Long COVID exhibits clinically distinct phenotypes at 3-6 months post-SARS-CoV-2 infection: results from the P4O2 consortium

BACKGROUND

Four months after SARS-CoV-2 infection, 22%-50% of COVID-19 patients still experience complaints. Long COVID is a heterogeneous disease and finding subtypes could aid in optimising and developing treatment for the individual patient.

METHODS

Data were collected from 95 patients in the P4O2 COVID-19 cohort at 3-6 months after infection. Unsupervised hierarchical clustering was performed on patient characteristics, characteristics from acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, long COVID symptom data, lung function and questionnaires describing the impact and severity of long COVID. To assess robustness, partitioning around medoids was used as alternative clustering.

RESULTS

Three distinct clusters of patients with long COVID were revealed. Cluster 1 (44%) represented predominantly female patients (93%) with pre-existing asthma and suffered from a median of four symptom categories, including fatigue and respiratory and neurological symptoms. They showed a milder SARS-CoV-2 infection. Cluster 2 (38%) consisted of predominantly male patients (83%) with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and suffered from a median of three symptom categories, most commonly respiratory and neurological symptoms. This cluster also showed a significantly lower forced expiratory volume within 1 s and diffusion capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide. Cluster 3 (18%) was predominantly male (88%) with pre-existing CVD and diabetes. This cluster showed the mildest long COVID, and suffered from symptoms in a median of one symptom category.

CONCLUSIONS

Long COVID patients can be clustered into three distinct phenotypes based on their clinical presentation and easily obtainable information. These clusters show distinction in patient characteristics, lung function, long COVID severity and acute SARS-CoV-2 infection severity. This clustering can help in selecting the most beneficial monitoring and/or treatment strategies for patients suffering from long COVID. Follow-up research is needed to reveal the underlying molecular mechanisms implicated in the different phenotypes and determine the efficacy of treatment.

Effect of targeted nutrient supplementation on physical activity and health-related quality of life in COPD: study protocol for the randomised controlled NUTRECOVER trial

INTRODUCTION

Physical and mental health are often affected in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) adversely affecting disease course and quality of life. Abnormalities in whole body and cellular energy metabolism, dietary and plasma nutrient status and intestinal permeability have been well established in these patients as systemic determinants of functional decline and underexplored treatable traits. The aim of this study is to investigate the efficacy of 1 year targeted nutrient supplementation on physical activity level and health-related quality of life in patients with COPD.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study is a single-centre randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial in 166 patients with COPD recruited from multiple hospitals in the Netherlands. The intervention group will receive a multinutrient supplement, including vitamin D, tryptophan, long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids and prebiotic dietary fibres as main components (94 kCal per daily dose). The control group will receive an isocaloric isonitrogenous placebo. Both groups will ingest one portion per day for at least 12 months and will additionally receive counselling on healthy lifestyle and medical adherence over the course of the study. Coprimary outcomes are physical activity assessed by triaxial accelerometry and health-related quality of life measured by the EuroQol-5 dimensions questionnaire. Secondary outcomes are cognitive function, psychological well-being, physical performance, patient-reported outcomes and the metabolic profile assessed by body composition, systemic inflammation, plasma nutrient levels, intestinal integrity and microbiome composition. Outcomes will be measured at baseline and after 12 months of supplementation. In case patients are hospitalised for a COPD exacerbation, a subset outcome panel will be measured during a 4-week recovery period after hospitalisation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by the local Ethics Committee of Maastricht University. Subjects will be included after written informed consent is provided. Study outcomes will be disseminated through presentations at (inter)national conferences and through peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03807310.

What do screening tools measure? Lessons learned from SCREEN II and SNAQ65

BACKGROUND

Over the last decade, different screening tools for malnutrition have been developed. Within these tools, a distinction can be made between tools that assess nutritional risk and tools that assess protein energy malnutrition. Insights in differences in characteristics of participants at risk and in differences in prevalence rates will aid in deciding which tool(s) to use in daily practice.

METHODS

Dutch community-dwelling older adults (n = 200, 78.2 ± 6.9 years), not known to have specific nutrition problems, were recruited to participate in this cross-sectional study. SNAQ⁶⁵⁺ (low risk vs moderate/high risk) was used to assess risk of protein energy malnutrition and SCREEN II was used to assess nutrition risk (score <54 out of 64). Chi-square tests were used to test associations between demographic, health, physical and social factors and outcome of SNAQ⁶⁵⁺ and SCREEN II.

RESULTS

Of all participants 69.0% were at nutrition risk (SCREEN II), while 13.5% were at risk of protein energy malnutrition (SNAQ⁶⁵⁺). Agreement between the two tools was poor (kappa < 0.20). Gender, BMI, living status, income, activity level and protein/energy intake were associated with SCREEN II; age, BMI, comorbidities, medication use, help at home, activity level and low basic mobility were associated with SNAQ⁶⁵⁺.

CONCLUSION

SCREEN II and SNAQ⁶⁵⁺ measure different concepts of malnutrition and therefore identify different persons at risk. SCREEN II is more inclusive and comprises both undernutrition and overnutrition as well as different determinants that can impact on food intake, while SNAQ⁶⁵⁺ is solely focused on protein-energy malnutrition.