A specific combination of laboratory data is associated with overweight lungs in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia at hospital admission: secondary cross-sectional analysis of a randomized clinical trial.

Background: Lung weight may be measured with quantitative chest computed tomography (CT) in patients with COVID-19 to characterize the severity of pulmonary edema and assess prognosis. However, this quantitative analysis is often not accessible, which led to the hypothesis that specific laboratory data may help identify overweight lungs. Methods: This cross-sectional study was a secondary analysis of data from SARITA2, a randomized clinical trial comparing nitazoxanide and placebo in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Adult patients (≥18 years) requiring supplemental oxygen due to COVID-19 pneumonia were enrolled between April 20 and October 15, 2020, in 19 hospitals in Brazil. The weight of the lungs as well as laboratory data [hemoglobin, leukocytes, neutrophils, lymphocytes, C-reactive protein, D-dimer, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and ferritin] and 47 additional specific blood biomarkers were assessed. Results: Ninety-three patients were included in the study: 46 patients presented with underweight lungs (defined by ≤0% of excess lung weight) and 47 patients presented with overweight lungs (>0% of excess lung weight). Leukocytes, neutrophils, D-dimer, and LDH were higher in patients with overweight lungs. Among the 47 blood biomarkers investigated, interferon alpha 2 protein was higher and leukocyte inhibitory factor was lower in patients with overweight lungs. According to CombiROC analysis, the combinations of D-dimer/LDH/leukocytes, D-dimer/LDH/neutrophils, and D-dimer/LDH/leukocytes/neutrophils achieved the highest area under the curve with the best accuracy to detect overweight lungs. Conclusion: The combinations of these specific laboratory data: D-dimer/LDH/leukocytes or D-dimer/LDH/neutrophils or D-dimer/LDH/leukocytes/neutrophils were the best predictors of overweight lungs in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia at hospital admission. Clinical trial registration: Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (REBEC) number RBR-88bs9x and ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT04561219.

Subclinical Acute Kidney Injury in COVID-19: Possible Mechanisms and Future Perspectives.

Since the outbreak of COVID-19 disease, a bidirectional interaction between kidney disease and the progression of COVID-19 has been demonstrated. Kidney disease is an independent risk factor for mortality of patients with COVID-19 as well as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection leading to the development of acute kidney injury (AKI) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) in patients with COVID-19. However, the detection of kidney damage in patients with COVID-19 may not occur until an advanced stage based on the current clinical blood and urinary examinations. Some studies have pointed out the development of subclinical acute kidney injury (subAKI) syndrome with COVID-19. This syndrome is characterized by significant tubule interstitial injury without changes in the estimated glomerular filtration rate. Despite the complexity of the mechanism(s) underlying the development of subAKI, the involvement of changes in the protein endocytosis machinery in proximal tubule (PT) epithelial cells (PTECs) has been proposed. This paper focuses on the data relating to subAKI and COVID-19 and the role of PTECs and their protein endocytosis machinery in its pathogenesis.

Effects of changes in veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation blood flow on the measurement of intrathoracic blood volume and extravascular lung water index: a prospective interventional study.

In severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO) has been proposed as a therapeutic strategy to possibly reduce mortality. Transpulmonary thermodilution (TPTD) enables monitoring of the extravascular lung water index (EVLWI) and cardiac preload parameters such as intrathoracic blood volume index (ITBVI) in patients with ARDS, but it is not generally recommended during V-V ECMO. We hypothesized that the amount of extracorporeal blood flow (ECBF) influences the calculation of EVLWI and ITBVI due to recirculation of indicator, which affects the measurement of the mean transit time (MTt), the time between injection and passing of half the indicator, as well as downslope time (DSt), the exponential washout of the indicator. EVLWI and ITBVI were measured in 20 patients with severe ARDS managed with V-V ECMO at ECBF rates from 6 to 4 and 2 l/min with TPTD. MTt and DSt significantly decreased when ECBF was reduced, resulting in a decreased EVLWI (26.1 [22.8-33.8] ml/kg at 6 l/min ECBF vs 22.4 [15.3-31.6] ml/kg at 4 l/min ECBF, p < 0.001; and 13.2 [11.8-18.8] ml/kg at 2 l/min ECBF, p < 0.001) and increased ITBVI (840 [753-1062] ml/m2 at 6 l/min ECBF vs 886 [658-979] ml/m2 at 4 l/min ECBF, p < 0.001; and 955 [817-1140] ml/m2 at 2 l/min ECBF, p < 0.001). In patients with severe ARDS managed with V-V ECMO, increasing ECBF alters the thermodilution curve, resulting in unreliable measurements of EVLWI and ITBVI. German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00021050). Registered 14/08/2018. https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00021050.

