Determinants of recovery from post-COVID-19 dyspnoea: analysis of UK prospective cohorts of hospitalised COVID-19 patients and community-based controls.

Background: The risk factors for recovery from COVID-19 dyspnoea are poorly understood. We investigated determinants of recovery from dyspnoea in adults with COVID-19 and compared these to determinants of recovery from non-COVID-19 dyspnoea. Methods: We used data from two prospective cohort studies: PHOSP-COVID (patients hospitalised between March 2020 and April 2021 with COVID-19) and COVIDENCE UK (community cohort studied over the same time period). PHOSP-COVID data were collected during hospitalisation and at 5-month and 1-year follow-up visits. COVIDENCE UK data were obtained through baseline and monthly online questionnaires. Dyspnoea was measured in both cohorts with the Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify determinants associated with a reduction in dyspnoea between 5-month and 1-year follow-up. Findings: We included 990 PHOSP-COVID and 3309 COVIDENCE UK participants. We observed higher odds of improvement between 5-month and 1-year follow-up among PHOSP-COVID participants who were younger (odds ratio 1.02 per year, 95% CI 1.01-1.03), male (1.54, 1.16-2.04), neither obese nor severely obese (1.82, 1.06-3.13 and 4.19, 2.14-8.19, respectively), had no pre-existing anxiety or depression (1.56, 1.09-2.22) or cardiovascular disease (1.33, 1.00-1.79), and shorter hospital admission (1.01 per day, 1.00-1.02). Similar associations were found in those recovering from non-COVID-19 dyspnoea, excluding age (and length of hospital admission). Interpretation: Factors associated with dyspnoea recovery at 1-year post-discharge among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 were similar to those among community controls without COVID-19. Funding: PHOSP-COVID is supported by a grant from the MRC-UK Research and Innovation and the Department of Health and Social Care through the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) rapid response panel to tackle COVID-19. The views expressed in the publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the National Health Service (NHS), the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.COVIDENCE UK is supported by the UK Research and Innovation, the National Institute for Health Research, and Barts Charity. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funders.

Characteristics and risk factors for post-COVID-19 breathlessness after hospitalisation for COVID-19.

Background: Persistence of respiratory symptoms, particularly breathlessness, after acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection has emerged as a significant clinical problem. We aimed to characterise and identify risk factors for patients with persistent breathlessness following COVID-19 hospitalisation. Methods: PHOSP-COVID is a multicentre prospective cohort study of UK adults hospitalised for COVID-19. Clinical data were collected during hospitalisation and at a follow-up visit. Breathlessness was measured by a numeric rating scale of 0-10. We defined post-COVID-19 breathlessness as an increase in score of ≥1 compared to the pre-COVID-19 level. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify risk factors and to develop a prediction model for post-COVID-19 breathlessness. Results: We included 1226 participants (37% female, median age 59 years, 22% mechanically ventilated). At a median 5 months after discharge, 50% reported post-COVID-19 breathlessness. Risk factors for post-COVID-19 breathlessness were socioeconomic deprivation (adjusted OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.14-2.44), pre-existing depression/anxiety (adjusted OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.06-2.35), female sex (adjusted OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.21-2.00) and admission duration (adjusted OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02). Black ethnicity (adjusted OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.35-0.89) and older age groups (adjusted OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.14-0.66) were less likely to report post-COVID-19 breathlessness. Post-COVID-19 breathlessness was associated with worse performance on the shuttle walk test and forced vital capacity, but not with obstructive airflow limitation. The prediction model had fair discrimination (concordance statistic 0.66, 95% CI 0.63-0.69) and good calibration (calibration slope 1.00, 95% CI 0.80-1.21). Conclusions: Post-COVID-19 breathlessness was commonly reported in this national cohort of patients hospitalised for COVID-19 and is likely to be a multifactorial problem with physical and emotional components.

