Search

Summary: Background: Symptom fluctuations within and between individuals with long COVID are widely reported, but the extent to which severity varies following different types of activity and levels of exertion, and the timing of symptoms and recovery, have not previously been quantified. We aimed to characterise timing, severity, and nature of symptom fluctuations in response to effortful physical, social and cognitive activities, using Ecological Momentary Assessments. Methods: We recorded activity, effort, and severity of 8 core symptoms every 3 h for up to 24 days, in cohorts from both clinic and community settings. Symptom severities were jointly modelled using autoregressive and moving average processes. Findings: Consent was received from 376 participants providing ≥1 week's measurements (273 clinic-based, 103 community-based). Severity of all symptoms was elevated 30 min after all categories of activity. Increased effort was associated with increased symptom severity. Fatigue severity scores increased by 1.8/10 (95% CI: 1.6–1.9) following the highest physical exertions and by 1.5 (1.4–1.7) following cognitive efforts. There was evidence of only mild delayed fatigue 3 h (0.3, 0.2–0.5) or one day later (0.2, 0.0– 0.5). Fatigue severity increased as the day progressed (1.4, 1.0–1.7), and cognitive dysfunction was 0.2 lower at weekends (0.1–0.3). Interpretation: Cognitive, social, self-care and physical activities all triggered increased severity across every symptom, consistent with associated common pathways as potential therapeutic targets. Clear patterns of symptom fluctuations emerged that support more targeted self-management. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research.

The protracted form of COVID-19 known as ‘long covid’ was first described in 2020. Its symptoms, course and prognosis vary widely; some patients have a multi-system, disabling and prolonged illness. In 2021, ring-fenced funding was provided to establish 90 long covid clinics in England; some clinics were also established in Scotland and Wales. The NIHR-funded LOCOMOTION project implemented a UK-wide quality improvement collaborative involving ten of these clinics, which ran from 2021 to 2023. At regular online meetings held approximately 8-weekly, participants prioritised topics, discussed research evidence and guidelines, and presented exemplar case histories and clinic audits. A patient advisory group also held a priority-setting exercise, participated in quality meetings and undertook a service evaluation audit. The goal of successive quality improvement cycles aimed at changing practice to align with evidence was sometimes hard to achieve because definitive evidence did not yet exist in this new condition; many patients had comorbidities; and clinics were practically constrained in various ways. Nevertheless, much progress was made and a series of ‘best practice’ guides was produced, covering general assessment and management; breathing difficulties; orthostatic tachycardia and other autonomic symptoms; fatigue and cognitive impairment; and vocational rehabilitation. This paper summarises key findings with the frontline clinician in mind.

Background Singing for lung health (SLH) is an arts-based breathing control and movement intervention for people with long-term respiratory conditions, intended to improve symptoms and quality of life. Online, remotely delivered programmes might improve accessibility; however, no previous studies have assessed the effectiveness of this approach.Methods We conducted an assessor-blind randomised controlled trial comparing the impact of 12 weeks of once-weekly online SLH sessions against usual care on health-related quality of life, assessed using the RAND 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) Mental Health Composite (MHC) and Physical Health Composite (PHC) scores.Results We enrolled 115 people with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), median (IQR) age 69 (62–74), 56.5% females, 80% prior pulmonary rehabilitation, Medical Research Council dyspnoea scale 4 (3–4), forced expiratory volume in 1 s % predicted 49 (35–63). 50 participants in each arm completed the study. The intervention arm experienced improvements in physical but not mental health components of RAND SF-36; PHC (regression coefficient (95% CI): 1.77 (95% CI 0.11 to 3.44); p=0.037), but not MHC (0.86 (95% CI −1.68 to 3.40); p=0.504). A prespecified responder analysis based on achieving a 10% improvement from baseline demonstrated a response rate for PHC of 32% in the SLH arm and 12.7% for usual care (p=0.024). A between-group difference in responder rate was not found in relation to the MHC (19.3% vs 25.9%; p=0.403).Discussion and conclusion A 12-week online SLH programme can improve the physical component of quality of life for people with COPD, but the overall effect is relatively modest compared with the impact seen in research using face-to-face group sessions. Further work on the content, duration and dose of online interventions may be useful.Trial registration number NCT04034212.

