Search

Background: Patient experiences with COVID-19 aftercare remain largely unknown. We evaluated COVID-19 aftercare from a patient perspective one year after hospitalization, assessing satisfaction and its associated factors, and unmet needs. Methods: The Satisfaction with COVID-19 Aftercare Questionnaire (SCAQ) was developed as part of a multicenter prospective cohort study and administered one year after hospital discharge. The SCAQ assesses (1) patient satisfaction, comprising information provision, rehabilitation, follow-up by hospitals and general practitioners (GPs), the most important aftercare topics, and overall satisfaction, and (2) unmet needs. Results: 487/561 (87%) COVID-19 patients completed the SCAQ, all had been discharged from the hospital between March 2020 and May 2021. Among responders, the median age of patients was 60 (IQR 54–67) years, 338 (69%) were male, and the median length of stay in the hospital was 13 (6–27) days. Patients were least satisfied with information on who could be contacted with questions when health problems arise (59% satisfied or very satisfied). Many patients (75%) received rehabilitation, most frequently community-based (70%). Across the different community-based therapies, ≥ 60% of patients were satisfied with shared-decision making and ≥ 70% with the received therapy; a majority (≥ 79%) indicated a preference for receiving the same therapy again if needed. Regarding follow-up by hospitals, 86% of patients received this follow-up, most frequently visiting a pulmonologist (96%), being generally satisfied with the received aftercare. Aftercare from GPs was received by 39% of patients, with 88% being satisfied with the GP’s availability and 79% with referral to appropriate aftercare providers. Patients (> 50%) considered information-related items most important in aftercare. Overall, patients rated their satisfaction with aftercare 8/10 (7–9) points. Those who rece

Introduction: Treatment of post lung-transplant airway complications is challenging, and treatment with conventional airway stents is associated with adverse events. More recently, biodegradable airway stents (BDS) have been introduced and may be used to reduce these adverse events. In this study we explore the feasibility of treatment with BDS post lung transplant. Methods: All patients treated with BDS in The Netherlands were included in this retrospective multicenter study. Feasibility, life span of the stent, occurrence of adverse events, and evolution of lung function were evaluated. Results: Twelve patients (six malacia and six stenosis) received a total of 57 BDS, ranging from 1 to 10 BDS per patient. Six patients had been pretreated with conventional airway stents. Median stent life span was 112 days (range 66–202). No adverse events occurred during stent placement. In 5 out of 57 stent placements, a single additional bronchoscopy was necessary because of mucus accumulation (n = 4) or excessive granulation tissue (n = 1). All stent naïve patients became airway stent independent after treatment; all patients pretreated with conventional airway stents were still airway stent dependent at the end of follow up. Conclusion: Treatment with BDS is safe and feasible. Adverse events were mild and easily treatable. All patients with initial treatment with BDS were airway stent independent at the end of follow up with a median treatment of 4 BDS.

Objectives: Various mechanisms, such as immune dysregulation, viral reservoir, and auto-immunity, are hypothesized to underlie the pathogenesis of long-term health problems after hospitalization for COVID-19. We aimed to assess the effect of in-hospital COVID-19 treatments on prominent long-term health problems. Methods: In this prospective multicenter cohort study, we enrolled patients (age ≥18 years) who had been hospitalized for COVID-19 in the Netherlands between July 2020 and October 2021. We retrospectively collected data on in-hospital COVID-19 treatments, including steroid, anti-inflammatory, and antiviral treatments. Patients completed questionnaires on self-reported recovery, dyspnea, fatigue, cognitive failures, and health-related quality of life and performed the 6-minute walk test at the 2-year follow-up visit. Results:Five hundred two patients with COVID-19 were included, all were discharged from the hospital between March 2020 and June 2021. The median age at admission was 60.0 (IQR 53.0-68.0) years and 350 (69.7%) patients were male. At hospital admission, 5/405 (1.2%) of the patients had been vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. Among all 502 patients, the majority (248 [49.4%]) received steroids only, 57 (11.4%) anti-inflammatory treatment, 78 (15.5%) antiviral treatment, and 119 (23.7%) none during hospitalization. Long-term health problems were common in all groups. We found that in-hospital treatments were not significantly associated with health problems at 2 years after hospital discharge, nor after adjusting for confounders. Conclusion: Many patients with COVID-19 suffer from long-term health problems 2 years after hospital discharge. Acute treatment for COVID-19 is not associated with long-term health problems.

