Effectiveness of telerehabilitation versus face-to-face pulmonary rehabilitation on physical function and quality of life in people with post COVID-19 condition: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Introduction: Post COVID-19 condition (PCC) is characterized by the persistence of symptoms associated with COVID-19 infection for more than 12 weeks, with worsening quality of life and physical function deconditioning being among the most commonly reported persistent symptoms. Pulmonary rehabilitation has emerged as a safe and viable option for these patients. Administered either face-to-face (FTF) or telemedicine (TL), it has been shown to improve symptoms associated with PCC. However, little is known about which approach is best for this population. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis on the efficacy of FTF versus TL compared to usual care in improving physical function and quality of life (physical and mental) in patients with PCC.

Evidence Acquisition: A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was performed from 2020 to January 5, 2024. Two independent reviewers performed study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment; this selection included only randomized controlled trials. A network meta-analysis was performed to compare the effects of FTF and TL with usual care. Multivariate and univariate analysis were performed to evaluate the best intervention.

Evidence Synthesis: Data were extracted from 10 studies, five of which were treated with FTF and five of which were TL, involving 765 adults with PCC, ranging in age from 22 to 66 years. Interventions consisted of isolated or combined exercises (aerobic, resistance, breathing) and lasted between three and ten weeks in most of the included studies. Multivariate analysis found that FTF produced significant differences compared to TL or usual care with moderate quality of evidence. Univariate analysis found that significant differences were only found for physical function and mental domain of quality of life for TL vs. usual care, with moderate quality of evidence.

Conclusions: This study supports the use of FTF as a therapy to improve physical function and quality of life in patients with PCC. However, in the absence of differences between FTF and TL in the univariate model for any of the outcomes studied, the choice of the form of pulmonary rehabilitation administration should be individualized. Future studies should compare FTF with TL directly to clarify which is the best approach.