Trial Report Optimizing cardiopulmonary rehabilitation duration for long COVID patients: an exercise physiology monitoring approach, 2024, Szarvas et al

Abstract


The presence of prolonged symptoms after COVID infection worsens the workability and quality of life. 200 adults with long COVID syndrome were enrolled after medical, physical, and mental screening, and were divided into two groups based on their performance. The intervention group (n = 100) received supervised rehabilitation at Department of Pulmonology, Semmelweis University with the registration number 160/2021 between 01/APR/2021–31/DEC/2022, while an age-matched control group (n = 100) received a single check-up.

To evaluate the long-term effects of the rehabilitation, the intervention group was involved in a 2- and 3-month follow-up, carrying out cardiopulmonary exercise test. Our study contributes understanding long COVID rehabilitation, emphasizing the potential benefits of structured cardiopulmonary rehabilitation in enhancing patient outcomes and well-being. Significant difference was found between intervention group and control group at baseline visit in pulmonary parameters, as forced vital capacity, forced expiratory volume, forced expiratory volume, transfer factor for carbon monoxide, transfer coefficient for carbon monoxide, and oxygen saturation (all p < 0.05).

Our follow-up study proved that a 2-week long, patient-centered pulmonary rehabilitation program has a positive long-term effect on people with symptomatic long COVID syndrome. Our data showed significant improvement between two and three months in maximal oxygen consumption (p < 0.05). Multidisciplinary, individualized approach may be a key element of a successful cardiopulmonary rehabilitation in long COVID conditions, which improves workload, quality of life, respiratory function, and status of patients with long COVID syndrome.


Open access: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11357-024-01179-z

 

Study group:

About PEM:

 

Btw, do we know what the normally experienced drop-out rate of similar interventions is in studies that are not about ME/CFS/long covid?

 

Reminds me of one of the reasonings one of my university professors had when the majority of students (beyond 60%) failed his exams: If you exclude those students who failed the exam, the average grade is actually acceptable and managed to pass the exam, so there's no need to do anything different.

 

They are testing the 'hypothesis' for the treatment model that has been most used from day 1. Right. As one does. Has anyone bothered to test whether drinking cold water works for minor aches, lately? Anyone? Bueller?

Their excuse for drop-outs, reasons for are not documented, is speculation that it was so effective that participants forgot they were part of a study and so didn't respond to follow-up, I guess expecting that the follow-up would be more exercise, which they would not benefit from anymore, presumably as they are now cured, having successfully completed rehabilitation.

Because why not? One prior study of CBT (Wyller, I think) put down the lack of efficacy on bad press about the study, which participants may or may not have seen. It's not as if anyone seems to care, their conclusions is that it worked in part because there were so many dropouts, it seems.

Their program, which had a 68% dropout rate, was so effective that 2 weeks of exercise provides additional benefits 2 months later. Or something like it:

They made their main outcome a statistical analysis of the impact of 3 variables, including the 6 minute walking test, which had a null outcome anyway: 477 (402.5–502.5) for controls and 471 (368.5–534.5) for the program, which seems to have been done once anyway, but it's not noted when (presumably at the end of the 2 week program, but who knows?!).

No evidence or data supports participants resuming their normal lives. It's just assumed so, or something. In part based on speculation that most dropped out. The state of medical research...

Again I am quite confident that once AI models start getting used to produce reviews and analyses, they will throw out all of this with extreme prejudice. All of this is garbage. They will probably argue against funding any more, especially once they become able to reason and notice that despite hundreds of those trials, of the most widely-used treatment model, trialists are still producing nothing but feasibility/acceptability pilot studies. Absurd. I've rarely seen people so careless while having so much influence and responsibility on millions of people.