Search

Background: A subgroup of patients recovering from COVID-19 experience persistent symptoms, decreased quality of life, increased dependency on others for personal care and impaired performance of activities of daily living. However, the long-term effects of COVID-19 on physical activity (PA) in this subgroup of patients with persistent symptoms remain unclear. Methods: Demographics, self-reported average time spent walking per week, as well as participation in activities pre-COVID-19 and after three and six months of follow-up were assessed in members of online long-COVID-19 peer support groups. Results: Two hundred thirty-nine patients with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis were included (83% women, median (IQR) age: 50 (39-56) years). Patients reported a significantly decreased weekly walking time after three months of follow-up (three months: 60 (15-120) min. vs. pre-COVID-19: 120 (60-240) min./week; p < 0.05). Six months after the onset of symptoms walking time was still significantly lower compared to pre-COVID-19 but significantly increased compared to three months of follow-up (three months: 60 (15-120) min. vs. six months: 90 (30-150) min.; p < 0.05). Conclusions: Patients who experience persistent symptoms after COVID-19 may still demonstrate a significantly decreased walking time six months after the onset of symptoms. More research is needed to investigate long-term consequences and possible treatment options to guide patients during the recovery fromCOVID-19.

Background: Fatigue is a distressing symptom in patients with COPD. Little is known about the factors that contribute to fatigue in COPD. This review summarises existing knowledge on the prevalence of fatigue, factors related to fatigue and the instruments most commonly used to assess fatigue in COPD., Methods: Pubmed, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Cochrane and CINAHL databases were searched for studies from inception up to 7 January 2020 using the medical subject headings "COPD" and "Fatigue". Studies were reviewed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines., Results: 196 studies were evaluated. The prevalence of fatigue ranged from 17-95%. Age (r=-0.23 to r=0.27), sex (r=0.11), marital status (r=-0.096), dyspnoea (r=0.13 to r=0.78), forced expiatory volume in 1 s % predicted (r=-0.55 to r=-0.076), number of exacerbations (r=0.27 to r=0.38), number of comorbidities (r=0.10), number of medications (r=0.35), anxiety (r=0.36 to r=0.61), depression (r=0.41 to r=0.66), muscle strength (r=-0.78 to r=-0.45), functional capacity (r=-0.77 to r=-0.14) and quality of life (r=0.48 to r=0.77) showed significant associations with fatigue., Conclusions: Fatigue is a prevalent symptom in patients with COPD. Multiple physical and psychological factors seem to be associated with fatigue . Future studies are needed to evaluate these underlying factors in integral analyses in samples of patients with COPD., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: Z. Ebadi has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: M.J. Goërtz has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: M. Van Herck has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: D.A.J. Janssen reports personal fees from Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim and AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: M.A. Spruit reports grants from Netherlands Lung Foundation, Stichting Astma Bestrijding, Boehringer Ingelheim and AstraZeneca, during the conduct of the study; and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: C. Burtin has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: M.S.Y. Thong has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J. Muris has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J. Otker has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: M. Looijmans has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: C. Vlasblom has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J. Bastiaansen has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J. Prins has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: E.F.M. Wouters has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J.H. Vercoulen has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J.B. Peters has nothing to disclose., (©The authors 2021.)

Background: An increasing number of subjects are recovering from COVID-19, raising the need for tools to adequately assess the course of the disease and its impact on functional status. We aimed to assess the construct validity of the Post-COVID-19 Functional Status (PCFS) Scale among adult subjects with confirmed and presumed COVID-19., Methods: Adult subjects with confirmed and presumed COVID-19, who were members of an online panel and two Facebook groups for subjects with COVID-19 with persistent symptoms, completed an online survey after the onset of infection-related symptoms. The number and intensity of symptoms were evaluated with the Utrecht Symptom Diary, health-related quality of life (HrQoL) with the 5-level EQ-5D questionnaire, impairment in work and activities with the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire and functional status with the PCFS Scale., Results: 1939 subjects were included in the analyses (85% women, 95% non-hospitalized during infection) about 3 months after the onset of infection-related symptoms. Subjects classified as experiencing 'slight', 'moderate' and 'severe' functional limitations presented a gradual increase in the number/intensity of symptoms, reduction of HrQoL and impairment in work and usual activities. No differences were found regarding the number and intensity of symptoms, HrQoL and impairment in work and usual activities between subjects classified as experiencing 'negligible' and 'no' functional limitations. We found weak-to-strong statistical associations between functional status and all domains of HrQoL (r: 0.233-0.661). Notably, the strongest association found was with the 'usual activities' domain of the 5-level EQ-5D questionnaire., Conclusion: We demonstrated the construct validity of the PCFS Scale in highly-symptomatic adult subjects with confirmed and presumed COVID-19, 3 months after the onset of symptoms.

