severity and mortality risks caused by COVID-19 in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and we update information in smokers. Methods: We systematically searched electronic databases from inception to March 24, 2020. Data were extracted by two independent authors in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Study quality was assessed using a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We synthesized a narrative from eligible studies and conducted a meta-analysis using a random-effects model to calculate pooled prevalence rates and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). Results: In total, 123 abstracts were screened and 61 full-text manuscripts were reviewed. A total of 15 studies met the inclusion criteria, which included a total of 2473 confirmed COVID-19 patients. All studies were included in the meta-analysis. The crude case fatality rate of COVID-19 was 7.4%. The pooled prevalence rates of COPD patients and smokers in COVID-19 cases were 2% (95% CI, 1%–3%) and 9% (95% CI, 4%–14%) respectively. COPD patients were at a higher risk of more severe disease (risk of severity = 63%, (22/35) compared to patients without COPD 33.4% (409/1224) [calculated RR, 1.88 (95% CI, 1.4–2.4)]. This was associated with higher mortality (60%). Our results showed that 22% (31/139) of current smokers and 46% (13/28) of ex-smokers had severe complications. The calculated RR showed that current smokers were 1.45 times more likely [95% CI: 1.03–2.04] to have severe complications compared to former and never smokers. Current smokers also had a higher mortality rate of 38.5%. Conclusion: Although COPD prevalence in COVID-19 cases was low in current reports, COVID-19 infection was associated with substantial severity and mortality rates in COPD. Compared to former and never smokers, current smokers were at greater risk of severe complications and higher mortality rate. Effective preventive measures are required to reduce COVID-19 risk in COPD patients and current smokers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]