Motivation and Confidence about Physical Activity in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients: Health Benefits Matter to Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Physical activity (PA) has shown great benefits in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); however, their PA is below average. Motivational factors associated with PA in COPD have not been widely studied and could be a target for improving adherence to PA. The objective of our study was to identify and understand the different motivational and confidence factors related to low levels of PA in a COPD cohort. METHOD: Observational, prospective, multicenter study of COPD patients. Sociodemographic data, respiratory symptoms, comorbidities, spirometry, and exercise capacity were collected. PA was measured using the Dynaport accelerometer and patient motivation and confidence in PA were assessed by a questionnaire previously used in a COPD population in the USA. RESULTS: Eighty six COPD patients were included, 68.6% being male, with a mean (SD) age of 66.6 (8.5) years and a mean forced expiratory volume in the first second (%) of 50.9% (17.3%). The mean walking time was 82.8 (37.8) minutes/day. Questions related to health benefits and enjoying exercise were ranked highest in the motivation questionnaire and statistically significant differences were found in PA measures between patients with low and high motivation. A lack of confidence regarding hot weather and health-related issues significantly influenced PA levels. Advice from third parties, including healthcare providers, was not associated with higher PA levels. CONCLUSIONS: Improving the health of COPD patients is their main motivation to perform PA. Lack of confidence when it is hot or when they fear for their health is related to low levels of PA. Advice from third parties, including healthcare professionals, is not associated with higher PA. These results are relevant for developing strategies to increase the adherence of COPD patients to PA programs.

Utility of the Enhanced Liver Fibrosis score as a blood biomarker of pulmonary fibrosis secondary to SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia.

INTRODUCTION: SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia can lead to several sequelae, among them, pulmonary fibrosis. The Enhanced Liver Fibrosis (ELF) score is a panel of serum markers of liver fibrosis. We aimed to describe the utility of the ELF score as a biomarker of pulmonary fibrosis secondary to COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: Chest computed tomography (CT) scan, lung function tests (LFT) and blood analysis were obtained at three months after discharge. Data were analysed according to ELF scores and posteriorly divided into ELF tertiles. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-nine patients were recruited; of these, 85.7% presented bilateral pneumonia at diagnosis of SARS-CoV2 infection. At 3 months after discharge, CT scan was available in 123 patients, 73 (59.3%) of whom presented parenchymal lung abnormalities (PLA) and LFT showed impairment in 28 (22.7%) patients. Globally, the most frequent PLA was ground glass opacities (50%), followed by bronchial thickening (26.8%), reticular pattern (19.5%), consolidation (10.5%) and air bronchogram sign (7.3%). Radiological findings were only significant in the higher tertile of ELF, with a reticular pattern as the predominant PLA (p = 0.002). Moreover, patients with both PLA and LFT impairment, presented a trend towards higher levels of ELF compared with patients with only PLA or LFT impairment, or no impairment (9.9 (0.7) vs 9.6 (0.8), 9.1 (1.1) and 9.3 (0.7); p = 0.054). CONCLUSION: Patients with both PLA and LFT alteration at 3 months after SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia had higher ELF scores. The ELF score may be useful to identify patients with risk of fibrotic changes after SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia.

Serial lung ultrasound in monitoring viral pneumonia: the lesson learned from COVID-19.

Background: Lung ultrasound (LUS) has proven to be useful in the evaluation of lung involvement in COVID-19. However, its effectiveness for predicting the risk of severe disease is still up for debate. The aim of the study was to establish the prognostic accuracy of serial LUS examinations in the prediction of clinical deterioration in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Methods: Prospective single-centre cohort study of patients hospitalised for COVID-19. The study protocol consisted of a LUS examination within 24 h from admission and a follow-up examination on day 3 of hospitalisation. Lung involvement was evaluated by a 14-area LUS score. The primary end-point was the ability of LUS to predict clinical deterioration defined as need for intensive respiratory support with high-flow oxygen or invasive mechanical ventilation. Results: 200 patients were included and 35 (17.5%) of them reached the primary end-point and were transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU). The LUS score at admission had been significantly higher in the ICU group than in the non-ICU group (22 (interquartile range (IQR) 20-26) versus 12 (IQR 8-15)). A LUS score at admission ≥17 was shown to be the best cut-off point to discriminate patients at risk of deterioration (area under the curve (AUC) 0.95). The absence of progression in LUS score on day 3 significantly increased the prediction accuracy by ruling out deterioration with a negative predictive value of 99.29%. Conclusion: Serial LUS is a reliable tool in predicting the risk of respiratory deterioration in patients hospitalised due to COVID-19 pneumonia. LUS could be further implemented in the future for risk stratification of viral pneumonia.

