tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
Eur Respir Rev
. 2025 Aug 20;34(177):250029.
doi: 10.1183/16000617.0029-2025. Print 2025 Jul. Recovery of lung function during the first year after COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Katrine K Iversen[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Marcus Sebastian Roldgaard[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Ioannis Konstantinidis[SUP] 3 4 [/SUP], Magnus Søltoft Lindhardt[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Magnus G Ahlström[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Alison Morris[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Andreas Ronit[SUP] 2 6 [/SUP], Thomas Benfield[SUP] 2 7 [/SUP]
Affiliations
Background: Several studies have reported lung function impairment following COVID-19. Less is known about the subsequent recovery.
Research question: What is the recovery in lung function after COVID-19 during the first year after infection?
Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that monitored individuals' lung function from the time of infection to at least 1 year after infection. Primary outcomes were change in percent predicted forced expiratory volumes in 1 s (FEV[SUB]1[/SUB]), forced vital capacity (FVC) and diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (D [SUB]LCO[/SUB]). Mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals were estimated using a random effects model.
Results: We included 23 studies (n=3347 participants). 20 (86.9%) studies had their first follow-up 3 months after infection and 21 (91.3%) had their second follow-up 12 months after infection. The MDs between the second and first follow-up visits of FEV[SUB]1[/SUB], FVC and D [SUB]LCO[/SUB] were 3.1% (95% CI 1.8-4.5; p<0.01), 4.4% (95% CI 2.7-6.0; p<0.01) and 6.6% (95% CI 4.4-8.9; p<0.01), respectively. Recovery of FEV[SUB]1[/SUB], FVC and D [SUB]LCO[/SUB] was greater in mechanically ventilated patients compared to individuals with less severe disease. Current smoking status, pre-existing chronic lung disease and age did not impact recovery during the first year after infection.
Interpretation: Recovery in lung function was evident during the first year after COVID-19, with the largest improvement in patients with the most severe infection. Further follow-up and large-scale studies are warranted to establish recovery trajectories of COVID-19 and other respiratory infections to identify patient subgroups needing additional follow-up to ascertain modifiable factors influencing pulmonary recovery.
. 2025 Aug 20;34(177):250029.
doi: 10.1183/16000617.0029-2025. Print 2025 Jul. Recovery of lung function during the first year after COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Katrine K Iversen[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Marcus Sebastian Roldgaard[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Ioannis Konstantinidis[SUP] 3 4 [/SUP], Magnus Søltoft Lindhardt[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Magnus G Ahlström[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Alison Morris[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Andreas Ronit[SUP] 2 6 [/SUP], Thomas Benfield[SUP] 2 7 [/SUP]
Affiliations
- PMID: 40835394
- PMCID: PMC12365666
- DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0029-2025
Background: Several studies have reported lung function impairment following COVID-19. Less is known about the subsequent recovery.
Research question: What is the recovery in lung function after COVID-19 during the first year after infection?
Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that monitored individuals' lung function from the time of infection to at least 1 year after infection. Primary outcomes were change in percent predicted forced expiratory volumes in 1 s (FEV[SUB]1[/SUB]), forced vital capacity (FVC) and diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (D [SUB]LCO[/SUB]). Mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals were estimated using a random effects model.
Results: We included 23 studies (n=3347 participants). 20 (86.9%) studies had their first follow-up 3 months after infection and 21 (91.3%) had their second follow-up 12 months after infection. The MDs between the second and first follow-up visits of FEV[SUB]1[/SUB], FVC and D [SUB]LCO[/SUB] were 3.1% (95% CI 1.8-4.5; p<0.01), 4.4% (95% CI 2.7-6.0; p<0.01) and 6.6% (95% CI 4.4-8.9; p<0.01), respectively. Recovery of FEV[SUB]1[/SUB], FVC and D [SUB]LCO[/SUB] was greater in mechanically ventilated patients compared to individuals with less severe disease. Current smoking status, pre-existing chronic lung disease and age did not impact recovery during the first year after infection.
Interpretation: Recovery in lung function was evident during the first year after COVID-19, with the largest improvement in patients with the most severe infection. Further follow-up and large-scale studies are warranted to establish recovery trajectories of COVID-19 and other respiratory infections to identify patient subgroups needing additional follow-up to ascertain modifiable factors influencing pulmonary recovery.