Development and validation of an LC-MS/MS method for quantification of favipiravir in human plasma.

Favipiravir (FVP) is a broad-spectrum antiviral that selectively inhibits viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, first trialled for the treatment of influenza infection. It has been shown to be effective against a number of RNA virus families including arenaviruses, flaviviruses and enteroviruses. Most recently, FVP has been investigated as a potential therapeutic for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. A liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry method for the quantification of FVP in human plasma has been developed and validated for use in clinical trials investigating favipiravir as treatment for coronavirus disease-2019. Samples were extracted by protein precipitation using acetonitrile, using 13C, 15N- Favipiravir as internal standard. Elution was performed on a Synergi Polar-RP 150 × 2.1 mm 4 µm column using a gradient mobile phase programme consisting of 0.2% formic acid in water and 0.2% formic acid in methanol. The assay was validated over the range 500-50,000 ng/mL; this method was found to be precise and accurate and recovery of FVP from the matrix was high. Stability experiments confirmed and expanded on the known stability of FVP, including under heat treatment and for a period of 10 months at - 80 °C.

Increasing anti-S antibody testing: a quality improvement initiative with evolving COVID-19 guidelines.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 management guidelines are constantly evolving, making them difficult to implement practically. Ronapreve was a neutralising monoclonal antibody introduced into UK COVID-19 guidelines in 2021. It reduces mortality in seronegative patients infected with non-omicron variants. Antibody testing on admission is therefore vital in ensuring patients could be considered for Ronapreve as inpatients. LOCAL PROBLEM: We found that on our COVID-19 ward, 31.4% of patients were not having anti-S tests despite fulfilling the other criteria to be eligible for Ronapreve. This was identified as an important target to improve; by not requesting anti-S tests, we were forgoing the opportunity to use an intervention that could improve outcomes. METHODS: We analysed patient records for patients with COVID-19 admitted to our ward over 4 months to observe if awareness of the need to request anti-S increased through conducting plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles. INTERVENTIONS: Our first intervention was an multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussion at our departmental audit meeting highlighting our baseline findings and the importance of anti-S requesting. Our second intervention was to hang printed posters in both the doctors' room and the ward as a visual reminder to staff. Our final intervention was trust-wide communications of updated local COVID-19 guidance that included instructions for anti-S requesting on admission. RESULTS: Our baseline data showed that only 68.6% of patients with symptomatic COVID-19 were having anti-S antibody tests requested. This increased to 95.0% following our three interventions. There was also a reduction in the amount of anti-S requests being 'added on', from 57.1% to 15.8%. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 guidelines are constantly evolving and require interventions that can be quickly and easily implemented to improve adherence. Sustained reminders through different approaches allowed a continued increase in requesting. This agrees with research that suggests a mixture of educational sessions and visual reminders of guidelines increase their application in clinical practice.

Streptococcus pneumoniae colonization associates with impaired adaptive immune responses against SARS-CoV-2.

BackgroundAlthough recent epidemiological data suggest that pneumococci may contribute to the risk of SARS-CoV-2 disease, cases of coinfection with Streptococcus pneumoniae in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during hospitalization have been reported infrequently. This apparent contradiction may be explained by interactions of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and pneumococci in the upper airway, resulting in the escape of SARS-CoV-2 from protective host immune responses.MethodsHere, we investigated the relationship of these 2 respiratory pathogens in 2 distinct cohorts of health care workers with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection identified by systematic screening and patients with moderate to severe disease who presented to the hospital. We assessed the effect of coinfection on host antibody, cellular, and inflammatory responses to the virus.ResultsIn both cohorts, pneumococcal colonization was associated with diminished antiviral immune responses, which primarily affected mucosal IgA levels among individuals with mild or asymptomatic infection and cellular memory responses in infected patients.ConclusionOur findings suggest that S. pneumoniae impair host immunity to SARS-CoV-2 and raise the question of whether pneumococcal carriage also enables immune escape of other respiratory viruses and facilitates reinfection.Trial registrationISRCTN89159899 (FASTER study) and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03502291 (LAIV study).

