Immuno-proteomic profiling reveals aberrant immune cell regulation in the airways of individuals with ongoing post-COVID-19 respiratory disease.

Some patients hospitalized with acute COVID-19 suffer respiratory symptoms that persist for many months. We delineated the immune-proteomic landscape in the airways and peripheral blood of healthy controls and post-COVID-19 patients 3 to 6 months after hospital discharge. Post-COVID-19 patients showed abnormal airway (but not plasma) proteomes, with an elevated concentration of proteins associated with apoptosis, tissue repair, and epithelial injury versus healthy individuals. Increased numbers of cytotoxic lymphocytes were observed in individuals with greater airway dysfunction, while increased B cell numbers and altered monocyte subsets were associated with more widespread lung abnormalities. A one-year follow-up of some post-COVID-19 patients indicated that these abnormalities resolved over time. In summary, COVID-19 causes a prolonged change to the airway immune landscape in those with persistent lung disease, with evidence of cell death and tissue repair linked to the ongoing activation of cytotoxic T cells.

CT Lung Abnormalities after COVID-19 at 3 Months and 1 Year after Hospital Discharge.

Background Data on the long-term pulmonary sequelae in COVID-19 are lacking. Purpose To assess symptoms, functional impairment, and residual pulmonary abnormalities on serial chest CT scans in COVID-19 survivors discharged from hospital at up to 1-year follow-up. Materials and Methods Adult patients with COVID-19 discharged between March 2020 and June 2020 were prospectively evaluated at 3 months and 1 year through systematic assessment of symptoms, functional impairment, and thoracic CT scans as part of the PHENOTYPE study, an observational cohort study in COVID-19 survivors. Lung function testing was limited to participants with CT abnormalities and/or persistent breathlessness. Bonferroni correction was used. Results Eighty participants (mean age, 59 years ± 13 [SD]; 53 men) were assessed. At outpatient review, persistent breathlessness was reported in 37 of the 80 participants (46%) and cough was reported in 17 (21%). CT scans in 73 participants after discharge (median, 105 days; IQR, 95-141 days) revealed persistent abnormalities in 41 participants (56%), with ground-glass opacification (35 of 73 participants [48%]) and bands (27 of 73 participants [37%]) predominating. Unequivocal signs indicative of established fibrosis (ie, volume loss and/or traction bronchiectasis) were present in nine of 73 participants (12%). Higher admission serum C-reactive protein (in milligrams per liter), fibrinogen (in grams per deciliter), urea (millimoles per liter), and creatinine (micromoles per liter) levels; longer hospital stay (in days); older age (in years); and requirement for invasive ventilation were associated with CT abnormalities at 3-month follow-up. Thirty-two of 41 participants (78%) with abnormal findings at 3-month follow-up CT underwent repeat imaging at a median of 364 days (range, 360-366 days), with 26 (81%) showing further radiologic improvement (median, 18%; IQR, 10%-40%). Conclusion CT abnormalities were common at 3 months after COVID-19 but with signs of fibrosis in a minority. More severe acute disease was linked with CT abnormalities at 3 months. However, radiologic improvement was seen in the majority at 1-year follow-up. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04459351. © RSNA, 2022 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Pneumomediastinum in COVID-19: a phenotype of severe COVID-19 pneumonitis? The results of the United Kingdom (POETIC) survey.

BACKGROUND: There is an emerging understanding that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with increased incidence of pneumomediastinum. We aimed to determine its incidence among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the United Kingdom and describe factors associated with outcome. METHODS: A structured survey of pneumomediastinum and its incidence was conducted from September 2020 to February 2021. United Kingdom-wide participation was solicited via respiratory research networks. Identified patients had SARS-CoV-2 infection and radiologically proven pneumomediastinum. The primary outcomes were to determine incidence of pneumomediastinum in COVID-19 and to investigate risk factors associated with patient mortality. RESULTS: 377 cases of pneumomediastinum in COVID-19 were identified from 58 484 inpatients with COVID-19 at 53 hospitals during the study period, giving an incidence of 0.64%. Overall 120-day mortality in COVID-19 pneumomediastinum was 195/377 (51.7%). Pneumomediastinum in COVID-19 was associated with high rates of mechanical ventilation. 172/377 patients (45.6%) were mechanically ventilated at the point of diagnosis. Mechanical ventilation was the most important predictor of mortality in COVID-19 pneumomediastinum at the time of diagnosis and thereafter (p<0.001) along with increasing age (p<0.01) and diabetes mellitus (p=0.08). Switching patients from continuous positive airways pressure support to oxygen or high flow nasal oxygen after the diagnosis of pneumomediastinum was not associated with difference in mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Pneumomediastinum appears to be a marker of severe COVID-19 pneumonitis. The majority of patients in whom pneumomediastinum was identified had not been mechanically ventilated at the point of diagnosis.

Singing for lung health in COPD: a multicentre randomised controlled trial of online delivery.

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.