Characteristics and risk factors for post-COVID breathlessness after hospitalisation for COVID-19

Background Persistence of respiratory symptoms—particularly breathlessness—after acute COVID-19 infection has emerged as a significant clinical problem. We aimed to characterise and identify risk factors for patients with persistent breathlessness following COVID-19 hospitalisation. Methods PHOSP-COVID is a multi-centre prospective cohort study of UK adults hospitalised for COVID-19. Clinical data were collected during hospitalisation and at a follow-up visit. Breathlessness was measured by a numeric rating scale of 0–10. We defined post-COVID breathlessness as an increase in score of 1 or more compared to the pre-COVID-19 level. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify risk factors, and to develop a prediction model for post-COVID breathlessness. Results We included 1226 participants (37% female, median age 59 years, 22% mechanically ventilated). At a median five months after discharge, 50% reported post-COVID breathlessness. Risk factors for post-COVID breathlessness were socio-economic deprivation (adjusted odds ratio, 1.67;95% confidence interval, 1.14–2.44), pre-existing depression/anxiety (1.58;1.06–2.35), female sex (1.56;1.21–2.00) and admission duration (1.01;1.00–1.02). Black ethnicity (0.56;0.35–0.89) and older age groups (0.31;0.14–0.66) were less likely to report post-COVID breathlessness. Post-COVID breathlessness was associated with worse performance on the shuttle walk test and forced vital capacity, but not with obstructive airflow limitation. The prediction model had fair discrimination (concordance-statistic 0.66;0.63–0.69), and good calibration (calibration slope 1.00;0.80–1.21). Conclusions Post-COVID breathlessness was commonly reported in this national cohort of patients hospitalised for COVID-19 and is likely to be a multifactorial problem with physical and emotional components.

Joint patient and clinician priority setting to identify 10 key research questions regarding the long-term sequelae of COVID-19.

Given the large numbers of people infected and high rates of ongoing morbidity, research is clearly required to address the needs of adult survivors of COVID-19 living with ongoing symptoms (long COVID). To help direct resource and research efforts, we completed a research prioritisation process incorporating views from adults with ongoing symptoms of COVID-19, carers, clinicians and clinical researchers. The final top 10 research questions were agreed at an independently mediated workshop and included: identifying underlying mechanisms of long COVID, establishing diagnostic tools, understanding trajectory of recovery and evaluating the role of interventions both during the acute and persistent phases of the illness.

Effect of Noninvasive Respiratory Strategies on Intubation or Mortality Among Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure and COVID-19: The RECOVERY-RS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) have been recommended for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19. Uncertainty exists regarding the effectiveness and safety of these noninvasive respiratory strategies. Objective: To determine whether either CPAP or HFNO, compared with conventional oxygen therapy, improves clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Design, Setting, and Participants: A parallel group, adaptive, randomized clinical trial of 1273 hospitalized adults with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The trial was conducted between April 6, 2020, and May 3, 2021, across 48 acute care hospitals in the UK and Jersey. Final follow-up occurred on June 20, 2021. Interventions: Adult patients were randomized to receive CPAP (n = 380), HFNO (n = 418), or conventional oxygen therapy (n = 475). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days. Results: The trial was stopped prematurely due to declining COVID-19 case numbers in the UK and the end of the funded recruitment period. Of the 1273 randomized patients (mean age, 57.4 [95% CI, 56.7 to 58.1] years; 66% male; 65% White race), primary outcome data were available for 1260. Crossover between interventions occurred in 17.1% of participants (15.3% in the CPAP group, 11.5% in the HFNO group, and 23.6% in the conventional oxygen therapy group). The requirement for tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days was significantly lower with CPAP (36.3%; 137 of 377 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (44.4%; 158 of 356 participants) (absolute difference, -8% [95% CI, -15% to -1%], P = .03), but was not significantly different with HFNO (44.3%; 184 of 415 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (45.1%; 166 of 368 participants) (absolute difference, -1% [95% CI, -8% to 6%], P = .83). Adverse events occurred in 34.2% (130/380) of participants in the CPAP group, 20.6% (86/418) in the HFNO group, and 13.9% (66/475) in the conventional oxygen therapy group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19, an initial strategy of CPAP significantly reduced the risk of tracheal intubation or mortality compared with conventional oxygen therapy, but there was no significant difference between an initial strategy of HFNO compared with conventional oxygen therapy. The study may have been underpowered for the comparison of HFNO vs conventional oxygen therapy, and early study termination and crossover among the groups should be considered when interpreting the findings. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16912075.

