Objective Although complications and clinical symptoms of COVID-19 have been elucidated, the prevalence of long-term sequelae of COVID-19 is less clear in previously hospitalized COVID-19 patients. This review and meta-analysis present the occurrence of different symptoms up to 1 year of follow-up for previously hospitalized patients. Methods We performed a systematic review from PubMed and Web of Science using keywords such as “COVID-19”, “SARS-CoV-2”, “sequelae”, “long-term effect” and included studies with at least 3-month of follow-up. Meta-analyses using random-effects models were performed to estimate the pooled prevalence for different sequelae. Subgroup analyses were conducted by different follow-up time, regions, age and ICU admission. Results 72 articles were included in the meta-analyses after screening 11,620 articles, identifying a total of 167 sequelae related to COVID-19 from 88,769 patients. Commonly reported sequelae included fatigue (27.5%, 95% CI 22.4–33.3%, range 1.5–84.9%), somnipathy (20.1%, 95% CI 14.7–26.9%, range 1.2–64.8%), anxiety (18.0%, 95% CI 13.8–23.1%, range 0.6–47.8%), dyspnea (15.5%, 95% CI 11.3–20.9%, range 0.8–58.4%), PTSD (14.6%, 95% CI 11.3–18.7%, range 1.2–32.0%), hypomnesia (13.4%, 95% CI 8.4–20.7%, range 0.6–53.8%), arthralgia (12.9%, 95% CI 8.4–19.2%, range 0.0–47.8%), depression (12.7%, 95% CI 9.3–17.2%, range 0.6–37.5%), alopecia (11.2%, 95% CI 6.9–17.6%, range 0.0–47.0%) over 3–13.2 months of follow-up. The prevalence of most symptoms reduced after > 9 months of follow-up, but fatigue and somnipathy persisted in 26.2% and 15.1%, respectively, of the patients over a year. COVID-19 patients from Asia reported a lower prevalence than those from other regions. Conclusions This review identified a wide spectrum of COVID-19 sequelae in previously hospitalized COVID-19 patients, with some symptoms persisting up to 1 year. Management and rehabilitation strategies targeting these symptoms may improve quality of life of recovered patients. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s15010-022-01862-3.

Background The clinical impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) amongst people with HIV (PWH) remains unclear. In this retrospective cohort study of COVID-19, we compared clinical outcomes and laboratory parameters among PWH and controls. Methods 68 PWH diagnosed with COVID-19 were matched 1:4 to patients without known HIV diagnosis, drawn from a study population of all patients who were diagnosed with COVID-19 at an academic urban hospital. The primary outcome was death/discharge to hospice within 30 days of hospital presentation. Results PWH were more likely to be admitted from the emergency department than patients without HIV (91% vs 71%, p=0.001). We observed no statistically significant difference between admitted PWH and patients without HIV in terms of 30-day mortality rate (19% vs 13%, respectively) or mechanical ventilation rate (18% vs 20%, respectively). PWH had higher erythrocyte sedimentation rates than controls on admission, but did not differ in other inflammatory marker levels or nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 viral load estimated by reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction cycle thresholds. Conclusion HIV infection status was associated with a higher admission rate; however, among hospitalized patients, PWH did not differ from HIV uninfected controls by rate of mechanical ventilation or death/discharge to hospice.

The COVID-19 outbreak was first reported in 2019, causing massive morbidity and mortality. The majority of the COVID-19 patients survived and developed Post-COVID-19 Syndrome (PC19S) of varying severity. Currently, the diagnosis of PC19S is achieved through history and symptomatology that cannot be explained by an alternative diagnosis. However, the heavy reliance on subjective reporting is prone to reporting errors. Besides, there is no unified diagnostic assessment tool to classify the clinical severity of patients. This leads to significant difficulties when managing patients in terms of public resource utilization, clinical progression monitorization and rehabilitation plan formulation. This narrative review aims to review current evidence of diagnosis based on triple assessment: clinical symptomatology, biochemical analysis and imaging evidence. Further assessment tools can be developed based on triple assessment to monitor patient’s clinical progression, prognosis and intervals of monitoring. It also highlights the high-risk features of patients for closer and earlier monitoring. Rehabilitation programs and related clinical trials are evaluated; however, most of them focus on cardiorespiratory fitness and psychiatric presentations such as anxiety and depression. Further research is required to establish an objective and comprehensive assessment tool to facilitate clinical management and rehabilitation plans.