Awake prone positioning for COVID-19 acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure: a randomised, controlled, multinational, open-label meta-trial.

Patients diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection frequently experience symptom burden post-acute infection or post-hospitalisation. We aimed to identify optimal strategies for follow-up care that may positively impact the patient's quality of life (QoL). A European Respiratory Society (ERS) Task Force convened and prioritised eight clinical questions. A targeted search of the literature defined the timeline of “long COVID” as 1–6 months post-infection and identified clinical evidence in the follow-up of patients. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria report an association of characteristics of acute infection with persistent symptoms, thromboembolic events in the follow-up period, and evaluations of pulmonary physiology and imaging. Importantly, this statement reviews QoL consequences, symptom burden, disability and home care follow-up. Overall, the evidence for follow-up care for patients with long COVID is limited. Follow-up care of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 is crucial and may improve their quality of life. More evidence and research is emerging to understand the causes, mechanisms and risks of long COVID consequences. https://bit.ly/3J1WMWy

/pdf/european-respiratory-society-statement-on-long-covid-follow-3n1e7kxq.pdf

European Respiratory Society statement on long COVID follow-up

Noninvasive respiratory support (NIRS) has been diffusely employed outside the intensive care unit (ICU) to face the high request of ventilatory support due to the massive influx of patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) caused by coronavirus-19 disease (COVID-19). We sought to summarize the evidence on clinically relevant outcomes in COVID-19 patients supported by NIV outside the ICU. We searched PUBMED®, EMBASE®, and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical trials register, along with medRxiv and bioRxiv repositories for pre-prints, for observational studies and randomized controlled trials, from inception to the end of February 2021. Two authors independently selected the investigations according to the following criteria: (1) observational study or randomized clinical trials enrolling ≥ 50 hospitalized patients undergoing NIRS outside the ICU, (2) laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, and (3) at least the intra-hospital mortality reported. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines were followed. Data extraction was independently performed by two authors to assess: investigation features, demographics and clinical characteristics, treatments employed, NIRS regulations, and clinical outcomes. Methodological index for nonrandomized studies tool was applied to determine the quality of the enrolled studies. The primary outcome was to assess the overall intra-hospital mortality of patients under NIRS outside the ICU. The secondary outcomes included the proportions intra-hospital mortalities of patients who underwent invasive mechanical ventilation following NIRS failure and of those with ‘do-not-intubate’ (DNI) orders. Seventeen investigations (14 peer-reviewed and 3 pre-prints) were included with a low risk of bias and a high heterogeneity, for a total of 3377 patients. The overall intra-hospital mortality of patients receiving NIRS outside the ICU was 36% [30–41%]. 26% [21–30%] of the patients failed NIRS and required intubation, with an intra-hospital mortality rising to 45% [36–54%]. 23% [15–32%] of the patients received DNI orders with an intra-hospital mortality of 72% [65–78%]. Oxygenation on admission was the main source of between-study heterogeneity. During COVID-19 outbreak, delivering NIRS outside the ICU revealed as a feasible strategy to cope with the massive demand of ventilatory assistance. PROSPERO, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/
 , CRD42020224788, December 11, 2020.

/pdf/noninvasive-respiratory-support-outside-the-intensive-care-4dskhh81sd.pdf

Noninvasive respiratory support outside the intensive care unit for acute respiratory failure related to coronavirus-19 disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

/pdf/american-society-of-hematology-living-guidelines-on-the-use-8tgtv2ut.pdf

American Society of Hematology living guidelines on the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19: January 2022 update on the use of therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation in acutely ill patients

Respiratory rehabilitation for Covid-19 related persistent dyspnoea: A one-year experience.

INTRODUCTION: Hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as a result of SARS-CoV-2 infection have a high mortality rate and frequently require noninvasive respiratory support or invasive ventilation. Optimising and standardising management through evidence-based guidelines may improve quality of care and therefore patient outcomes. METHODS: A task force from the European Respiratory Society and endorsed by the Chinese Thoracic Society identified priority interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for the initial version of this "living guideline" using the PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) format. The GRADE approach was used for assessing the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Systematic literature reviews were performed, and data pooled by meta-analysis where possible. Evidence tables were presented and evidence to decision frameworks were used to formulate recommendations. RESULTS: Based on the available evidence at the time of guideline development (20 February, 2021), the panel makes a strong recommendation in favour of the use of systemic corticosteroids in patients requiring supplementary oxygen or ventilatory support, and for the use of anticoagulation in hospitalised patients. The panel makes a conditional recommendation for interleukin (IL)-6 receptor antagonist monoclonal antibody treatment and high-flow nasal oxygen or continuous positive airway pressure in patients with hypoxaemic respiratory failure. The panel make strong recommendations against the use of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir. Conditional recommendations are made against the use of azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine combined with azithromycin, colchicine, and remdesivir, in the latter case specifically in patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. No recommendation was made for remdesivir in patients requiring supplemental oxygen. Further recommendations for research are made. CONCLUSION: The evidence base for management of COVID-19 now supports strong recommendations in favour and against specific interventions. These guidelines will be regularly updated as further evidence becomes available.

https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/erj/57/4/2100048.full.pdf

Chen Wang

Papers

Management of hospitalised adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a European Respiratory Society living guideline.