Favipiravir in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 (PIONEER trial): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial of early intervention versus standard care.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has overwhelmed health services globally. Oral antiviral therapies are licensed worldwide, but indications and efficacy rates vary. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of oral favipiravir in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial of oral favipiravir in adult patients who were newly admitted to hospital with proven or suspected COVID-19 across five sites in the UK (n=2), Brazil (n=2) and Mexico (n=1). Using a permuted block design, eligible and consenting participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral favipiravir (1800 mg twice daily for 1 day; 800 mg twice daily for 9 days) plus standard care, or standard care alone. All caregivers and patients were aware of allocation and those analysing data were aware of the treatment groups. The prespecified primary outcome was the time from randomisation to recovery, censored at 28 days, which was assessed using an intention-to-treat approach. Post-hoc analyses were used to assess the efficacy of favipiravir in patients aged younger than 60 years, and in patients aged 60 years and older. The trial was registered with clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04373733. FINDINGS: Between May 5, 2020 and May 26, 2021, we assessed 503 patients for eligibility, of whom 499 were randomly assigned to favipiravir and standard care (n=251) or standard care alone (n=248). There was no significant difference between those who received favipiravir and standard care, relative to those who received standard care alone in time to recovery in the overall study population (hazard ratio [HR] 1·06 [95% CI 0·89-1·27]; n=499; p=0·52). Post-hoc analyses showed a faster rate of recovery in patients younger than 60 years who received favipiravir and standard care versus those who had standard care alone (HR 1·35 [1·06-1·72]; n=247; p=0·01). 36 serious adverse events were observed in 27 (11%) of 251 patients administered favipiravir and standard care, and 33 events were observed in 27 (11%) of 248 patients receiving standard care alone, with infectious, respiratory, and cardiovascular events being the most numerous. There was no significant between-group difference in serious adverse events per patient (p=0·87). INTERPRETATION: Favipiravir does not improve clinical outcomes in all patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, however, patients younger than 60 years might have a beneficial clinical response. The indiscriminate use of favipiravir globally should be cautioned, and further high-quality studies of antiviral agents, and their potential treatment combinations, are warranted in COVID-19. FUNDING: LifeArc and CW+.

Impact of COVID-19 on people with asthma: a mixed methods analysis from a UK wide survey.

INTRODUCTION: The impact of acute COVID-19 on people with asthma appears complex, being moderated by multiple interacting disease-specific, demographic and environmental factors. Research regarding longer-term effects in this group is limited. We aimed to assess impacts of COVID-19 and predictors of persistent symptoms, in people with asthma. METHODS: Using data from an online UK-wide survey of 4500 people with asthma (median age 50-59 years, 81% female), conducted in October 2020, we undertook a mixed methods analysis of the characteristics and experience of those reporting having had COVID-19. RESULTS: The COVID-19 group (n=471, 10.5%) reported increased inhaler use and worse asthma management, compared with those not reporting COVID-19, but did not differ by gender, ethnicity or household income. Among the COVID-19 group, 56.1% reported having long COVID, 20.2% were 'unsure'. Those with long COVID were more likely than those without long COVID to describe: their breathing as worse or much worse after their initial illness (73.7% vs 34.8%, p<0.001), increased inhaler use (67.8% vs 34.8%, p<0.001) and worse or much worse asthma management (59.6% vs 25.6%, p<0.001). Having long COVID was not associated with age, gender, ethnicity, UK nation or household income.Analysis of free text survey responses identified three key themes: (1) variable COVID-19 severity, duration and recovery; (2) symptom overlap and interaction between COVID-19 and asthma; (3) barriers to accessing healthcare. CONCLUSIONS: Persisting symptoms are common in people with asthma following COVID-19. Measures are needed to ensure appropriate healthcare access including clinical evaluation and investigation, to distinguish between COVID-19 symptoms and asthma.

An effective procedure skills training programme for GIM registrars.

BACKGROUND: The Royal College of Physicians' Acute care toolkit 8 recommends procedural training for medical registrars at all hospitals. We aimed to determine the interest and need, and to pilot the delivery of such training in the procedures outlined by the Joint Royal Colleges of Physicians Training Board (2017). METHODS: An online survey was sent to general internal medicine (GIM) trainees within the Thames Valley Deanery in January 2019. This identified a need for procedure skills training. Ninety per cent of trainees felt simulation training would improve their confidence in the outlined procedures.We trialled a simulation programme for GIM registrars between September 2019 and October 2019. Sessions lasted 3-3.5 hours and trainees rotated through four stations. Feedback was obtained from trainees and trainers during each pilot session. RESULTS: Thirty-two trainees attended across both sites. Excellent feedback was obtained and trainee confidence improved by visual analogue scale scoring post-training for all procedures. Almost 90% of trainees felt the sessions would improve safety on GIM on calls. CONCLUSION: Simulation training is an effective way to improve trainee confidence in procedural skills and this pilot shows such training is desired and necessitated in higher specialty training. Further work will assess its impact on maintaining trainee skillsets and impact on patient safety.