Asbestos Exposure and Severity of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to analyse the relationship between occupational exposure to asbestos and the severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: We evaluated patients who survived admission in our centre for COVID-19 pneumonia. Demographic, analytical, and clinical variables were collected during admission. After discharge, a previously validated occupational exposure to asbestos questionnaire was administered. Spirometry, CO diffusion test, the 6-min walk test, and high-resolution chest CT were performed. Patients who required respiratory support (oxygen, CPAP, or NIV) were considered severe. RESULTS: In total, 293 patients (mean age 54 + 13 years) were included. Occupational exposure to asbestos was detected in 67 (24%). Patients with occupational exposure to asbestos had a higher frequency of COVID-19 pneumonia requiring respiratory support (n = 52, 77.6%) than their unexposed peers (n = 139, 61.5%) (p = 0.015). Asbestos exposure was associated with COVID-19 severity in the univariate but not in the multivariate analysis. No differences were found regarding follow-up variables including spirometry and the DLCO diffusion, the 6-min walk test, and CT alterations. CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, those with occupational exposure to asbestos more frequently needed respiratory support. However, an independent association between asbestos exposure and COVID-19 severity could not be confirmed.

Lung Ultrasound as a First-Line Test in the Evaluation of Post-COVID-19 Pulmonary Sequelae.

Background: Interstitial lung sequelae are increasingly being reported in survivors of COVID-19 pneumonia. An early detection of these lesions may help prevent the development of irreversible lung fibrosis. Lung ultrasound (LUS) has shown high diagnostic accuracy in interstitial lung disease (ILD) and could likely be used as a first-line test for post-COVID-19 lung sequelae. Methods: Single-center observational prospective study. Follow-up assessments of consecutive patients hospitalized for COVID-19 pneumonia were conducted 2-5 months after the hospitalization. All patients underwent pulmonary function tests (PFTs), high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT), and LUS. Radiological alterations in HRCT were quantified using the Warrick score. The LUS score was obtained by evaluating the presence of pathological B-lines in 12 thoracic areas (range, 0-12). The correlation between the LUS and Warrick scores was analyzed. Results: Three hundred and fifty-two patients who recovered from COVID-19 pneumonia were recruited between July and September 2020. At follow-up, dyspnea was the most frequent symptom (69.3%). FVC and DLCO alterations were present in 79 (22.4%) and 234 (66.5%) patients, respectively. HRCT showed relevant interstitial lung sequelae (RILS) in 154 (43.8%) patients (Warrick score ≥ 7). The LUS score was strongly correlated with the HRCT Warrick score (r = 0.77) and showed a moderate inverse correlation with DLCO (r = -0.55). The ROC curve analysis revealed that a LUS score ≥ 3 indicated an excellent ability to discriminate patients with RILS (sensitivity, 94.2%; specificity, 81.8%; negative predictive value, 94.7%). Conclusions: LUS could be implemented as a first-line procedure in the evaluation of Post-COVID-19 interstitial lung sequelae. A normal LUS examination rules out the presence of these sequelae in COVID-19 survivors, avoiding the need for additional diagnostic tests such as HRCT.

Validation of an Asbestos Exposure Questionnaire (QEAS-7) for Clinical Practice.

INTRODUCTION: The seven-item QEAS-7 questionnaire (exposure to asbestos questionnaire) has been designed as a useful and simple tool to establish the probability of exposure to asbestos. The objective of the present study is to validate the QEAS-7 following the recommended methodology. METHODS: The QEAS-7 was prospectively administered to 90 subjects with and without asbestos-related disease (ARD), on two consecutive occasions by two independent researchers. Logical and content validity was evaluated by a committee of experts and construct validity through hypothesis testing. Intra- and interobserver reliability was assessed by calculating Cohen's Kappa index (κ), which was estimated as weak if below 0.40, moderate if between 0.41 and 0.60 and good/very good if above 0.60. The comparison between proportions was examined using Pearson's Chi-square test. RESULTS: The majority of participants (88.9%) were male. Mean age was 70.8 years (SD = 8.4) and most of the sample had completed primary education but had not progressed further (62.2%). Forty-three had ARD. The logical, content and construct validity of the QEAS-7 was considered adequate both by a committee of experts and by the users interviewed. The mean administration time was 9 min and 25 s (SD = 3 min and 49 s). The verification of the five hypotheses confirmed the construct validity and the intra- and interobserver reliability to be κ = 0.93 and κ = 0.50 respectively. The concordance in the estimation of asbestos exposure was κ = 0.65. CONCLUSIONS: The QEAS-7 is a simple, valid and reliable tool for estimating the probability of exposure to asbestos. Its application in clinical practice appears justified. What is already known about this subject? No studies have been published to date on the validation of specific questionnaires designed to determine asbestos exposure for routine use by healthcare staff in the clinical setting. What are the new findings? This questionnaire can be considered a comprehensible, viable, valid and reliable instrument for identifying exposure to asbestos. Its brevity and simplicity of administration make it ideally suited for use in daily clinical practice. How might this impact on policy or clinical practice in the foreseeable future? This questionnaire can be of help for physicians attending to patients with suspected asbestos-related diseases both in the hospital and in the primary care setting.