The long-term sequelae of COVID-19: an international consensus on research priorities for patients with pre-existing and new-onset airways disease.

Persistent ill health after acute COVID-19-referred to as long COVID, the post-acute COVID-19 syndrome, or the post-COVID-19 condition-has emerged as a major concern. We undertook an international consensus exercise to identify research priorities with the aim of understanding the long-term effects of acute COVID-19, with a focus on people with pre-existing airways disease and the occurrence of new-onset airways disease and associated symptoms. 202 international experts were invited to submit a minimum of three research ideas. After a two-phase internal review process, a final list of 98 research topics was scored by 48 experts. Patients with pre-existing or post-COVID-19 airways disease contributed to the exercise by weighting selected criteria. The highest-ranked research idea focused on investigation of the relationship between prognostic scores at hospital admission and morbidity at 3 months and 12 months after hospital discharge in patients with and without pre-existing airways disease. High priority was also assigned to comparisons of the prevalence and severity of post-COVID-19 fatigue, sarcopenia, anxiety, depression, and risk of future cardiovascular complications in patients with and without pre-existing airways disease. Our approach has enabled development of a set of priorities that could inform future research studies and funding decisions. This prioritisation process could also be adapted to other, non-respiratory aspects of long COVID.

Physical, cognitive, and mental health impacts of COVID-19 after hospitalisation (PHOSP-COVID): a UK multicentre, prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The impact of COVID-19 on physical and mental health and employment after hospitalisation with acute disease is not well understood. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of COVID-19-related hospitalisation on health and employment, to identify factors associated with recovery, and to describe recovery phenotypes. METHODS: The Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) is a multicentre, long-term follow-up study of adults (aged ≥18 years) discharged from hospital in the UK with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19, involving an assessment between 2 and 7 months after discharge, including detailed recording of symptoms, and physiological and biochemical testing. Multivariable logistic regression was done for the primary outcome of patient-perceived recovery, with age, sex, ethnicity, body-mass index, comorbidities, and severity of acute illness as covariates. A post-hoc cluster analysis of outcomes for breathlessness, fatigue, mental health, cognitive impairment, and physical performance was done using the clustering large applications k-medoids approach. The study is registered on the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN10980107). FINDINGS: We report findings for 1077 patients discharged from hospital between March 5 and Nov 30, 2020, who underwent assessment at a median of 5·9 months (IQR 4·9-6·5) after discharge. Participants had a mean age of 58 years (SD 13); 384 (36%) were female, 710 (69%) were of white ethnicity, 288 (27%) had received mechanical ventilation, and 540 (50%) had at least two comorbidities. At follow-up, only 239 (29%) of 830 participants felt fully recovered, 158 (20%) of 806 had a new disability (assessed by the Washington Group Short Set on Functioning), and 124 (19%) of 641 experienced a health-related change in occupation. Factors associated with not recovering were female sex, middle age (40-59 years), two or more comorbidities, and more severe acute illness. The magnitude of the persistent health burden was substantial but only weakly associated with the severity of acute illness. Four clusters were identified with different severities of mental and physical health impairment (n=767): very severe (131 patients, 17%), severe (159, 21%), moderate along with cognitive impairment (127, 17%), and mild (350, 46%). Of the outcomes used in the cluster analysis, all were closely related except for cognitive impairment. Three (3%) of 113 patients in the very severe cluster, nine (7%) of 129 in the severe cluster, 36 (36%) of 99 in the moderate cluster, and 114 (43%) of 267 in the mild cluster reported feeling fully recovered. Persistently elevated serum C-reactive protein was positively associated with cluster severity. INTERPRETATION: We identified factors related to not recovering after hospital admission with COVID-19 at 6 months after discharge (eg, female sex, middle age, two or more comorbidities, and more acute severe illness), and four different recovery phenotypes. The severity of physical and mental health impairments were closely related, whereas cognitive health impairments were independent. In clinical care, a proactive approach is needed across the acute severity spectrum, with interdisciplinary working, wide access to COVID-19 holistic clinical services, and the potential to stratify care. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health Research.

