Pulmonary function test and computed tomography features during follow-up after SARS, MERS and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic follows severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) coronavirus epidemics. Some survivors of COVID-19 infection experience persistent respiratory symptoms, yet their cause and natural history remain unclear. Follow-up after SARS and MERS may provide a model for predicting the long-term pulmonary consequences of COVID-19. Methods This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to describe and compare the longitudinal pulmonary function test (PFT) and computed tomography (CT) features of patients recovering from SARS, MERS and COVID-19. Meta-analysis of PFT parameters (DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model) and proportion of CT features (Freeman-Tukey transformation random-effects model) were performed. Findings Persistent reduction in the diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide following SARS and COVID-19 infection is seen at 6 months follow-up, and 12 months after MERS. Other PFT parameters recover in this time. 6 months after SARS and COVID-19, ground-glass opacity, linear opacities and reticulation persist in over 30% of patients; honeycombing and traction dilatation are reported less often. Severe/critical COVID-19 infection leads to greater CT and PFT abnormality compared to mild/moderate infection. Interpretation Persistent diffusion defects suggestive of parenchymal lung injury occur after SARS, MERS and COVID-19 infection, but improve over time. After COVID-19 infection, CT features are suggestive of persistent parenchymal lung injury, in keeping with a post-COVID-19 interstitial lung syndrome. It is yet to be determined if this is a regressive or progressive disease

Effect of Noninvasive Respiratory Strategies on Intubation or Mortality Among Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure and COVID-19: The RECOVERY-RS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) have been recommended for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19. Uncertainty exists regarding the effectiveness and safety of these noninvasive respiratory strategies. Objective To determine whether either CPAP or HFNO, compared with conventional oxygen therapy, improves clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Design, Setting, and Participants A parallel group, adaptive, randomized clinical trial of 1273 hospitalized adults with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The trial was conducted between April 6, 2020, and May 3, 2021, across 48 acute care hospitals in the UK and Jersey. Final follow-up occurred on June 20, 2021. Interventions Adult patients were randomized to receive CPAP (n = 380), HFNO (n = 418), or conventional oxygen therapy (n = 475). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was a composite of tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days. Results The trial was stopped prematurely due to declining COVID-19 case numbers in the UK and the end of the funded recruitment period. Of the 1273 randomized patients (mean age, 57.4 [95% CI, 56.7 to 58.1] years; 66% male; 65% White race), primary outcome data were available for 1260. Crossover between interventions occurred in 17.1% of participants (15.3% in the CPAP group, 11.5% in the HFNO group, and 23.6% in the conventional oxygen therapy group). The requirement for tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days was significantly lower with CPAP (36.3%; 137 of 377 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (44.4%; 158 of 356 participants) (absolute difference, -8% [95% CI, -15% to -1%], P = .03), but was not significantly different with HFNO (44.3%; 184 of 415 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (45.1%; 166 of 368 participants) (absolute difference, -1% [95% CI, -8% to 6%], P = .83). Adverse events occurred in 34.2% (130/380) of participants in the CPAP group, 20.6% (86/418) in the HFNO group, and 13.9% (66/475) in the conventional oxygen therapy group. Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19, an initial strategy of CPAP significantly reduced the risk of tracheal intubation or mortality compared with conventional oxygen therapy, but there was no significant difference between an initial strategy of HFNO compared with conventional oxygen therapy. The study may have been underpowered for the comparison of HFNO vs conventional oxygen therapy, and early study termination and crossover among the groups should be considered when interpreting the findings. Trial Registration isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16912075