Rationale: Much is known about the acute infective process of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative virus of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. The marked inflammatory response and coagulopathic state in acute SARS-CoV-2 infection may promote pulmonary fibrosis. However, little is known about the incidence and seriousness of post–COVID-19 pulmonary pathology. Objectives: To describe the respiratory recovery and self-reported health after infection at the time of outpatient attendance. Methods: Infection severity was graded into three groups: 1 ) not requiring admission, 2 ) requiring hospital admission, and 3 ) requiring intensive care unit care. Participants underwent chest radiography and a 6-minute walk test (6MWT). Fatigue and subjective return to health were assessed, and concentrations of CRP (C-reactive protein), IL-6 (interleukin-6), sCD25 (soluble CD25), and D-dimer were measured. The associations between initial illness and abnormal chest X-ray findings, 6MWT distance, and perception of maximal exertion were investigated. Results: A total of 487 patients were offered an outpatient appointment, of whom 153 (31%) attended for assessment at a median of 75 days after diagnosis. A total of 74 (48%) had required hospital admission during acute infection. Persistently abnormal chest X-ray findings were seen in 4%. The median 6MWT distance covered was 460 m. A reduced distance covered was associated with frailty and length of inpatient stay. A total of 95 (62%) patients believed that they had not returned to full health, whereas 47% met the case definition for fatigue. Ongoing ill health and fatigue were associated with an increased perception of exertion. None of the measures of persistent respiratory disease were associated with initial disease severity. Conclusions: This study highlights the rates of objective respiratory disease and subjective respiratory symptoms after COVID-19 and the complex multifactorial nature of post–COVID-19 ill health.

KEY MESSAGESCOVID-19 has substantially impacted primary care throughout Europe and globally, and various strategies have been implemented to address this crisis. Going forward, primary care must adopt a united, resilient, and adaptive pandemic response. This response must be aided by requisite standards of evidence, financial, and regulatory supports.

No abstract

BackgroundLong COVID is a multifaceted condition, and it has impacted a considerable proportion of those with acute-COVID-19. Affected patients often have complex care needs requiring holistic and multidisciplinary care, the kind routinely provided in general practice. However, there is limited evidence regarding GP interventions.AimThis study aimed to address this issue by conducting a scoping review of literature on GP management of Long COVID.Design & settingArksey and O’Malley’s six-stage scoping review framework with recommendations by Levac et al. was used.MethodPubMed, Google Scholar, the Cochrane Library, SCOPUS, and Google searches were conducted to identify relevant peer-reviewed/grey literature, and study selection process was conducted according to the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Braun and Clarke’s ‘Thematic Analysis’ approach was used to interpret data.ResultsNineteen of 972 identified papers were selected for review. These included peer-reviewed articles and grey literature spanning a wide range of countries. Six themes were identified regarding GP management of Long COVID, these being: (i) GP uncertainty, (ii) Listening and empathy, (iii) Assessment and monitoring of symptoms, (iv) Coordinating access to appropriate services, (v) Facilitating provision of continual and integrated multi-disciplinary care and (vi) Need to facilitate psychological support.ConclusionThe findings show that GPs can and have played a key role in the management of Long COVID, and that patient care can be improved through better understanding of patient experiences, standardised approaches for symptom identification/treatment, and facilitation of access to multidisciplinary specialist services when needed. Future research evaluating focused GP interventions is needed.