How achievable are COVID-19 clinical trial recruitment targets? A UK observational cohort study and trials registry analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To analyse enrolment to interventional trials during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England and describe the barriers to successful recruitment in the circumstance of a further wave or future pandemics. DESIGN: We analysed registered interventional COVID-19 trial data and concurrently did a prospective observational study of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who were being assessed for eligibility to one of the RECOVERY, C19-ACS or SIMPLE trials. SETTING: Interventional COVID-19 trial data were analysed from the clinicaltrials.gov and International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number databases on 12 July 2020. The patient cohort was taken from five centres in a respiratory National Institute for Health Research network. Population and modelling data were taken from published reports from the UK government and Medical Research Council Biostatistics Unit. PARTICIPANTS: 2082 consecutive admitted patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection from 27 March 2020 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportions enrolled, and reasons for exclusion from the aforementioned trials. Comparisons of trial recruitment targets with estimated feasible recruitment numbers. RESULTS: Analysis of trial registration data for COVID-19 treatment studies enrolling in England showed that by 12 July 2020, 29 142 participants were needed. In the observational study, 430 (20.7%) proceeded to randomisation. 82 (3.9%) declined participation, 699 (33.6%) were excluded on clinical grounds, 363 (17.4%) were medically fit for discharge and 153 (7.3%) were receiving palliative care. With 111 037 people hospitalised with COVID-19 in England by 12 July 2020, we determine that 22 985 people were potentially suitable for trial enrolment. We estimate a UK hospitalisation rate of 2.38%, and that another 1.25 million infections would be required to meet recruitment targets of ongoing trials. CONCLUSIONS: Feasible recruitment rates, study design and proliferation of trials can limit the number, and size, that will successfully complete recruitment. We consider that fewer, more appropriately designed trials, prioritising cooperation between centres would maximise productivity in a further wave.

COVID-19-associated hyperinflammation and escalation of patient care: a retrospective longitudinal cohort study.

BACKGROUND: A subset of patients with severe COVID-19 develop a hyperinflammatory syndrome, which might contribute to morbidity and mortality. This study explores a specific phenotype of COVID-19-associated hyperinflammation (COV-HI), and its associations with escalation of respiratory support and survival. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we enrolled consecutive inpatients (aged ≥18 years) admitted to University College London Hospitals and Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals in the UK with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 during the first wave of community-acquired infection. Demographic data, laboratory tests, and clinical status were recorded from the day of admission until death or discharge, with a minimum follow-up time of 28 days. We defined COV-HI as a C-reactive protein concentration greater than 150 mg/L or doubling within 24 h from greater than 50 mg/L, or a ferritin concentration greater than 1500 µg/L. Respiratory support was categorised as oxygen only, non-invasive ventilation, and intubation. Initial and repeated measures of hyperinflammation were evaluated in relation to the next-day risk of death or need for escalation of respiratory support (as a combined endpoint), using a multi-level logistic regression model. FINDINGS: We included 269 patients admitted to one of the study hospitals between March 1 and March 31, 2020, among whom 178 (66%) were eligible for escalation of respiratory support and 91 (34%) patients were not eligible. Of the whole cohort, 90 (33%) patients met the COV-HI criteria at admission. Despite having a younger median age and lower median Charlson Comorbidity Index scores, a higher proportion of patients with COV-HI on admission died during follow-up (36 [40%] of 90 patients) compared with the patients without COV-HI on admission (46 [26%] of 179). Among the 178 patients who were eligible for full respiratory support, 65 (37%) met the definition for COV-HI at admission, and 67 (74%) of the 90 patients whose respiratory care was escalated met the criteria by the day of escalation. Meeting the COV-HI criteria was significantly associated with the risk of next-day escalation of respiratory support or death (hazard ratio 2·24 [95% CI 1·62-2·87]) after adjustment for age, sex, and comorbidity. INTERPRETATION: Associations between elevated inflammatory markers, escalation of respiratory support, and survival in people with COVID-19 indicate the existence of a high-risk inflammatory phenotype. COV-HI might be useful to stratify patient groups in trial design. FUNDING: None.

