Assessment of Exercise Capacity of Individuals with Long COVID: A Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical investigations of long-term effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are rarely translated to objective findings. OBJECTIVES: To assess the functional capacity of individuals reported on deconditioning that hampered their return to their pre-COVID routine. METHODS: Assessment included the 6-minute walk test (6MWT) and the 30-second sit-to-stand test (30-STST). We compared the expected and observed scores using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Predictors of test scores were identified using linear regression models. RESULTS: We included 49 individuals, of whom 38 (77.6%) were recovering from mild COVID-19. Twenty-seven (55.1%) individuals had a 6MWT score lower than 80% of expected. The average 6MWT scores were 129.5 ± 121.2 meters and 12.2 ± 5.0 repeats lower than expected scores, respectively (P < 0.001 for both). The 6MWT score was 107.3 meters lower for individuals with severe COVID-19 (P = 0.013) and rose by 2.7 meters per each 1% increase in the diffusing capacity of carbon monoxide (P = 0.007). The 30-STST score was 3.0 repeats lower for individuals who reported moderate to severe myalgia (P = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with long COVID who report on deconditioning exhibit significantly decreased physical capacity, even following mild acute illness. Risk factors include severe COVID-19 and impaired diffusing capacity or myalgia during recovery.

Home electrical stimulation for women with fecal incontinence: a preliminary randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness and cost of home electrical stimulation and standardized biofeedback training in females with fecal incontinence METHODS: Thirty-six females suffering from fecal incontinence were randomized into two groups, matched for mean age (67.45 ± 7.2 years), mean body mass index (kg/m2) (26.2 ± 3.9), mean disease duration (4.1 ± 0.8 years), mean number of births (2.7 ± 1.3), and reports of obstetric trauma (25%). Questionnaires were used to evaluate their demographics, medical, and childbearing history. Subjects were randomized to home electrical stimulation or standardized biofeedback training for a period of 6 weeks. Subjective outcome measures included the frequency of fecal, urine, and gas incontinence by visual analog scale, Vaizey incontinence score, and subjects' levels of fecal incontinence related anxiety. Objective outcome measures included pelvic floor muscle strength assessed by surface electromyography. We also compared the cost of each treatment modality. RESULTS: Only females who received home electrical stimulation (HES) reported a significant improvement in Vaizey incontinence score (p = 0.001), anxiety (p = 0.046), and in frequency of leaked solid stool (p = 0.013). A significant improvement in pelvic floor muscle strength was achieved by both groups. HES was much cheaper compared to the cost of standardized biofeedback training (SBT) (US $100 vs. US $220, respectively). Our study comprised a small female population, and the study endpoints did not include objective measures of anorectal function test, such as anorectal manometry, before and after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Home electrical stimulation may offer an alternative to standardized biofeedback training as it is effective and generally well-tolerated therapy for females with fecal incontinence.