The Stanford Hall consensus statement for post-COVID-19 rehabilitation.

The highly infectious and pathogenic novel coronavirus (CoV), severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV-2, has emerged causing a global pandemic. Although COVID-19 predominantly affects the respiratory system, evidence indicates a multisystem disease which is frequently severe and often results in death. Long-term sequelae of COVID-19 are unknown, but evidence from previous CoV outbreaks demonstrates impaired pulmonary and physical function, reduced quality of life and emotional distress. Many COVID-19 survivors who require critical care may develop psychological, physical and cognitive impairments. There is a clear need for guidance on the rehabilitation of COVID-19 survivors. This consensus statement was developed by an expert panel in the fields of rehabilitation, sport and exercise medicine (SEM), rheumatology, psychiatry, general practice, psychology and specialist pain, working at the Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre, Stanford Hall, UK. Seven teams appraised evidence for the following domains relating to COVID-19 rehabilitation requirements: pulmonary, cardiac, SEM, psychological, musculoskeletal, neurorehabilitation and general medical. A chair combined recommendations generated within teams. A writing committee prepared the consensus statement in accordance with the appraisal of guidelines research and evaluation criteria, grading all recommendations with levels of evidence. Authors scored their level of agreement with each recommendation on a scale of 0-10. Substantial agreement (range 7.5-10) was reached for 36 recommendations following a chaired agreement meeting that was attended by all authors. This consensus statement provides an overarching framework assimilating evidence and likely requirements of multidisciplinary rehabilitation post COVID-19 illness, for a target population of active individuals, including military personnel and athletes.

Antiepileptic prophylaxis following severe traumatic brain injury within a military cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Traumatic brain injury increases the risk of both early and late seizures. Antiepileptic prophylaxis reduces early seizures, but their use beyond 1 week does not prevent the development of post-traumatic epilepsy. Furthermore, prolonged prophylaxis exposes patients to side effects of the drugs and has occupational implications. The American Academy of Neurology recommends that antiepileptic prophylaxis should be started for patients with severe traumatic brain injury and discontinued after 1 week. An audit is presented here that investigates the use of prophylaxis in a cohort of military patients admitted to the UK Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre (DMRC). METHODS: Data were collected and analysed retrospectively from electronic and paper records between February 2009 and August 2012. The timing and duration of antiepileptic drug use and the incidence of seizures were recorded. RESULTS: During the study period, 52 patients with severe traumatic brain injury were admitted to the rehabilitation centre: 25 patients (48%) were commenced on prophylaxis during the first week following injury while 27 (52%) did not receive prophylaxis. Only one patient (2%) received prophylaxis for the recommended period of 1 week, 22 patients (42%) received prophylaxis for longer than 1 week with a mean duration of 6.2 months. Two patients (4%) had post-traumatic epilepsy and started on treatment at DMRC. CONCLUSIONS: The use of antiepileptic prophylaxis varies widely and is generally inconsistent with evidence-based guidance. This exposes some patients to a higher risk of early seizures and others to unnecessary use of antiepileptics. Better implementation of prophylaxis is required.

Exercise tolerance, fatigue, mental health, and employment status at 5 and 12 months following COVID-19 illness in a physically trained population.

Failure to recover following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) may have a profound impact on individuals who participate in high-intensity/volume exercise as part of their occupation/recreation. The aim of this study was to describe the longitudinal cardiopulmonary exercise function, fatigue, and mental health status of military-trained individuals (up to 12-mo postinfection) who feel recovered, and those with persistent symptoms from two acute disease severity groups (hospitalized and community-managed), compared with an age-, sex-, and job role-matched control. Eighty-eight participants underwent cardiopulmonary functional tests at baseline (5 mo following acute illness) and 12 mo; 25 hospitalized with persistent symptoms (hospitalized-symptomatic), 6 hospitalized and recovered (hospitalized-recovered); 28 community-managed with persistent symptoms (community-symptomatic); 12 community-managed, now recovered (community-recovered), and 17 controls. Cardiopulmonary exercise function and mental health status were comparable between the 5 and 12-mo follow-up. At 12 mo, symptoms of fatigue (48% and 46%) and shortness of breath (SoB; 52% and 43%) remain high in hospitalized-symptomatic and community-symptomatic groups, respectively. At 12 mo, COVID-19-exposed participants had a reduced capacity for work at anaerobic threshold and at peak exercise levels of deconditioning persist, with many individuals struggling to return to strenuous activity. The prevalence considered "fully fit" at 12 mo was lowest in symptomatic groups (hospitalized-symptomatic, 4%; hospitalized-recovered, 50%; community-symptomatic, 18%; community-recovered, 82%; control, 82%) and 49% of COVID-19-exposed participants remained medically nondeployable within the British Armed Forces. For hospitalized and symptomatic individuals, cardiopulmonary exercise profiles are consistent with impaired metabolic efficiency and deconditioning at 12 mo postacute illness. The long-term deployability status of COVID-19-exposed military personnel is uncertain.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Subjective exercise limiting symptoms such as fatigue and shortness of breath reduce but remain prevalent in symptomatic groups. At 12 mo, COVID-19-exposed individuals still have a reduced capacity for work at the anaerobic threshold (which best predicts sustainable intensity), despite oxygen uptake comparable to controls. The prevalence of COVID-19-exposed individuals considered "medically non-deployable" remains high at 47%.