ACCORD: A Multicentre, Seamless, Phase 2 Adaptive Randomisation Platform Study to Assess the Efficacy and Safety of Multiple Candidate Agents for the Treatment of COVID-19 in Hospitalised Patients: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Stage 1: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of candidate agents as add-on therapies to standard of care (SoC) in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in a screening stage. Stage 2: To confirm the efficacy of candidate agents selected on the basis of evidence from Stage 1 in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in an expansion stage. TRIAL DESIGN: ACCORD is a seamless, Phase 2, adaptive, randomised controlled platform study, designed to rapidly test candidate agents in the treatment of COVID-19. Designed as a master protocol with each candidate agent being included via its own sub-protocol, initially randomising equally between each candidate and a single contemporaneous SoC arm (which can adapt into 2:1). Candidate agents currently include bemcentinib, MEDI3506, acalabrutinib, zilucoplan and nebulised heparin. For each candidate a total of 60 patients will be recruited in Stage 1. If Stage 1 provides evidence of efficacy and acceptable safety the candidate will enter Stage 2 where a total of approximately 126 patients will be recruited into each study arm sub-protocol. Enrollees and outcomes will not be shared across the Stages; the endpoint, analysis and sample size for Stage 2 may be adjusted based on evidence from Stage 1. Additional arms may be added as new potential candidate agents are identified via candidate agent specific sub-protocols. PARTICIPANTS: The study will include hospitalised adult patients (≥18 years) with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, the virus that causes COVID-19, that clinically meet Grades 3 (hospitalised - mild disease, no oxygen therapy), Grades 4 (hospitalised, oxygen by mask or nasal prongs) and 5 (hospitalised, non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen) of the WHO Working Group on the Clinical Characteristics of COVID-19 9-point category ordinal scale. Participants will be recruited from England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Comparator is current standard of care (SoC) for the treatment of COVID-19. Current candidate experimental arms include bemcentinib, MEDI3506, acalabrutinib, zilucoplan and nebulised heparin with others to be added over time. Bemcentinib could potentially reduce viral infection and blocks SARS-CoV-2 spike protein; MEDI3506 is a clinic-ready anti-IL-33 monoclonal antibody with the potential to treat respiratory failure caused by COVID; acalabrutinib is a BTK inhibitor which is anti-viral and anti-inflammatory; zilucoplan is a complement C5 inhibitor which may block the severe inflammatory response in COVID-19 and; nebulised heparin has been shown to bind with the spike protein. ACCORD is linked with the UK national COVID therapeutics task force to help prioritise candidate agents. MAIN OUTCOMES: Time to sustained clinical improvement of at least 2 points (from randomisation) on the WHO 9-point category ordinal scale, live discharge from the hospital, or considered fit for discharge (a score of 0, 1, or 2 on the ordinal scale), whichever comes first, by Day 29 (this will also define the "responder" for the response rate analyses). RANDOMISATION: An electronic randomization will be performed by Cenduit using Interactive Response Technology (IRT). Randomisation will be stratified by baseline severity grade. Randomisation will proceed with an equal allocation to each arm and a contemporaneous SoC arm (e.g. 1:1 if control and 1 experimental arm; 1:1:1 if two experimental candidate arms etc) but will be reviewed as the trial progresses and may be changed to 2:1 in favour of the candidate agents. BLINDING (MASKING): The trial is open label and no blinding is currently planned in the study. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): This will be in the order of 60 patients per candidate agent for Stage 1, and 126 patients for Stage 2. However, sample size re-estimation may be considered after Stage 1. It is estimated that up to 1800 patients will participate in the overall study. TRIAL STATUS: Master protocol version ACCORD-2-001 - Master Protocol (Amendment 1) 22nd April 2020, the trial has full regulatory approval and recruitment is ongoing in the bemcentinib (first patient recruited 6/5/2020), MEDI3506 (first patient recruited 19/5/2020), acalabrutinib (first patient recruited 20/5/2020) and zilucoplan (first patient recruited 19/5/2020) candidates (and SoC). The recruitment dates of each arm will vary between candidate agents as they are added or dropped from the trial, but will have recruited and reported within a year. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT 2020-001736-95 , registered 28th April 2020. FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol (Master Protocol with each of the candidate sub-protocols) is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

