Clinical effectiveness of rehabilitation in ambulatory care for patients with persisting symptoms after COVID-19: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Lingering symptoms after acute COVID-19 present a major challenge to ambulatory care services. Since there are reservations regarding their optimal management, we aimed to collate all available evidence on the effects of rehabilitation treatments applicable in ambulatory care for these patients. METHODS: On 9 May 2022, we systematically searched articles in COVID-19 collections, Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycArticles, PEDro, and EuropePMC. References were eligible if they reported on the clinical effectiveness of a rehabilitation therapy applicable in ambulatory care for adult patients with persisting symptoms continuing 4 weeks after the onset of COVID-19. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the CASP cohort study checklist and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Summary of Findings tables were constructed and the certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE framework. RESULTS: We included 38 studies comprising 2,790 participants. Physical training and breathing exercises may reduce fatigue, dyspnoea, and chest pain and may improve physical capacity and quality of life, but the evidence is very weak (based on 6 RCTs and 12 cohort studies). The evidence underpinning the effect of nutritional supplements on fatigue, dyspnoea, muscle pain, sensory function, psychological well-being, quality of life, and functional capacity is very poor (based on 4 RCTs). Also, the evidence-base is very weak about the effect of olfactory training on sensory function and quality of life (based on 4 RCTs and 3 cohort studies). Multidisciplinary treatment may have beneficial effects on fatigue, dyspnoea, physical capacity, pulmonary function, quality of life, return to daily life activities, and functional capacity, but the evidence is very weak (based on 5 cohort studies). The certainty of evidence is very low due to study limitations, inconsistency, indirectness, and imprecision. CONCLUSIONS: Physical training, breathing exercises, olfactory training and multidisciplinary treatment can be effective rehabilitation therapies for patients with persisting symptoms after COVID-19, still with high uncertainty regarding these effects. These findings can guide ambulatory care practitioners to treat these patients and should be incorporated in clinical practice guidelines. High-quality studies are needed to confirm our hypotheses and should report on adverse events.

Prospective Performance Evaluation of the miDiagnostics COVID-19 PCR Test for Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Detection on Nasopharyngeal Swabs.

Rapid diagnosis or exclusion of SARS-CoV-2 infection is essential for correct medical management decisions regarding COVID-19. High-throughput laboratory-based reverse transcriptase (RT)-PCR testing is accurate with longer turnaround times, while rapid antigen tests show moderate sensitivity. In search of a fast and reliable COVID-19 test, we aimed to validate the rapid miDiagnostics COVID-19 PCR test. We recruited symptomatic and asymptomatic participants in a mobile COVID-19 test center in Belgium. We collected three nasopharyngeal samples from each participant. The index sample was tested on the miDiagnostics COVID-19 PCR reader, the reference sample was tested on the reference TaqPath COVID-19 PCR test in the Belgian Reference Center for Respiratory Pathogens of University Hospitals Leuven, and a third sample was collected for discordance testing with the PerkinElmer SARS-CoV-2 PCR kit. A total of 770 participants yielded 763 sets of included nasopharyngeal samples. Overall positive percent agreement and negative percent agreement of the miDiagnostics COVID-19 PCR test were 95.5% (92.6% to 97.4%) and 94.9% (92.3 to 96.8%), rising to 98.6% (96.5% to 99.6%) and 96.5% (92.6% to 98.7%) in symptomatic patients. Discordance testing reclassified 15 of 21 false-positive cases as true positive. A retest of the miDiagnostics PCR test was performed in 61 tests (7.4%) due to a technical error. The miDiagnostics COVID-19 PCR test showed excellent clinical accuracy. The fast and reliable results allow for rapid correct diagnosis and tailored medical management decisions regarding COVID-19.

Clinical prediction models for serious infections in children: external validation in ambulatory care.

BACKGROUND: Early distinction between mild and serious infections (SI) is challenging in children in ambulatory care. Clinical prediction models (CPMs), developed to aid physicians in clinical decision-making, require broad external validation before clinical use. We aimed to externally validate four CPMs, developed in emergency departments, in ambulatory care. METHODS: We applied the CPMs in a prospective cohort of acutely ill children presenting to general practices, outpatient paediatric practices or emergency departments in Flanders, Belgium. For two multinomial regression models, Feverkidstool and Craig model, discriminative ability and calibration were assessed, and a model update was performed by re-estimation of coefficients with correction for overfitting. For two risk scores, the SBI score and PAWS, the diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 8211 children were included, comprising 498 SI and 276 serious bacterial infections (SBI). Feverkidstool had a C-statistic of 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.77-0.84) with good calibration for pneumonia and 0.74 (0.70-0.79) with poor calibration for other SBI. The Craig model had a C-statistic of 0.80 (0.77-0.83) for pneumonia, 0.75 (0.70-0.80) for complicated urinary tract infections and 0.63 (0.39-0.88) for bacteraemia, with poor calibration. The model update resulted in improved C-statistics for all outcomes and good overall calibration for Feverkidstool and the Craig model. SBI score and PAWS performed extremely weak with sensitivities of 0.12 (0.09-0.15) and 0.32 (0.28-0.37). CONCLUSIONS: Feverkidstool and the Craig model show good discriminative ability for predicting SBI and a potential for early recognition of SBI, confirming good external validity in a low prevalence setting of SBI. The SBI score and PAWS showed poor diagnostic performance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02024282. Registered on 31 December 2013.