SARS-CoV-2 viability on sports equipment is limited, and dependent on material composition.

The control of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK has necessitated restrictions on amateur and professional sports due to the perceived infection risk to competitors, via direct person to person transmission, or possibly via the surfaces of sports equipment. The sharing of sports equipment such as tennis balls was therefore banned by some sport's governing bodies. We sought to investigate the potential of sporting equipment as transmission vectors of SARS-CoV-2. Ten different types of sporting equipment, including balls from common sports, were inoculated with 40 µl droplets containing clinically relevant concentrations of live SARS-CoV-2 virus. Materials were then swabbed at time points relevant to sports (1, 5, 15, 30, 90 min). The amount of live SARS-CoV-2 recovered at each time point was enumerated using viral plaque assays, and viral decay and half-life was estimated through fitting linear models to log transformed data from each material. At one minute, SARS-CoV-2 virus was recovered in only seven of the ten types of equipment with the low dose inoculum, one at five minutes and none at 15 min. Retrievable virus dropped significantly for all materials tested using the high dose inoculum with mean recovery of virus falling to 0.74% at 1 min, 0.39% at 15 min and 0.003% at 90 min. Viral recovery, predicted decay, and half-life varied between materials with porous surfaces limiting virus transmission. This study shows that there is an exponential reduction in SARS-CoV-2 recoverable from a range of sports equipment after a short time period, and virus is less transferrable from materials such as a tennis ball, red cricket ball and cricket glove. Given this rapid loss of viral load and the fact that transmission requires a significant inoculum to be transferred from equipment to the mucous membranes of another individual it seems unlikely that sports equipment is a major cause for transmission of SARS-CoV-2. These findings have important policy implications in the context of the pandemic and may promote other infection control measures in sports to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission and urge sports equipment manufacturers to identify surfaces that may or may not be likely to retain transferable virus.

Implementation study of SARS-CoV-2 antigen lateral flow tests in men's professional (Premiership) rugby union sports squads in England during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This study evaluated the validity and utility of antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 in elite sports. The data on utility, ease of use and application for Ag-RDTs as a new testing format were positive from players and staff. This evaluation was limited by the low prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 circulating within the three squads. This study highlights the need for continued service evaluations for SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs in elite sport settings.

Twelve lateral flow immunoassays (LFAs) to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

BACKGROUND: There are an abundance of commercially available lateral flow assays (LFAs) that detect antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. Whilst these are usually evaluated by the manufacturer, externally performed diagnostic accuracy studies to assess performance are essential. Herein we present an evaluation of 12 LFAs. METHODS: Sera from 100 SARS-CoV-2 reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) positive participants were recruited through the FASTER study. A total of 105 pre-pandemic sera from participants with other infections were included as negative samples. RESULTS: At presentation sensitivity against RT-PCR ranged from 37.4 to 79% for IgM/IgG, 30.3-74% for IgG, and 21.2-67% for IgM. Sensitivity for IgM/IgG improved ≥ 21 days post symptom onset for 10/12 tests. Specificity ranged from 74.3 to 99.1% for IgM/IgG, 82.9-100% for IgG, and 75.2-98% for IgM. Compared to the EuroImmun IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), sensitivity and specificity ranged from 44.6 to 95.4% and 85.4-100%, respectively. CONCLUSION: There are many LFAs available with varied sensitivity and specificity. Understanding the diagnostic accuracy of these tests will be vital as we come to rely more on the antibody status of a person moving forward, and as such manufacturer-independent evaluations are crucial.

CPAP delivered outside critical care during the second wave of COVID-19: outcomes from a UK respiratory surge unit.