Background: Many patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection develop long COVID with fatigue as one of the most disabling symptoms. We performed clinical and immune profiling of fatigued and non-fatigued long COVID patients and age- and sex-matched healthy controls (HCs). Methods:Long COVID symptoms were assessed using patient-reported outcome measures, including the fatigue assessment scale (FAS, scores ≥22 denote fatigue), and followed up to one year after hospital discharge. We assessed inflammation-related genes in circulating monocytes, serum levels of inflammation-regulating cytokines, and leukocyte and lymphocyte subsets, including major monocyte subsets and senescent T-lymphocytes, at 3-6 months post-discharge. Results: We included 37 fatigued and 36 non-fatigued long COVID patients and 42 HCs. Fatigued long COVID patients represented a more severe clinical profile than non-fatigued patients, with many concurrent symptoms (median 9 [IQR 5.0-10.0] vs 3 [1.0-5.0] symptoms, p<0.001), and signs of cognitive failure (41%) and depression (>24%). Immune abnormalities that were found in the entire group of long COVID patients were low grade inflammation (increased inflammatory gene expression in monocytes, increased serum pro-inflammatory cytokines) and signs of T-lymphocyte senescence (increased exhausted CD8+ TEMRA-lymphocytes). Immune profiles did not significantly differ between fatigued and non-fatigued long COVID groups. However, the severity of fatigue (total FAS score) significantly correlated with increases of intermediate and non-classical monocytes, upregulated gene levels of CCL2, CCL7, and SERPINB2 in monocytes, increases in serum Galectin-9, and higher CD8+ T-lymphocyte counts. Conclusion: Long COVID with fatigue is associated with many concurrent and persistent symptoms lasting up to one year after hospitalization. Increased fatigue severity a

In order to prevent long-term immunity-related complications after lung transplantation, close monitoring of immunosuppressant levels using therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is paramount. Novel electronic nose (eNose) technology may be a non-invasive alternative to the current invasive procedures for TDM. We investigated the diagnostic and categorization capacity of eNose breathprints for Tacrolimus trough blood plasma levels (TAC trough) in lung transplant recipients (LTRs). We performed eNose measurements in stable LTR attending the outpatient clinic. We evaluated (1) the correlation between eNose measurements and TAC trough, (2) the diagnostic capacity of eNose technology for TAC trough, and (3) the accuracy of eNose technology for categorization of TAC trough into three clinically relevant categories (low: <7 µg ml −1, medium: 7-10 µg ml −1, and high: >10 µg ml −1 ). A total of 186 measurements from 86 LTR were included. There was a weak but statistically significant correlation (r = 0.21, p = 0.004) between the eNose measurements and TAC trough. The root mean squared error of prediction for the diagnostic capacity was 3.186 in the training and 3.131 in the validation set. The accuracy of categorization ranged between 45%-63% for the training set and 52%-69% in the validation set. There is a weak correlation between eNose breathprints and TAC trough in LTR. However, the diagnostic as well as categorization capacity for TAC trough using eNose breathprints is too inaccurate to be applicable in TDM.

