Prospective single-center study of health-related quality of life after COVID-19 in ICU and non-ICU patients

Returning to work and health status at 12 months among patients with COVID-19 cared for in intensive care-A prospective, longitudinal study

OBJECTIVE

Intensive care unit (ICU) stay for a serious illness has a long-term impact on patients' physical and psychological well-being, affecting their ability to return to their everyday life. We aimed to investigate whether there are differences in health status between those who return to work and those who do not, and how demographic characteristics and illness severity impact patients' ability to return to work 12 months after intensive care for COVID-19.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This was a prospective longitudinal cohort study. The participants were patients who had been in intensive care for COVID-19 and had worked before contracting COVID-19. Data on return to previous occupational status, demographic data, comorbidities, intensive care characteristics, and health status were collected at a 12-month follow-up visit.

SETTING

General ICU at the Uppsala University Hospital in Sweden.

RESULTS

Seventy-three participants were included in the study. Twelve months after discharge from the ICU, 77 % (n = 56) had returned to work. The participants who were unable to return to work reported more severe health symptoms. The (odds ratio [OR] for not returning to work was high for critical illness OR, 12.05; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 2.07-70.29, p = 0.006) and length of ICU stay (OR, 1.06; 95 % CI, 1.01-1.11, p = 0.01) CONCLUSION: Two-thirds of the participants were able to return to work within 1 year after discharge from the ICU. The primary factors contributing to the failure to work were duration of the acute disease and presence of severe and persistent long-term symptoms.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

Patients' health status must be comprehensively assessed and their ability to return to work should be addressed in the rehabilitation process. Therefore, any complications faced by the patients must be identified and treated early to increase the possibility of their successful return to work.

The long COVID and its mental health manifestations - the review of literature

This article aims to present the overview of the situation during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic about issues concerning the prevalence of mental disorders such as depression, anxiety, rate of suicide attempts, and long COVID (LC) infections in the general population during COVID-19 pandemic. Analysis of the literature (in English, Polish and Spanish language) on topics related to COVID-19, mental disorders (suicide attempts, depression, anxiety) and LC infection published during the 4 years (2020-2023) was done using Pubmed and PubMed Central search engine. Keywords such as "COVID-19," "mental disorders," "long COVID infection," "depression," "anxiety," "suicide attempts" were used during the search. The conduct of this review/comment followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) protocol, which corresponds to a checklist of 27 items designed to facilitate the development and reporting of a robust protocol for systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Overall 35 studies were selected and analyzed in the review on topics: including among others LC (14 studies), suicide attempts (7 studies), mental disorders (depression, anxiety) (14 studies). The main issues raised in the articles were: higher risk of LC symptoms in women, fatigue and brain fog listed as frequently encountered patient's complaints together with anxiety, depression, loneliness, especially in younger age groups and in women. Issues regarding LC, mental disorders and suicide attempts requires further research as the results vary in different countries. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2024;37(3):360-80.

How are Long-Covid, Post-Sepsis-Syndrome and Post-Intensive-Care-Syndrome related? A conceptional approach based on the current research literature

Long-Covid (LC), Post-Sepsis-Syndrome (PSS) and Post-Intensive-Care-Syndrome (PICS) show remarkable overlaps in their clinical presentation. Nevertheless, it is unclear if they are distinct syndromes, which may co-occur in the same patient, or if they are three different labels to describe similar symptoms, assigned on the basis on patient history and professional perspective of the treating physician. Therefore, we reviewed the current literature on the relation between LC, PSS and PICS. To date, the three syndromes cannot reliably be distinguished due similarities in clinical presentation as they share the cognitive, psychological and physical impairments with only different probabilities of occurrence and a heterogeneity in individual expression. The diagnosis is furthermore hindered by a lack of specific diagnostic tools. It can be concluded that survivors after COVID-19 sepsis likely have more frequent and more severe consequences than patients with milder COVID-19 courses, and that are some COVID-19-specific sequelae, e.g. an increased risk for venous thromboembolism in the 30 days after the acute disease, which occur less often after sepsis of other causes. Patients may profit from leveraging synergies from PICS, PSS and LC treatment as well as from experiences gained from infection-associated chronic conditions in general. Disentangling molecular pathomechanisms may enable future targeted therapies that go beyond symptomatic treatment.