BACKGROUND: NHS England recommends non-invasive continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) as a possible treatment for type 1 respiratory failure associated with COVID-19 pneumonitis, either to avoid intubation or as a ceiling of care. However, data assessing this strategy are sparse, especially for the use of CPAP as a ceiling of care, and particularly when delivered outside of a traditional critical care environment. We describe a cohort of patients from Liverpool, UK, who received CPAP on a dedicated respiratory surge unit at the start of the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in UK. METHODS: Retrospective cohort analysis of consecutive patients receiving CPAP for the treatment of respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 on the respiratory surge unit at the Royal Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, UK from 21 September until 30 November 2020. RESULTS: 88 patients were included in the analysis. 56/88 (64%) were deemed suitable for escalation to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and received CPAP as a trial; 32/88 (36%) received CPAP as a ceiling of care. Median age was 63 years (IQR: 56-74) and 58/88 (66%) were men. Median SpO2/FiO2 immediately prior to CPAP initiation was 95 (92-152). Among patients for escalation to IMV, the median time on CPAP was 6 days (IQR 4-7) and survival at day 30 was 84% (47/56) with 14/56 (25%) escalated to IMV. Of those patients for whom CPAP was ceiling of care, the median duration of CPAP was 9 days (IQR 7-11) and 18/32 (56%) survived to day 30. Pulmonary barotrauma occurred in 9% of the cohort. There were no associations found on multivariant analysis that were associated with all-cause 30-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: With adequate planning and resource redistribution, CPAP may be delivered effectively outside of a traditional critical care setting for the treatment of respiratory failure due to COVID-19. Clinicians delivering CPAP to patients with COVID-19 pneumonitis should be alert to the dangers of pulmonary barotrauma. Among patients who are for escalation of care, the use of CPAP may avoid the need for IMV in some patients. Our data support the NHS England recommendation to consider CPAP as a ceiling of care.

The development and validation of a novel LC-MS/MS method for the simultaneous quantification of Molnupiravir and its metabolite ß-d-N4-hydroxycytidine in human plasma and saliva.

In light of the recent global pandemic, Molnupiravir (MPV) or EIDD-2801, developed for the treatment of patients with uncomplicated influenza, is now being trialled for the treatment of infections caused by highly pathogenic coronaviruses, including COVID-19. A sensitive LC-MS/MS method was developed and validated for the simultaneous quantification of MPV and its metabolite ß-d-N4-hydroxycytidine (NHC) in human plasma and saliva. The analytes were extracted from the matrices by protein precipitation using acetonitrile. This was followed by drying and subsequently injecting the reconstituted solutions onto the column. Chromatographic separation was achieved using a polar Atlantis C18 column with gradient elution of 1 mM Ammonium acetate in water (pH4.3) and 1 mM Ammonium acetate in acetonitrile. Analyte detection was conducted in negative ionisation mode using SRM. Analysis was performed using stable isotopically labelled (SIL) internal standards (IS). The m/z transitions were: MPV (328.1→126.0), NHC (258.0→125.9) and MPV-SIL (331.0→129.0), NHC-SIL (260.9→128.9). Validation was over a linear range of 2.5-5000 ng/ml for both plasma and saliva. Across four different concentrations, precision and accuracy (intra- and inter-day) were 15%; and recovery of both analytes from plasma and saliva was between 95% and 100% and 65-86% respectively. Clinical pharmacokinetic studies are underway utilising this method for determination of MPV and its metabolite in patients with COVID-19 infection.

