Objectives. Many patients with COVID-19 suffer from persistent symptoms, many of which may potentially be reversed by high-intensity interval training (HIIT). Yet, the safety and tolerability of HIIT after COVID-19 is controversial. This study aimed to investigate the fidelity, tolerability and safety of three different HIIT protocols in individuals that had recently been hospitalised due to COVID-19. Methods. The study was a randomised cross-over trial. We compared three supervised HIIT protocols (4×4, 6×1, 10-20-30) in 10 individuals recently discharged after hospitalisation for severe COVID-19. Each HIIT protocol had a duration of 38 min and was performed with a 1-week washout between them. Outcomes included adverse events, exercise training intensity and tolerability assessed by the Likert scale (1–10). Results. All 10 participants aged 61 (mean, SD 8) years (5 males) completed all three HIIT protocols with no adverse events. High intensities were achieved in all three protocols, although they differed in terms of time spent with a heart rate ≥85% of maximum (mean (SD); 4×4: 13.7 (6.4) min; 10-20-30: 12.1 (3.8) min; 6×1: 6.1 (5.6) min; p=0.03). The three protocols were all well tolerated with similar Likert scale scores (mean (SD); 4×4: 8 (2), 10-20-30: 8 (2), 6×1: 9 (2), p=0.72). Conclusion. Our findings indicate that recently hospitalised individuals for severe COVID-19 may safely tolerate acute bouts of supervised HIIT as per protocol. This warrants future studies testing the potential of regular HIIT as a rehabilitation strategy in this context.

In patients previously hospitalised for COVID‐19, a 12‐week high‐intensity interval training (HIIT) intervention has previously been shown to increase left ventricular mass (LVM) immediately after the intervention. In the present study, we examined the effects of the same HIIT scheme on LVM, pulmonary diffusing capacity, symptom severity and functional capacity at 12‐month follow‐up. In this investigator‐blinded, randomised controlled trial, 12 weeks of a supervised HIIT scheme (4 × 4 min, three times a week) was compared to standard care (control) in patients recently discharged from hospital due to COVID‐19. At inclusion and at 12‐month follow‐up, LVM was assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI, primary outcome), while pulmonary diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide ( D _LCOc , secondary outcome) was examined by the single‐breath method. Symptom severity and functional status were examined by the Post‐COVID‐19 Functional Scale (PCFS) and King's Brief Interstitial Lung Disease (KBILD) questionnaire score. Of the 28 patients assessed at baseline, 22 completed cMRI at 12‐month follow‐up (12.4 ± 0.6 months after inclusion). LVM was maintained in the HIIT but not the standard care group, with a mean between‐group difference of 9.68 [95% CI: 1.72, 17.64] g ( P = 0.0182). There was no differences in change from baseline to 12‐month follow‐up between groups in D _LCOc % predicted (−2.45 [−11.25, 6.34]%; P = 0.578). PCFS and KBILD improved similarly in the two groups. In individuals previously hospitalised for COVID‐19, a 12‐week supervised HIIT scheme resulted in a preserved LVM at 12‐month follow‐up but did not affect pulmonary diffusing capacity or symptom severity.

Background: Current challenges in meningioma treatment, including post-surgical complications and cognitive impairments, highlight the need for new treatment alternatives. Immunological interventions have shown promise. However, there is a knowledge gap in characterizing infiltrating immune cells in meningioma and their interplay. Further studies on immune cells in single-cell suspensions from digested meningioma tissues could identify targetable mechanisms for non-surgical treatment options with fewer side effects. This study aimed to optimize a protocol for faster digestion of meningioma tissues into viable single-cell suspensions and to identify infiltrating immune cell populations. Methods: We modified a commercial kit intended for whole skin dissociation to digest resected meningioma tissues into viable single-cell suspensions. Tumor-infiltrating immune cell populations were characterized using flow cytometry. Results: Flow cytometry analyses revealed that the digested tissue was composed of viable immune cells, including predominantly CD14⁺ macrophages and CD3⁺ T cells, with minor populations of CD56⁺ NK cells and CD19⁺ B cells. In both of the two patient samples tested, half of the tumor-associated macrophages were TIM-3⁺, with a small proportion co-expressing CD83. Women were more likely to have a lower proportion of immune cells, B cells, and NK cells. Female patients with a high proportion of immune cells had a higher proportion of macrophages. Conclusion: We successfully optimized a protocol for generating single-cell suspensions with viable immune cells from meningioma tissues, revealing infiltrating antigen-presenting cells with an immunosuppressive phenotype, and lymphocytes. This short protocol allows advanced analyses of tumor-infiltrating cells using techniques such as single-cell RNA sequencing and flow cytometry, which require live, dissociated cells.

Background: Intracranial meningiomas are associated with substantial psychological morbidity. We aimed to characterize patients’ subjective experience of their disease trajectories. Methods: We conducted an exploratory interview study. Ten adults with meningioma participated in semistructured interviews 6-36 months post-diagnosis. Data were analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s Reflexive Thematic Analysis. Results: Patients consistently framed meningioma as a recurrent threat, with 3 temporal anchors: diagnosis, surgery, and long-term postoperative surveillance. Threat encompassed identity, daily functioning, and bodily trust, with persistent uncertainty. Coping strategies included humor, social connectedness, and structured rehabilitation, whereas avoidance and internet searching often amplified distress. Clinical conversations could reframe the threat and restore a sense of safety. Conclusions: Intracranial meningioma is commonly experienced as a persistent, multifaceted threat. Care pathways should incorporate crisis-informed communication, expectation-setting regarding prognosis and surveillance, and distress triage using validated tools to align clinical care with lived experience and help prevent a smoldering crisis in patients and families.