Introduction A substantial proportion of COVID-19 survivors continue to have symptoms more than 3 months after infection, especially of those who required medical intervention. Lasting symptoms are wide-ranging, and presentation varies between individuals and fluctuates within an individual. Improved understanding of undulation in symptoms and triggers may improve efficacy of healthcare providers and enable individuals to better self-manage their Long Covid. We present a protocol where we aim to develop and examine the feasibility and usability of digital home monitoring for capturing daily fluctuation of symptoms in individuals with Long Covid and provide data to facilitate a personalised approach to the classification and management of Long Covid symptoms.Methods and analysis This study is a longitudinal prospective cohort study of adults with Long Covid accessing 10 National Health Service (NHS) rehabilitation services in the UK. We aim to recruit 400 people from participating NHS sites. At referral to study, 6 weeks and 12 weeks, participants will complete demographic data (referral to study) and clinical outcome measures, including ecological momentary assessment (EMA) using personal mobile devices. EMA items are adapted from the COVID-19 Yorkshire Rehabilitation Scale items and include self-reported activities, symptoms and psychological factors. Passive activity data will be collected through wrist-worn sensors. We will use latent class growth models to identify trajectories of experience, potential phenotypes defined by co-occurrence of symptoms and inter-relationships between stressors, symptoms and participation in daily activities. We anticipate that n=300 participants provide 80% power to detect a 20% improvement in fatigue over 12 weeks in one class of patients relative to another.Ethics and dissemination The study was approved by the Yorkshire & The Humber—Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee (ref: 21/YH/0276). Findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications and presented at conferences.Trial registration number ISRCTN15022307.

Summary: Background: Hypoxaemia is an important predictor of severity in individuals with COVID-19 and can present without symptoms. The COVID Oximetry @home (CO@h) programme was implemented across England in November, 2020, providing pulse oximeters to higher-risk people with COVID-19 to enable early detection of deterioration and the need for escalation of care. We aimed to describe the clinical and demographic characteristics of individuals enrolled onto the programme and to assess whether there were any inequalities in enrolment. Methods: This retrospective observational study was based on data from a cohort of people resident in England recorded as having a positive COVID-19 test between Oct 1, 2020, and May 3, 2021. The proportion of participants enrolled onto the CO@h programmes in the 7 days before and 28 days after a positive COVID-19 test was calculated for each clinical commissioning group (CCG) in England. Two-level hierarchical multivariable logistic regression with random intercepts for each CCG was run to identify factors predictive of being enrolled onto the CO@h programme. Findings: CO@h programme sites were reported by NHS England as becoming operational between Nov 21 and Dec 31, 2020. 1 227 405 people resident in 72 CCGs had a positive COVID-19 test between the date of programme implementation and May 3, 2021, of whom 19 932 (1·6%) were enrolled onto the CO@h programme. Of those enrolled, 14 441 (72·5%) were aged 50 years or older or were identified as clinically extremely vulnerable (ie, having a high-risk medical condition). Higher odds of enrolment onto the CO@h programme were found in older individuals (adjusted odds ratio 2·21 [95% CI 2·19–2·23], p

Introduction Long COVID, a new condition whose origins and natural history are not yet fully established, currently affects 1.5 million people in the UK. Most do not have access to specialist long COVID services. We seek to optimise long COVID care both within and outside specialist clinics, including improving access, reducing inequalities, helping self-management and providing guidance and decision support for primary care. We aim to establish a ‘gold standard’ of care by systematically analysing current practices, iteratively improving pathways and systems of care.Methods and analysis This mixed-methods, multisite study is informed by the principles of applied health services research, quality improvement, co-design, outcome measurement and learning health systems. It was developed in close partnership with patients (whose stated priorities are prompt clinical assessment; evidence-based advice and treatment and help with returning to work and other roles) and with front-line clinicians. Workstreams and tasks to optimise assessment, treatment and monitoring are based in three contrasting settings: workstream 1 (qualitative research, up to 100 participants), specialist management in 10 long COVID clinics across the UK, via a quality improvement collaborative, experience-based co-design and targeted efforts to reduce inequalities of access, return to work and peer support; workstream 2 (quantitative research, up to 5000 participants), patient self-management at home, technology-supported monitoring and validation of condition-specific outcome measures and workstream 3 (quantitative research, up to 5000 participants), generalist management in primary care, harnessing electronic record data to study population phenotypes and develop evidence-based decision support, referral pathways and analysis of costs. Study governance includes an active patient advisory group.Ethics and dissemination LOng COvid Multidisciplinary consortium Optimising Treatments and servIces acrOss the NHS study is sponsored by the University of Leeds and approved by Yorkshire & The Humber—Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee (ref: 21/YH/0276). Participants will provide informed consent. Dissemination plans include academic and lay publications, and partnerships with national and regional policymakers.Trial registration number NCT05057260, ISRCTN15022307.