AGILE: a seamless phase I/IIa platform for the rapid evaluation of candidates for COVID-19 treatment: an update to the structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised platform trial letter.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent unmet clinical need for the identification of novel therapeutics for the treatment of COVID-19. A number of COVID-19 late phase trial platforms have been developed to investigate (often repurposed) drugs both in the UK and globally (e.g. RECOVERY led by the University of Oxford and SOLIDARITY led by WHO). There is a pressing need to investigate novel candidates within early phase trial platforms, from which promising candidates can feed into established later phase platforms. AGILE grew from a UK-wide collaboration to undertake early stage clinical evaluation of candidates for SARS-CoV-2 infection to accelerate national and global healthcare interventions. METHODS/DESIGN: AGILE is a seamless phase I/IIa platform study to establish the optimum dose, determine the activity and safety of each candidate and recommend whether it should be evaluated further. Each candidate is evaluated in its own trial, either as an open label single arm healthy volunteer study or in patients, randomising between candidate and control usually in a 2:1 allocation in favour of the candidate. Each dose is assessed sequentially for safety usually in cohorts of 6 patients. Once a phase II dose has been identified, efficacy is assessed by seamlessly expanding into a larger cohort. AGILE is completely flexible in that the core design in the master protocol can be adapted for each candidate based on prior knowledge of the candidate (i.e. population, primary endpoint and sample size can be amended). This information is detailed in each candidate specific trial protocol of the master protocol. DISCUSSION: Few approved treatments for COVID-19 are available such as dexamethasone, remdesivir and tocilizumab in hospitalised patients. The AGILE platform aims to rapidly identify new efficacious and safe treatments to help end the current global COVID-19 pandemic. We currently have three candidate specific trials within this platform study that are open to recruitment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT Number: 2020-001860-27 14 March 2020 ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04746183  19 February 2021 ISRCTN reference: 27106947.

Immunological predictors of disease severity in patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Identifying the immune cells involved in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disease progression and the predictors of poor outcomes is important to manage patients adequately. METHODS: This prospective observational cohort study enrolled 48 patients with COVID-19 hospitalized in a tertiary hospital in Oman and 53 non-hospitalized patients with confirmed mild COVID-19. RESULTS: Hospitalized patients were older (58 years vs 36 years, P < 0.001) and had more comorbid conditions such as diabetes (65% vs 21% P < 0.001). Hospitalized patients had significantly higher inflammatory markers (P < 0.001): C-reactive protein (114 vs 4 mg/l), interleukin 6 (IL-6) (33 vs 3.71 pg/ml), lactate dehydrogenase (417 vs 214 U/l), ferritin (760 vs 196 ng/ml), fibrinogen (6 vs 3 g/l), D-dimer (1.0 vs 0.3 µg/ml), disseminated intravascular coagulopathy score (2 vs 0), and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (4 vs 1.1) (P < 0.001). On multivariate regression analysis, statistically significant independent early predictors of intensive care unit admission or death were higher levels of IL-6 (odds ratio 1.03, P = 0.03), frequency of large inflammatory monocytes (CD14+CD16+) (odds ratio 1.117, P = 0.010), and frequency of circulating naïve CD4+ T cells (CD27+CD28+CD45RA+CCR7+) (odds ratio 0.476, P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: IL-6, the frequency of large inflammatory monocytes, and the frequency of circulating naïve CD4 T cells can be used as independent immunological predictors of poor outcomes in COVID-19 patients to prioritize critical care and resources.

Self-sampling of capillary blood for SARS-CoV-2 serology.

Serological testing is emerging as a powerful tool to progress our understanding of COVID-19 exposure, transmission and immune response. Large-scale testing is limited by the need for in-person blood collection by staff trained in venepuncture, and the limited sensitivity of lateral flow tests. Capillary blood self-sampling and postage to laboratories for analysis could provide a reliable alternative. Two-hundred and nine matched venous and capillary blood samples were obtained from thirty nine participants and analysed using a COVID-19 IgG ELISA to detect antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Thirty eight out of thirty nine participants were able to self-collect an adequate sample of capillary blood (≥ 50 µl). Using plasma from venous blood collected in lithium heparin as the reference standard, matched capillary blood samples, collected in lithium heparin-treated tubes and on filter paper as dried blood spots, achieved a Cohen's kappa coefficient of > 0.88 (near-perfect agreement, 95% CI 0.738-1.000). Storage of capillary blood at room temperature for up to 7 days post sampling did not affect concordance. Our results indicate that capillary blood self-sampling is a reliable and feasible alternative to venepuncture for serological assessment in COVID-19.