Failed clinical trials on COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome in hospitalized patients: common oversights and streamlining the development of clinically effective therapeutics.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has put a strain on global healthcare systems. Despite admirable efforts to develop rapidly new pharmacotherapies, supportive treatments remain the standard of care. Multiple clinical trials have failed due to design issues, biased patient enrollment, small sample sizes, inadequate control groups, and lack of long-term outcomes monitoring. AREAS COVERED: This narrative review depicts the current situation around failed and success COVID-19 clinical trials and recommendations in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, oversights and streamlining of clinically effective therapeutics. PubMed, EBSCO, Cochrane Library, and WHO and NIH guidelines were searched for relevant literature up to 5 August 2022. EXPERT OPINION: The WHO, NIH, and IDSA have issued recommendations to better clarify which drugs should be used during the different phases of the disease. Given the biases and high heterogeneity of published studies, interpretation of the current literature is difficult. Future clinical trials should be designed to standardize clinical approaches, with appropriate organization, patient selection, addition of control groups, and careful identification of disease phase to reduce heterogeneity and bias and should rely on the integration of scientific societies to promote a consensus on interpretation of the data and recommendations for optimal COVID-19 therapies.

Treatment for acute respiratory distress syndrome in adults: a narrative review of phase 2 and 3 trials.

INTRODUCTION: Ventilatory management and general supportive care of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in the adult population have led to significant clinical improvements, but morbidity and mortality remain high. Pharmacologic strategies acting on the coagulation cascade, inflammation, oxidative stress, and endothelial cell injury have been targeted in the last decade for patients with ARDS, but only a few of these have shown potential benefits with a meaningful clinical response and improved patient outcomes. The lack of availability of specific pharmacologic treatments for ARDS can be attributed to its complex pathophysiology, different risk factors, huge heterogeneity, and difficult classification into specific biological phenotypes and genotypes. AREAS COVERED: In this narrative review, we briefly discuss the relevance and current advances in pharmacologic treatments for ARDS in adults and the need for the development of new pharmacological strategies. EXPERT OPINION: Identification of ARDS phenotypes, risk factors, heterogeneity, and pathophysiology may help to design clinical trials personalized according to ARDS-specific features, thus hopefully decreasing the rate of failed clinical pharmacologic trials. This concept is still under clinical investigation and needs further development.

Laboratory Biomarkers for Diagnosis and Prognosis in COVID-19.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes a wide spectrum of clinical manifestations, with progression to multiorgan failure in the most severe cases. Several biomarkers can be altered in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and they can be associated with diagnosis, prognosis, and outcomes. The most used biomarkers in COVID-19 include several proinflammatory cytokines, neuron-specific enolase (NSE), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), aspartate transaminase (AST), neutrophil count, neutrophils-to-lymphocytes ratio, troponins, creatine kinase (MB), myoglobin, D-dimer, brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), and its N-terminal pro-hormone (NT-proBNP). Some of these biomarkers can be readily used to predict disease severity, hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and mortality, while others, such as metabolomic and proteomic analysis, have not yet translated to clinical practice. This narrative review aims to identify laboratory biomarkers that have shown significant diagnostic and prognostic value for risk stratification in COVID-19 and discuss the possible clinical application of novel analytic strategies, like metabolomics and proteomics. Future research should focus on identifying a limited but essential number of laboratory biomarkers to easily predict prognosis and outcome in severe COVID-19.

Infectious disease-associated encephalopathies.

