Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Early View
  • Archive
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Early View
  • Archive
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

Pulmonary rehabilitation in long COVID: more than just natural recovery!?

Rainer Gloeckl, Daniela Leitl, Inga Jarosch, Tessa Schneeberger, Christoph Nell, Nikola Stenzel, Ayham Daher, Michael Dreher, Claus F. Vogelmeier, Klaus Kenn, Andreas R. Koczulla
ERJ Open Research 2021 7: 00454-2021; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00454-2021
Rainer Gloeckl
1Dept of Pulmonary Rehabilitation, Philipps-University of Marburg, Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Marburg, Germany
2Institute for Pulmonary Rehabilitation Research, Schoen Klinik Berchtesgadener Land, Schoenau am Koenigssee, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Rainer Gloeckl
  • For correspondence: rgloeckl@schoen-klinik.de
Daniela Leitl
1Dept of Pulmonary Rehabilitation, Philipps-University of Marburg, Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Marburg, Germany
2Institute for Pulmonary Rehabilitation Research, Schoen Klinik Berchtesgadener Land, Schoenau am Koenigssee, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Inga Jarosch
1Dept of Pulmonary Rehabilitation, Philipps-University of Marburg, Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Marburg, Germany
2Institute for Pulmonary Rehabilitation Research, Schoen Klinik Berchtesgadener Land, Schoenau am Koenigssee, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tessa Schneeberger
1Dept of Pulmonary Rehabilitation, Philipps-University of Marburg, Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Marburg, Germany
2Institute for Pulmonary Rehabilitation Research, Schoen Klinik Berchtesgadener Land, Schoenau am Koenigssee, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christoph Nell
3Dept of Pulmonology, Philipps-University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nikola Stenzel
4Psychologische Hochschule Berlin (PHB), Berlin, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ayham Daher
5Dept of Pneumology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael Dreher
5Dept of Pneumology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Claus F. Vogelmeier
6Dept of Medicine, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University Medical Centre Giessen and Marburg, Philipps-University of Marburg, Member of the DZL, Marburg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Klaus Kenn
1Dept of Pulmonary Rehabilitation, Philipps-University of Marburg, Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Marburg, Germany
2Institute for Pulmonary Rehabilitation Research, Schoen Klinik Berchtesgadener Land, Schoenau am Koenigssee, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andreas R. Koczulla
1Dept of Pulmonary Rehabilitation, Philipps-University of Marburg, Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Marburg, Germany
2Institute for Pulmonary Rehabilitation Research, Schoen Klinik Berchtesgadener Land, Schoenau am Koenigssee, Germany
7Teaching Hospital, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

In the light of missing randomised controlled trials, some arguments suggest that pulmonary rehabilitation has beneficial effects beyond natural recovery https://bit.ly/3ze2xvw

From the authors:

We thank A. Hussain and co-workers for their correspondence regarding our study on the benefits of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) [1].

Although a large proportion of COVID-19 patients recovers fully from the disease, approximately 5–10% experience prolonged symptoms for several months following the acute COVID-19 phase [2–4]. This results in millions of people suffering from COVID-19 sequelae worldwide. Therefore, beneficial interventions are urgently needed to counteract these long-term consequences. A Cochrane review from April 2021 identified more than 50 studies that investigated rehabilitative interventions in post-COVID-19 patients [5]. Amongst them are two randomised controlled trials that included 72 and 140 post-acute patients, respectively, showing that respiratory techniques have superior benefits beyond natural recovery to improve pulmonary function, exercise performance, quality of life, and anxiety, especially in combination with group psychological interventions [6, 7]. However, we admit that there is currently no randomised controlled trial available that has investigated the effects of a more comprehensive, multidisciplinary PR programme in COVID-19.

Due to the lack of a control group in our study, the impact of natural recovery cannot be determined. Therefore, we agree with A. Hussain and co-workers that the natural convalescence after the acute COVID-19 phase may have contributed to the effects of PR in our study (as we discussed in the section about limitations). However, we would like to point out why we believe that PR seems to have additional benefits beyond spontaneous recovery.

