186
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Health outcomes in people 2 years after surviving hospitalisation with COVID-19: a longitudinal cohort study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          With the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, growing evidence shows that a considerable proportion of people who have recovered from COVID-19 have long-term effects on multiple organs and systems. A few longitudinal studies have reported on the persistent health effects of COVID-19, but the follow-up was limited to 1 year after acute infection. The aim of our study was to characterise the longitudinal evolution of health outcomes in hospital survivors with different initial disease severity throughout 2 years after acute COVID-19 infection and to determine their recovery status.

          Methods

          We did an ambidirectional, longitudinal cohort study of individuals who had survived hospitalisation with COVID-19 and who had been discharged from Jin Yin-tan Hospital (Wuhan, China) between Jan 7 and May 29, 2020. We measured health outcomes 6 months (June 16–Sept 3, 2020), 12 months (Dec 16, 2020–Feb 7, 2021), and 2 years (Nov 16, 2021–Jan 10, 2022) after symptom onset with a 6-min walking distance (6MWD) test, laboratory tests, and a series of questionnaires on symptoms, mental health, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), return to work, and health-care use after discharge. A subset of COVID-19 survivors received pulmonary function tests and chest imaging at each visit. Age-matched, sex-matched, and comorbidities-matched participants without COVID-19 infection (controls) were introduced to determine the recovery status of COVID-19 survivors at 2 years. The primary outcomes included symptoms, modified British Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnoea scale, HRQoL, 6MWD, and return to work, and were assessed in all COVID-19 survivors who attended all three follow-up visits. Symptoms, mMRC dyspnoea scale, and HRQoL were also assessed in controls.

          Findings

          2469 patients with COVID-19 were discharged from Jin Yin-tan Hospital between Jan 7 and May 29, 2020. 1192 COVID-19 survivors completed assessments at the three follow-up visits and were included in the final analysis, 1119 (94%) of whom attended the face-to-face interview 2 years after infection. The median age at discharge was 57·0 years (48·0–65·0) and 551 (46%) were women. The median follow-up time after symptom onset was 185·0 days (IQR 175·0–197·0) for the visit at 6 months, 349·0 days (337·0–360·0) for the visit at 12 months, and 685·0 days (675·0–698·0) for the visit at 2 years. The proportion of COVID-19 survivors with at least one sequelae symptom decreased significantly from 777 (68%) of 1149 at 6 months to 650 (55%) of 1190 at 2 years (p<0·0001), with fatigue or muscle weakness always being the most frequent. The proportion of COVID-19 survivors with an mMRC score of at least 1 was 168 (14%) of 1191 at 2 years, significantly lower than the 288 (26%) of 1104 at 6 months (p<0·0001). HRQoL continued to improve in almost all domains, especially in terms of anxiety or depression: the proportion of individuals with symptoms of anxiety or depression decreased from 256 (23%) of 1105 at 6 months to 143 (12%) 1191 at 2 years (p<0·0001). The proportion of individuals with a 6MWD less than the lower limit of the normal range declined continuously in COVID-19 survivors overall and in the three subgroups of varying initial disease severity. 438 (89%) of 494 COVID-19 survivors had returned to their original work at 2 years. Survivors with long COVID symptoms at 2 years had lower HRQoL, worse exercise capacity, more mental health abnormality, and increased health-care use after discharge than survivors without long COVID symptoms. COVID-19 survivors still had more prevalent symptoms and more problems in pain or discomfort, as well as anxiety or depression, at 2 years than did controls. Additionally, a significantly higher proportion of survivors who had received higher-level respiratory support during hospitalisation had lung diffusion impairment (43 [65%] of 66 vs 24 [36%] of 66, p=0·0009), reduced residual volume (41 [62%] vs 13 [20%], p<0·0001), and total lung capacity (26 [39%] vs four [6%], p<0·0001) than did controls.

          Interpretation

          Regardless of initial disease severity, COVID-19 survivors had longitudinal improvements in physical and mental health, with most returning to their original work within 2 years; however, the burden of symptomatic sequelae remained fairly high. COVID-19 survivors had a remarkably lower health status than the general population at 2 years. The study findings indicate that there is an urgent need to explore the pathogenesis of long COVID and develop effective interventions to reduce the risk of long COVID.

          Related collections

          Most cited references46

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7.

          Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is one of the most common mental disorders; however, there is no brief clinical measure for assessing GAD. The objective of this study was to develop a brief self-report scale to identify probable cases of GAD and evaluate its reliability and validity. A criterion-standard study was performed in 15 primary care clinics in the United States from November 2004 through June 2005. Of a total of 2740 adult patients completing a study questionnaire, 965 patients had a telephone interview with a mental health professional within 1 week. For criterion and construct validity, GAD self-report scale diagnoses were compared with independent diagnoses made by mental health professionals; functional status measures; disability days; and health care use. A 7-item anxiety scale (GAD-7) had good reliability, as well as criterion, construct, factorial, and procedural validity. A cut point was identified that optimized sensitivity (89%) and specificity (82%). Increasing scores on the scale were strongly associated with multiple domains of functional impairment (all 6 Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form General Health Survey scales and disability days). Although GAD and depression symptoms frequently co-occurred, factor analysis confirmed them as distinct dimensions. Moreover, GAD and depression symptoms had differing but independent effects on functional impairment and disability. There was good agreement between self-report and interviewer-administered versions of the scale. The GAD-7 is a valid and efficient tool for screening for GAD and assessing its severity in clinical practice and research.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure.

            While considerable attention has focused on improving the detection of depression, assessment of severity is also important in guiding treatment decisions. Therefore, we examined the validity of a brief, new measure of depression severity. The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) is a self-administered version of the PRIME-MD diagnostic instrument for common mental disorders. The PHQ-9 is the depression module, which scores each of the 9 DSM-IV criteria as "0" (not at all) to "3" (nearly every day). The PHQ-9 was completed by 6,000 patients in 8 primary care clinics and 7 obstetrics-gynecology clinics. Construct validity was assessed using the 20-item Short-Form General Health Survey, self-reported sick days and clinic visits, and symptom-related difficulty. Criterion validity was assessed against an independent structured mental health professional (MHP) interview in a sample of 580 patients. As PHQ-9 depression severity increased, there was a substantial decrease in functional status on all 6 SF-20 subscales. Also, symptom-related difficulty, sick days, and health care utilization increased. Using the MHP reinterview as the criterion standard, a PHQ-9 score > or =10 had a sensitivity of 88% and a specificity of 88% for major depression. PHQ-9 scores of 5, 10, 15, and 20 represented mild, moderate, moderately severe, and severe depression, respectively. Results were similar in the primary care and obstetrics-gynecology samples. In addition to making criteria-based diagnoses of depressive disorders, the PHQ-9 is also a reliable and valid measure of depression severity. These characteristics plus its brevity make the PHQ-9 a useful clinical and research tool.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              The PHQ-9

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Lancet Respir Med
                Lancet Respir Med
                The Lancet. Respiratory Medicine
                Elsevier Ltd.
                2213-2600
                2213-2619
                11 May 2022
                11 May 2022
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, China–Japan Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
                [b ]Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, National Center for Respiratory Medicine, Center of Respiratory Medicine, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Diseases, China–Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, China
                [c ]Institute of Clinical Medical Sciences, China–Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, China
                [d ]Department of Radiology, China–Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, China
                [e ]China–Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, China
                [f ]Department of COVID-19 Re-examination Clinic, Hubei Provincial Clinical Research Center for Infectious Diseases, Wuhan Research Center for Communicable Disease Diagnosis and Treatment, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Wuhan, China
                [g ]Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Hubei Provincial Clinical Research Center for Infectious Diseases, Wuhan Research Center for Communicable Disease Diagnosis and Treatment, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Wuhan, China
                [h ]Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease Pathogenomics, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
                [i ]NHC Key Laboratory of Systems Biology of Pathogens and Christophe Merieux Laboratory, Institute of Pathogen Biology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China
                [j ]Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, 2nd Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China
                [k ]Tsinghua University School of Medicine, Beijing, China
                [l ]Institute of Respiratory Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Science, Beijing, China
                [m ]Tsinghua University–Peking University Joint Center for Life Sciences, Beijing, China
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Prof Bin Cao, Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, National Center for Respiratory Medicine, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Diseases, China–Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing 100029, China
                [** ]Prof Jianwei Wang, NHC Key Laboratory of Systems Biology of Pathogens and Christophe Merieux Laboratory, Institute of Pathogen Biology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China
                [*]

                Contributed equally

                [†]

                Contributed equally

                Article
                S2213-2600(22)00126-6
                10.1016/S2213-2600(22)00126-6
                9094732
                35568052
                9f173c09-1bd7-4c4d-9500-590c755f9992
                © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                Categories
                Articles

                Comments

                Comment on this article