Background: Increased titers of autoantibodies targeting the G-protein-coupled receptors angiotensin II type 1 receptor (AT1R) and endotelin-1 type A receptor (ETAR) are associated with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. The aim of this study was to determine whether 1) these antibodies are specifically related to COVID-19 disease pathogenesis or increased during any severe respiratory illness, 2) if they are formed during illness, and 3) if they correlate with inflammatory markers or long-term symptoms. Methods: Antibodies against AT1R, ETAR, and antinuclear antibodies (ANAs) were measured in n=40 prospectively enrolled COVID-19 patients and n=207 COVID-19 patients included in a biobank. Clinical and laboratory findings were prospectively and retrospectively assessed in both cohorts, and results were combined for analysis. The presence of auto-antibodies against AT1R or ETAR in peripheral blood was compared between hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and controls (n=39). Additionally, AT1R and ETAR titers were compared between patients with an unfavorable disease course, defined as intensive care admission and/or death during hospital admission (n=121), to those with a favorable disease course (n=126). A subset of intubated patients with severe COVID-19 were compared to intubated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to any other cause. Results: Significantly increased AT1R and ETAR antibody titers were found in COVID-19 patients compared to controls, while titers were equal between favorable and unfavorable COVID-19 disease course groups. On ICU, intubated patients with COVID-19 had significantly increased AT1R and ETAR titers compared to patients with ARDS due to any other cause. The titers did not correlate with baseline inflammatory markers during admission or with diffusion capacity, cognitive impairment, or fatigue measured at 3 months follow-up. Con

Background: The comparison of recovery patterns for different care pathways following COVID-19 is necessary for optimizing rehabilitation strategies. Objectives: To evaluate cognitive and psychological outcomes across different care pathways up to 12 months after hospitalization for COVID-19. Methods: CO-FLOW is an ongoing multicenter prospective cohort study with assessments at 3, 6, and 12 months after hospitalization for COVID-19. The main outcomes are cognitive deficits (Montreal Cognitive Assessment, score <26), cognitive failure (Cognitive Failure Questionnaire, score >43), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD; Impact of Event Scale-Revised, score ≥33), and anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, subscale score ≥11). Results: In total, data from 617 participants were analyzed. Mean age was 59.7 (SD 11.4) years and 188 (31%) were female. Significant recovery occurred within the first 6 months post-discharge (p ≤ 0.001). Cognitive deficits persisted in 21% (101/474), and psychological problems in 15% (74/482) of people at 12 months. Significantly improved cognition scores were reported for people who did not receive rehabilitation (‘No-rehab’; 124/617, 20%; mean difference, MD 2.32, 95% CI 1.47 to 3.17; p<0.001), those who received community-based rehabilitation (‘Com-rehab’; 327/617, 53%; MD 1.27, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.78; p<0.001), and those who received medical rehabilitation (‘Med-rehab’; 86/617, 14%; MD 1.63, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.10; p = 0.029). Med-rehab participants experienced more cognitive failure from 3 to 6 months (MD 4.24, 95% 1.63 to 6.84; p = 0.001). Com-rehab showed recovery for PTSD (MD −2.43, 95% −3.50 to −1.37; p<0.001), anxiety (MD −0.67, 95% −1.02 to −0.32; p<0.001), and depression (MD −0.60, 95% −0.96 to −0.25; p<0.001), but symptoms persisted at 12 months. Conclusions: Survivors of COVID-19 showed cognitive and psychological recovery, especially within the first 6 months after hospitalization. Most pers

BACKGROUND: Illness after infection with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variant is less severe compared with previous variants. Data on the disease burden in immunocompromised patients are lacking. We investigated the clinical characteristics and outcomes of immunocompromised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by Omicron. METHODS: Organ transplant recipients, patients on anti-CD20 therapy, and allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation recipients infected with the Omicron variant were included. Characteristics of consenting patients were collected and patients were contacted regularly until symptom resolution. To identify possible risk factors for hospitalization, a univariate logistic analysis was performed. RESULTS: 114 consecutive immunocompromised patients were enrolled. Eighty-nine percent had previously received 3 mRNA vaccinations. While only 1 patient died, 23 (20%) were hospitalized for a median of 11 days. A low SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody response (<300 BAU [binding antibody units]/mL) at diagnosis, being older, being a lung transplant recipient, having more comorbidities, and having a higher frailty score were associated with hospital admission (all P < .01). At the end of follow-up, 25% had still not fully recovered. Of the 23 hospitalized patients, 70% had a negative and 92% had a low IgG (<300 BAU/mL) antibody response at admission. Sotrovimab was administered to 17 of these patients, and 1 died. CONCLUSIONS: While the mortality in immunocompromised patients infected with Omicron was low, hospital admission was frequent and the duration of symptoms often prolonged. In addition to vaccination, other interventions are needed to limit the morbidity from COVID-19 in immunocompromised patients.