Summary: The COVID-19 pandemic has led health systems to increase the use of tools for monitoring and triaging patients remotely. In this systematic review, we aim to assess the effectiveness and safety of pulse oximetry in remote patient monitoring (RPM) of patients at home with COVID-19. We searched five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, medRxiv, and bioRxiv) from database inception to April 15, 2021, and included feasibility studies, clinical trials, and observational studies, including preprints. We found 561 studies, of which 13 were included in our narrative synthesis. These 13 studies were all observational cohorts and involved a total of 2908 participants. A meta-analysis was not feasible owing to the heterogeneity of the outcomes reported in the included studies. Our systematic review substantiates the safety and potential of pulse oximetry for monitoring patients at home with COVID-19, identifying the risk of deterioration and the need for advanced care. The use of pulse oximetry can potentially save hospital resources for patients who might benefit the most from care escalation; however, we could not identify explicit evidence for the effect of RPM with pulse oximetry on health outcomes compared with other monitoring models such as virtual wards, regular monitoring consultations, and online or paper diaries to monitor changes in symptoms and vital signs. Based on our findings, we make 11 recommendations across the three Donabedian model domains and highlight three specific measurements for setting up an RPM system with pulse oximetry.

Objectives To determine the safety and effectiveness of home oximetry monitoring pathways for patients with COVID-19 in the English National Health Service.Design Retrospective, multisite, observational study of home oximetry monitoring for patients with suspected or proven COVID-19.Setting This study analysed patient data from four COVID-19 home oximetry pilot sites in England across primary and secondary care settings.Participants A total of 1338 participants were enrolled in a home oximetry programme across four pilot sites. Participants were excluded if primary care data and oxygen saturations at rest at enrolment were not available. Data from 908 participants were included in the analysis.Interventions Home oximetry monitoring was provided to participants with a known or suspected diagnosis of COVID-19. Participants were enrolled following attendance to emergency departments, hospital admission or referral through primary care services.Results Of 908 patients enrolled into four different COVID-19 home oximetry programmes in England, 771 (84.9%) had oxygen saturations at rest of 95% or more, and 320 (35.2%) were under 65 years of age and without comorbidities. 52 (5.7%) presented to hospital and 28 (3.1%) died following enrolment, of which 14 (50%) had COVID-19 as a named cause of death. All-cause mortality was significantly higher in patients enrolled after admission to hospital (OR 8.70 (2.53–29.89)), compared with those enrolled in primary care. Patients enrolled after hospital discharge (OR 0.31 (0.15–0.68)) or emergency department presentation (OR 0.42 (0.20–0.89)) were significantly less likely to present to hospital than those enrolled in primary care.Conclusions This study finds that home oximetry monitoring can be a safe pathway for patients with COVID-19; and indicates increases in risk to vulnerable groups and patients with oxygen saturations

Background The symptoms, radiography, biochemistry and healthcare utilisation of patients with COVID-19 following discharge from hospital have not been well described.Methods Retrospective analysis of 401 adult patients attending a clinic following an index hospital admission or emergency department attendance with COVID-19. Regression models were used to assess the association between characteristics and persistent abnormal chest radiographs or breathlessness.Results 75.1% of patients were symptomatic at a median of 53 days post discharge and 72 days after symptom onset and chest radiographs were abnormal in 47.4%. Symptoms and radiographic abnormalities were similar in PCR-positive and PCR-negative patients. Severity of COVID-19 was significantly associated with persistent radiographic abnormalities and breathlessness. 18.5% of patients had unscheduled healthcare visits in the 30 days post discharge.Conclusions Patients with COVID-19 experience persistent symptoms and abnormal blood biomarkers with a gradual resolution of radiological abnormalities over time. These findings can inform patients and clinicians about expected recovery times and plan services for follow-up of patients with COVID-19.