Socio-economic conditions affect health-related quality of life, during recovery from acute SARS-CoV-2 infection : Results from the VASCO study (VAriabili Socioeconomiche e COVID-19), on the "Surviving-COVID" cohort, from Bergamo (Italy)

BACKGROUND

Recovery from acute COVID-19 may be slow and incomplete: cases of Post-Acute Sequelae of COVID (PASC) are counted in millions, worldwide. We aimed to explore if and how the pre-existing Socio-economic-status (SES) influences such recovery.

METHODS

We analyzed a database of 1536 consecutive patients from the first wave of COVID-19 in Italy (February-September 2020), previously admitted to our referral hospital, and followed-up in a dedicated multidisciplinary intervention. We excluded those seen earlier than 12 weeks (the conventional limit for a possible PASC syndrome), and those reporting a serious complication from the acute phase (possibly accounting for symptoms persistence). We studied whether the exposition to disadvantaged SES (estimated through the Italian Institute of Statistics's model - ISTAT 2017) was affecting recovery outcomes, that is: symptoms (composite endpoint, i.e. at least one among: dyspnea, fatigue, myalgia, chest pain or palpitations); Health-Related-Quality-of-Life (HRQoL, as by SF-36 scale); post-traumatic-stress-disorder (as by IES-R scale); and lung structural damage (as by impaired CO diffusion, DLCO).

RESULTS

Eight-hundred and twenty-five patients were included in the analysis (median age 59 years; IQR: 50-69 years, 60.2% men), of which 499 (60.5%) were previously admitted to hospital and 27 (3.3%) to Intensive-Care Unit (ICU). Those still complaining of symptoms at follow-up were 337 (40.9%; 95%CI 37.5-42.2%), and 256 had a possible Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) (31%, 95%CI 28.7-35.1%). DLCO was reduced in 147 (19.6%, 95%CI 17.0-22.7%). In a multivariable model, disadvantaged SES was associated with a lower HRQoL, especially for items exploring physical health (Limitations in physical activities: OR = 0.65; 95%CI = 0.47 to 0.89; p = 0.008; AUC = 0.74) and Bodily pain (OR = 0.57; 95%CI = 0.40 to 0.82; p = 0.002; AUC = 0.74). We did not observe any association between SES and the other outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Recovery after COVID-19 appears to be independently affected by a pre-existent socio-economic disadvantage, and clinical assessment should incorporate SES and HRQoL measurements, along with symptoms. The socioeconomic determinants of SARS-CoV-2 disease are not exclusive of the acute infection: this finding deserves further research and specific interventions.

Long-term impact of COVID-19 hospitalisation among individuals with pre-existing airway diseases in the UK: a multicentre, longitudinal cohort study - PHOSP-COVID

Background

The long-term outcomes of COVID-19 hospitalisation in individuals with pre-existing airway diseases are unknown.

Methods

Adult participants hospitalised for confirmed or clinically suspected COVID-19 and discharged between 5 March 2020 and 31 March 2021 were recruited to the Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 (PHOSP-COVID) study. Participants attended research visits at 5 months and 1 year post discharge. Clinical characteristics, perceived recovery, burden of symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of individuals with pre-existing airway disease (i.e., asthma, COPD or bronchiectasis) were compared to the non-airways group.

Results

A total of 615 out of 2697 (22.8%) participants had a history of pre-existing airway diseases (72.0% diagnosed with asthma, 22.9% COPD and 5.1% bronchiectasis). At 1 year, the airways group participants were less likely to feel fully recovered (20.4% versus 33.2%, p<0.001), had higher burden of anxiety (29.1% versus 22.0%, p=0.002), depression (31.2% versus 24.7%, p=0.006), higher percentage of impaired mobility using short physical performance battery ≤10 (57.4% versus 45.2%, p<0.001) and 27% had a new disability (assessed by the Washington Group Short Set on Functioning) versus 16.6%, p=0.014. HRQoL assessed using EQ-5D-5L Utility Index was lower in the airways group (mean±SD 0.64±0.27 versus 0.73±0.25, p<0.001). Burden of breathlessness, fatigue and cough measured using a study-specific tool was higher in the airways group.