Infectious diseases may affect brain function and cause encephalopathy even when the pathogen does not directly infect the central nervous system, known as infectious disease-associated encephalopathy. The systemic inflammatory process may result in neuroinflammation, with glial cell activation and increased levels of cytokines, reduced neurotrophic factors, blood-brain barrier dysfunction, neurotransmitter metabolism imbalances, and neurotoxicity, and behavioral and cognitive impairments often occur in the late course. Even though infectious disease-associated encephalopathies may cause devastating neurologic and cognitive deficits, the concept of infectious disease-associated encephalopathies is still under-investigated; knowledge of the underlying mechanisms, which may be distinct from those of encephalopathies of non-infectious cause, is still limited. In this review, we focus on the pathophysiology of encephalopathies associated with peripheral (sepsis, malaria, influenza, and COVID-19), emerging therapeutic strategies, and the role of neuroinflammation.

Nitazoxanide in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Multicentre, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

Background: Nitazoxanide exerts antiviral activity in vitro and in vivo and anti-inflammatory effects, but its impact on patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia is uncertain. Methods: A multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in 19 hospitals in Brazil. Hospitalized adult patients requiring supplemental oxygen, with COVID-19 symptoms and a chest computed tomography scan suggestive of viral pneumonia or positive RT-PCR test for COVID-19 were enrolled. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive nitazoxanide (500 mg) or placebo, 3 times daily, for 5 days, and were followed for 14 days. The primary outcome was intensive care unit admission due to the need for invasive mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes included clinical improvement, hospital discharge, oxygen requirements, death, and adverse events within 14 days. Results: Of the 498 patients, 405 (202 in the nitazoxanide group and 203 in the placebo group) were included in the analyses. Admission to the intensive care unit did not differ between the groups (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval], 0.68 [0.38-1.20], p = 0.179); death rates also did not differ. Nitazoxanide improved the clinical outcome (2.75 [2.21-3.43], p < 0.0001), time to hospital discharge (1.37 [1.11-1.71], p = 0.005), and reduced oxygen requirements (0.77 [0.64-0.94], p = 0.011). C-reactive protein, D-dimer, and ferritin levels were lower in the nitazoxanide group than the placebo group on day 7. No serious adverse events were observed. Conclusions: Nitazoxanide, compared with placebo, did not prevent admission to the intensive care unit for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. Clinical Trial Registration: Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (REBEC) RBR88bs9x; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04561219.

Patients With Suspected Severe Adverse Reactions to COVID-19 Vaccination Admitted to Intensive Care Unit: A Case Report.

Background: Several cases of adverse reactions following vaccination for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with adenoviral vector vaccines or mRNA-based vaccines have been reported to date. The underlying syndrome has been named "vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia" (VITT) or "thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS)" with different clinical manifestations. Methods: We report the clinical course of five patients who had severe adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines, either with VITT/TTS, abdominal or pulmonary thrombosis after adenoviral vaccines, or Stevens' Johnson syndrome because of mRNA vaccination, all of whom required admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). Conclusions: All patients with severe or life-threatening suspected reaction to different types of COVID-19 vaccination required ICU admission. A prompt evaluation of early symptoms and individualized clinical management is needed to improve outcomes.

Understanding the pathophysiology of typical acute respiratory distress syndrome and severe COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Typical acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and severe coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) pneumonia share complex pathophysiology, a high mortality rate, and an unmet need for efficient therapeutics. AREAS COVERED: This review discusses the current advances in understanding the pathophysiologic mechanisms underlying typical ARDS and severe COVID-19 pneumonia, highlighting specific aspects of COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure that require attention. Two models have been proposed to describe the mechanisms of respiratory failure associated with typical ARDS and severe COVID-19 pneumonia. EXPERT OPINION: ARDS is defined as a syndrome rather than a distinct pathologic entity. There is great heterogeneity regarding the pathophysiologic, clinical, radiologic, and biological phenotypes in patients with ARDS, challenging clinicians, and scientists to discover new therapies. COVID-19 has been described as a cause of pulmonary ARDS and has reopened many questions regarding the pathophysiology of ARDS itself. COVID-19 lung injury involves direct viral epithelial cell damage and thrombotic and inflammatory reactions. There are some differences between ARDS and COVID-19 lung injury in aspects of aeration distribution, perfusion, and pulmonary vascular responses.

Early versus late intubation in COVID-19 patients failing helmet CPAP: A quantitative computed tomography study.