Background: There is a need for reliable biomarkers for the diagnosis of chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD). In this light, we investigated the diagnostic value of exhaled breath analysis using an electronic nose (eNose) for CLAD, CLAD phenotype, and CLAD stage in lung transplant recipients (LTR). Methods: We performed eNose measurements in LTR with and without CLAD, visiting the outpatient clinic. Through supervised machine learning, the diagnostic value of eNose for CLAD was assessed in a random training and validation set. Next, we investigated the diagnostic value of the eNose measurements combined with known risk factors for CLAD. Model performance was evaluated using ROC-analysis. Results: We included 152 LTR (median age 60 years, 49% females), of whom 38 with CLAD. eNose-based classification of patients with and without CLAD provided an AUC of 0.86 in the training set, and 0.82 in the validation set. After adding established risk factors for CLAD (age, gender, type of transplantation, time after transplantation and prior occurrence of acute cellular rejection) to a model with the eNose data, the discriminative ability of the model improved to an AUC of 0.94 (p = 0.02) in the training set and 0.94 (p = 0.04) in the validation set. Discrimination between BOS and RAS was good (AUC 0.95). Discriminative ability for other phenotypes (AUCs ranging 0.50-0.92) or CLAD stages (AUC 0.56) was limited. Conclusion: Exhaled breath analysis using eNose is a promising novel biomarker for enabling diagnosis and phenotyping CLAD. eNose technology could be a valuable addition to the diagnostic armamentarium for suspected graft failure in LTR.

Importance: While much of the attention on the COVID-19 pandemic was directed at the daily counts of cases and those with serious disease overwhelming health services, increasingly, reports have appeared of people who experience debilitating symptoms after the initial infection. This is popularly known as long COVID. Objective: To estimate by country and territory of the number of patients affected by long COVID in 2020 and 2021, the severity of their symptoms and expected pattern of recovery. Design: We jointly analyzed ten ongoing cohort studies in ten countries for the occurrence of three major symptom clusters of long COVID among representative COVID cases. The defining symptoms of the three clusters (fatigue, cognitive problems, and shortness of breath) are explicitly mentioned in the WHO clinical case definition. For incidence of long COVID, we adopted the minimum duration after infection of three months from the WHO case definition. We pooled data from the contributing studies, two large medical record databases in the United States, and findings from 44 published studies using a Bayesian meta-regression tool. We separately estimated occurrence and pattern of recovery in patients with milder acute infections and those hospitalized. We estimated the incidence and prevalence of long COVID globally and by country in 2020 and 2021 as well as the severity-weighted prevalence using disability weights from the Global Burden of Disease study. Results: Analyses are based on detailed information for 1906 community infections and 10526 hospitalized patients from the ten collaborating cohorts, three of which included children. We added published data on 37262 community infections and 9540 hospitalized patients as well as ICD-coded medical record data concerning 1.3 million infections. Globally, in 2020 and 2021, 144.7 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 54.8-312.9) people suffered from any of the three symptom clusters of long COVID. This corresponds to 3.69% (1.38-7.

