Background: Ventilation management may differ between COVID–19 ARDS (COVID–ARDS) patients and patients with pre–COVID ARDS (CLASSIC–ARDS); it is uncertain whether associations of ventilation management with outcomes for CLASSIC–ARDS also exist in COVID–ARDS. Methods: Individual patient data analysis of COVID–ARDS and CLASSIC–ARDS patients in six observational studies of ventilation, four in the COVID–19 pandemic and two pre–pandemic. Descriptive statistics were used to compare epidemiology and ventilation characteristics. The primary endpoint were key ventilation parameters; other outcomes included mortality and ventilator–free days and alive (VFD–60) at day 60. Results: This analysis included 6702 COVID–ARDS patients and 1415 CLASSIC–ARDS patients. COVID–ARDS patients received lower median VT (6.6 [6.0 to 7.4] vs 7.3 [6.4 to 8.5] ml/kg PBW; p < 0.001) and higher median PEEP (12.0 [10.0 to 14.0] vs 8.0 [6.0 to 10.0] cm H2O; p < 0.001), at lower median ΔP (13.0 [10.0 to 15.0] vs 16.0 [IQR 12.0 to 20.0] cm H2O; p < 0.001) and higher median Crs (33.5 [26.6 to 42.1] vs 28.1 [21.6 to 38.4] mL/cm H2O; p < 0.001). Following multivariable adjustment, higher ΔP had an independent association with higher 60–day mortality and less VFD–60 in both groups. Higher PEEP had an association with less VFD–60, but only in COVID–ARDS patients. Conclusions: Our findings show important differences in key ventilation parameters and associations thereof with outcomes between COVID–ARDS and CLASSIC–ARDS. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov (identifier NCT05650957), December 14, 2022.
Background: A Dutch nationwide prospective cohort study was initiated to investigate recovery trajectories of people recovering from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and costs of treatment by primary care allied health professionals. Objectives: The study described recovery trajectories over a period of 12 months and associated baseline characteristics of participants recovering from COVID-19 who visited a primary care allied health professional. It also aimed to provide insight into the associated healthcare and societal costs. Methods: Participants completed participant-reported standardized outcomes on participation, health-related quality of life, fatigue, physical functioning, and costs at baseline (ie, start of the treatment), 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Results: A total of 1451 participants (64 % women, 76 % mild/moderate severity) with a mean (SD) age of 49 (12) years were included. Linear mixed models showed significant and clinically relevant improvements over time in all outcome measures between baseline and 12 months. Between 6 and 12 months, we found significant but not clinically relevant improvements in most outcome measures. Having a worse baseline score was the only baseline factor that was consistently associated with greater improvement over time on that outcome. Total allied healthcare costs (mean €1921; SEM €48) made up about 3% of total societal costs (mean €64,584; SEM €3149) for the average participant in the cohort. Conclusions: The health status of participants recovering from COVID-19 who visited an allied health professional improved significantly over a 12-month follow-up period, but nearly the improvement occurred between baseline and 6 months. Most participants still reported severe impairments in their daily lives, and generated substantial societal costs. These issues, combined with the fact that baseline characteristics explained little of the variance in recovery over time, underscore the importance of continued attention for the management of people recovering from COVID-19. Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov
MULTIFILE
Objective: To report the study protocol and baseline characteristics of a prospective cohort study to evaluate longitudinal recovery trajectories of patients recovering from COVID-19 who have visited a primary care allied health professional. Design: Report of the protocol and baseline characteristics for a prospective cohort study with a mixedmethods approach. Patients: Patients recovering from COVID-19 treated by primary care dietitians, exercise therapists, occupational therapists, physical therapists and/or speech and language therapists in the Netherlands. Methods: The prospective study will measure primary outcome domains: participation, health-related quality of life, fatigue, physical functioning, and costs, at baseline, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Interviews, on the patients' experiences with allied healthcare, will be held with a subsample of patients and allied health professionals. Results: The cohort comprises 1,451 patients (57% female, mean age 49 (standard deviation 13) years). Preliminary results for the study cohort show that 974 (67%) of the participants reported mild/moderate severity symptoms during the infection period and patients reported severe restrictions in activities of daily living compared with previous research in other patient populations. Both quantitative and qualitative, will provide insight into the recovery of patients who are treated by allied health professionals. Conclusion: In conclusion, this will be the first comprehensive study to longitudinally evaluate the recovery trajectories and related costs of patients recovering from COVID-19 who are treated by allied health professionals in the Netherlands. This study will provide evidence for the optimal strategy to treat patients recovering from COVID-19 infection, including which patients benefit, and to what extent, from treatment, and which factors might impact their recovery course over time. The preliminary results of this study demonstrated the severity of restrictions and complaints at the start of therapy are substantial.