PURPOSE: To describe the effects of timing of intubation in COVID-19 patients that fail helmet continuous positive airway pressure (h-CPAP) on progression and severity of disease. METHODS: COVID-19 patients that failed h-CPAP, required intubation, and underwent chest computed tomography (CT) at two levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP, 8 and 16 cmH2O) were included in this retrospective study. Patients were divided in two groups (early versus late) based on the duration of h-CPAP before intubation. Endpoints included percentage of non-aerated lung tissue at PEEP of 8 cmH2O, respiratory system compliance and oxygenation. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients were included and classified in early (h-CPAP for ≤2 days, N = 26) and late groups (h-CPAP for >2 days, N = 26). Patients in the late compared to early intubation group presented: 1) lower respiratory system compliance (median difference, MD -7 mL/cmH2O, p = 0.044) and PaO2/FiO2 (MD -29 mmHg, p = 0.047), 2) higher percentage of non-aerated lung tissue (MD 7.2%, p = 0.023) and 3) similar lung recruitment increasing PEEP from 8 to 16 cmH2O (MD 0.1%, p = 0.964). CONCLUSIONS: In COVID-19 patients receiving h-CPAP, late intubation was associated with worse clinical presentation at ICU admission and more advanced disease. The possible detrimental effects of delaying intubation should be carefully considered in these patients.

Lung distribution of gas and blood volume in critically ill COVID-19 patients: a quantitative dual-energy computed tomography study.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill COVID-19 patients have pathophysiological lung features characterized by perfusion abnormalities. However, to date no study has evaluated whether the changes in the distribution of pulmonary gas and blood volume are associated with the severity of gas-exchange impairment and the type of respiratory support (non-invasive versus invasive) in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study conducted in a tertiary care hospital in Northern Italy during the first pandemic wave. Pulmonary gas and blood distribution was assessed using a technique for quantitative analysis of dual-energy computed tomography. Lung aeration loss (reflected by percentage of normally aerated lung tissue) and the extent of gas:blood volume mismatch (percentage of non-aerated, perfused lung tissue-shunt; aerated, non-perfused dead space; and non-aerated/non-perfused regions) were evaluated in critically ill COVID-19 patients with different clinical severity as reflected by the need for non-invasive or invasive respiratory support. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients admitted to the intensive care unit between February 29th and May 30th, 2020 were included. Patients requiring invasive versus non-invasive mechanical ventilation had both a lower percentage of normally aerated lung tissue (median [interquartile range] 33% [24-49%] vs. 63% [44-68%], p < 0.001); and a larger extent of gas:blood volume mismatch (43% [30-49%] vs. 25% [14-28%], p = 0.001), due to higher shunt (23% [15-32%] vs. 5% [2-16%], p = 0.001) and non-aerated/non perfused regions (5% [3-10%] vs. 1% [0-2%], p = 0.001). The PaO2/FiO2 ratio correlated positively with normally aerated tissue (ρ = 0.730, p < 0.001) and negatively with the extent of gas-blood volume mismatch (ρ = - 0.633, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation and oxygenation impairment were associated with loss of aeration and the extent of gas:blood volume mismatch.

Personalized mechanical ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome.

A personalized mechanical ventilation approach for patients with adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) based on lung physiology and morphology, ARDS etiology, lung imaging, and biological phenotypes may improve ventilation practice and outcome. However, additional research is warranted before personalized mechanical ventilation strategies can be applied at the bedside. Ventilatory parameters should be titrated based on close monitoring of targeted physiologic variables and individualized goals. Although low tidal volume (VT) is a standard of care, further individualization of VT may necessitate the evaluation of lung volume reserve (e.g., inspiratory capacity). Low driving pressures provide a target for clinicians to adjust VT and possibly to optimize positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), while maintaining plateau pressures below safety thresholds. Esophageal pressure monitoring allows estimation of transpulmonary pressure, but its use requires technical skill and correct physiologic interpretation for clinical application at the bedside. Mechanical power considers ventilatory parameters as a whole in the optimization of ventilation setting, but further studies are necessary to assess its clinical relevance. The identification of recruitability in patients with ARDS is essential to titrate and individualize PEEP. To define gas-exchange targets for individual patients, clinicians should consider issues related to oxygen transport and dead space. In this review, we discuss the rationale for personalized approaches to mechanical ventilation for patients with ARDS, the role of lung imaging, phenotype identification, physiologically based individualized approaches to ventilation, and a future research agenda.