BACKGROUD: The sudden COVID-19 pandemic forced quick development of care pathways for patients with different needs. Trajectories of physical recovery in hospitalized patients for COVID-19 following different care pathways are unknown. We aimed to assess trajectories of physical recovery and levels of physical function reached within the different care pathways. Additionally, we assessed differences in physical function across care pathways at follow-up visits.METHODS: This multicenter prospective cohort study of adults who had been hospitalized for COVID-19 was performed in 10 centers, including 7 hospitals (1 academic and 6 regional hospitals) and 3 rehabilitation centers (1 medical rehabilitation center and 2 skilled nursing facilities), located in the Netherlands. Study visits were performed at 3, 6, and 12 months post-hospital discharge and included assessment of cardiorespiratory fitness (6 min walk test [6MWT], 1 min sit-to-stand test [1MSTST]), muscle strength (maximum handgrip strength [HGS]) and mobility (de Morton Mobility Index [DEMMI]).FINDINGS: We report findings for 582 patients who had been discharged from hospital between March 24, 2020 and June 17, 2021. Patients had a median age of 60·0 years, 68·9% (401/582) were male, 94·6% (561/582) had received oxygen therapy, and 35·2% (205/582) mechanical ventilation. We followed patients across four different rehabilitation settings: no rehabilitation (No-rehab, 19·6% [114/582]), community-based rehabilitation (Com-rehab, 54·1% [315/582]), medical rehabilitation (Med-rehab, 13·7% [80/582]), and rehabilitation in a skilled nursing facility (SNF-rehab, 12·5% [73/582]). Overall, outcomes in 6MWT (14·9 meters [95% CI 7·4 to 22·4]), 1MSTST (2·2 repetitions [1·5 to 2·8]), and HGS (3·5 kg [2·9 to 4·0]) improved significantly (p<0·001) from 3 to 6 months and only HGS from 6 to 12 months (2·5 kg [1·8 to 3·1]; p<0·001). DEMMI scores did not significantly improve over time. At 3 months, percenta

Background: Serological responses to COVID-19 vaccination are diminished in recipients of solid organ transplants, especially in lung transplant recipients (LTR), probably as result of immunosuppressive treatment. There is currently no marker of immunosuppression that can be used to predict the COVID-19 vaccination response. Here, we study whether torque tenovirus (TTV), a highly prevalent virus can be used as an indicator of immunosuppression. Methods: The humoral response to the mRNA 1273 vaccine was assessed in 103 LTR, who received a transplant between 4 and 237 months prior to vaccination, by measuring Spike (S)-specific IgG levels at baseline, 28 days after first, and 28 days after the second vaccination. TTV loads were determined by RT-PCR and Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated to correlate serological responses to TTV load. Results: Humoral responses to COVID-19 vaccination were observed in 41 of 103 (40%) LTR at 28 days after the second vaccination. Sixty-two of 103 (60%) were non-responders. Lower TTV loads at baseline (significantly) correlated with higher S-specific antibodies and a higher percentage of responders. Lower TTV loads also strongly correlated with longer time since transplantation, indicating that participants with lower TTV loads were longer after transplantation. Conclusions: This study shows a better humoral response to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in subjects with a lower TTV load pre-vaccination. In addition, TTV load correlates with the time after transplantation. Further studies on the use of TTV load in vaccination efficacy studies in immunocompromised cohorts should provide leads for the potential use of this marker for optimizing vaccination response.

BACKGROUND: Although psychological sequelae after intensive care unit (ICU) treatment are considered quite intrusive, robustly effective interventions to treat or prevent these long-term sequelae are lacking. Recently, it was demonstrated that ICU-specific virtual reality (ICU-VR) is a feasible and acceptable intervention with potential mental health benefits. However, its effect on mental health and ICU aftercare in COVID-19 ICU survivors is unknown.OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the effects of ICU-VR on mental health and on patients' perceived quality of, satisfaction with, and rating of ICU aftercare among COVID-19 ICU survivors.METHODS: This was a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Patients were randomized to either the ICU-VR (intervention) or the control group. All patients were invited to an COVID-19 post-ICU follow-up clinic 3 months after hospital discharge, during which patients in the intervention group received ICU-VR. One month and 3 months later (4 and 6 months after hospital discharge), mental health, quality of life, perceived quality, satisfaction with, and rating of ICU aftercare were scored using questionnaires.RESULTS: Eighty-nine patients (median age 58 years; 63 males, 70%) were included. The prevalence and severity of psychological distress were limited throughout follow-up, and no differences in psychological distress or quality of life were observed between the groups. ICU-VR improved satisfaction with (mean score 8.7, SD 1.6 vs 7.6, SD 1.6 [ICU-VR vs control]; t64=-2.82, P=.006) and overall rating of ICU aftercare (mean overall rating of aftercare 8.9, SD 0.9 vs 7.8, SD 1.7 [ICU-VR vs control]; t64=-3.25; P=.002) compared to controls. ICU-VR added to the quality of ICU aftercare according to 81% of the patients, and all patients would recommend ICU-VR to other ICU survivors.CONCLUSIONS: ICU-VR is a feasible and acceptable innovative method to improve satisfaction with and rating of ICU aftercare