A. Hussain and co-workers questioned why patients in the mild/moderate group without functional limitation were referred to PR “only” due to ongoing symptoms. The German COVID-19 rehabilitation guideline recommends referring patients to rehabilitation programmes when symptoms or other impairments of activities of daily living are ongoing [8]. A. Hussain and co-workers also mentioned a 6-min walk distance (6MWD) of 500–580 m to be “normal”. Patients in our study reached a median 6MWD of 509 m, which corresponded to only 71% predicted (according to the reference equation by Troosters et al. [9]). We agree that a higher baseline 6MWD leads to a certain ceiling effect that limits the chances to improve 6MWD after PR. Nevertheless, COVID-19 patients in the mild/moderate group were able to improve 6MWD by 48 m (interquartile range 35–113 m). This range is clearly beyond the expected minimal important difference of 30 m [10] and well beyond common variabilities seen in 6MWD [11]. Furthermore, since the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in the mild/moderate patient group had occurred 6 months before, the improvement in 6MWD during a comprehensive 3-week PR might be rather related to the intervention than to a spontaneous recovery after such a long period. Also, forced vital capacity (FVC) did not influence 6MWD in a relevant fashion: the correlations between the improvements in FVC and 6MWD were low and not significant (mild/moderate: r= −0.03; severe/critical: r=0.33).

A study by Huang et al. [12] has shown that hospitalised COVID-19 patients had a median 6MWD of 495 m, 6 months after hospital discharge. Patients in the severe/critical COVID-19 group in our study reached a comparable 6MWD (468 m) already at PR discharge (which was only 6 weeks after hospital discharge). It seems that the recovery of exercise performance was accelerated by PR.

Even clearer is a comparison of our data with another COVID-19 cohort published by Daher et al. [13], which was comparable in age and lung function. These patients were followed up 6 weeks after hospital discharge. Assessments of COVID-19 patients in our study at the end of PR were also 6 weeks after hospital discharge. This makes the Daher cohort an interesting comparison group, although it remains unknown if and how many patients in this cohort performed PR after hospital discharge. Although their patients had a shorter duration of hospitalisation (37 versus 15 days), the median 6MWD was markedly higher in our severe/critical cohort (following PR) compared to the cohort of Daher et al. [13] (468 versus 380 m; figure 1).

FIGURE 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1

Comparison of the 6-min walk distance (6MWD) between two cohorts of coronavirus disease 2019 patients, 6 weeks after hospital discharge. Patients in the cohort from Gloeckl et al. [1] performed comprehensive pulmonary rehabilitation, and data are given from the severe/critical subgroup of patients. Original data from the comparison group was provided courtesy of Daher et al. [13]. Within the violin plots (showing the distribution shape of the data), the solid horizontal lines, and the values below them, represent the median; dashed lines represent interquartile ranges. Data below the graphs are medians. FEV1: forced expiratory volume in 1 s; FVC: forced vital capacity.

Another consideration of A. Hussain and co-workers was that our PR service was supposed to differ from standard practice because we offered “only” a 3-week PR programme. We have not mentioned this in the manuscript clearly enough, but a 3-week inpatient multidisciplinary PR is an obligatory procedure in Germany as well as in some other European countries, e.g. in Austria or Switzerland. Several studies have shown that such a comprehensive PR programme is highly beneficial to improve health status and quality of life in patients with chronic respiratory diseases [14–17].

In conclusion, based on all mentioned aspects, we strongly believe that PR has beneficial effects beyond natural recovery. However, we agree with A. Hussain and co-workers that well-planned, randomised controlled trials are necessary, to clarify the relevance of PR in COVID-19 on a higher evidence level. Such trials have already been initiated (e.g. ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers NCT04821934, NCT04365738 and NCT04718506).

Footnotes

  • Provenance: Invited article, peer reviewed.

  • Conflict of interest: R. Gloeckl has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: D. Leitl has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: I. Jarosch has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: T. Schneeberger has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: C. Nell has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: N. Stenzel has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: A. Daher has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: M. Dreher has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: C.F. Vogelmeier has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: K. Kenn has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: A.R. Koczulla has nothing to disclose.

  • Received July 7, 2021.
  • Accepted July 9, 2021.
  • Copyright ©The authors 2021
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0. For commercial reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions{at}ersnet.org