This document is a correction notice for an article titled "Symptoms and quality of life before, during, and after a SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive or negative test: data from Lifelines" published in Scientific Reports. The correction states that H. Marike Boezen, one of the authors, is deceased. Additionally, there was an error in the Consortium list, where Judith G. M. Rosmalen was incorrectly listed as an author. The correction has been made to the original article. The authors of the article are Yvonne M. J. Goërtz, Martijn A. Spruit, Maarten Van Herck, Nicole Dukers-Muijrers, H. Marike Boezen, Jochen O. Mierau, H. Lude Franke, Jackie Dekens, Patrick Deelen, Pauline Lanting, Judith M. Vonk, Ilja Nolte, Anil P. S. Ori, Annique Claringbould, Floranne Boulogne, Marjolein X. L. Dijkema, Henry H. Wiersma, Robert Warmerdam, Soesma A. Jankipersadsing, Irene van Blokland, Geertruida H. de Bock, Cisca Wijmenga, Carla J. H. van der Kallen, Chris Burtin, and Daisy J. A. Janssen. [Extracted from the article]

The impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on quality of life appears to be highly underestimated, especially in patients who have not been admitted to the hospital. Therefore, our aim was to assess respiratory-specific quality of life in addition to generic quality of life in former patients with confirmed/suspected COVID-19 who have never been admitted to the hospital. Members of an online Belgian social support group for patients with confirmed/suspected COVID-19 with persistent complaints, completed an online survey. The five-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) and the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) were used to assess generic and respiratory-specific quality of life, respectively. Data of 210 non-hospitalized patients (88% women, 45 ± 11 years, 79 ± 17 days after symptom onset) were included in the analyses. Mean EQ-5D index and visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) score was 0.62 ± 0.19 and 50.71 ± 18.87, respectively, with 40% of the patients demonstrating an EQ-5D index that was below the fifth percentile of normative values, indicating poor generic quality of life. The mean CCQ score was 2.01 ± 0.98 points, while 123 respondents (59%) had a total score ≥1.9 points, indicating poor respiratory-specific quality of life. The correlation between EQ-5D index score/EQ-VAS score and CCQ total score was moderate (r = −0.524 and r = −0.374; both p < 0.001). In conclusion, both generic and respiratory-specific quality of life are affected in non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19, approximately three months after the onset of symptoms. The combined use of the EQ-5D and the CCQ could identify the broad impact of COVID-19 on quality of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To date, it remains unknown which patients report a clinically-relevant improvement in fatigue following pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). The purpose of this study was to identify and characterize these responders. Demographics, lung function, anxiety (anxiety subscale of the 90-item symptom checklist (SCL-90-A)), depression (Beck depression inventory for primary care (BDI-PC)), exercise tolerance (six-minute walking distance test (6MWD)), and health status (Nijmegen clinical screening instrument (NCSI)) were assessed before and after a 12-week PR programme. Fatigue was assessed using the checklist individual strength (CIS)-Fatigue. Patients with a decline ≥ 10 points (minimally clinically important difference, MCID) on the CIS-Fatigue were defined as responders. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients (n = 446, 61 ± 9 years, 53% male, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) 43% ± 18% predicted, 75% severe fatigue) were included. Mean change in fatigue after PR was 10 ± 12 points (p < 0.01) and exceeded the MCID. In total, 56% were identified as fatigue responders. Baseline CIS-Fatigue (45 ± 7 vs. 38 ± 9 points, respectively, p < 0.001) and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL; p < 0.001) were different between responders and non-responders. No differences were found in demographics, baseline anxiety, depression, lung function, 6MWD, and dyspnoea (p-values > 0.01). Responders on fatigue reported a greater improvement in anxiety, depression, 6MWD, dyspnoea (all p-values < 0.001), and most health status parameters. PR reduces fatigue in COPD. Responders on fatigue have worse fatigue and HRQoL scores at baseline, and are also likely to be responders on other outcomes of PR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 2018 update of the Global Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention does not mention fatigue-related symptoms. Nevertheless, patients with asthma frequently report tiredness, lack of energy, and daytime sleepiness. Quantitative research regarding the prevalence of fatigue in asthmatic patients is lacking. This retrospective cross-sectional study of outpatients with asthma upon referral to a chest physician assessed fatigue (Checklist Individual Strength-Fatigue (CIS-Fatigue)), lung function (spirometry), asthma control (Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)), dyspnea (Medical Research Council (MRC) scale), exercise capacity (six-minute walk test (6MWT)), and asthma-related Quality-of-Life (QoL), Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) during a comprehensive health-status assessment. In total, 733 asthmatic patients were eligible and analyzed (47.4 ± 16.3 years, 41.1% male). Severe fatigue (CIS-Fatigue ≥ 36 points) was detected in 62.6% of patients. Fatigue was not related to airflow limitation (FEV1, ρ = −0.083); was related moderately to ACQ (ρ = 0.455), AQLQ (ρ = −0.554), and MRC (ρ = 0.435; all p-values < 0.001); and was related weakly to 6MWT (ρ = −0.243, p < 0.001). In stepwise multiple regression analysis, 28.9% of variance in fatigue was explained by ACQ (21.0%), MRC (6.5%), and age (1.4%). As for AQLQ, 42.2% of variance was explained by fatigue (29.8%), MRC (8.6%), exacerbation rate (2.6%), and age (1.2%). Severe fatigue is highly prevalent in asthmatic patients; it is an important determinant of disease-specific QoL and a crucial yet ignored patient-related outcome in patients with asthma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]