A large heterogeneity in the management of post-COVID-19 syndrome and in standard operating procedures for COVID-19 follow-up programmes across Europe exists https://bit.ly/3OdPxgF

Rationale: Data on longitudinal recovery after hospitalization for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) currently remain scarce, just as outcomes beyond 3 months of follow-up do. Objectives: To evaluate the sequelae up to 6 months after hospitalization for COVID-19 by considering 1) recovery as it relates to pulmonary function, radiological abnormalities, physical and mental health status, and health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) and 2) the predictors of the most clinically relevant sequelae. Methods: Patients were evaluated at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months after hospitalization by using pulmonary function testing, radiological evaluation, and online questionnaires on the physical and mental health status and HR-QoL. Outcomes were analyzed using repeated-measurement analyses. Results: Ninety-two patients were included (mean age, 58.2 ± 12.3 yr; 58 [63.0%] men). The estimated percentage of patients with impaired forced vital capacity improved from 25% at 6 weeks to 11% at 6 months; for impaired diffusion capacity, this percentage improved from 63% to 46%. Radiologically, ground-glass opacity decreased but fibrosis persisted. The majority of patients (89.1%) still reported one or more symptoms 6 months after discharge. Fatigue decreased significantly over time (P = 0.006). Nonetheless, fatigue remained in 51% of the patients at 6 months. HR-QoL (nearly) normalized in most domains at 6 months, except for physical role functioning, with persistent fatigue and the length of hospitalization being the most important predictors. Conclusions: During the first 6 months after hospitalization for COVID-19, most patients demonstrated continuing recovery across all health domains, but persistent sequelae were frequent. Fatigue was the most frequent residual and persistent symptom up to 6 months after hospitalization, importantly impacting HR-QoL.

Introduction A large proportion of patients experience a wide range of sequelae after acute COVID-19, especially after severe illness. The long-term health sequelae need to be assessed. Our objective was to longitudinally assess persistence of symptoms and clusters of symptoms up to 12 months after hospitalisation for COVID-19 and to assess determinants of the main persistent symptoms. Methods In this multicenter prospective cohort study patients with COVID-19 are followed up for 2 years with measurements at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after hospital discharge. Here, we present interim results regarding persistent symptoms up to 12 months. Results We included 492 patients; mean±SD age was 60.2±10.7 years, 335 (68.1%) were males, median length of hospital stay was 11 (6.0–27.0) days. At 3 months after discharge 97.0% of the patients had at least one persisting symptom, this declined to 95.5% and 92.0% at 6 and 12 months, respectively (p=0.010). Muscle weakness, exertional dyspnoea, fatigue, and memory and concentration problems were the most prevalent symptoms with rates over 50% during follow-up. Over time, muscle weakness, hair loss and exertional dyspnoea decreased significantly (p<0.001), while other symptoms such as fatigue, concentration and memory problems, anosmia and ageusia persisted. Symptoms from the physical and respiratory cluster declined significantly over time, in contrast to the fatigue and cognitive symptom clusters. Conclusion The majority of patients experienced COVID-19 sequelae up to 12 months after severe infection. Whereas physical and respiratory symptoms showed slow gradual decline, fatigue and cognitive symptoms did not evidently resolve over time.