Conclusion

Individuals with pre-existing airway diseases hospitalised due to COVID-19 were less likely to feel fully recovered, had lower physiological performance measurements, more burden of symptoms and reduced HRQoL up to 1 year post-hospital discharge.

Impact of COVID-19 on posttraumatic stress disorder in ICU survivors: a prospective observational comparative cohort study

BACKGROUND

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after a stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) can affect one in five ICU survivors. At the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, admission to the ICU for COVID-19 was stressful due to the severity of this disease. This study assessed whether admission to the ICU for COVID-19 was associated with a higher prevalence of PTSD compared with other causes of ICU admission after adjustment for pre-ICU psychological factors.

METHODS

This prospective observational comparative cohort study included 31 ICUs. Eligible patients were adult ICU survivors hospitalized during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic in France, regardless of the reason for admission. The prevalence of presumptive diagnosis of PTSD at 6 months was assessed using the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5). Sociodemographics, clinical data, history of childhood trauma (Childhood Trauma Questionnaire [CTQ]), and exposure to potentially traumatic events (Life Events Checklist for DSM-5 [LEC-5]) were assessed.

RESULTS

Of the 778 ICU survivors included during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic in France, 417 and 361 were assigned to the COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 cohorts, respectively. Fourteen (4.9%) and 11 (4.9%), respectively, presented with presumptive diagnosis of PTSD at 6 months (p = 0.976). After adjusting for age, sex, severity score at admission, use of invasive mechanical ventilation, ICU duration, CTQ and LEC-5, COVID-19 status was not associated with presumptive diagnosis of PTSD using the PCL-5. Only female sex was associated with presumptive diagnosis of PTSD. However, COVID-19 patients reported significantly more intrusion and avoidance symptoms than non-COVID patients (39% vs. 29%, p = 0.015 and 27% vs. 19%, p = 0.030), respectively. The median PCL-5 score was higher in the COVID-19 than non-COVID-19 cohort (9 [3, 20] vs. 4 [2, 16], p = 0.034).

CONCLUSION

Admission to the ICU for COVID-19 was not associated with a higher prevalence of PTSD compared with admission for another cause during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in France. However, intrusion and avoidance symptoms were more frequent in COVID-19 patients than in non-COVID-19 patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT03991611, registered on June 19, 2019.

Return-to-Work Prevalence Among COVID-19 Patients After Receiving Intensive Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Returning to work can be a serious issue for patients who have undergone intensive care. Previous studies have reported a relatively low return-to-work prevalence among such patients. Some patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) experience severe pneumonia and require intensive care, including mechanical ventilation. However, little is known about the return-to-work prevalence among such patients. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature describing the return-to-work prevalence among COVID-19 patients who received intensive care. The eligibility criteria were determined based on the medical condition, context, and population framework of each study, as follows: (1) full-text observational studies, (2) context: COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU, (3) condition: return-to-work prevalence after ICU discharge, and (4) population: critically ill patients who are 18 years and older. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Review articles, case reports, letters to the editor, and comments without data involving return-to-work prevalence were excluded. We searched the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE, via PubMed), the Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL, via EBSCOhost), and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) databases from their inception till July 26, 2022, and updated the search on June 14, 2023. Specifically, we collected studies reporting data on the return-to-work prevalence among COVID-19 patients after receiving intensive care. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Prevalence Studies. Pre-developed standard forms were used for data collection, and pooled prevalence for return-to-work was calculated. Out of the 2221 available records, 42 full texts were reviewed, 20 of which were included in the qualitative synthesis. The number of return-to-work cases reported at 0-3 months, 4-6 months, and 7-12 months were three, 11, and nine, respectively. At 0-3 months, the pooled prevalence was 0.49 (three trials; n = 73; 95% CI: 0.15-0.84; I2 = 82%). At 4-6 months, the pooled prevalence was 0.57 (11 trials; n = 900; 95% CI: 0.40-0.73; I2 = 92%). Finally, at 7-12 months, the pooled prevalence was 0.64 (nine trials; n = 281; 95% CI: 0.50-0.77; I2 = 80%). However, the overall quality of the included studies was low. Based on the results, approximately one-third of COVID-19 patients did not return to work 12 months after receiving intensive care. Given the quality and limitations of the studies, a more detailed and extensive cohort study is required; also, concerned authorities should implement adequate measures in terms of providing integrated job support for this patient population.