Long COVID exhibits clinically distinct phenotypes at 3–6 months post-SARSCoV-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 SARSCoV-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

Home monitoring of lung function, symptoms and quality of life after admission with COVID-19 infection: The HOMECOMIN' study

Background and objective: To develop targeted and efficient follow-up programmes for patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), structured and detailed insights in recovery trajectory are required. We aimed to gain detailed insights in long-term recovery after COVID-19 infection, using an online home monitoring programme including home spirometry. Moreover, we evaluated patient experiences with the home monitoring programme. Methods: In this prospective multicentre study, we included adults hospitalized due to COVID-19 with radiological abnormalities. For 6 months after discharge, patients collected weekly home spirometry and pulse oximetry measurements, and reported visual analogue scales on cough, dyspnoea and fatigue. Patients completed the fatigue assessment scale (FAS), global rating of change (GRC), EuroQol-5D-5L (EQ-5D-5L) and online tool for the assessment of burden of COVID-19 (ABCoV tool). Mixed models were used to analyse the results. Results: A total of 133 patients were included in this study (70.1% male, mean age 60 years [SD 10.54]). Patients had a mean baseline forced vital capacity of 3.25 L (95% CI: 2.99–3.44 L), which increased linearly in 6 months with 19.1% (Δ0.62 L, p < 0.005). Patients reported substantial fatigue with no improvement over time. Nevertheless, health status improved significantly. After 6 months, patients scored their general well-being almost similar as before COVID-19. Overall, patients considered home spirometry useful and not burdensome. Conclusion: Six months after hospital admission for COVID-19, patients' lung function and quality of life were still improving, although fatigue persisted. Home monitoring enables detailed follow-up for patients with COVID-19 at low burden for patients and for the healthcare system

Imatinib in patients with severe COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial

Background The major complication of COVID-19 is hypoxaemic respiratory failure from capillary leak and alveolar oedema. Experimental and early clinical data suggest that the tyrosine-kinase inhibitor imatinib reverses pulmonary capillary leak. Methods This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial was done at 13 academic and non-academic teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. Hospitalised patients (aged ≥18 years) with COVID-19, as confirmed by an RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2, requiring supplemental oxygen to maintain a peripheral oxygen saturation of greater than 94% were eligible. Patients were excluded if they had severe pre-existing pulmonary disease, had pre-existing heart failure, had undergone active treatment of a haematological or non-haematological malignancy in the previous 12 months, had cytopenia, or were receiving concomitant treatment with medication known to strongly interact with imatinib. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either oral imatinib, given as a loading dose of 800 mg on day 0 followed by 400 mg daily on days 1–9, or placebo. Randomisation was done with a computer-based clinical data management platform with variable block sizes (containing two, four, or six patients), stratified by study site. The primary outcome was time to discontinuation of mechanical ventilation and supplemental oxygen for more than 48 consecutive hours, while being alive during a 28-day period. Secondary outcomes included safety, mortality at 28 days, and the need for invasive mechanical ventilation. All efficacy and safety analyses were done in all randomised patients who had received at least one dose of study medication (modified intention-to-treat population). This study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2020–001236–10). Findings Between March 31, 2020, and Jan 4, 2021, 805 patients were screened, of whom 400 were eligible and randomly assigned to the imatinib group (n=204) or the placebo group (n=196). A total of 385 (96%) patients (median age 64 years [IQR 56–73]) received at least one dose of study medication and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. Time to discontinuation of ventilation and supplemental oxygen for more than 48 h was not significantly different between the two groups (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·95 [95% CI 0·76–1·20]). At day 28, 15 (8%) of 197 patients had died in the imatinib group compared with 27 (14%) of 188 patients in the placebo group (unadjusted HR 0·51 [0·27–0·95]). After adjusting for baseline imbalances between the two groups (sex, obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease) the HR for mortality was 0·52 (95% CI 0·26–1·05). The HR for mechanical ventilation in the imatinib group compared with the placebo group was 1·07 (0·63–1·80; p=0·81). The median duration of invasive mechanical ventilation was 7 days (IQR 3–13) in the imatinib group compared with 12 days (6–20) in the placebo group (p=0·0080). 91 (46%) of 197 patients in the imatinib group and 82 (44%) of 188 patients in the placebo group had at least one grade 3 or higher adverse event. The safety evaluation revealed no imatinib-associated adverse events. Interpretation The study failed to meet its primary outcome, as imatinib did not reduce the time to discontinuation of ventilation and supplemental oxygen for more than 48 consecutive hours in patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen. The observed effects on survival (although attenuated after adjustment for baseline imbalances) and duration of mechanical ventilation suggest that imatinib might confer clinical benefit in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, but further studies are required to validate these findings