The rapid development and deployment of a new multidisciplinary CPAP service outside of a critical care environment during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a dramatic increase in patients presenting with type 1 respiratory failure. In order to protect our limited critical care capacity, we rapidly developed a new ward-based inpatient continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) service with direct input from the respiratory, infectious diseases and critical care teams. Close collaboration between these specialties and new innovative solutions were required to facilitate this. CPAP equipment (normally reserved for domiciliary care) was adapted to reduce the pressure on our strained oxygen infrastructure. Side rooms on the infectious diseases ward were swiftly converted into new negative pressure areas using temporary installed ventilatory equipment, reducing the viral aerosol risk for staff. Novel patient monitoring solutions were used to protect staff while also ensuring patient safety. Staff training and specialist oversight was organised within days. The resulting service was successful, with over half (17/26 (65%)) of patients avoiding invasive ventilation.

Chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for prevention and treatment of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in substantial mortality. Some specialists proposed chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for treating or preventing the disease. The efficacy and safety of these drugs have been assessed in randomized controlled trials. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of chloroquine (CQ) or hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for 1) treating people with COVID-19 on death and time to clearance of the virus; 2) preventing infection in people at risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure; 3) preventing infection in people exposed to SARS-CoV-2. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Current Controlled Trials (www.controlled-trials.com), and the COVID-19-specific resources www.covid-nma.com and covid-19.cochrane.org, for studies of any publication status and in any language. We performed all searches up to 15 September 2020. We contacted researchers to identify unpublished and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine in people with COVID-19, people at risk of COVID-19 exposure, and people exposed to COVID-19. Adverse events (any, serious, and QT-interval prolongation on electrocardiogram) were also extracted. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed eligibility of search results, extracted data from the included studies, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We contacted study authors for clarification and additional data for some studies. We used risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model for outcomes where pooling of effect estimates was appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: 1. Treatment of COVID-19 disease We included 12 trials involving 8569 participants, all of whom were adults. Studies were from China (4); Brazil, Egypt, Iran, Spain, Taiwan, the UK, and North America (each 1 study); and a global study in 30 countries (1 study). Nine were in hospitalized patients, and three from ambulatory care. Disease severity, prevalence of comorbidities, and use of co-interventions varied substantially between trials. We found potential risks of bias across all domains for several trials. Nine trials compared HCQ with standard care (7779 participants), and one compared HCQ with placebo (491 participants); dosing schedules varied. HCQ makes little or no difference to death due to any cause (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.19; 8208 participants; 9 trials; high-certainty evidence). A sensitivity analysis using modified intention-to-treat results from three trials did not influence the pooled effect estimate.  HCQ may make little or no difference to the proportion of people having negative PCR for SARS-CoV-2 on respiratory samples at day 14 from enrolment (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.10; 213 participants; 3 trials; low-certainty evidence). HCQ probably results in little to no difference in progression to mechanical ventilation (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.37; 4521 participants; 3 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). HCQ probably results in an almost three-fold increased risk of adverse events (RR 2.90, 95% CI 1.49 to 5.64; 1394 participants; 6 trials; moderate-certainty evidence), but may make little or no difference to the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.79; 1004 participants; 6 trials; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effect of HCQ on time to clinical improvement or risk of prolongation of QT-interval on electrocardiogram (very low-certainty evidence). One trial (22 participants) randomized patients to CQ versus lopinavir/ritonavir, a drug with unknown efficacy against SARS-CoV-2, and did not report any difference for clinical recovery or adverse events. One trial compared HCQ combined with azithromycin against standard care (444 participants). This trial did not detect a difference in death, requirement for mechanical ventilation, length of hospital admission, or serious adverse events. A higher risk of adverse events was reported in the HCQ-and-azithromycin arm; this included QT-interval prolongation, when measured. One trial compared HCQ with febuxostat, another drug with unknown efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 (60 participants). There was no difference detected in risk of hospitalization or change in computed tomography (CT) scan appearance of the lungs; no deaths were reported. 2. Preventing COVID-19 disease in people at risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 Ongoing trials are yet to report results for this objective. 3. Preventing COVID-19 disease in people who have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 One trial (821 participants) compared HCQ with placebo as a prophylactic agent in the USA (around 90% of participants) and Canada. Asymptomatic adults (66% healthcare workers; mean age 40 years; 73% without comorbidity) with a history of exposure to people with confirmed COVID-19 were recruited. We are very uncertain about the effect of HCQ on the primary outcomes, for which few events were reported: 20/821 (2.4%) developed confirmed COVID-19 at 14 days from enrolment, and 2/821 (0.2%) were hospitalized due to COVID-19 (very low-certainty evidence). HCQ probably increases the risk of adverse events compared with placebo (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.83 to 3.11; 700 participants; 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence). HCQ may result in little or no difference in serious adverse events (no RR: no participants experienced serious adverse events; low-certainty evidence). One cluster-randomized trial (2525 participants) compared HCQ with standard care for the prevention of COVID-19 in people with a history of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in Spain. Most participants were working or residing in nursing homes; mean age was 49 years. There was no difference in the risk of symptomatic confirmed COVID-19 or production of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 between the two study arms. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: HCQ for people infected with COVID-19 has little or no effect on the risk of death and probably no effect on progression to mechanical ventilation. Adverse events are tripled compared to placebo, but very few serious adverse events were found. No further trials of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for treatment should be carried out. These results make it less likely that the drug is effective in protecting people from infection, although this is not excluded entirely. It is probably sensible to complete trials examining prevention of infection, and ensure these are carried out to a high standard to provide unambiguous results.