References

  1. ↵
    1. Gloeckl R,
    2. Leitl D,
    3. Jarosch I, et al.
    Benefits of pulmonary rehabilitation in COVID-19: a prospective observational cohort study. ERJ Open Res 2021; 7: 00108-2021. doi:10.1183/23120541.00108-2021
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. Greenhalgh T,
    2. Knight M,
    3. A'Court C, et al.
    Management of post-acute COVID-19 in primary care. BMJ 2020; 370: m3026. doi:10.1136/bmj.m3026
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    1. Vaes AW,
    2. Goërtz YMJ,
    3. Van Herck M, et al.
    Recovery from COVID-19: a sprint or marathon? 6-month follow-up data from online long COVID-19 support group members. ERJ Open Res 2021; 7: 00141-2021. doi:10.1183/23120541.00141-2021
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Sudre CH,
    2. Murray B,
    3. Varsavsky T, et al.
    Attributes and predictors of long COVID. Nat Med 2021; 27: 626–631. doi:10.1038/s41591-021-01292-y
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Negrini F,
    2. de Sire A,
    3. Andrenelli E, et al.
    Rehabilitation and COVID-19: update of the rapid living systematic review by Cochrane Rehabilitation Field as of April 30th, 2021. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2021; in press [https://doi.org/10.23736/S1973-9087.21.07125-2].
  5. ↵
    1. Liu K,
    2. Zhang W,
    3. Yang Y, et al.
    Respiratory rehabilitation in elderly patients with COVID-19: a randomized controlled study. Complement Ther Clin Pract 2020; 39: 101166. doi:10.1016/j.ctcp.2020.101166
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Liu Y,
    2. Yang YQ,
    3. Liu Y, et al.
    Effects of group psychological intervention combined with pulmonary rehabilitation exercises on anxiety and sleep disorders in patients with mild coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections in a Fangcang hospital. Psychol Health Med 2021; in press [https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2021.1916956].
  7. ↵
    1. online
    1. AWMF
    online. S2k-LL SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 und (Früh-) Rehabilitation [S2k Guideline SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 and (Early) Rehabilitation]. https://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/080-008l_S2k_SARS-CoV-2_COVID-19_und__Fr%C3%BCh-__Rehabilitation_2020-11.pdf Date last updated: 1 November 2020. Date last accessed: 24 June 2021.
  8. ↵
    1. Troosters T,
    2. Gosselink R,
    3. Decramer M
    . Six minute walking distance in healthy elderly subjects. Eur Respir J 1999; 14: 270–274. doi:10.1034/j.1399-3003.1999.14b06.x
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Holland AE,
    2. Spruit MA,
    3. Troosters T, et al.
    An official European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society technical standard: field walking tests in chronic respiratory disease. Eur Respir J 2014; 44: 1428–1446. doi:10.1183/09031936.00150314
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Hernandes NA,
    2. Wouters EFM,
    3. Meijer K, et al.
    Reproducibility of 6-minute walking test in patients with COPD. Eur Respir J 2011; 38: 261–267. doi:10.1183/09031936.00142010
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Huang C,
    2. Huang L,
    3. Wang Y, et al.
    6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study. Lancet 2021; 397: 220–232. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32656-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Daher A,
    2. Balfanz P,
    3. Cornelissen C, et al.
    Follow up of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): pulmonary and extrapulmonary disease sequelae. Respir Med 2020; 174: 106197. doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2020.106197
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Kenn K,
    2. Gloeckl R,
    3. Soennichsen A, et al.
    Predictors of success for pulmonary rehabilitation in patients awaiting lung transplantation. Transplantation 2015; 99: 1072–1077. doi:10.1097/TP.0000000000000472
    OpenUrl
    1. Huppmann P,
    2. Sczepanski B,
    3. Boensch M, et al.
    Effects of inpatient pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with interstitial lung disease. Eur Respir J 2013; 42: 444–453. doi:10.1183/09031936.00081512
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Schultz K,
    2. Wittmann M,
    3. Wagner R, et al.
    In-patient pulmonary rehabilitation to improve asthma control. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2021; 118: 23–30. doi:10.3238/arztebl.m2021.0003
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    1. Jarosch I,
    2. Gehlert S,
    3. Jacko D, et al.
    Different training-induced skeletal muscle adaptations in COPD patients with and without alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency. Respiration 2016; 92: 339–347. doi:10.1159/000449509
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top
Vol 7 Issue 3 Table of Contents
ERJ Open Research: 7 (3)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Pulmonary rehabilitation in long COVID: more than just natural recovery!?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
Pulmonary rehabilitation in long COVID: more than just natural recovery!?
Rainer Gloeckl, Daniela Leitl, Inga Jarosch, Tessa Schneeberger, Christoph Nell, Nikola Stenzel, Ayham Daher, Michael Dreher, Claus F. Vogelmeier, Klaus Kenn, Andreas R. Koczulla
ERJ Open Research Jul 2021, 7 (3) 00454-2021; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00454-2021

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Pulmonary rehabilitation in long COVID: more than just natural recovery!?
Rainer Gloeckl, Daniela Leitl, Inga Jarosch, Tessa Schneeberger, Christoph Nell, Nikola Stenzel, Ayham Daher, Michael Dreher, Claus F. Vogelmeier, Klaus Kenn, Andreas R. Koczulla
ERJ Open Research Jul 2021, 7 (3) 00454-2021; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00454-2021
Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

  • Respiratory infections and tuberculosis
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

  • Interpreting lung oscillometry results
  • Interpreting lung oscillometry results
  • It is time to end our love affair with SABA in asthma?
Show more Correspondence

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About ERJ Open Research

  • Editorial board
  • Journal information
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Online ISSN: 2312-0541

Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society