Rehabilitation and COVID-19: update of the rapid living systematic review by Cochrane Rehabilitation Field as of February 28, 2021

Rehabilitation and COVID-19: systematic review by Cochrane Rehabilitation

INTRODUCTION

Until the last update in February 2022, the Cochrane Rehabilitation COVID-19 Evidence-based Response (REH-COVER) action identified an increasing volume of evidence for the rehabilitation management of COVID-19. Therefore, our aim was to identify the best available evidence on the effectiveness of interventions for rehabilitation for COVID-19-related limitations of functioning of rehabilitation interest in adults with COVID-19 or post COVID-19 condition (PCC).

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We ran the searches on February 17th, 2023, in the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINHAL, and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, applying a publication date restriction to retrieve only papers published in 2022. To retrieve papers published before 2022, we screened the reference lists of previous publications included in the REH-COVER action, covering papers from early 2020 to the end of 2022. This current review includes only randomised controlled trials and concludes the rapid living systematic reviews of the Cochrane Rehabilitation REH-COVER action. The risk of bias and certainty of evidence were evaluated in all studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and GRADE, respectively. We conducted a narrative synthesis of the evidence. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022374244.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

After duplicate removal, we identified 18,950 individual records and 53 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Our findings suggest that the effect of breathing and strengthening exercise programs on dyspnea and physical exercise capacity compared to no treatment in non-severe COVID-19 patients is uncertain. Multicomponent telerehabilitation may slightly increase physical exercise capacity compared to educational intervention in adults with PCC. There is, however, uncertainty about its effect on lung function and physical exercise capacity when compared to no treatment. Finally, the effect of inspiratory muscle training on maximal inspiratory pressure compared to no treatment in adults with PCC is uncertain.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions that are part of comprehensive pulmonary rehabilitation approaches may benefit dyspnea and exercise tolerance in adults with COVID-19 and PCC. The available evidence has several methodological limitations that limit the certainty of evidence and the clinical relevance of findings. Therefore, we cannot provide robust suggestions for practice. While high-quality RCTs are being conducted, clinicians should consider using high-quality evidence from other pulmonary conditions to rehabilitate patients with COVID-19 or PCC using context-specific interventions.

Virtual reality exercises at home for post COVID-19 condition: a feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Between 30-76% of COVID-19 patients have persistent physical and mental symptoms, sometimes up to 9 months after acute COVID-19. Current rehabilitation is mostly focused on the physical symptoms, while experts have agreed on the need for a biopsychosocial approach. A novel approach such as Virtual Reality (VR) rehabilitation at home might benefit patients and therapists, especially considering the expected rush of patients with post-COVID-19-condition needing rehabilitation.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the feasibility of self-administered VR exercises at home for post COVID-19-condition.

METHODS

This is a single-arm feasibility study in an outpatient care setting. Patients who needed physiotherapy because of post COVID-19 condition were included as determined by the treating physiotherapist. Participants performed VR physical exercises at home for a period of 6 weeks and were allowed to perform VR mental exercise apps available at the VR platform to reduce stress and anxiety and promote cognitive functioning. Main outcomes were related to feasibility, i.e. duration and frequency of VR use, safety i.e. adverse events, patient satisfaction, and reasons to withdraw. Physical performance, daily activities, cognitive functioning, anxiety and depression, and quality of life were measured before and after.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients were included. One patient did not start VR and seven patients (15%) withdrew, mostly due to dizziness. Almost 70% of participants reported any adverse event during VR exercising. However, only 25% recalled these events at the end of the intervention period. The majority of patients described VR as having a positive influence on their recovery and the global satisfaction score was 67%. Average VR use was 30 minutes per session 3-4 times a week for 3-6 weeks. Overall use of VR applications was almost equally distributed over the three sets of VR exercises (physical, relaxing, cognitive). However, use frequency of physical exercises seemed to decrease over time, whereas use of cognitive and relaxation exercises remained stable. Physical performance and quality of life outcomes were significantly improved after six weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

VR physical exercises at home is feasible and safe with good acceptance in a significant percentage of patients with post COVID-19 condition.

CLINICALTRIAL

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04505761.

Effectiveness of a Three-Week Inpatient Pulmonary Rehabilitation Program for Patients after COVID-19: A Prospective Observational Study

For COVID-19 patients who remain symptomatic after the acute phase, pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is recommended. However, only a few studies have investigated the effectiveness of PR, especially considering the duration between the acute phase of COVID-19 and the onset of rehabilitation, as well as the initial severity. This prospective observational study evaluated the efficacy of PR in patients after COVID-19. A total of 120 still-symptomatic patients referred for PR after overcoming acute COVID-19 were asked to participate, of whom 108 (mean age 55.6 ± 10.1 years, 45.4% female) consented. The patients were assigned to three groups according to the time of referral and initial disease severity (severe acute; severe after interval; mild after interval). The primary outcome was dyspnea. Secondary outcomes included other respiratory disease symptoms, physical capacity, lung function, fatigue, quality of life (QoL), depression, and anxiety. Furthermore, patients rated the overall effectiveness of PR and their subjective change in health status. At the end of PR, we detected improvements with large effect sizes in exertional dyspnea, physical capacity, QoL, fatigue, and depression in the overall group. Other parameters changed with small to medium effect sizes. PR was effective after acute COVID-19 in all three groups analyzed.