Hereditary haemochromatosis, haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis and COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Syndromes of iron overload have been shown to increase the risk of severe clinical disease in viral infections. Immune dysfunction is similarly described in hereditary haemochromatosis (HH). We present here the case of a 51-year-old man who developed severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) complicated by suspected haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH). He was found to have HH post-mortem and we propose a link between his iron overload and the development of severe COVID-19. CASE REPORT: The initial clinical presentation consisted of cough, shortness of breath and fever. Pancytopenia, markedly elevated ferritin and d-dimer were present. Computed tomography (CT) showed bilateral ground glass changes consistent with COVID-19, widespread lymphadenopathy and splenomegaly. A subsequent combined nose and throat swab was positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). HLH was suspected based upon the H-score and Anakinra, an IL-1 receptor antagonist, was commenced. Liver function acutely worsened and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) revealed hepatic haemosiderosis. Intense splenic and cervical lymph node uptake were seen on a positron emission tomography (PET) scan and high doses of intravenous steroids were administered due to concerns over haematological malignancy. RESULTS: Day fourteen of admission heralded the start of progressive clinical deterioration with rapid increase in oxygen demands. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) was trialled without success and the patient unfortunately died seventeen days into admission. Results returned after his death showed homozygous C282Y mutation of the HFE gene consistent with a diagnosis of HH. Post-mortem examination revealed widespread haemosiderin deposition in the liver along with lung pathology in keeping with severe COVID-19 and widespread splenic infarctions. CONCLUSION: An association between HH and COVID-19 is not currently described in the literature. What does exist, however, is an evidence base for the detrimental impacts iron overload has on viral infections in general and the negative effects of HH on the immune system. We therefore postulate that the underlying metabolic and immune disturbances seen in HH should be considered a potential risk factor for the development of severe COVID-19. This case also adds to the evidence that hyperinflammation appears to be a unique and interesting characteristic of this novel viral disease.

Is continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) a new standard of care for type 1 respiratory failure in COVID-19 patients? A retrospective observational study of a dedicated COVID-19 CPAP service.

The aim of this case series is to describe and evaluate our experience of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) to treat type 1 respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19. CPAP was delivered in negative pressure rooms in the newly repurposed infectious disease unit. We report a cohort of 24 patients with type 1 respiratory failure and COVID-19 admitted to the Royal Liverpool Hospital between 1 April and 30 April 2020. Overall, our results were positive; we were able to safely administer CPAP outside the walls of a critical care or high dependency unit environment and over half of patients (58%) avoided mechanical ventilation and a total of 19 out of 24 (79%) have survived and been discharged from our care.