Dataset Information

Persistent Endothelial Dysfunction in Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome: A Case-Control Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Endothelial dysfunction has a key role in the pathogenesis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and its disabling complications. We designed a case-control study to assess the alterations of endothelium-dependent flow-mediated dilation (FMD) among convalescent COVID-19 patients.

Methods

COVID-19 patients referred to a Pulmonary Rehabilitation Unit within 2 months from swab test negativization were consecutively evaluated for inclusion and compared to controls matched for age, gender, and cardiovascular risk factors.

Results

A total of 133 convalescent COVID-19 patients (81.2% males, mean age 61.6 years) and 133 matched controls (80.5% males, mean age 60.4 years) were included. A significantly lower FMD was documented in convalescent COVID-19 patients as compared to controls (3.2% ± 2.6 vs. 6.4% ± 4.1 p < 0.001), confirmed when stratifying the study population according to age and major clinical variables. Among cases, females exhibited significantly higher FMD values as compared to males (6.1% ± 2.9 vs. 2.5% ± 1.9, p < 0.001). Thus, no significant difference was observed between cases and controls in the subgroup analysis on females (6.1% ± 2.9 vs. 5.3% ± 3.4, p = 0.362). Among convalescent COVID-19 patients, FMD showed a direct correlation with arterial oxygen tension (rho = 0.247, p = 0.004), forced expiratory volume in 1 s (rho = 0.436, p < 0.001), forced vital capacity (rho = 0.406, p < 0.001), and diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (rho = 0.280, p = 0.008). Overall, after adjusting for major confounders, a recent COVID-19 was a major and independent predictor of FMD values (β = -0.427, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome is associated with a persistent and sex-biased endothelial dysfunction, directly correlated with the severity of pulmonary impairment.

SUBMITTER: Ambrosino P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8391623 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOlfactory dysfunction is a common consequence of COVID-19 infection and persistent symptoms can have a profound impact on quality of life. At present there is little guidance on how best to treat this condition. A variety of interventions have been suggested to promote recovery, including medication and olfactory training. However, it is uncertain whether any intervention is of benefit. This is an update of the 2021 review with one additional study added. OBJECTIVES: 1) To evaluate the benefits and harms of any intervention versus no treatment for people with persisting olfactory dysfunction due to COVID-19 infection. 2) To keep the evidence up-to-date, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the latest search was 20 October 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people with COVID-19 related olfactory disturbance that had persisted for at least four weeks. We included any intervention compared to no treatment or placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were the recovery of sense of smell, disease-related quality of life and serious adverse effects. Secondary outcomes were the change in sense of smell, general quality of life, prevalence of parosmia and other adverse effects (including nosebleeds/bloody discharge). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.Main resultsWe included two studies with 30 participants. The studies evaluated the following interventions: systemic corticosteroids plus intranasal corticosteroid/mucolytic/decongestant and palmitoylethanolamide plus luteolin. Systemic corticosteroids plus intranasal corticosteroid/mucolytic/decongestant compared to no intervention We included a single RCT with 18 participants who had anosmia for at least 30 days following COVID-19 infection. Participants received a 15-day course of oral corticosteroids combined with nasal irrigation (consisting of an intranasal corticosteroid/mucolytic/decongestant solution) or no intervention. Psychophysical testing was used to assess olfactory function at 40 days. This is a single, small study and for all outcomes the certainty of evidence was very low. We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. Palmitoylethanolamide plus luteolin compared to no intervention We included a single RCT with 12 participants who had anosmia or hyposmia for at least 90 days following COVID-19 infection. Participants received a 30-day course of palmitoylethanolamide and luteolin or no intervention. Psychophysical testing was used to assess olfactory function at 30 days. This is a single, small study and for all outcomes the certainty of evidence was very low. We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results.Authors' conclusionsThere is very limited evidence available on the efficacy and harms of treatments for persistent olfactory dysfunction following COVID-19 infection. However, we have identified a number of ongoing trials in this area. As this is a living systematic review we will update the data regularly, as new results become available.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the two phases of long COVID, namely ongoing symptomatic COVID-19 (OSC; signs and symptoms from 4 to 12 weeks from initial infection) and post-COVID-19 syndrome (PCS; signs and symptoms beyond 12 weeks) with respect to symptomatology, abnormal functioning, psychological burden, and quality of life.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesElectronic search of EMBASE, MEDLINE, ProQuest Coronavirus Research Database, LitCOVID, and Google Scholar between January and April 2021, and manual search for relevant citations from review articles. Eligibility Criteria: Cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, randomised control trials, and case-control studies with participant data concerning long COVID symptomatology or abnormal functioning.Data extractionStudies were screened and assessed for risk of bias by two independent reviewers, with conflicts resolved with a third reviewer. The AXIS tool was utilised to appraise the quality of the evidence. Data were extracted and collated using a data extraction tool in Microsoft Excel.ResultsOf the 1145 studies screened, 39 were included, all describing adult cohorts with long COVID and sample sizes ranging from 32 to 1733. Studies included data pertaining to symptomatology, pulmonary functioning, chest imaging, cognitive functioning, psychological disorder, and/or quality of life. Fatigue presented as the most prevalent symptom during both OSC and PCS at 43% and 44%, respectively. Sleep disorder (36%; 33%), dyspnoea (31%; 40%), and cough (26%; 22%) followed in prevalence. Abnormal spirometry (FEV1 < 80% predicted) was observed in 15% and 11%, and abnormal chest imaging was observed in 34% and 28%, respectively. Cognitive impairments were also evident (20%; 15%), as well as anxiety (28%; 34%) and depression (25%; 32%). Decreased quality of life was reported by 40% in those with OSC and 57% with PCS.ConclusionsThe prevalence of OSC and PCS were highly variable. Reported symptoms covered a wide range of body systems, with a general overlap in frequencies between the two phases. However, abnormalities in lung function and imaging seemed to be more common in OSC, whilst anxiety, depression, and poor quality of life seemed more frequent in PCS. In general, the quality of the evidence was moderate and further research is needed to understand longitudinal symptomatology trajectories in long COVID. Systematic Review Registration: Registered with PROSPERO with ID #CRD42021247846.