Cardiopulmonary, Functional, Cognitive and Mental Health Outcomes Post-COVID-19, Across the Range of Severity of Acute Illness, in a Physically Active, Working-Age Population.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to significant morbidity and mortality, with the former impacting and limiting individuals requiring high physical fitness, including sportspeople and emergency services. METHODS: Observational cohort study of 4 groups: hospitalised, community illness with on-going symptoms (community-symptomatic), community illness now recovered (community-recovered) and comparison. A total of 113 participants (aged 39 ± 9, 86% male) were recruited: hospitalised (n = 35), community-symptomatic (n = 34), community-recovered (n = 18) and comparison (n = 26), approximately five months following acute illness. Participant outcome measures included cardiopulmonary imaging, submaximal and maximal exercise testing, pulmonary function, cognitive assessment, blood tests and questionnaires on mental health and function. RESULTS: Hospitalised and community-symptomatic groups were older (43 ± 9 and 37 ± 10, P = 0.003), with a higher body mass index (31 ± 4 and 29 ± 4, P < 0.001), and had worse mental health (anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress), fatigue and quality of life scores. Hospitalised and community-symptomatic participants performed less well on sub-maximal and maximal exercise testing. Hospitalised individuals had impaired ventilatory efficiency (higher VE/V̇CO2 slope, 29.6 ± 5.1, P < 0.001), achieved less work at anaerobic threshold (70 ± 15, P < 0.001) and peak (231 ± 35, P < 0.001), and had a reduced forced vital capacity (4.7 ± 0.9, P = 0.004). Clinically significant abnormal cardiopulmonary imaging findings were present in 6% of hospitalised participants. Community-recovered individuals had no significant differences in outcomes to the comparison group. CONCLUSION: Symptomatically recovered individuals who suffered mild-moderate acute COVID-19 do not differ from an age-, sex- and job-role-matched comparison population five months post-illness. Individuals who were hospitalised or continue to suffer symptoms may require a specific comprehensive assessment prior to return to full physical activity.

Comprehensive clinical assessment identifies specific neurocognitive deficits in working-age patients with long-COVID.

INTRODUCTION: There have been more than 425 million COVID-19 infections worldwide. Post-COVID illness has become a common, disabling complication of this infection. Therefore, it presents a significant challenge to global public health and economic activity. METHODS: Comprehensive clinical assessment (symptoms, WHO performance status, cognitive testing, CPET, lung function, high-resolution CT chest, CT pulmonary angiogram and cardiac MRI) of previously well, working-age adults in full-time employment was conducted to identify physical and neurocognitive deficits in those with severe or prolonged COVID-19 illness. RESULTS: 205 consecutive patients, age 39 (IQR30.0-46.7) years, 84% male, were assessed 24 (IQR17.1-34.0) weeks after acute illness. 69% reported ≥3 ongoing symptoms. Shortness of breath (61%), fatigue (54%) and cognitive problems (47%) were the most frequent symptoms, 17% met criteria for anxiety and 24% depression. 67% remained below pre-COVID performance status at 24 weeks. One third of lung function tests were abnormal, (reduced lung volume and transfer factor, and obstructive spirometry). HRCT lung was clinically indicated in <50% of patients, with COVID-associated pathology found in 25% of these. In all but three HRCTs, changes were graded 'mild'. There was an extremely low incidence of pulmonary thromboembolic disease or significant cardiac pathology. A specific, focal cognitive deficit was identified in those with ongoing symptoms of fatigue, poor concentration, poor memory, low mood, and anxiety. This was notably more common in patients managed in the community during their acute illness. CONCLUSION: Despite low rates of residual cardiopulmonary pathology, in this cohort, with low rates of premorbid illness, there is a high burden of symptoms and failure to regain pre-COVID performance 6-months after acute illness. Cognitive assessment identified a specific deficit of the same magnitude as intoxication at the UK drink driving limit or the deterioration expected with 10 years ageing, which appears to contribute significantly to the symptomatology of long-COVID.