RECOVERY- Respiratory Support: Respiratory Strategies for patients with suspected or proven COVID-19 respiratory failure; Continuous Positive Airway Pressure, High-flow Nasal Oxygen, and standard care: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The trial objective is to determine if Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) or High-Flow Nasal Oxygen (HFNO) is clinically effective compared to standard oxygen therapy in patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. TRIAL DESIGN: Adaptive (group-sequential), parallel group, pragmatic, superiority randomised controlled, open-label, multi-centre, effectiveness trial. PARTICIPANTS: The trial is being conducted across approximately 60 hospitals across England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Inpatients at participating hospitals are eligible to participate if they have respiratory failure with suspected or proven COVID-19, and meet all of the inclusion criteria and none of the exclusion criteria. INCLUSION CRITERIA: 1) Adults ≥ 18 years; 2) Admitted to hospital with suspected or proven COVID-19; 3) Receiving oxygen with fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) ≥0.4 and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) ≤94%; and 4) Plan for escalation to tracheal intubation if needed. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: 1) Planned tracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation imminent within 1 hour; 2) Known or clinically apparent pregnancy; 3) Any absolute contraindication to CPAP or HFNO; 4) Decision not to intubate due to ceiling of treatment or withdrawal of treatment anticipated; and 5) Equipment for both CPAP and HFNO not available. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Intervention one: Continuous positive airway pressure delivered by any device. Set-up and therapy titration is not protocolised and is delivered in accordance with clinical discretion. Intervention two: High-flow nasal oxygen delivered by any device. Set-up and therapy titration is not protocolised and is delivered in accordance with clinical discretion. Comparator group: Standard care- oxygen delivered by face mask or nasal cannula (excluding the use of continuous positive airway pressure or high-flow nasal oxygen). Set-up and therapy titration is not protocolised and is delivered in accordance with clinical discretion. Intervention delivery continues up to the point of death, tracheal intubation, or clinical determination that there is no ongoing need (palliation or improvement). MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is a composite outcome comprising tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days following randomisation. Secondary outcomes include tracheal intubation rate, time to tracheal intubation, duration of invasive ventilation, mortality rate, time to mortality, length of hospital stay, and length of critical care stay. RANDOMISATION: Participants are randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive either continuous positive airway pressure, high-flow nasal oxygen or standard care. Due to the challenging environment of study delivery, a specific intervention may not always be available at the hospital site. The study uses two integrated randomisation systems to allow, where required, the site to randomise between all three interventions, between CPAP and standard care, and between HFNO and standard care. System integration ensures maintenance of balance between interventions. Randomisation is performed using a telephone-based interactive voice response system to maintain allocation concealment. The randomisation sequence was computer-generated using the minimisation method. Participant randomisation is stratified by site, gender (M/F), and age (<50, >=50 years). BLINDING (MASKING): The nature of the trial interventions precludes blinding of the researcher, patient and clinical team. Primary and secondary outcomes are all objective outcomes, thereby minimising the risk of detection bias. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): 4002 participants (1334 to be randomized to each of the three study arms) TRIAL STATUS: Current protocol: Version 4.0, 29th May 2020. Recruitment began on April 6, 2020 and is anticipated to be complete by April 5, 2021. The trial has been awarded Urgent Public Health status by the National Institute of Health Research on 13th April 2020. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN16912075. Registered 6th April 2020, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN16912075 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol (version 4.0, 29th May 2020) is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines (Additional file 2).