Noninvasive respiratory support and patient self-inflicted lung injury in COVID-19: a narrative review.

COVID-19 pneumonia is associated with hypoxaemic respiratory failure, ranging from mild to severe. Because of the worldwide shortage of ICU beds, a relatively high number of patients with respiratory failure are receiving prolonged noninvasive respiratory support, even when their clinical status would have required invasive mechanical ventilation. There are few experimental and clinical data reporting that vigorous breathing effort during spontaneous ventilation can worsen lung injury and cause a phenomenon that has been termed patient self-inflicted lung injury (P-SILI). The aim of this narrative review is to provide an overview of P-SILI pathophysiology and the role of noninvasive respiratory support in COVID-19 pneumonia. Respiratory mechanics, vascular compromise, viscoelastic properties, lung inhomogeneity, work of breathing, and oesophageal pressure swings are discussed. The concept of P-SILI has been widely investigated in recent years, but controversies persist regarding its mechanisms. To minimise the risk of P-SILI, intensivists should better understand its underlying pathophysiology to optimise the type of noninvasive respiratory support provided to patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, and decide on the optimal timing of intubation for these patients.

Early Effects of Passive Leg-Raising Test, Fluid Challenge, and Norepinephrine on Cerebral Autoregulation and Oxygenation in COVID-19 Critically Ill Patients.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients are at high risk of neurological complications consequent to several factors including persistent hypotension. There is a paucity of data on the effects of therapeutic interventions designed to optimize systemic hemodynamics on cerebral autoregulation (CA) in this group of patients. Methods: Single-center, observational prospective study conducted at San Martino Policlinico Hospital, Genoa, Italy, from October 1 to December 15, 2020. Mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients, who had at least one episode of hypotension and received a passive leg raising (PLR) test, were included. They were then treated with fluid challenge (FC) and/or norepinephrine (NE), according to patients' clinical conditions, at different moments. The primary outcome was to assess the early effects of PLR test and of FC and NE [when clinically indicated to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (MAP)] on CA (CA index) measured by transcranial Doppler (TCD). Secondary outcomes were to evaluate the effects of PLR test, FC, and NE on systemic hemodynamic variables, cerebral oxygenation (rSo2), and non-invasive intracranial pressure (nICP). Results: Twenty-three patients were included and underwent PLR test. Of these, 22 patients received FC and 14 were treated with NE. The median age was 62 years (interquartile range = 57-68.5 years), and 78% were male. PLR test led to a low CA index [58% (44-76.3%)]. FC and NE administration resulted in a CA index of 90.8% (74.2-100%) and 100% (100-100%), respectively. After PLR test, nICP based on pulsatility index and nICP based on flow velocity diastolic formula was increased [18.6 (17.7-19.6) vs. 19.3 (18.2-19.8) mm Hg, p = 0.009, and 12.9 (8.5-18) vs. 15 (10.5-19.7) mm Hg, p = 0.001, respectively]. PLR test, FC, and NE resulted in a significant increase in MAP and rSo2. Conclusions: In mechanically ventilated severe COVID-19 patients, PLR test adversely affects CA. An individualized strategy aimed at assessing both the hemodynamic and cerebral needs is warranted in patients at high risk of neurological complications.

Tracheostomy Timing and Outcome in Severe COVID-19: The WeanTrach Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: Tracheostomy can be performed safely in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, little is known about the optimal timing, effects on outcome, and complications. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective, observational study. This study included 153 tracheostomized COVID-19 patients from 11 intensive care units (ICUs). The primary endpoint was the median time to tracheostomy in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Secondary endpoints were survival rate, length of ICU stay, and post-tracheostomy complications, stratified by tracheostomy timing (early versus late) and technique (surgical versus percutaneous). RESULTS: The median time to tracheostomy was 15 (1-64) days. There was no significant difference in survival between critically ill COVID-19 patients who received tracheostomy before versus after day 15, nor between surgical and percutaneous techniques. ICU length of stay was shorter with early compared to late tracheostomy (p < 0.001) and percutaneous compared to surgical tracheostomy (p = 0.050). The rate of lower respiratory tract infections was higher with surgical versus percutaneous technique (p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, neither early nor percutaneous tracheostomy improved outcomes, but did shorten ICU stay. Infectious complications were less frequent with percutaneous than surgical tracheostomy.