Early administration of tofacitinib in COVID-19 pneumonitis: An open randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Controversies on sub-populations most sensitive to therapy and the best timing of starting the treatment still surround the use of immunomodulatory drugs in COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: We designed a multicentre open-label randomised controlled trial to test the effect of prompt adding of tofacitinib to standard therapy for hospitalised patients affected by mild/moderate COVID-19 pneumonitis. METHODS: Patients admitted to three Italian hospitals affected by COVID-19 pneumonitis not requiring mechanical ventilation were randomised to receive standard treatment alone or tofacitinib (10 mg/bid) for 2 weeks, starting within the first 24 h from admission. RESULTS: A total of 116 patients were randomised; 49 in the experimental arm completed the 14-day treatment period, 9 discontinued tofacitinib as the disease worsened and were included in the analysis, and 1 died of respiratory failure. All 58 control patients completed the study. Clinical and demographic characteristics were similar between the study groups. In the tofacitinib group, 9/58 (15.5%) patients progressed to noninvasive ventilation (CPAP) to maintain SO2 > 93%, invasive mechanical ventilation or death by day 14 was 15.5%, significantly less than in the control group (20/58, 34.4%, RR 0,45, RRR -55%, NNT 5; p = .018). No differences in severe adverse effect incidence had been observed across the groups. CONCLUSION: High-dose tofacitinib therapy in patients with COVID pneumonitis is safe and may prevent deterioration to respiratory failure.

Clinical Method Applied to Focused Ultrasound: The Case of Wells' Score and Echocardiography in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis.

Background and Objectives: bedside cardiac ultrasound is a widely adopted method in Emergency Departments (ED) for extending physical examination and refining clinical diagnosis. However, in the setting of hemodynamically-stable pulmonary embolism, the diagnostic role of echocardiography is still the subject of debate. In light of its high specificity and low sensitivity, some authors suggest that echocardiographic signs of right ventricle overload could be used to rule-in pulmonary embolism. In this study, we aimed to clarify the diagnostic role of echocardiographic signs of right ventricle overload in the setting of hemodynamically-stable pulmonary embolism in the ED. Materials and Methods: we performed a systematic review of literature in PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane databases, considering the echocardiographic signs for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in the ED. Studies considering unstable or shocked patients were excluded. Papers enrolling hemodynamically stable subjects were selected. We performed a diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis for each sign, and then performed a critical evaluation according to pretest probability, assessed with Wells' score for pulmonary embolism. Results: 10 studies were finally included. We observed a good specificity and a low sensitivity of each echocardiographic sign of right ventricle overload. However, once stratified by the Wells' score, the post-test probability only increased among high-risk patients. Conclusions: signs of echocardiographic right ventricle overload should not be used to modify the clinical behavior in low- and intermediate- risk patients according to Wells' score classification. Among high-risk patients, however, echocardiographic signs could help a physician in detecting patients with the highest probability of pulmonary embolism, necessitating a confirmation by computed tomography with pulmonary angiography. However, a focused cardiac and thoracic ultrasound investigation is useful for the differential diagnosis of dyspnea and chest pain in the ED.

Predictors of readmission requiring hospitalization after discharge from emergency departments in patients with COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known on prevalence of early return hospital admission of subjects with COVID-19 previously evaluated and discharged from emergency departments (EDs). This study aims to describe readmission rate within 14 days of patients with COVID-19 discharged from ED and to identify predictors of return hospital admission. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with COVID-19 discharged from two EDs. Return hospital admission was defined as an unscheduled return ED visit within 14 days after initial ED evaluation and discharge. We compared the group of patients who had a return hospital admission to those who did not. We also evaluated selected clinical characteristics (age, neutrophilia, SOFA, lactate dehydrogenase, C-reactive protein and D-dimer) associated with return hospital admission. RESULTS: Of 283 patients included in the study, 65 (22.9%) had a return ED visit within 14 days. 32 of those patients (11%) were then hospitalized, while the remaining 33 were again discharged. Patients requiring a return hospital admission was significantly older, had higher pro-calcitonin and D-dimer levels. Major predictors of return hospital admission were cognitive impairment (OR 17.3 [CI 4.7-63.2]), P/F < 300 mmHg (OR 8.6 [CI 1.6-44.3]), being resident in geriatric care facility (OR 7.6 [CI 2.1-26.4]) and neutrophilia (OR 5.8 [CI 1.6-22.0]). CONCLUSION: Several factors are associated with 14-day return hospital admission in COVID-19 subjects. These should be considered when assessing discharge risk in ED clinical practice.